High Speed Pedestrian Crossings 4

[agoodall]

I am looking for an alternative pedestrian crossing that would not require a pedestrian bridge. This area is a 55mph county highway and the cost of building a bridge is not justified in this area. I was just wondering what other alternatives other than a bridge were out there.

 

[ACtrafficengr]

agoodall,

We're really all shooting in the dark until you answer civilman72's questions! Posting alink to an aerial photo in Google maps or Live Search maps would help, too.

However, you could spend hundreds of thousands for a structure that may or may not get used (after working on a college campus for 3 1/2 years, I bet it wouldn't), or, for >= $30,000 ⁽¹⁾ , put in a device shown to reduce pedestrian crashes by >50%. ⁽²⁾

That's the chicken run, er, [ital]pedestrian refuge [/ital]described by hokie. ⁽¹⁾

References:
(1)

http://www.walkinginfo.org/engineering/crossings-enhancements.cfm#crossing-islands

(2)

http://ite.org/safety/issuebriefs/Desktop Reference Complete.pdf,

page 100.

"...students of traffic are beginning to realize the false economy of mechanically controlled traffic, and hand work by trained officers will again prevail." - Wm. Phelps Eno, ca. 1928

"I'm searching for the questions, so my answers will make sense." - Stephen Brust

 

[Debaser]

ACtrafficengr said;
"However, you could spend hundreds of thousands for a structure that may or may not get used (after working on a college campus for 3 1/2 years, I bet it wouldn't)"

I tend to work on the basis that, whilst pedestrians may go to environmentalist heaven long before car drivers, they are also the laziest of all road users (understandably). Give them the shortest practicable route at all times, otherwise they'll just take it anyway, but in doing so ruin your beautiful landscaping and grand plans with their desire lines.

hokie66 said;
"...I don't think it [a pedestrian underpass] would be unused, just unused for the intended purpose. Probably used in the same way as the ones in cities, shelter/toilets for deadbeats. And muggers."

And that's the problem of perception. We can demonstrate that a ped underpass is infinately safer than any at-grade crossing, but that idea of 'stranger danger' seems too strong to overcome. It's not unreasonable, and some of the terrible designs that we've forced peds to use in the past have basically come back to haunt us and created a situation where all similar facilities are viewed with suspicion. But any new ped tunnels now seem to be designed to be as short, open and light as possible without planting at the entrances and with entrance ramps long enough that blind spots are removed.

 

[civilperson]

One prevented fatality pays for the pedestrian bridge or tunnel. I dispute your premise that it is not warranted.

 

[ACtrafficengr]

Who said it was unwarranted? I do think it would not be cost effective. As cold as it may seem, it comes down to the math. Could same cost have more benefits used elsewhere? Without knowing the particulars, I'd tentatively hazard a yes in this case.

The same amount of money could be used for carefully targeted low cost safety improvements over the entire town, with a larger overall safety impact.

For example, I'm working on a high risk rural roads funding application that will treat a dozen sites for about half the cost of a ped bridge. In the 5 years I've worked at my county, we've had no pedestrian fatalities on county roads, and 10 run-off-road fatalities. Despite the fact that I have long been a bike/ped advocate, and participate with our MPO's bike/ped committee, I'm going after the single vehicle lane departure crashes. Why? Because they are >80% of our fatalities, compared to 0%.

"...students of traffic are beginning to realize the false economy of mechanically controlled traffic, and hand work by trained officers will again prevail." - Wm. Phelps Eno, ca. 1928

"I'm searching for the questions, so my answers will make sense." - Stephen Brust

 

[hokie66]

Thanks, ACtrafficengr. That is the kind of thinking needed in spending limited resources.

 

[Debaser]

Civilperson said;
"One prevented fatality pays for the pedestrian bridge or tunnel. I dispute your premise that it is not warranted."

Unfortunately in road safety it never seems to be as easy as that.

Structures ARE expensive and are notorious for under-use/mis-use if they are not located exactly. As I alluded to in an earlier post, peds (unless they are simply admiring the scenery) want direct routes to and from their origins and destinations. Making them negotiate numerous ramps, stairs and landings doesn't appeal to many, and makes pedestrians feel like they are an afterthought in a motorised jungle.

 

[Debaser]

ACtrafficengr said;
"The same amount of money could be used for carefully targeted low cost safety improvements over the entire town, with a larger overall safety impact."

I've just been involved in a number of accident studies for a Local Authority of a mainly rural nature, but with some large market towns and suburbs bordering on the edge of a large city.
We managed to identify 30 schemes that could be carried out within this coming years budget of approx. £500,000. These included civils works at single sites and on routes and education and training campaigns.
This compares with a single site that was identified in last years study (and is about to be built) which cost £200,000. Sadly balancing the budget does matter, even in matters of safety.

BTW, does the breakdown of single vehicle run-off-road accidents in your locality match with the figure available for the UK, and shown on this webpage?

http://www.ukroads.org/thepassiverevolution/stats.htm

 

[ACtrafficengr]

It differs in the details, but that is pretty similar to our experience, with most fatalities resulting from collisions with trees, embankments or ditches, and rollover crashes.

We have a particular problem with single vehicle motorcycle crashes. Motorcyclists often favor unrestricted exhausts, in the hypothesis that "loud pipes save lives." They look at me funny when I reply, "But trees can't hear."

Overall US experience is similar. See

http://safety.transportation.org/htmlguides/RORcrashes/types_of_probs.htm

PS: I like the UK's "Think!" campaign - especially the Julie PSA. Grab them by the guts, and hearts and minds will follow! Any agency that used it here would be sued for causing unnecessary mental anguish.


"...students of traffic are beginning to realize the false economy of mechanically controlled traffic, and hand work by trained officers will again prevail." - Wm. Phelps Eno, ca. 1928

"I'm searching for the questions, so my answers will make sense." - Stephen Brust

 

[Debaser]

"We have a particular problem with single vehicle motorcycle crashes. Motorcyclists often favor unrestricted exhausts, in the hypothesis that "loud pipes save lives." They look at me funny when I reply, "But trees can't hear.""

Not to derail the thread too far, but I believe the Swedes have had some success in reducing motorcycle accidents as an unintended consequence of placing wire rope barrier down the centre of single carriageway roads to prevent head-on collisions involving cars/lorries.
I think the evidence pointed to m/cyclists slowing down due to the presence of this 'cheese wire' that was ready to amputate their limbs as soon as they hit it at any speed.
Sometimes I think we can make highways appear too forgiving, and perhaps overlook the fear factor as a psychological 'calming' measure.

 

[BaronENG]

As said before, it's either over, under or through. Burrowing sounds not logistically feasible. I like the idea of the pedestrian island. Perhaps you could have a crossing signal accompanying a 'train crossing' security gate?

My personal favorite though is, build a lightweight pedestrian bridge. Use it as a pilot program for a more permanent solution. If nobody ends up using it, just tear it down when it wears out and count your blessings you didn't invest in a significant structure. I'm sure you could design something creatively that fits the budget using a creative application of trusses and lighweight materials.

What's the span requirements?

 

[ACtrafficengr]

Due to ADA requirements, there is no such thing as a cheap pedestrian grade crossing, unless the road is already in a cut. The ramps are just too long - 230'+ for a 17' high deck (pony or through truss, 15.5' to bottom of structure, 1.5' floor thickness).

"...students of traffic are beginning to realize the false economy of mechanically controlled traffic, and hand work by trained officers will again prevail." - Wm. Phelps Eno, ca. 1928

"I'm searching for the questions, so my answers will make sense." - Stephen Brust

 

[davefitz]

There's much to be said for the catapult option. The below link indicates there is a spare one in england for sale:

<

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/nottinghamshire/7278993.stm>

Most pedestrian fatalities I read about in the newspaper that involve corssing a 55 mph rural road happen late at night- likely involve drunks. Maype a corssing overhad flahing light similar to railroad overpass warnings , but which require pedestrian input.

 

[jeremyk55]

just reading this thread for the first time this morning and saw the following article...not endorsing the idea...just thought it was interesting

http://www.wtop.com/?sid=1654423&nid=732

 

[Debaser]

@jeremyk55
just reading this thread for the first time this morning and saw the following article...not endorsing the idea...just thought it was interesting

http://www.wtop.com/?sid=1654423&nid=732

The article states that similar devices have been used in the UK.
Given the photo showing the striped crossing in the background I'm assuming they're talking about zebra crossings. In which case the zig-zags actually run down the channel lines and centreline of the road, not in the middle of the lane as in the picture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra_crossing

@kslee1000
On a 55mph road we'd be reluctant to use signals of any sort, pedestrian or vehicular, however we'd happily put in a dropped kerb (with or without tactile paviours) and let any adventurous peds take their chances...but then, Darwin was British.

 

[Debaser]

Is this a problem without an optimum solution? So far we have;

Ped Overbridge/Underpass
Pros; Separates peds and vehicles completely,
Cons; Expensive, must be accurately sited on the desire line to be an attractive route.

At-Grade Signals
Pros; Offers some protection to those using the crossing, less expensive than bridge/tunnel,
Cons; 55mph is a high speed for stand alone signals (see attacment for UK view)

Unsignalised At-Grade Xing (Drop kerbs and tactiles only)
Pros; Cheap
Cons; No protection for peds other than 'common sense' when to use crossing

 

[agoodall]

I appreciate all the comments, it is good to have a little laugh now and then. I brought some of the comments on myself with the title of the thread and I know that. The project has not been completed yet, and when I posted the thread we were just in a feasibility phase. We are still in that phase and it was good to get some different opinions. Thanks for your help

 

[cloa]

If you can destroy and rebuild a section of the highway, you could always make a trench so the highway is on a hump and the pedestrianway is then at normal ground level.

 

[ACtrafficengr]

I would think the lane-narrowing concept from this report could be applied to a mid-block pedestrian crossing:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/08063/index.htm

A statistically significant 5 mph reduction in the 85% speed is nothing to sneeze at.



"...students of traffic are beginning to realize the false economy of mechanically controlled traffic, and hand work by trained officers will again prevail." - Wm. Phelps Eno, ca. 1928

"I'm searching for the questions, so my answers will make sense." - Stephen Brust