Why introduce Pedestrian crossing facilities?
Pedestrian risk of being killed or injured per kilometre in traffic is about 4-6 times as high as that of car drivers (Elvik & Vaa 1997). The latter figure is corrected for incomplete reporting in official accident statistics. In accidents where pedestrians are struck by vehicles, it is most often the pedestrian who is injured, not the vehicle occupant.

The primary objective of pedestrian crossing facilities is to make it less dangerous to walk and to reduce pedestrian traffic accidents. Traffic control for pedestrians is intended to separate pedestrian traffic in time and/or space from vehicular traffic and to direct pedestrian traffic to crossing points with good sight conditions and unambiguous requirements for vehicles to give way to pedestrians.

The most recent Norwegian figures (Sakshaug 1997) show that little more than 50% of drivers give way to pedestrians on pedestrian crossings. By reserving parts of the road or street area for pedestrian traffic and giving pedestrians priority when crossing the road, their mobility will be improved as well. The efficiency of such measures is however depending on the attitudes prevailing among car drivers and pedestrians.

Demand impacts
Pedestrian crossing facilities alone will not result in great mode shifts, but might together with other measures intended to improve pedestrian mobility encourage walking on shorter trips in the neighbourhood.

It is important to bear in mind that many pedestrians cross away from pedestrian crossings. Studies carried out by the Norwegian Public Roads Administration (Askildsen et al 1996) show that 25% of pedestrians cross the road away from the specific pedestrian crossing, in a zone of 25 metres from a pedestrian crossing.

The effects on demand, defined as impact on vehicle kilometres by car, will in any case be minor. This is due to the fact that pedestrian trips in general are short trips.

	= Weakest possible response,		= strongest possible positive response
	= Weakest possible negative response,		= strongest possible negative response

= No response

Short and long run demand responses
The responses, both from motorists and pedestrians, will probably be fairly quick in most cases, although this might also depend on supplementary infrastructure and attitudinal measures. Pedestrians might change their route on the detailed level, i.e. choose to cross at the marked or signalled crossing area instead of anywhere in the street. The impact on vehicle kilometres by car, will in any case be minor.

	= Weakest possible response,		= strongest possible positive response
	= Weakest possible negative response,		= strongest possible negative response

= No response

Supply impacts
Pedestrian crossing facilities defined as marked crossings or traffic signals, will not demand any supply of road space. The road capacity for motorized traffic will be the same.

Delays at crossings can be a secondary impact. For pedestrians waiting times get shorter with marked crossings and longer with traffic signals as compared to not regulated crossing. For cars the effects are opposite, cf. Evidence on performance.

Financing requirements
The costs vary with type of traffic signal, and there are large differences between countries. In Norway for instance the following figures are found:

• One traffic signal with control of pedestrian crossing in will be approximately 40.000 EURO (Elvik & Rydningen 2002)
  
• One traffic signal regulation of an X-crossing will amount to on average 212.000 EURO (Elvik & Rydningen 2002)
  
• Marking pedestrian crossing is cheaper and will amount to 700 EURO for one crossing (Elvik et al 1997).

Benefit cost analysis of the different types of traffic signal controlled crossing is discussed in Evidence of performance.

Expected impact on key policy objectives
The impacts differ significantly for the measures at stake; Marking pedestrian crossings and Traffic signal controlled pedestrian crossings. For details, se Evidence on performance. The impacts also differ depending on perspective; the cars’ or the pedestrians’.

Special attention should be given to the fact that an ordinary marked pedestrian crossing does not increase safety. This fact, which is astonishing, is among other things due to the relation between safety and feeling of security. Measures that give a false sense of security can reduce the attention given at crossings.

	= Weakest possible positive contribution,		= strongest possible positive contribution
	= Weakest possible negative contribution		= strongest possible negative contribution

= No contribution

Expected impact on problems

	= Weakest possible positive contribution,		= strongest possible positive contribution
	= Weakest possible negative contribution		= strongest possible negative contribution

= No contribution

Expected winners and losers

To define winners and losers, all possible impacts taken into account, is difficult. Time delays will differ between vehicles and pedestrians and between measures. The  environmental impacts are small.

Barriers to implementation

There are differences between nations in highway code, criteria for installation and in legal requirements for pedestrian facilities. This must be taken into account when looking at barriers.

The strongest barrier to implement pedestrian crossing facilities could be  ignorance of the importance to provide pedestrians with the necessary facilities, politically and in the road administration. Due to relatively small costs the barriers against these type of measures will probably be less than many other measures in KonSULT.

= minimal barrier,

= most significant barrier