PesBicSafetyPerformance Report

Pedestrian and Bicycle-Involved Crash
Analysis and Safety Performance Enhancement

at High-Traffic Intersections
Presented to:
City of Albuquerque
Prepared by:
UNM Geospatial and Population Studies
Department of Civil Engineering, University of New Mexico

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE-INVOLVED
CRASH ANALYSIS AND SAFETY
PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT AT HIGH-
TRAFFIC INTERSECTIONS
Final Report
Report Prepared by:
Adélamar "Dely" Alcántara

Guohui Zhang
Qiong Wu
Cong Chen
David Jacobs
UNM Geospatial and Population Studies

Department of Civil Engineering
University of New Mexico
January 2016
Executive Summary
According to statistical data released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), more than 4,000 pedestrians die and 70,000 are injured in traffic crashes annually in
the U.S. New Mexico has been identified as a focus state for pedestrian and bicyclist safety by
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) due to the high number of fatal crashes involving
pedestrians and bicyclists. New Mexico was among the top 10 states with the highest average
rate of pedestrian fatalities per 100,000 population. The bicyclist fatality rate in New Mexico
fluctuated significantly, with the state ranked as the 2nd in 2010 and 4th in 2012. Among all the
pedestrian and bicyclist-involved crashes in New Mexico, more than 40% of them occurred in
the City of Albuquerque, and over 80% of them happened around intersections. This study aims
to analyze the characteristics of pedestrian and bicyclist-involved crashes at intersections in
Albuquerque in order to develop countermeasures to improve the safety performance at
intersections. In this study, a total of 10 intersections in Albuquerque with the highest number of
pedestrian and bicyclist involved crashes were analyzed, including Central Ave @ San Mateo
Blvd, Montgomery Blvd @ San Mateo Blvd, Central Ave @ Louisiana Blvd, Central Ave @
Wyoming Blvd, Central Ave @ Eubank Blvd, Lomas Blvd @ Juan Tabo Blvd, Central Ave @
Rio Grande Blvd, Central Ave @ Coors Blvd, Central Ave @ Yale Blvd, and Montano Rd @ 4th
St. Pedestrian and bicyclist involved crashes from 2004 to 2013 occurring around these 10
intersections were studied. Based on detailed data collection conducted in this project,
characteristics for each intersection were analyzed and corresponding countermeasures were
recommended for reducing the crash frequency and severity at these 10 intersections.
The countermeasures proposed for many intersections in this project include:
1. For 8 intersections, extending green time for pedestrians on specific directions could help
to reduce crash frequency and severity (e.g. Central Ave @ Coors Blvd, Central Ave @
Yale Blvd, etc.).
2. Installing barriers on medians will be helpful to prevent pedestrians from jaywalking for
6 intersections (e.g. Central Ave @ San Mateo Blvd, Montgomery Blvd @ San Mateo
Blvd, etc.).
3. For 5 intersections, countermeasures to reduce vehicle speed approaching intersections,
such as transverse rumble strips and speed reduction warning signs, should be considered
(e.g. Central Ave @ Louisiana Blvd, Central Ave @ Wyoming Blvd, Central Ave @
Eubank Blvd, etc.)
4. For 4 intersections where schools located, traffic safety enforcement and education at the
nearby schools could help to reduce the number of pedestrian and bicyclist-involved
crashes (e.g. Montgomery Blvd @ San Mateo Blvd, Lomas Blvd @ Juan Tabo Blvd, etc.)
5. In order to increase drivers’ attention for pedestrians and bicyclists during dawn and dusk,
installing flashing warning signs should be considered for 3 intersections (e.g.
Montgomery Blvd @ San Mateo Blvd, Central Ave @ Wyoming Blvd, etc.).
More countermeasures specific to each intersection were recommended and interpreted in the
report.
Table of Contents
Section 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................... 3
Section 2: Scope of Work ............................................................................................................... 5
Section3: Methodology ................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Crash Characteristics Analysis............................................................................................................ 7

3.2 Traffic Safety Analyses....................................................................................................................... 7
3.2.1 Person Injury Rate........................................................................................................................ 7
3.2.2 Crash Severity Analysis ............................................................................................................... 7
Section 4: Data Collection .............................................................................................................. 9
4.1 Data Collection Time .......................................................................................................................... 9

4.2 Traffic Data Collection Procedure .................................................................................................... 13
Section 5: Data Analysis and Results ........................................................................................... 15
5.1 Crash Characteristics Analyses Results ............................................................................................ 15

5.1.1 Injury Severity ........................................................................................................................... 15
5.1.2 Age Group .................................................................................................................................. 16
5.1.3. Gender ....................................................................................................................................... 17
5.1.4. Weekdays and Weekends.......................................................................................................... 18
5.1.5. Season ....................................................................................................................................... 19
5.1.6. Time of Day .............................................................................................................................. 20
5.1.7. Alcohol-Impairment .................................................................................................................. 22
5.1.8. Crash Contributing Factors ....................................................................................................... 23
5.2 Safety Analyses Results .................................................................................................................... 24
5.3 Traffic Data Results .......................................................................................................................... 24
Section 6: Comments and Recommendations............................................................................... 25
6.1 Intersection 1: Central Ave @ San Mateo Blvd ................................................................................ 25

6.1.1 Data analyses ............................................................................................................................. 25
6.1.2 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 27
6.2 Intersection 2: Montgomery Blvd @ San Mateo Blvd ..................................................................... 28
6.2.1 Data analyses ............................................................................................................................. 28
1
6.3 Intersection 3: Central Ave @ Louisiana Blvd ................................................................................. 31
6.3.1 Data analyses ............................................................................................................................. 31
6.4 Intersection 4: Central Ave @ Wyoming Blvd ................................................................................. 34
6.4.1 Data analyses ............................................................................................................................. 34
6.5 Intersection 5: Central Ave @ Eubank Blvd ..................................................................................... 37
6.5.1 Data analyses ............................................................................................................................. 37
6.6 Intersection 6: Lomas Blvd @ Juan Tabo Blvd ................................................................................ 40
6.6.1 Data analyses ............................................................................................................................. 40
6.7 Intersection 7: Central Ave @ Rio Grande Blvd .............................................................................. 42
6.7.1 Data analyses ............................................................................................................................. 42
6.8 Intersection 8: Central Ave @ Coors Blvd ....................................................................................... 45
6.8.1 Data analyses ............................................................................................................................. 45
6.9 Intersection 9: Central Ave @ Yale Blvd ......................................................................................... 46
6.9.1 Data analyses ............................................................................................................................. 46
6.10 Intersection 10: Montano Rd @ 4th St ........................................................................................... 49
6.10.1 Data analyses ........................................................................................................................... 49
6.10.2 Recommendation ..................................................................................................................... 50
References ..................................................................................................................................... 52
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 53
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 58
2
Section 1: Introduction
Crashes between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists represent an important safety issue for our
society. According to statistical data released by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) (1), more than 4,000 pedestrians die and 70,000 are injured in traffic
crashes and more than 700 bicyclists are killed and 52,000 are injured annually in the U.S.. New
Mexico has been identified as a focus state for pedestrian and bicyclist safety by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) due to the high number of fatal crashes involving pedestrians
and bicyclists.
Table 1.1 Pedestrian/Bicyclist Fatality Rate of New Mexico from 2010 to 2013(1)
Pedestrians Bicyclists
Fatalities per Million Rank in the U.S. Fatalities per Million Rank in the U.S.
Population Population
2010 1.60 10 3.87 2
2011 1.97 6 1.92 17
2012 2.92 2 3.36 4
2013 2.35 5 1.92 20
As shown in Table 1.1, New Mexico was among the top 10 states with the highest average rate
of pedestrian fatalities per 100,000 population from 2010 to 2013. The bicyclist fatality rate in
New Mexico fluctuated significantly, with the state ranked as the 2nd in 2010 and 4th in 2012.
Table 1.2 was obtained from the New Mexico Traffic Crash Annual Report (2). It shows that
although pedestrian and bicyclist-involved crashes only account for around 1% of total crashes,
the proportion of pedestrian and bicyclist-involved crashes that result in fatality is as high as 16.9%
and 2.1%, respectively. Those data indicate that it is critical to investigate the characteristics and
attributes associated with pedestrian and bicyclist-involved crashes in order to better understand
their significant causal factors and develop appropriate solutions for those types of crashes in
New Mexico. Among all the pedestrian and bicyclist-involved crashes in New Mexico, more
than 40% of them occurred in the City of Albuquerque, and over 80% of them happened around
intersections. Therefore, there is a need to analyze the characteristics of pedestrian and bicyclist-
involved crashes at intersections in order to improve the safety performance of these
intersections.
3
Table 1.2 Pedestrian/Bicyclist Involved Crashes by Crash Classification and Crash Severity, 2012(2)
Crash Property Damage
Fatal Crashes Injury Crashes Total Crashes
Classification Only Crashes
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Pedestrian 62 11.3% 344 1.6% 41 0.1% 447 0.6%
Bicyclist 7 1.3% 277 1.3% 110 0.2% 394 0.5%
In this study, a total of 10 intersections in Albuquerque with the highest number of pedestrian
and bicyclist involved crashes were analyzed, including Central Ave @ San Mateo Blvd,
Montgomery Blvd @ San Mateo Blvd, Central Ave @ Louisiana Blvd, Central Ave @
Wyoming Blvd, Central Ave @ Eubank Blvd, Lomas Blvd @ Juan Tabo Blvd, Central Ave @
Rio Grande Blvd, Central Ave @ Coors Blvd, Central Ave @ Yale Blvd, and Montano Rd @ 4th
St. Pedestrian and bicyclist involved crashes from 2004 to 2013 occurring around these 10
intersections were studied. Based on detailed data collection conducted in this project,
characteristics for each intersection were analyzed and corresponding countermeasures were
provided for reducing the crash frequency and severity around these 10 intersections.
The countermeasures proposed for many intersections in this project include:
6. For 8 intersections, extending green time for pedestrians on specific directions could help
to reduce crash frequency and severity (e.g. Central Ave @ Coors Blvd, Central Ave @
Yale Blvd, etc.).
7. Installing barriers on medians will be helpful to prevent pedestrians from jaywalking for
6 intersections (e.g. Central Ave @ San Mateo Blvd, Montgomery Blvd @ San Mateo
Blvd, etc.).
8. For 5 intersections, countermeasures to reduce vehicle speed approaching intersections,
such as transverse rumble strips and speed reduction warning signs, should be considered
(e.g. Central Ave @ Louisiana Blvd, Central Ave @ Wyoming Blvd, Central Ave @
Eubank Blvd, etc.)
9. For 4 intersections where schools located, traffic safety enforcement and education at the
nearby schools could help to reduce the number of pedestrian and bicyclist-involved
crashes (e.g. Montgomery Blvd @ San Mateo Blvd, Lomas Blvd @ Juan Tabo Blvd, etc.)
10. In order to increase drivers’ attention for pedestrians and bicyclists during dawn and dusk,
installing flashing warning signs should be considered for 3 intersections (e.g.
Montgomery Blvd @ San Mateo Blvd, Central Ave @ Wyoming Blvd, etc.).
More countermeasures specific to each intersection were explained and presented in Section 6.
4
Section 2: Scope of Work
In this study, all data for pedestrian and bicyclist-involved crashes occurring in the City of
Albuquerque from 2004 to 2013, were obtained from the New Mexico Department of
Transportation (NMDOT), the Traffic Safety Division (TSD), and Geospatial and Population
Studies (GPS) at the University of New Mexico. Based on these 10-year crash data, a total of 10
intersections were selected due to the high number of pedestrian and bicyclist-involved crashes.
Fig. 2.1. Top 10 Intersection Locations
All 10 intersections, listed in Table 2.1, are ranked according to the number of pedestrians
involved in crashes. Their locations are demonstrated in Fig. 2.1. Detailed crash data for these 10
intersections were extracted accordingly for further analysis in the next sections.
5
Table 2.1 Top 10 Intersections with Number of People in Crashes
ID Intersection Location Pedestrians in Crashes Bicyclists in Crashes
1 Central Ave @ San Mateo Blvd 29 10
2 Montgomery Blvd @ San Mateo Blvd 27 3
3 Central Ave @ Louisiana Blvd 26 12
4 Central Ave @ Wyoming Blvd 17 5
5 Central Ave @ Eubank Blvd 15 4
6 Lomas Blvd @ Juan Tabo Blvd 13 10
7 Central Ave @ Rio Grande Blvd 13 9
8 Central Ave @ Coors Blvd 12 9
9 Central Ave @ Yale Blvd 10 17
10 Montano Rd @ 4th St 8 9
6
Section3: Methodology
3.1 Crash Characteristics Analysis

Comprehensive crash data analyses were conducted in order to identify the crash characteristics
for pedestrian and bicyclist-involved crashes around intersections. The distributions of various
variables, such as injury severity, age group, gender, etc., were obtained based on 10 years of
pedestrian and bicyclist-involved crashes at these 10 intersections.
3.2 Traffic Safety Analyses

Safety analyses were conducted in order to better understand crash characteristics, and the results
will be helpful to develop cost-effective countermeasures and policies to improve the safety
performance of those 10 intersections in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
3.2.1 Person Injury Rate

In previous studies on pedestrian safety (3), Crash Rate, which is calculated as the number of
crashes divided by the vehicle volume, was used for intersection safety evaluation:
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑟𝑎𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑠
Crash Rate = 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑉𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 × 1,000,000 (5.1)
However, this variable does not reflect the volume of pedestrians and bicyclists, which may not
be suitable for safety evaluation for pedestrians and bicyclists. A new evaluation indicator,
Person Injury Rate, was proposed in this study in order to better assess the safety performance of
these 10 intersections:
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝐼𝑛𝑣𝑜𝑣𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝐶𝑟𝑎𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑠
Person Injury Rate = (5.2)
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑉𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑎×𝑃𝑒𝑑/𝐵𝑖𝑐 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒
× 1,000,000
3.2.2 Crash Severity Analysis

Considering that the injury severity levels are discrete, many discrete choice models can be used
for crash severity analyses. Due to the limited number of crash records, a binary logit model was
employed to identify the contributing factors for crash severities in this study. Many previous
studies were conducted using such modeling approaches for injury severity investigations (4, 5).
Assume Sin, the utility function that determines the probability of driver n suffering severity
outcome i in a crash, is defined as follows:
𝑆𝑖𝑛 = 𝜷𝒊 ∙ 𝑿𝒊𝒏 + 𝜀𝑖𝑛 (5.3)
7
where, 𝑿𝑖𝑛 is a vector of exogenous explanatory variables associated with driver n to determine
injury severity i; 𝜷𝑖 is a vector of estimated coefficients; 𝜀𝑖𝑛 is the random utility component and
represents these unobservable influences on severity outcomes. If 𝜀𝑖𝑛 is assumed to be
Generalized Extreme Value (GEV) distributed, then a multinomial Logit model can be derived as
(6):
𝐸𝑋𝑃[𝜷𝑖 𝑿𝑖𝑛 ]
𝑃𝑖𝑛 = ∑ (5.4)
∀𝐼 𝐸𝑋𝑃[𝜷𝑖 𝑿𝑖𝑛 ]
where Pin is the probability of driver n suffering injury outcome i in a crash, and I is the choice
set of possible injury severity outcomes. In this study, driver injury severity outcomes are
classified into two categories: no injury, injury (including possible injury, non-incapacitating
injury, incapacitating injury and fatality).
8
Section 4: Data Collection
In order to better understand the contributing factors for pedestrian and bicyclist-involved
crashes around intersections, more information is needed for analyses. In this study, a total of 3
types of data were collected:
 Crash Data
As discussed in Section 3, 10-year crash data were collected and analyzed in this project in order
to better understand the contributing factors for pedestrian and bicyclist-involved crashes around
intersections. The total number of pedestrians/bicyclists involved in crashes is used to rank the
top 10 dangerous intersections in Albuquerque, and the other crash-level information was
utilized to analyze crash characteristics at these 10 intersections.
 Basic Information
The basic information regarding these 10 intersections includes the geometric information (e.g.
intersection layout, crosswalk length, and width, etc.), land usage information,
pedestrian/bicyclist facility, and transit information.
 Traffic Data
The traffic data include traffic control information, traffic volume information, and the field
survey data collected in this project.
4.1 Data Collection Time

Three students were sent on site to collect the basic information (see Appendix A-1) for each
intersection with flexible schedules. Due to the characteristics of the traffic data, specific time
periods were set for each intersection following the rules:
 Higher number of pedestrians/bicyclists involved in crashes
The more people involved in crashes during specific times, the more dangerous the
intersection is for pedestrians and bicyclists.
 More severe injury outcomes
The hours of the day with severe crash occurrences in the past 10 years were those with
high priority for investigation. By focusing on those time periods, we can find out the
contributing factors for crash severity and develop cost-effective policies to prevent
severe crashes.
 Weekdays and Weekends Separately
9
The total number of pedestrians/bicyclists involved in crashes on Monday was much
lower than that on other weekdays; therefore, weekday data were usually collected on
Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday. For weekends, we conducted traffic counts on
either Saturday or Sunday.
 Incorporate separate hours
In order to reduce work load of moving equipment, separate hours were incorporated and
the time schedule for intersections was more continuous.
 No later than 8:00 pm
Due to the safety concern and lesser traffic volume, hired students did not work after 8:00
pm.
Based on crash data collection results, the total numbers of pedestrians and bicyclists involved in
crashes on weekdays are presented in Table 4.1.1. The total number of severe outcomes
(including injuries and fatalities) for pedestrians and bicyclists on weekdays are shown in Table
4.1.2. The corresponding data on weekends are presented in Table 4.1.3 and Table 4.1.4.
Following the rules listed above, the data collection schedule of traffic volume (including
pedestrian and bicyclist volume) and survey response collection for the 10 intersections is
highlighted in Table 4.1.1 and Table 4.1.3. For example, the weekday schedule for the No.1
intersection, Central Ave. @ San Mateo Blvd., is from 8:00 am to 11:00 am and 12:00 pm to
8:00 pm.
10
Table 4.1.1 Pedestrian and Bicyclist Involved in Crashes by Hour of the Weekdays
ID 0 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Total
1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 5 1 2 2 2 1 1 31
2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 26
3 1 1 2 1 4 3 1 2 2 2 1 3 1 24
4 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 16
5 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 4 18
6 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 4 1 2 3 1 20
7 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 15
8 1 1 1 2 2 1 4 1 1 14
9 1 1 1 3 1 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 23
10 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 13
Total 5 1 1 4 3 5 8 2 9 7 11 9 14 21 18 21 9 12 13 11 8 8 200
Table 4.1.2 Injuries and Fatalities of Pedestrians and Bicyclists by Hour of the Weekdays
ID 0 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Total
1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 14
2 1 1 2 3 1 1 9
3 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 18
4 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 8
5 1 1 1 1 4 8
6 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 9
7 1 1 2 1 1 6
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
9 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 11
10 1 2 1 4
Total 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 9 11 8 5 11 7 4 6 6 94
11
Table 4.1.3 Pedestrian and Bicyclist Involved in Crashes by Hour of the Weekends
ID 0 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Total
1 1 1 1 2 2 1 8
2 1 1 1 1 4
3 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 14
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
5 1 1
6 1 1 1 3
7 2 1 3 1 7
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
9 2 1 1 4
10 1 2 1 4
Total 3 2 1 1 1 1 3 5 2 4 4 4 9 8 4 3 2 1 1 2 58
Table 4.1.4 Injuries and Fatalities of Pedestrians and Bicyclists by Hour of the Weekends
ID 0 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Total
1 1 1 2
2 0
3 3 1 1 5
4 1 1 1 1 1 5
5 0
6 1 1 2
7 2 1 1 1 5
8 1 1 1 1 4
9 2 1 1 4
10 0
Total 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 2 4 2 1 1 2 1 1 27
12
4.2 Traffic Data Collection Procedure
In this study, 1000-hour video data were collected instead of manual traffic data collection. From
the videos we recorded at these 10 intersections, detailed and precise information, including but
not limited to traffic volume for each direction and pedestrian/bicyclist demographic and
behavior information (gender or age group), can be obtained without sending too many surveyors
on site. For each intersection, two cameras were assigned with each capturing two approaching
directions. To best maintain continuous 8-hour video recording for each day, sufficient
rechargeable batteries (32 AA rechargeable batteries) and memory cards (6 16-GB memory cards)
were provided. Every hour, students would change the batteries and memory cards for both
cameras, and move the videos from memory cards to a laptop to store them. All videos were
renamed as the same format continuously and transferred to a hard drive for storage. The video
naming format is “Intersection ID_Time period_Day of the week_Direction_Direction No.”, as
shown below in Fig 4.2:
Figure 4.2.1 Video Renaming Format
For each intersection, one student was assigned to collect video data and he/she was also
responsible for distributing and collecting surveys (see Appendix A-2) from nearby pedestrians
and bicyclists during video data collection. Note that the setup of video recording equipment
should not block sidewalks. Every survey was saved as a digital format (e.g. Excel file) by the
end of data collection. In order to ensure their safety, these hired students were required to wear
safety vests and hats during data collection. Sufficient traffic cones (three or more) were also
provided to prevent damage to cameras and tripods.
13
Figure 4.2.2 Making Videos and Doing Surveys on Site
By filling the traffic data form (see Appendix A-3) through analyzing video data, we can
summarized all basic information and traffic data for each intersection in the final result form,
which named as Field Data and Traffic Volume Data Collection Results (see Appendix A-4).
(a) West & South (b) North & East

Figure 4.2.3 Video Screenshot of San Mateo Blvd @ Montgomery Blvd
14
Section 5: Data Analysis and Results
5.1 Crash Characteristics Analyses Results

The Person Injury Rate for each intersection is calculated using data collected in this project,
which is shown in Fig 5.1.1. Considering the volume of vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists, the
intersection, Montano Rd @ 4th St, has the highest Person Injury Rate among the 10 intersections.
This indicates that pedestrians and bicyclists are most likely to get involved in crashes at this
intersection, when the volume of vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists are the same across these
10 intersections.
Pedestrian Injury Rate Bicyclist Injury Rate

350 2000
300
250 1500
200
1000
150
100 500
50
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(a) Pedestrian Injury Rate (b) Bicyclist Injury Rate

Fig 5.1.1 Person Injury Rate for Each Intersection
The distributions of crash characteristics were analyzed for each intersection based on different
factors, including injury severity, age group, gender, day of week, season, time of day, and
alcohol impairment. Note that there are empty records for each variable that are not shown in the
figures, making the total of percentages shown in the figures not equal to 100%.
5.1.1 Injury Severity

The distribution of pedestrian/bicyclist injury severities varies across the 10 intersections. For
example, the intersection, Central Ave @ Wyoming Blvd (No. 4), has the highest proportion of
severe injuries and fatalities for both pedestrians and bicyclists among these 10 intersections.
While for the intersection, Montano Rd @ 4th St, most pedestrians and bicyclists suffer less
severe injuries in crashes.
15
Percentage of Pedestrians in Crashes by Injury Severity
100.0%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
No Injury Possible Injury Non-Incapacitating Injury Incapacitating Injury and Fatality
Fig 5.1.2 Percentage of Pedestrians in Crashes by Injury Severity
Percentage of Bicyclists in Crashes by Injury Severity

80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
No Injury Possible Injury Non-Incapacitating Injury Incapacitating Injury and Fatality
Fig 5.1.3 Percentage of Pedestrians in Crashes by Injury Severity
5.1.2 Age Group

Similar to the distribution of injury severity, different patterns of age groups were also observed.
For example, the intersections, Montgomery Blvd @ San Mateo Blvd (No.2) and Lomas Blvd @
Juan Tabo Blvd (No.6), have more teenage-involved crashes than the other intersections.
16
Percentage of Pedestrians in Crash by Age Group
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
<20 21-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 >65
Fig 5.1.4 Percentage of Pedestrians in Crashes by Age Group
Percentage of Bicyclists in Crash by Age Group

80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
<20 21-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 >65
Fig 5.1.5 Percentage of Bicyclists in Crashes by Age Group
5.1.3. Gender
For most intersections there are more male pedestrians and bicyclists involved in crashes than
females from 2004 to 2013. This may be due to the higher volume of male pedestrians and
bicyclists (Appendix B) around those intersections, including Central Ave @ San Mateo Blvd
(No.1), Montgomery Blvd @ San Mateo Blvd (No.2), Central Ave @ Louisiana Blvd (No.3),
Central Ave @ Wyoming Blvd (No.4), and Central Ave @ Yale Blvd (No.9). It is interesting
that although the volume of male pedestrians and bicyclists are higher, females account for a
higher proportion of people involved in crashes. For the rest of the intersections, the volume of
male pedestrians and bicyclists were relatively equal to that of the females in intersections.
17
Percentage of Pedestrians in Crash by Gender
100.0%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Female Male
Fig 5.1.6 Percentage of Pedestrians in Crashes by Gender
Percentage of Bicyclists in Crash by Gender

120.0%
100.0%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Female Male
Fig 5.1.7 Percentage of Pedestrians in Crashes by Gender
5.1.4. Weekdays and Weekends

If the crashes distribute evenly across 7 days per week, the percentage of crashes occurring
during weekends should be equal to 28.5%. The intersections, Central Ave @ Louisiana Blvd
(No.3) and Central Ave @ Coors Blvd (No.8), show a higher number of crashes during
weekends than the average rate (28.5%). However, most crashes occurred during weekdays at
the other intersections.
18
Percentage of Pedestrians in Crash by Day of Week
120.0%
100.0%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Weekdays Weekends
Fig 5.1.8 Percentage of Pedestrians in Crashes by Day of Week
Percentage of Bicyclists in Crash by Day of Week

100.0%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Weekdays Weekends
Fig 5.1.9 Percentage of Pedestrians in Crashes by Day of Week
5.1.5. Season
The number of crashes do not distribute evenly across 4 seasons.
19
Percentage of Pedestrians in Crashes by Season
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Spring Summer Fall Winter
Fig 5.1.10 Percentage of Pedestrians in Crashes by Season
Percentage of Bicyclists in Crashes by Season

80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Spring Summer Fall Winter
Fig 5.1.11 Percentage of Pedestrians in Crashes by Season
5.1.6. Time of Day

Most pedestrian and bicyclist-involved crashes happen in the afternoon. The intersections,
Montgomery Blvd @ San Mateo Blvd (No.2) and Central Ave @ Wyoming Blvd (No.4), have
higher number of crashes during dawn and dusk periods.
20
People in Crash by Time of Day People in Crash by Time of Day
8 5
6 4
3
4
2
2 1
0 0
4 PM
12 PM
12 PM
2 AM
4 AM
6 AM
8 AM
2 PM
4 PM
6 PM
8 PM
10 PM
2 AM
4 AM
6 AM
8 AM
2 PM
6 PM
8 PM
10 PM
10 AM
12 AM
12 AM
10 AM
Central Ave @ San Mateo Blvd Montgomery Blvd @ San Mateo Blvd

7 3.5
6 3
5 2.5
4 2
3 1.5
2 1
1 0.5
0 0
12 PM
10 PM
12 PM
10 PM
2 AM
4 AM
6 AM
8 AM
2 PM
4 PM
6 PM
8 PM
2 AM
4 AM
6 AM
8 AM
2 PM
4 PM
6 PM
8 PM
10 AM
12 AM
12 AM
10 AM
Central Ave @ Louisiana Blvd Central Ave @ Wyoming Blvd

6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
12 PM
10 PM
12 PM
4 PM
10 PM
2 AM
4 AM
6 AM
8 AM
2 PM
4 PM
6 PM
8 PM
2 AM
4 AM
6 AM
8 AM
2 PM
6 PM
8 PM
10 AM
12 AM
12 AM
10 AM
Centraol Ave @ Eubank Blvd Lomas Blvd @ Juan Tabo Blvd
21
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
4 PM
12 PM
12 PM
2 AM
4 AM
6 AM
8 AM
2 PM
4 PM
6 PM
8 PM
10 PM
2 AM
4 AM
6 AM
8 AM
2 PM
6 PM
8 PM
10 PM
10 AM
12 AM
12 AM
10 AM
Central Ave @ Rio Grande Blvd Central Ave @ Coors Blvd

6 3.5
5 3
4 2.5
2
3
1.5
2 1
1 0.5
0 0
12 PM
10 PM
12 PM
10 PM
2 AM
4 AM
6 AM
8 AM
2 PM
4 PM
6 PM
8 PM
2 AM
4 AM
6 AM
8 AM
2 PM
4 PM
6 PM
8 PM
10 AM
12 AM
12 AM
10 AM
Central Ave @ Yale Blvd Montano Rd @ 4th St
Fig 5.1.12 Percentage of Pedestrians in Crashes by Time of Day
5.1.7. Alcohol-Impairment
Alcohol impaired bicyclists got involved in crashes around 4 intersections, including Central
Ave @ San Mateo Blvd (No.1), Lomas Blvd @ Juan Tabo Blvd (No.6), Central Ave @ Rio
Grande Blvd (No.7) and Central Ave @ Coors Blvd (No.8). There were three intersections where
the percentage of alcohol impaired pedestrians in crashes were over 30%, including Central Ave
@ San Mateo Blvd (No.1), Central Ave @ Coors Blvd (No.8) and Montano Rd @ 4th St (No.10).
22
Percentage of Alcohol-Impaired People in Crash
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Pedestrian Bicyclist
Fig 5.1.13 Percentage of Pedestrians and Bicyclists in Crashes by Alcohol Impairment
5.1.8. Crash Contributing Factors

The contributing factors were obtained from the crash report and identified by the police officers.
In this project, we only analyzed pedestrian and bicyclist involved crashes around 10
intersections in Albuquerque. There are a total of 13 contributing factors accounting for these
crashes, including Pedestrian Error, Alcohol/Drug Involved, Driver Inattention, Excessive Speed,
Failure to Yield, Red Light Running, Improper Turn, Mechanical Defect, Poor Driving, Follow
Too Close, Too Fast for Conditions, Left of Center, and Avoid No Contact. The top 2
contributing factors for each intersection were presented in Table 5.1.1, and more information
about contributing factors for each intersection were analyzed in Section 6. The contributing
factor, Pedestrian Error, was the top contributing factor for 9 intersections.
Table 5.1.1 Top 2 Contributing Factors for 10 Intersections
Pedestrians Driver Alcohol/Drug Failure Poor
ID Intersection Location
Error Inattention Involved to Yield Driving
1 Central Ave @ San Mateo Blvd × ×
2 Montgomery Blvd @ San Mateo Blvd × ×
3 Central Ave @ Louisiana Blvd × ×
4 Central Ave @ Wyoming Blvd × ×
5 Central Ave @ Eubank Blvd × × ×
6 Lomas Blvd @ Juan Tabo Blvd × ×
7 Central Ave @ Rio Grande Blvd × ×
8 Central Ave @ Coors Blvd × ×
9 Central Ave @ Yale Blvd × ×
10 Montano Rd @ 4th St × ×
Total Times 9 5 3 3 1
23
5.2 Safety Analyses Results
A binary Logit model was developed and estimated for pedestrian and bicyclist-involved crashes
using crash data around these 10 intersections in the City of Albuquerque from 2004 to 2013. All
severity outcomes were classified into two levels: No injury and Injury. By setting No Injury as
estimation base, all parameters for variables specific to No Injury were assumed to be equal to 0.
The statistical software package, Biogeme, was used for model calibration and parameter
estimation. The results are shown in Table 5.1, including coefficient estimates, standard error
(Std. Err), and parameter significance levels (P-Value). All the parameters are significantly
different from zero at the significant level of P=0.05.
A total of 5 variables were found to significantly influence injury severity levels. In this study, if
the coefficient of variables is above zero with P-Value no larger than 0.05, the presence of this
variable tends to increase crash severity. If the coefficient is below zero, the presence of this
variable will decrease crash severity. For example, the coefficient of the variable, Night, is equal
to 1.28, illustrating that pedestrians and bicyclists are more likely to suffer severe injury
outcomes around intersections when the crash happened during nighttime. Therefore, the
probability of pedestrians and bicyclists being severely injured is higher if any of the following
situations are met: 1) older pedestrians and bicyclists, 2) night, 3) lower pedestrian volume, and 4)
higher vehicle volume.
Table 5.2.1 Injury Severity Binary Logit Model Estimation for Pedestrians and Bicyclists
Variable Description Coefficient Std. Err. P-Value
Constant -0.471 0.608 0.44
Age(<20) -1.07 0.239 0.00
Night 1.28 0.389 0.00
Ped Volume -0.388 0.168 0.02
Vehicle Volume 5.05 1.56 0.00
5.3 Traffic Data Results

The volume of vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists for each intersection were collected and
recorded through videos, and the results are shown in Appendix B. The total vehicle volume
crossing the crosswalk for each direction was calculated and named as, Total (all). More detailed
information was also collected from videos, such as age and gender information. In order to
check that the green time is long enough for pedestrians and bicyclists crossing with comfortable
speed (3.5 ft/s), the lowest speed for passing the crosswalk (using collected data) was calculated
for each direction at 10 intersections. If the lowest speed for passing the crosswalk was higher
than comfortable speed, there is a need to extend the green time at that intersection.
24
Section 6: Comments and Recommendations
6.1 Intersection 1: Central Ave @ San Mateo Blvd
6.1.1 Data analyses

Among all people who got involved in crashes, 62% pedestrians suffered possible injuries and
non-incapacitating injuries around this intersection, and most bicyclists (70%) in crashes had no
injuries or possible injuries. However, 20% of bicyclists experienced severe injuries or fatalities
in crashes, which is the highest among the 10 intersections.
Percentage of Pedestrians/Bicyclists in Crashes by

Injury Severity
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
No Injury Possible Injury Non-incapacitating Incapacitating
Injury Injury and Fatality
Fig. 6.2.1 Percentage of Pedestrians/Bicyclists in Crashes by Injury Severity

There are several stores located around the intersection, including Walgreens, Walmart, a Shell
gas station, and a few restaurants, making this intersection have a high volume of pedestrians and
bicyclists. There were also a considerable amount of young bicyclists commutting by bus.
25
Fig. 6.1.2 Land Usage Information of Intersection 1
The higher number of crashes during 4 pm to 6 pm may attribute to the higher teenage pedestrian
volume generated by the Highland High School (Fig 6.1.3).
34.5% of total pedestrians in crashes at this intersection were identified as alcohol imparied (Fig
6.1.4), and, thus, was the top contributing factor for crashes around this intersection (Fig 6.1.5).
This may be attributed to the fact that the stores, including Walmart, Walgreens and Shell, sell
alcohol nearly 24 hours a day.
People in Crash by Hour Percentage of Alcohol Impaired

People in Crashes
8
7 40.0%
6 35.0%
5 30.0%
4 25.0%
3 20.0%
2 15.0%
1 10.0%
0 5.0%
12 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 0.0%
AM AM AM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM Pedestrian Bicyclist
Fig. 6.1.3 Pedestrians/Bicyclists in Crashes by Fig. 6.1.4 Alcohol Impaired Pedestrians and
Time of Day Bicyclists in Crashes
26
The second most important contributing factor for crashes around this intersection was
pedestrian error. There were a great many pedestrians jaywalking across both San Mateo Blvd.
and Central Ave. for certain reasons, such as catching a connected bus or asking for donations.
Contributing Factors
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Pedestrian Error Alcohol/Drug Driver Inattention Excessive Speed Failure To Yield Red Light
Involved Running
Fig. 6.1.5 Pedestrian/Bicyclist Involved Crashes by Contributing Factors

The green time on the westbound and eastbound crosswalks was not long enough (see Appendix
B-1) for pedestrians to cross the intersection with comfortable speed. Moreover, a significant
number of persons in wheelchairs or with crutches were observed in videos.
Most people who did the field surveys believed the speed of passing vehicles was too fast.
Passing Vehicle Speed

40
30
20
10
0
Too fast Just right
Fig. 6.1.6 Survey Results of Passing Vehicle Speed
6.1.2 Recommendations
 Traffic safety enforcement and education at the nearby high school could help to reduce
the number of pedestrian and bicyclist-involved crashes.
 Installing barriers on medians could be helpful to prevent pedestrians from jaywalking,
which has been proved in previous study (7) showing that 61% of the pedestrians
identified the median fences as the reason for using the crosswalk. According to the
report released by Federal Highway Administration (8), the cost of pedestrian fencing
27
will vary depending on the location, type, design, material, height, etc. used. The average
cost for pedestrian fence is $130/ft.
 From the field survey results, many pedestrians suggest to implement a safety
enforcement surveillance system which may help to reduce the possibility of vehicles not
yielding for pedestrians.
 Extending green time for pedestrians at the northbound crosswalk of this intersection
should be considered to reduce the frequency and severity of pedestrian crashes,
considering the large number of wheelchair and crutch users around this intersection As
is suggested in this study, the adjusted green time should be 32s or longer.
 Countermeasures to reduce vehicle speed approaching this intersection should be
considered, e.g. transverse rumble strips and speed reduction warning signs, which have
been proved that they are effective in reducing vehicle speed from 2% to 5% (9).
6.2 Intersection 2: Montgomery Blvd @ San Mateo Blvd
6.2.1 Data analyses

As shown in Fig 6.2.1, among all pedestrians and bicyclists who got involved in crashes around
this intersection, 81.5% of pedestrians and 100% of bicyclists were injured.

Injury Severity
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
28
A highschool, Del Norte High School, and an elementary school, Govermor Bent Elementery
Shool, are located near this intersection. This can explain the higher number of pedestrians and
bicyclists involved in crashes from 3 pm to 6 pm, when school is being released or
extracurricular activities are taking place. It would also account for the fact that a large
proportion of these pedestrians (29.6%) and bicyclists (66.7%) were below 20 years old. In
addition, there were two peaks in the number of crashes by time of the day (shown in Fig. 6.2.4),
including 5 am to 6 am and 6 pm to 8 pm. These may be attributed to the inferior lighting
conditions during dawn and dusk.
Percentage of People in Crashes by

Age Group
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
<20 21-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 >65
Edu Com Resid
Fig. 6.2.3 Percentage of Pedestrians/Bicyclists in
Fig. 6.2.2 Landusage Information of Intersection 2 Crashes by Age Group
People in Crashes by Time of Day

5
4
3
2
1
0
12 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10
AM AM AM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM
Fig. 6.2.3 Pedestrians/Bicyclists in Crashes by Time of Day

The top 3 contributing factor for pedestrian/bicyclist-involved crashes were pedestrian error,
driver inattention and failure to yield (Fig. 2.6.5). Lots of pedestrians jaywalk near this
intersection rather than use the crosswalk, making it difficult for drivers to observe them (shown
in Figure 2.6.6).
29
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Pedestrian Alcohol/Drug Driver Failure To Improper Turn Mech. Defect Poor Driving
Error Involved Inattention Yield
Fig. 6.2.5 Pedestrian-/Bicyclist-Involved Crashes by Contributing Factors

The pedestrian and bicyclist field survey results indicate that most people thought the crosswalk
markings were worn and became less visible (shown in Fig, 6.2.6). In addition, a considerable
portion of right-turn and left-turn vehicles failed to yield to pedestrians during the green phase
(Fig. 6.2.7)
Fig. 6.2.6 Pedestrians Outside of Crosswalk Fig. 6.2.7 Signal Conflict
 Traffic safety enforcement and education are recommended in the two schools around
this intersection to help reduce the number of crashes. Encourage students to use overpass
for crossing the Montgomery Blvd.
 Adding traffic assistants from 3 pm to 6 pm to help increase driver attention is
recommended. Encouraging students to use the overpass will also be helpful in reducing
the pedestrian/bicyclist-involved crashes around this intersection.
30
 Installing barriers on medians will be helpful to prevent pedestrians from jaywalking,
 Installing flashing warning signs and ensuring they work especially during dawn and
dusk will increase drivers’ attention. As analyzed in previous study (10), adding flashing
warning signs around intersections can increase yielding to pedestrians from 18% to 81%.
 In order to reduce crash occurrence, additional warning signs are recommended to remind
right-turning and left-turning vehicles of the large pedestrian volume during the green
phase.
 From the field survey results, many pedestrians suggest to implement a safety
6.3 Intersection 3: Central Ave @ Louisiana Blvd
6.3.1 Data analyses

Among all pedestrians and bicyclists who got involved in crashes at this intersection, most
pedestrians (73.1%) suffered non-incapacitating injuries or fatalities and 33.3% of bicyclists
were injured or killed (Fig 6.3.1).

Injury Severity
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
No Injury Possible Injury Non-incapacitating Incapacitating Injury
Injury and Fatality
31
There are several stores and restaurants located around this intersection, which attract lots of
pedestrians and bicyclists (Fig. 6.3.2). Moreover, a big casino and a large fairground are also
located at this intersection, making the traffic volume of this area very high during weekends and
the same as the crashes occurrence (Fig. 6.3.3).
Percentage of People in Crash by

Day of Week
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Weekdays Weekends
Pedestrians Bicyclist
Fig. 6.3.3 Percentage of People in Crashes by Day

Fig. 6.3.2 Land Usage of Intersection 3 of Week
Both pedestrian error and driver error contributed to the crashes around this intersection. As
observed in videos, many pedestrians and a few bicyclists crossed the road outside of the
crosswalks. Similar to the reason for the Central Ave @ San Mateo Blvd (No.1), many
pedestrians cross roads outside of the crosswalks for certain reasons, such as catching a
connected bus or asking for donations. Alcohol impaired pedestrians were also identified as
contributing to a large proportion of crashes at this intersection, which may be due to the bars
east of this intersection.
10
8
6
4
2
0
Pedestrian Error Alcohol/Drug Driver Failure To Yield Left Of Center Red Light Avoid Ped Etc.
Involved Inattention Running
32
The green time on the westbound and eastbound crosswalks was not long enough (see Appendix
B-3) for pedestrians to cross the intersection with comfortable speed.
According to the results of field pedestrian and bicyclist surveys, more people believed the speed
of passing vehicles was too fast.

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Too fast Just right
 Installing fences on medians will be helpful to prevent pedestrians from jaywalking, which
has been proved in previous study (7) showing that 61% of the pedestrians identified the
median fences as the reason for using the crosswalk. According to the report released by
Federal Highway Administration (8), the cost of pedestrian fencing will vary depending on
the location, type, design, material, height, etc. used. The average cost for pedestrian fence is
$130/ft.
 Extending green time for pedestrians at the westbound and eastbound crosswalks of this
intersection could be helpful to reduce the frequency and severity of pedestrian crashes. As is
suggested in this study, the adjusted green time should be 29s or longer.
 Countermeasures to reduce vehicle speed approaching this intersection should be considered,
e.g. transverse rumble strips and speed reduction warning signs, which have been proved that
they are effective in reducing vehicle speed from 2% to 5% (9).
 Traffic assistants for special events held at the fairground could help to improve the safety
performance of this intersection.
33
6.4 Intersection 4: Central Ave @ Wyoming Blvd
6.4.1 Data analyses

Among all pedestrians and bicyclists who got involved in crashes at this intersection, a large
proportion of pedestrians (40%) suffered severe injuries or fatalities, which is the highest in the
10 intersections in Albuquerque. About 20% of bicyclists who were involved in crashes were
severely injured or killed at this intersection, which is also the highest among these 10
intersections (Fig 6.4.1).
Percentage of Pedestrians/Bicyclists in Crashes by Injury

Severity
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Injury and Fatality

There are lots of restaurants around this intersection (Fig 6.4.2), including McDonalds, Teriyaki
Chicken Bowl, Pizza Hut, etc., which can account for the higher number of crashes during lunch
and dinner time (Fig 6.4.3). Furthermore, the numbers of crashes during dawn (5 am to 6 am),
dusk (6 pm to 7 pm), and midnight (12 am to 1 am) are also higher than the other time periods.
34
People in Crashes by Time of Day
3.5
2.5
1.5
0.5
12 AM
1 AM
2 AM
3 AM
4 AM
5 AM
6 AM
7 AM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
6 PM
7 PM
8 PM
9 PM
10 PM
11 PM
Commercial Residential
Fig. 6.4.2 Percentage of Pedestrians/Bicyclists in Fig. 6.4.3 Pedestrians/Bicyclists in Crashes by

Crashes by Injury Severity Time of Day
Pedestrian error is the top contributing factor for crashes around this intersection (Fig. 6.4.4). As
observed in the videos, this intersection had a large amount of pedestrians and bicyclists that did
not use the crosswalk. Most of the pedestrians improperly crossing the intersection were catching
a bus or were intoxicated individuals who were not paying enough attention to vehicles.
15
10
0
Pedestrian Error Alcohol/Drug Driver Inattention Failure To Yield Red Light Running None
Involved
Fig. 6.4.4 Pedestrian-/Bicyclist-Involved Crashes by Contributing Factors
35
Fig. 6.4.5 Street Lighting System Improvement on Southbound
Bus stops on 3 sides of this intersection carry multiple routes, making this intersection undertake
a large amount of pedestrians and bicyclists.
The green time for pedestrians on eastbound is not long enough (see Appendix B-4) for
pedestrians to cross the intersection with comfortable speed.
Passing Vehicle Speed Markings

38 30
20
36
10
34 0
Too fast Just right Faded/Missing Clearly
Fig. 6.4.6 Survey Results of Passing Vehicle Speed Fig. 6.4.7 Survey Results of Markings
According to the results of field pedestrian and bicyclist surveys, more people think that the
vehicles crossing this intersection are too fast and the crosswalk markings are worn or even
barely visible.
 Installing flashing warning signs and ensuring they work especially during dawn and dusk
will increase drivers’ attention. As analyzed in previous study (10), adding flashing warning
signs around intersections can increase yielding to pedestrians from 18% to 81%.
36
 Add two more street lights on the southbound of this intersection could help to improve the
lighting condition for drivers at midnight (Fig 6.4.3).
 Installing barriers on medians will be helpful to prevent pedestrians from jaywalking, which
$130/ft.
 Extending green time for pedestrians on the eastbound crosswalk of the intersection should
be considered to reduce the frequency and severity of pedestrian crashes. As is suggested in
this study, the adjusted green time should be 29s or longer.
 Countermeasures to reduce vehicle speed approaching this intersection should be considered,
e.g. transverse rumble strips and speed reduction warning signs, which have been proved that
they are effective in reducing vehicle speed from 2% to 5% (9).
 Stop line and crosswalk markings are recommended to be repainted to increase their
visibility.
6.5 Intersection 5: Central Ave @ Eubank Blvd
6.5.1 Data analyses

proportion of pedestrians (40%) have been injured, and 50% of bicyclists suffered possible
injuries (Fig6.5.1).
37
Injury Severity
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%

There are lots of restaurants and stores around this intersection, which have attracted a lot of
vehicles to this area. While the volume of pedestrians and bicyclists are lower than the other
intersections (Appendix B-5), there is a channelizing island located on the southwest corner of
this intersection and a crosswalk connecting it with the sidewalk. Since there is no signal for the
crosswalk and no warning signs in front of this crosswalk, vehicles approaching from westbound
to southbound may pay more attention to vehicles rather than pedestrians, especially when the
pedestrian and bicyclist volume is not really high.
Fig. 6.5.2 Land Usage of Intersection 5 Fig. 6.5.3 Layout of Intersection 5
38
People in Crash by Time of Day
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
6 AM
12 PM
10 PM
2 AM
4 AM
8 AM
2 PM
4 PM
6 PM
8 PM
12 AM
10 AM
Fig. 6.5.4 Channelizing Island Fig. 6.5.5 Pedestrians/Bicyclists in Crashes by
Time of Day
The number of crashes from 9 pm to 10 pm is higher than the other time periods.
Pedestrian error is the top contributing factor for crashes around this intersection (Fig. 6.5.6).
Driver error, including driver inattention and poor driving, also contributes to the large
proportion of crashes.
8
6
4
2
0
Pedestrian Error Alcohol/Drug Driver Inattention Failure To Yield Poor Driving Red Light
Involved Running

The green time for pedestrians on the northbound and southbound crosswalks is not long enough
(see Appendix B-5) for pedestrians to cross the intersection with comfortable speed (3.5ft/s).
According to the results of the field pedestrian and bicyclist surveys, most people believed that
the vehicles crossing this intersection are too fast.
39
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Too fast Just right
 Install warning signs in front of the channelizing island or add signal control for the
island could help to increase drivers’ attentions. According the Manual on Uniform
Traffic control Devices (MUTCD) (11), pedestrian crossing warning sign (W11-2) may
be used to alert road users in advance of locations where unexpected entries into the
roadway might occur or where shared use of the roadway by pedestrians, animals, or
equestrians might occur.
 Extending green time for pedestrians at the eastbound crosswalk of this intersection could
help to reduce the frequency and severity of pedestrian crashes. As is suggested in this
study, the adjusted green time should be 33s or longer.
6.6 Intersection 6: Lomas Blvd @ Juan Tabo Blvd
6.6.1 Data analyses

The Manzano High School is located near this intersection (Fig.6.6.1). This can explain the
higher number of pedestrians and bicyclists involved in crashes from 4 pm to 6 pm and that a
large proportion of pedestrians (46.2%) were below 20 years old. Moreover, the Camino
Retirement Apartments are near the intersection, making a significant number of persons in
wheelchairs or with crutches pass this intersection with lower speed.
40
Fig. 6.6.1 Land Usage of Intersection 6
People in Crash by Time of Day People in Crashes by Age Group

6 50.0%
5 40.0%
4 30.0%
3
20.0%
2
10.0%
1
0.0%
0 <20 21-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 >65
12 PM
2 AM
4 AM
6 AM
8 AM
2 PM
4 PM
6 PM
8 PM
10 PM
10 AM
12 AM
Fig. 6.6.2 Pedestrians/Bicyclists in Crashes by Fig. 6.6.3 Percentage of Pedestrians/Bicyclists in

Time of Day Crashes by Age Group
41
The top contributing factor for pedestrian/bicyclist-involved crashes was pedestrian error (Fig.
6.6.4).
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Pedestrian Error Alcohol/Drug Defect Brakes Driver Failure To Yield Red Light
Involved Inattention Running

The green time on the northbound, southbound, and eastbound crosswalks were not long enough
(see Appendix B-1) for pedestrians to cross the intersection with comfortable speed (3.5 ft/s).
 Traffic safety enforcement and education are recommended in the high school around this
intersection in order to reduce the number of crashes around this intersection.
 Adding traffic assistants from 4 pm to 6 pm will help increase driver attention and
prevent pedestrian error.
 Extending green time for pedestrians at the northbound, southbound, and eastbound
crosswalks of this intersection could help to reduce the frequency and severity of
pedestrian crashes, considering the large number of wheelchair and crutch users around
this intersection. As is suggested in this study, the adjusted green time should be 33s or
longer for northbound, 36s or longer for southbound, and 35s for eastbound crosswalks,
respectively.
6.7 Intersection 7: Central Ave @ Rio Grande Blvd
6.7.1 Data analyses

There are many stores and restaurants around this intersection, and old town is located here,
which attracts lots of pedestrians and bicyclists to this intersection (Fig. 6.7.1). It may also
account for the large number of pedestrian and bicyclist-involved crashes between 1 pm and 5
pm (Fig. 6.7.3).
42
Similar to Central Ave @ Eubank Blvd (No.5), there is a channelizing island located on the
southeast corner of this intersection, and a crosswalk for connecting it with sidewalk. Since there
is no signal for this crosswalk and no warning signs in front of this crosswalk, vehicles
approaching from westbound to southbound may pay more attention to vehicles rather than
pedestrians, especially when the pedestrian and bicyclist volume is low.
Fig. 6.7.1 Land Usage of Intersection 7 Fig. 6.7.2 Layout of Intersection 7
People in Crash by Time of Day Contributing Factors

6 12
5 10
4 8
3 6
2 4
1 2
0 0
12 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 Pedestrian Alcohol/Drug Driver Failure To Poor Driving
AM AM AM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM Error Involved Inattention Yield
Fig. 6.7.3 Pedestrians/Bicyclists in Crashes by Fig. 6.7.4 Pedestrian-/Bicyclist-Involved Crashes

Time of Day by Contributing Factors
43
The top contributing factor for pedestrian/bicyclist involved crashes is driver inattention (Fig.
6.7.4). The green time on the westbound and eastbound crosswalks was not long enough
(Appendix B-7) for pedestrians to cross the intersection with comfortable speed (3.5 ft/s). Most
people who did the field surveys believed the speed of passing vehicles was too fast.

20
15
10
5
0
Too fast Just right
intersection will reduce the frequency and severity of pedestrian crashes. As is suggested
in this study, the adjusted green time should be 33s or longer for westbound, 29s or
longer for eastbound crosswalks, respectively.
 Installing warning signs in front of the channelizing island or adding signal control for
this island are advised to increase drivers’ attention. According the Manual on Uniform
Traffic control Devices (MUTCD) (11), pedestrian crossing warning sign (W11-2) may
be used to alert road users in advance of locations where unexpected entries into the
roadway might occur or where shared use of the roadway by pedestrians, animals, or
equestrians might occur.
44
6.8 Intersection 8: Central Ave @ Coors Blvd
6.8.1 Data analyses

proportion of pedestrians (41.7%) and bicyclists (44.4%) suffered non-incapacitating injuries
(Fig. 6.8.1).

Injury Severity
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Injury and Fatality

Pedestrian error and alcohol impairment were the top contributing factors for crashes around this
intersection. As observed in the videos, this intersection had a large amount of pedestrians asking
for donations in the medians. There are several stores around this intersection, which sell alcohol.
8
6
4
2
0
Pedestrian Error Alcohol/Drug Driver Failure To Yield Follow Too Red Light
Involved Inattention Close Running
Fig. 6.8.2 Pedestrian/Bicycliss Involved Crashes by Contributing Factors

The green time for all four directions was not long enough (Appendix B-8) for pedestrians to
crass the intersection with comfortable speed (3.5 ft/s). The speed limit around this intersection is
40 m/h, which is the highest among the 10 intersections.
45
 Installing barriers on medians will be helpful to prevent pedestrians from jaywalking,
 Extending green time for pedestrians for all four directions of this intersection could help
to reduce the frequency and severity of pedestrian crashes. As is suggested in this study,
the adjusted green time should be 32s or longer for northbound, 33s or longer for
southbound, and 35s or longer for westbound and eastbound, respectively.
6.9 Intersection 9: Central Ave @ Yale Blvd
6.9.1 Data analyses

Among all pedestrians and bicyclists who were involved in crashes at this intersection,
approximately 60% of pedestrians suffered injuries and fatalities and those bicyclists in crashes
were more likely to have possible injuries (Fig 6.9.1).
Percentage of Pedestrians/Bicyclists in Crashes

by Injury Severity
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%

The University of New Mexico is located near the intersection and a large amount of pedestrians
and bicyclists are students (Fig 6.9.2). This accounts for the large number of crashes from 1 pm
46
to 5 pm and the fact that pedestrians/bicyclists who were 21 to 34 years old were more likely to
get involved in crashes at this location.
Age Group
50.0%
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
<20 21-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 >65
Educ Commerc Resi
ation
Fig. 6.9.3 Percentage of Pedestrians/Bicyclists in
Fig. 6.9.2 Land Usage of Intersection 9 Crashes by Age Group
Time of Day
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
12 PM
10 PM
11 PM
1 AM
2 AM
3 AM
4 AM
5 AM
6 AM
7 AM
8 AM
9 AM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
6 PM
7 PM
8 PM
9 PM
10 AM
12 AM
11 AM

Driver errors contributed to most of the crashes around this intersection.
47
15
10
0
Pedestrian Alcohol/Drug Driver Failure To Improper Turn Poor Driving Too Fast For
Error Involved Inattention Yield Conditions

The green time on the westbound and eastbound crosswalks for pedestrians was not long enough
(see Appendix B-9) for pedestrians to cross the intersections with comfortable speed (3.5ft/s).
 Adding pedestrian warning signs to increase visibility of right of way for pedestrians and
bicyclists could help to reduce the frequency of crashes.
 Traffic safety enforcement and education are recommended in the two schools around this
intersection.
 Installing barriers on medians will be helpful to prevent pedestrians from jaywalking, which
$130/ft.
intersection could help to reduce the frequency and severity of pedestrian crashes. As is
suggested in this study, the adjusted green time should be 30s or longer.
 Add a signal phase for left turning on southbound and northbound is recommended to
improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
 From the field survey results, many pedestrians suggest to implement a safety enforcement
surveillance system which may help to reduce the possibility of vehicles not yielding for
pedestrians.
48
6.10 Intersection 10: Montano Rd @ 4th St
6.10.1 Data analyses

The pedestrian and bicyclist volume are the lowest at this intersection out of all 10 intersections
studied. However, the vehicle volume is higher during peak hour periods (8 am to 10 am and 3
pm to 5 pm), and the vehicle speed is also higher than the other intersections during peak hour
periods.
People in Crash by Time of Day

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
12…
10…
11…
0
2 PM
1 AM
1 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
6 PM
7 PM
8 PM
9 PM
12 PM
10 PM
11 PM
2 AM
3 AM
4 AM
5 AM
6 AM
7 AM
8 AM
9 AM

The top contributing factor for crashes around this intersection was driver inattention. The
second top contributing factor was alcohol impairment. There are several stores and gas stations
around the intersection that provide alcohol.
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Pedestrian Alcohol/Drug Driver Failure To Improper Turn Red Light
Error Involved Inattention Yield Running
49
6.10.2 Recommendation
 Installing flashing warning signs and ensuring they work especially during peak hour periods
will help to increase drivers’ attention. As analyzed in previous study (10), adding flashing
6.11 Recommendation Summary

Since the pedestrian and bicyclist involved crashes occurring at some intersections shared some
characteristics, the recommendations for these intersections are similar. All recommendations
mentioned in previous sections were numbered and presented at the first row of the table, which
were also presented in Table 6.11.1. The explanations of each recommendation were listed below:
(1) Extending green time for the crosswalk of the specific direction at this intersection should
be considered to reduce the frequency and severity of pedestrian crashes. For some
intersection, the length of green time should consider the large number of wheelchair and
crutch users around this intersection. The suggested length of green time was listed in
corresponding section.
(2) Installing barriers on medians could be helpful to prevent pedestrians from jaywalking,
(3) Countermeasures to reduce vehicle speed approaching the intersections should be
(4) Education at the nearby schools, including preliminary schools and high schools, are
needed.
(5) From the field survey results, many pedestrians suggest to implement a safety
(6) Adding traffic assistants to help increase driver attention is recommended.
50
(7) Installing flashing warning signs and ensuring they work especially during dawn and
dusk will increase drivers’ attention. As analyzed in previous study (10), adding flashing
(8) Install warning signs in front of the channelizing island or add signal control for the
island could help to increase drivers’ attentions and the visibility of right of way for
pedestrian and bicyclists. According the Manual on Uniform Traffic control Devices
(MUTCD) (11), pedestrian crossing warning sign (W11-2) may be used to alert road
users in advance of locations where unexpected entries into the roadway might occur or
where shared use of the roadway by pedestrians, animals, or equestrians might occur.
(9) In order to reduce crash occurrence, additional warning signs are recommended to remind
right-turning and left-turning vehicles of the large pedestrian volume during the green
phase.
(10) Add two more street lights on the southbound of this intersection could help to improve
the lighting condition for drivers at midnight.
(11) Stop line and crosswalk markings are recommended to be repainted to increase their
visibility.
(12) Add a signal phase for left turning on specific direction to increase pedestrian and
bicyclist safety.
Table 6.11.1 Recommendation for 10 Intersections
ID Intersection Location (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
1 Central Ave @ San Mateo Blvd × × × × ×
2 Montgomery Blvd @ San Mateo Blvd × × × × × ×
3 Central Ave @ Louisiana Blvd × × × ×
4 Central Ave @ Wyoming Blvd × × × × × ×
5 Central Ave @ Eubank Blvd × × ×
6 Lomas Blvd @ Juan Tabo Blvd × × ×
7 Central Ave @ Rio Grande Blvd × × ×
8 Central Ave @ Coors Blvd × ×
9 Central Ave @ Yale Blvd × × × × × ×
10 Montano Rd @ 4th St ×
Total Times 8 6 5 4 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1
51
References
1. National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstriation. Traffic Safety Facts 2012 Data. 2014.
2. New Meixoc Department of Transportation Transportation Planning and Safety Division
Data Management Bureau. New Mexico Traffic Crash Annual Report 2012. 2013.
3. US. Department of Transportation, and Federal Highwya Administration. Pedestrian and
Bicyclist Intersection Safety Indices. 2007.
4. Theofilatos, A., D. Graham, and G. Yannis. Factors affecting accident severity inside and
outside urban areas in Greece. Traffic injury prevention, Vol. 13, No. 5, Sep. 2012, pp.
458–67.
5. Haleem, K., and A. Gan. Effect of driver’s age and side of impact on crash severity along
urban freeways: a mixed logit approach. Journal of safety research, Vol. 46, Sep. 2013, pp.
67–76.
6. Train, K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 2009.
7. Federal Highway Administration Research and Technology. A Review of Pedestrian
Safety Research in the United States and Abroad. 2003.
8. Bushell, M. A., B. W. Poole, C. V Zegeer, and D. A. Rodriguez. Costs for Pedestrian and
Bicyclist Infrastructure Improvements. 2013.
9. Federal Highway Administration Safety Program. Engineering Countermeasures for
Reducing Speeds : A Desktop Reference of Potential Effectiveness. 2009.
10. U.S. Department of Transportation, F. H. A. Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB) -
Safety. No. 2012, 2009, pp. 2–4.
11. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
2009.
52
Appendix A
Field Data Collection Forms
53
A-1
Field Data Collection Form
1.Location: 2.Observer:
3.Date: 4.Land usage information:
5.Pedestrian Facility: 6.Bicycle facility
5.1Call button: Y/N 6.1Bicycle lane: Y/N
5.2Cross lane width(feet): 6.2Bicycle width (feet):
7.Speed limit (mph): 8. Street light: Y/N
54
A-2
Field Survey Questions
Location:
Date:
Pedestrian or Bicyclist
1) Gender: F / M
2) Age group:
Under 20 / 21-34 / 35-44 / 45-54 / 55-64 / >65
3) Why do you go through this intersection? On the way:
Shopping
Home
Work
Foods (lunch, dinner, etc. )
School
Entertainment
Exercise (running, walking the dog)
Other
4) Have you ever run a red light? Y / N
5) Is the signal long enough for crossing? Y / N
6) How would you characterize the speed of the vehicles passing through the intersection?
Too Fast / Just right
7) Which of the following below best describes the condition of the crosswalk markings (if any)?
Markings are clearly visible
Markings are faded and/or sections are missing
There are no crosswalk markings
8) Do you feel that this crossing is sufficiently safe? Y / N
9) If the answer for Q8 is no, what procedures do you think can improve the safety performance
for this intersection?
55
A-3
Intersection Traffic Volume Data Collection
1. Location: 4. Observer:
2. Date: 5. Weather
3. Time Period
56
A-4
Field Data and Traffic Volume Data Collection Results
Intersection Weekdays Weekends
NB WB SB EB NB WB SB EB
Left turn
Straight
Vehicle Volume (per
Right turn
hour)
Total(prime)
Total(all)
Female
Gender
Male
<20
21-34
Pedestrian
35-44
(per hour) Age
45-54
55-64
>65
Total
Female
Gender
Male
<20
21-34
Bicyclist (per
35-44
hour) Age
45-54
55-64
>65
Total
Ped/Bic Signal Length (s)
Cross Lane Length(feet)
Cross Lane Length(feet)/Signal
Speed Limit (m/h)
Bus Routes
Street Lighting System
Raised Median
Bicycle Lane
57
Appendix B
Data Collection Results
58
B-1
Field Data and Traffic Data Collection Results for Intersection 1
Central Ave @ San Mateo Blvd Weekdays Weekends
Left turn 224 224 178 212 166 156 97 145
Straight 692 595 738 669 559 572 414 536
Vehicle Volume (per
Right turn 157 106 158 192 107 86 118 172
hour)
Total(prime) 1074 925 1074 1073 831 815 629 854
Total(all) 2228 1929 2084 2051 1574 1555 1419 1710
Female 12 20 17 9 8 16 15 6
Gender
Male 21 31 34 14 15 20 24 10
<20 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0
21-34 22 40 43 18 17 26 35 14
Pedestrian
35-44 6 3 3 3 3 1 2 1
(per hour) Age
45-54 2 3 1 0 1 3 1 0
55-64 3 2 4 1 1 4 2 1
>65 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0
Total 33 50 52 23 23 36 41 17
Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Gender
Male 3 3 6 1 2 2 5 1
<20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21-34 1 3 5 1 2 2 5 1
Bicyclist (per
35-44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
hour) Age
45-54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
55-64 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 3 4 6 1 2 2 5 1
Ped/Bic Signal Length (s) 31 33 33 33 31 33 33 33
Cross Lane Length(feet) 110 115 110 110 110 115 110 110
Cross Lane Length(feet)/Signal 3.55 3.48 3.33 3.33 3.55 3.48 3.33 3.33
Speed Limit (m/h) 40 35 40 35 40 35 40 35
Bus Routes 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3
Street Lighting System Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Raised Median Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Bicycle Lane N N N N N N N N
59
B-2
Montgomery Blvd @ San Mateo Blvd Weekdays Weekends
Left turn 317 270 345 184
Straight 863 1023 845 1048
Vehicle Volume (per
Right turn 268 268 202 316
hour)
Total(prime) 1448 1561 1392 1548
Total(all) 2879 3222 2707 3090
Female 15 8 9 13
Gender
Male 31 12 12 14
<20 25 17 15 19
21-34 19 1 1 4
Pedestrian
35-44 2 1 3 2
(per hour) Age
45-54 0 1 1 1
55-64 1 0 1 1
>65 0 0 0 0
Total 45 20 21 27
Female 0 0 0 0
Gender
Male 1 1 2 2
<20 0 0 0 0
21-34 1 1 1 2
Bicyclist (per
35-44 0 0 0 0
hour) Age
45-54 0 0 0 0
55-64 0 0 0 0
>65 0 0 0 0
Total 1 1 2 2
Ped/Bic Signal Length (s) 37 37 37 37
Cross Lane Length(feet) 115 120 115 125
Cross Lane Length(feet)/Signal 3.11 3.24 3.11 3.38
Speed Limit (m/h) 40 40 40 40
Bus Routes 2 2 2 2
Street Lighting System Y Y Y Y
Raised Median Y Y Y Y
Bicycle Lane N N N N
60
B-3
Central Ave @ Louisiana Blvd Weekdays Weekends
Left turn 148 112 56 148 109 78 31 101
Straight 304 788 462 762 245 758 259 611
Vehicle Volume (per
Right turn 146 72 130 168 99 59 97 151
hour)
Total(prime) 598 972 648 1078 453 895 387 863
Total(all) 1340 1936 1172 2144 941 1636 792 1827
Female 23 8 9 20 19 7 12 15
Gender
Male 32 9 20 33 24 7 12 28
<20 1 0 0 4 1 0 1 3
21-34 42 12 24 34 33 8 19 29
Pedestrian
35-44 9 4 3 7 7 4 2 5
(per hour) Age
45-54 2 1 1 3 1 2 2 3
55-64 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2
>65 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Total 55 17 30 49 43 14 24 43
Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Gender
Male 2 2 2 5 1 1 1 4
<20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21-34 2 1 2 5 1 1 1 4
Bicyclist (per
35-44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
hour) Age
45-54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
55-64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 2 2 2 6 1 1 1 4
Speed Limit (m/h) 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
Bus Routes 3 3 1 2 3 3 1 2
Raised Median N Y N Y N Y N Y
61
B-4
Central Ave @ Wyoming Blvd Weekdays Weekends
Left turn 200 218 62 91 160 116 60 47
Straight 365 754 854 752 277 662 185 689
Vehicle Volume (per
Right turn 229 47 56 146 146 26 28 113
hour)
Total(prime) 794 1019 973 990 583 805 273 848
Total(all) 2014 2063 1476 2000 997 1700 624 1699
Female 7 7 6 6 4 4 5 4
Gender
Male 19 13 14 9 9 9 9 6
<20 1 2 6 1 1 0 0 0
21-34 17 7 8 10 8 8 8 6
Pedestrian
35-44 5 8 5 3 3 3 4 3
(per hour) Age
45-54 2 1 0 1 2 1 1 0
55-64 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
>65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 26 20 19 14 14 12 15 10
Female 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Gender
Male 3 1 2 1 3 1 2 1
<20 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
21-34 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1
Bicyclist (per
35-44 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
hour) Age
45-54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
55-64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 3 1 3 2 4 1 2 1
Speed Limit (m/h) 40 35 40 35 40 35 40 35
Bus Routes 4 3 2 2 4 3 2 2
Raised Median Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
62
B-5
Central Ave @ Eubank Blvd Weekdays Weekends
Left turn 200 230 156 129
Straight 1031 586 668 589
Vehicle Volume (per
Right turn 281 176 67 174
hour)
Total(prime) 1512 992 891 892
Total(all) 2583 2019 2226 1745
Female 3 2 3 4
Gender
Male 4 4 4 8
<20 1 0 2 2
21-34 6 4 3 6
Pedestrian
35-44 1 1 2 3
(per hour) Age
45-54 0 0 0 0
55-64 0 0 0 1
>65 0 0 0 0
Total 7 5 7 12
Female 0 0 0 0
Gender
Male 1 0 2 1
<20 0 0 0 0
21-34 1 0 1 1
Bicyclist (per
35-44 0 0 1 0
hour) Age
45-54 0 0 0 0
55-64 0 0 0 0
>65 0 0 0 0
Total 1 0 2 1
Bus Routes 2 3 2 3
Bicycle Lane NB N N N
63
B-6
Lomas Blvd @ Juan Tabo Blvd Weekdays Weekends
Left turn 124 220 126 166 135 155 220 157
Straight 860 299 960 296 770 248 998 226
Vehicle Volume (per
Right turn 160 128 512 118 128 160 124 105
hour)
Total(prime) 1144 647 1598 580 1033 563 1342 488
Total(all) 2442 1229 2752 1515 2291 1137 2429 995
Female 16 10 9 13 3 3 2 4
Gender
Male 28 16 12 16 5 4 2 3
<20 25 16 10 17 2 2 0 3
21-34 14 8 9 10 2 2 3 2
Pedestrian
35-44 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
(per hour) Age
45-54 2 1 1 1 2 1 0 0
55-64 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
>65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 44 26 21 29 8 7 4 7
Female 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Gender
Male 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1
<20 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
21-34 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
Bicyclist (per
35-44 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
hour) Age
45-54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
55-64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 2 1 1 2 1 0 2 1
Bus Routes 2 1 1 2
Bicycle Lane NB N N N
64
B-7
Central Ave @ Rio Grande Blvd Weekdays Weekends
Left turn 261 494 26 71 NB WB SB EB
Straight 63 713 81 896 312 612 18 240
Vehicle Volume (per
Right turn 662 16 17 268 60 462 54 654
hour)
Total(prime) 986 1223 124 1235 468 0 24 276
Total(all) 1829 2807 274 2226 840 1074 96 1170
Female 9 2 2 6 22 0 6 8
Gender
Male 14 2 3 8 5 3 0 8
<20 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 0
21-34 10 2 2 5 11 0 4 4
Pedestrian
35-44 8 1 1 3 3 2 0 6
(per hour) Age
45-54 3 1 1 2 7 1 2 6
55-64 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0
>65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 23 4 5 13 27 3 6 16
Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Gender
Male 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0
<20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21-34 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Bicyclist (per
35-44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
hour) Age
45-54 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
55-64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0
Bus Routes 0 2 0 5
Raised Median N Y N Y
65
B-8
Central Ave @ Coors Blvd Weekdays Weekends
Left turn 374 123 185 137 324 198 144 114
Straight 762 479 486 675 588 432 402 588
Vehicle Volume (per
Right turn 168 99 60 101 120 na 66 270
hour)
Total(prime) 1304 701 731 913 1032 630 612 972
Total(all) 2014 1728 1728 1825 1902 1482 1314 1794
Female 2 3 4 1 3 0 2 0
Gender
Male 5 6 3 4 7 5 1 0
<20 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
21-34 5 7 5 3 8 2 5 0
Pedestrian
35-44 1 2 1 0 2 2 0 0
(per hour) Age
45-54 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
55-64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 6 9 7 5 10 5 6 0
Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Gender
Male 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 0
<20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21-34 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
Bicyclist (per
35-44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
hour) Age
45-54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
55-64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
Bus Routes 2 2 1 1
Bicycle Lane N Y N Y
66
B-9
Central Ave @ Yale Blvd Weekdays Weekends
Left turn 38 87 98 134 11 123 111 12
Straight 64 918 52 570 27 825 15 693
Vehicle Volume (per
Right turn 56 92 42 18 3 6 96 51
hour)
Total(prime) 158 1097 192 722 41 954 222 756
Total(all) 315 1821 482 1720 230 1761 267 1688
Female 5 41 22 18 1 4 10 6
Gender
Male 9 112 36 41 10 13 19 16
<20 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
21-34 11 141 48 51 7 16 18 14
Pedestrian
35-44 1 5 5 1 1 1 7 4
(per hour) Age
45-54 1 3 2 3 0 0 0 2
55-64 1 3 2 4 0 0 4 2
>65 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Total 14 153 58 59 11 17 29 22
Female 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Gender
Male 6 25 2 3 7 3 3 5
<20 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
21-34 6 26 1 3 4 3 3 4
Bicyclist (per
35-44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
hour) Age
45-54 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
55-64 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
>65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 6 26 2 3 8 3 3 5
Bus Routes 0 4 2 1
Raised Median Y Y N Y
67
B-10
Montano Rd @ 4th St Weekdays Weekends
Left turn 159 118 268 134
Straight 374 530 435 766
Vehicle Volume (per
Right turn 117 245 151 144
hour)
Total(prime) 650 893 854 1044
Total(all) 1347 2044 1607 1884
Female 2 1 0 1
Gender
Male 2 2 1 2
<20 0 0 0 0
21-34 3 2 1 2
Pedestrian
35-44 1 0 0 0
(per hour) Age
45-54 0 0 0 0
55-64 0 0 0 0
>65 0 0 0 0
Total 4 2 2 3
Female 0 0 0 0
Gender
Male 1 1 1 0
<20 0 0 0 0
21-34 1 1 0 0
Bicyclist (per
35-44 0 0 0 0
hour) Age
45-54 0 0 0 0
55-64 0 0 0 0
>65 0 0 0 0
Total 1 1 1 0
Bus Routes 2 0 1 0
Raised Median N Y N Y
68

PesBicSafetyPerformance Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PesBicSafetyPerformance Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pedestrian and Bicycle-Involved Crash

Analysis and Safety Performance Enhancement

Department of Civil Engineering, University of New Mexico

Report Prepared by:

Adélamar "Dely" Alcántara

UNM Geospatial and Population Studies

Section 2: Scope of Work ............................................................................................................... 5

Section3: Methodology ................................................................................................................... 7

3.1 Crash Characteristics Analysis............................................................................................................ 7

4.1 Data Collection Time .......................................................................................................................... 9

5.1 Crash Characteristics Analyses Results ............................................................................................ 15

6.1 Intersection 1: Central Ave @ San Mateo Blvd ................................................................................ 25

The countermeasures proposed for many intersections in this project include:

Fig. 2.1. Top 10 Intersection Locations

3.1 Crash Characteristics Analysis

3.2 Traffic Safety Analyses

3.2.1 Person Injury Rate

3.2.2 Crash Severity Analysis

𝑆𝑖𝑛 = 𝜷𝒊 ∙ 𝑿𝒊𝒏 + 𝜀𝑖𝑛 (5.3)

4.1 Data Collection Time

Figure 4.2.1 Video Renaming Format

(a) West & South (b) North & East

5.1 Crash Characteristics Analyses Results

Pedestrian Injury Rate Bicyclist Injury Rate

(a) Pedestrian Injury Rate (b) Bicyclist Injury Rate

5.1.1 Injury Severity

No Injury Possible Injury Non-Incapacitating Injury Incapacitating Injury and Fatality

Fig 5.1.2 Percentage of Pedestrians in Crashes by Injury Severity

Percentage of Bicyclists in Crashes by Injury Severity

No Injury Possible Injury Non-Incapacitating Injury Incapacitating Injury and Fatality

Fig 5.1.3 Percentage of Pedestrians in Crashes by Injury Severity

5.1.2 Age Group

<20 21-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 >65

Fig 5.1.4 Percentage of Pedestrians in Crashes by Age Group

Percentage of Bicyclists in Crash by Age Group

<20 21-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 >65

Fig 5.1.5 Percentage of Bicyclists in Crashes by Age Group

Fig 5.1.6 Percentage of Pedestrians in Crashes by Gender

Percentage of Bicyclists in Crash by Gender

Fig 5.1.7 Percentage of Pedestrians in Crashes by Gender

5.1.4. Weekdays and Weekends

Fig 5.1.8 Percentage of Pedestrians in Crashes by Day of Week

Percentage of Bicyclists in Crash by Day of Week

Fig 5.1.9 Percentage of Pedestrians in Crashes by Day of Week

Spring Summer Fall Winter

Fig 5.1.10 Percentage of Pedestrians in Crashes by Season

Percentage of Bicyclists in Crashes by Season

Spring Summer Fall Winter

Fig 5.1.11 Percentage of Pedestrians in Crashes by Season

5.1.6. Time of Day

People in Crash by Time of Day People in Crash by Time of Day

Central Ave @ Louisiana Blvd Central Ave @ Wyoming Blvd

People in Crash by Time of Day People in Crash by Time of Day

Centraol Ave @ Eubank Blvd Lomas Blvd @ Juan Tabo Blvd

People in Crash by Time of Day People in Crash by Time of Day

Central Ave @ Yale Blvd Montano Rd @ 4th St

Fig 5.1.12 Percentage of Pedestrians in Crashes by Time of Day

Fig 5.1.13 Percentage of Pedestrians and Bicyclists in Crashes by Alcohol Impairment

5.1.8. Crash Contributing Factors

5.3 Traffic Data Results

6.1 Intersection 1: Central Ave @ San Mateo Blvd

6.1.1 Data analyses

Percentage of Pedestrians/Bicyclists in Crashes by

Fig. 6.2.1 Percentage of Pedestrians/Bicyclists in Crashes by Injury Severity