Field Evaluation of a Leading Pedestrian Interval Signal Phase at Three Urban Intersections

2000 ◽  
Vol 1734 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ron Van Houten ◽  
Richard A. Retting ◽  
Charles M. Farmer ◽  
Joy Van Houten
Keyword(s):  
Public Education ◽  
Traffic Control ◽  
Field Evaluation ◽  
Signal Phase ◽  
Right Of Way ◽  
Pedestrian Injury ◽  
Pedestrian Traffic ◽  
Control Devices ◽  
Pedestrian Crashes ◽  
The Right

About 37 percent of pedestrian injury crashes and 20 percent of fatal pedestrian crashes occur at intersections. Many conventional countermeasures include traffic control devices that either increase pedestrian attention to potential vehicle-pedestrian conflicts or encourage drivers to yield to pedestrians. A noteworthy limitation of these warning and prompting messages is their reliance on a voluntary behavioral response. Public education and enforcement campaigns have also generally not produced tangible and long-lasting safety benefits. This research, conducted at three urban intersections, examined the influence of a 3-s leading pedestrian interval (LPI)—a brief and exclusive signal phase dedicated to pedestrian traffic—on pedestrian behavior and conflicts with turning vehicles. The introduction of a 3-s LPI reduced conflicts between pedestrians and turning vehicles and reduced the incidence of pedestrians yielding the right-of-way to turning vehicles.

Effect on Vehicle-Pedestrian Conflicts of “Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrians” Sign

1996 ◽  
Vol 1553 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Husham N. Abdulsattar ◽  
Mohammed S. Tarawneh ◽  
Patrick T. McCoy ◽  
Stephen D. Kachman
Keyword(s):  
Traffic Control ◽  
Signalized Intersections ◽  
Legal Obligation ◽  
Left Turn ◽  
Right Of Way ◽  
Two Cities ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Left And Right ◽  
Control Devices ◽  
The Right

Left- and right-turn movements at signalized intersections have been found to be three to six times more hazardous to pedestrians than through movements mainly because drivers fail to observe or yield the right of way to pedestrians. The objective was to evaluate the Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrians sign, which was aimed at reminding turning motorists of their legal obligation to yield the right of way to pedestrians and, consequently, reducing vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. The sign was installed at 12 marked crosswalks in two cities, and vehicle-pedestrian conflict data were collected before and after its installation. The sign was effective in reducing left-turn conflicts 20 to 65 percent and right-turn conflicts 15 to 30 percent; both reductions were statistically significant at the 0.05 level. The sign was significantly more effective in reducing left-turn conflicts than it was for right-turn conflicts. Percentage conflicts between pedestrians and turning traffic decreased as the pedestrian group size increased. In other words, larger pedestrian group sizes encountered fewer conflicts with turning traffic. This result is true for both left- and right-turn movements, regardless of the presence of the sign. Based on the results of this study, it was recommended that the “Turning Traffic Must Yield to Pedestrians” sign be considered for inclusion in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

Safety Service Patrol Uniforms: Technology, National Practices, and Operator Preferences

2019 ◽  
Vol 2673 (11) ◽  
pp. 456-465
Author(s):  
Grady Carrick ◽  
Katherine Belmore
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Traffic Control ◽  
National Level ◽  
Past Research ◽  
The United States ◽  
Right Of Way ◽  
Technical Requirements ◽  
Control Devices ◽  
The Right ◽  
Almost All

Safety service patrols operate in more than 40 states and territories in the United States and each program operates with unique vehicles, uniforms, and equipment. Despite the variety of operator uniforms, legal and technical requirements at a national level dictate some choices, though color and style are largely at the discretion of states. Past research confirms that high-visibility safety apparel (HVSA) increases visibility. Biomotion markers on the joints further enhance visibility. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices specifies that personnel working in the right-of-way wear a Class 2 or 3 HVSA. A survey of states where service patrols operate found the majority use high-visibility yellow-green over red-orange, and Class 3 garments are preferred over Class 2. In relation to the base uniform, there is a mixture of maintenance-type uniforms, polo shirts, and no uniform specification at all. In a survey of Florida service patrol program managers and operators, conveying professionalism, comfort, and safety were the most valued aspects of uniforms. Operators understand the need to care and maintain HVSA, but may overestimate their ability to be seen at night by between two and four times the actual distance they are visible. When given a choice, operators preferred dark trousers with biomotion markers, though they were roughly split between the polo shirt/vest option and the integrated HVSA shirt that does not require use of a vest. A uniform protective outerwear was favored by almost all operators, and a ball cap was the headwear of choice.

Developing and Implementing Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Criteria for Selecting Traffic Control for Unsignalized Intersections

2019 ◽  
Vol 2673 (11) ◽  
pp. 319-331
Author(s):  
H. Gene Hawkins ◽  
Kay Fitzpatrick ◽  
Marcus A. Brewer
Keyword(s):  
Traffic Control ◽  
Traffic Engineering ◽  
High Speed ◽  
Research Team ◽  
Right Of Way ◽  
Unsignalized Intersections ◽  
Control Devices ◽  
Traffic Control Devices ◽  
Urban Conditions ◽  
Selection Of

The 2009 United States Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) includes guidance for the use of various types of traffic control at unsignalized intersections. Despite changes and advances in traffic engineering in recent decades, the MUTCD content related to selection of traffic control in Part 2B has seen only minor changes since 1971. The types of unsignalized traffic control addressed in the current research included no control, yield control, two-way stop control, and all-way stop control. The research team developed recommendations using information available from reviews of existing literature, policies, guidelines, and findings from an economic analysis along with the engineering judgment of the research team and panel. The researchers then developed recommended language for the next edition of the MUTCD for unsignalized intersections. This includes consideration of high-speed (rural) and low-speed (urban) conditions along with the number of legs at the intersection. Because the number of expected crashes at an intersection is a function of the number of legs, the decision on appropriate traffic control should also be sensitive to the number of legs present. The proposed language includes introductory general considerations, discusses alternatives to changing right-of-way control, and steps through the various forms of unsignalized control from least restrictive to most restrictive, beginning with no control and concluding with all-way stop control.

Field Evaluation of Ultraviolet (UV)-Activated Fluorescent Roadway Delineation

1997 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 1392-1392
Author(s):  
Carole Simmons ◽  
Karen Mahach ◽  
Dick Knoblauch ◽  
Marsha Nitzburg ◽  
Sam Tignor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Uv Radiation ◽  
Field Test ◽  
Traffic Control ◽  
Field Evaluation ◽  
The Other ◽  
Pavement Markings ◽  
Federal Highway ◽  
Control Devices ◽  
Nighttime Driving ◽  
Highway Research

A field test was conducted at the Federal Highway Administration's Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center to determine whether the use of UV headlamps in conjunction with fluorescent pavement markings could increase the visibility of roadway delineation. A passenger car was equipped with headlamps that supply UV radiation in a highbeam pattern, in addition to conventional halogen headlamps. Subjects rated the visibility of three types of pavement markings (standard paint, standard thermoplastic, and UV-activated fluorescent thermoplastic) as seen under conventional lowbeam headlamps with auxiliary UV headlamps either on or off. Results showed that UV-activated fluorescent pavement markings provided a significant increase in visibility when viewed with UV headlamps on vs. UV headlamps off, and also provided better visibility than the other marking types. This suggests that the use of UV-headlamps in combination with UV-activated fluorescent pavement markings and other traffic control devices could lead to improvements in nighttime driving visibility.

Field Evaluation of Automated Flagger Assistance Devices in Work Zones on Two-Lane Roads

2013 ◽  
Vol 2337 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melisa D. Finley
Keyword(s):  
Field Evaluation ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Department Of Transportation ◽  
Work Zones ◽  
Right Of Way ◽  
Stop Sign ◽  
Texas Department ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
The Right ◽  
Violation Rate

Automated flagger assistance devices (AFADs) are designed to be operated remotely by a flagger positioned outside of the travel lanes and thus to reduce the flagger's exposure to vehicular traffic. There are two types of AFADs. One type uses a remote-controlled stop and slow sign to alternate the right-of-way; the other uses remote-controlled red and yellow lenses to alternate the right-of-way. A gate arm is required only with the latter. Although AFADs may have increased the safety of flaggers, there were concerns that motorists may have misunderstood AFADs and proceeded before it had been safe to do so. As part of a recent Texas Department of Transportation project, Texas A&M Transportation Institute researchers conducted field studies at lane closures on two-lane, two-way roadways in Texas to assess the operational and safety effectiveness of AFADs relative to the use of flaggers. The research findings show that the violation rate for the stop–slow AFAD without a gate arm is the highest and is significantly higher than the violation rate for the red–yellow lens AFAD (which requires a gate arm). Adding a gate arm to the stop–slow AFAD decreased the violation rate such that it was not significantly different from the red–yellow lens AFAD. In addition, alternative supplemental signs increased motorists' understanding that the stop sign would have changed to a slow sign when motorists were allowed to proceed. Overall, the research findings show that some motorists violate AFADs, especially when the queue of vehicles going in the same direction is visible to the stopped motorist.

scholarly journals Pedestrian-Friendly Traffic Signal Control Using SUMO

10.29007/c6k6 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Görkem Akyol ◽  
Mehmet Ali Silgu ◽  
Hilmi Berk Çelikoğlu
Keyword(s):  
Traffic Control ◽  
Fixed Time ◽  
Traffic Signal Control ◽  
Signal Phase ◽  
Road Vehicles ◽  
Case Comparison ◽  
Pedestrian Traffic ◽  
Traffic Control System ◽  
Adaptive Traffic Control ◽  
Adaptive Signal

The center of the Kadıköy area in Istanbul is extremely crowded due to overlap of the terminals for the subway and the marine transit lines. When the Kadıköy-Kartal subway’s terminal is added in the middle of the Kadıköy in 2013 without the analysis on crowd dynamics, vehicular and pedestrian traffic have become much more complicated to be efficiently managed. When the pedestrians have a crossing gap, most of them make the decision of crossing without considering the signal phase. Likewise, when it is a pedestrian clearance phase, there can be situations where all the pedestrians cannot cross the street because of high density and insufficient green time. We therefore propose an adaptive traffic control system considering the traffic flows of road vehicles and pedestrians with field data. We have utilized the Eclipse SUMO micro-simulator in conjunction with TraCI for modeling the case. Comparison of fixed time and adaptive signal controllers is provided. Simulations have shown that, reductions in the delay time for both vehicles and pedestrians are achieved by using adaptive signal controllers.

Field Evaluation of Pilot Vehicles and Portable Traffic Control Signals With and Without a Flagger

2017 ◽  
Vol 2617 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Melisa D. Finley ◽  
LuAnn Theiss
Keyword(s):  
Traffic Control ◽  
Field Evaluation ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Initial Estimate ◽  
Activity Area ◽  
Transition Area ◽  
Control Signals ◽  
Control Devices ◽  
Traffic Control Devices ◽  
Lane Closures

The national Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) does not prohibit the use of a pilot vehicle in conjunction with portable traffic control signals (PTCSs), but it does require that a flagger be stationed on the approach to the activity area where a pilot vehicle is being used. This negates the main advantage of using PTCSs—the removal of the flagger from the transition area. To assess compliance with pilot vehicles and PTCSs with and without flaggers, field studies were conducted at lane closures on two-lane, two-way roads in Texas. Only 2.7% and 2.3% of drivers did not comply with the PTCSs and pilot vehicle for both conditions studied (with and without a flagger, respectively). The similar violation rates between treatments showed that there was no significant or practical difference between violations at a PTCS with and without a flagger when a pilot vehicle was used. The overall recommendation is that the national MUTCD be changed to allow the use of a pilot vehicle in conjunction with PTCSs without a flagger at lane closures on two-lane, two-way roadways. In an effort to provide pilot vehicle drivers, especially those with less experience, an initial estimate of the minimum green time needed to clear the vehicle queue at the PTCS, an easy tool was developed.

Guide Signing for Two-Lane Exits with an Option Lane

2005 ◽  
Vol 1918 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Upchurch ◽  
Donald L. Fisher ◽  
Bhupinder Waraich
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Traffic Control ◽  
Driving Simulator ◽  
The United States ◽  
Lane Changes ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Control Devices ◽  
The Right ◽  
Measures Of Effectiveness ◽  
Do So

In recent years U.S. freeways have seen an increase in the number of exit ramps that feature a two-lane exit with an option lane. This is a situation in which motorists in the rightmost lane of the freeway must exit, and those in the adjacent lane may either exit or continue on the mainline. Communicating information to the motorist about this type of exit is exceptionally difficult. Ideally, a sign should convey the following: ( a) If you stay in the right lane, you will be forced to exit. ( b) If you wish to exit, you may do so from either the right lane or the adjacent lane. ( c) If you are in the adjacent lane and wish to continue on the mainline, you need not change lanes. Making all of these discrete concepts obvious in a simple sign is challenging, and there is no standard sign design for this situation in FHWA's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD). As a result, at least eight different sign designs are being used throughout the United States. This paper presents the results of an NCHRP human factors study conducted to identify the best design for a guide sign for this type of exit. Four candidate sign designs were evaluated with 96 test subjects in a driving simulator. Measures of effectiveness included the number of missed exits and the number of unnecessary lane changes. On the basis of the study results, one of the four designs is recommended for inclusion in the MUTCD.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document