Safety at Midblock Pedestrian Signals (2023) : This PDF Is Available at

This PDF is available at http://nap.nationalacademies.
org/26898
Safety at Midblock Pedestrian Signals

(2023)
DETAILS
56 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PDF
ISBN 978-0-309-68770-6 | DOI 10.17226/26898
CONTRIBUTORS
Kay Fitzpatrick, Srinivas Geedipally, Boniphace Kutela, Peter Koonce; National
Cooperative Highway Research Program; Transportation Research Board; National
BUY THIS BOOK Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
FIND RELATED TITLES SUGGESTED CITATION

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Safety at
Midblock Pedestrian Signals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/26898.
Visit the National Academies Press at nap.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of publications
– 10% off the price of print publications
– Email or social media notiﬁcations of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts
All downloadable National Academies titles are free to be used for personal and/or non-commercial
academic use. Users may also freely post links to our titles on this website; non-commercial academic
users are encouraged to link to the version on this website rather than distribute a downloaded PDF
to ensure that all users are accessing the latest authoritative version of the work. All other uses require
written permission. (Request Permission)
This PDF is protected by copyright and owned by the National Academy of Sciences; unless otherwise
indicated, the National Academy of Sciences retains copyright to all materials in this PDF with all rights
reserved.
N AT I O N A L C O O P E R AT I V E H I G H W AY R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M
NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 1030

Kay Fitzpatrick
Srinivas Geedipally
Boniphace Kutela
Texas A&M Transportation Institute
College Station, TX
Peter Koonce
Peter Koonce Consulting
Portland, OR
Subscriber Categories
Highways • Operations and Traffic Management
Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
2023
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 1030

RESEARCH PROGRAM
Systematic, well-designed, and implementable research is the most Project 03-141
effective way to solve many problems facing state departments of ISSN 2572-3766 (Print)
transportation (DOTs) administrators and engineers. Often, highway ISSN 2572-3774 (Online)
problems are of local or regional interest and can best be studied by ISBN 978-0-309-68770-6
state DOTs individually or in cooperation with their state universities Library of Congress Control Number 2022951382
and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transporta-
© 2023 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of
tion results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to high-
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the graphical logo are trade-
way authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated
marks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
program of cooperative research.
Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 ini-
tiated an objective national highway research program using modern COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the published or copyrighted material used herein.
full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
(FHWA), United States Department of Transportation, under Agree- publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
ment No. 693JJ31950003. understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, APTA, FAA,
FHWA, FTA, GHSA, or NHTSA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice.
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies
It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or
administer the research program because of TRB’s recognized objectivity reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited
for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive com-
mittee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation
NOTICE
subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and
cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, univer- The research report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication
according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board
sities, and industry; TRB’s relationship to the National Academies is an
and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of special-
ists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
directly to those in a position to use them. Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; the
The program is developed on the basis of research needs iden- FHWA; or the program sponsors.
tified by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and
The Transportation Research Board does not develop, issue, or publish standards or specifi-
transportation departments, by committees of AASHTO, and by cations. The Transportation Research Board manages applied research projects which pro-
the FHWA. Topics of the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO vide the scientific foundation that may be used by Transportation Research Board sponsors,
Special Committee on Research and Innovation (R&I), and each year industry associations, or other organizations as the basis for revised practices, procedures,
R&I’s recommendations are proposed to the AASHTO Board of Direc- or specifications.
tors and the National Academies. Research projects to address these The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified research agencies are Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not
endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names or logos appear herein
selected from submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of
solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Academies
and TRB.
The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make
significant contributions to solving highway transportation problems
of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however,
is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate,
other highway research programs.
Published research reports of the
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

are available from
Transportation Research Board

Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

https://www.mytrb.org/MyTRB/Store/default.aspx
Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through
trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. The
Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from
the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by
state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation,
and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 1030

Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Waseem Dekelbab, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs, and Manager, National Cooperative
Highway Research Program
Sid Mohan, Associate Program Manager, Implementation and Technology Transfer, National Cooperative
Highway Research Program
Zuxuan Deng, Senior Program Officer
Anthony P. Avery, Senior Program Assistant
Natalie Barnes, Director of Publications
Heather DiAngelis, Associate Director of Publications
Claire Aelion-Moss, Editor
NCHRP PROJECT 03-141 PANEL

Field of Traffic—Area of Operations and Control
Trey Young Tillander, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL (Chair)
John E. Fisher, South Pasadena, CA
Sirisha Murthy Kothuri, Portland State University, Portland, OR
Stephen Landry, Maine Department of Transportation, Augusta, ME
Alejandra L. Medina, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), Blacksburg, VA
Richard B. Nassi, Pima Association of Governments, Tucson, AZ
Sonja Piper, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Roseville, MN
Bill J. Shao, Los Angeles Department of Transportation, Los Angeles, CA
Juliet Shoultz, U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, Washington, DC
Peter Eun, FHWA Liaison

FOREWORD
By Zuxuan Deng
Staff Officer
NCHRP Research Report 1030: Safety at Midblock Pedestrian Signals presents a state-
of-the-practice guide to midblock pedestrian crossing treatments, summarizes the safety
effectiveness of midblock pedestrian signal (MPS) installations, and proposes language
for consideration in future updates to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) for MPSs. The material in this report will be of immediate interest to new and
experienced traffic engineers and roadway designers in their efforts to design facilities to
accommodate midblock pedestrian crossings that lead to greater pedestrian safety and
satisfaction.
The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) Signals Tech-
nical Committee has reviewed treatments for several types of midblock pedestrian crosswalk
with highway traffic signals or beacons, and has recommended a new chapter for Part 4
of the MUTCD titled “Midblock Pedestrian Signals.” The MPS would operate similarly to
a standard semiactuated vehicular traffic control signal at a midblock crossing, except it
would display to motorists a flashing red indication in place of a solid red indication during
the pedestrian clearance interval.
The MPS supports “complete streets,” a transportation policy and design approach that
calls for roadways to be designed and operated with all users in mind: bicyclists, public
transportation users, drivers, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities. Pedestrians frequently
find themselves in a predicament when needing to cross roads to access transit stops, busi-
nesses, medical facilities, and residences. Without an easily accessible signalized crossing,
they may be uncomfortable crossing with only a crosswalk and sign, and pedestrian volumes
may not accurately reflect pedestrian demand. Moreover, increases in lower-density sprawl-
like development mean these crossings rarely happen in such a concentrated manner as to
justify a midblock signal based on conventional signal volume warrants described in MUTCD
Chapter 4C.
The FHWA’s Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations (2018)
presented alternative treatments such as the rectangular rapid-flashing beacon (RRFB) and
the pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB). The proposed MPS is intended to expand safety options
at midblock crossings while reflecting modern pedestrian crossing needs and roadway
contexts. The MPS concept has been used for more than 40 years in several cities, including
Los Angeles, and previous FHWA studies have found this type of operation to have a very
high rate of driver compliance.
Under NCHRP Project 03-141, “Guidance on Midblock Pedestrian Signals,” Texas A&M
Transportation Institute was asked to summarize the effectiveness of MPS installations and
propose language for consideration for future updates to the MUTCD. The research team

conducted a literature review on the safety effectiveness of pedestrian treatments with a

signal controller and provided a summary of the literature on how to estimate pedestrian
volume at a signalized intersection, since pedestrian volume is a key element in a safety
analysis of pedestrian treatments. A survey was developed and administered to learn about
the state of the practice for pedestrian crossing treatments at intersections and midblock
locations. The research team identified 193 treatment sites and more than 1,000 control sites
to assess the safety effectiveness of MPSs using a cross-sectional observational study. The
team selected a recommended MPS CMF (crash modification factor) for each crash type
analyzed.
Supplemental to this report is an Implementation of Research Findings memo, available on
the National Academies Press website (nap.nationalacademies.org) by searching for NCHRP
Research Report 1030: Safety at Midblock Pedestrian Signals.

CONTENTS
1 Chapter 1 Introduction
1 Research Objective
1 Organization of Report
3 Chapter 2 Literature Review
3 Midblock Pedestrian Signal Effectiveness
5 Half-Signal Effectiveness
5 PHB Safety Effectiveness
6 Coordinated Signals
6 Sources for Pedestrian Volume
10 Key Findings from Literature
11 Chapter 3 Survey of Public Agencies
11 Information about the Agencies Responding to the Survey
12 Experience with Pedestrian Crossing Treatments
12 Selecting Treatments
13 Detection for MPS/PHB Treatments
13 Display, Device Operations, and Performance
15 Benefits of Treatments
15 Summary of Key Survey Findings
16 Chapter 4 Safety Analysis—Database Development
16 Site Identification
17 Vehicle and Pedestrian Volume
22 Roadway Characteristics
26 Crash Data
27 Identifying Crashes for a Given Location/Database Cleaning
29 Chapter 5 Safety Analysis—Findings
29 Method
29 Number of Sites for Treated and Control Groups
31 Models
32 Findings
36 Crash Modification Factors
37 Comparison with Other Studies
40 Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations
40 Summary
41 Discussion
42 Future Research Needs
44 References
Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing.
The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at nap.nationalacademies.org) retains the color versions.


CHAPTER 1
Introduction
The midblock pedestrian signal (MPS) treatment operates as a coordinated-actuated vehicular

traffic control signal at a midblock crossing. Figure 1 is an example of an MPS installation in
Los Angeles, CA, where the MPS has been used for more than 40 years. Previously, the MPS
displayed a flashing red indication to motorists rather than a steady red indication during the
pedestrian walk and clearance intervals. Recently, the city of Los Angeles modified the signal
cycle so the MPS displays a steady red to motorists during the pedestrian walk interval and a
flashing red to motorists during the pedestrian clearance (i.e., flashing DON’T WALK) interval.
Other cities do not include a flashing red indication for motorists during the signal cycle for
their MPSs. Some overhead MPSs have a green arrow for motorists rather than a steady green
ball (see Figure 1). Los Angeles has many MPSs and has integrated them into its urban street
network. With block spacing of about 600 ft, the MPS provides a pedestrian crossing opportu-
nity approximately every 300 ft.
Recent statistics on pedestrian crashes are causing concerns. A 2020 study reported
6,721 pedestrians were killed on United States roads in 2020, up 46% from the number of
pedestrian fatalities in 2010 (1). These statistics are even more alarming when compared to a
much smaller increase of 5% for all other traffic deaths. Several reasons have been suggested
for the increase in pedestrian fatalities, including an increased number of pedestrians and
drivers on the roadways, cell phone use distractions, and higher vehicle speeds. With the
growing pedestrian crash numbers, there is a need to use a data-driven safety analysis pro-
cedure to identify the safety performance of pedestrian treatments. This project focuses on
conducting such a safety analysis of the MPS.
Research Objective
The objective of this research was to summarize the effectiveness of MPS installations
and propose language suitable for inclusion in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD; 2).
Organization of Report
This report provides information on the safety analysis of the MPS in the following chapters:
1. Introduction: gives an overview of MPSs, project objectives, and the organization of the
report.
2. Literature Review: summarizes the literature on the safety effectiveness of pedestrian treatments
that include a signal controller and on how pedestrian volume at a signalized intersection can
be estimated.
1

2 Safety at Midblock Pedestrian Signals
Figure 1. Midblock pedestrian signal example.
3. Survey of Public Agencies: presents the results from a survey developed to gain greater under-
standing of the state of the practice for pedestrian crossing treatments at intersections and
midblock locations.
4. Safety Analysis—Database Development: describes the identification of potential study sites
and the building of the database to be used in the safety evaluation.
5. Safety Analysis—Findings: presents the findings from the safety analysis that investigated
changes in crash frequency by crash type due to the presence of the MPS.
6. Conclusions and Recommendations: provides a summary of the findings and discusses future
research needs.

CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
A literature search was conducted using several search techniques and resources, among
which the Transportation Research Information Services (TRIS) databases. TRIS can search
several databases, including the Highway Research Information Service database for domestic
literature, the Highway Research in Progress database for ongoing research studies, and the
International Road Research Database for relevant foreign literature. Based on that search,
as expected, only a few studies have included the MPS.
This chapter summarizes the literature on the safety effectiveness of pedestrian treatments
that include a signal controller. Also provided is a summary of the literature that discusses how
pedestrian volume at a signalized intersection can be estimated, because pedestrian volume is a
key element in a safety analysis of pedestrian treatments.
Midblock Pedestrian Signal Effectiveness

TCRP Project D-08/NCHRP Project 3-71 (3) included several MPSs as part of its driver
yielding study (see Table 1). That study introduced the concept of “red” and “yellow” devices
to emphasize that if an agency wants to ensure high driver yielding at pedestrian crossing
treatments, using a device that shows a red indication to the motorists is needed. Red devices
include a high-intensity activated crosswalk (HAWK) beacon (officially called a pedestrian
hybrid beacon, PHB), a half signal, or an MPS. Yellow devices include the rectangular rapid
flashing beacon (RRFB), in-road warning lights, the LED-embedded pedestrian or school
crossing sign, and others. These devices do not include a traffic signal controller. As shown in
Table 1 and Figure 2, the MPS—similar to the other red devices studied—has very high driver
yielding rates.
An unpublished analysis of 108 MPS installations in Los Angeles included 5 years of crash data
from October 1, 2013, to September 30, 2018. The study found a similar crash rate distribution
between the MPS and the PHB.
A 2020 study in Minnesota (4) investigated the impact on driver yield rates for pedestrian-
activated crossing (PAC) systems at 34 locations. The midblock crossings in the study included
RRFBs, PHBs, and one signal; the driver-yield rates and sample sizes are provided in Table 2.
The author suggests the large difference between driver yield rates when the signal was and was
not activated was because “the system in place was a standard signal which is a well-recognized
traffic control device that clearly gives one party or the other the right-of-way; when pedestrians
attempted to cross when they did not have the right-of-way, drivers were much less likely to
yield.” As part of the 2020 Minnesota study, Hourdos (4) attempted to estimate the effects of
PACs on pedestrian crash rates using simulation, but was not successful due to limitations with
the study method.
3

Table 1. Findings from data collected in 2003 for a TCRP/NCHRP study.
TCRP Project D-08/NCHRP Project 3-71 Other Studies
Compliance—General
Compliance—Staged Compliance—Literature
Crossing Population Pedestrian
Pedestrian Crossing Review
Treatment Crossing
# of Range Average # of Range Average # of Range Average
Sites (%) (%) Sites (%) (%) Sites (%) (%)
MPS 2 97 to 100 99% 4 91 to 98 95% na na na
Half signal 6 94 to 100 97% 6 96 to 100 98% 1 99 99%
HAWK (PHB) 5 94 to 100 97% 5 98 to 100 99% 1 93 93%
na = not applicable; there were no sites.
Source: Fitzpatrick et al. (3)
Figure 2. Site average and range for driver yielding by crossing treatment.
Table 2. Driver yield rates at midblock crossings by treatment.

Driver Yield Driver Yield
Sample Sample Lanes
Site Rate When Rate When Not Treatment
Size Size Crossed
Activated Activated
7-Maple Plain 88.5% NP 56.5% NP PHB 2
9-Red Wing 66.2% NP 42.8% NP PHB 2
9-Red Wing from
93.0% NP 100% NP PHB 2
Island
25-Wayzata 73.1% 130 55.1% 49 RRFB 1
4-Lewiston 81.8% 22 50.0% 6 RRFB 2
U2a-Wayzata 72.1% 172 66.7% 30 RRFB 2
U2b-Wayzata 68.2% 198 35.5% 107 RRFB 2
11-Anoka 98.0% 151 14.7% 61 Signal 2
NP = not provided.

Literature Review 5
Table 3. Johnson crash history findings.

Change in
Change in Auto Half-Signal Crash
Location Number Time Pedestrian
Year Crashes Before Rate per Million
(Study) of Sites Period Crashes Before
to After Entering Vehicles
to After
Seattle, WA (6) 1974 18 0.6–2.5 yr −100%a, b +8% 0.525
Seattle, WA (7) 1988 22 14.5 yr −65% −10% na
Seattle, WA (8) 2001 19 4–16 yr na −20.4% na
Canada (9) 2003 25 3.25–5 yr −66% −23% 0.230
Not a before/after Not a before/after 0.158 for 3-leg
Portland, OR (5) 2015 47 10 yr
study study 0.178 for 4-leg
a
Total number of pedestrian crashes went from 4 in the before period to 0 in the after period.
b
Significant at the 85% confidence interval level.
na = not available.
Half-Signal Effectiveness
Johnson (5) investigated the safety of half signals in Portland, OR, based on data collected
from the city in a thesis for Portland State University. Half signals are located at four-way
intersections and include a typical green-yellow-red traffic signal for automobiles on the
major road, a stop sign for motorists on the minor road, and a pedestrian signal with actua-
tion for pedestrians and/or bicyclists on the minor road. The treatment is prevalent in Canada,
but the MUTCD (2) discourages its use in the United States. The treatment can be found in
Portland, OR, and Seattle, WA, with the most recent installation of 47 half-signal intersections
in Portland in 1986.
Johnson reported on the crash history results from published half-signal studies as shown
in Table 3. For the 2015 study, Johnson considered 442 crashes over a 10-year period for the
47 half-signal intersections in Portland. Of the 442 crashes, 16 involved pedestrians. The calcu
lated crash rates for the half signals (0.158 and 0.178 crashes per million entering vehicles for
three-leg and four-leg half signals, respectively) did not differ significantly from comparison
groups (e.g., minor-street stop-controlled intersections and signalized intersections). The matched
comparison only showed rear-end (RE) crashes as being statistically significantly different, with
half signals having more RE crashes than the minor stop-controlled intersections comparison
group. The lack of pedestrian volume limited the ability to determine if the greater number of
pedestrian crashes at half-signal intersections versus signalized intersections was statistically
significant.
PHB Safety Effectiveness

Table 4 summarizes the findings from the three studies that found a statistically significant
relationship between the PHB and crashes. In a 2010 FHWA study, researchers conducted a
before-and-after evaluation of the safety performance of the device (10). Using an empirical
Bayes (EB) method, their evaluations compared the observed crash frequency after installation
of the PHB to the EB estimate of the expected crash frequency for the same after period without
the PHB. NCHRP Research Report 841 (11) investigated the safety effectiveness of the PHB and
developed several crash modification factors. The 2019 Arizona Department of Transportation
(ADOT) study (12) also used an EB before-and-after analysis.
The 2019 ADOT study included a cross-sectional evaluation that considered a larger sample
size of PHB installations. Two relevant findings are:
• Midblock (i.e., two legs) versus intersection (i.e., three or four legs) does not make a differ-
ence with respect to safety at PHBs since no statistical difference in crashes between midblock

Table 4. Percentage of crash reduction at PHBs for several studies.

2010 FHWA Study 2019 ADOT
Crash Type/Site Type 2017 NCHRP Study (11)
(10) Study (12)
Total 29** 18.0** 18.2**
Fatal and injury 15 NG 25.2**
Pedestrian related 69** 56.8** 45.7**
Fatal and injury
NG NG 45.0**
pedestrian related
Rear end NG NG 20.5**
Fatal and injury rear end NG NG 28.6**
Angle NG NG 22.6**
Fatal and injury angle NG NG 24.5*
Rear end and sideswipe NG 12.4 NG
27 PHB with advance stop
Treated sites 21 PHB sites 52 PHB Sites
markings and signs sites
3,129 sites in Charlotte, NC,
Portland, OR, Phoenix, AZ, 101 unsignalized
102 unsignalized Scottsdale, AZ, Tucson, AZ, and intersections and
Reference group
intersections St. Petersburg, FL, that did not 56 signalized
have the following treatments: intersections
PHB, RRFB, refuge island
NG = crash reduction not generated for this crash type.
Statistical level indications:
* Statistically significant results with 90% confidence level.
** Statistically significant results with 95% confidence level.
locations and those PHBs at three- or four-leg intersections was found in the cross-sectional
evaluation.
• The cross-sectional evaluation showed no statistically significant difference between the
lower-speed and higher-speed PHB sites (posted speeds at 35 mph or lower versus 40 mph or
higher) for all crash types except RE crashes. For RE crashes, fewer RE crashes were present
when the posted speed limit was 35 mph or lower.
Coordinated Signals
Hauer (13) in 2020 discussed the benefits of retiming coordinated signalized intersections to
improve the opportunities for pedestrians to cross midblock.
Sources for Pedestrian Volume

Studies on the effectiveness of pedestrian treatments can be limited when pedestrian volumes
are not available, since pedestrian volume has been found to be the most influential factor in
explaining the variation in counts of pedestrian crashes (14). The research team reviewed the
literature on the methods available to estimate pedestrian volumes.
On-Site Counts
Several techniques are available for counting the number of pedestrians and bicyclists at a site,
including manual counts, inductive loops, thermal cameras, infrared counters, and pedestrian
signal actuation data. Kothuri (15) tested several technologies in a parking lot and at an inter
section. The author’s conclusions were that inductive loops and a thermal camera counted
bicycles accurately in a controlled environment but failed to do so at an intersection. Passive
infrared counters were found to count pedestrians accurately at the intersection sidewalk, and
pedestrian signal actuation data could be a cost-effective surrogate for pedestrian demand at
signalized intersections. Because this study was done about 10 years ago, the technology may
have improved since.

Literature Review 7
Direct-Demand Models
While vehicle volume is frequently available for a street, pedestrian volume is seldom available.
Turner et al. (16) provides a summary of techniques used to estimate and evaluate exposure to
risk in pedestrian and bicyclist safety analyses. The authors note that geographic scale is a critical
element, and provide four scale categories:
• Regional (e.g., city, county, or state)
• Network (e.g., traffic analysis zone, census tract, or census block group)
• Road segment
• Point (e.g., midblock or intersection street crossing)
With respect to crash evaluations for MPSs, exposure estimates at the point scale group are
needed. Direct-demand models are widely used for pedestrian and bicyclist volume estima-
tion, but they require local data—transportation system variables, built environment vari-
ables, socioeconomic characteristics, weather, typology—and are probably not transferable
to different areas.
Schneider et al. (17) in 2012 developed and applied a pedestrian intersection volume model
for San Francisco, CA. A sample of counts at 50 intersections was collected and adjusted to
produce annual pedestrian crossing estimates at each sampled intersection. Next, the authors
developed a log-linear regression model to identify the relationship between annual pedestrian
volume estimate and various explanatory variables including land use, transportation system, local
environment, and socioeconomic characteristics near each sampled intersection (see Table 5).
Griswold et al. (18) developed a statewide pedestrian exposure model using log-linear regres-
sion. Their database included more than 1,200 count locations in California. The model included
the following variables:
• Employment density
• Population density
• Number of schools
• Number of street segments
• Intersections with principal arterial and minor arterial roadways
• Four-way intersections
• U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey journey-to-work walk mode share
Table 6 provides the variables and coefficient estimates for the recommended model. The
model was used to estimate pedestrian volume at state highway intersections within 656 ft
Table 5. Preferred model of pedestrian volume for San Francisco.

Recommended Model
Model Variablea
Coefficient t-Value p-Value
Total households within ¼ mi (ten thousands) 1.81 2.12 0.040
Total employment within ¼ mi (hundred thousands) 2.43 2.22 0.032
Intersection is in a high-activity zone 1.27 3.79 0.000
Maximum slope on any intersection approach leg (hundreds) −9.40 −3.07 0.004
Intersection is within ¼ mi of a university campus 0.635 1.45 0.154
Intersection is controlled by a traffic signal 1.16 4.03 0.000
Constant 12.9 33.29 0.000
Note: The dependent variable is the natural logarithm of annual pedestrian intersection crossing volume at each of
50 study intersections. This represents the sum of all crossings on each approach leg within 50 ft of intersections.
Annual volume estimate is extrapolated from a 2-hour manual count taken in September 2009 or July–August 2010.
The extrapolation method accounts for variations in pedestrian activity by time of day, day of week, weather, and
land use. N = 50; adjusted R2 = 0.804; F (test value) = 34.4 (p < 0.001).
a
All distances used to calculate the model variables are straight-line distances rather than roadway network
distances.
Source: Schneider et al. (17).

Table 6. Final California pedestrian exposure model.

Variable Scale Manipulation Transformation Estimate Pr (> ItI)
Intercept na na na 5.58 < 2e-16 ***
Number of employees ¼ mi Weighted log 0.390 < 2e-16 ***
Population ½ mi Truncated 0.000142 < 2e-16 ***
Number of street
½ mi Weighted log 0.302 2.08e-05 ***
segments
Walk commute mode
½ mi na na 2.84 6.25e-08 ***
share
Number of schools ½ mi na log 0.0444 1.38e-05 ***
Principal arterial Intersection na na 0.457 4.17e-16 ***
Minor arterial Intersection na na 0.384 6.23e-10 ***
Four-way intersection Intersection na na 0.413 7.38e-09 ***
Dependent variable: log (annual value estimate). Adj. R2 = 0.714.
*** p < 0.001.
na = not applicable.
Source: Griswold et al. (18).
(200 m) of a census block with a minimum population density of 500 people per square mile.
The estimates are available at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/ped-bike/exposure.
Schneider et al. (19) in 2021 developed pedestrian intersection crossing volume models for the
Milwaukee, WI, metropolitan region. Negative binomial regression was used to relate annual
pedestrian volumes at 260 intersections to roadway and surrounding neighborhood socio
economic and land-use variables. The range of annual pedestrian volumes in the model dataset
was 1,000 to 650,000. The following variables describing the area surrounding an intersection
had statistically significant, positive associations with annual pedestrian volumes:
• Population density within 1,312 ft (400 m)
• Employment density within 1,312 ft (400 m)
• Number of bus stops within 328 ft (100 m)
• Number of retail businesses within 328 ft (100 m)
• Number of restaurant and bar businesses within 328 ft (100 m)
• Presence of a school within 1,312 ft (400 m)
• Proportion of households without a motor vehicle within 1,312 ft (400 m)
While three models (see Table 7) had a good overall statistical fit, the authors recommended
model C. They noted that the presence of a traffic control signal or a park within 400 m tended
to have consistent positive associations with annual pedestrian volumes, but they were not
significant at the 95% confidence level when included with the other seven variables in the final
models. The authors also expected being within 400 m of a university campus would be signifi-
cant; however, only six intersections had that characteristic.
Le et al. (20) conducted a study to explore options for collecting or estimating pedestrian
volume data in Dallas, TX, particularly at intersections with high pedestrian activity. The
authors successfully developed a direct-demand model that estimates pedestrian volumes
at signalized and stop-controlled intersections (see Table 8). The final model showed that
pedestrian volume increases 4 times within downtown; increases 12% per school within 1 mi
of an intersection; increases 4.8 times per 1% increase in commercial/multifamily residential
land uses within 300 ft of an intersection; increases 4.7 times with the presence of higher
education, hospitals, or malls; and decreases 36% per 5-mph increase in the intersections’
maximum posted speed limit.
Geedipally (21) developed a regression model to estimate the pedestrian crossing volumes at
midblock locations. The variables found to influence the crossing volumes were posted speed
limit, number of bus stops, sidewalk width, and area type (see Table 9).

Literature Review 9
Table 7. Final annual pedestrian crossing volume models for Milwaukee.
A. Base Model B. Square Root Model C. Cube Root Model
Variable
Beta p-Value Beta p-Value Beta p-Value
Constant 8.334 0.000 7.629 0.000 7.071 0.000
PopDen400 0.000140 0.001 na na na na
SRPopDen400 na na 0.019 0.000 na na
CRPopDen400 na na na na 0.100 0.000
EmpDen400 0.000021 0.046 na na na na
SREmpDen400 na na 0.00581 0.005 na na
CREmpDen400 na na na na 0.036 0.003
BusStp100 0.336 0.000 na na na na
SRBusStp100 na na 0.434 0.000 na na
CRBusStp100 na na na na 0.477 0.001
Retail100 0.108 0.026 na na na na
SRRet100 na na 0.208 0.000 na na
CRReBa100 na na na na 0.471 0.000
RestBar100 0.116 0.062 na na na na
SRReBa100 na na 0.208 0.050 na na
CRReBA100 na na na na 0.244 0.044
SchDum400 0.515 0.001 0.478 0.003 0.499 0.002
Pct0Veh400 5.307 0.000 4.184 0.001 4.330 0.000
Sample Size (n) 260 260 260
Log-likelihooda −2,792 −2,774 −2,772
Akaike information
5,601 5,565 5,560
criterion (AIC)a
Bayesian information
5,629 5,593 5,588
criterion (BIC)a
a
Lower absolute values of log-likelihood; AIC and BIC indicate better overall model fit.
Source: Schneider et al. (19).
Table 8. Estimated parameters for signalized and stop-controlled

intersections in Dallas, TX.
Parameter Estimate Std. Error p-value
Intercept (b0) 5.3048 0.5157 < 0.0001
Indicator variable for the signalized intersection (lsig) 0.9630 0.1787 < 0.0001
Number of schools within 1 mi (bsch) 0.1566 0.0272 < 0.0001
Commercial and multifamily proportion (bco+mf) 1.4305 0.2250 < 0.0001
Posted speed limit (bpsi) −0.0578 0.0148 0.0001
Central business district indicator (bcbd) 0.9682 0.3178 0.0026
Special generator indicator (bspl) 1.2568 0.3458 0.0004
Number of bus stops (bbus) 0.0487 0.0565 0.3895
Dispersion parameter (δ) 0.7693 0.0717 < 0.0001
Log likelihood −1,213.04 na na
AIC 2,444.07 na na
Note: Italicized value means the variable is not significant at 5% level. Est. = estimate; std. error = standard error;
Source: Le et al. (20).
Table 9. Calibrated coefficients for pedestrian crossing volumes

at midblock locations.
Coefficient Variable Value Std. Dev. t-statistic p-value
ΒO Intercept 7.9409 1.0544 7.53 < 0.0001
βpsl Posted speed limit −0.09465 0.02704 −3.50 0.0009
βbus Bus stops 0.2314 0.1187 1.95 0.0558
βsww Sidewalk width −0.06762 0.04771 −1.42 0.1614
Area type (1.0 if commercial,
βarea 0.5777 0.2314 2.50 0.0152
0.0 otherwise)
K Inverse dispersion parameter 0.6459 0.109 2 5.92 < 0.0001
Observations: 64 midblock locations.
Source: Geedipally et al. (21).

Table 10. Assumed pedestrian volume by general level of

pedestrian activity.
Sig. Ped. Cross

Unsig. Ped. All
Sig.d Ped. Maj.

General
Sig. Ped. All

Unsig.c Ped.
Cross 24 hr
Cross 24 hr
Unsig. Ped.
PHBb Ped.
Maj. 24 hr
Maj. 24 hr
HSMe Sig.
PHB Ped.
PHB Ped.
HSM Sig.
All 24 hr
Level of
3 Leg
4 Leg
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
Pedestrian
Activitya
High 950 1,180 2,130 320 290 610 820 700 1,520 1,700 3,200
Medium–high 490 480 970 190 180 370 410 530 940 750 1,500
Medium 170 220 390 90 90 180 210 290 500 400 700
Medium–low 90 40 130 40 40 80 110 170 280 120 240
Low 40 20 60 10 20 30 60 60 120 20 50
a
The team assumed the general level of high pedestrian activity to be the 90th percentile value (rounded to the
nearest 10) for the group of sites. The medium–high was the 75th percentile, the medium was the 50th percentile,
the medium–low was the 25th percentile, and the low was the 10th percentile value (rounded to the nearest 10).
Other assumptions include that the PHB is controlling the vehicles on the major street and that the pedestrian count
for “all” is the sum of the pedestrians crossing the major legs and the pedestrians crossing the cross-street legs (if any).
b
PHB values are based on 52 PHB (HAWK) intersections in Arizona.
c
Unsig. values are based on 98 unsignalized intersections in Arizona.
d
Sig. values are based on 33 signalized intersections in Arizona.
e
HSM values are from HSM (24) Tables 12–15, pp. 12–37.
Pedestrian Volume Estimates Using Traffic Signal Data

Two recent papers explore the use of pedestrian push-button data as the source for pedestrian
exposure. One of the papers uses Arizona data (22) and one uses Utah data (23). The researchers
collected multiple hours of pedestrian crossing data at a few locations, developed adjustment
factors, and then applied those factors to the pedestrian push-button counts from signalized
intersections. The study using Utah data provided graphs showing the relationships between
the unique pedestrian detections and pedestrian crossing volume.
Pedestrian Volume Estimates Using Local Engineering Judgment

Another approach is to use local engineering judgment to assign the site to a general level
of pedestrian activity category developed from historical pedestrian count data. A recent
ADOT PHB study (12) established typical pedestrian volumes by general level of pedestrian
activity (see Table 10). The pedestrian volume values are based on the data from the 2010
FHWA study (10). The Highway Safety Manual (HSM; 24) data are included in the table as
a comparison.
Key Findings from Literature

Key findings from the literature review that influence the MPS safety analysis include the
following:
• The effectiveness of the MPS has been evaluated using driver yielding as a safety surrogate in
a previous study.
• Previous safety analyses for similar pedestrian traffic control devices demonstrated that
pedestrian volume should be considered in the analysis along with the number of legs at the
crossing and the posted speed limit on the major street.
• While the availability of pedestrian counts is limited, researchers have successfully developed
models to estimate pedestrian volume. These models are specific to the area providing the
counts used in model development. Creation of these models also requires a notable amount
of staff resources.

CHAPTER 3
Survey of Public Agencies
A survey was developed and administered as part of this study to gain greater understand-
ing of the state of the practice for pedestrian crossing treatments at intersections and midblock
locations. The survey was reviewed by the research team before being sent to the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the Association for Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals
listservs. Responses were received from 23 agencies, and follow-up discussions occurred with
selected agencies to clarify answers submitted in the responses.
Survey questions asked specifically about the types of treatments used to address pedestrian
safety (e.g., full traffic signals, pedestrian hybrid beacons, rectangular rapid flashing beacons,
half signals, and MPSs) and supporting elements (e.g., in-pavement warning lights, pedes-
trian crossing signs, crosswalk markings and signs). Many questions about these specific
elements also included an “other” option with space for respondents to provide information
about treatments not listed on the survey. Topics for the treatments included methods of
detection for people walking and bicycling and operations for timing the devices, including
coordination.
Information about the Agencies Responding

to the Survey
The survey was answered by 23 agencies interested in MPSs. The practitioners who responded
to the survey had a minimum of 5 years of experience, with the majority reporting more than
15 years. One of the department of transportation (DOT) responses indicated the agency
had fewer than 100 traffic signals, which could mean most of the agency’s signals are managed
by others.
A question asked whether the agency is a “Vision Zero community” to determine if the focus
of investments would be oriented toward safety. Most of the survey respondents were cities
across the country from Anchorage, AK, to Fayetteville, AR, and Pittsburgh, PA. Four state DOTs
(Utah, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Washington) responded, and only one respondent represented
multiple agencies. The results of this survey revealed that most of the respondents (68%) have
declared Vision Zero the community objective. Approximately 42% of respondents were agencies
that have more than 500 signals (the number of signals generally relates to a larger population
served and potential for more crossings).
All the respondents described safety as one of their agency’s primary goals; 90% indicated
mobility is similarly important, and multimodal transportation was mentioned by 57% of the
respondents, with equity (32%), climate (23%), and asset management (18%) being selected
as well.
11

Experience with Pedestrian Crossing Treatments

The use of pedestrian crossing treatments was quite diverse. Agencies were asked, “what
types of treatments for pedestrian crossings do you typically use at unsignalized intersections
in your region?” The most frequent responses were medians and street lighting. PHBs are
used by 70% of the agencies that responded to the survey, and MPSs are used by 78% of the
agencies.
With respect to midblock pedestrian crossings, most of the agencies said they treat midblock
locations similarly to intersections in that they use a variety of treatments. The most common
types of midblock crossing treatments were RRFBs, MPSs, and PHBs. Alternatives to beacon
or signal installations included street lighting, pedestrian medians, in-pavement warning lights,
pedestrian crossing signs with LEDs, and crossing markings and signs.
Several respondents discussed traffic signal warrants as being part of the process in making
treatment decisions. MPSs can be installed using the traditional traffic signal warrants already
in the MUTCD. A respondent noted that the California MUTCD offers warrants for MPSs.
Many of the MPSs in California were constructed prior to the availability of the PHB in the
MUTCD and prior to the RRFB.
For the agencies surveyed, the number of PHBs installed varies greatly since these are relatively
new compared to the other treatments on the list. Nearly 35% of the agencies have one to three
PHBs in use, and 22% of the agencies have more than 10 PHBs; about 10% of the agencies noted
that a significant number of additional PHBs are planned.
The survey included the question, “if your agency does not use PHBs or other devices, why
not?” The most common reasons for choosing not to use PHBs were lack of intuitive operation
(drivers ignoring or not understanding the action necessary at dark beacons) the flashing/wig-wag
being reserved for use at railroad crossings and PHBs being different, and assertions that RRFBs
provide nearly as much improvement at much less cost. Other reasons identified for not using
PHBs include the MUTCD warrant being too high for most situations and the MPSs (e.g.,
a green-yellow-red display) being preferred. In Pennsylvania, the use of PHBs is not legal per
the Motor Vehicle Code.
Adoption of MPSs was similar to the use of PHBs for the agencies surveyed. Of these
agencies, 78% have at least one MPS, and six of the 23 agencies reported having more than 20
(Sacramento, CA, Fayetteville, AR, Omaha, NE, Los Angeles, CA, New York City, and Utah DOT).
Selecting Treatments
Engineering studies are used to determine appropriate crossing treatments for midblock
conditions. Two published resources used when determining treatments for pedestrian crossings
are NCHRP Report 562 (3) and the FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled
Crossing Locations (25). These documents are often cited as some of the most widely used in
the industry due to their ease of use. Several agencies identified the use of other resources to
address the conditions, including state or local guidelines, which often reference similar criteria
as NCHRP or the FHWA. The other important data input for selecting improvement sites was
pedestrian crash data.
The criterion most considered when determining treatments for pedestrian crossings was
pedestrian (and bicycle) demand, with the following also being selected frequently: traffic
volumes, traffic speeds, roadway widths/geometry, sight distance, and whether a median/
no median is present or can be added. Other criteria include adjacent land use, the distance to
the next enhanced crossing, and the cost.

Survey of Public Agencies 13
When asked to identify why the agency would select one treatment over another, there was
a significant range of ideas offered. RRFBs were being used in some cases and not in others
(crossing multiple lanes was mentioned as a concern). School crossings were a focus for a few
of the respondents, and cost was also referenced as a concern for the selection of treatments.
The need for distance between crossings was also mentioned with the MPSs.
Vision Zero is a global movement to end traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries by
taking a systemic approach to road safety. Given that most of the agencies reported the goal of
zero deaths, the research team assumed a systemic approach to safety would be frequently cited.
The systemic approach to safety is a data-driven process that involves analytical techniques
to identify sites for potential safety improvement and suggests projects for safety investment
not typically identified through the traditional site analysis approach. Several of the agencies
surveyed (39%) do not have a specific method for prioritizing sites for installation. About 30%
of the agencies said they use a systemwide analysis of sites throughout the agency; 17% of the
agencies said installations occur on project corridors only.
Nearly all agencies surveyed agree that the installation of an MPS or PHB would be considered
on a roadway with a 45 mph or higher speed. There have been some questions on the applica-
bility of beacons in higher-speed environments, so this is an important distinction to guide the
development of language for inclusion in a future version of the MUTCD.
Street lighting is often cited as having an important role in crosswalk safety. Adding illumi-
nation can improve the visibility of the people attempting to cross the street. With respect to
street lighting practices for signalized or unsignalized pedestrian crossings, 74% of agencies said
lighting is currently available or would be provided at any marked crosswalk. Other agencies
(9%) said lighting would be added when practicable, with only one agency saying a street lighting
policy is not in place. In addition to street lighting, accessible pedestrian access ramps are needed.
Detection for MPS/PHB Treatments

The use of passive detection at midblock crossings has the potential to enhance the efficiency
and improve the safety of the intersection for pedestrians and other users. The survey inquired
about detection used. Inductive loops, video detection, microwave radar, and fisheye camera
video detection were the four most common techniques identified for detecting automobiles
and/or bicycles at traffic signals. Other methods of automobile detection at traffic signals were
infrared cameras (including FLIR), Sensys, radar detection, and the combination microwave
and video products (Iteris). Other techniques of bicycle detection at traffic signals include push
buttons mounted near bicycle traffic and passive detection bollards.
The two common standard techniques for detecting pedestrians at traffic signals are push
buttons that meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements (86%) and accessible
push buttons that address ADA and the needs of the blind community (56%). Less common
pedestrian detection techniques given were fisheye camera video, pedestrian recall with audible
signals, pedestrian recall for all shorter crossings, and thermal video detection. The use of push-
button detection at MPSs was identified by nearly all the agencies (96%), with pedestrian recall
(22%) and passive detection (9%) mentioned much less often.
Display, Device Operations, and Performance

The display of an MPS for the main street is similar to a traffic control signal (i.e., green,
yellow, and red indications) and to the traditional half signal that no longer conforms to the
current MUTCD. The display on the main street for a PHB only has yellow and red indications,

since having no indication was considered more desirable than a green indication, and having
a flashing yellow in addition to the steady yellow would attract the attention of motorists. The
other benefit of the PHB was reduced side-street delay associated with the flashing red portion
of the operation. Some of the agencies in the survey expressed concerns about the dark display
and the inability to use a traditional conflict monitor to identify issues with the traffic control.
With the MPS being midblock (or not an intersection), stop signs are not needed. An exception
could be where stop signs are desired for bicycle traffic. The PHB (or HAWK signal) was used in
the Portland, OR, Request to Experiment submitted in October 2005 to replace an existing half
signal, retaining the stop sign for the side street at the intersection.
The existing Los Angeles Department of Transportation MPS operation allows the flashing
red to occur during the WALK indication, which differs from the PHB operation that has the
main street stopped during the WALK, allowing a flashing red during the flashing DON’T
WALK. With respect to typical MPS displays, 78% of the agencies reported their preference to
have the main street operating with standard signal operation (i.e., solid red during the flashing
DON’T WALK phase), and 22% of the agencies using MPS displays operate with a flashing red
on the main street during the flashing DON’T WALK phase. Reasons given for not operating
the main street with a flashing red include driver confusion, that a flashing red would be more
like a HAWK treatment, and that a flashing red should only be used in malfunction conditions.
Operation of the main street with a flashing red consistent with the PHB sequence is a primary
question for further review. There was interest in learning more about the flashing red interval
from some of the agencies, but many of the agencies cited concerns about this.
The majority of agencies (78%) reported that the separation distance is the main factor
considered when deciding to operate MPSs/PHBs in coordination with adjacent signals. Some
agencies (30%) reported that the pedestrians at an MPS/PHB get an immediate response (i.e.,
a hot button or semi-hot button); nearly 22% of the agencies said pedestrians are only served
in coordination. Other less common MPS/PHB operations were reported as pedestrians
served in coordination depending on time of day, and pedestrian detection in conjunction with
vehicle detection.
The majority of agencies reported using a walk time of 7 seconds (per the MUTCD). Two
agencies reported using walk times as low as 5 seconds. Three agencies reported using walk
times of 8 seconds, 10 seconds, or an 8–10 second range. In Anchorage, AK, three specific
walk times were identified as 10, 15, and 17 seconds. Though not specifically confirmed with each
agency, it is suspected that walk times longer than 7 seconds may represent an increase based
on engineering judgment in order to serve pedestrian demands and/or other site-specific needs.
Consistent with the 2009 MUTCD (2), most agencies (78%) reported using a walking speed
of 3.5 ft/s or the option walking speed of 4 ft/s (13%). Other walking speeds were reported as
2.5 ft/s, 3 ft/s, and 3.5 ft/s minus the signal clearance interval. Variations in walking speeds
depended on the part of town (e.g., 2.8 ft/s in downtown Oklahoma City, OK) or nearby land
uses such as schools/retirement facilities (e.g., in Pittsburgh, PA).
Coordination of traffic signals is a common objective used by engineers to provide smooth
flow of traffic along streets and highways to reduce auto travel times, stops, and delays. MPS/
PHB locations interrupt the flow of traffic on the main street to provide an opportunity for
people to cross. The use of coordination may result in adverse impacts to people walking with
longer cycle lengths resulting in higher delays (15). Agencies were asked what typical cycle
length is used for their MPS/PHB locations, and the answers varied from 40 to 90 seconds.
The intent of MPS/PHB locations is to increase safety for people walking, and it seems clear that
the need for a display that encourages compliance is a motivation for many agencies. Many
of the PHB locations are operated without coordination.

Survey of Public Agencies 15
Benefits of Treatments
The final questions of the survey focused on the benefits the agency has experienced with
MPSs or PHBs. Many of the participants highlighted the safety benefits and reduced crashes
involving pedestrians. The answers were diverse, with a few agencies expressing concerns
about the PHB and the public not understanding the display. There were also a few mentions
that the 2009 MUTCD (2) guidance that the PHB should not be located at intersections is a
barrier to use.
The final part of the survey was to gather any additional comments participants had on
the topic. Many respondents expressed thoughts about the lack of PHB understanding for
motorists. The requirement of flashing the red during the flashing DON’T WALK was mentioned
several times.
Summary of Key Survey Findings

Key findings from the survey are summarized in the following list.
• Respondents were very knowledgeable of the technical issues associated with midblock
crossings. Most of the respondents had more than 15 years of experience in the field.
• All participants reported that safety was a primary goal for their agency, and 68% of respon-
dents work in a Vision Zero community.
• The PHB has had limited acceptance in some states (e.g., they are not allowed in Pennsylvania
because legislative changes would be needed), but most respondents were familiar with the
PHB or MPS. The familiarity with the MPS was quite high, with several agencies having more
MPSs than PHBs.
• Information about traffic control device timing and detection was helpful to understand
details about the use of technology for operation.
• The operation of the MPS and PHB was the subject of several comments and indicates the
importance of writing guidelines that meet industry needs. Several agencies expressed
concerns about the displays and sequence of indications being unique, and there is a desire to
have flexibility to change to align with driver behavior. Driver education was also mentioned
as a need.

CHAPTER 4
Safety Analysis—
Database Development
The prime objective of this project was to determine the safety effectiveness of the MPS. This
section describes the identification of potential study sites and the building of the database that
will be used in the safety evaluation. The database includes roadway characteristics, volume for
both vehicles and pedestrians, and crash data.
Site Identification
The key for project success was identifying a sufficient number of treated sites. Members of the
panel and the research team reached out to several groups to aid in site identification. Sources
for recommended sites included members of the AASHTO Committee on Traffic Engineering
and the ITE community. The request noted that NCHRP had recently started a new project on
MPSs (NCHRP Project 3-141) and that the research team was looking for potential study sites.
The MPS treatment was briefly described. The request ended with contact information and
acknowledgment that participants’ help was appreciated.
Initial correspondence with members of the panel revealed that Los Angeles, CA, and Florida
could have several study sites. The region of the country with the most MPSs is the city of
Los Angeles. The city provided the research team a list of more than 150 installations. The Florida
sites were planned rather than existing sites and were removed from consideration. The research
team was informed about sites in Delaware, Kansas, and Hawaii. With only one or a few sites
in each of these states, these sites were also removed. During site selection, the research team
learned of several sites in Utah and San Antonio, TX. The team reviewed these sites and added
the locations to the database when they met the study criteria.
Study criteria included:
• A traffic control signal that included typical green, yellow, and red phases located at a two-leg
crossing was considered an MPS. The MPS could have either a green arrow or a steady green
ball indication. The two-leg description refers to the number of vehicle approaches rather
than pedestrian approaches.
• The MPS must have been in place for at least 12 months prior to the end of the available crash
data. Initially, crash data were assumed to be available for all the sites up to December 2020.
Later, the end date of December 2020 was revised with consideration of the pandemic, and
February 28, 2020, was used.
• For MPSs, the number of legs at the crossing was two. For control sites, the number of legs at
the crossing could be two, three, or four.
• State must have at least 10 MPSs to be included in the study.
• MPS sites represent a two-leg condition. If a driveway was believed to have hourly activity
(e.g., a driveway to a business, nongated, two-way operation, and/or a stop sign present), the
site was considered to be a control site as a three- or four-leg intersection.
16

Safety Analysis—Database Development 17
• Sites were removed if atypical intersection geometry was present, such as a large skew or
a nearby frontage road that would affect pedestrian movement.
Treated sites in Los Angeles, CA, San Antonio, TX, and several cities in Utah were identified.
The research team then identified control sites near the treated sites. The ideal control site would
have a marked crosswalk with or without supplemental pedestrian-related traffic control devices
except a traffic control signal, two legs, and similar vehicle and pedestrian volume. The ideal
control site was very rare as it would be odd to have a site with similar characteristics (including
vehicle and pedestrian volume) to the nearby MPS but not signalized. The research team also
identified several nearby three- and four-leg signalized intersections as control sites. To increase
the pool of two-leg control sites, the research team had to identify sites in nearby cities.
Vehicle and Pedestrian Volume

The research team obtained vehicle and pedestrian volume data from various sources and
in different formats. For most sites, a vehicle count was identified. In a few cases, the vehicle
volume was not available at the specific location of interest; for example, a segment volume was
not available at a midblock pedestrian crossing. In those cases, the research team used nearby
counts. In the example of a midblock pedestrian crossing, the research team averaged the
approach counts for the signalized intersections on either side of the midblock crossing.
With regard to pedestrians, the preference was to use a 24-hour count of pedestrians at a site;
however, that type of count was extremely rare. Several sources were used to provide the number
of pedestrians at a crossing, as discussed in the sections covering each region in the database.
When the count data reflected several hours within a day for the leg, the counts were expanded
to represent a daily count and then a typical annual value for both vehicles and pedestrians.
This section presents an overview of how vehicle and pedestrian volume data were collected
for the various study areas.
Vehicle and Pedestrian Volume Count Data for California

Los Angeles
The city of Los Angeles provided several traffic volume data sources that are available to the
public. Traffic volume details are in a map-based application, with one application giving the
volumes for links (26) and the other for intersections (27). The available volume data represent
6 to 24 hours of data and were collected between 1999 and 2021. Details include the traffic count
date, traffic count by direction, and traffic count by hour. In some cases, the morning and
evening peak hour and their associated traffic counts are reported.
A source for pedestrian counts provided by the city is in the NavigateLA system (28); the
system has several layers, including a traffic data layer that shows the location of pedestrian
counts. The research team searched for each Los Angeles site to determine if pedestrian count
data existed. When data existed, the research team copied the counts per leg and summed to
represent an intersection total. Short-term counts were adjusted using factors described below
in the “Expanding Short-Term Pedestrian Volume Counts to Daily Values” section. When
pedestrian counts were not available, pedestrian volumes were estimated based on a model
developed using census data (see the “Estimating Pedestrian Volume Using Census Data” section).
Long Beach
Some of the Long Beach traffic volume counts were available from the Los Angeles system
(26, 27, 28). The research team obtained additional PDF-based traffic volume data collected in

2014 by the Traffic Engineering Division of the City of Long Beach (29). The traffic volume data
provided covered only major arterials and were in increments of 100. The traffic volumes in the
PDF-based data were provided by link/leg, not by direction.
San Francisco
The traffic volume dataset for San Francisco was obtained from the San Francisco Municipal
Transportation Agency website (30), downloaded in spreadsheet format. The data represented
24 hours and were collected between 2010 and 2019 from various sources. The data for inter
section and for midblock were available. In addition to the daily traffic counts, the morning and
evening peak hour counts by direction of travel were present.
San Jose
The traffic volume dataset for San Jose was collected from the city’s website under the
Enterprise GIS department (31). Both shapefile and comma-separated values (CSV) formats
were available. The data collected are dated as far back as 2005 and were updated annually.
The average daily traffic (ADT) counts denoted as “ADT One” and “ADT Two” are given by the
corresponding streets. The sum of traffic count on the first and second streets is the total traffic
volume for an intersection, which is denoted as “ADT.” The direction of streets and the travel
direction are provided. Furthermore, the actual date when the traffic count was performed
is given.
Expanding Short-Term Pedestrian Volume Counts to Daily Values

A portion of the California sites had short-term vehicle and pedestrian counts. The research
team adjusted the available short-term counts to a daily count using the same procedure used
in a recent FHWA project (32) that developed the corner radius crash modification factor for
pedestrian crashes at signalized intersections. Several resources were reviewed and considered
when developing the adjustment factors. The two sources that influenced the adjustment factors
used in this project were NCHRP Research Report 841 (33) for pedestrians and the 2019 Urban
Mobility Report (34) for vehicles. An average of the morning and afternoon data for nonfreeway
moderate congestion in the 2019 Urban Mobility Report was used to obtain the hourly adjust-
ments for vehicles. Table 11 provides the adjustment factor determined and used for the short-
term vehicle counts. For the pedestrian counts, data from NCHRP Research Report 841 based on
counts made in Charlotte, VA, were used. Table 11 lists the pedestrian count adjustment factors
used in this project. Figure 3 illustrates the distribution for both vehicle and pedestrian counts
assumed for NCHRP Project 3-141.
Estimating Pedestrian Volume Using Census Data

Pedestrian counts were only available for 205 of the 469 California sites, with most of those
being the control sites. The team used the 205 locations with a count to develop a statistical
model to predict pedestrian volume. The model was then used to predict the number of pedes-
trians for the remaining 264 sites. The model used demographic factors and roadway feature
data to predict the number of pedestrians for a given crosswalk. The research team estimated
pedestrian volume for four cities—Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Jose, and San Francisco—using
a set of census data variables. The selection of variables for this effort was influenced by findings
from previous studies and by the availability of the variable. These variables included population
density, employment density, schools and college campuses, bus stops and ridership, intersection
density, and restaurant density (see Table 12).
The team used shapefile-based data collected from the city and county websites of San Jose
(35), San Francisco (36), Los Angeles (37, 38, 39), and Long Beach (40). The research team used
ArcGIS tools to determine the quantities for each variable within a certain distance from the site

Table 11. Expansion factor for short-term vehicle and pedestrian counts.
Vehicle Pedestrian
Hour % 6.0 7.5 4.0 2.0 % 6.0 7.5 4.5 4.0 2.0 1.0
Veha Hrb Hr Hr Hr Peda Hr Hr Hr Hr Hr Hr
0 0.8 na na na na 0.0 na na na na na na
7 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 na 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 na na
8 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 na 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 na na
9 5.6 5.6 5.6 na na 7.0 7.0 7.0 3.5 na na na
11 5.8 na na na 5.8 8.0 na na na na 8.0 na
12 6.3 na na na 6.3 9.0 na na na na 9.0 9.0
15 7.5 7.5 7.5 na na 7.0 7.0 7.0 na na na na
16 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 na 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 na na
17 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 na 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 na na
18 6.3 na 6.3 na na 8.0 na 8.0 na na na na
% of
100 40.6 46.9 27.5 12.1 100 46.0 54.0 35.5 32.0 17.0 9.0
dayc
Adj.
1.00 2.46 2.13 3.64 8.28 1.00 2.17 1.85 2.82 3.13 5.88 11.11
Fac.d
a
Percentage of vehicles or pedestrians in given hour.
b
Percentage of vehicles or pedestrians in given hour based on length of initial count in hours.
c
Percentage of day represented in short-term count.
d
Adjustment factor to apply to short-term count.
Figure 3. Daily vehicle and pedestrian distribution used for adjusting
vehicle counts.

Table 12. Description of variables used to develop pedestrian

volume model.
Variable Description
Population density Number of people normalized per square mile within 0.5 mi
Employment density Number of employments within 0.5 mi
Schools Number of high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools within 0.5 mi
College campuses Number of college campuses within 0.5 mi
Bus stops Number of bus stops within 0.25 mi
Bus ridership Yearly (2020) bus ridership at the bus stops within 0.25 mi
Intersection density Number of intersections within 0.25 mi
Restaurant density Number of restaurants within 0.25 mi
ADT Annual daily traffic (vehicles per day)
Signalized crosswalk Whether a crosswalk is signalized (e.g., MPS, PHB)
Number of legs Number of intersection legs
Posted speed limit Posted speed limit (mph)
of interest. The team used a buffer of 0.5 mi to extract population density, employment density,
schools, and college campuses. A buffer of 0.25 mi was used to extract quantities for bus stops,
bus ridership, intersections, and restaurants.
The team did not find all the variables listed in Table 12 for cities other than Los Angeles. Bus
ridership was only available for Los Angeles; the bus stop variable was not available for San Jose
or Long Beach. Intersection density was also not available for Long Beach. Table 13 presents the
descriptive statistics of the variables used to develop the pedestrian volume statistical model. For
Los Angeles, the minimum population density is zero. This is the location close to the airport.
The census block for this location had zero counts for population density.
The research team evaluated various combinations of variables and developed a statistical
model to predict the number of pedestrians using a crosswalk. The intention of the model is
prediction, not inference, so the model with high prediction capability was selected.
Table 14 presents the negative binomial model results for the best-performing model. The
model has a low dispersion parameter (0.44) and a low Akaike information criterion (AIC)
score. The model results, similar to previous research, suggest that only higher posted speed limit
is associated with a lower number of pedestrians, while increases in the following are associated
with higher pedestrian volume: vehicle volume, population density, presence of signalized inter-
section or more than two legs, and increase in the number of schools, restaurants, and college
campuses.
Vehicle and Pedestrian Volume Count Data for San Antonio, TX

Vehicle Volume
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) has a traffic web viewer where traffic
data from all 25 districts are stored (41). The data were collected between 2001 and 2020 in
urban and rural areas. The annual average daily traffic (AADT) data span 21 years (2001–2020),
while urban traffic volume data span 5 years (2016–2020). The AADT data can be extracted by
clicking on a point at a specific location. The details of the district, county, and traffic count show
up for urban counts. For annual counts, the details for the district, county, and AADTs for each
year show. The research team extracted the AADT data for the most recent years to match the
crash data.
Pedestrian Volume
A previous TxDOT project (42) collected pedestrian counts at several locations. In most cases,
the counts were for a few hours, and were expanded to daily counts using adjustment factors

Table 13. Descriptive statistics of census-based and roadway variables

used in pedestrian volume model.
City Variable Minimum Maximum Average Standard Deviation
Population density 0 342,263 149,430.0 82,801.0
Employment density 0 28,408 15,128.0 5,825.0
Schools 0 13 1.8 1.9
College campuses 0 4 0.6 0.9
Bus stops 0 119 52.5 34.4
Los Bus ridership 0 152,645 35,188.0 49,353.0
Angeles Intersection density 1 61 25.7 10.2
Restaurant density 0 61 76.8 66.1
Speed limit 25 45 29.5 5.2
ADT 3,515 127,230 2,6442.0 16,638.8
Signalized 0 1 0.9 0.3
Over two legs 0 1 0.6 0.5
Population density 15,606 66,348 30,857.0 10,159.0
Employment density 638 31,702 5,657.2 7,947.9
Schools 0 19 4.6 4.0
Bus stops 21 129 49.5 26.3
San
Intersection density 8 128 45.8 28.7
Francisco
Speed limit 15 35 24.9 6.2
ADT 62 28,640 9,224.0 7,168.8
Population density 6,631 32,909 16,145.0 5,897.0
Employment density 1 56 19.7 17.2
Schools 0 8 2.6 2.1
Intersection density 1 45 20.3 8.7
San Jose
Speed limit 20 40 27.9 5.4
ADT 310 15,094 4,480.0 3,761.7
Population density 61 24,549 14,232.8 6,219.5
Employment density 0 8 5.7 2.7
Schools 0 8 3.2 2.1
Long
Beach
Speed limit 25 40 29.6 3.8
ADT 2,021 27,500 8,419.0 8,418.6
Table 14. Negative binomial regression results for pedestrian

volume model.
Variable Estimate Std. Error Z-Statistic P-Value
Intercept 3.231 1.002 3.23 0.001
ln(ADT) 0.246 0.107 2.29 0.022
Posted speed limit (mph) −0.034 0.013 −2.63 0.009
Signalized intersection (Yes) 1.206 0.216 5.58 < 0.001
Over two legs (Yes) 0.719 0.243 2.96 0.003
Population density (in 1,000s) 0.046 0.008 5.45 < 0.001
Number of schools 0.104 0.028 3.74 < 0.001
Number of restaurants 0.069 0.012 5.99 < 0.001
Number of college campuses 0.264 0.114 2.32 0.020
Model summary: number of observations = 205, dispersion parameter = 0.44, and AIC = 3,743.

developed by the research team based on nearby counts conducted for 12 hours. These locations,
along with their estimated daily pedestrian counts, were included in this NCHRP 3-141 study.
Of the 292 Texas sites, 40 (14%) did not have pedestrian counts. The pedestrian volume for these
40 sites was estimated using local knowledge (see Table 10).
Vehicle and Pedestrian Volume Count Data for Utah

Vehicle Volume
The AADT data in Utah are collected and stored by the Utah Department of Transportation
(UDOT) in web-based format on its open data portal (43). The data are available in multiple
formats including CSV and shapefile. The AADT can be extracted by clicking the link of interest.
Overall, the AADT data for Utah cover over 30 years (1981–2019); however, in most cases
5 years of AADT data (2015–2019) are available. Each link has the route name, starting mile-
post, ending milepost, and AADT counts for each year in descending order. The research team
extracted the AADT data for the most recent years to match the crash data available.
Pedestrian Volume
The team collected pedestrian volume data from two geographic information system (GIS)-
based maps: one with estimated pedestrian counts for about 1,400 signalized intersections (44)
and the other with about 62,000 intersections (45). The data for 1,400 signalized intersections
were estimated based on a full year of push-button event data. The data for 62,000 intersections
were predicted based on a model developed using the surrounding built environment at the
intersections and the pedestrian activities obtained in the 1,400 intersections.
The research team overlaid the Utah treated (i.e., pedestrian crossing) and control sites on the
GIS-based pedestrian counts file. A buffer of 50 ft was used to identify potential pedestrian counts
for the 138 sites. First, the data for 1,400 signalized intersections were used, which facilitated
obtaining pedestrian counts for 28 sites. The data from the 1,400 signalized intersections layer
were of more interest to the team because they had fewer mathematical models/estimations
involved. The data from the 62,000 intersections layer then facilitated obtaining pedestrian volume
for an additional 38 sites. Since the remaining 72 sites did not match any estimated pedestrian
volumes for either available 1,400-signalized-intersections layer or 62,000-intersection layer,
the research team estimated the volume based on pedestrian volumes from two adjacent inter-
sections using the 62,000 intersections layer. If the site of interest was an intersection, the average
pedestrian volume of the two adjacent intersections was considered. If the site of interest was
a midblock crosswalk, half of the average pedestrian volume of the two adjacent intersections
was considered.
Roadway Characteristics
Data Collection
The research team assembled a spreadsheet with one record for each intersection or midblock
pedestrian crossing. The team used aerial and street-level photography sources available online
to extract the following observations to describe each site.
• Location (latitude and longitude coordinates of the intersection’s center or midblock cross-
walk’s center)
• Type of traffic control present at the site (see Table 15)
• Number of legs (two, three, or four)
• Main street posted speed limit
• Main street traffic configuration (two-way or one-way)

Table 15. Description of traffic control devices used at treated and control sites.
Traffic Control
Group for Type
Pedestrian Treatment Description
of Control
at Crossing
CBoverhead-24/7 Yellow Device Yellow circular beacon overhead, flashing 24/7
CBoverhead-PedAct Yellow Device Yellow circular beacon overhead, pedestrian activated
CBroadside-24/7 Yellow Device Yellow circular beacon roadside, flashing 24/7
CBroadside-PedAct Yellow Device Yellow circular beacon roadside, pedestrian activated
CW&Sign Grey Device Crosswalk pavement markings and crossing warning sign
CW_only Grey Device Crosswalk pavement markings only
LED-Em Yellow Device Yellow LEDs embedded in the sign
LED-Em & Flags Yellow Device Yellow LEDs embedded in the sign with flags
MPS Red Device Midblock pedestrian signal
NoPedTCD Grey Device No pedestrian traffic control devices (no crosswalk markings or sign, etc.)
PHB Red Device Pedestrian hybrid beacon
RRFB Yellow Device Rectangular rapid flashing beacon located on roadside
RRFB-Overhead Yellow Device Rectangular rapid flashing beacon located overhead
Signal Red Device Traditional traffic control signal (green, yellow, and red indications)
Stop-AllWay Red Device All approaches have stop control
Stop-Cont Red Device Stop sign at crosswalk
Stop-ContwCB Red Device Stop sign at crosswalk with circular beacon
Stop-OneWayTraffic Red Device Stop control at crosswalk with one-way traffic
• Main street presence of bicycle lane (yes or no)

• Main street presence of on-street parking
• Main street number of lanes on each leg
• Main street total crossing distance (includes the width of the median when present)
• Main street type of median treatment
• Main street presence of advance stop or yield lines (yes, no, or NA if at a signal or stop-control
approach)
• Driveway within 100 ft of the site on the main street (yes or no)
Data Refinements
The team reviewed historical aerial views to determine the earliest date pedestrian-related traffic
control was present, back to January 1, 2014, which was the earliest date for crash data the team
anticipated using. Also gathered was the date for the end of the evaluation period, which is the
most recent date that the pedestrian-related traffic control was present, up to December 31, 2020.
Part of the process for developing the database was the decision of whether a site should
be considered a midblock or an intersection. If a traffic control signal head was present on the
minor approach (either a street or a driveway), the site was considered an intersection.
The variables in the initial list of roadway characteristics were refined during the preliminary
analyses to develop the variables used in the final analysis. Table 15 provides the description of
the pedestrian treatments considered and how they were later grouped; Table 16 provides the
descriptions of the other variables considered in the analyses.
Nearby Driveways
For the potential midblock (i.e., two-leg) sites, the distances between the marked crosswalk
and the nearest driveway in both directions were gathered. A note was made if the distance was
greater than 100 ft. For the two-leg sites with less than 100 ft between a driveway and the marked
crosswalk, the research team conducted an additional review to decide if the signalized location
should be considered an intersection with three or four legs or a midblock (two-leg) location.
As a reminder, all these sites had signal heads on the main street only; no signal head was
present for the driveway. When the driveway did not have a signal head and was anticipated

Table 16. Geometric variable descriptions.

Variable Name Description
I:Legs Intersection: number of legs at the intersection (2, 3, or 4)
I:TreatOrCon Intersection: treated or control site
Main:#Ln Main Street: count of number of lanes being crossed by a pedestrian
Main:AdvLines Main Street: are advance stop lines present (yes or no or NA for signals)
Main:BikeLn Main Street: is a bike lane present (yes or no)
Main:Driveway Main Street: is there a driveway within 100 ft of the MPS (yes or no)
Main Street: type of median treatment (not applicable because one-way
Main:MedType street [NA_OWS], none, raised, RRtracks/flush, RRtracks/raised, or two-
way left-turn lane [TWLTL])
Main:OW-TW Main Street: one-way (OW) or two-way (TW) traffic (OW or TW)
Main:ParkLn Main Street: is a parking lane present (yes or no)
Main:PSL Main Street: posted speed limit (mph)
Main:PSLGroups Main Street: posted speed limit groups of 25 and less, or 30 and more
Main:TotCrossDis Main Street: curb to curb distance (include median) (ft)
Volume: average daily volume of vehicles entering the intersection or
V:IntersecEnterVol(ADT)
pedestrian crossing from all approaches
Volume: average daily pedestrian count (or estimated pedestrian count
V:Ped (ADP)
when pedestrian count is not available)
to have minimal volume, it was believed to have nominal influence on operations and safety at
that location and was kept in the database as a midblock signal. Additional characteristics of the
driveway used to make the decision were if the driveway had one-way operation, did not have a
stop sign, or was gated. For the 193 MPS sites included in the database, the distance by groups
(generally 25-ft increments with the smallest group being 15 ft and the largest group being all
sites with more than 100 ft) to the south or west and north or east direction of the marked cross-
walk is shown in Figure 4. The majority of the MPS sites in the database did not have a driveway
within 100 ft of the marked crosswalk.
Number of Study Sites

A total of 899 sites were initially available for the statistical analysis. This number decreased
to 892 because sites were removed due to issues identified, for example, being so close to a free-
way that it was difficult to identify the nonfreeway crashes (these sites could be on a street that
was under- or overpassing a freeway, or next to a freeway). Table 17 provides the descriptive
statistics for those variables with a dimension, and Table 18 shows the number of intersections
for variables with specified levels.
Figure 4. Number of MPS sites by distance between marked

crosswalk and nearest driveway.

Table 17. Descriptive statistics of sites for database with 892 sites.
T or Ca Variable Nameb Values CA TX UT All States
Count Number 150 11 32 193
Min. 30 40 39 30
Main:TotCrossDis (ft) Average 62 49 75 63
Max. 130 66 113 130
Min. 2,900 3,999 2,500 2,500
T V:IntersecEnterVol
Average 15,890 11,012 14,713 15,417
(ADT)
Max. 51,166 13,128 42,000 51,166
Min. 15 59 25 15
V:Ped (ADP) Average 2,420 341 165 1,927
Max. 22,523 652 501 22,523
Count Number 313 280 106 699
Min. 20 22 24 20
Main:TotCrossDis (ft) Average 60 63 79 64
Max. 130 163 127 163
Min. 62 309 1,000 62
C V:IntersecEnterVol
Average 25,035 21,691 20,292 22,976
(ADT)
Max. 127,230 66,990 81,000 127,230
Min. 28 9 10 9
V:Ped (ADP) Average 4,028 637 483 2,132
Max. 25,851 14,907 4,519 25,851
a
T = treated sites, C = control sites.
b
See description in Table 16.
Table 18. Number of intersections by level within variable for database

with 892 sites.
Variable Namea Level Tb-CA T-TX T-UT T C-CA C-TX C-UT C

2 150 11 32 193 89 60 40 189
I:Legs 3 0 0 0 0 17 19 6 42
4 0 0 0 0 207 201 60 468
NA 150 11 32 193 212 220 61 493
Main:AdvLine No 0 0 0 0 39 52 27 118
Yes 0 0 0 0 62 8 18 88
No 90 10 10 110 185 234 48 467
Main:BikeLn
Yes 60 1 22 83 128 46 58 232
NA_OWS 27 4 0 31 57 3 0 60
None 78 6 4 88 221 153 44 418
Raised 25 1 8 34 24 41 23 88
Main:MedType
RRtracks/flush 0 0 1 1 0 0 10 10
RRtracks/raised 6 0 11 17 0 0 17 17
TWLTL 14 0 8 22 11 83 12 106
OW 27 4 0 31 57 24 0 81
Main:OW-TW
TW 123 7 32 162 256 256 106 618
No 33 8 16 57 110 257 42 409
Main:ParkLn
Yes 117 3 16 136 203 23 64 290
15 0 0 1 1 9 0 2 11
20 2 0 8 10 6 0 25 31
25 76 0 3 79 148 0 31 179
30 27 5 7 39 56 89 19 164
Main:PSL
35 36 5 9 50 77 95 19 191
40 8 1 2 11 15 63 5 83
45 1 0 2 3 2 31 4 37
50 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3
25andLess 78 0 12 90 163 0 58 221
Main:PSLGroups
30andMore 72 11 20 103 150 280 48 478
Grand Total All 150 11 32 193 313 280 106 699
a
See description in Table 16.
b
T = treated sites, C = control sites.

Crash Data
The research team acquired crash data from databases available in each state. Because one
of the state databases only had fatal and injury (FI) crashes available, the analysis did not use
property-damage-only (PDO) crashes. This section provides detailed explanations of the data-
bases and key variables of interest for this study.
California’s Transportation Injury Mapping System Database

The data for all California cities included were from the Transportation Injury Mapping
System (TIMS) website hosted by the University of California, Berkeley. TIMS only includes
injury crashes in the database, no PDO crashes. All crashes in the Statewide Integrated Traffic
Records System are geocoded, making it easy to map crashes. Access to this web-based database
requires an account.
This database facilitated the acquisition of crash data for Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Jose,
and San Francisco. To get crashes for a specific city and time and the participants involved,
the research team used features on the web-based database to query for these attributes. The
obtained dataset was exported in CSV format. Among the variables of interest were crash date,
crash time, and geocoordinates. Also of interest were the variables that indicated pedestrian-
or bicyclist-involved crashes and injury severity. Furthermore, information related to collision
type, pedestrian action, and lighting condition were extracted from the crash data.
Utah’s Numetric Database

The Numetric database is hosted by UDOT and contains crash data covering over 11 years
(2010–2020). Access to this web-based database was granted by UDOT personnel. The research
team created an account and was able to enter the website and make queries to obtain crash data
of interest. The team extracted the variables listed in Table 19. Each crash observation contains
the geocoordinates of the crash so all crashes could be easily mapped.
Table 19. Variables from UDOT crash database.

Variable Description
Crash ID Unique crash identifier
Crash Date Time Crash date and time
Year Crash year
Full Route Name Route name where crash occurred
Milepoint Milepost where crash occurred
Crash Severity Severity outcome of a crash
Manner of crash collision, which includes rear end, single vehicle, angle,
Manner of Collision
sideswipe, etc.
The roadway junction type, which includes 3- and 4-leg intersections,
Roadway Junction Type
ramps, bridges, etc.
The lighting condition, including daylight, dark-lighted, dark unlighted,
Light Condition
dusk, etc.
Weather Condition Weather conditions (rain, snow, fog, etc.)
Roadway Surface Condition Roadway surface conditions (dry, wet, ice/frost, etc.)
Number of Vehicles Involved Number of vehicles involved in a crash
Route Type State route, local road, federal road, or unknown
Regions as defined by UDOT (Region 1, Region 2, Region 3, or
Region
Region 4)
County County where a crash occurred
City City where a crash occurred
Pedestrian Involved Whether a crash involved pedestrian (Y for yes and N for no)
Bicycle Involved Whether a crash involved bicyclist (Y for yes and N for no)
Latitude Latitude coordinates
Longitude Longitude coordinates

TxDOT’s Crash Records Information System Database

Crash data for San Antonio, Texas, were collected from in-house sources at the Texas A&M
Transportation Institute with access to TxDOT’s Crash Records Information System (CRIS).
From CRIS, the research team selected information related to the date and time of the crash,
location (latitude and longitude), pedestrians’ and bicyclists’ involvement, weather and lighting
conditions, manner of collision, and injury severity for further analysis.
Period for Crash Data

Because pedestrian crashes are rare, the research team obtained 7 years of crash data. Crash
data for 2014 to 2020 were pulled from each state’s database. Upon discussions with city staff
familiar with the sites, along with ongoing research into the impacts of the pandemic, the research
team decided to focus on a prepandemic time frame. The crash data represented January 2014
to March 2020. Dates for a site were adjusted if historical aerial or street views identified major
changes at the site (e.g., treatment installed or construction).
Identifying Crashes for a Given Location/

Database Cleaning
To identify crashes associated with the site of interest, the team used a buffer distance of
250 ft around the intersection or around the marked crosswalk for the two-leg sites. The 250-ft
distance has traditionally been used to screen intersection-related crashes. Distances greater
than 250 ft can yield better crash modification factor (CMF) estimates but are likely to include
nonintersection crashes and crashes that occurred at adjacent intersections. On the other hand,
distances less than 250 ft are likely to underrepresent the intersection crashes (46). Thus, any
crash that occurred within 250 ft of the site of interest (intersection and midblock) was initially
associated with that site. Figure 5 illustrates crashes associated with an intersection, showing the
crash pattern along the approaches and away from the center of the intersection.
If the sites identified in this study were within 500 ft of each other, there was a possibility of
assigning the same crash to both sites. To avoid this duplication, the team calculated the distance
between the crash and sites based on the geocoordinates and assigned it to the nearest site. This
assignment could not be implemented at the sites where adjacent intersections were within
500 ft but were not included in the study database, mainly because the distance could not be
calculated due to unavailability of location information. Other steps were taken to help address
this concern.
The crashes at the study sites were reviewed to identify general trends and whether more
detailed cleaning was needed. The review identified sites familiar to the research team with
a higher-than-expected number of crashes. Because of the nature of assigning crashes within
250 ft of the latitude and longitude coordinates, crashes on close roads could be included. For
example, the site shown in Figure 6 had several freeway crashes assigned to the midblock crossing
using the 250-ft radius.
The distance of each crash from the center of the intersection, or the pedestrian crosswalk, was
determined. The research team visually reviewed all sites where most of the crashes were more
than 200 ft from the intersection. For these sites, the research team then determined if the 250-ft
radius should be adjusted to better reflect the conditions present at the site. A 150-ft radius rather
than the 250-ft radius was used for about 3% of the sites (26 of the 899 sites).

Figure 5. Example of crashes at an intersection.
Figure 6. Example of crashes on a freeway being assigned to a midblock crossing.

CHAPTER 5
Safety Analysis—Findings
The focus of the safety analysis was investigating changes in crash frequency by type
(all, pedestrians, and rear end) due to the presence of the MPS. The evaluation only considered
FI crashes because the California data did not include PDO crashes.
Method
The evaluation used a cross-sectional observational study approach. While an EB before-after
method is commonly used for this type of evaluation, most of the MPSs have been installed for
more than 10 years, which limits the availability of high-quality before data. Only a few MPSs
have been installed in the past 3–5 years, which was too small of a sample. The team therefore
used a cross-sectional study, which is a type of observational study where the outcome and the
exposure are assessed at one point or for a short period of time in a sample population (47).
The underlying assumption is that all sites should have similar characteristics (e.g., pedestrian
volumes and driver behavior). Routinely collected data such as crash, traffic, and geometric
data are often used for conducting cross-sectional data analyses. Cross-sectional studies can
be conducted faster than before-after studies and are commonly used in traffic safety analysis.
For instance, crash-frequency models or safety performance functions in the HSM (24) are
developed based on cross-sectional data.
Number of Sites for Treated and Control Groups

Crash evaluations are beneficial when a control group of similar sites without treatment is
identified. Three potential control groups were identified for the evaluation:
• Control group 1 (called “All”) comprised all identified nontreated sites. This group included
signalized intersections and intersections treated with other pedestrian crossing treatments,
such as PHBs or RRFBs, or midblock segments that were not treated.
• Control group 2 (called “2-leg”) comprised all nontreated sites with two legs.
• Control group 3 (called “2-leg grey”) comprised all nontreated sites with two legs and what
the research team termed “grey” pedestrian traffic control devices. The control group included
pedestrian traffic control that is not pedestrian activated (e.g., crosswalk pavement markings
and signs).
Table 20 provides the number of sites by state and by type of traffic control present at the
pedestrian crossing for the treated and control group 1 sites. Table 21 shows the number of sites
in control group 2, and Table 22 shows the number of sites in control group 3.
29

Table 20. Number of sites in treated and control group 1 (All).

Treated or Control Control Typea CA TX UT Total
Treated MPS 150 11 32 193
Control group 1, All CBoverhead-24/7 0 1 0 1
Control group 1, All CBoverhead-PedAct 2 0 2 4
Control group 1, All CBroadside-24/7 4 0 0 4
Control group 1, All CBroadside-PedAct 1 1 4 6
Control group 1, All CW&Sign 61 18 19 98
Control group 1, All CW_only 1 0 0 1
Control group 1, All LED-Em 0 2 2 4
Control group 1, All LED-Em & Flags 0 0 4 4
Control group 1, All NoPedTCD 0 32 2 34
Control group 1, All PHB 0 4 10 14
Control group 1, All RRFB 23 2 2 27
Control group 1, All RRFB-Overhead 9 0 0 9
Control group 1, All Signal 198 220 61 479
Control group 1, All Stop-AllWay 3 0 0 3
Control group 1, All Stop-Cont 7 0 0 7
Control group 1, All Stop-ContwCB 1 0 0 1
Control group 1, All Stop-OneWayTraffic 3 0 0 3
Control subtotal 313 280 106 699
Grand total 463 291 138 892
a
See Table 15 for descriptions of control type.
Table 21. Number of sites in treated and control group 2 (2-leg).

Treated or Control Control Typea CA TX UT Total
Treated MPS 150 11 32 193
Control group 2, 2-leg CBoverhead-24/7 0 1 0 1
Control group 2, 2-leg CBoverhead-PedAct 2 0 2 4
Control group 2, 2-leg CBroadside-24/7 4 0 0 4
Control group 2, 2-leg CBroadside-PedAct 1 1 4 6
Control group 2, 2-leg CW&Sign 60 18 19 97
Control group 2, 2-leg CW_only 1 0 0 1
Control group 2, 2-leg LED-Em 0 2 2 4
Control group 2, 2-leg LED-Em & Flags 0 0 4 4
Control group 2, 2-leg NoPedTCD 0 32 0 32
Control group 2, 2-leg PHB 0 4 9 13
Control group 2, 2-leg RRFB 10 2 0 12
Control group 2, 2-leg Stop-Cont 7 0 0 7
Control group 2, 2-leg Stop-ContwCB 1 0 0 1
Control group 2, 2-leg Stop-OneWayTraffic 3 0 0 3
Grand total 239 71 72 382
a
Table 22. Number of sites in treated and control group 3

(2-leg grey control).
Treated or Control Control Type a CA TX UT Total

MPS RedDevice 150 11 32 193
Control group 3, 2-leg grey CW&Sign 60 18 19 97
Control group 3, 2-leg grey CW_only 1 0 0 1
Control group 3, 2-leg grey NoPedTCD 0 32 0 32
Grand total 211 61 41 323
a

Safety Analysis—Findings 31
Models
Preliminary analyses were conducted using the variables listed in Table 16. After preliminary
analyses, some of the variables were eliminated because they were consistently not significant
(e.g., type of median treatment) or were refined (e.g., creating posted speed limit groups). Table 23
lists the variables used in the safety analysis.
Most of the MPSs identified were included in the evaluation. One site was removed from
consideration during model development because it was frequently identified as an outlier. The
site was on a surface street under several freeway overpasses. The 250-ft radius initially used
to identify crashes was adjusted to a 150-ft radius; however, freeway crashes were suspected to
still be in the crash count. Because of the additional challenges in determining which crashes
were on the surface street and which were on the freeway, the research team decided instead to
remove the site from the evaluation.
For model development, the research team used negative binomial regression and first
examined various combinations of variables. In some cases, a variable had to be regrouped
during the analysis; for example, the posted speed limit along the major street (i.e., the street
with the MPS) was regrouped into below 30 mph (yes or no). The model form presented reflects
the findings from several preliminary regression analyses. The predicted crash frequency is
calculated in Equations 1–3.
E[C] = y × fst × eb0+badtADT+badpADP+blegslegs+bowIow+bpslIpsl+bmlanesMLanes+bpkIpk+bbkIbk × CMFtrt (1)
with
fst = ebcaCA+butUT (2)
CMFtrt = ebtrtItrt (3)
where
E[C] = Predicted annual average crash frequency
y = Number of years of crash data
fst = State indicator variable
CA = California indicator variable (= 1 if site is in CA; = 0 otherwise)
UT = Utah indicator variable (= 1 if site is in UT; = 0 otherwise)
ADT = Average daily traffic, vehicles per day
ADP = Average daily pedestrian volume, pedestrians per day
legs = Number of intersection legs
Iow = One-way street indicator variable (= 1 if one-way street; = 0 otherwise)
Ipsl = Indicator variable for posted speed limit (= 1 if < 30 mph; = 0 otherwise)
MLanes = Number of lanes on the major street
Ipk = Indicator variable for the parking on the road (= 1 if present; = 0 otherwise)
Ibk = Indicator variable for the bike lane (= 1 if present; = 0 otherwise)
CMFtrt = Crash modification factor for the treatment (i.e., MPS)
Itrt = Indicator for the MPS (= 1 if present; = 0 otherwise)
bj = Calibrated coefficients

Table 23. Roadway variables used in safety analysis.

Model
Variable Name Description
Coefficient
ADP badp Average daily pedestrians for site (total of all approaches)
ADT badt Average daily traffic for the site (total of all approaches)
BikeLane bbk Bike lane is present (yes or no)
CA bca Site is in California (yes or no)
CrossDist bdist Crossing distance
Legs blegs Number of legs (2, 3, or 4)
OneWay bow One-way vehicle operations present for 2-leg intersection (yes or no)
OnStreetParking bpk On-street parking is present (yes or no)
PostedSpd<30 bpsl Posted speed limit is less than 30 mph (yes or no)
Treatment btrt MPS treatment present (yes or no)
UT but Site is in Utah (yes or no)
NumLanesMaj bm_lanes Number of lanes on the major street
Findings
Pedestrian Fatal and Injury Crashes
Table 24 provides the estimated regression coefficients for pedestrian FI crashes for the
three control groups. As expected, both vehicle volume and pedestrian volume were significant,
with increasing activity being associated with more pedestrian crashes. A greater number of
legs at the intersection was also associated with more pedestrian crashes when considering
control group 1, which included intersections with two, three, and four legs along with all
types of pedestrian traffic control. When focusing on sites with two legs, the presence of
on-street parking was associated with fewer pedestrian crashes. After experimenting with
different approaches for considering posted speed limit, the decision was to group that
variable into those sites with 30 mph and more on the major road and those sites with less
than 30 mph. For all control groups, the variable was significant, with a negative coefficient
indicating that when the posted speed limit was 25 mph and less, fewer pedestrian crashes
were present.
A concern expressed by members of this project’s panel and by the National Committee
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) Signal Technical Committee while review-
ing these findings was the potential influence of a nearby driveway. The research team
addressed this concern by developing additional models to explore the impacts of distance
between the nearest driveway and the marked crosswalk. The treated sites were grouped
as follows:
• Treated group 1 (also called “All Treated Sites”) comprised all identified treated sites. These
sites had driveways as close as 10 ft to the center of the MPS marked crosswalk. None of the
MPS sites had a driveway that was closer than 10 ft to the crosswalk.
• Treated group 2 (called “MPS with No Driveway within 50 ft” or “> 50 ft”) comprised
all treated sites where the closest driveway was 50 ft away or more.
• Treated group 3 (called “MPS with No Driveway within 100 ft” or “> 100 ft”) comprised
all treated sites where the closest driveway was 100 ft away or more.
Table 25 shows the results for the two additional models that used treated groups 2 and 3.
These models considered pedestrian FI crashes along with the 2-leg grey control sites. The
treated sites were restricted to those sites with either no driveway within 100 ft or no driveway
within 50 ft of the marked crosswalk. The MPS treatment variable was significant (p < 0.05) for
the model that included sites where driveways were at least 50 ft away from the marked cross-
walk and marginally significant (0.05 < p < 0.1) for the model where the nearest driveway was

Table 24. Estimated regression coefficient (and p-values) for pedestrian

FI crashes by control group.
• Ped FI Crashes • Ped FI Crashes • Ped FI Crashes

Model Coefficient,
• All Control Sites • 2-Leg Control Sites • 2-Leg Grey Control Sites
Variable Name
• All Treated Sites • All Treated Sites • All Treated Sites
0.2225 0.4495 0.4814
badp, ADP
(< 0.0001) (< 0.0001) (< 0.0001)
0.4287 0.684 0.6486
badt, ADT
(< 0.0001) (< 0.0001) (< 0.0001)
− 0.9175 −0.8201 −0.7996
bca, California
(< 0.0001) (0.0027) (0.0076)
0.3674 0 0
blegs, Legs
(< 0.0001) 0 0
0 0 0
bm_lanes, NumLanesMaj
0 0 0
−0.6475 0 0
bow, OneWay
(0.0222) 0 0
0 −0.6433 −0.6478
bpk, OnStreetParking
0 (0.0012) (0.0028)
−0.4138 −0.7583 −0.8132
bpsl, PostedSpd<30
(< 0.0001) (0.0013) (0.0015)
−0.3131 −0.6423 −0.8083
btrt, Treatment
(0.0511) (0.0054) (0.0015)
−1.0961 0 0
but, Utah
(< 0.0001) 0 0
−7.3823 −10.1277 −9.8365
b0
(< 0.0001) (< 0.0001) (< 0.0001)
0.3157 0.5199 0.4633
k0
(< 0.0001) (0.0121) (0.0244)
Number of treated and
889 sites (1 treated
control sites in model 381 sites (1 treated site 322 sites (1 treated site
and 2 control sites
(sites removed in outlier removed) removed)
removed)
analysis)
Notes:
See Table 23 for descriptions of the variables.
b0 = intercept and k0 = dispersion parameter.
The coefficient 0 denotes that the corresponding variable was excluded from the model.
Cells are highlighted in light grey with italic text when the p-value is between 0.05 and 0.1.
Cells are highlighted in dark grey with bold white text when the p-value is less than 0.05.
Table 25. Estimated regression coefficient (and p-values) for pedestrian

FI crashes by treated site groups revised with consideration of distance
to driveways.
• Ped FI Crashes • Ped FI Crashes

Model Coefficient,
• 2-Leg Grey Control Sites • 2-Leg Grey Control Sites
Variable Name
• MPS, No Driveway within 100 ft • MPS, No Driveway within 50 ft
0.5142 0.4919
badp, ADP
(< 0.0001) (< 0.0001)
0.6274 0.7355
badt, ADT
(< 0.0001) (< 0.0001)
−0.9178 −0.8692
bca, California
(0.0048) (0.0057)
−0.5878 −0.644
bpk, OnStreetParking
(0.0011) (0.0048)
−1.0343 −0.7728
bpsl, PostedSpd<30
(0.0011) (0.0077)
−0.5192 −0.5909
btrt, Treatment
(0.0701) (0.0274)
−9.7298 −10.725
b0
(< 0.0001) (< 0.0001)
0.3846 0.3700
k0
(0.056) (0.0522)
control sites in model 219 sites: 130 control and 89 treated 250 sites: 130 control and 120
(sites removed in outlier (1 treated site removed) treated (2 treated sites removed)
analysis)
Notes:

within 100 ft. The smaller sample size for treated group 3 (MPS with No Driveway within 100 ft)
may be affecting the finding. In other words, an MPS provides a safety benefit for pedestrians
regardless of the distance to the driveway.
All Fatal and Injury Crashes

Table 26 provides the estimated regression coefficients for all FI crashes for the three control
groups along with a subset of MPS sites where the nearest driveway of any type is within 50 ft.
Both volume variables—the number of vehicles entering and the number of pedestrians at the
intersection—were significant for all control groups considered. Only for the model that
considered all treated sites and 2-leg grey control sites was the treatment variable significant.
As regards all crashes, the research showed a safety benefit from the MPS when considering
all MPS sites (including those with driveways 10 ft or more from the crossing); however,
when restricting the MPS sites to those with driveways at least 50 ft from the MPS, the crash
reduction was not statistically significant, perhaps due to the limited sample size. In other words,
the installation of an MPS has safety benefits for all users (vehicles, pedestrians, etc.) when
Table 26. Estimated regression coefficient (and p-values) for all FI crashes
by control group and by subset of MPS sites.
• FI Crashes
• FI Crashes • FI Crashes • FI Crashes
• 2-Leg Grey
Model • All Control • 2-Leg Control • 2-Leg Grey
Control Sites
Coefficient, Sites Sites Control Sites
Variable Name • MPS with No
• All Treated • All Treated • All Treated
Driveway
Sites Sites Sites
within 50 ft
0.06096 0.3487 0.3582 0.3977
badp, ADP
(0.0122) (< 0.0001) (< 0.0001) (< 0.0001)
0.6655 0.8905 0.8381 0.9588
badt, ADT
(< 0.0001) (< 0.0001) (< 0.0001) (< 0.0001)
−0.8529 −1.4866 −1.2388 −1.3024
bca, CA
(< 0.0001) (< 0.0001) (< 0.0001) (< 0.0001)
0.6391 0 0 0
blegs, Legs
(< 0.0001) 0 0 0
bm_lanes, 0.07914 0 0 0
NumLanesMaj (0.0043) 0 0 0
−0.1922 −0.5341 −0.5035 −0.3611
bow, OneWay
(0.0586) (0.0157) (0.024) (0.179)
bpk, 0 −0.3828 −0.3900 −0.3793
OnStreetParking 0 (0.0161) (0.0186) (0.0398)
−0.4172 −0.3339 −0.4117 −0.3481
bpsl, PostedSpd<30
(< 0.0001) (0.0567) (0.029) (0.1179)
−0.1153 −0.1752 −0.4158 −0.3506
btrt, Treatment
(0.3017) (0.3049) (0.0387) (0.1278)
−0.7588 −0.6616 −0.5256 −0.6403
but Utah
(< 0.0001) (0.0065) (0.058) (0.0433)
−8.3403 −10.0365 −9.5408 −10.872
b0
(< 0.0001) (< 0.0001) (< 0.0001) (< 0.0001)
0.4872 0.7245 0.7045 0.6671
k0
(< 0.0001) (< 0.0001) (< 0.0001) (< 0.0001)
Number of treated
250 sites: 130
and control sites in
891 sites (1 control 380 sites (2 control 321 sites (2 control control and 120
model (sites
site removed) sites removed) sites removed) treated (2 treated
removed as part of
sites removed)
outlier analysis)
Notes:

there is a driveway 10 ft or more away, and no safety disbenefit was found when there is no
driveway within 50 ft.
Rear-End Fatal and Injury Crashes

Table 27 provides the estimated regression coefficients for RE crashes for the three control
groups. The ADT was always significant, while pedestrian counts (average daily pedestrians, ADP)
were significant for all crashes except RE crashes.
Members of the NCUTCD Signal Technical Committee asked whether the findings for
RE crashes would be different if PDO crashes were considered. Members noted that many
RE crashes tend to be PDO crashes. Because PDO crashes are not available for the California
sites, the research team reviewed the data for all severity level crashes using only Texas and
Utah data. Table 28 provides the model results. As shown in Table 27, treatment was found to
be significant when considering all control sites, indicating that the MPS is associated with a
decrease in FI RE crashes. When using all control sites in only Texas and Utah along with all
severity level crashes (see Table 28), treatment is not significant. Treatment is not significant
for any of the control groups when considering PDO crashes.
Table 27. Estimated regression coefficient (and p-values) for RE FI crashes

by three control groups.
• RE FI Crashes
• RE FI Crashes • RE FI Crashes
Model Coefficient, • 2-Leg Grey Control
• All Control Sites • 2-Leg Control Sites
Variable Name Sites
• All Treated Sites • All Treated Sites
• All Treated Sites
0 0.1759 0.1757
badp, ADP
0 (0.0578) (0.0965)
0.7918 0.8109 0.7092
badt, ADT
(< 0.0001) (< 0.0001) (< 0.0001)
0.5275 0 0
bca, CA
(< 0.0001) 0 0
0.3873 0 0
blegs, Legs
(< 0.0001) 0 0
0.1243 0 0
bm_lanes
(0.0009) 0 0
0 −1.0243 −0.9767
bow, OneWay
0 (0.0275) (0.0346)
0 0 −0.443
bpk
0 0 (0.0544)
−0.6003 −0.7051 −0.6829
bpsl
(< 0.0001) (0.0105) (0.0265)
−0.3768 −0.2588 −0.1303
btrt
(0.0364) (0.2842) (0.6624)
0.9135 0.9524 0.6693
but
(< 0.0001) (0.0002) (0.0335)
−11.3643 −11.0553 −9.8592
b0
(< 0.0001) (< 0.0001) (< 0.0001)
0.5938 0.859 0.7223
k0
(< 0.0001) (0.002) (0.0086)
control sites in model 893 sites (no site 381 sites (1 control site 322 sites (1 control site
(sites removed in outlier removed) removed) removed)
analysis)
Notes:

Table 28. Estimated regression coefficient (and p-values) for RE FI crashes

by control group for all severity level crashes in TX and UT.
• Texas and Utah only

• Texas and Utah only • Texas and Utah only
• RE All Severity
• RE All Severity • RE All Severity
Model Coefficient, Crashes (TX and UT)
Crashes Crashes (TX and UT)
Variable Name • 2-Leg Grey Control
• All Control Sites • 2-Leg Control Sites
Sites
• All Treated Sites • All Treated Sites
• All Treated Sites
0.0017 0.0465 −0.0036
badp, ADP
(0.9665) (0.7216) (0.9800)
0.8581 0.8190 0.8596
badt, ADT
(< 0.0001) (0.0007) (0.002)
0.0456 0.1741 −0.0171
bbk, BikeLane
(0.7052) (0.5366) (0.9609)
0.0056 0.0005 0.0023
bdist, CrossDist
(0.1292) (0.9504) (0.8051)
0.3428 0 0
blegs, Legs
(< 0.0001) 0 0
0.0972 0.0703 0.0030
bm_lanes
(0.1241) (0.5999) (0.9849)
−0.1159 −0.2593 −0.3993
bow, OneWay
(0.6580) (0.7106) (0.6188)
−0.3841 0.0543 −0.3523
bpk
(0.0131) (0.8659) (0.3236)
−0.7745 −0.7309 −0.4002
bpsl
(0.0001) (0.0468) (0.3909)
−0.1887 −0.1617 −0.1725
btrt
(0.4102) (0.5911) (0.6282)
0.8068 0.7429 0.9104
but
(< 0.0001) (0.0579) (0.0528)
−11.0212 −9.9169 −9.8773
b0
(< 0.0001) (< 0.0001) (< 0.0001)
0.5715 0.6681 0.6220
k0
(< 0.0001) (0.0004) (0.0018)
control sites in model 429 sites (no site 143 sites (1 control site 112 sites (1 control site
(sites removed in removed) removed) removed)
outlier analysis)
Notes:
Crash Modification Factors

The CMF for the MPS is determined in Equation 4:
CMFtrt = ebtrt (4)
The various models, along with control groups and treated groups, resulted in several cases
where the treatment variable is significant. These results can be considered for developing a
CMF for the MPS treatment. Table 29 summarizes the results from this research for CMF
consideration by crash type, control group, and treated group. The research team selected a
recommended MPS CMF for each crash type.
For the crash type of all FI crashes and RE FI crashes, only one of the control groups resulted
in a statistically significant CMF. For all FI crashes, the control group was the sites with two legs
and nonactive pedestrian treatments (i.e., grey). For the RE FI crashes, the 2-leg grey control

Table 29. Potential CMFs for the MPS treatment.

Crash Control Treated # Sites in MPS
Comments CMF
Type Group Group Modela Coefficient
699 sites 193 MPS Model included all sites Not
FI 891 sites −0.1153
All sites identified in the study significant
189 sites 193 MPS Model included only Not
FI 380 sites −0.1752
2-leg sites 2-leg sites significant
Model included 2-leg
130 sites 193 MPS sites where the control
FI 322 sites −0.4158 0.660
2-leg grey sites sites had nonactive
pedestrian treatments
Model included MPS
sites where the nearest
130 sites 122 MPS Not
FI 250 sites driveway was more than −0.3506
2-leg grey sites significant
50 ft from the marked
crosswalk
699 sites 193 MPS Model included all sites Not
Ped FI 889 sites −0.3131
All sites identified in the study significant
189 sites 193 MPS Model included only
Ped FI 381 sites −0.6423 0.526
2-leg sites 2-leg sites
130 sites 193 MPS sites where the control
Ped FI 322 sites −0.8083 0.446
2-leg grey sites sites had nonactive
Model included MPS
130 sites 122 MPS
Ped FI 250 sites driveway was more than −0.5909 0.554
2-leg grey sites
crosswalk
Model included MPS
130 sites 90 MPS Marginal
Ped FI 219 sites driveway was more than −0.5192
2-leg grey sites significant
crosswalk
699 sites Model included all sites
RE FI 193 MPS 893 sites −0.3768 0.686
All identified in the study
189 sites 193 MPS Model included only Not
RE FI 382 sites −0.2588
2-leg sites 2-leg sites significant
130 sites 193 MPS sites where the control Not
RE FI 324 sites −0.1303
2-leg grey sites sites had nonactive significant
a
Number of sites in model after removing outliers.
Shading indicates the recommended CMF for the given crash type.
group did not produce a statistically significant coefficient, but the control group that included
all comparison sites did.
More than one of the models for pedestrian FI crashes resulted in a statistically significant
coefficient, and the research team recommends the model that considered those MPSs where a
driveway was not within 50 ft of the marked crosswalk.
Comparison with Other Studies

The MPS has been compared to the PHB and the half signal as an appropriate treatment
for a marked pedestrian crossing. Chapter 2 summarizes the PHB and half-signal treatment
characteristics. Two previous research studies on the PHB have generated recommended CMFs.
Table 30 provides a comparison of the CMFs developed for the PHB from an NCHRP study
published in 2017 (11) and from an ADOT study published in 2019 (12), along with the
CMFs suggested from the research in this study. Table 31 summarizes the characteristics of
the treated and control sites included in the two PHB studies, along with this MPS study.

Table 30. Comparison of CMFs for PHB and MPS pedestrian treatments
by crash type.
MPS CMF
PHB CMF PHB CMF
Crash Type NCHRP 3-141
2017 NCHRP Study (11) 2019 ADOT Study (12)
(this study)
All crash types, all
0.820 0.818 Not generated
severity levels
All crash types, FI
Not generated 0.748 0.660
only
Pedestrian crashes,
0.432 0.543 Not generated
all severity levels
Pedestrian crashes,
Not generated 0.550 0.554
FI
Rear-end crashes, all
Not generated 0.795 Not generated
severity levels
Rear-end crashes, FI Not generated 0.714 0.686
Rear-end and
sideswipe crashes, 0.876 Not generated Not generated
all severity levels
Table 31. Comparison of treated and control site characteristics used

to generate CMFs for pedestrian treatments in Table 30.
MPS CMF
PHB CMF PHB CMF
Sites NCHRP 3-141
2017 NCHRP Study (11) 2019 ADOT Study (12)
(this study)
193 MPS sites (used for all
Number of 27 PHB with advance stop or RE CMFs)
52 PHB sites
treated sites markings and signs sites 122 MPS sites (used for Ped
CMF)
Treated sites— 2 legs = 11 sites (21%)
2 legs = 193 (100%)
number of legs Not provided 3 legs = 17 sites (33%)
2 legs = 122 (100%)
distribution 4 legs = 24 sites (46%)
193 sites
35 mph or less = 179 sites
Treated sites— 35 mph or less = 22 sites (93%)
posted speed (42%) 40–45 mph = 14 sites (7%)
Not provided
limit 40–45 mph = 30 sites 122 sites
distribution (57%) 35 mph or less = 115 sites
(94%)
40–45 mph = 7 sites (6%)
3,129 crashes at 287 sites
in Charlotte, Portland,
130 pedestrian crossings
Phoenix, Scottsdale,
101 unsignalized with sign and markings,
Control group Tucson, and St. Petersburg
56 signalized only markings, or neither
that did not have the
signs nor markings
following treatments: PHB,
RRFB, or refuge island
Unsignalized:
3 legs = 42 (42%)
Control sites—
4 legs = 59 (51%) Unsignalized:
number of legs Not provided
Signalized: 2 legs = 130 (100%)
distribution
3 legs = 5 (9%)
4 legs = 51 (91%)
Unsignalized:
35 mph or less = 41 sites
(42%)
Control sites— 40–45 mph = 60 sites Unsignalized:
posted speed (59%) 35 mph or less = 111 sites
Not provided
limit Signalized: (85%)
distribution 35 mph or less = 24 sites 40–45 mph = 19 sites (15%)
(43%)
40–45 mph = 32 sites
(57%)

In general, the CMFs for the MPS developed in this study are similar to the CMFs identified
for the PHB. A needed caution when comparing the CMFs for the MPS and the PHB is the
difference in characteristics of the sites in each study. The MPS sites all have two legs, while only
21% of the PHB sites in the ADOT study have two legs. The MPS is appropriate for locations
with only two legs (midblock), while the PHB is appropriate for locations with three or four legs.
Almost all the MPS sites (93%) had 35 mph or lower posted speed limits. For the PHB sites in
the ADOT study, only 42% were on 35 mph or lower posted speed limit roads, with the majority
(57%) being on roads with 40 or 45 mph posted speed limits.

CHAPTER 6
Conclusions and Recommendations
Summary
The MPS treatment operates similarly to a coordinated-actuated vehicular traffic control
signal at a midblock crossing. In some places, it uses a green arrow rather than a steady green ball.
In some locations, the MPS displays a flashing red indication in place of a steady red indication
during the pedestrian clearance interval. This project conducted a data-driven analysis to identify
the safety performance of this pedestrian treatment.
One key to a successful safety analysis is identifying appropriate treated and control sites.
The research team identified sites in California, Texas, and Utah. The MPS sites had two legs
(i.e., two motorized vehicle approaches) with a traffic control signal that included green (either
arrow or ball), yellow, and red phases. In a data-driven safety analysis, ideally, the control sites
would also only have two legs with a marked crosswalk that did not have a traffic control signal
and with similar vehicle and pedestrian volumes. Due to the inherent challenges with finding
such sites, the research team also identified control sites with three or four legs and a range
of pedestrian treatments, including traffic control signals. Sites were removed if atypical inter-
section geometry was present, such as a large skew or a nearby frontage road that would affect
pedestrian movement.
Another key consideration for a safety analysis of a pedestrian treatment is vehicle and
pedestrian volume. While vehicle counts are frequently available (and for midblock locations
neighboring intersection counts can be used), pedestrian counts, especially at midblock crossings,
are rare. Recently researchers have used a sample of pedestrian counts to generate direct-demand
models that are used to estimate pedestrian counts at other locations. Pedestrian counts were
available for several locations in California and Utah using that approach. Pedestrian counts
for the Texas sites were from a previous TxDOT project. For the remaining sites in California,
the research team developed regression models to predict pedestrian volume using census data.
The research team acquired crash data from databases in each state. One of the state’s data-
bases only had FI crashes; the analysis therefore did not use PDO crashes. Because pedestrian
crashes are rare, the research team wanted to obtain 7 years of crash data. Crash data for 2014 to
2020 were pulled from each state’s database. Upon discussions with city staff familiar with the
sites, along with ongoing research into the impacts of the pandemic, the research team decided
to focus on a prepandemic time frame, so crash data between January 2014 and March 2020 was
used. Dates for a site were adjusted if historical aerial or street views identified major changes at
the site (e.g., treatment installed or construction). For most of the sites, a 250-ft buffer around
the intersection or midblock crosswalk was used to identify crashes; however, for a few of the
midblock sites, that buffer was reduced to 150 ft to avoid including crashes associated with a
40

Conclusions and Recommendations 41
nearby intersection. The crash database was reviewed and cleaned to remove sites where the
crashes for a nearby freeway could not be easily filtered (typically when the study site street was
either on an overpass or underpass of a freeway) or if other conditions exist that resulted in the
site being considered an outlier.
The roadway variables considered in the safety analysis, in addition to the presence of the
treatment and vehicle and pedestrian volumes, were the number of legs, one-way or two-way
traffic operations, posted speed limit, presence of a bike lane or on-street parking, and the site’s
state. Three control groups were tested:
• All sites (intersections with two, three, and four legs along with all types of pedestrian traffic
control, including intersection traffic control signals)
• All two-leg sites with any type of pedestrian traffic control other than the MPS
• All two-leg sites with nonactive or not present pedestrian traffic control device, called grey
pedestrian traffic control in this study (sites with marked crosswalk and signs, sites with marked
crosswalk only, and sites with no pedestrian treatment)
The analysis found that more pedestrian FI crashes occur with:
• More vehicle volume
• More pedestrian volume
• More legs at the intersection
• More lanes on the main street
Fewer pedestrian FI crashes occur when:
• The posted speed limit is lower than 30 mph
• On-street parking is present
• A bike lane is present
• One-way traffic is present at two-leg sites
The MPS is associated with a reduction in pedestrian crashes and a reduction in all FI crashes
when the control group is group 3 (i.e., two-leg sites with grey pedestrian traffic control). The
following crash modification factors were identified:
• 0.554 for pedestrian crashes
• 0.660 for all crashes
With a control group that includes the complete range of pedestrian crossing traffic control
from signals to pavement marking to no treatment, the MPS treatment was found to have
borderline significance (p-value of 0.0511) for pedestrian FI crashes; therefore, the research
team recommends the CMF listed previously that considered a smaller control group. For the
all-site control group, the MPS treatment was associated with a reduction in the number of
RE FI crashes but not all FI crashes.
Discussion
This safety study determined that the MPS provides safety benefits for both pedestrians and
drivers of motor vehicles. Worth noting are the characteristics of the MPS sites included in this
study. All MPS sites had two legs, and 93% of the sites were on roads with 35 mph or lower
posted speed limits. The reduction in crashes found in this study is applicable to signalized
pedestrian crossings at midblock crossings (not three- or four-leg intersections) located on lower-
speed streets.

Future Research Needs

The efforts of this project answered the question of whether the MPS provides safety benefits.
During this study, research questions were identified for pedestrian treatments, including:
• What is the appropriate illumination (street lighting) level for a pedestrian crossing? This
question has been raised in other pedestrian-related research and continues to be an area of
research need.
• How do we define a pedestrian crosswalk as being midblock or as being at an intersection
(i.e., three or four legs)? The MUTCD uses the distance of 30 ft as a part of the definition of an
intersection in Section 1A.13. If the decision is based on the distance to a nearby vehicle access
point such as a driveway, alley, or minor street, how close can the access point be to a marked
crosswalk before the crosswalk is no longer considered midblock? Does the definition change
if the access point is gated, has very low activity, or is one-way? When should the nearby
access point have a traffic control signal head?
• Similar to the previous point is the need to define or characterize a driveway. A driveway that
serves a major retail establishment or an active coffee shop would probably have sufficient
vehicular activity to affect the operations or safety of the pedestrian crossing. At the other
extreme, a driveway that is gated may have minimal traffic activity, resulting in the need to
handle that type of access point differently with respect to traffic control. The needed research
could identify the driveway characteristics where no control, stop or yield control, or signal
control should be considered. Having the vehicle volume for a driveway could simplify the
decision, but vehicle volume may not be routinely available. Are there driveway geometric
characteristics such as the number of lanes or lane width that could be used as a surrogate for
vehicle volume in making the traffic control decision?
• The desire to have data-driven results for pedestrian and bicyclist treatments requires efficient
methods of obtaining or estimating pedestrian and bicyclist volumes. This project considered
a combination of methods, including using census data to estimate volume when no other
source was available. Can census data be sufficient for estimating pedestrian volumes for a
range of intersection types?
• How might anticipated bicyclist volume influence the design of an MPS, especially considering
the different speeds of users? Which intersection features associated with bicycles should be
included or should be modified to improve safety?
• What are the tradeoffs—for both pedestrians and motorists—of including a flashing red
indication for motorists during the pedestrian walk and clearance intervals, during the pedes-
trian clearance interval only, or not at all? Do the tradeoffs change with the countdown timer?
How do other users such as runners, cyclists, and micromobility affect the tradeoffs?
• Additional information is needed on how and whether to incorporate a bicycle signal with
either the MPS or the PHB.
• The material on traffic control signals and PHBs in the 2009 MUTCD (2) considers existing
pedestrian volumes. Given that pedestrians may not be attempting to cross the street because
of concerns for safety, latent demand rather than existing volumes should be considered.
How should latent demand be estimated for intersections? How might this information be
incorporated into the MUTCD or other documents?
• In general, the material on traffic control signals and PHBs in the 2009 MUTCD focuses on
criteria for a single location. Should there be different criteria when considering risk on a
corridor versus at a single location? How should the criteria differ? This research could also
provide insights into how to prioritize different corridors and different sites within a corridor,
along with how to select the appropriate treatment for each site.
• Portland, OR, and Seattle, WA, have several half signals operating. What is the experience with
these treatments by site characteristics? Are there roadway and traffic characteristics where
they could be considered, such as the intersection size or number of lanes on the major street?

Conclusions and Recommendations 43
• A few sites had to be eliminated in this study because the method used to identify crashes
resulted in capturing crashes on a neighboring freeway or on a freeway that was overpassing
or underpassing the street of interest. The research team may have been able to remove those
crashes by reviewing the characteristics of each crash or by reviewing the crash narrative,
which is a labor-intensive effort. An efficient and effective method for removing crashes
occurring on another road is currently not available for the state databases used in this study.
A suggestion that would permit the identification of crashes on overpasses or underpasses is
for crash databases to include the z-coordinate along with the x- and y-coordinates for a crash.

References
1. Governors Highway Safety Association. Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State. 2020. www.ghsa.org/sites/
default/files/2021-03/Ped%20Spotlight%202021%20FINAL%203.23.21.pdf.
2. FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2009. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/
pdf_index.htm.
3. Fitzpatrick, K., S. Turner, M. Brewer, P. Carlson, B. Ullman, N. Trout, E. S. Park, J. Whitacre, N. Lalani, and
D. Lord. TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings.
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, 2006. https://doi.org/10.17226/
13962.
4. Hourdos, J. Assessing the Impact of Pedestrian-Activated Crossing Systems. Final Report 2020-13.
Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2020.
5. Johnson, T. R. Safety at Half-Signal Intersections in Portland, Oregon. MS thesis. Portland State University,
2015.
6. Wiatrak, A. School–Pedestrian Crosswalk Signals at Intersections: A Quantified Evaluation of Performance.
Traffic and Transportation Division of the Seattle Engineering Department, 1974.
7. Petzold, R. G., and R. Nawrocki. Urban Intersection Improvements for Pedestrian Safety: Volume V—Evaluation
of Alternatives to Full Signalization at Pedestrian Crossings. FHWA-RD-77-146. FHWA, USDOT, 1977.
8. Thomas, D. Half/Pedestrian Signal Report. Intranet Quorum IMA00421970. 2010.
9. Canadian Institute of Transportation Engineers. A Technical Review of Pedestrian Signals in Canada. 2006.
10. Fitzpatrick, K., and E. S. Park. Safety Effectiveness of the HAWK Pedestrian Crossing Treatment. FHWA-
HRT-10-042. FHWA, 2010.
11. Zegeer, C., R. Srinivasan, B. Lan, D. Carter, S. Smith, C. Sundstrom, N. Thirsk, C. Lyon, B. Persaud, J. Zegeer,
E. Ferguson, and R. Van Houten. NCHRP Research Report 841: Development of Crash Modification Factors
for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2017.
12. Fitzpatrick, K., M. J. Cynecki, M. P. Pratt, E. S. Park, and M. E. Beckley. Evaluation of Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacons on Arizona Highways. SPR-756. Phoenix, AZ: ADOT, 2019. https://apps.azdot.gov/files/ADOT
Library/publications/project_reports/pdf/spr756.pdf.
13. Hauer, E. Signal Timing and Midblock Crossings. ITE Journal, December 2020.
14. Zegeer, C. V., R. J. Stewart, H. H. Huang, P. A. Lagerwey, J. Feaganes, and B. J. Campbell. Safety Effects of
Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report and Recommended Guidelines.
FHWA-HRT-04-100. McLean, VA: FHWA, 2005. www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/04100/.
15. Kothuri, S. Exploring Pedestrian Responsive Traffic Signal Timing Strategies in Urban Areas. PhD thesis.
Portland State University, 2014.
16. Turner, S., I. Sener, M. Martin, S. Das, E. Shipp, R. Hampshire, K. Fitzpatrick, L. Molnar, R. Wijesundera,
M. Colety, and S. Robinson. Synthesis of Methods for Estimating Pedestrian and Bicyclist Exposure to Risk
at Areawide Levels and on Specific Transportation Facilities. FHWA-SA-17-041. FHWA, 2017.
17. Schneider, R. J., T. Henry, M. F. Mitman, L. Stonehill, and J. Koehler. Development and Application of Volume
Model for Pedestrian Intersections in San Francisco, California. Transportation Research Record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board 2299, no. 1 (January 2012): pp. 65–78. https://doi.org/10.3141/2299-08.
18. Griswold, J. B., A. Medury, R. J. Schneider, D. Amos, A. Li, and O. Grembek. A Pedestrian Exposure Model
for the California State Highway System. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board 2673, no. 4 (April 2019): pp. 941–950. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198119837235.
19. Schneider, R. J., A. Schmitz, and X. Qin. Development and Validation of a Seven-County Regional Pedes-
trian Volume Model. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2675,
no. 6 (June 2021): pp. 352–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198121992360.
44

References 45
20. Le, M., S. R. Geedipally, K. Fitzpatrick, and R. E. Avelar. Estimating Pedestrian Volumes for Signalized and
Stop-Controlled Intersections. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board 2674, no. 9 (September 2020): pp. 799–808. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198120932161.
21. Geedipally, S. R. Estimating Pedestrian Crossing Volumes and Crashes at Midblock Locations. Transporta-
tion Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2676, no. 8 (April 2022): pp. 648–656.
https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981221084676.
22. Xiaofeng L., P. Xu, and Y. J. Wu. Pedestrian Crossing Volume Estimation at Signalized Intersections
Using Bayesian Additive Regression Trees. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems 26, no. 5 (2022):
pp. 557–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/15472450.2021.1933471.
23. Singleton, P. A., and F. Runa. Pedestrian Traffic Signal Data Accurately Estimates Pedestrian Crossing
Volumes. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2675, no. 6
(March 2021): pp. 429–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198121994126.
24. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (2010). Highway Safety Manual.
Vol. 2. Washington, DC.
25. Blackburn, L., C. Zegeer, and K. Brookshire. Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing
Locations. FHWA-SA-17-072. FHWA, 2018. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/resources/docs/
fhwasa18018.pdf.
26. Los Angeles GeoHub. Traffic Data—Segments. https://geohub.lacity.org/datasets/traffic-counts/explore?
location=34.153160%2C-118.480429%2C14.47. Accessed December 8, 2021.
27. Los Angeles GeoHub. Traffic Data—Intersections. https://geohub.lacity.org/datasets/traffic-data/explore?
location=34.042619%2C-118.744248%2C10.24. Accessed December 8, 2021.
28. Los Angeles. Navigate LA. https://navigatela.lacity.org/navigatela/. Accessed December 8, 2021.
29. City of Long Beach. Engineering Bureau Traffic Engineering Division 2014 Citywide Traffic Flow. https://
www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/pw/media-library/documents/resources/general/maps-and-gis/2014-
citywide-traffic-flow. Accessed December 8, 2021.
30. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. SFMTA Traffic Count Data 2014–2018. https://www.
sfmta.com/reports/sfmta-traffic-count-data. Accessed December 8, 2021.
31. San Jose. Average Daily Traffic. https://data.sanjoseca.gov/dataset/average-daily-traffic. Accessed July 13,
2022.
32. Fitzpatrick, K., R. Avelar, M. P. Pratt, S. Das, and D. Lord. Crash Modification Factor for Corner Radius,
Right-Turn Speed, and Prediction of Pedestrian Crashes at Signalized Intersections. FHWA-HRT-21-105.
FHWA, 2022.
33. Zegeer, C., C. Lyon, R. Srinivasan, B. Persaud, B. Lan, S. Smith, D. Carter, N. J. Thirsk, J. Zegeer, E. Ferguson,
R. Van Houten, and C. Sundstrom. Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian
Crossing Treatments. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2636,
no. 1 (January 2017): pp. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3141/2636-01.
34. Schrank, D., B. Eisele, and T. Lomax. 2019 Urban Mobility Report, Appendix A: Methodology. https://static.
tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility-report-2021-appx-a.pdf. Accessed July 13, 2022.
35. City of San Jose. https://gisdata-csj.opendata.arcgis.com/search?collection=Dataset. Accessed December 21,
2020.
36. DataSF. https://datasf.org/opendata/. Accessed December 21, 2020.
37. County of Los Angeles. Open Data. https://data.lacounty.gov/. Accessed December 21, 2020.
38. LACMTA. Los Angeles Transit Stops, April 2020. https://la-metro.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Minimalist/index.
html?appid=1fd006edf4cc446cad245c72241afba5. Accessed December 21, 2020.
39. Los Angeles Metro. https://developer.metro.net/gis-data/. Accessed December 21, 2020.
40. County of Long Beach. https://datalb.longbeach.gov/. Accessed December 21, 2020
41. Texas Department of Transportation. Texas—TPP. https://txdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/
index.html?id=06fea0307dda42c1976194bf5a98b3a1. Accessed December 8, 2021.
42. Geedipally, S., M. Pratt, M. Ko, and K. Womack. Developing a Crash Analysis Tool to Address Pedestrian
Safety. Austin, TX: TDOT, 2016.
43. Utah Department of Transportation. UDOT Data Portal. https://data-uplan.opendata.arcgis.com/. Accessed
July 13, 2022.
44. ArcGIS. Estimated Pedestrian Volumes at Signalized Intersections (1,494) in Utah. https://www.arcgis.com/
apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=57b2a38e07e4446ab86efd4a257e3eff. Accessed December 8, 2021.
45. ArcGIS. Predicted Pedestrian Volumes at Intersections (62k) in Utah. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/
mapviewer/index.html?webmap=32af57787d864a7996af76d0d9055cb2. Accessed December 8, 2021.
46. Avelar, R. E., K. K. Dixon, and P. Escobar. Evaluation of Signalized-Intersection Crash Screening Methods
Based on Distance from Intersection. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board 2514, no. 1 (January 2015): pp. 177–186. https://doi.org/10.3141/2514-19.
47. Lord, D., X. Qin, S. R. Geedipally. Highway Safety Analytics and Modeling. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing
Ltd., 2021.




Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHSA Governors Highway Safety Association
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation


500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
ISBN 978-0-309-68770-6
90000
9 780309 687706

Safety at Midblock Pedestrian Signals (2023) : This PDF Is Available at

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Safety at Midblock Pedestrian Signals (2023) : This PDF Is Available at

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This PDF is available at http://nap.nationalacademies.

Safety at Midblock Pedestrian Signals

FIND RELATED TITLES SUGGESTED CITATION

NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 1030

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 1030

Published research reports of the

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

Transportation Research Board

and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 1030

NCHRP PROJECT 03-141 PANEL

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

conducted a literature review on the safety effectiveness of pedestrian treatments with a

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

The midblock pedestrian signal (MPS) treatment operates as a coordinated-actuated vehicular

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

2 Safety at Midblock Pedestrian Signals

Figure 1. Midblock pedestrian signal example.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Midblock Pedestrian Signal Effectiveness

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

4 Safety at Midblock Pedestrian Signals

Table 2. Driver yield rates at midblock crossings by treatment.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Table 3. Johnson crash history findings.

PHB Safety Effectiveness

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

6 Safety at Midblock Pedestrian Signals

Table 4. Percentage of crash reduction at PHBs for several studies.

Sources for Pedestrian Volume

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Table 5. Preferred model of pedestrian volume for San Francisco.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

8 Safety at Midblock Pedestrian Signals

Table 6. Final California pedestrian exposure model.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Table 8. Estimated parameters for signalized and stop-controlled

Table 9. Calibrated coefficients for pedestrian crossing volumes

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

10 Safety at Midblock Pedestrian Signals

Table 10. Assumed pedestrian volume by general level of

Sig. Ped. Cross

Sig.d Ped. Maj.

Sig. Ped. All

Pedestrian Volume Estimates Using Traffic Signal Data

Pedestrian Volume Estimates Using Local Engineering Judgment

Key Findings from Literature

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Survey of Public Agencies

Information about the Agencies Responding

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

12 Safety at Midblock Pedestrian Signals

Experience with Pedestrian Crossing Treatments

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Survey of Public Agencies 13