1 / 27

An Assessment of the Operational Benefits of Countdown Pedestrian Signals John R. Engle

An Assessment of the Operational Benefits of Countdown Pedestrian Signals John R. Engle Ghassan Abu-Lebdeh Thomas Maleck Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Michigan State University. Project Description.

lena
Download Presentation

An Assessment of the Operational Benefits of Countdown Pedestrian Signals John R. Engle

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. An Assessment of the Operational Benefits of Countdown Pedestrian Signals John R. Engle Ghassan Abu-Lebdeh Thomas Maleck Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Michigan State University

  2. Project Description • 16 Intersections along MDOT State Trunklines within the State of Michigan • 20 Hours of Data for Before and After Conditions • Survey of Pedestrians

  3. What is a Countdown Pedestrian Signal (CPS)?

  4. What was discovered: • After implementation, majority of peds in the crosswalk (when Solid Don’t Walk phase began) tended to be closer to curb. • Being closer to their destination, the peds were able to leave the roadway quicker after the flashing don’t walk phase ended. • People overwhelmingly liked them.

  5. What was discovered: • There are significant exceptions to the generalizations made previously • There were a significant number of intersections in which this did not occur • Much of this variance could potentially be attributed to social/economic characteristics of the pedestrians

  6. The 16 Intersections were broken down into three groups for analysis.

  7. Group A: • Michigan @ Larch - Lansing • Saginaw @ Capitol - Lansing • Saginaw @ Pennsylvania - Lansing • Michigan @ Rose - Kalamazoo • Bridge @ Jefferson - Grand Ledge • Beach @ 5th - Flint

  8. Group A Findings • ‘Normal’ geometric layouts with peds exhibiting ‘usual’ behavior • After CPS, a small increase in volume of peds who cleared before solid don’t walk (SDW) phase • After CPS, minor decrease in the percentage of pedestrians crossing on the SDW phase

  9. In five of the six locations of Group A, after CPS implementation a larger percentage of peds began crossing during flashing don’t walk (FDW) phase • With CPS, if peds were ‘caught’ in the intersection when FDW phase ended, they tended to be much closer to their destination curb than before

  10. Saginaw/Capital Location - Lansing

  11. Saginaw/Capital Location - Lansing

  12. Group B: • Gratiot @ Linhurst - Detroit • Gratiot @ Hickory - Detroit • Gratiot @ Outer - Detroit • Gratiot @ Filbert - Detroit • Dexter @ Washington - Ionia • Genesee @ Washington - Saginaw

  13. Group B Findings • Locations in distressed, lower income neighborhoods • Number of pedestrians that exhibited unusual walking behaviors was significantly higher than at other locations

  14. Group B Findings • For five of the six locations, percentage of peds who cleared before the solid don’t walk increased after CPS • Percentage of peds crossing on SDW also decreased for five of the six locations

  15. Gratiot/Outer Location - Detroit

  16. Gratiot/Outer Location - Detroit

  17. Group C • Mission @ Bellows - Mt Pleasant • Michigan @ Ann Arbor - Saline • Wyoming @ 8 Mile - Detroit • VanDyke @ 10 Mile - Centerline

  18. Group C Findings • “Miscellaneous” group • No consistency between intersections • Four intersections, locations w/ certain unique geometric layout, traffic flow, or pedestrian behavior may have resulted in different behavior problems

  19. Case Example: Mt Pleasant • Near CMU campus • Majority of peds were college students, who displayed more aggressive walking behaviors • Often would use countdown clock from another approach to decide • This may explain the higher percentage of peds crossing on solid don’t walk after the CPS

  20. Case Example: Centerline • Demographics similar Group A • Unique geometric feature: very wide highway width of VanDyke with no median (~108 ft) • After CPS a greater % cleared before the solid don’t walk • Little change on bringing peds closer to curb • Possible, CPS encouraged peds to walk faster compared to an unusually long flashing don’t walk phase

  21. Case Example: Detroit/8Mile • Near a school • Majority of peds middle school and elementary school children who crossed 8 Mile Road • Majority of peds were unable to clear the intersection in one phase • Resorted to waiting on a median island before completing their crossing

  22. Wyoming/8Mile Location - Detroit

  23. Case Example: Detroit/8Mile • Exception to majority of behaviors • Located in a exurb of Ann Arbor • Majority of peds high income demographic. • Unclear why after CPS a lower % of peds cleared before solid don’t walk, or why

  24. Survey Results

  25. Survey Results

  26. Summary • Impact was mostly positive • There appear to be some exceptions • Non-engineering factors important at some • More analysis needed • Statistical • Qualitative • Relevant finding to start develop guidelines

  27. Questions?

More Related