Prediction of Pedestrian Crashes at Midblock Crossing Areas using ...
Post on 08-Jan-2017
219 Views
Preview:
Transcript
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
Yielding Compliance Rate Pedestrian Evasive Maneuver Rate
• 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
Yielding Compliance Rate Pedestrian Evasive Maneuver Rate
• 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
gatestim@egr.msu.edu
23
top related