Study Details
Study Title: The Relative Effectiveness of Pedestrian Safety Countermeasures at Urban Intersections - Lessons from a New York City Experience
Authors: Li Chen, Cynthia Chen, and Reid Ewing
Publication Date:JAN, 2012
Abstract: Walking has many benefits for pedestrians and the society. Yet, pedestrians are a vulnerable group and safety concerns are a significant barrier in one's decision to walk. Multiple countermeasures have been proposed to promote pedestrian safety, however, their relative effectiveness is unknown and those effective in reducing pedestrian crashes may be at odds with motorist safety. In this study, we seek to evaluate the relative effectiveness of five countermeasures in New York City - increasing the total cycle length, Barnes Dance, split phase timing, signal installation, and high visibility crosswalk - and examine potential trade-offs in their effectiveness in reducing pedestrian crashes and multiple vehicle crashes. We adopted a rigorous two-stage design that first identifies a comparison group, corresponding to each treatment group, and then estimates a negative binomial model with the Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) method to further control confounding factors and within-subject correlation. Built environment characteristics are also accounted for. Set in a large urban area, this study suggests that the four signal-related countermeasures are more effective in reducing crashes than high visibility crosswalks. The findings indicate that the types of conflicts and balance the time for different groups of road users at the intersections should be considered so that the improvement of the safety of one group does not compromise that of other groups.
Study Citation: Chen, L., C. Chen, and R. Ewing. "The Relative Effectiveness of Pedestrian Safety Countermeasures at Urban Intersections - Lessons from a New York City Experience." Presented at the 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, January 22-26, Washington, DC, 2012.
Study Report: Download the Study Report Document
CMFs Associated With This Study
Category: Intersection traffic control
Countermeasure: Install a traffic signal
CMF | CRF(%) | Quality | Crash Type | Crash Severity | Roadway Type | Area Type |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.12 | -12 | Vehicle/pedestrian | All | Not Specified | Urban |
0.51 | 49 | Angle,Head on,Left turn,Rear end,Rear to rear,Right turn,Sideswipe | All | Not Specified | Urban |
Countermeasure: Provide split phases
CMF | CRF(%) | Quality | Crash Type | Crash Severity | Roadway Type | Area Type |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.61 | 39 | Vehicle/pedestrian | All | Not Specified | Urban |
0.44 | 56 | Angle,Head on,Left turn,Rear end,Rear to rear,Right turn,Sideswipe | All | Not Specified | Urban |
Category:Pedestrians
Countermeasure: Implement Barnes Dance
CMF | CRF(%) | Quality | Crash Type | Crash Severity | Roadway Type | Area Type |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.49 | 51 | Vehicle/pedestrian | All | Not Specified | Urban |
1.1 | -10 | Angle,Head on,Left turn,Rear end,Rear to rear,Right turn,Sideswipe | All | Not Specified | Urban |
Countermeasure: Increase cycle length for pedestrian crossing
CMF | CRF(%) | Quality | Crash Type | Crash Severity | Roadway Type | Area Type |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.5 | 50 | Vehicle/pedestrian | All | Not Specified | Urban |
0.55 | 45 | Angle,Head on,Left turn,Rear end,Rear to rear,Right turn,Sideswipe | All | Not Specified | Urban |
Countermeasure: Install high-visibility crosswalk
CMF | CRF(%) | Quality | Crash Type | Crash Severity | Roadway Type | Area Type |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.6 | 40 | Vehicle/pedestrian | All | Not Specified | Urban |
0.81 | 19 | Angle,Head on,Left turn,Rear end,Rear to rear,Right turn,Sideswipe | All | Not Specified | Urban |