14th St and 6th Ave, Oct 1, 10 AM
13th St and 6th Ave, Oct 1, 12PM
13th St and 6th Ave, 12PM, Oct 1
Friday, October 3, 2008
Pedestrian Observations
18th St and 8th Ave, Oct 2, 1 AM Night time photos
14th St and 6th Ave, Oct 1, 10 AM
13th St and 6th Ave, Oct 1, 12PM
13th St and 6th Ave, 12PM, Oct 1
14th St and 6th Ave, Oct 1, 10 AM
13th St and 6th Ave, Oct 1, 12PM
13th St and 6th Ave, 12PM, Oct 1
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Skype Conclusions (Sept 29)
During our skype meeting we discussed the next phase our group will take. The Kisd students came up with a diagram revealing accident scenarios that occur in intersections. This representation was taken from the results found during the research earlier. It seems that the highest point of danger occurs in the during a driver's left turn. He/she is in danger of crashing into an oncoming vehicles as well as obstructed by pedestrians crossing. We feel that scenarios like this should now be analyzed further and we will now zoom into the user's scale.
GOAL: Kisd students will be recording what it is like to be the driver in the intersection and what factors are involved and Parsons students will be researching what the pedestrian experiences. We would like to have sketches of possible design solutions and sketches by Friday, but more importantly, by Monday, our next Skype meeting.
From here we will probably see where our ideas coincide and where they do not, and we can then further distill our problem. According to our schedule, we are not due for design proposals until Oct 17th. We feel that the investigatory phase is still necessary.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Walk along side the road crashes,summary
Jenny Lim
Public Realm
Group 3
This summary is taken from a study posted by the US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration in February 2002. The link can be found at www.walkinginfo.org/library/details.cfm?id=51
"An analysis of Factors contributing to ‘walking along roadway’ crashes: research study and guidelines for sidewalks and walkways"
Study is taken from 400 of 5,073 pedestrian/motor vehicle crashes sample from 6 States
• Of the the 400 crashes, 69% involved pedestrians walking with traffic and 21% walking against traffic
• "Overrepresented variables include : o Pedestrians 15-44 yrs old
o Alcohol involvement by the pedestrian and/or driver
o Rural, two-lane roads
o Dark conditions w/ no lights
o Interstate and county roads
• Presence of a sidewalk was found to have a large safety benefit in residential and mixed residential areas, however, sidewalks have no effect on pedestrian/motor crashes in commercial areas (2)
• Conditions of the Crash sites Sampled: o Speed limit
o Sidewalk (present or absent)
o Paved shoulder width
o Gutter pan width
o Pedestrian volume
o Traffic volume in the outside lanes
o Unpaved walkable space
• See Table 2. o 80.9% of the sites visited had no sidewalks, 91.5% of crash sites had no sidewalks, 75.5% of non-crash sites had no sidewalks "In general, the data indicated that the crash locations tended to be more rural, have higher speed limits and traffic volumes, more likely to
have paved shoulders and less likely to have sidewalks when compared to non-crash sites" (6)
•See Table 3. o "the results in Table 3 show that speed limit is clearly the dominant variable for discriminating between crash and comparison sites"
•See Table 4 o "For the variable ‘presence of sidewalk,’ the Risk Ratio = 0.118. This means that given the data at hand, when speed limit and traffic volume are taken into account, the likelihood of a site with a paved sidewalk being acrash site is 88.2% lower than a site without a side walk."(8) --this should not be interpreted to mean that installing sidewalks would necessarily reduce the likelihood of pedestrian/motor vehicle crashes…however the presence of a sidewalk clearly has a strong beneficial effect of reducing the risk of a "walk along roadway" pedestrian/motor vehicle crash
•Analysis of roadway and demographic factors
o Average median household income in the block groups of crash sites is $31,653, while $41,279 at non-crash, faraway comparison sites
o Nearly 2.7 % of residents around crash sites take bus to work and 2.7% walk, compared to non-crash, faraway comparison sites, which is less than .25% take the bus and 1.1% walk.
o Minorites comprised 39% of block groups around crash sites, but only 15% of non-crash, faraway comparison sites
o 63% of homes in crash neighborhoods were owner occupied, while non-crash, faraway comparison sites were nearly 76% owner-occupied
•Percentage of Single Parents o Study take from Roberts show that single parents with children are likely to have less ability to extensively monitor their children (4-5). Binary logistic regression shown in Table 5 shows that an increase from 7%-8% in the number of single-parent households result in 13% increase in the likelihood of location being a crash site. (11)
•Percentage of Housing Stock Built after 1980 o See Table 5
o Newer neighborhoods are more likely to contain amenities a such as better designed roads, large yards, and nearby parks…supporting that older neighborhoods are more likely to have pedestrian/motor vehicle crashes than new neighborhoods. (12)
•Percentage of Families o A family is "a group of two or more people" . 85% of household families were 79% less likely to be crash sites than areas with less than 85% families
•Unemployment o The analysis found areas with less than 1.75% unemployment to be 75% less likely to be crash sites when compared to neighborhoods with a greater level of unemployment (12).
•Pedestrian and Vehicle volumes o While the model finds pedestrian volumes to be higher at crash sites they are not significantly higher in volume at non-crash sites. This may be due to low pedestrian traffic in general. However, higher vehicle traffic shows increase from 280 vehicles to 290 vehicles per hour, for example to increase the likelihood of a location crash site by 1.3%
•Grassy and unpaved shoulder Spaces o Wide, grassy areas and other unpaved shoulders are less likely to be crash sites (13)
o 1.2 m (4 ft) is a narrow sidewalk wide enough for a pedestrian
o Unpaved shoulders with 1.2 m makes a space 89% less likely to be a crash site
Conclusion
•Contributing factors to increasing the likeliness of a "walk along-side the road crash site: o Absence of sidewalks
o Higher traffic volumes
o Higher vehicular speeds
o Narrower unpaved shoulders
o High percentages of single-parent households
o Large amounts of older housing
•Treatments that may decrease the likelihood of location becoming a crash site: o Physically separating individuals from traffic…e. Sidewalks, walkways, and shoulders
APPENDIX A.
International Boulevard sidewalk impact study, SeaTac, Washington
Richard L. Knoblauch
Objective
•The purpose of the study is to determine the effect of a major sidewalk installation along a 12- block section of International Boulevard in SeaTac, Washington (State Highway 99 from S. 188th St to S. 200th St). Data is collected to determine the effect of sidewalk construction on pedestrian behavior.
•Improvements o New road surface
o 2.4 m (8ft) sidewalks on either side
o Street trees
o Center median with trees and earthen berm
o Street lighting on high poles for illuminating roadway
o Shorter street lights for sidewalks
Method
•Observation Zones o 11 zones
o Ea zone 88 to 169 cm (288 to 555 ft)
•Observation Periods
o Ea zone observed for 10 min from during the years 1997-1998
•Observation Procedures o Each observer recorded •Vehicle volumes
•Vehicle speeds
•Pedestrians walking
•Pedestrians crossing
•Pedestrian/vehicle conflicts (signal timing)
Results (See table 1)
•N bound volumes increased by 9.5% and S bound volumes decreased by 10.5%
•Overall decrease in volume is 2.2%
•Speeds were essentially not changed form 1997 to 1998
•Pedestrian volumes increased 15% from 1997-1998
•Length of the average pedestrian trip increased 33%
•Slight increase in number of female pedestrians (30% increased to 38.2%)
•Pedestrians more like to travel in groups, 22.7% increased to 35.2%
•Prior to sidewalk installation 42% of pedestrians were observed walking on the shoulder and 8 % walking along the shoulder
•After sidewalk installation in 1998, all pedestrians walked on the sidewalk
•38% increase in pedestrian crossing,
•In 1997, 66% of crossing pedestrians used marked crosswalks and 7% crossed at an intersection but not in a crosswalk
•In 1998, 89% crossed in a marked crosswalk. It is not known whether the decrease was due to added signalized intersection at 192nd st
•Decrease in mid-block crossings (27% in 1997 to 11% in 1998)
•Outside the observable zone the 6.8% of jaywalkers recorded was reduced to 3.1% in 1998
Appendix B
Recommended Priorities and guidelines for sidewalks and walkways
Charles V Zegeer, Peter Lagerwey, Mike Cynecki, Michael Ronkin, Cara Seiderman, and Arthur Ross
Case Study: Seattle, Washington
Sidewalk Width
•Local or collector Streets 1.5 m (5 ft)
•Arterial or major Streets 1.8 to 2.4 m (6 to 8 ft)
•Central business districts 2.4 to 3.7 m (8 to 12 ft)
•Along parks, schools, and other major pedestrian generators 2.4 to 3.0 m (8-10ft)
Sidewalk Buffers
•Local or collector streets 0.6 to 1.2 m (2 to 4 ft)
•Arterial or major streets 1.5 to 1.8 m (5 to 6 ft)
Other great information links:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.dfedd570f698cabbbf30811060008a0c/
walkinginfo.org
http://www.walkinginfo.org/facts/facts.cfm
Public Realm
Group 3
This summary is taken from a study posted by the US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration in February 2002. The link can be found at www.walkinginfo.org/library/details.cfm?id=51
"An analysis of Factors contributing to ‘walking along roadway’ crashes: research study and guidelines for sidewalks and walkways"
Study is taken from 400 of 5,073 pedestrian/motor vehicle crashes sample from 6 States
• Of the the 400 crashes, 69% involved pedestrians walking with traffic and 21% walking against traffic
• "Overrepresented variables include : o Pedestrians 15-44 yrs old
o Alcohol involvement by the pedestrian and/or driver
o Rural, two-lane roads
o Dark conditions w/ no lights
o Interstate and county roads
• Presence of a sidewalk was found to have a large safety benefit in residential and mixed residential areas, however, sidewalks have no effect on pedestrian/motor crashes in commercial areas (2)
• Conditions of the Crash sites Sampled: o Speed limit
o Sidewalk (present or absent)
o Paved shoulder width
o Gutter pan width
o Pedestrian volume
o Traffic volume in the outside lanes
o Unpaved walkable space
• See Table 2. o 80.9% of the sites visited had no sidewalks, 91.5% of crash sites had no sidewalks, 75.5% of non-crash sites had no sidewalks "In general, the data indicated that the crash locations tended to be more rural, have higher speed limits and traffic volumes, more likely to
have paved shoulders and less likely to have sidewalks when compared to non-crash sites" (6)
•See Table 3. o "the results in Table 3 show that speed limit is clearly the dominant variable for discriminating between crash and comparison sites"
•See Table 4 o "For the variable ‘presence of sidewalk,’ the Risk Ratio = 0.118. This means that given the data at hand, when speed limit and traffic volume are taken into account, the likelihood of a site with a paved sidewalk being acrash site is 88.2% lower than a site without a side walk."(8) --this should not be interpreted to mean that installing sidewalks would necessarily reduce the likelihood of pedestrian/motor vehicle crashes…however the presence of a sidewalk clearly has a strong beneficial effect of reducing the risk of a "walk along roadway" pedestrian/motor vehicle crash
•Analysis of roadway and demographic factors
o Average median household income in the block groups of crash sites is $31,653, while $41,279 at non-crash, faraway comparison sites
o Nearly 2.7 % of residents around crash sites take bus to work and 2.7% walk, compared to non-crash, faraway comparison sites, which is less than .25% take the bus and 1.1% walk.
o Minorites comprised 39% of block groups around crash sites, but only 15% of non-crash, faraway comparison sites
o 63% of homes in crash neighborhoods were owner occupied, while non-crash, faraway comparison sites were nearly 76% owner-occupied
•Percentage of Single Parents o Study take from Roberts show that single parents with children are likely to have less ability to extensively monitor their children (4-5). Binary logistic regression shown in Table 5 shows that an increase from 7%-8% in the number of single-parent households result in 13% increase in the likelihood of location being a crash site. (11)
•Percentage of Housing Stock Built after 1980 o See Table 5
o Newer neighborhoods are more likely to contain amenities a such as better designed roads, large yards, and nearby parks…supporting that older neighborhoods are more likely to have pedestrian/motor vehicle crashes than new neighborhoods. (12)
•Percentage of Families o A family is "a group of two or more people" . 85% of household families were 79% less likely to be crash sites than areas with less than 85% families
•Unemployment o The analysis found areas with less than 1.75% unemployment to be 75% less likely to be crash sites when compared to neighborhoods with a greater level of unemployment (12).
•Pedestrian and Vehicle volumes o While the model finds pedestrian volumes to be higher at crash sites they are not significantly higher in volume at non-crash sites. This may be due to low pedestrian traffic in general. However, higher vehicle traffic shows increase from 280 vehicles to 290 vehicles per hour, for example to increase the likelihood of a location crash site by 1.3%
•Grassy and unpaved shoulder Spaces o Wide, grassy areas and other unpaved shoulders are less likely to be crash sites (13)
o 1.2 m (4 ft) is a narrow sidewalk wide enough for a pedestrian
o Unpaved shoulders with 1.2 m makes a space 89% less likely to be a crash site
Conclusion
•Contributing factors to increasing the likeliness of a "walk along-side the road crash site: o Absence of sidewalks
o Higher traffic volumes
o Higher vehicular speeds
o Narrower unpaved shoulders
o High percentages of single-parent households
o Large amounts of older housing
•Treatments that may decrease the likelihood of location becoming a crash site: o Physically separating individuals from traffic…e. Sidewalks, walkways, and shoulders
APPENDIX A.
International Boulevard sidewalk impact study, SeaTac, Washington
Richard L. Knoblauch
Objective
•The purpose of the study is to determine the effect of a major sidewalk installation along a 12- block section of International Boulevard in SeaTac, Washington (State Highway 99 from S. 188th St to S. 200th St). Data is collected to determine the effect of sidewalk construction on pedestrian behavior.
•Improvements o New road surface
o 2.4 m (8ft) sidewalks on either side
o Street trees
o Center median with trees and earthen berm
o Street lighting on high poles for illuminating roadway
o Shorter street lights for sidewalks
Method
•Observation Zones o 11 zones
o Ea zone 88 to 169 cm (288 to 555 ft)
•Observation Periods
o Ea zone observed for 10 min from during the years 1997-1998
•Observation Procedures o Each observer recorded •Vehicle volumes
•Vehicle speeds
•Pedestrians walking
•Pedestrians crossing
•Pedestrian/vehicle conflicts (signal timing)
Results (See table 1)
•N bound volumes increased by 9.5% and S bound volumes decreased by 10.5%
•Overall decrease in volume is 2.2%
•Speeds were essentially not changed form 1997 to 1998
•Pedestrian volumes increased 15% from 1997-1998
•Length of the average pedestrian trip increased 33%
•Slight increase in number of female pedestrians (30% increased to 38.2%)
•Pedestrians more like to travel in groups, 22.7% increased to 35.2%
•Prior to sidewalk installation 42% of pedestrians were observed walking on the shoulder and 8 % walking along the shoulder
•After sidewalk installation in 1998, all pedestrians walked on the sidewalk
•38% increase in pedestrian crossing,
•In 1997, 66% of crossing pedestrians used marked crosswalks and 7% crossed at an intersection but not in a crosswalk
•In 1998, 89% crossed in a marked crosswalk. It is not known whether the decrease was due to added signalized intersection at 192nd st
•Decrease in mid-block crossings (27% in 1997 to 11% in 1998)
•Outside the observable zone the 6.8% of jaywalkers recorded was reduced to 3.1% in 1998
Appendix B
Recommended Priorities and guidelines for sidewalks and walkways
Charles V Zegeer, Peter Lagerwey, Mike Cynecki, Michael Ronkin, Cara Seiderman, and Arthur Ross
Case Study: Seattle, Washington
Sidewalk Width
•Local or collector Streets 1.5 m (5 ft)
•Arterial or major Streets 1.8 to 2.4 m (6 to 8 ft)
•Central business districts 2.4 to 3.7 m (8 to 12 ft)
•Along parks, schools, and other major pedestrian generators 2.4 to 3.0 m (8-10ft)
Sidewalk Buffers
•Local or collector streets 0.6 to 1.2 m (2 to 4 ft)
•Arterial or major streets 1.5 to 1.8 m (5 to 6 ft)
Other great information links:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.dfedd570f698cabbbf30811060008a0c/
walkinginfo.org
http://www.walkinginfo.org/facts/facts.cfm
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)