Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour
Pedestrian behaviors at and perceptions towards various pedestrian facilities: an examination based on observation and survey data
Introduction
As traffic congestion and air pollution are becoming growing problems in many cities in the US and worldwide, government agencies of all levels show an increased interest toward promoting non-motorized travel options. Many communities across the nation have started seeking ways to increase pedestrian activities and discourage automobile dependency, particularly for short trips in residential settings. The trend of “new urbanism,” for example, encourages developing pedestrian friendly neighborhoods, which would offer proximity of pedestrians to shared neighborhood amenities. A study of consumer attitude survey of Floridians, USA, found that some groups would gladly trade-off the lot size found in ordinary suburbia for pedestrian proximity to community amenities (Audirac, 1999). Initiatives that promote pedestrian travel must provide potential users an assured level of convenience, efficiency, comfort, and security for successful applications. City planners and traffic engineers should take under consideration pedestrian preferences and perceptions when designing efficient and pedestrian friendly facilities.
Governmental as well as societal pressures for developing safer environments for pedestrians and bikers are strongly encouraging traffic engineers and planners to do more research regarding the issues for non-motorized transportation. Zegeer et al. (2002) have recently published a comprehensive guide on pedestrian facilities and pedestrian safety and mobility. The guide is intended to provide information on how to identify safety and mobility needs for pedestrians with the roadway right-of-way. It is expected to be useful for engineers, planners, safety professionals and decision-makers. The guide covers such topics as the walking environment including sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, roadway lighting and pedestrian over and underpasses, roadway design including bicycle lanes, roadway narrowing, reducing the number of lanes, one-way/two-way streets, right-turn slip lanes and raised medians, intersections with roundabouts, T-intersections and median barriers, and traffic calming designs.
Pedestrian safety is still one of the most important safety concerns in the US and in the world. In 1995 the pedestrian fatality rate per 100,000 population was 2.13 for the US. The state of New Mexico had the highest rate (5.16) and North Dakota had the lowest (0.31) (NHTSA, 1995). In 2000, 4739 pedestrians were killed and 78,000 were injured in traffic crashes in the United States, representing 11% of all the people died in traffic crashes and 2% of all traffic injuries. Pedestrian fatality rate is of decreasing 27% from the 6482 pedestrians killed in 1990. Most pedestrian fatalities in 2000 occurred in urban areas (71%) and at non-intersection locations (78%). Pedestrian fatalities accounted for 85% of all non-occupant fatalities in 2000. The 690 pedal cyclist fatalities accounted for 12%, and the remaining 3% were skateboard riders, roller skaters, etc. (NHTSA, 2000).
Pedestrian safety is being considered as a serious traffic safety problem nationwide and is not confined to urban areas only. Every year many pedestrians are injured or killed in traffic accidents in rural parts of the country. As an example, Ivan, Garder, and Zajac (2001) studied pedestrian related accidents in rural areas of New England, USA. The authors researched the safety of pedestrian crossings in rural areas to discover and confirm factors that help explain high rates of motor vehicle–pedestrian collisions at pedestrian crossings. The following environmental and exposure factors are considered: population density, type of pedestrian crossing, traffic control used at the crossing, surrounding land use type, highway facility type, vehicle travel speed, vehicle volume and pedestrian volume.
In urban, suburban and rural settings, various engineering options exist to assist pedestrian accessibility and ensure safety. Engineering improvements at these facilities should be carefully evaluated to assess the effectiveness of the solutions implemented and their potential value for application in other locations with similar characteristics, needs and limitations. User perceptions toward the operation of pedestrian facilities are of great importance to such an evaluation process. Pedestrians themselves are the most appropriate group to identify treatments that create a safe and/or desirable environment for them and options that increase their likelihood to properly use of pedestrian designated facilities. The latter is crucial toward the improvement of pedestrian safety. When pedestrians use sidewalks and cross at designated locations, the separation of pedestrians and vehicles increases, and thereby pedestrian–vehicle conflicts are minimized. In this context, researchers have always been desirous of designing pedestrian crossings that are responsive to pedestrian needs and thus improve pedestrian safety and comfort.
Among alternative engineering options for pedestrian crossings, intelligent traffic signals can offer choices that are more responsive to pedestrian needs. The European Community Drive II project VRU-TOO (Vulnerable Road Users Traffic Observations and Optimization) carried out trials of innovative signalized crosswalks that aimed to improve pedestrian safety and comfort by being more responsive to pedestrian crossing needs. These crossings were installed at sites in three European countries. Although important differences were observed in the impacts at the various sites, there were general gains in safety and comfort of pedestrians. Detectors installed at the crossings offered reduced delays by extending pedestrian interval for late arrivals. Thus, red light violation at a crossing in Porto decreased substantially from 83% to 67%. However, the results showed that safety and comfort did not go hand-in-hand. An increase in safety sometimes reduced comfort, or vis-à-vis (Carsten, Sherborne, & Rothengatter, 1998). In another work of VRU-TOO, Carsten (1994) showed that the risk of a conflict between pedestrian and vehicle was highest when pedestrian delay was small. This means that if pedestrians do not stop or slow down at the curb when they arrive at the crosswalk to cross a street, they are most likely to be involved in an accident. The risk is particularly high for a pedestrian to cross on red when a free-flowing vehicle or a platoon of vehicles is approaching (Pasanen & Salmivaara, 1993).
As long as the issue of traffic safety stays at the top of the nation’s agenda, researchers have been trying several approaches if in order to reduce pedestrian injuries and casualties as pedestrians being the most vulnerable actors in the competitive urban traffic. These approaches range is scope from introducing innovative devices to examining and evaluating current practices. Broyhill, Tan Esse, and Ward (2002) described the experimentation of an innovative traffic control device (TCD), provided an example of a successful experiment and discussed the implementation of a new TCD––the “fluorescent yellow green” warning signs to be used for school, pedestrian, and bicycle related traffic safety. Retting, Nitzburg, Farmer, and Knoblauch (2002) examined the practice of “right-turn-on-red (RTOR).” Although the practice of RTOR has many benefits such as reduced emissions and/or traffic delays, the RTOR is likely to increase the risk of crashes and injuries, especially in urban areas where high pedestrian activities occur. Following the adoption of the national RTOR policy in the US, significant increases in pedestrian and bicycle crashes were reported at signalized intersections. This is due to the fact that many drivers do not come to a full stop before turning right on red. Another negative impact of the RTOR is that drivers tend to fail to stop at/behind the marked stop line due to their habits for turning right on red, thereby blocking the pedestrian crosswalk while waiting to turn. This can impede movement and cause pedestrians to walk outside of designated crosswalks. Relatively little is known about the operational and safety effects of prohibiting the RTOR when pedestrians are present as compared with the unconditional RTOR restrictions or restrictions confined to specified hours.
Literature review indicated that environmental designs and urban forms could play a very crucial role in pedestrian travel behavior. A proper design of facilities can encourage walking without compromising safety and convenience (Handy, 1996; Shriver, 1997). Besides, improvements in safety and comfort for pedestrians can be obtained without major side effects on vehicle travel (Carsten et al., 1998). Also it is evident that pedestrian safety can be affected by changes in the signal settings at signalized crosswalks (Gårder, 1989). A study by Forsythe and Berger (1973) presented the results of interviews with pedestrians crossing unsafely during DON’T WALK signal indication or pedestrian red interval. It was reported that the reason for unsafe crossing was mainly time-related. A need to hurry or a desire to keep moving was the main reason behind the lack of compliance with pedestrian signals. The major responsibility of providing physical facilities that encourage pedestrian travel and help protect the pedestrians resides with traffic engineers. Such facilities include roadways, sidewalks, TCDs, medians, etc. Pedestrian friendly and safe environments involve separation of pedestrian and vehicle traffic, control of flow of pedestrians and vehicles, improvement of visibility, proper communication through signs, and assistance of pedestrians with special needs (US DOT, AAA & NSC, 1994).
Although considerable research has been undertaken in the very recent years to address the problem of pedestrian safety (as a few examples: Ivan et al., 2001; Krabbel, Appel, & Ikels, 1998; Kronborg & Ekman, 1995; Levelt, 1992; Marçal, 1995; Miller, 2000, Miller, 1999; Pasanen & Salmivaara, 1993; Retting et al., 2002; Road Information Program, 2001; Schieber & Vegega, 2001; Tan & Zeeger, 1995; Zegeer et al., 2002; Zegeer, Stewart, Huang, & Lagerwey, 2002), limited studies on pedestrian perceptions and attitudes towards facilities for pedestrians are reported in the literature. Among them recent studies by Hine (1996), Hine and Russell (1996) and Russell and Hine (1996) published the impact of traffic on behavior and perceptions of safety of pedestrians. Another study by Tanaboriboon and Jing (1994) reported the attitudes of pedestrians in Beijing, China, towards the sufficiency of crossing facilities and the willingness of pedestrians to use them. The study compared signalized intersection pedestrian crossings to overpass and underpass counterparts and concluded that users preferred the signalized crossings to the overpass or underpass crossings. The authors also reported that the pedestrian crossing compliances with pedestrian signal at two study locations were 70% and 57%. Rouphail (1984) performed a user compliance and preference study on marked midblock crosswalks in downtown Columbus, Ohio. The preference study indicated that users perceived the unsignalized marked midblock crosswalk to be unsafe. However, the same crosswalks were rated highest with respect to crossing convenience. Pedestrian crossing compliance rates at the signalized and unsignalized midblock crosswalks were 85.4%, and 86.4% with pedestrian sign (84.2% without pedestrian sign).
Similar crossing compliance studies were carried out in Europe. Pedestrian push buttons at signalized crosswalks are commonly used to regulate pedestrian crossing demand and to decrease conflicts between pedestrians crossing and vehicles passing through designated crosswalks; hence, to increase safety. Pedestrians are supposed to register their demand manually by activating the push-button when they wish to cross a street in a conflict-free phase; however, they frequently do not do so (Carsten et al., 1998). Davies (1992) observed pedestrian compliance with the push-button installed at signalized crosswalks in the UK and presented the results of his observations that more than half of the pedestrians did not activate the push button to cross. The compliance with the device was 49% in a small town, while in London the rate was 27%. In another location in Toulouse, push button compliance was as low as 18% (Levelt, 1992). Jacobs, Sayer, and Downing (1981) compared road user behavior at traffic signals, uncontrolled pedestrian crossings and priority junctions in a number of cities in developing countries with similar observations in Great Britain. The comparison indicated that fewer pedestrians chose to use the crossings in Third World cities and, on average, they took longer to cross, partly because they were delayed while crossing whereas such delays rarely occurred in Great Britain. Based on these observations it can be said that no two pedestrians at different settings display comparable behavior. Therefore, the phenomenon of pedestrian behavior at crosswalks and crossing compliance with crosswalk location and/or signal setting needs to be investigated with conditions of the environment in which pedestrians are observed as well as with considering pedestrians own characteristics such as age, sex, and socioeconomic situation.
Lam, Lee, and Cheung (2002) examined the relationship between walking speed and pedestrian flow under various flow conditions, and the effects of bi-directional pedestrian flow on signalized crosswalks in Hong Kong. Pedestrian flow measurements were conducted at selected signalized crosswalks in both shopping and commercial areas, and with and without light rail transit (LRT) railway tracks in the median of the carriageway. The bi-directional pedestrian flow effects on signalized crosswalk facilities with LRT tracks were found to be more significant than those without LRT tracks. The results suggested reviewing current transportation and design standards to ensure proper safety at crosswalks with high pedestrian demand.
Some studies collected pedestrian movement and perception data by direct observations of pedestrian behaviors by hidden or disclosed cameras and/or by user surveys or interviews. One of these researches studied elementary school children behaviors during their daily school trips as pedestrians. Routledge, Repetto-Wright, and Howarth (1974) compared data from interviews and direct observations of children aged 5–11 years during their trips from school to home. Comparison was made between children’s reported exposure to traffic and observation of their journeys. The results indicated that children slightly under-reported their actual exposure and that there is a highly significant increase in exposure with age but no difference in exposure between boys and girls in the age range studied. Howarth, Routledge, and Repetto-Wright (1974) analyzed road accidents involving children when crossing different types of road. The analysis of measures of exposure obtained from interviews with children and from traffic counts on the roads children crossed showed that raw accident figures greatly underestimated the relative risk to children between the age of 5 and 7, that the greater number of accident to boys of this age is not due to their exposure to traffic, and that by the age of 8, boys are not more at risk than girls, even though boys have greater exposure to traffic.
Considering the studies described above, offering valuable information about pedestrian perceptions but focusing on one type of crossing at a time, this paper aimed at assessing pedestrian perceptions towards and pedestrian behaviors at commonly encountered crossing types in an urban area. These include signalized and unsignalized intersection crosswalks, unsignalized marked midblock crosswalks, and various crossing treatments in the same environment. The results presented herein are from the evaluation of pedestrian behaviors, perceptions and choices in a busy urban boulevard, which included signalized and unsignalized intersection crosswalks, and unsignalized marked midblock crosswalks, in the City of East Lansing, Michigan, USA. The city of East Lansing recently renovated a section of a major corridor, Grand River Avenue, in an effort to improve vehicular and pedestrian traffic flows, to increase pedestrian safety, and to enhance aesthetics in downtown East Lansing. These renovations created a perfect study site for the subject research. Following the renovations, Michigan State University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering evaluated the various pedestrian facilities through a research study (Sisiopiku & Akin, 1999) sponsored by the Michigan Department of Transportation.
Section snippets
Method
The main objective of this research is to analyze user behaviors, perceptions and preferences toward various pedestrian facilities, including signalized and unsignalized intersection crosswalks, unsignalized midblock crosswalks, physical barriers and crosswalk furniture. Crossing preferences and habits of pedestrians are analyzed to determine their crossing practices and to explain the reasoning behind their choices. Perception and preference information was obtained by surveying users of the
Descriptive of survey respondents
Out of the 711 pedestrians studied, 254 (36%) crossed the street daily and the rest (457 pedestrians, or 64%) were classified as occasional users; i.e., they crossed the street a couple of days a week. The percentage of respondents 21 years or younger was 32.7%, between 21 and 55 years of age was 61.6%, and the remaining 5.7% was over 55 years of age. The fairly normal distribution of age data of the survey respondents is an indication of a representative and properly diverse sample population.
Conclusions
This research studied pedestrians’ perceptions toward the operation of various pedestrian treatments such as signalized and unsignalized intersection crosswalks, marked and non-striped midblock crosswalks, use of physical barriers, shelters and colored paving at medians, and pedestrian warning signs. Information was obtained through surveying users and observing pedestrian movements at a study site in East Lansing, Michigan. All the aforementioned facilities and crossing treatments were present
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) for funding this research. The authors would also like to express their gratitude to the nearly 950 people who voluntarily completed the survey and expressed their valuable comments for the sole purpose of contributing to a research study. The students in Transportation program of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at MSU, who helped in data collection and reduction, are also acknowledged. Last but not
References (39)
- et al.
Intelligent traffic signals for pedestrians: evaluation of trials in three countries
Transportation Research Part C
(1998) Pedestrian safety at traffic signals:a study carried out with the help of a conflict technique
Accident Analysis and Prevention
(1989)Pedestrian travel experiences: assessing the impact of traffic on behaviour and perceptions of safety using an in-depth interview technique
Journal of Transport Geography
(1996)- Akin, D. (2000). Evaluation of pedestrian crosswalks in an urban environment. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil...
- Akin, D., & Sisiopiku, V. P. (2000). Estimating spatial crossing compliance at pedestrian crosswalks. In: Proceedings...
Stated preference for pedestrian proximity: an assessment of new urbanist sense of community
Journal of Planning Education and Research
(1999)- et al.
Innovative traffic control devices––the rulemaking process and public comments (part II)
ITE Journal
(2002) - Carsten, O. M. J. (1994). Pedestrian behavior and pedestrian signal design. In Proceedings of the sixth ICTCT workshop,...
- Davies, H. E. H. (1992). The puffin pedestrian crossing: experience with the first experimental sites. Research Report...
- Forsythe, M. J., & Berger, W. G. (1973). Urban pedestrian accident countermeasures experimental evaluation. Vol. 1,...
Urban form and pedestrian choices
Transportation Research Record
The impact on traffic on pedestrian behaviour (II)
Traffic Engineering and Control
An analysis of road accidents involving child
Ergonomics
Infrastructure measures for pedestrian safety
Zeitschrift für Verkehrssicherheit
A study of the bi-directional pedestrian flow characteristics at Hong Kong signalized crosswalk facilities
Transportation
Cited by (281)
Safety or efficiency? Estimating crossing motivations of intoxicated pedestrians by leveraging the inverse reinforcement learning
2024, Travel Behaviour and SocietyTemporal and spatial compliance behaviour of pedestrians under the influence of time pressure at signalized intersections: A pedestrian simulator study
2024, Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English Edition)Sidewalk networks: Review and outlook
2023, Computers, Environment and Urban SystemsWalkability for children in Bologna: Beyond the 15-minute city framework
2023, Journal of Urban MobilityInvestigating effects of environmental physical attributes on neighborhood walkability
2023, City and Environment InteractionsPedestrian behaviour in integrated street designs: A mesoscopic analysis
2023, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour