References

  • American Association of State and Highway Transporation (AASHTO). (2004).
  • Guide for the planning, design and operation of pedestrian facilities. Washington, DC.
  • American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (1999).
  • Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. Washington DC.
  • American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (2001). Chapter 3: Elements of design. Policy on geometric design of highways and streets. Washington, DC
  • American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (2004). Section 3.2.4 Buffer widths. Guide for the planning, design, and operation of pedestrian facilities, Chapter 3: Pedestrian facilities design. Washington, DC.
  • American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (2004). Section 2.5.4 Traffic control and crossing near schools. Guide for the planning, design, and operation of pedestrian facilities; Chapter 2: Planning for pedestrians. Washington DC.
  • American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (2004). Section 3.2.3 Sidewalk widths. Guide for the planning , design, and operation of pedestrian facilities, Chapter 3: Pedestrian facilities design. Washington DC.
  • American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2012). Highway Safety Manual. Retrieved from http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/default.aspx
  • Boarnet, M., Day, K., Anderson, C., McMillan, T., Alfonzo, M. (2005). California’s Safe Routes to School Program: Impacts on Walking, Bicycling, and Pedestrian Safety. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(3), 301-317.
  • Bowman, B. & Vecellio, R. (1994). Effects of urban and suburban median types on both vehicular and pedestrian safety. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. (1445).
  • Bushell, M.A., Poole, B.W., Zegeer, C.V., & Rodriguez, D.A. (2013).  Costs for pedestrian and bicyclist infrastructure improvements: A resource for researchers, engineers, planners, and the general public. FHWA. Retrieved from:  http://katana.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/Countermeasure%20Costs_Report_Nov2013.pdf.
  • Chen, L., Chen, C., Ewing, R., McKnight, C. E., Srinivasan, R., & Roe, M. (2012). Safety countermeasures and crash reduction in New York City—Experience and lessons learned. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Advance online publication.
  • Daisa, J. M. (2010). Designing walkable urban thoroughfares: A context sensitive approach. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Retrieved from http://www.ite.org/emodules/scriptcontent/downloads/uGetPDF.cfm?pc=RP-036A-E
  • Dill, J. & Carr, T. (2003). Bicycle commuting and facilities in major US cities: If you build them, commuters will use them. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. (1828).
  • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2001). Section 4.1.2.3 Pedestrian zone. Designing sidewalks and trails for access; Part 2 best practices and design guide; Chapter 4 sidewalk corridors. Retrieved from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sidewalk2/sidewalks204.htm#sid
  • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2004). Pedsafe: Pedestrian safety guide and countermeasure selection system; Chapter 5: Countermeasures. Retrieved from http://www.walkinginfo.org/pedsafe/downloads/pedsafe_ch5.pdf
  • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2004). PEDSAFE: Pedestrian safety guide and countermeasure selection system (FHWA-SA-04-003). Washington DC. Retrieved from http://www.walkinginfo.org/pedsafe/index.cfm
  • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2009). The manual on uniform traffic control devices (MUTCD); Part 7 traffic control for school areas. Washington DC. Retrieved from http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part7.pdf
  • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2009). The manual on uniform traffic control devices (MUTCD). Washington DC.
  • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2011). Wisconsin roundabouts calm traffic, improve school zone safety. Retrieved from http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/roundabouts/roundabouttoolbox/docs/wi_case_study_school/wi_sz_rdbt.htm
  • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Proven safety countermeasures: Corridor access management. Retrieved from http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/fhwa_sa_12_006.htm.
  • Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety. (2012). Proven safety countermeasures: Pedestrian hybrid beacon. Retrieved from http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/fhwa_sa_12_012.htm
  • Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety. (2012). Proven safety countermeasures: Road diet. Retrieved from http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/fhwa_sa_12_013.htm.
  • Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety. (2012). Proven safety countermeasures. Retrieved from http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures
  • Fitzpatrick, K., & Park, E. S. (2010) Safety effectiveness of the HAWK pedestrian crossing treatment. (Report No. FHWA-HRT-10-042). Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
  • Fitzpatrick, K., Turner, S., Brewer, M., Carlson, P., Ullman, B., Trout, N., Park, E. S., & Whitacre, J. (2006). Improving pedestrian safety at unsignalized crossings (NCHRP Report 562). Transportation Research Board. Retrieved from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_562.pdf
  • Freedman, M., Janoff, M., Koth, B., & McCunney, W. (1975). Fixed Illumination for Pedestrian Protection. (FHWA-RD-76-8). Washington DC, Federal Highway Administration.
  • Gates, T. J., Noyce, D. A., Talada, V., and Hill, L. (2007). The safety and operational effects of “road diet” conversion in Minnesota. Transportation Research Board 86th Annual Meeting: compendium of papers CD-ROM, Vol. TRB#07-1918. Washington, D.C.
  • Harkey, D. L., Srinivasan, R., Baek, J., Persaud, B., Lyon, C., Council, ... & Bonneson, J. (2008). Crash reduction factors for traffic engineering and ITS improvements. Final report national cooperative highway research program (NCHRP) project.
  • Hawkey, L., Henson, C., Hulse, A., & Brindle, R. (1992). Towards traffic calming: A practitioner’s manual. Canberra, Australia: Federal Office of Road Safety.
  • Houten, R. V., Retting, R. A., Farmer, C. M., Houten, J. V. (2000). Field evaluation of a leading pedestrian interval signal phase at three urban intersections. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transporation Research Board, 1734(1), 86-92.
  • HSIS. (2010). Evaluation of Lane Reduction “Road Diet” Measures on Crashes: Summary Report. FHWA-HRT-10-053, McLean, VA: Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center.
  • Huang, H. F., Stewart, J. R., & Zegeer, C. V. (2002). Evaluation of lane reduction “road diet” measures on crashes and injuries. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1784(1), 80-90.
  • Institute of Trafffic Engineers (ITE). (1998). Design and safety of pedestrian facilities: A recommended practice of the institute of transportation engineer, Chapter 3: Sidewalks and paths. Washington DC, 30-34.
  • Institute of Transportation Engineers & Federal Highway Administration. (1999). Traffic calming state of the art. Washington, DC.
  • Institute of Transportation Engineers. (2010). Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach.
  • Knapp, K. & Giese, K. (2001). Guidelines for the conversion of urban four-lane undivided roadways to three-lane two-way left-turn lane facilities. Final Report.
  • Knoblauch, R., Tustin, B., Smith, S., & Pietrucha, M. (1987). Investigation of exposure based pedestrian accident areas: Crosswalks, sidewalks, local streets and major arterials. (FHWA/RD-87-038). Washington DC: Federal Highway Administration.
  • Kueper, D. (2007). Road diet treatment in ocean city, NJ, USA. ITE Journal, 77(2).
  • Leden, L., Garder, P., & Johansson, C. (2006). Safe pedestrian crossing for children and elderly. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38(2), 289-294.
  • Mauga, T. & Kaseko, M. (2010). Modeling and evaluating the safety impacts of access management (AM) features in the Las Vegas valley.” Presented at the 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
  • McMahon, P., Zegeer, C., Duncan, C., Knoblauch, R., Stewart, J., & Khattak, A. (2002). An analysis of factors contributing to “walking along roadway” crashes: Research study and guidelines for sidewalks and walkways report (FHWA-RD-01-101). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.walkinginfo.org/pdf/r&d/SidewalkReport.pdf. Accessed August 28, 2012
  • Metropolitan Transportation Commission. (2012). Safety toolbox: Engineering, Accessible pedestrian signals. Retrieved from http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/bicyclespedestrians/tools/accessiblePedSignals/
  • Metropolitan Transportation Commission. (2012). Safety toolbox: Engineering, countdown signals. Retrieved from http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/bicyclespedestrians/tools/countdownSignal/index.htm
  • Metropolitan Transportation Commission. (2012). Safety toolbox: Engineering, pedestrian refuge island. Retrieved from http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/bicyclespedestrians/tools/pedRefugeIsland/index.htm
  • Metropolitan Transportation Commission. (2012). Safety toolbox: Engineering, roadway lighting improvements. Retrieved from http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/bicyclespedestrians/tools/roadwayLighting/index.htm
  • Nelson, A. & Allen, D. (1997). If you build them, commuters will use them. Transportation Research Record,1578, 79-83.
  • Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. (2012). Roundabouts. Retrieved from http://www.walkinginfo.org/engineering/roadway-roundabouts.cfm
  • PEDSAFE. (2013). Case study no. 30. Elementary school crosswalk enhancement program: Bellevue, Washington.  Retrieved from: http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/casestudies_detail.cfm?CS_NUM=30&op=C&CM_NUM=57&subop=g
  • .
  • PEDSAFE. (2013). Case study no. 38. school zone traffic calming: Portland, Oregon. Retrieved from: http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/casestudies_detail.cfm?CS_NUM=38&op=C&CM_NUM=57&subop=g.
  • PEDSAFE. (2013). Case study no. 106. school safety program: Phoenix, Arizona.  Retrieved from: http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/casestudies_detail.cfm?CS_NUM=106&op=C&CM_NUM=57&subop=g.
  • Pegrum, B. (1972). The application of certain traffic management techniques and their effect on road safety. Washington DC, National Road Safety Symposium.
  • Retting, R. A., Ferguson, S. A., & McCartt, A. T. (2003). A review of evidence-based traffic engineering measures designed to reduce pedestrian-motor vehicle crashes. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1456-1463.
  • Rodergerdts, L., Bansen, J., Tiesler, C., Knudsen, J., Myers, E., Johnson, M., & O’Brien, A. (2010). Roundabouts: An informational guide (NCHRP Report 672). Transporation Research Board. Retrieved from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_672.pdf
  • Shroeder, B., Hughes, R., Rouphail, N., Cunningham, C., Salamati, K., Long, R., ... & Myers, E. (2010). Crossing solutions at roundabouts and channelized turn lanes for pedestrians with vision disabilities (NCHRP Report 674). Transportation Research Board. Retrieved from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_674.pdf
  • Turner, S., Sandt, L., Toole, J., Benz, R., & Patten, R. (2004). Federal highway administration (FHWA) university course on bicycle and pedestrian transportation draft report. McLean, VA: Federal Highway Administration.
  • U.K. Department of Transportation. (1987). Killing speed and saving lives. London, United Kingdom.
  • U.S. Access Board. (1999). Section 3.2.1 sidewalk width. Accessible rights-of-way: A design guide. Retrieved from http://www.access-board.gov/prowac/guide/PROWGuide.htm
  • U.S. Access Board. (2005). Section 4.03: Walking surfaces. Americans with disabilities act (ADA) and the architectural barriers act (ABA) accessibility guidelines for buildings and facilities; Chapter 4: Accessible routes. Retrieved from http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/final.htm#Surfaces
  • U.S. Access Board. (2012). Sections 4.3 Accessible route and 4.3.3 Width. ADA accessibility guidelines for buildings and facilities (ADAAG); Chapter 4: Accessible elements and spaces: Scope and technical requirements. Retrieved from http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/html/adaag.htm#4.3
  • Victoria Transport Policy Institute. (2012). Roadway Connectivity, Creating More Connected Roadway and Pathway Networks. TDM encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm116.htm
  • Washington State Department of Transportation. (n.d.). Traffic signals and signal coordination timing. Retrieved from http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/operations/traffic/signals.htm.
  • Zegeer C. V., Opiela K. S., Cynecki M. J. (1985). Pedestrian signalization alternatives final report. (Report No. FHWA/RD-83-102). Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
  • Zegeer, C. V., & Cynecki, M. J. (1985). Methods of increasing pedestrian safety at right-turn-on-red intersections. (Report No. FHWA/RD-85/047). Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
  • Zegeer, C. V., Stutts, J., Huang, H., Cynecki, M. J., Van Houten, H., Alberson, B., ... & Hardy, K. K. (2004). Guidance for implementation of the AASHTO strategic highway safety plan. Volume 10: A guide for reducing collisions involving pedestrians (NCHRP Report 500). Transportation Research Board. Retrieved from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v10.pdf
  • Zegeer, C., Stewart, J., Huang, H., & Lagerwey, P. (2002). Safety effects of marked vs. unmarked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations: Executive summary and recommended guidelines. (FHWA-RD-01-075) McLean, VA: Federal Highway Administration.