Examples of Completed Prioritization Tool Worksheets
The following two examples show how the Prioritization Tool would be used to rate two crosswalks. The first example is a crosswalk that would be relatively easier for pedestrians who are blind or visually impaired. The second example is a crosswalk that would be relatively difficult.
Example Crosswalk #1
This example uses the APS Prioritization Tool to rate a crosswalk at an intersection in a dense urban area. Both streets of the intersection are fairly narrow and have 35 mph speed limits. The signal is pretimed. Figure 5-1 shows an overhead view of the intersection, with the crosswalk of interest outlined.
The first worksheet deals with the intersection characteristics (Figure D-20). The total intersection score was zero, since the intersection was a simple 4-legged configuration with a pretimed signal and was not located near transit facilities, facilities for the visually impaired, or major pedestrian attractions.
The second worksheet deals with the crosswalk (Figure D-21). Points were given for the following reasons:
- The crosswalk width is 50 feet. The worksheet range of 40-59 feet earns one point.
- The posted speed limit on Prospect (the street being crossed) is 35 mph. This earns three points.
- The traffic on Broadway (the parallel street) is constant, thereby giving constant audible cues for the pedestrian. This variable earns only one point.
- There is another APS-equipped crosswalk within one-quarter mile. Thus, the crosswalk being rated earns 2 points in this category.
There are no characteristics of this crosswalk that would qualify under the sections for "Approach/Crosswalk Geometrics," "Pedestrian Signal Control," or "Vehicle Signal Control." In addition, the pushbutton poles are located close to the curb and within the crosswalk lines extended and there have been no requests for APS at this crosswalk; both receive zero points on the prioritization scheme.
The crosswalk worksheet score is 7 points. When added to the intersection score of zero points, this yields a total crosswalk score of 7 points. In practice, this score of 7 points would be compared to other crosswalks under consideration for APS installations. Those crosswalks with the highest scores would have the highest priority for APS.
Example Crosswalk #2
This example rates a crosswalk at a large intersection of a major arterial and a minor side street. The crosswalk of interest is on the east leg (highlighted in Figure D-22; shown at street level in Figure D-23).
The first worksheet deals with the intersection characteristics (Figure D-24). Points were given for the following reasons:
- The signal is actuated but also uses split phasing, which is a higher point value than actuation, so the intersection gets the six points for split phasing. Split phasing is a less commonly used signal design, and the typically heavy turning movements make it harder to effectively use the traffic movement cue to determine signal changes. APS would provide a definitive cue to the onset of the WALK interval for pedestrians who are unable to see the pedestrian signal.
- There is a single bus route on the main street, which earns another point. The presence of public transit increases the likelihood that visually impaired pedestrians will travel at this intersection, thereby increasing the priority for APS.
There are no facilities specifically providing services for individuals who are visually impaired or major pedestrian attractors within one-half mile, so no points are given for those categories. The total intersection score is seven points.
The second worksheet deals with the crosswalk (Figure D-25). Points were given for the following reasons:
- The crosswalk width of 110 feet and speed limit of 45 mph on the main street earn the crosswalk four and five points, respectively. Wider crosswalks and faster traffic increase the crossing difficulty and risk to visually impaired pedestrians, and APS may help expedite their crossing.
- The curb radius on one of the corners bordering the crosswalk is greater than 25 feet, so one point is given in the geometrics category. Larger curb radii create orientation problems for visually impaired pedestrians that may be decreased with the use of an APS.
- The signal requires push button actuation for the pedestrian WALK signal, so four points are given for the pedestrian signalization category. An APS locator tone would help a pedestrian who is visually impaired recognize that there is a pushbutton at that crosswalk and help in locating the pushbutton.
- Right-turn-on-red (RTOR) is permitted at the crosswalk, so two points are given in the vehicle signal control category. RTOR may produce misleading traffic cues, and an APS would provide a definitive cue of the appropriate time to cross.
- During off-peak hours, there was enough parallel traffic to provide audible cues (2 or more vehicles per cycle) about 75% of the time. This earns two points.
- There is not an alternative APS crosswalk within one-half mile, so four points are given towards the prioritization of an APS installation at this crosswalk.
- The pedestrian push button at one end of the crosswalk is located more than 10 feet from the curb, which is contrary to the recommendations in Section 4E.09 of the MUTCD. Three points are given for this drawback, since a correctly installed APS would position the push button closer to the curb which facilitates orientation alignment for blind and visually impaired pedestrians.
The crosswalk worksheet score is 25 points. When added to the intersection score of seven points, this yields a total crosswalk score of 32 points. In practice, this score of 32 points would be compared to other crosswalks under consideration for APS installations. Those crosswalks with the highest scores would have the highest priority for APS.
[ back to top ]