Study Details
Study Title: Safety Evaluation of Protected Left-Turn Phasing and Leading Pedestrian Intervals on Pedestrian Safety
Authors: Goughnour et al.
Publication Date:OCT, 2018
Abstract: The objective of the study was to evaluate the safety effects of two countermeasures with respect to vehicle–pedestrian crashes—the provision of protected or protected/permissive left-turn phasing and the provision of leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs)—using a before–after empirical Bayesian methodology. The study used data from North American cities that had installed one or both of the countermeasures of interest, including Chicago, IL; New York City, NY; Charlotte, NC; and Toronto, ON. This study showed that the provision of protected left-turn phasing reduced vehicle–vehicle injury crashes but did not produce statistically significant results for vehicle–pedestrian crashes overall. A disaggregate analysis of the effect of protected or protected/permissive left-turn phasing on vehicle–pedestrian crashes indicated that this strategy may be more beneficial when there are higher pedestrian and vehicle volumes, particularly above 5,500 pedestrians per day. At these high-volume locations, the left-turn phasing evaluation resulted in a potential benefit–cost (B/C) ratio range of 1:15.6::1:38.9. The evaluation of LPIs showed that the countermeasure reduced vehicle–pedestrian crashes. This evaluation produced a crash modification factor of 0.87 with a potential B/C ratio range of 1:207::1:517.
Study Citation: Goughnour, E., D. Carter, C. Lyon, B. Persaud, B. Lan, P. Chun, I. Hamilton, and K. Signor. "Safety Evaluation of Protected Left-Turn Phasing and Leading Pedestrian Intervals on Pedestrian Safety." Report No. FHWA-HRT-18-044. Federal Highway Administration. (October 2018)
CMFs Associated With This Study
Category: Intersection traffic control
Countermeasure: Change permissive left-turn phasing to protected only or protected/permissive
CMF | CRF(%) | Quality | Crash Type | Crash Severity | Roadway Type | Area Type |
---|
1.136 | -13.6 | | Vehicle/pedestrian | All | All | |
Countermeasure: Modify signal phasing (implement a leading pedestrian interval)
CMF | CRF(%) | Quality | Crash Type | Crash Severity | Roadway Type | Area Type |
---|
0.9 | 10 | | All | All | All | Urban and suburban |
0.83 | 17 | | All | K,A,B,C | All | Urban and suburban |
0.81 | 19 | | Vehicle/pedestrian | All | All | Urban and suburban |
0.9 | 10 | | All | All | All | Urban and suburban |
0.85 | 15 | | All | K,A,B,C | All | Urban and suburban |
0.81 | 19 | | Vehicle/pedestrian | All | All | Urban and suburban |
0.83 | 17 | | All | All | All | Urban and suburban |
0.72 | 28 | | All | K,A,B,C | All | Urban and suburban |
0.9 | 10 | | Vehicle/pedestrian | All | All | Urban and suburban |
0.84 | 16 | | All | All | All | Urban and suburban |
0.86 | 14 | | All | K,A,B,C | All | Urban and suburban |
0.91 | 9 | | Vehicle/pedestrian | All | All | Urban and suburban |
0.9 | 10 | | All | All | All | Urban and suburban |
1.09 | -9 | | All | K,A,B,C | All | Urban and suburban |
0.54 | 46 | | Vehicle/pedestrian | All | All | Urban and suburban |
0.87 | 13 | | All | All | All | Urban and suburban |
0.86 | 14 | | All | K,A,B,C | All | Urban and suburban |
0.87 | 13 | | Vehicle/pedestrian | All | All | Urban and suburban |