American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Special Committee on Research and Innovation

FY2023 NCHRP PROBLEM STATEMENT TEMPLATE

Problem Number: 2023-G-22

Problem Title

Pedestrian Signing - Determination of the “best” pedestrian regulatory crossing sign at intersections (MUTCD sections 2B.11, B.12, 2B.53 and 2C.50)

Background Information and Need For Research

Background:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that nearly over 6,700 pedestrians were killed (2020) and another 137,000 injured (2017) in crashes with motor vehicles. Pedestrian fatalities as a share of all roadway deaths has been increasing each of the past five years to over 17 percent. This has occurred while vehicle miles traveled decreased. While numerous efforts and research have been made toward pedestrian safety, the outcomes are not working to reduce these results. Highway designers must often consider a variety of possible safety and operational treatments to mitigate pedestrian crashes at intersections. The lack of uniformity and ability to classify traffic control treatments to applications may be a factor in these crashes.

Issue:

The MUTCD Section 2B.11 provides for a midblock regulatory sign (R1-5 series) for multilane midblock crossings. The R10-15 sign in section 2B.53 covers the right turn application at an intersection application. However, there is no standard regulatory pedestrian sign for application at an intersection where the practitioner desires to provide a regulatory sign in lieu of or in addition to the W11-2 warning sign assembly contained in section 2C.50 for traffic proceeding straight thru the intersection where pedestrians are crossing the roadway. The various options in the MUTCD for pedestrian crossings signs have created numerous interpretations for applications of signs at intersections which tend to be counter to the benefits of uniformity and consistent signing. There is a need for signs that consistently regulate vehicle activity at pedestrian crossings of roads and highways. The current MUTCD language (see attached sections 2B.11, 2B.12, 2B.53 and 2C.50) have limitations for the current signs which aligns with the extent of prior research. The research limitations include:

• Sign application at intersections (signalized or unsignalized – not researched) as compared to the researched multi-lane mid-block crossings (part of prior research)

• Applications of regulatory signs on single lane approaches (not researched) as compared to multi-lane at midblock locations and intersections(part of prior research).

Problem Statement:

The various pedestrian crossing applications create unique interpretations of the current MUTCD signs that lead to inconsistent application. The lack of uniformity is a possible contributing factor to the poor pedestrian safety data historically. There is a need to investigate through human factors testing various sign displays to determine the best application for various unsignalized and signalized regulatory signs for crossing conditions that are not addressed currently in the MUTCD. This work needs to assess what cross cutting opportunities exist to consolidate signing messaging to enhance driver recognition, yielding behavior and pedestrians crossing decisions with the least number of sign types (alternatives) and produce the maximum benefit on safety to meet the vision of the MUTCD.

This request is for the first stage of a multiple stage research undertaking to complete a fact and research-based determination of pedestrian crossing traffic control. The stages involve in order:

1) Determine the “best” sign for traffic control at intersections through human factors research (urgently needed as no uniform sign exists today)

2) With both the intersection sign and the approved MUTCD mid-block signs determined, assess the methodology for the “best” sign positioning – right side, both sides (gateway), in-road, over road – using the Zeeger approach of context for speed, width and volume

3) With 1 + 2 complete, determine the “best” application of lighting/flashing conditions using the Zeeger approach of context for speed, width and volume. In this research, current/emerging research on LEDs at pedestrian crossings to determine the appropriate shape, size, position, color, flash rate, dimming/glare and minimum light levels (if any) will be determined.

Literature Search Summary

Prior human factors work in the 2012 FHWA Pooled Fund Study assessed basic recognition of pedestrian signs without putting the application context into the assessment. Recent Florida DOT/FHWA research into in-roadway signs (R1-6) is in the process of focusing on that sign application and the gateway effect of signs to the left and right of the driver. Recent STEP research provides a menu of options that while helpful, can contribute to lack of consistency in crossing treatments based upon context. Other sign research would be reviewed using the approved NCHRP Synthesis study (covering a vast array of prior research). Vehicle speed, volume and number of lane criteria for pedestrian enhancements was addressed in prior FHWA work for mid-block crossings and will be a foundational element of this research.

Guidance to Improve Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety at Intersection, NCHRP Research Report 926, TRB, 2020

Fitzpatrick, K., S. Turner, M. Brewer, P. Carlson, B. Ullman, N. Trout, E. S. Park, J. Whitacre, N. Lalani, D. Lord. Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562, 2006.

Zegeer, C.V., R.Stewart, H. Huang, and P.Lagerwey. Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Executive Summary and Recommended Guidelines. FHWA-RD-01-075, FHWA, US DOT, McLean, VA, 2002.

Research Objective

Use human factors simulation of crossing characteristics to test various pedestrian regulatory sign applications at intersections to determine both the best and highest recognition to aid designers in uniformly applying the pedestrian regulatory signing to pedestrian crossings whether at intersections or mid-block. Supplement simulation with survey research of recognition of signs to their intended use (addressing variation in vehicle code interpretations between states for stop for or yield to pedestrians). An example starting set of signs from the MUTCD and others (below) would be assembled for context sensitive testing. The fundamental questions that will be answered will be:

1) The “best” regulatory sign for various intersection pedestrian crossing applications (addressing number of lanes, turn lane conditions) and are consistent with mid-block applications already developed.

2) Determine the appropriate role for warning signs when regulatory messaging is not necessary (possible use of W11-2 pedestrian crossing warning sign in advance or elsewhere).

Urgency and Potential Benefits

Enhanced consistency in signing to pedestrian crossing applications will lead to improved recognition of pedestrian crossing yielding behavior, potential speed reduction for pedestrian crossings and reduce the 6,700 annual pedestrian fatalities. By incorporating findings into recommendations for the MUTCD, nearly every designer across the United States would be empowered to implement the recommendations. As significant funding is being directed to pedestrian safety, addressing this now has the potential to be incorporated in project development with great return with little investment. Crossing traffic control design can immediately become part of state and local agencies design guides for pedestrian crossings. The risk without this research is designers continue the non-uniform applications or create new ones to ad hoc address the problem (as has been done in the past) without changing the outcomes for pedestrian safety systemically.

Implementation Considerations

The target audience is all agencies and private roadway owners with pedestrian crossings. Designers benefit from research that resolves the unaddressed issues related to pedestrian traffic control at intersection crossings. All public works departments, transportation divisions and private designers would implement these recommendations upon recommendation to FHWA. Virtually every state DOT has pedestrian coordinators focused on the topic of pedestrian safety and this provides a low cost, effective means to improve safety through better guidance (rather than major capital investment).

Recommended Research Funding and Research Period

Recommended Funding: Pool Fund Study - $100,000 to $200,000

This study could break out the human factors testing of signs as a separate activity for <$75,000

Task 1: Build upon STEP literature review, focusing upon sign applications and enhanced conspicuity

Task 2: Conduct human factors research of intersection sign(s) including the assessment of regulatory as compared to warning sign applications.

Task 3: Refine criteria for roadside, in-road, above road signing with number of lanes, vehicle speeds, functional class, vehicle & pedestrian volume and sight distance (including advanced stop line placement criteria based upon speed).

Task 4: Undertake field test applications among participating agencies

Task 5: Refine criteria based on Task 4 and review MUTCD sign standards, guidance and options for pedestrians crossing, recommending changes to implement the best practices from research.

Problem Statement Author(S): For each author, provide their name, affiliation, email address and phone.

Tom Heydel

SE Regional Traffic Engineer

Wisconsin DOT

tom.heydel@dot.state.wi.us

Chair: Regulatory and Warning Signs Technical Committee; NCUTCD

Randy McCourt

Retired

ITE Past President

503.randy.mccourt@gmail.com

Potential Panel Members: For each panel member, provide their name, affiliation, email address and phone.

Tom Heydel, WisDOT

Bill Lambert, New Hampshire DOT

Trey Tillander, FDOT

Person Submitting The Problem Statement: Name, affiliation, email address and phone.

Regulatory and Warning Signs Technical Committee & Research Committee of NCUTCD.