Selecting an appropriate crossing facility type including supporting aids requires a comprehensive and context sensitive approach. This page outlines a recommended crossing selection process. Firstly understand the street environment and context, then use the crossing selection flowchart to identify potentially suitable crossing options, finally use the crossing context table to find out more about the recommended parameters for each crossing type and other important considerations to identify a safe and appropriate crossing type along with supporting aids.
The following table lists questions and aspects to consider as inputs to the decision making process to select an appropriate crossing type and design for a particular location. Note, refer to 'Streets and places' for guidance on forms of road space allocation that prioritise pedestrians or allow them to share the space with other road users meaning discrete crossing facilities are not required.
Table: Street environment considerations
|
Question |
Considerations |
|
What is the street function? |
What is the current or desired movement and place function of the street and to what extent should pedestrians be prioritised? The One Network Framework classification may assist. |
|
What are the traffic volumes and composition? |
Traffic volume affects the delays experienced by pedestrians. Facilities that give priority to pedestrians result in delays to other road users. Should the traffic volumes be reduced? Should the traffic composition be modified or restricted? The composition of traffic includes how many heavy vehicles, buses and cyclists use the road which influences facility choice and design. |
|
What are the vehicle operating speeds? |
Vehicle operating speeds over 30km/h increase the severity of injury or likelihood of death in crashes involving pedestrians. Higher speeds make it more difficult for pedestrians to judge safe gaps and require longer sight distances. Should traffic calming and speed management be used along the route/area? |
|
Who is expected to use the crossing? |
Who wants to cross? How many people want to cross? Who is the most vulnerable person likely to cross here? Is there suppressed demand to cross here? Are there crossing safety issues for existing or future pedestrians? |
|
What is the road layout? |
How many traffic lanes are there in each direction? Can road space be reallocated to reduce the number of lanes? |
|
What are the surrounding land uses / place value? |
What is the surrounding land use and how might it affect the types, times, and volumes of pedestrian? What would pedestrians expect in this area? |
|
What is the best location of the crossing to match pedestrian desire lines? |
Where do pedestrians cross now and where do they want to go or come from? Do they cross in one place or are they spread out along a link, or at an intersection. What other crossing opportunities are nearby and what type are they? |
The Austroads Pedestrian Facility Selection Tool can be used to identify feasible pedestrian crossing treatments for a particular site.
The tool can assess raised platforms, kerb extensions, median refuges, zebra crossings, signals, grade separation or combinations of these facilities. The tool does not include courtesy crossings. It also calculates the relative effects on safety, delay, and levels of service of different feasible treatments.
Austroads Pedestrian Facility Selection Tool(external link)
The Austroads Pedestrian Facility Selection Tool does not consider the context of a site and hence the preferred treatment, other than at a broad level. Therefore the street environment considerations table (above), the crossing selection flowchart and crossing facility context table (below) should be applied as well.
The following flowchart can be used to assist in identifying appropriate urban mid-block crossing types or options and has been developed specifically for New Zealand. Then use the Crossing selection context table below to find out more about the advantages and disadvantages of each crossing type and the conditions and features required for them to be primary or supporting safe system interventions.
Mid-block crossing facility selection flowchart.
Flowchart notes:
Download mid-block crossing facility selection flowchart [PDF, 1.8 MB]
This flowchart is suitable for assessing mid-block crossing locations only. Crossings that support particular user groups (eg school patrolled zebra crossings and kea crossings) or those that need to accommodate other modes (eg dual crossings for cyclists) and rail level crossings are not included.
PNG: School patrolled zebra crossings and kea crossings
The guidance cannot be used for shared space streets or pedestrianised streets. The posted speed limit and the desired operating speed may not be the existing situation.
Use the context table to find out more about the benefits and implications of each crossing type and the conditions and features required for them to be primary or supporting safe system interventions. Then refer to relevant crossing type design sections to find out more about the legal considerations, design considerations and design elements including traffic control device requirements.
Table: Crossing context table [PDF, 488 KB]
Crossing aids or physical devices reduce the crossing distance and/or the number of lanes pedestrians need to negotiate at each stage. The crossing distance can be reduced through kerb extensions, medians and refuges. Median refuges and pedestrian refuges can also reduce delays to pedestrians and simplify the crossing task by allowing pedestrians to cross in two stages.
The two charts below illustrate the level of delay for pedestrians crossing a typical two-way, two-lane road with a 50km/h speed limit with various traffic volumes, and how this improves through the provision of crossing aids. The crossing distance without physical aids assumes a 14m kerb-to-kerb crossing distance; kerb extensions assume a 9m crossing distance; a median refuge assumes two 6m crossings; and kerb extensions and a median refuge assumes two 4.5m crossings.
Note that each chart varies according to inputs entered for flow type, number of lanes, lane widths, pedestrian profile and walk speeds.
Mean waiting delay for pedestrians crossing at various facilities on a two-lane, two-way urban road (uninterrupted flow).
Mean waiting delay for pedestrians crossing at various facilities on a two-lane, two-way urban road (interrupted flow).
Where expected pedestrian crossing delays are unacceptable, or there are notable safety issues, then some form of priority control should be considered. Pedestrian priority and signal control should be coupled with the best combination of physical aids for the site. Adding the control will provide benefits to pedestrians but may result in a greater delay to motor vehicle traffic.
The Austroads Pedestrian Facility Selection Tool performs a simplified analysis for signalised pedestrian crossings, making assumptions around pedestrian and vehicle arrival rates, delay probability and timing effects. To perform a thorough assessment of delays, particularly for more complex situations, the analysis of pedestrian and vehicle delays at signals should be conducted using specialised intersection modelling software.
