CMF / CRF Details
CMF ID: 176
Install raised median with unmarked crosswalk (uncontrolled)
Description:
Prior Condition: Unmarked crosswalk with no raised median at an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing.
Category: Pedestrians
Study: Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Executive Summary and Recommended Guidelines, Zegeer et al., 2002
Star Quality Rating: | [View score details] |
Rating Points Total: | 70 |
Crash Modification Factor (CMF) | |
---|---|
Value: | 0.61 |
Adjusted Standard Error: | |
Unadjusted Standard Error: | 0.4 |
Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) | |
---|---|
Value: | 39 (This value indicates a decrease in crashes) |
Adjusted Standard Error: | |
Unadjusted Standard Error: | 40 |
Applicability | |
---|---|
Crash Type: | Vehicle/pedestrian |
Crash Severity: | All |
Roadway Types: | Principal Arterial Other |
Street Type: | |
Minimum Number of Lanes: | 3 |
Maximum Number of Lanes: | 8 |
Number of Lanes Direction: | |
Number of Lanes Comment: | |
Crash Weather: | Not specified |
Road Division Type: | |
Minimum Speed Limit: | |
Maximum Speed Limit: | |
Speed Unit: | |
Speed Limit Comment: | |
Area Type: | Urban and Suburban |
Traffic Volume: | Minimum of 15000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) |
Average Traffic Volume: | |
Time of Day: | All |
If countermeasure is intersection-based | |
Intersection Type: | |
Intersection Geometry: | |
Traffic Control: | |
Major Road Traffic Volume: | |
Minor Road Traffic Volume: | |
Average Major Road Volume : | |
Average Minor Road Volume : |
Development Details | |
---|---|
Date Range of Data Used: | 1994 to 1998 |
Municipality: | |
State: | AZ,CA,FL,KS,LA,MD,MA,MO,NC,OH,OR,PA,TX,UT,WA,WI |
Country: | USA |
Type of Methodology Used: | Non-regression cross-section |
Sample Size (crashes): | 9 crashes |