Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 2 – uploaded by Muhammad Shah

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
* 1 - Slower traffic speed,2 — buffer and barriers (curb and furnishing zone), 3 - fewer traffic lane, 4 - shorter crossing distance (curb extension), 5 - mid block crossing, 6 - landscape and tree, 7 - footpath pavement, 8 - marking (crosswalk), 9 - pedestrian refuge and median, 10 - corner island, 11 - sidewalk on both sides, 12 - advance stop bar 13 - driveway,14 - lighting, 15 - signing, 16 - bollard, 17 - slope, 18 - lift, 19 - curb ramp, 20 - tactile pavement (guiding), 21 - tactile pavement (warning), 22 - ramp, 23 - grade, 24 - signal. > D, =1 (incomplete), D2 = 2 (semi complete), D3 = 3 (complete). Nj for evaluating PSI. Table 2

Table 2 * 1 - Slower traffic speed,2 — buffer and barriers (curb and furnishing zone), 3 - fewer traffic lane, 4 - shorter crossing distance (curb extension), 5 - mid block crossing, 6 - landscape and tree, 7 - footpath pavement, 8 - marking (crosswalk), 9 - pedestrian refuge and median, 10 - corner island, 11 - sidewalk on both sides, 12 - advance stop bar 13 - driveway,14 - lighting, 15 - signing, 16 - bollard, 17 - slope, 18 - lift, 19 - curb ramp, 20 - tactile pavement (guiding), 21 - tactile pavement (warning), 22 - ramp, 23 - grade, 24 - signal. > D, =1 (incomplete), D2 = 2 (semi complete), D3 = 3 (complete). Nj for evaluating PSI. Table 2

Related Figures (14)

Fig. 1. Coefficients of the pedestrian safety indicators.
Fig. 1. Coefficients of the pedestrian safety indicators.
* 1 - Clarke (2008), 2 - City of Calgary (2008), 3 - Sutherland and Morrish (2006), 4 - City of Whittlesea (2009), 5 - Narrabri Shire Council (2001), 6 — City of Charles Sturt (2009), 7 - Heramb (2007), 8 - Vanderslice (1998), 9 - Ashland City Council(1999), 10 - Access Minneapolis (2008), 11 - CDOT (2007), 12 - Pima County (2005), 13 - Neighborhood Streets Project Stakeholders (2000), 14 - City of Aurora (2007), 15 - Burden (1999), 16 - Boodlal (2001),17 - UTTIPEC (2009), 18 - City of New York (2009), 19 - RDM (2010), 20 - City of Tacoma (2009). > 1 - Slower traffic speed, 2 - buffer and barriers (curb and furnishing zone), 3 — fewer traffic lane, 4 — shorter crossing distance (curb extension), 5 - mid block crossing, 6 - te eee pe Te aie char C2 eek wistes tl woneeoenraties OO . wnadtactiutae saliiicas sad ee eae (8 — cawmade tela “+4 pital Ack hn aaea FP 3 . ARR ae See oo Depth of evaluation for pedestrian guidelines and indicators. Table 1
* 1 - Clarke (2008), 2 - City of Calgary (2008), 3 - Sutherland and Morrish (2006), 4 - City of Whittlesea (2009), 5 - Narrabri Shire Council (2001), 6 — City of Charles Sturt (2009), 7 - Heramb (2007), 8 - Vanderslice (1998), 9 - Ashland City Council(1999), 10 - Access Minneapolis (2008), 11 - CDOT (2007), 12 - Pima County (2005), 13 - Neighborhood Streets Project Stakeholders (2000), 14 - City of Aurora (2007), 15 - Burden (1999), 16 - Boodlal (2001),17 - UTTIPEC (2009), 18 - City of New York (2009), 19 - RDM (2010), 20 - City of Tacoma (2009). > 1 - Slower traffic speed, 2 - buffer and barriers (curb and furnishing zone), 3 — fewer traffic lane, 4 — shorter crossing distance (curb extension), 5 - mid block crossing, 6 - te eee pe Te aie char C2 eek wistes tl woneeoenraties OO . wnadtactiutae saliiicas sad ee eae (8 — cawmade tela “+4 pital Ack hn aaea FP 3 . ARR ae See oo Depth of evaluation for pedestrian guidelines and indicators. Table 1
Table 3 (continued)
Table 3 (continued)
Table 3 (continued) (21) tactile pavement (warning), (22) ramp, (23) grade and (24) sig- nal. This selection from various guidelines is useful for covering dif- ferent contexts. Some indicators that are evaluated in this model are essential for the safety of old and disabled pedestrians (e.g., footpath pavement, slope, curb ramp, tactile pavement (guiding and warn- ing), ramp, grade and signals). In addition, the disabled pedestrian facilities described throughout this paper can also enhance the safety of able-bodied pedestrians. For instance, ramps, lifts and curb ramps will assist older pedestrians and parents pushing strollers.
Table 3 (continued) (21) tactile pavement (warning), (22) ramp, (23) grade and (24) sig- nal. This selection from various guidelines is useful for covering dif- ferent contexts. Some indicators that are evaluated in this model are essential for the safety of old and disabled pedestrians (e.g., footpath pavement, slope, curb ramp, tactile pavement (guiding and warn- ing), ramp, grade and signals). In addition, the disabled pedestrian facilities described throughout this paper can also enhance the safety of able-bodied pedestrians. For instance, ramps, lifts and curb ramps will assist older pedestrians and parents pushing strollers.
SI; calculation. Table 5
SI; calculation. Table 5
Table 5 (continued)
Table 5 (continued)
Fig. 2. The existing conditions of Canberra road.
Fig. 2. The existing conditions of Canberra road.
Table 5 (continued)
Table 5 (continued)
PSI interpretation. Table 6
PSI interpretation. Table 6
Related topics:
EngineeringErgonomicsSafety SciencePoint SystemPsychology and Cognitive SciencesMedical and Health Sciences
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved