The Handbook of Road Safety Measures (Elvik et al 1997, Elvik & Vaa 2003) that is the most comprehensive survey of road safety measures made, includes meta-analysis of more than 30 studies on the effects of different Pedestrian crossing facilities. The meta-analysis assigns statistical weights to studies by sample size and sorts them by design quality and thus gives the most systematic overview of impacts, especially on traffic safety. The evidence of performance described, is based on this information.

Context

The studies included are from several countries; Australia, Canada, Denmark, Great Britain, Norway, Sweden and USA.

Impacts on demand - delays

No detectable or well documented impacts on demand.

Waiting times for pedestrians and cars at different types of crossing facilities depend on the amount of pedestrian and vehicle traffic. In general, waiting times increase for pedestrians at all types of crossings when vehicle traffic increases and vehicle waiting times increase when the number of pedestrians crossing the road increases.

Marking pedestrian crossings reduces pedestrians’ waiting time compared to informal crossing points, whatever the amount of traffic. Marked pedestrian crossings give shorter waiting times than any other type of crossing. By contrast, traffic signal controlled pedestrian crossings increase pedestrian waiting times when crossing the road compared with the waiting time at non-marked crossings. For vehicles, traffic signal controlled pedestrian crossings give the shortest waiting time, and ordinary pedestrian crossings the longest waiting times, especially when pedestrian traffic is heavy. Providing traffic signals is assumed to impose a mean delay of 4 s per pedestrian and 2 s per motor vehicle. The differences in the average waiting times between different types of crossing facilities are never more than around 25 seconds. This is true for both pedestrians and vehicles (Hunt 1990).

The results on waiting time (more queuing etc) are related to facilities made for existing pedestrian crossings. All new specific pedestrians crossing areas will induce time delays for cars compared to routes without pedestrian crossings. On the other hand, organized crossings might give higher speed between crossings, if fewer pedestrians choose to cross there.

Impacts on Supply

Management related pedestrian crossing facilities do not lay claim to additional road space, such as infrastructure related measures will.

Other Impacts – Traffic Safety

Special attention should be given to the fact that many pedestrian crossing facilities do nor work out as intended, i.e they have no or even an adverse effect on accidents.

Marking an ordinary pedestrian crossing is associated with an increase in the number of accidents, both pedestrian accidents and accidents involving vehicles (Elvik et al 1997). The reason for this is not very well known, but pedestrian feeling more safe might be one possible explanation (Elvik 2000). Traffic signal controlled pedestrian crossings on the other hand might reduce the accidents for all parties, but the effects are only of significant importance when Pedestrian crossings with separate phases for pedestrians at traffic signal controlled intersections are used. Table 1 below also shows that the traffic safety effects are much larger for infrastructure crossing facilities than for management measures in this area (Elvik & Vaa 2003).

Effects of pedestrian crossing facilities on injury accidents Percentage change in the number of accidents. (Source: Elvik and Vaa 2003)

Connected to traffic safety is the pedestrians feeling of security. This feeling might differ from the actual risks, but is nevertheless an impact to consider. 

Results of benefit cost analysis

A benefit cost analysis of the different types of traffic signal controlled crossing shows a positive benefit-cost-ratio for a complete signal regulation of an X-crossing, while the ratio is negative for a single signal-controlled pedestrian crossing (Elvik & Rydningen 2002).

Recently undertaken benefit cost analysis of different traffic signals can illustrate the relative importance of the impacts of pedestrian crossing facilities (Elvik 2000, Elvik & Rydningen 2002). Table 2 shows that inclusion of reduced insecurity is decisive for the results. When insecurity is omitted, the net benefits are negative due to the delay imposed on both motorists and pedestrians (Elvik 2000).

Benefit cost analysis of providing traffic signals at a pedestrian crossing. Environmental impacts are minor and are excluded. (Source: Elvik 2000)

Contribution to Objectives

The contribution will differ from a pedestrian and a car user perspective. Both perspectives are commented below.

Gaps and Weaknesses

No studies have been found on the impacts of pedestrian crossing facilities on mobility and travel demand. These effects are probably to weak to merit further attention.