prediction of pedestrian crashes at midblock crossing areas using

Prediction of Pedestrian Crashes at Midblock

Crossing Areas using Site and Behavioral

Characteristics – Preliminary Findings

Timothy J. Gates, Ph.D., P.E.

June 22, 2016

Background

Pedestrian Crash Facts

~4,800 pedestrian

fatalities in US annually

(steady)

~2,275 pedestrian

crashes in Michigan

annually (steady)

130 – 150 pedestrian

fatalities annually

(increasing)

2

130

132

134

136

138

140

142

144

146

148

150

2120

2140

2160

2180

2200

2220

2240

2260

2280

2300

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Ped

estr

ian

-In

volv

ed F

atal

itie

s

Ped

estr

ian

-In

volv

ed

Cra

shes

Year

Annual Pedestrian Crashes and Fatalities in Michigan

Pedestrian-involved crashes Pedestrian-involved fatalities

Background

The Highway Safety Manual (HSM) was

published by AASHTO in 2010 and sets the

standard for SPF/CMF development

Challenges:

HSM only provides for pedestrian SPFs at

intersections based on land-use characteristics

Research is limited in terms of disaggregate-level

studies considering volume, geometry, etc

Ped crashes are extremely rare events

Are proxy measures available?

3

Background

Why do we need better SPFs for pedestrians?

In Michigan, from 2010 to 2014:

• Total traffic fatalities decreased by 7.14%

• Pedestrian fatalities increased by 12.12%

Recent policy initiatives encourage more

pedestrian infrastructure (and subsequent ped

activity/exposure)

Safe Routes to School

Complete Streets

TIP

Trails and Greenways 4

Methods: Site Selection

More than 30 sites were selected in Detroit, East

Lansing and Kalamazoo

5

County# Pedestrian

Crashes 2010-2014 County population (2013)Pedestrian Crashes per

10,000 people Ranking

Wayne 3531 1,775,273 19.9 1

Ingham 430 282,234 15.2 2

Kent 884 621,700 14.2 3

Washtenaw 500 354,240 14.1 4

Kalamazoo 345 256,725 13.4 5

Methods: Site Selection

Sites were selected

to provide a broad

range of:

Vehicle and

pedestrian volumes

Geometric

characteristics

Crossing facility types

Traffic control devices

6

Methods: Node vs. Segment Analyses

Data were procured for

analysis in two methods:

Segment (purple)

Node (red)

Segment analysis

encompasses the duration

of the segment, between

signals or stop signs

Node analysis covers a

150’ radius from the center

of the crosswalk

7

Methods: Site Characteristics

For node analysis:

Driveway or Minor St. Presence

Distance to Nearest Bus Stop

8

For segment analysis:

Crosswalk Density

Driveway Density

Bus Stop Density

For both segment and node analysis:

Speed Limit

Presence of Street Lighting

Type of Crosswalk

Crosswalk Length

Number and Type of Lanes

Bike lanes, parking lanes, shoulders, turning lanes

Methods: Video Recording

Elevated cameras

were used to record

volume and

behavioral data

In most cases, video

was recorded and

data extracted on

weekdays during

mid-day (9 AM to 4

PM)

9

Methods: Video Review/Assessment

Pedestrian and vehicular

counts and behavioral

characteristics were assessed

by trained technicians

1 hour increments

Behavioral characteristics

Staged crossing behavioral data

used to measure driver yielding

compliance

Naturalistic behavioral data

used for evasive maneuvers

(conflicts) and jaywalking 10

Methods: Staged Crossing (1)

11

Methods: Staged Crossing (2)

12

Methods: Evasive Maneuver (1)

13

Methods: Evasive Maneuver (2)

14

Methods: Crash Data

10 years of ped crash

data collected

Collected for node

analysis and segment

analysis

For node analysis, crash

data collected within 150’

radius of the crosswalk

Crash reports

downloaded and

reviewed/screened 15

Preliminary Results: Segment Analysis

16

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

Clu

ster

5 17

27

10

3

10

7

11

0

Clu

ster

3

Clu

ster

1

12

6

21

3

21

7

Clu

ster

7

21

4

Veh

icle

Ho

url

y V

olu

me

and

Ped

estr

ian

Cro

ssin

gs p

er

Ho

ur

Ped

estr

ian

Cra

shes

per

Mar

ked

Cro

ssw

alk

Site Number

Pedestrian Crash per Marked Crosswalk

Vehicle Hourly Volume

Pedestrian Crossings per Hour

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ped

estr

ian

Eva

sive

Man

euve

r R

ate

Yiel

din

g C

om

plia

nce

Rat

e

Site Number

Yielding Compliance Rate Pedestrian Evasive Maneuver Rate

Pedestrian Crashes per Marked Crosswalk Yielding Compliance and Evasive Maneuvers

• Slight relationship between hourly vehicle volume and total

pedestrian crashes

• Slight inverse relationship between pedestrian evasive maneuvers

and yielding compliance

Preliminary Results: Node Analysis

17

Pedestrian Crashes per Site Yielding Compliance and Evasive Maneuvers

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

RR

FB-1

In S

tree

t-1

In S

tree

t-4

Mar

ked

-3

Mar

ked

-6

Mar

ked

-9

Mar

ked

-12

Mar

ked

-15

Mar

ked

-18

Mar

ked

-21

Mar

ked

-24

Mar

ked

-27

No

t M

arke

d-1

No

t M

arke

d-4

Veh

icle

Ho

url

y V

olu

me

and

Ped

estr

ian

Cro

ssin

gs p

er

Ho

ur

Ped

estr

ian

Cra

shes

Site Number

Pedestrian Crashes Vehicle Hourly Volume

Pedestrian Crossings per Hour

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

RR

FB-1

In S

tree

t-1

In S

tree

t-4

Mar

ked

-3

Mar

ked

-6

Mar

ked

-9

Mar

ked

-12

Mar

ked

-15

Mar

ked

-18

Mar

ked

-21

Mar

ked

-24

Mar

ked

-27

No

t M

arke

d-1

No

t M

arke

d-4

Ped

estr

ian

Eva

sive

Man

euve

r R

ate

Yiel

din

g C

om

plia

nce

Rat

eSite Number


• Some relationship between ped crashes and volumes (vehicle and ped)

• Strong relationship between type/features of crosswalk and

compliance/evasive maneuver rates

Preliminary Results: Node Analysis

18

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

PHB RRFB In-Street Marked Unmarked

Ped

estr

ian

Eva

sive

Man

euve

r R

ate

Yiel

din

g C

om

plia

nce

Rat

e

Treatment Type


• Sites with PHB and in-street pedestrian crossing signage exhibit

higher yielding rates

Preliminary Conclusions: Factors Associated

with Driver Yielding and Evasive Maneuvers

Increased Driver Yielding Compliance Decreased Rates of Evasive Maneuvers

Lower Vehicle and Bicycle Volumes Pedestrian Crossing Signs

Marked Crosswalks Crosswalk Width Limited to 50 ft. Maximum

Pedestrian Crossing Signs Two-Way Left Turn Lanes Not Present

Two-Way Left Turn Lanes Not Present No Shoulders

No Medians

19

Preliminary Conclusions: Driver Yielding

Compliance by Lane Proximity and Median

PresenceLaneage

Driver Yielding

Compliance with

Median Presence

Driver Yielding

Compliance without

Median Presence

Near Lane 58% 60%

Center Lane 75% 79%

Far Lane 82% 79%

20

• There is no significant difference between driver yielding rates with or

without a median present

Upcoming Work

• Midblock crossings SPF development

• Volume (ped and vehicle), site characteristics, and

behavioral information

• Node vs. segment

• Negative binomial regression and other techniques

may be investigated

• Signal and stop controlled intersection

• Evasive maneuvers, ped entry on red, ped

completion on red, RTOR conflicts, driver yield rate

on permissive turn

• SPFs (node only): volume (ped and vehicle), site

characteristics, and behavioral information 21

Evasive Maneuver for Signal Controlled

Intersection

22

Questions?

Timothy J. Gates, Ph.D., P.E., PTOE

Associate Professor

Michigan State University

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

voice: 517-353-7224

[email protected]

23

prediction of pedestrian crashes at midblock crossing areas using

Documents