PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AT ROUNDABOUT

1. PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AT ROUNDABOUT Gendron, Matt Sipprell, Lee Kuepper, Hal Richards, Meredith Wallis, Jane

2. Objective • Analyze pedestrian safety at roundabouts. • Trimet is concerned with pedestrian safety at modern day roundabouts.

3. Location, Location, Location LOCATION: Roundabout at Eagle’s Landing in Clackamas (Single lane, four way roundabout)

4. What’s Around the Roundabout? • Residential North and East of Roundabout • Commercial to the South • Church Directly West • High School

5. Background • Based on the location, vehicle and pedestrian volumes present, this roundabout is not highly used by commuters.

6. Methodology • Pedestrian safety is difficult to quantify but may be related to pedestrian behavior and motor vehicle behavior. • Pedestrian Behavior Monitored: • Did pedestrians… • Require the use of a cross-walk? • Utilize cross-walks? • Jay-walk?

7. Methodology • Motor vehicle behavior may determine whether a route is actually safe for pedestrians – and whether pedestrians perceive an intersection as “safe.” • Looked for indirect measures of pedestrian safety such as: • Motor Vehicle Behavior Monitored: • Turn Signal Usage • Confusion • Speeding • Right-of-Way and Yielding Problems

8. Methodology • Data Collection was performed during: • Weekday morning and evening rush hours • Weekday afternoon (12:00 pm to 3:00 pm) • Sunday (before and after) morning and afternoon services • Data was collected in 15-minute intervals for a total time period of an hour (at least)

9. Results: Vehicles • 2,742 cars were monitored • 3% of vehicles were “obviously” speeding • 1% were visibly confused • 95% did not use a turn signal • Max Hourly Volume 335 vehicles (Sunday)

10. Results: Pedestrians • 89 Pedestrians were monitored. • 51% used cross-walk present • 4% Jay-walked • The Other 45% of Pedestrians did not require the use of a cross-walk • Max Hourly Volume 18 pedestrians (Sunday)

11. Results • Data analysis showed a statistically relevant dependent relationship indicating increasing pedestrian volumes with increasing vehicle volumes. • Pedestrians utilize the roundabout even in the presence of high vehicle traffic.

12. However, when pedestrian and car volumes were analyzed by time of day, there was no statistically relevant correlation between pedestrian and car volumes… … i.e. pedestrians used the roundabout independent of the vehicle volumes present.

13. Results • During the 12 hours of data collection there were only 2 pedestrian-car interactions. • This results in a 0.1% chance that a pedestrian entering the roundabout would interact with a car • Less interactions, less likelihood of accidents • This is a result of the geometric design of the roundabout

14. Lack of Pedestrian Car interaction due to geometric design of roundabouts.

15. Roundabouts reduce the number of conflict points for pedestrians and vehicles

16. The Safe design of Roundabouts • Splitter Island • Pedestrians only have to cross one direction of traffic at once • Slower speeds make for safer accidents • Very few conflict zones means less accidents • also reduces the severity of accidents

17. Roundabout Speed Control • Very low number of speeders. • Good deflection angle • Good deflection = slow entry speeds and adequate spacing between cars • Bad deflection = fast entry speeds and potential for loss of control in the roundabout. • Low speeds = safe crosswalks

18. A study was conducted in the Netherlands where 181 intersections were converted to roundabouts (USDOT 2000): • Resulted in: • 51% reduction in total crashes • 72% reduction in severity of crashes • 73% reduction in crashes involving pedestrians • 89% reduction in pedestrian injuries in crashes • Additional studies in France have also indicated a 25% reduction in crashes involving buses (USDOT 2000)

19. Roundabouts Are Confusing?!? • Roundabouts may cause confusion in drivers without any experience. • Even in a simple single-lane roundabout like at Eagle’s landing, there were a few cases of confused drivers. • A study by the U.S. Department of Transportation showed that if drivers are educated about roundabouts people prefer them to signalized intersections.

20. Adding A Bus – Safety Concerns Adding a bus could increase pedestrians: • Eagle’s Landing is a fairly low volume area for both pedestrians and cars, with a relatively low probability of vehicle-pedestrian interactions • As volumes increase, so will vehicle-pedestrian interactions, and also the likelihood of accidents

21. Adding A Bus (Cons) • Handicapped Pedestrians: • Roundabouts can be dangerous for the blind • Unlike signalized intersections, roundabouts are more intuitive when deciding when to cross. • Solution: • Raised crossings • Yield cameras to promote decrease in vehicular speeds • Signs for drivers • Roundabouts can be dangerous for wheelchairs

22. Adding A Bus – Bicyclist Concerns Increase in Cyclists could occur from Bus Service: • Roundabouts are not cyclist friendly • In a low volume area this is not a problem, but it can be in a high volume intersection. • Bicyclists riding around the outside of a roundabout are exposed to collision from vehicles entering or leaving the roundabout • Design guidance for modern roundabouts dictate that bicycle lanes be terminated well before the roundabout so bicyclists merge onto the stream of traffic.

23. Conclusions • Roundabouts yield ideal settings for bus stop locations: • Pedestrians only have to consider one direction of traffic when crossing because they can reside in the splitter island (Traekrak 1998) • Reduced crash frequency and severity for: • Pedestrians • Motor Vehicles • Buses

24. Recommendations • The Eagle’s Landing roundabout had low pedestrian commuter traffic, another study should be conducted with a roundabout with higher pedestrian volumes. • This would allow comparison for the influence of increased pedestrian traffic due to bus stops.

25. Additional Considerations… • FORECASTING FUTURE EFFECTS OF ADDING PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES • FORECASTING FUTURE EFFECTS OF ADDING A BUS STOP • FORECASTING FUTURE EFFECTS OF INCREASED VEHICLE FLOW • FUTURE SAFETY OF THE ROUNDABOUT AT EAGLE’S LANDING?

26. Questions????

27. REFERENCES • Daniels, Stijn; Brijs, Tom; Nuyts, Erik; and Wets, Geert. “Explaining variation in safety performance of roundabouts.” Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2009. • Map of Eagle’s Landing Roundabout available at: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=14020+SE+Portland+View+Pl.+Happy+Valley,+OR+97086&sll=37.020098,95.800781&sspn=35.661971,78.662109&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=14020+SE+Portland+View+Pl,+Happy+Valley,+Clackamas,+Oregon+97086&ll=45.437829,122.561889&spn=0.003854,0.009602&t=h&z=17. December 2, 2009 • New Hope Community Church. “Life Fully Filled: Sunday, November 8, 2009.” New Hope Community Church, 2009. • Robinson, Bruce W. et. al. Roundabouts: An Informational Guide. FHWA-RD-00-67. U.S. Department of Transportation, June 2000. • Taekratok, Thaweesak. Modern Roundabouts for Oregon. OR-RD-98-17, #98-SRS-522. Oregon Department of Research, June 1998. • Wallwork, Michael J. Alternate Traffic Control: Roundabouts. Genesis Group, Inc., Jacksonville, Florida, 2009. Available at http://www.keaau-pahoa.com/forms/Alternate%20Traffic%20Control%20-%20Roundabout.pdf • Daniels, Stijn; Brijs, Tom; Nuyts, Erik; and Wets, Geert. “Explaining variation in safety performance of roundabouts.” Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2009. • http://www.access-board.gov/research/roundabouts/bulletin.htm • http://www.candgnews.com/Homepage-Articles/2007/8-22-07/OF-ROUNDABOUTLAWSUIT.asp • http://callsam.com/bernstein-media-center/richard-bernstein-news-fighting-for-justice/federal-disability-lawsuit-challenges-traffic-roundabouts/disabled-sue-over-road-commission-roundabouts