Trial of farside pedestrian signals at a Puffin crossing

Transcription

1 Published Project Report PPR608 Trial of farside pedestrian signals at a Puffin crossing A Maxwell, C Smyth, R Hutchins and M R Crabtree

2

3 Transport Research Laboratory PROJECT REPORT PPR608 Trial of farside pedestrian signals at a Puffin crossing by A Maxwell, C Smyth (Halcrow), R Hutchins and M R Crabtree Prepared for: Project Record: Signalised Crossings for the 21st Century Client: Transport Scotland, Client's Division/Department (Craig Cameron) Copyright Transport Research Laboratory October 2011 Name Date Approved Project Manager Alastair Maxwell 5/4/2012 Technical Referee David Bretherton 5/4/2012

4 When purchased in hard copy, this publication is printed on paper that is FSC (Forestry Stewardship Council) and TCF (Totally Chlorine Free) registered. TRL RPN1821

5 Contents Executive summary iv 1 Introduction 1 2 Background Signalised crossings for the 21st Century Steering group A trial of near and farside pedestrian signals 1 3 Objectives 2 4 Overview of Puffin facilities Puffin facilities Nearside signals 4 5 Trial site details Location Crossing control Pedestrian flow Modifications to the Puffin crossing 10 6 Methodology Introduction Implementation Approvals for the site modification Site installation and consistency of control strategies Video surveys Video recording Video analysis Attitudinal surveys Devising the surveys Undertaking the surveys Questionnaire analysis Risk assessment factors Assessment of disabled pedestrians Puffin fit for purpose assessment 16 7 Questionnaire survey results Overview Statistical assessment Demographics Observed crossing behaviour Pre- and post-modification comparison The crossing experience Comments on previous problems experienced 25 TRL i PPR608

6 7.6 Perceptions of the crossing Visibility of the pedestrian signals while waiting to cross The signal to start crossing Understanding of the signals Perceptions while crossing Safety and satisfaction Comments on the signal crossings Stated preferred crossing Stated preferred pedestrian signal arrangement Understanding of the blackout signal Puffin crossing publicity and awareness Comparison with the previous Pelican crossing 48 8 Video survey results Sample size and survey dates Comparison with modified arrangement Statistical assessment Pedestrian compliance with the green man Crossing paths and durations Pedestrian observation of on-coming traffic Driver behaviour Risk assessment factors Factors identified by the risk assessment Assessment events recorded throughout the analysis Conflict analysis 59 9 Results summary Questionnaire surveys Video surveys Assessment of disabled pedestrians Introduction Background Previous Research Trial results Consultation Conclusion Puffin fit for purpose assessment Discussion Conclusions Recommendations Acknowledgements References 71 TRL ii PPR608

7 17 Glossary 73 Appendix A Questionnaire responses: Pre- modification 74 Appendix B Questionnaire responses: Post- modification 82 Appendix C Tests of statistical significance 93 Appendix D Video data analysis methodology 96 Appendix E Risk assessment and conflict analysis data 99 Appendix F Questionnaire responses (60 years+) 106 Appendix G Appendix H Questionnaire responses excluding crossing assistant presence 107 Disabled users questionnaire responses from the RFID technology trial 108 TRL iii PPR608

8 Executive summary This report describes the outcome of an on-street trial at a Puffin crossing in Edinburgh. The study was commissioned by Transport Scotland and sought to provide recommendations on the standard form of signalised pedestrian crossings in the Disability Discrimination Act: Good Practice Guide for Roads (Transport Scotland, 2009) [1]. Puffin facilities were devised to replace Pelican crossings and farside pedestrian signalling at traffic signal junctions. They were designed to increase pedestrian convenience and safety, reduce the number of unnecessary stops for drivers, and provide clearer and consistent signals to road-users by eliminating the flashing sequence at mid-block crossings and the pedestrian signal blackout at junctions. A feature of Puffin crossings is nearside pedestrian signals. Benefits of nearside signalling include improved pedestrian compliance in the clearance period [5,6], improved comprehension of the signals given [7,9], the potential to increase observation of oncoming traffic [8,17,33], and they should be easier for pedestrians with visual impairment to see [17, 33]. However, concern has been expressed from some stakeholders regarding the use of nearside signals; in particular, masking of the nearside signal by other pedestrians [2,3] and potential pedestrian confusion due to the absence of a visible signal once on the crossing. The aim of the trial was to explore whether there were any differences in the crossing behaviour and perceptions of pedestrians based on the absence or presence of a farside pedestrian signal at a Puffin crossing. Surveys were undertaken before and after the modification in autumn This was supplemented by an additional survey of disabled users and consultation with disability groups. The trial site was on an arterial route in Edinburgh (Craigmillar Park, near Suffolk Road). Pedestrian flows were low (averaging around 15 per hour during the day). The crossing spanned a four lane road and had a central island. Farside pedestrian signals were added to the existing Puffin crossing. The nearside pedestrian signals were maintained. The farside signals showed no signal ( blackout ) during the pedestrian clearance period. There was then a fixed all-red period of two seconds before the onset of the vehicle stage. There was a four-day survey period at the crossing before the farside signal was added and then a further four-day survey period afterwards. In each survey period, two days were spent interviewing pedestrians at the site who had just used the crossing supplemented by a further two days of video recording to permit analysis of crossing behaviour. The sample sizes were sufficiently large to provide robust statistical assessment. The questionnaire survey showed that the standard Puffin crossing had high approval levels including ease of use (98%), perceived safety (86%), and user satisfaction (83%). There were high levels of certainty about whether it was safe to start to cross (99%) and safe to continue crossing (99%), and low levels of anxiety on the crossing (13%). Several users commented that they would prefer to see the green man while crossing. When directly asked 33% of pedestrians stated they preferred farside signals, 62% had no preference between near or farside signals, and only 5% stated they preferred nearside signals. However, the addition of the farside pedestrian signals largely did not affect user s approval levels or perceptions of the crossing, and where there were statistically significant changes, they were all negative: An increase in users perception of delay before the start of the green man phase Greater uncertainty about when they should start to cross; Reduced understanding of the red and green man signals; and TRL iv PPR608

9 Fewer pedestrians strongly agreeing it was easy to see the green and red man while waiting to cross. Some pedestrians misunderstood the farside blackout period. Three-quarters of pedestrians reported they would hurry during the blackout period and a small proportion (14%) reported that they might return to the kerb or stop mid-crossing on the island. About a fifth of pedestrians were uncertain as to whether they could start to cross during the blackout period. However, when directly asked the majority of respondents (80%) stated that they preferred the combined arrangement of nearside and farside signals, and only 4% said they would prefer to have nearside signals only. The video survey showed behavioural changes after the farside signals were added: Pedestrians made significantly fewer observations of traffic prior to and during crossing. This could reduce the documented safety benefits provided by Puffin crossings. The results also indicated that pedestrians also crossed more quickly when farside signals were present There was an indicated increase in vehicle red violations at the end of the pedestrian stage. This is likely to be due to the two-second all-red period necessarily added for the farside signals. There was a significant increase in pedestrians starting to cross just before the green man. It corresponded with the increased perceived delay shown in the questionnaire surveys. Note that there was no change in the actual delay from the push button being pressed to the start of green man. Potential reasons for starting to cross earlier include: pedestrians reacting to the traffic signal change to red which is in the same line of sight as the farside pedestrian signal; and farside pedestrian signals enable pedestrians to view the pedestrian signal while facing the opposite carriageway and standing close to the kerbside, thus allowing pedestrians to enter the carriageway earlier. There was little indication from the video surveys of uncertainty during the clearance period at either the standard Puffin or the modified crossing. There was an increase in risk assessment events associated with pedestrians starting to cross before the green man at the modified crossing. Signal obscuration while waiting to cross was not prevalent at this site and the perceived visibility of the nearside signals was high. The addition of farside signals did not improve the situation. However, this could differ at crossings with high pedestrian flows. The sample size of older pedestrians was not large enough to undertake comparative statistical assessment. The results suggest that older pedestrians tend to be more anxious while on the crossing and more so at the standard Puffin. Older pedestrians also were more likely to perceive that nearside pedestrian signals were sometimes obscured by other pedestrians. However, compared to the standard Puffin, older pedestrians were much less certain about when to start to cross at the modified crossing and thought they had to wait too long for the green man to appear. Also a greater number of older pedestrians felt that the green man/audible signals were not long enough at the modified Puffin. Nevertheless, older pedestrians stated that their feelings of safety and satisfaction at the modified Puffin were similar to those for the standard Puffin. Few pedestrians were aware of the on-crossing pedestrian detectors to allow safe passage. Only one person out of 100 knew that the standard crossing was known as a Puffin crossing. Separate analysis of disabled pedestrians through consultation with disability groups and a limited trial indicate that nearside pedestrian signals offer advantages over farside pedestrian signals, particularly for blind and partially sighted pedestrians due to improved visibility while waiting to cross. The farside signal may provide some comfort TRL v PPR608

10 to pedestrians while crossing, however can detract from the task of crossing and increase misunderstanding of the signals. Overall, the effects shown in this study of the introduction of the farside signal at a Puffin crossing were neutral or negative, except for the pedestrians stated preference for the modified arrangement. The study recommendations include: When Puffin crossings are referred to in the DDA Good Practice Guide for Roads [16] it should be taken as referring to Puffins in their current form. The Puffin Crossings Good Practice Guide [17] should be referenced in the DDA guide. There should be greater publicity of Puffin crossings, in particular the on-crossing extension feature. A study would be worthwhile concentrating on the operation of crossings with very high pedestrian flows to assess Puffin performance and develop further guidance for such situations if needed. A study considering a wider range of disabled users would provide further information on how the pedestrian signal arrangement affects people with different disabilities. TRL vi PPR608

11 1 Introduction This report describes the outcome of an on-street trial at a Puffin crossing in Edinburgh. The trial compared pedestrian behaviour and perception of a Puffin crossing before and after farside pedestrian signals were added to a standard Puffin crossing. The study was commissioned by Transport Scotland and funded through the MTRIPS Roads Research Programme. The study sought to provide recommendations on the standard form of signalised pedestrian crossings in the Disability Discrimination Act: Good Practice Guide for Roads (Transport Scotland, 2009) [1]. The study was undertaken by TRL and Halcrow, and supported by The City of Edinburgh Council. TRL led the trials and analysis and Halcrow led the implementation of the trial site and explored aspects that might affect people with disabilities. The study was overseen by the Signalised Crossings for the 21st Century Steering Group. A Glossary of terms is given in Section Background 2.1 Signalised crossings for the 21st Century Steering group The Signalised Crossings for the 21st Century Steering Group helps guide the development of signalised crossings in Scotland. It forms part of Transport Scotland s Trunk Road Action Plan 'Roads for All [18]. Steering Group members include Transport Scotland, City of Edinburgh Council, the police, SCOTS (Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland), and representatives of disability groups (including the Scottish Accessible Transport Alliance, the National Federation of the Blind, and the Royal National Institute of Blind people). The Department for Transport are consulted on the findings and are invited to attend the meetings. The Steering Group s first meeting was in May The overall objective of the Steering Group is to make recommendations for the operation and layout of signalised crossings with due consideration to all road users, given the requirements of the Equalities Act (2010). TRL and Halcrow are consultants to the steering group with objectives to: Assess the applicability of the pedestrian crossing technologies recommended in the Trunk Roads Action Plan Roads for All: Use of Contemporary Technology Report [19]; Provide advice to Transport Scotland, the Steering Group, and other relevant stakeholders as requested, on the configuration of signalised crossings; and Work closely with key stakeholders to derive recommendations for the operation and layout of signalised crossings. 2.2 A trial of near and farside pedestrian signals Signalised crossings traditionally have pedestrian signal aspects located on the farside of the carriageway. However, nearside pedestrian signals have become more common since the introduction of Puffin facilities (see Section 4). This has led to a mixture of different signalised crossing types that has called into question which pedestrian signal type is the most suitable for pedestrians with disabilities [19]. Concurrent to the Use of Contemporary Technology Report, SCOTS (Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland) submitted a research proposal regarding User problems with Puffin Crossings to Transport Scotland s TRR. The lack of a confirmation TRL 1 RPN1821

12 message provided by the traditional farside pedestrian signal was a concern, with issues regarding: Potential pedestrian confusion (particularly for the elderly) as to whether it is safe to continue crossing; and Potential masking of the nearside signals/ pedestrians falling to notice the pedestrian signal before deciding to cross. TRL submitted a draft proposal for the SCOTS study. Subsequent collaboration between Transport Scotland and SCOTS led to TRL and Halcrow submitting a joint proposal for on-street trials of nearside and farside signals under the supervision of the Signalised Crossings for the 21st Century Steering Group. 3 Objectives The aim of the trial was to explore differences in the crossing behaviour and perceptions of pedestrians based on the presence or absence of a farside pedestrian signal at a Puffin crossing. The specific objectives were to: i. Compare pedestrian perception, behaviour, and understanding of the standard Puffin crossing (with nearside pedestrian signals only) to a modified Puffin crossing (with nearside and farside pedestrian signals); and ii. Compare driver behaviour at the standard Puffin crossing to the modified Puffin crossing. The results of the trial are to be used to recommend a standard form of standalone signalised pedestrian crossing for Scotland s Disability Discrimination Act: Good Practice Guide for Roads [1]. TRL 2 RPN1821

13 4 Overview of Puffin facilities 4.1 Puffin facilities Puffin facilities were devised to replace Pelican crossings and farside pedestrian signalling at traffic signal junctions. They have been used in the UK since the early 1990 s and now account for around one third of standalone signalised crossings in Scotland, with a similar proportion in England (source: Traffic Systems Group: Signals Inventory 2008). A typical Puffin crossing is shown in Figure 4-1. The main features of Puffin facilities are: Figure 4-1. Example of a Puffin crossing Nearside pedestrian signals. The pedestrian signals show only the red or green man. There is no requirement for an intermediate pedestrian signal (blackout or flashing green man) in the pedestrian clearance period as the signals are not visible once on the crossing. The nearside signals are located so that waiting pedestrians looking at the pedestrian signals also have approaching nearside traffic in their line of sight. See Section 4.2 for further details. On-crossing pedestrian detectors. These provide an extension to the pedestrian clearance period when pedestrians are still on the crossing. Thus catering for pedestrians with slower walking speeds and those starting to cross towards the end of the pedestrian green, while allowing the onset of the vehicle stage as soon as the crossing is clear. There is no flashing amber traffic period as at Pelican crossings. Pedestrian kerbside detectors to cancel the pedestrian demand if there are no pedestrians in the wait area, e.g. because they crossed during the green phase for vehicles, or chose not to cross and left the wait area. These features were designed to increase pedestrian convenience and safety, reduce the number of unnecessary stops for drivers, and provide clearer and consistent signals to road-users by eliminating the flashing sequence at mid-block crossings and the pedestrian signal blackout at junctions. Studies have shown that Puffin facilities have a significantly lower accident frequency than Pelican crossings [8] and pedestrians perceive them as a safer and a more comfortable crossing experience [2,11]. They can also significantly reduce cycle time and delay at signalised junctions with pedestrian facilities [3,4]. Puffin facilities have a higher installation and maintenance cost due to the increased detection requirements. TRL 3 RPN1821

14 4.2 Nearside signals A feature of Puffin crossings is nearside pedestrian signals. The nearside arrangement avoids potentially misleading signals while on the crossing: The green man is an invitation to start to cross. However, it is often misinterpreted as the safe crossing period. This can cause pedestrians to complain about the duration of the green man and put pressure on authorities to set green times based on carriageway width, rather than pedestrian volume, with associated control inefficiencies. The red man informs pedestrians not to use the crossing. At crossings with farside signals, an intermediate signal (i.e. a flashing green man or a blackout period) is required to denote the clearance period for those pedestrians who are still crossing. These signals can be misunderstood and have a poor compliance record [2,6,7,8,14]. Benefits of nearside signalling over farside signalling include improved pedestrian compliance in the clearance period [5,6] and clearer understanding of the signals given [7,9]. The nearside signal should also be easier for blind 1 and partially sighted pedestrians to see [17, 33]. Blind and partially sighted pedestrians often use the extinction of the wait light on the nearside push-button box to help decide when to cross when only farside signals are provided [20]. This is not the design purpose of the wait light: it is an unreliable indicator of when to cross that may be poorly maintained and difficult to see [20]. Nearside signals have the potential to improve pedestrian observation of approaching traffic prior to crossing as the pedestrian signal is in the same sight line (Figure 4-2). Pedestrian observation of traffic while on the crossing may also increase due to no visible pedestrian signals. Figure 4-2: Pedestrian view of nearside signals, showing on-coming traffic in line of sight There has been indicated improvement in pedestrian observation at Puffin facilities [3,4,8]; however, there has been limited study in this area. The trial undertaken in this study sought to assess the effect of pedestrian signal location on pedestrian observation. Improved observation of on-coming traffic should provide safety benefits. STATS19 accident data ( ) [8] shows that accidents involving vehicle violations are far more prevalent at standalone signalised crossings than crossings at signalised traffic junctions, and the most common single contributory factor for injury accidents at signalised crossings is that the pedestrian failed to look properly. Puffin crossings have been shown to have a 17% lower injury accident frequency than Pelican crossings [1]. Studies also show that pedestrians generally feel safer at Puffin 1 The vast majority of people who are registered as blind retain some residual vision and may be able to identify light sources. TRL 4 RPN1821

15 facilities than at Pelican crossings [2,11] and junctions with farside pedestrian facilities [3,4]. However, some pedestrians have expressed safety concerns over the lack of farside signals at Puffin crossings [3,4,21]. In the original Puffin trials [3], at one of the two junction sites studied there was a strong pedestrian preference for farside signals. This site had a high proportion of older pedestrians. Concern has also been expressed by some Highway Authorities regarding nearside signals. In particular: Nearside signals can be masked by other pedestrians; and Once pedestrians enter the road they no longer have sight of the signals, creating uncertainty 2. In addition, pedestrians have reported masking of nearside signals [2,3]. This could contribute to pedestrian non-compliance and inappropriate crossing decisions. Also perceived visibility of nearside signals can be lower than for farside signals, although this appeared to improve with familiarity [3]. High-level nearside repeater signals are recommended at sites with high pedestrian flows to counter the effects of pedestrians masking the lower-level nearside signals [17]. 2 Extracted from an unpublished 2010 Road Safety GB survey of User perspectives on the road safety merits of Puffin and Pelican crossings on behalf of Road Safety Delivery Board, Puffin & Pelican Crossings Working Group. TRL 5 RPN1821

16 5 Trial site details 5.1 Location The trial site is on an arterial route in Edinburgh, A701 Craigmillar Park, near Suffolk Road. The speed limit is 30mph. The location is highlighted in Figure 5-1 and Figure Google Map data 2011 Tele Atlas Figure 5-1: Map of South Edinburgh showing site location 2011 Google Map data 2011 Tele Atlas Figure 5-2: Vicinity map showing site location TRL 6 RPN1821

17 The crossing is close to St Margaret s school, a nursery school and a school for blind people. The crossing is north of the Cameron Toll shopping centre. The crossing spans a four lane road, width 13.4 metres, and a central island is provided. Figure 5-3 show the crossing prior to modification. Figure 5-3: Views of Craigmillar Park Puffin Crossing TRL 7 RPN1821

18 5.2 Crossing control Figure 5-4 shows the design drawing. Note that the crossing was previously a Pelican (see Section 7.12). It was converted to a Puffin crossing in April Figure 5-4: Craigmillar Park Puffin design drawing The crossing was inspected by TRL prior to the trials, with Halcrow and CEC in attendance (see Section 6.2.2). The equipment and crossing was installed to a high standard, and there were no equipment faults. The crossing operates on Fixed Vehicle Period control. Under this control strategy the vehicle stage ends as soon as the pedestrian presses the push button, unless the pedestrian stage has just run. There is no vehicle detection. Table 5-1 shows the control timing sheet. Pedestrians receive the green man six seconds after pressing the push button (period II and period III in the timings sheet). This is subject to the elapse of the minimum vehicle green period of 20 seconds (period I). Period III is three seconds. The speed limit is 30 mph. City of Edinburgh Council believes that the 85 th percentile speed may be above 35mph. Three seconds is in line with guidance for signalised crossings on high speed roads (classified as 85 th percentile speed above 35mph) [17]. The green man period is seven seconds. This is longer than the minimum 4 seconds, which can be used at low pedestrian flow sites. Seven seconds is appropriate given the central island, crossing length, and proximity to the school for the blind. An audible (bleeping) signal is given with the green man. After the green man the kerbside signals show the red man. The signals on the central island show no signal ( blackout ) in the pedestrian clearance period (Periods V and VI) as showing a red man would indicate they should stop at the central island or return to the kerb. Blackout was also used on the farside signals in the modified arrangement (Section 5.4) for the same reason. Nineteen seconds is a relatively long extendable period (Period VI). The maximum clearance period is 24 seconds (Periods V, VI and VIII), which equates to 0.56 m/s TRL 8 RPN1821

19 walking speed in the clearance period, or 0.43 m/s if crossing at the start of the green man. Current guidance [17] would tend to recommend a lower time. However, the guidance does allow for site specific circumstances, and City of Edinburgh Council confirmed that it deemed the timings appropriate given the proximity of the blind school. The extension period for the on-crossing detectors is slightly greater than the recommended one second [17]. This will slightly delay when the vehicle stage could start. Table 5-1: Craigmillar Park Puffin timing sheet PUFFIN CROSSING:- Craigmillar Park / Suffolk Road NO. 263 PEDESTRIAN ASPECT DRIVER ASPECT TIME SETTINGS (Nearside/ Island & farside) RED MAN/ RED MAN GREEN 20 Period I RED MAN/ RED MAN AMBER 3 Period II RED MAN/ RED MAN RED 3 Period III GREEN MAN/ GREEN MAN RED 7 Period IV RED MAN/ BLACKOUT RED 3 Period V RED MAN/ BLACKOUT RED 19 Period VI ( Extendable Ped Period) RED MAN/ RED MAN RED 0* Period VII ( Ped Gap Change Only ) RED MAN/ RED MAN RED 2 Period VIII ( Ped Max Change Only) RED MAN/ RED MAN RED/AMBER 2 Period IX NOTES. Crossing Width: 13.4 metres Microwave on-crossing pedestrian detectors, extension period: 1.6 Secs Infra-red kerb-side pedestrian detectors, extension period: 2.0 Secs Audio disabled between 11pm & 7 am *2 seconds post modification. The kerbside detector cancel facility (see Section 4.1) was operating. This was expected to have little usage given the low pedestrian flow and responsive control strategy. 5.3 Pedestrian flow Pedestrian flow at the site was generally low, except for the periods when school children travelled to and from St Margaret s school. This was a private school which went into receivership, closing after the first survey day. TRL 9 RPN1821

20 Pedestrian flow measured during term time (22 June 2010) before St Margaret s school closed was 517 pedestrians from 07:30 to 18:30 and crossing signals were activated 238 times. Much of this flow was associated with school children. The period when a crossing assistant ( lollipop man ) was present is not included in the video analysis and school children were not interviewed for the attitudinal survey. Pedestrian flow in school term reduced substantially after the school closed down. Pedestrian flow for the same time period on 9 November 2010 was 149 pedestrians (a mean of 14 per hour). Crossing signals were activated 97 times (a mean of 9 activations per hour). The peak periods for crossing activity at the site are 07:30 09:00 and 16:30 18:00. Before St Margaret s school closed down the afternoon peak started after 14:30 and there was also a higher demand at lunch time. The number of pedestrians and crossing activations recorded in the video survey excluding the school commuting periods in the first survey were similar before and after the modification of the crossing, see Section Modifications to the Puffin crossing Video and questionnaire surveys were undertaken before and after farside pedestrian signals were added to the standard Puffin crossing. The nearside Puffin signals were retained post modification. Figure 5-5 shows the modified Puffin crossing that was used in the trial. Figure 5-5: Modified Puffin crossing with farside signals TRL 10 RPN1821

21 Figure 5-6: Pedestrian signal sequence with farside signals Figure 5-6 shows the pedestrian signal sequence at the modified crossing. The farside signals show no signal ( blackout ) during the pedestrian clearance period. There is then a fixed all-red period (Period VII or VIII, Table 5-1) of two seconds before the onset of the vehicle stage. The all-red period is in addition to the standard Puffin timings except when the maximum clearance period is reached. TRL 11 RPN1821

22 6 Methodology 6.1 Introduction The study used both video and interview surveys. The interview and video surveys were undertaken on separate days so as not to affect road user behaviour when recording the videos. Due to the low pedestrian flow, there were two days of each survey type before and after the Puffin crossing was modified in order to provide robust sample sizes. For the surveys TRL submitted risk assessments, method statements, and indemnity details to City of Edinburgh Council (CEC). Any planned events or road works were checked with CEC, and the police were informed of the survey dates. 6.2 Implementation Approvals for the site modification The use of combined far and nearside pedestrian aspect signals is not prescribed in the Regulations [22,23] and required authorisation in writing by the Secretary of State. A technical note outlining the proposed method of employing farside signals at the trial site and a risk assessment was submitted to Transport Scotland. The approvals included an independent Stage 2 Road User Safety Audit. The risk assessment considered the risks of the trial methodology and of the technology. The Regulations, Directions, and guidance regarding pedestrian signal control were inspected and the Safety Audit undertaken. It was concluded that a blackout should be used on the farside signal during the pedestrian clearance period. The Safety Audit stated that: In the absence of a blackout period, pedestrians crossing the road may stop at the central island if presented with a red signal. This is particularly likely for users with mobility impairments, who may perceive they have insufficient time to reach the opposite kerb. The red man indicates that pedestrians should not use the crossing [22]. Guidance for junction crossings states that The farside pedestrian system will have a black-out (when neither red nor the green man is shown), plus an all-red period. [15]. The length of the blackout can be fixed or extended by on-crossing detection, with a fixed all-red period of 1 3 seconds. Toucan and Pegasus crossings with farside signals also follow this sequence and timings [24]. The Puffin Crossings Good Practice Guide [17] strongly advises against the combined use of farside and nearside pedestrian displays, stating that it could confuse pedestrians and increase accident risk. The blackout period avoids an issue described where the red man is shown immediately after the green man on the farside signal. However, the guide does state that using a blackout with combined signals could also lead to confusion. A risk assessment was undertaken to assess and minimise potential pedestrian confusion and accident risk (see Section 6.5). The assessment was made on the basis of a blackout on the farside signal during the pedestrian clearance period followed by a short all-red period. No high risk items were identified and approval for the trials was given. No additional pedestrian detection equipment approval was required as the nearside signals and existing crossing were retained. TRL 12 RPN1821

23 6.2.2 Site installation and consistency of control strategies The crossing was formally inspected prior to the trials by TRL, with Halcrow and CEC in attendance. The inspection used a procedure devised from a previous TRL project [8] and is based upon recommended practice in the Puffin Crossing Good Practice Guide. The inspection included controller timings, equipment faults, detector alignment, and operation and layout. The inspection was undertaken on the 12 th May The farside signals were installed and commissioned on the 14 th October There were no other equipment or layout changes. The signal timings were the same as the standard Puffin except for the all-red period after the blackout (see Table 5-1, Period VII). This period was set at two seconds. The site was routinely inspected by CEC and Halcrow. There were no faults on the survey days. 6.3 Video surveys Video recording There were two survey days per strategy. This was to increase the potential sample size due to relatively low pedestrian flow and a school crossing assistant (lollipop man) potentially influencing behaviour for part of the day during school term. It was planned to undertake one of each type of survey during the school term and during the school holidays. However, because St Margret s school closed down, only the first pre-modification video survey day had a lollipop man present. Both post modification surveys were during school term time as there was no crossing assistant to affect behaviour. The recording time was 07:30 18:30 (Tuesdays). Small bullet cameras were used to minimise visibility to road users. They were strapped to lamp columns, typically at a height of 3-4 metres. There were no instances where road users were seen to notice or look at the cameras. There were five camera positions: Two on-crossing views to capture pedestrian behaviour and observation in detail; One full crossing view; and One camera on each approach set back from the crossing to monitor driver behaviour on the approach (e.g. if there had been a red violation, a conflict, or other irregular driver behaviour). The cameras were time-synced with each other to facilitate analysis Video analysis Analysis was undertaken using a time frame recorder (1/25 th of a second). An experienced data analyst followed a set data collection method. The video data that was coded is given in Appendix D. The coded data was entered in Excel spreadsheets. Samples of the data were checked by another analyst for correctness and accuracy of the data collection. The periods when the school crossing assistant was present were excluded from the analysis, as this may have affected behaviour, but also for sample consistency reasons in order to exclude school children that were not present in the post-modification survey. The data collection and analysis were typical for this type of study. The exception was pedestrian observation, which there has only been limited comparative study at signalised crossings. The method for this study used head movements as a proxy for TRL 13 RPN1821

24 observation behaviour, and has been used other studies looking at crossing behaviour [e.g. 3,25,26,27]. Head movements have been shown to be a strong proxy for observation, with head and eye position correlated closely with observation tasks [e.g. 28,29]. 6.4 Attitudinal surveys Devising the surveys A structured questionnaire was devised to assess pedestrian perception and understanding of the crossings. Similar studies were reviewed to provide consistency with previous research and to utilise existing question structure where appropriate. The questionnaires were piloted in-house and reviewed by the project partners and interviewers. The questions and responses are shown in Appendices A and B. Most of the questions in the pre- and post-modification interviews were identical in order to compare responses. The post-modification questionnaire includes some specific questions on the modified arrangement. There were two interview days before and two after the modification in order to achieve the desired sample size of at least 200 pedestrians split equally between the pre- and post-modification phases. Respondents were asked if they had been interviewed before to avoid anyone being interviewed twice in the same survey period (Appendices A and B, question 1) Undertaking the surveys A team of three specialist interviewers were used for the survey, with two present on any one day. The interviews followed the Market Research Society guidelines for interviewers and the code of practice for conducting market research in town centres [30]. Interviewers were briefed on the purpose of the survey and the questions discussed with the questionnaire designers. Permissions were sought from the local council to hold the surveys on specific days, with the local police also notified of the survey location and interviewer names. The interviewers were instructed to position themselves at the crossing so as not to hinder the path of any pedestrians. Each respondent was informed that participation in the survey was voluntary. Only pedestrians that were aged 16 or older were interviewed, based on self-reported age. The interviewers carried photographic ID. Potential respondents were approached after they had crossed and were asked if they would take part in a short interview about their crossing experience. It was emphasised that no personally identifiable information would be sought. Pedestrians were also offered contact information should they have any questions about the administration of the survey. The respondent responses to the questions were hand-written by the interviewers. Many of the questions asked for agreement with a statement about the crossing on a scale of 1 5 (e.g. Appendices A and B, question 9) Questionnaire analysis The questionnaire data were entered into the analysis software SPSS. Separate analysis was undertaken after excluding the 15 respondents that crossed when the school crossing assistant ( lollipop man ) was present (Appendices C.1 and Appendix G). The analysis showed that the presence of the crossing assistant had had little effect TRL 14 RPN1821

25 on the results. The results given in Section 7 therefore include all pedestrians that were interviewed. 6.5 Risk assessment factors The risk assessment for approving the trial (Section 6.2.1) identified a number of behavioural factors to indicate pedestrian uncertainty during the clearance period of pedestrian phase. They were: Returning to the kerb; Hesitancy on the central island; Speeding up to complete the crossing; and Starting to cross in the clearance period These items were recorded in the video survey as were any conflicts with vehicles. Conflicts were recorded throughout the analysis period. A conflict is defined as a situation where two road users would collide if neither took any avoiding action, e.g. braked, swerved etc. The following standard scale was used: 1. Obstruction delayed start of movement ; 2. Precautionary braking or lane change when risk is minimal, or pedestrians slowing/ speeding up/ changing direction when risk is minimal; 3. Near miss (e.g. rapid deceleration, lane change or stopping to avoid collision) 4. Very near miss (e.g. emergency braking or violent swerve to avoid collision, resulting in a very near miss situation); and 5. Collision An on-street assessment of the appropriateness of the green man and all-red times was made during and after the commissioning of the modified crossing. Crossing behaviour appeared normal and the timings of the green man and all-red were deemed sufficient to minimise any potential risks associated with the modification. 6.6 Assessment of disabled pedestrians In addition to the trial of farside pedestrian signals, the Signalised Crossings for the 21st Century Steering Group commissioned a trial of the Use of RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) Technology at the same crossing as used in the farside trials [32]. The RFID trial was undertaken after the farside pedestrian signals were added, and after the farside surveys were completed. In the RFID technology trial disabled pedestrians received a location message and subsequently demanded the pedestrian phase remotely by means of a key fob. In total 30 disabled pedestrians took part. Twenty six had visual impairment and four were mobility impaired. Two of the questions in the RFID trial questionnaire related to the combined near and farside pedestrian signal arrangement (see Appendix H). The results from these questions are given in Section Disability groups were also consulted and asked if they had a preferred crossing type or opinions on signalised crossings in general. The results from the consultations are given in Section The disability assessment also includes a brief literature review in Section 10.3 covering pedestrian signal location and disabled users. TRL 15 RPN1821

26 6.7 Puffin fit for purpose assessment In addition to the survey work, a brief fit for purpose assessment was undertaken based upon previous research. The assessment categories were: Safety; Severance; Compliance; Delay; Cost; and Technical reliability. The effect of the modified arrangement on these factors is discussed in Section 12. TRL 16 RPN1821

27 7 Questionnaire survey results 7.1 Overview Nearly all people who were approached were willing to participate so it has been assumed that the sample was representative of the adult population using this crossing during the selected time period. A total of 200 surveys were completed (100 premodification and 100 post-modification), achieving the estimated sample size required for robust findings with questionnaire measures of this type. Table 7-1 summarises the survey in terms of dates, weather and sample sizes. All surveys were conducted during daylight hours. This meant that the post-surveys finished earlier than the pre-surveys due to the time of year. There were some light rain showers on the 17/11/10: interviews were not conducted during this period. Table 7-1: Survey details Survey Date Day Period Survey time Weather Sample size Total sample Pre 23/06/10 Wednesday School term 07:30 17:30 Cloudy/ sunny intervals; 16 21C /07/10 Wednesday Half term 07:30 17:30 Overcast; 13 20C 38 Post 10/11/10 Wednesday School term* 07:30 16:15 17/11/10 Wednesday School term* 07:30 16:15 *St Margaret s school closed down. Clear, sunny; 0 7C Breezy/some light rain PM; 6 8C The first survey day was prior to the closure of St Margaret s school (which was located near to the crossing). Overall, a higher proportion of respondents in the pre-survey reported that the purpose of their journey was taking or collecting children when compared with the post survey (24% and 10%, respectively; Table 7-5) and there was a higher proportion of females (65% and 47%, respectively; Table 7-2). Otherwise the characteristics of the sample populations for each survey were closely aligned (Section 7.3). To assess the effect of the school closure, separate analysis was undertaken excluding respondents that crossed in the first survey when the school crossing assistant ( lollipop man ) was present i.e. at school commuting times (Appendix C.1). The analysis showed that the presence of the crossing assistant had little effect on the results, except to reduce the ability to see the green and red mans while waiting to cross (Section 7.6.1), and the understanding the red and green man signals (Section 7.6.3). In addition to analysis of all persons questioned, older pedestrians (60 years+) perceptions of the crossings are assessed separately (Section 7.6 and Appendix F). Note that, the sample size was not large enough to undertake statistical assessment and as such the findings regarding older persons should be seen as indicative only TRL 17 RPN1821

28 7.2 Statistical assessment Statistical comparison of the results pre- and post-modification was undertaken using the Mann-Whitney test. The Mann Whitney test is a non-parametric test for assessing whether two independent samples of observations have equally large values. A non-parametric test refers to statistical tests that do not make an assumption regarding the distribution of the data (e.g. normality such as in the t-test). The Mann Whitney test requires that the observations from both groups are independent of each other and that the responses are at least ordinal measurements. An example of ordinal measurement is the position of the racehorses finishing a race (i.e. 1 st, 2 nd, 3 rd, etc) or, as in this survey, a rating scale such as very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, unsatisfied, very unsatisfied. Sections 7.8 and 7.9 include comparison tests solely on the post-modification survey. In these cases the samples being compared relate to the responses from the same individuals and are thus not independent as in the Mann-Whitney tests. Instead the Wilcoxon signed-test is used, which is the non-parametric equivalent of the paired t-test. This chapter gives the results of the questionnaire survey including whether or not there was statistical difference between the participants responses pre and post-modification. Detailed statistical results are given in Appendix C Demographics Table 7-2 to Table 7-6 show the respondent demographics. As can be seen from Table 7-2, more females than males participated in the premodification survey than the post-modification survey. This is likely to be due in part to the closure of the school (see Section 7.1). Table 7-2: Respondent gender Pre (n=92) Post (n=99) Female 65% 47% Male 35% 52% Age distribution in the surveys was similar pre- and post-modification (see Table 7-3). Table 7-3: Respondent age Pre (n=100) Post (n=100) % 2% % 14% % 23% % 18% % 18% % 10% % 13% 75+ 2% 2% TRL 18 RPN1821

29 Overall, respondents used the crossing regularly (Table 7-4). In both surveys about 80% used the crossing at least once a week. Table 7-4: Frequency of crossing use Pre (n=93) Post (n=100) This is the first time 3% 3% Less than once a month 5% 3% Once or twice a month 13% 13% Once a week 18% 26% Two or three times a week 30% 41% Nearly every day 30% 14% As can be seen in Table 7-5 and Table 7-6, more commuters and full-time workers participated in the pre-survey than in the post-modification survey. This may be because the evening period (when commuters were likely to be leaving work) was not included in the post-modification survey due to the reduced daylight available in November. Table 7-5: Journey purpose Pre (n=100) Post (n=100) Commuting to/from work 28% 12% Taking or collecting child 24% 10% Personal business 18% 20% Visiting/meeting friends/relatives 11% 13% Shopping 10% 27% Social/leisure 6% 4% On employer's business 2% 3% Education 1% 9% Other 0% 2% Table 7-6: Employment status Pre (n=100) Post (n=100) Working full-time 45% 30% Working part-time 22% 26% Retired 15% 15% Not working-not looking for work 7% 7% Full-time student 4% 11% A house person 4% 11% Not working-looking for work 3% 0% Part-time student 0% 0% TRL 19 RPN1821

30 7.4 Observed crossing behaviour As respondents approached the crossing, their crossing behaviour was observed by the interviewers. These observations are presented in Table 7-7 to Table The recording of respondents crossing behaviour was not the primary aim of the questionnaire surveys and as such, minor inaccuracies may have occurred. Particularly the point in the cycle when respondents started to cross may have been difficult to observe and record with absolute accuracy (Table 7-8). The crossing behaviour of most of the respondents was similar. Typically respondents used the push button (Table 7-7), crossed during the pedestrian stage (Table 7-8), and crossed alone i.e. not in a group (Table 7-10). The variation with categories was also similar between surveys e.g. 19% were encumbered in some way (e.g. carrying heavy shopping bags, pushing a child s buggy), and about 10% crossed without using the pedestrian phase (Table 7-11). Fewer respondents reported pressing the button to request the pedestrian phase in the postmodification survey (Table 7-7). Otherwise the recorded behaviour was very similar. Table 7-7: Respondent crossing behaviour - use of the button to request the pedestrian phase Pre (n=100) Post (n=100) Yes 87% 73% No 13% 27% Table 7-8: Respondent crossing behaviour - when respondents began to cross Pre (n=100) Post (n=97) Just prior to green man/audible tone 24% 27% With green man/audible tone 67% 63% All-red' - red to traffic and pedestrians (and 'blackout' in post-questionnaire) 3% 5% Red/amber to traffic 0% 1% Green to traffic 6% 4% Table 7-9: Respondent crossing behaviour - completion of crossing Pre (n=100) Post (n=100) Completed crossing in one go without stopping 92% 91% Completed crossing but paused at central refuge (less than 3 seconds) 5% 7% Completed crossing but stopped at central refuge (more than 3 seconds) 2% 1% Did not complete the crossing - returned to kerbside from where they started 1% 1% TRL 20 RPN1821

31 Table 7-10: Respondent crossing behaviour - crossing alone or in a group Pre (n=100) Post (n=99) Alone 77% 83% In a group 23% 17% Very few pedestrians were observed to have impaired mobility through disability (Table 7-11), or in the interviews classified themselves as having a disability. Three persons pre survey (Appendix A) stated they had a disability (two mobility-related, the other was not recorded and two in the post survey (Appendix B) one impaired hearing and the other impaired mobility. None of the respondents were blind or wheelchair users. Table 7-11: Respondent crossing behaviour - impairments observed Pre (n=100) Post (n=100) None 81% 81% Pushing pram or child's buggy etc 7% 6% Walking next to small child or children (under 8 years old) 4% 3% Using walking stick or walking frame 2% 1% Pushing wheelchair 2% 3% Carrying heavy bag(s) (shopping, suitcases, etc) 2% 4% Carrying small child or children 1% 2% Otherwise encumbered or slowed down 1% 0% Crossing in wheelchair or motorised chair 0% 0% 7.5 Pre- and post-modification comparison This section details respondents crossing experiences on the day of the survey. This part of the survey involved respondents being asked about how easy or difficult the crossing was to use, and what prompted them to begin and continue crossing. It also gave them the opportunity to describe any problems that they had previously encountered with the crossing The crossing experience Almost all respondents reported that the Puffin crossing was easy to use in both its standard and modified form (Figure 7-1), with no significant difference between the distribution of responses pre- and post-modification. TRL 21 RPN1821

32 Standard Puffin Modified Puffin 100% 98% 97% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% No statistical difference 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1% Pre (n=100) 1% 3% Post (n=100) 1% Figure 7-1: How easy was it to use the crossing today?' Respondents who rated the crossing experience as fairly or very difficult were asked to explain why. Only one respondent felt that the standard Puffin crossing had been very difficult to use, stating that they can t see if the lights change. This was also the only respondent who did not state they were sure it was safe to continue at the standard Puffin (Figure 7-3). The respondent was in an older age group (60 74 years) and commented Prefer older ones that you can see the green man and know it is safe to cross. Figure 7-2 and Figure 7-3 shows how sure the respondents were that it was safe to start to cross and safe to continue once started. For both the pre- and post-modification surveys, almost all respondents agreed that they were very or fairly sure. There was no significant difference between the distribution of responses pre- and postmodification. Only one person was unsure that it was safe to continue (Figure 7-3). This was at the modified crossing. The person was in the oldest age bracket (75+). He was not sure about the light sequence and commented that the lights go off too soon and there was not enough time given for elderly people to cross. This person also strongly agreed that he found the blackout signal confusing (Section 7.10). TRL 22 RPN1821

33 100% Standard Puffin Modified Puffin 99% 99% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% No statistical difference 30% 20% 10% 0% 1% 1% Pre (n=99) Post (n=100) Figure 7-2: Certainty about it being a safe time to start to cross 100% 90% 80% 70% Standard Puffin 99% 97% Modified Puffin 60% 50% No statistical difference 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1% 2% 1% Pre (n=94) Post (n=100) Figure 7-3: Certainty about it being safe to continue crossing once started Respondents were also asked to describe the factors that helped them in their decision to begin crossing and continue crossing. This was asked as an open question (i.e. no prompts were provided by the interviewers and respondents could provide more than one answer if they believed that there were several factors involved in their decisionmaking). There were no controls on the number (or lack of) factors stated so as a statistical exercise it is not robust. However, the responses are potentially informative. Specifically, when deciding whether to start crossing (Table 7-12): The green man was the most commonly mentioned factor for both the standard and modified Puffin. The audible tone was reported almost as commonly as the green man when using the standard crossing but by less than half as many respondents for the modified TRL 23 RPN1821

34 crossing. This indicates that, in the absence of a farside signal, pedestrians use the audible tone to a greater extent as a prompt to begin crossing. Observation of stopping or stopped traffic was reported less commonly at the standard Puffin than the modified Puffin this is somewhat contrary to the intended function of only having nearside signals (to observe approaching traffic). Table 7-12: Factors which assisted respondents decisions to start crossing Standard Puffin Modified Puffin Gap in traffic =12 =35 Stopping/stopped traffic =29 =42 Green man shown =55 =62 Audible tones =53 =24 Rotating cones =0 =0 Red traffic light shown to drivers =4 =3 Lollipop man signal =6 =0 Other pedestrians already crossing =0 =0 Pedestrian signals blackout =0 =0 Other (written in by interviewer): No other comments Did not wait, just crossed When deciding whether to continue crossing (Table 7-13): Audible tones were most commonly used at the standard Puffin but much less frequently at the modified Puffin (perhaps due to visibility of the farside signal). The green man was the second most common factor to continue crossing at the standard Puffin, but was not mentioned as often as stopped or stopping traffic when using the modified Puffin. Table 7-13: Factors which assisted respondents decisions to continue crossing Standard Puffin Modified Puffin Gap in traffic =5 =14 Stopping/stopped traffic =32 =42 Green man shown =46 =31 Audible tones =60 =36 Rotating cones on central island =0 =0 Red traffic light shown to drivers =5 =7 Other pedestrians crossing =1 =0 Lollipop man signal =7 =0 Pedestrian signals blackout =0 =0 Continued to cross because started etc =1 =2 Other (write in): No other comments No other comments TRL 24 RPN1821

35 Factors such as gap in the traffic and stopping traffic were more common in the postmodification survey, than in the pre. This may reflect other results for this survey (Section and 8.2.2), which indicate that with farside signals pedestrians are more likely to start to cross just before the green man Comments on previous problems experienced Participants were asked if they had ever experienced any problems with the crossing in its current form. Table 7-14 shows the results. More respondents stated that they had experienced a problem with the modified crossing than the standard Puffin crossing (11 and five respondents, respectively). Six of the problems described with the modified Puffin were regarding the short duration of the green man or audible phase. Four respondents specifically mentioned feeling rushed and one was hesitant about whether to continue crossing. In contrast, none of the comments about the standard Puffin mentioned that the duration of the green man and audible phases was too short. There was one comment about feeling rushed and one about hesitancy. One interpretation of these comments is that when the farside signal is absent, pedestrians who have started to cross have fewer stimuli to indicate that the pedestrian green phase may be coming to an end. Of course, at both types of crossing, pedestrians who were still crossing need not have felt rushed because the traffic signalling was controlled by the on-crossing detector. Of the reported problems with the standard Puffin, two people commented that the crossing s response to pedestrian demand was slower than they had wanted. This may be in reference to the three second all-red period before the green man, as the crossing generally gives immediate priority to the pedestrian stage (Section 5.2). The other post modification comments were on a range of topics including not being able to see the green man (presumably this is in reference to the blackout period), the signals not working (there was an all-out fault a few weeks before the post survey), a vehicle violation, and an uncovered drain near the crossing (which was reported to the local authority by the survey team). Table 7-14: Problems stated experienced at the crossing Have you ever experienced any problems when using this crossing in its current form? Standard Puffin Modified Puffin Cycles not stopping at red light It takes too long for pedestrians Slow to activate to let me cross Sometimes it was about crossing and I hesitate in the middle due to the audible tone stopping You feel rushed crossing here Green man changes too quickly. Lights go off too soon Have to cross quick as beeping goes off quick Not sure if I can continue crossing, beep stops very quick no time to cross Don't know if it is safe to continue as you don't see green man that s what helps us cross the road Not working a lot of the time Only that there is a drain with no cover on it-should be covered for safety Open drain at lights a bit dangerous when stepping off road onto pavement Someone gone through in a hurry at red lights The tone goes off quick and you feel you have to rush across Tone goes off quick and I feel I have to rush Tones could stay on longer too short makes you go fast TRL 25 RPN1821

36 7.6 Perceptions of the crossing Visibility of the pedestrian signals while waiting to cross Figure 7-4 shows that nearly all of the respondents found the pedestrian signals easy to see while waiting to cross. The total level of agreement was slightly lower for the standard Puffin than for the modified Puffin (93% and 97%, respectively). However, a higher proportion of respondents strongly agreed that the standard Puffin signals were easy to see compared with the modified Puffin signals (61% compared to 48%). The difference in the distribution of responses between the standard and modified Puffin was significant at the 5% level 3. One interpretation of this finding is that the addition of farside signals to a crossing with nearside signals may compete for pedestrians visual attention, or create confusion about where to look. Attention may also be drawn to the farside signal which may be more difficult to see than the nearside signal due to the greater distance from the observer. Standard Puffin Modified Puffin 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 93% 97% Statistical difference at 5% level when excluding results with crossing assistant present. 30% 20% No statistical difference otherwise. 10% 0% 3% Pre (n=98) 4% 2% 1% Post (n=100) Figure 7-4: It is easy to see the green and red men while waiting to cross Older pedestrians (60 years+) responses were similar to the whole sample, with 86% agreeing that it easy to see the signals at the standard Puffin and 93% agreeing at the modified Puffin. Similarly a higher proportion strongly agreed that the standard Puffin signals were easy to see (66% compared to 46% at the modified Puffin). Two older pedestrians strongly disagreed that the standard Puffin signals were easy to see. The sample size in both cases was 15 pedestrians. Figure 7-5 concerns masking of the signals by other pedestrians. The majority of respondents (60%) reported that other pedestrians did not obscure the nearside pedestrian signals at the standard Puffin, whereas 20% reported that sometimes they did. When farside signals were added to create the modified Puffin, 67% reported that people did not get in the way of the signals, with a corresponding reduction in the percentage who reported pedestrians sometimes did get in the way of the signals (13%). There was no significant difference between the distribution of responses pre- and postmodification. Masking issues were not reported in any of the respondents comments. 3 Excluding the 15 pedestrians who crossed when the lollipop man was present. It would appear that the lollipop man affected the ease with which signals were visible to pedestrians. TRL 26 RPN1821

37 100% 90% 80% 70% Standard Puffin Modified Puffin 67% 60% 50% 40% 60% No statistical difference 30% 20% 10% 20% 20% 13% 20% 0% Pre (n=98) Post (n=100) Figure 7-5: Sometimes I can t see the red and green men while I m waiting to cross because there are people in the way Older pedestrians (60 years+) appeared more likely to perceive masking, with 46% agreeing that sometimes they cannot see the pedestrian signal while waiting to cross at the standard Puffin crossing, compared to 13% at the modified crossing The signal to start crossing Figure 7-6 shows that almost half of respondents (47%) at the modified Puffin felt that they had to wait too long for the green man. Whereas only 13% thought they had to wait too long at the standard Puffin. The difference in the distribution of responses between the standard and the modified Puffin was statistically significant at the 1% level. TRL 27 RPN1821

38 100% 90% 80% 70% Standard Puffin 73% Modified Puffin 60% 50% 40% 47% 39% Statistical difference at 1% level 30% 20% 10% 0% 13% 14% Pre (n=98) 14% Post (n=100) Figure 7-6: "I have to wait too long for the green man to appear" Older pedestrians followed a similar pattern to the whole sample with 13% agreeing they had to wait too long at the standard Puffin compared to 53% at the modified Puffin. Note that the crossing gave immediate priority to the pedestrian stage in its standard and modified form. The elapsed time was six seconds from pressing the request button to receiving the green figure for both versions of the crossing (Section 5.2). Three seconds of this was all-red, which may have contributed to pedestrians feeling that the wait time was too long. The perceived delay was significantly greater at the modified crossing. Possible explanations include: the additional farside signal made the time to the green figure more obvious by placing pedestrian signals in multiple lines of sight; pedestrian observation being drawn to the farside pedestrian signal which is in the same sight line as the [red] signal shown to traffic; colder weather in the post-modification; and greater familiarity with farside signals. Behaviour was shown in the video surveys to underline the change in perceived delay (see Section 8.2.2). After the farside signals were added there was a significant increase in pedestrians starting to cross just before the green man. Section discusses the result and potential reasons in more detail. Figure 7-7 shows that there was also an increase in uncertainty regarding when to start to cross at the modified Puffin. In the pre-modification survey, 9% of respondents agreed that they were sometimes unsure when they should start to cross. This increased to 22% after the farside signal was added. Also, the strongly disagree reduced from 42% to 16% between the pre- and post-modification surveys. The difference in the distribution of responses between the standard and modified Puffin was statistically significant at the 1% level. TRL 28 RPN1821

39 100% 90% 80% 70% Standard Puffin 71% Modified Puffin 60% 50% 40% 58% Statistical difference at 1% level 30% 20% 20% 22% 20% 10% 9% 0% Pre (n=98) Post (n=100) Figure 7-7: "Sometimes I am unsure about when I should start to cross" Older pedestrians (60 years+) showed particular uncertainty about when to cross at the modified arrangement, with 46% sometimes unsure compared to only 7% at the standard Puffin (sample size in both cases 15 pedestrians) Understanding of the signals Figure 7-8 shows that in both surveys, most respondents thought that the signals were easy to understand. Only a very small percentage disagreed with the statement. The results suggest that the respondents found the standard Puffin signalling arrangement easier to understand. The strongly agree response in the pre-modification survey was 53% while it dropped to 37% in the post-modification survey. The difference in responses between the standard and modified Puffin was statistically significant at the 5% level for all respondents, and at the 1% level when excluding the 15 pedestrians who crossed when the lollipop man was present. TRL 29 RPN1821

40 100% 90% Standard Puffin 90% Modified Puffin 86% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 7% Pre (n=98) 3% 12% Post (n=100) 2% Statistical difference at 5% level And statistical difference at 1% level when excluding results with crossing assistant present Figure 7-8: "The red and green man signals are easy to understand" Older pedestrians (60 years+) followed a similar pattern to the whole sample, with 53% strongly agreeing that the signals were easy to understand compared to 26% for the modified Puffin (sample size in both cases 15 pedestrians). Participants responses to questions related specifically to the understanding of the farside signalling arrangement are shown in Section 7.9. They highlight confusion with the blackout period Perceptions while crossing Figure 7-9 to Figure 7-15 relate to the respondents experiences of being on the crossing. The introduction of a farside signal did not lead to any statistically significant changes in the response to any of the questions. Figure 7-9 shows respondents perceptions of how hurried they felt while on the crossing. The overall distributions were similar, with most people reporting that they did not feel rushed on the crossing. The only notable difference is the lower proportion of respondents strongly disagreeing they felt hurried, which reduced from 32% for the standard Puffin to 17% when the farside signal was added. There was no statistical difference between participants responses in the pre- and post-modification surveys. Older pedestrians (60 years+) tended to feel more hurried than other pedestrians, with 40% for both crossing types feeling hurried. The proportion of strongly agreeing to feeling hurried was slightly greater at the modified arrangement, 20% compared to 7%. TRL 30 RPN1821

41 Standard Puffin Modified Puffin 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 61% 59% No statistical difference 40% 30% 20% 18% 21% 22% 19% 10% 0% Pre (n=97) Post (n=100) Figure 7-9: "I feel hurried while on the crossing" Figure 7-10 shows participants responses to how sure they were to continue crossing once they had started. The responses were varied, with just over half disagreeing with the statement that sometimes they were unsure about continuing to cross once started. The distribution of responses was similar for both surveys with no statistical difference. 100% 90% 80% 70% Standard Puffin Modified Puffin 60% 50% 55% 54% No statistical difference 40% 30% 20% 18% 28% 21% 25% 10% 0% Pre (n=98) Post (n=100) Figure 7-10: Sometimes I am unsure about whether I should continue crossing once I have started" Uncertainty was greater for older pedestrians (60 years+), particularly at the modified arrangement where 46% were sometimes unsure about continuing compared to 33% at the standard Puffin. TRL 31 RPN1821

42 Figure 7-11 shows that just over half of respondents at both the pre- and postmodification Puffin agreed that the green man was shown for long enough. The responses are spread across the categories, with a slight reduction in satisfaction after the introduction of the far-side signal. The difference is not statistically significant. 100% 90% 80% 70% Standard Puffin Modified Puffin 60% 50% 59% 53% No statistical difference 40% 30% 20% 18% 22% 17% 30% 10% 0% Pre (n=98) Post (n=100) Figure 7-11: "The green man time is long enough" The results for older pedestrians (60 years+) were similar to the whole sample at the standard Puffin crossing, with 60% agreeing that the green man time was long enough. However, only 27% of older pedestrians agreed the green man time was long enough at the modified Puffin (sample size in both cases 15 pedestrians). Figure 7-12 shows the responses to the statement The audible tones are long enough. The standard Puffin had a low sample size as the question was not included in the first of the two pre-modification questionnaire survey days. The length of audible tones was not considered until the results of the first survey day were reviewed and it was found that a relatively large number of pedestrians used the audible signals in their crossing decision (see Section 7.5.1). The results shown in Figure 7-12 indicate greater dissatisfaction with the length of the pedestrian audible tone once the far-side signal had been introduced, and this is in line with participants comments on the crossings given in Section However, the difference in the responses are not statistically significant, which may be in part due to the low pre-modification survey sample size. TRL 32 RPN1821

43 Standard Puffin Modified Puffin 100% 90% 80% 76% 70% 60% 50% 57% No statistical difference 40% 30% 30% 20% 10% 19% 5% 13% 0% Pre (n=37) Post (n=100) Figure 7-12: "The audible tones are long enough" Older pedestrians tended to be less satisfied with the length of the audible tone than the whole sample, particularly at the modified crossing were only 27% agreed that the audible tone was long enough compared to 53% at the standard Puffin (sample size in both cases 15 pedestrians). Figure 7-13 shows that the majority of respondents at each type of Puffin did not feel anxious when crossing. There were no significant differences between how anxious respondents felt at the standard Puffin when compared with respondents at the modified Puffin 4. 4 A formatting error on the questionnaire for the second pre-modification survey led to one of the interviewers failing to ask this question. Data for this question were missing for 20 respondents. TRL 33 RPN1821

44 Standard Puffin Modified Puffin 100% 90% 80% 70% 74% 68% 60% 50% No statistical difference 40% 30% 20% 10% 13% 14% 10% 21% 0% Pre (n=80) Post (n=99) Figure 7-13: "I feel anxious while on the crossing" Five percent strongly agree that they felt anxious while on the standard Puffin crossing. After the introduction of the farside signal, this reduced to 1%. Conversely, those strongly disagreeing that they felt anxiety decreased from 38% to 26%. Older pedestrians (60 years+) were more anxious than the other respondents, and tended to be more anxious at the standard Puffin crossing than the modified Puffin. 53% felt some anxiety on the standard Puffin crossing compared to 27% on the modified Puffin (sample size in both cases 15 pedestrians). Figure 7-14 shows that only about half of the respondents agreed that they had enough time to cross (note that, with Puffin control providing an extension to the clearance period, all pedestrians should have amble time to complete their crossing). The proportion agreeing was slightly greater for the modified Puffin. The difference was not statistically significant. There was also no notable difference in older person responses by crossing type, with 53% agreeing they had enough time at the standard Puffin compared to 47% at the modified Puffin. TRL 34 RPN1821

45 Standard Puffin Modified Puffin 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 50% 59% No statistical difference 40% 30% 20% 10% 23% 26% 27% 14% 0% Pre (n=98) Post (n=100) Figure 7-14: "If I start crossing here when the green man is showing, I have enough time to cross" Figure 7-15 shows how certain respondents were to about what to do on reaching the central refuge (with the choice being to either stop or continue crossing). There were no significant differences between how certain respondents were when comparing responses at the standard Puffin with responses at the modified Puffin. The responses are spread indicating some uncertainty as what to do. With the modified arrangement less than half the pedestrians were sure that they should continue, compared with just over half for the standard Puffin, and 23% strongly disagreed they were unsure at the standard Puffin compared to just 9% at the modified crossing. Almost a fifth of respondents were uncertain about what to do when reaching the central island of the Puffin crossing in both its pre- and post-modification state. The results indicate that the central island could lead to some indecision while crossing. TRL 35 RPN1821

46 Standard Puffin Modified Puffin 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 52% 45% No statistical difference 40% 38% 30% 30% 20% 10% 18% 17% 0% Pre (n=98) Post (n=100) Figure 7-15: "When reaching the central island I am unsure whether to stop or continue crossing" Older pedestrians were more likely to be unsure when reaching the central island, with about a third at both crossing types agreeing that they were unsure Safety and satisfaction As seen in Figure 7-16, the majority of respondents in both the pre- and postmodification surveys reported feeling safe using the crossing (86% and 80%, respectively). Very few people reported feeling unsafe in either of the crossing arrangements. There were no significant differences between how safe respondents felt at the standard Puffin when compared with respondents at the modified Puffin. About two thirds of older pedestrians agreed they felt they felt safe at both the standard and modified Puffin, and one older person at each felt unsafe. 100% Standard Puffin Modified Puffin 90% 80% 70% 86% 80% 60% 50% 40% No statistical difference 30% 20% 10% 0% 12% Pre (n=97) 2% 17% Post (n=100) 3% Figure 7-16: "I feel safe using this crossing" TRL 36 RPN1821

47 Figure 7-17 indicates that more respondents were satisfied with the standard Puffin (83%) when compared with the modified Puffin (68%). However, there was no statistically significant difference between how satisfied respondents felt at the standard Puffin when compared with respondents at the modified Puffin. 100% Standard Puffin Modified Puffin 90% 80% 83% 70% 68% 60% 50% 40% No statistical difference 30% 26% 20% 10% 0% 13% Pre (n=98) 4% Post (n=100) 6% Figure 7-17: "I am satisfied with this crossing facility" Older pedestrians tended to be less satisfied than other respondents. 53% of older pedestrians agreed they were satisfied with the standard Puffin compared to 40% at the modified Puffin. The majority of older pedestrians were neutral about the modified crossing (53%). Two older pedestrians were dissatisfied with the standard Puffin and one with the modified crossing. 7.7 Comments on the signal crossings Pedestrians were asked whether they had any particular comments regarding the crossing. A summary of their responses is given in Table Appendices A and B (Question 10) give individual responses. The majority of respondents did not have any comments. TRL 37 RPN1821

48 Table 7-15 Do you have any particular comments regarding this crossing? Comments (grouped by theme) Standard Puffin Frequency of response Modified Puffin Pedestrian phase not long enough, of which: Audible time should be longer 8 3 Green man time should be longer 3 8* Would like more time to cross 3 2 Prefer green man on the farside 5 2 Like combined near and farside - 1 No need to have modified the crossing - 1 Good/ efficient crossing etc 4 3 Plenty of time to cross 3 2 Central island confusing 1 0 Central island useful 1 0 Does not change to ped stage quick enough 1 0 Good to have a crossing on a busy road 1 1 Good to have on-crossing detectors 0 1 No particular comment *Including references to the blackout period The most common comment for both crossing types was that the pedestrian phase should be longer. For the standard Puffin this was usually in reference to the length of the audible signal, and the green man period for the modified crossing. The modified crossing also included indirect references to the blackout period and a preference to see the green man throughout the crossing, e.g.: Could do with the flashing green man on until it is safe to cross second part of crossing Green lights go out too soon Green man should stay illuminated until you get to the other side Sometimes it can be slightly confusing as to whether I should or should not keep going when green light goes Would like green man on far side to stay on longer Would like more time to cross, to be able to see green light all the way through till I reach the opposite side Note only one of the above comments was from an older pedestrian (60 years+). At the standard Puffin five people stated that they prefer to see the green man in-front of them (i.e. on the farside) and while they cross. Two of these comments were from older pedestrians. One person specifically liked the combined near and farside arrangement, while another commented that there was no need to have modified the crossing as it worked well before. Similarly one person found the central island confusing while another found it to be of benefit. There was one comment regarding on-crossing detection, stating that it was much better now it has got the walking detectors on, you are safe right until you are off onto the pavement. TRL 38 RPN1821

49 7.8 Stated preferred crossing In the post-modification survey pedestrians were asked if they had used the crossing between May and September of this year. Ninety-four replied that they had. These respondents were then informed that the crossing had been modified in early October and asked if they noticed what had changed. Fifty five (59%) stated that they had noticed a change. Table 7-16 shows the grouped responses (see Appendix B Question 12 for individual responses). The majority of respondents made reference to the addition of the farside pedestrian signal. Six respondents incorrectly believed that pedestrian detectors had been added e.g. Somebody told me they have detectors on them now to give you more time to cross. Pedestrian detection was included in the original arrangement, and this information was not given to the respondents in the pre-survey or in the post-survey before this time. A later question in the post survey does refer to on-crossing detection (see Section 7.11 and Appendix B). Table 7-16: Grouped comments describing changes to the crossing Frequency Introduction of a farside pedestrian signal 46 Longer duration of green man phase 2 (plus 2 also referred to farside signal) Introduction of pedestrian detection 6 Green man takes longer to come on 1 Total 55 The 55 respondents who noticed a change were asked if they preferred the crossing as it is now, as it was before, or whether they had no preference. Figure 7-18 shows that most people (60%) preferred the modified crossing, with 45% strongly preferring it. Note these results include the six pedestrians who believed pedestrian detectors had been added. 100% 90% (n=55) 80% 70% 60% 60% 50% 40% 30% 31% 20% 10% 9% 0% Figure 7-18: Preferred crossing (post-modification survey) If a preference was shown respondents were asked to state why they preferred the crossing. Of the five pedestrians preferring the standard Puffin, two thought that the TRL 39 RPN1821

50 green man was on for longer, one thought the pedestrian phase started quicker, the others stated safer no need to change it and easy to see when to cross. Of those preferring the modified crossing, two thought the green man was on for longer, and few just stated it was safer. The majority made reference to preferring to see the green man while they cross or the lights been more visible e.g.: can see green man light easier while you cross green man helps you across helps you cross safe when the green man is on light positions are easier to see prefer to see green man lights for assurance to keep crossing see the green man good guide to help you cross used to green man crossing you can see lights better, more visible you can see the green man -helps you across The complete list of comments is given in Appendix B Question 13. The pedestrians were also asked which crossing, if any, they felt was safer (Figure 7-19). About half felt that there was no difference in safety. 45% believed the modified crossing was safer. 100% 90% (n=55) 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 51% 45% 10% 0% 4% Figure 7-19: Feeling of safety (post-modification survey) Only two pedestrians thought the standard Puffin was safer. Both perceived that they had more time to cross, one believing that green man was on until get over the road. Typical comments in favour of the modified crossing were: because I can see the lights while crossing being able to see lights makes it much easier and safer green man guides you across green man helps to reassure you while crossing-still safe to do so green man takes you across it is safer when you get the green man keeps you safe when you cross lights are much easier to see now and you keep an eye on them better TRL 40 RPN1821

51 we trust the green man The full list of comments is given in Appendix B Question Stated preferred pedestrian signal arrangement In the pre-modification survey, the location of near and farside signals was described and respondents were asked which location they preferred. Figure 7-20 shows the responses. The majority (61%) of respondents reported having no preference. Those who expressed a preference generally preferred farside signals (33%). Only 5% of respondents stated they preferred nearside signals (4% strongly preferred). 100% 90% (n=99) 80% 70% 60% 62% 50% 40% 30% 33% 20% 10% 0% 5% Figure 7-20: Preferred pedestrian signal arrangement (pre- survey) Comments were requested for those providing a preference. Those in favour of farside generally stated that they were easier to see and locate, some qualified that this was due to being in front of you on the opposite side of the road. Those preferring nearside commented that they were at at hand and easy to locate and see (see Appendix A Question 14). In the post-modification survey respondents were also asked which pedestrian signal arrangement they preferred, including combined near and farside signals (Table 7-17). The vast majority (80%) preferred the combined arrangement, with 43% strongly preferring it. Only 4% stated they would prefer nearside signals only, whereas 15% stated they would prefer farside signals only. The difference in preference between farside only and nearside only was statistically significant at the 5% level. TRL 41 RPN1821

52 Table 7-17: Agreement with statements (post-questionnaire only) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree I prefer having both near and far side pedestrian signals 43% 37% 19% 1% 0% I would prefer nearside pedestrian signals only 2% 2% 31% 33% 32% I would prefer far side pedestrian signals only 3% 12% 31% 25% 29% 7.10 Understanding of the blackout signal Farside pedestrian signals show blackout (or a flashing green man at Pelicans) after the green man to signify the pedestrian clearance period. The questions about the blackout signal were asked towards the end of the post-modification questionnaire so as not to influence opinion of the farside signal arrangement. As can be seen in Table 7-18, around two thirds of respondents (68%) were aware of the blackout signal s existence at this crossing. Table 7-18: Have you noticed the far side signal 'blackout' (show no signal) when the green man has finished? Post (n=100) Yes 68% No 32% Fewer people were aware that the blackout was present at signalised junctions (Table 7-19), although it is used at all traffic signal junctions with farside pedestrian signals. Table 7-19: Have you noticed the blackout at signalised junction crossings with far side signals? Post (n=99) Yes 57% No 43% The questions presented in Table 7-20 to Table 7-22 were open, unprompted questions to explore how well respondents understood the blackout period. Interviewers had a selection of potential answers which they ticked if mentioned by respondents. Multiple boxes could be ticked. If a response did not fit any of the tick box categories then the answer was recorded separately by the interviewer. As seen in Table 7-20, 49 out of 100 people did not have any idea what the purpose of the blackout was. The Highway Code [31] states: You should only start to cross the road when the green man shows. If you have started to cross the road and the green man goes out, you should still have time to reach the other side, but do not delay. TRL 42 RPN1821

53 Hence the correct response to this question should have included statements akin to the following: Indicates should not start to cross. Indicates to those who started to cross in the green man that they have time to finish crossing, but do not delay. There were 5 responses stating pedestrians should not start to cross in the blackout, and 20 responses that the blackout allows time for pedestrians to finish crossing. Most of the other answers provided had elements of correctness i.e. the statements that the traffic starts soon and the red man starts soon are not incorrect, but may indicate a sense of hurry. Table 7-20: What do you think the purpose of the blackout is? Tick box category (written responses fitting category in italics) Allows time for pedestrians to clear the crossing/ Shows that have time to finish crossing Shows should not start to cross/time to start crossing has finished maybe you should not cross and wait till green light comes back on Frequency 20 5 Shows red man will start soon you have to cross quick as it is going to change to red quick Shows traffic will start soon the cars are getting ready to go Shows that the green man has finished 14 Don't know I have no idea no idea no idea don't see any benefits none I can think of no purpose at all, no need for it it has none Other (write in): gets more time to cross now gives you more time to cross-censors let you know that they are working make us go over the road quicker, let the traffic past quicker, no hold ups save electricity to hurry you along Table 7-21 shows what respondents thought they should do if the blackout appeared while crossing. The correct answers were continue but do not delay and continue. The results showed 42 correct responses. Almost a fifth of respondents reported that they would cross more quickly. A small proportion (14) reported that they might return to the kerb or stop mid-crossing on the island. Twenty six did not know what they should do TRL 43 RPN1821

54 Table 7-21: What should you do if the blackout appears while you are crossing? Tick box category Frequency Continue but do not delay 21 Continue 21 Cross quicker/walk faster/speed up 19 Return to kerb 7 Stop on the island 7 Don t know 26 Other (write in) 0 Appropriate answers to the question posed in Table 7-22 are: do not start to cross, press the push button, and wait for the green man. Almost 80% of the sample gave an appropriate response. About a fifth of pedestrians thought they should start to cross. Table 7-22: What should you do if the blackout appears when you have not yet started to cross? (post-questionnaire only) Tick box category Frequency Start to cross 1 Start to cross if safe to do so 20 Do not start to cross 44 Press the push button 10 Wait for next green man 25 Don t know 0 Other 0 As seen in Figure 7-21, more than three-quarters of respondents (78%) found the blackout signal confusing, with most of these strongly agreeing. TRL 44 RPN1821

55 100% 90% (n=99) 80% 78% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 18% 10% 0% 4% Figure 7-21: I find the blackout signal confusing Compared with use of a farside signal only, the questionnaire survey indicated that pedestrian compliance during the blackout may be better when both near and farside signals are in operation. Figures Figure 7-22 and Figure 7-23 indicate that the nearside signal should help to reinforce that you should not start to cross in the blackout period. Seventy seven percent of respondents stated they would not cross during the blackout period if there were nearside signals showing a red man, however without a nearside signal only 50% stated they would not cross during the blackout. The difference between the distribution of responses for Figure 7-22 compared with Figure 7-23 was significant at the 1% level 100% 90% (n=100) 80% 77% 70% 60% 50% 40% Statistical difference from Figure 7-22 at 1% level 30% 20% 10% 0% 8% 15% Figure 7-22: I would start to cross in the blackout if the nearside signal showed a red man. TRL 45 RPN1821

56 100% 90% (n=100) 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 50% Statistical difference from Figure 7-23 at 1% level 30% 20% 10% 0% 22% 28% Figure 7-23: I would start to cross in the blackout at a crossing without nearside signals Figure 7-24 shows that 75% of respondents reported they would hurry during the blackout period. It is not meant as signal to rush pedestrians. Figure 7-25 shows that 85% of respondents would hurry if the red man started while they were crossing, which should be a signal to hurry. The difference between the distribution of responses for Figure 7-24 compared with Figure 7-25 was significant at the 5% level, indicating that the blackout signal represents a cue to hurry for most people, although not quite to the same extent as the red man. 100% 90% (n=100) 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 75% Statistical difference from Figure 7-25 at 5% level 20% 10% 0% 15% 10% Figure 7-24: I would hurry if the blackout started while I was crossing TRL 46 RPN1821

57 100% 90% 80% 70% 85% (n=100) 60% 50% 40% 30% Statistical difference from Figure 7-24 at 5% level 20% 10% 0% 9% 6% Figure 7-25: I would hurry if the red man started while I was crossing In summary, the post-modification survey results indicated that some pedestrians misunderstood the farside blackout period. Three-quarters of pedestrians reported they would hurry during the blackout period and a small proportion (14%) reported that they might return to the kerb or stop mid-crossing on the island. About a fifth of pedestrians were uncertain as to whether they could start to cross during the blackout period Puffin crossing publicity and awareness During the pre-modification survey respondents were asked about their awareness of Puffin crossings and any associated publicity. As seen in Table 7-23, only one person knew that the particular type of crossing was called a Puffin; 40% believed it was a Pelican crossing. Almost half of the respondents gave no answer. Table 7-23: What is this type of pedestrian crossing called? Pre-modification (n=100) Pelican 40% Puffin 1% Zebra 1% Other 9% Don t know 49% Table 7-24 shows that twenty-six people said that they had seen publicity on how to use Puffins. This is surprising given only one person knew it was called a Puffin crossing and there has been no widespread publicity campaign. The result may be to do with the way that the question was worded. Some respondents may have thought that the term Puffin referred to any signalised pedestrian crossing. TRL 47 RPN1821

58 Table 7-24: Recollection of any publicity about Puffin crossings Whether or not respondents recalled publicity Pre-modification (n=100) Yes 26% No 70% Not sure/don t know 4% In the post-modification survey respondents were asked if they knew that there are detectors at this crossing which provide additional time for slower pedestrians to finish crossing before the lights turn green for vehicles (Table 7-25). This question was not asked during the pre-modification survey as it may have influenced respondents answers in the post- survey. A small proportion of respondents (14%) were aware of the on-crossing detection. However, it should be noted that six people in the post-modification survey thought that the modification referred to was the introduction of on-crossing detectors (see Section 7.8). It was not clear how respondents would have come to this conclusion. Table 7-25: Awareness of on-crossing detection Awareness of on-crossing detection Post-modification (n=100) Yes 14% No 86% 7.12 Comparison with the previous Pelican crossing In the pre modification survey, respondents were asked whether they remembered the previous crossing and how it differed from the current configuration. The previous crossing was a Pelican replaced by a Puffin crossing in April The crossing did not have a central refuge and a mast arm was used for secondary traffic signal heads (Figure 7-26). Seventy eight of the 100 respondents recalled the previous crossing. Figure 7-26: View of the original Pelican crossing TRL 48 RPN1821

59 As can be seen in Figure 7-27, more than half of the sample (53%) had no preference for either the Pelican or the standard Puffin. About a third (35%) preferred the Puffin crossing and 13% the Pelican crossing. 100% 90% (n=78) 80% 70% 60% 50% 53% 40% 30% 35% 20% 10% 13% 0% Figure 7-27: Preference for Pelican or Puffin crossing If a preference was expressed, respondents were asked why. Comments in favour of the Pelican mentioned the green man being on the farside of the crossing, and included: Could see lights better Green man easy to see-better system Green man helps you over I feel I got longer to cross Comments in favour of the Puffin included: Quicker (10 responses) Modern/ smart looking/ clearer (5 responses) Longer to cross (3 responses) Central island (3 responses) Audible tones (1 response) Safer (1 response) Note that there was no change in the time taken from pressing the push button to the start of the green man. The previous crossing also had audible tones. The full list of responses is given in Appendix A, Question 13. Respondents were also asked about their perceived safety when using the current Puffin and previous Pelican crossings. About two-thirds (63%) perceived no difference (Figure 7-28). More respondents thought the Puffin was safer than the Pelican (23% compared with 14%, respectively). The most common reasons why the Puffin was perceived to be safer were that it gave more time to cross and had and audible signal duration that was long enough to complete crossing. One pedestrian was aware of the on-crossing pedestrian detection. Individual responses are given in Appendix A, Question 14. TRL 49 RPN1821

60 100% 90% (n=78) 80% 70% 60% 63% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 14% 23% Figure 7-28: Feeling of safety, Pelican and Puffin TRL 50 RPN1821

61 8 Video survey results 8.1 Sample size and survey dates Video surveys were undertaken for the dates shown in Table 8-1. Table 8-1: Summary of survey conditions Survey Date Day Period Survey time Weather Pre 22/06/10 Tuesday School term 07:30 18:30 Cloudy/ sunny intervals 14-23C 27/07/10 Tuesday Half term 07:30 18:30 Cloudy/ sunny intervals 15-18C Post 9/11/10 Tuesday School term* 07:30 18:30 Cloudy/ sunny intervals 4-8C 16/11/10 Tuesday School term* 07:30 18:30 Cloudy/ sunny intervals -1 8C *St Margaret s school closed. A sample of the potential data was collected. The sample size achieved was sufficient to produce robust findings with video data measures of this type. The analysed periods and pedestrian counts are shown in Table 8-2. Appendix D.2 gives the pedestrian and stage counts split into half hour periods. The pre-modification survey excludes the periods when the crossing assistant was present. The post-modification survey excludes dusk and the evening. The sample for the pre-modification survey included more adults accompanying children than the post survey. The crossing behaviour of these pedestrians and the accompanied child differed from other pedestrians and separate analysis was undertaken. Table 8-2 also shows the pedestrian and stage counts excluding these pedestrian types. The sample sizes pre and post modification are similar. Table 8-2 Summary of video analysis periods and counts Survey Date Analysis periods All pedestrian types Excluding accompanied child crossings Pre 22/06/10 07:30-08:00 08:45-14:45 15:25-18:30 Ped count Ped stages Ped count Ped stages Post 9/11/10 16/11/10 07:30-16:15 07:30-10: Comparison with modified arrangement Statistical assessment Statistical comparison of the results pre- and post-modification was undertaken using the Chi Squared test, except for mean crossing times which were compared using a t- test. The Chi Square test investigates whether distributions of categorical variables differ from one another. The Chi Square statistic compares the counts of categorical events between TRL 51 RPN1821

62 two (or more) independent groups. Chi square tests are used on actual numbers and not on percentages, means, etc. The detailed statistical results are shown in Appendix C Pedestrian compliance with the green man Table 8-3 shows the time in the cycle that pedestrians started to cross. Early starts refers to pedestrians starting to cross just before the green man (after end of green to traffic but before the green man for pedestrians). The distribution of when in the cycle pedestrians started to cross at the standard Puffin and the modified Puffin was statistically different at the 1% level. It is notable that a higher proportion of pedestrians started to cross in the green man period at the standard Puffin than at the modified Puffin (59% compared with 34%). Table 8-3: Time in the cycle pedestrian started to cross - all pedestrian types Early Start Green man Start Clearance period Start Vehicle green Standard Puffin 26% (50) 59% (112) 0% (0) 15% (29) Modified Puffin 39% (62) 34% (53) 0% (0) 27% (43) Statistical difference at 1% level The result may have been affected by the higher proportion of accompanied child crossings in the pre-modification survey, of which most began to cross during the green man period. Table 8-4 shows the results excluding these pedestrians. The results still show a higher proportion of pedestrians started to cross in the green man period at the standard Puffin than at the modified Puffin (50% compared with 27%), and the distribution of when in the cycle pedestrians started to cross at the standard Puffin and the modified Puffin was also still statistically different at the 1% level. Table 8-4: Time in the cycle pedestrian started to cross - excluding adults accompanying children and the accompanied child Early Start Green man Start Clearance period Start Vehicle green Standard Puffin 30% (41) 50% (68) 0% (0) 20% (28) Modified Puffin 42% (59) 27% (38) 0% (0) 31% (43) Statistical difference at 1% level Comparing those that used the pedestrian phase ( early starts and green man starts ), Table 8-5 shows that significantly fewer pedestrians started to cross just before the green man at the standard Puffin than at the modified Puffin (38% compared with 61%, respectively). The difference was statistically significant at the 1% level. Table 8-5: Proportion of pedestrians using the pedestrian phase starting to cross just before the green man - excluding adults accompanying children and the accompanied child Test Standard Puffin Modified Puffin Pedestrians using the pedestrian phase - proportion of early start crossings Statistical difference at 1% level 38% (41/109) 61% (59/97) At the modified Puffin a higher proportion of pedestrians crossed in the vehicle green (Table 8-6). However, the difference was not statistically significant. TRL 52 RPN1821

63 Table 8-6: Proportion of pedestrians crossing in vehicle green - excluding adults accompanying children and the accompanied child Test Standard Puffin Modified Puffin Proportion of pedestrians crossing in the vehicle green No statistical difference 20% (28/137) 31% (43/140) Thus the results show that a significantly higher proportion of pedestrians crossed just before the green man at the modified Puffin (note, there was no actual change in the delay before the start of the green man). This result was not anticipated. It corresponds with the increased perceived delay in the green man appearance shown in the questionnaire surveys (Section 7.6.2). The cause for this has not being fully established. Potential reasons include: Pedestrian observation being drawn to the farside pedestrian signal, which is in the same sight line as the traffic signal heads. The signal shown to traffic is readily visible from the pedestrian wait area (see photographs in Section 5.4), particularly in overcast conditions. Pedestrians looking in the direction of the farside signal may react to the signal change and be more aware that the vehicle signal is on red in the three second period before the green man appears. Farside pedestrian signals being visible from the edge of the kerb. However, with nearside signals the ideal observation point is slightly in from the edge of the kerb and looking down the road as opposed to over the crossing. Casual observation of the video surveys indicated more pedestrians waiting close to the kerb edge at the modified crossing. They are therefore able to step on to the carriageway slightly earlier which may contribute to the higher proportion that started before the green man was displayed. Note that the nearside pedestrian displays at this crossing were angled slightly further away from the kerbside than current recommendations [17]. The angle was approximately 40 degrees to the kerbside, as opposed to the recommended degrees. This may lead to some pedestrians to stand further back from the kerb edge than they would if the angle had been less. Fewer observations of traffic before crossing, particularly when looking left (Section 8.2.4). Familiarity with farside pedestrian signals perhaps giving greater confidence to start crossing earlier. Notably colder weather during the post-modification surveys which may have encouraged some pedestrians to cross early. Other external factors and individual differences between the samples on the survey days may also be casual factors Crossing paths and durations Table 8-7 shows the crossing route taken by pedestrians. About a quarter of pedestrians crossed entirely within the studs. Most veered at the latter part of the crossing towards the direction they were travelling. There was no statistical difference in crossing paths after the farside signals were added. Table 8-7: Crossing path - excluding adults accompanying children and the accompanied child Crossing entirely within studs First part outside studs Last part outside studs Diagonal crossing Entirely outside the studs Standard Puffin 25% (33) 5% (6) 60% (80) 11% (14) 4 Modified Puffin 23% (31) 4% (5) 54% (73) 20% (27) 4 No statistical difference TRL 53 RPN1821

64 Table 8-8 shows the time taken to cross for pedestrians that crossed using the pedestrian stage ( early starts and green man starts ) 5. The results show that the mean time taken to cross at the modified Puffin was lower than at the standard Puffin. The difference was statistically significant at the 1% level. The average time of 10 seconds to cross at the standard Puffin equates to an average walking speed of 1.34 metres per second (3.0 miles per hour), while the average at the modified Puffin was 1.45 metres per second (3.2 miles per hour). Table 8-8: Crossing time excluding adults accompanying children and the accompanied child (crossing with the pedestrian stage) Standard Puffin Modified Puffin Count Mean 9.99* 9.27* Standard Deviation *Statistical difference at 1% level Pedestrians that veer outside the studs increase the distance travelled while crossing. The time taken to cross for compliant pedestrians crossing between the studs varied between 6.7 seconds and 14.8 seconds. Table 8-9 shows the average time taken for those that crossed entirely within the studs. There was no significant difference between the standard and modified Puffins in the time taken to cross, due in part to the small sample of pedestrians crossing completely between the studs. Table 8-9: Crossing time excluding adults accompanying children and the accompanied child (crossing with the pedestrian stage and between the studs) Standard Puffin Modified Puffin Count Mean Standard Deviation No statistical difference That there was a significant reduction in crossing time at the modified Puffin could be a function of including the crossing time of pedestrians that veer outside of the marked crossing area. However, the proportion of pedestrians veering outside of the crossing did not differ significantly between crossing types, suggesting that crossing times may have been genuinely quicker at the modified crossing. Potential reasons include: Fewer observations made while crossing (Section 8.2.4) Familiarity with farside pedestrian signals giving greater confidence to cross quicker. Colder weather during the post-modification surveys encouraging some pedestrians to cross quickly. The blackout after the green man is seen as a signal to hurry (Figure 7-24). A previous study (in Edinburgh) reported that the average time taken to cross by pedestrians at a Puffin crossing converted from a Pelican was slightly longer after it was converted [11]. This was particularly the case amongst older people and people with impaired mobility, leading the authors to suggest that crossing was less stressful at a Puffin. It was considered that this may be explained by the removal of the flashing amber reducing harassment by drivers, and the removal of the flashing pedestrian green 5 Note that the pedestrian count in Table 8-9 for the modified Puffin is slightly lower than full sample as there were a couple of occasions where the completion time could not be recorded due to obstruction or the pedestrian veering out of view. Sample sizes were similarly affected in Section TRL 54 RPN1821

65 reducing the pressure to hurry. However, another study at two converted Puffin crossings found no difference in crossing time after conversion from Pelican crossings [4] Pedestrian observation of on-coming traffic Tables 8-10 and 8-11 show pedestrian observation (measured by head position) for all pedestrians crossing using the pedestrian stage (i.e. start to cross during the green man or just before the green man). Statistically significant differences (all at the 1% level) are highlighted in bold. The figures in brackets show the sample sizes. Table 8-10: Pedestrian observation standard Puffin (crossing with the pedestrian stage) all pedestrian types Observe type Look right prior to crossing Look left prior to crossing Look right during first half crossing Look left during first half crossing Look right during second half crossing Look left during second half crossing None 7.7% (12) 12.9% (20) 51.3% (82) 16.0% (26) 57.4% (93) 44.4% (72) Large 87.2% (136) 76.8% (119) 46.3% (74) 79.6% (129) 38.3% (62) 47.5% (77) Slight 5.1% (8) 10.3% (16) 2.5% (4) 4.3% (7) 4.3% (7) 8.0% (13) Total (156) (155) (160) (162) (162) (162) Statistically significant differences from the modified Puffin shown in bold Table 8-11: Pedestrian observation modified Puffin (crossing with the pedestrian stage) all pedestrian types Observe type Look right prior to crossing Look left prior to crossing Look right during first half crossing Look left during first half crossing Look right during second half crossing Look left during second half crossing None 8.1% (9) 30.4% (34) 49.1% (56) 30.7% (35) 83.3% (95) 42.5% (48) Large 74.8% (83) 54.5% (61) 37.7% (43) 55.3% (63) 9.6% (11) 41.6% (47) Slight 17.1% (19) 15.2% (17) 13.2% (15) 14.0% (16) 7.0% (8) 15.9% (18) Total (111) (112) (114) (114) (114) (113) Statistically significant differences from the standard Puffin shown in bold The results show pedestrians made fewer observations at the modified Puffin. Specifically, when compared with pedestrians using the standard Puffin, significantly fewer pedestrians at the modified crossing were seen to: Look left before crossing; Look left during the first half of the crossing, including the central island; Look right on the second half of the crossing; Make a large observation to the right prior to crossing; and Make a large observation to the right during the first half of the crossing, including the central island. Potentially the most important checks are to look right before crossing and to look left (during the first half) prior to entering the second half of the crossing. The proportion looking right before crossing was high for both strategies. However, significantly more of TRL 55 RPN1821

66 the observations were slight (looking within the immediate area to the crossing only) at the modified Puffin than at the standard Puffin. There were significantly fewer observations to the left whilst crossing the first half of the modified crossing. The same pattern of results was shown when excluding instances where a child was accompanied over the crossing (Tables 8-12 and 8-13). In fact the differences were greater since the children being accompanied tended to make few observations and there were more accompanied crossings at the standard Puffin. Table 8-12: Pedestrian observation standard Puffin (crossing with the pedestrian stage) excluding adults accompanying children and the accompanied child Observe type Look right prior to crossing Look left prior to crossing Look right during first half crossing Look left during first half crossing Look right during second half crossing Look left during second half crossing None 3.8% (4) 7.7% (8) 52.8% (57) 12.0% (13) 55.6% (60) 44.4% (48) Large 91.4% (96) 80.8% (84) 43.5% (47) 82.4% (89) 40.7% (44) 47.7% (51) Slight 4.8% (5) 11.5% (12) 3.7% (4) 5.6% (6) 3.7% (4) 8.3% (9) Total (105) (104) (108) (108) (108) (109) Statistically significant differences from the modified Puffin shown in bold 8-13: Pedestrian observation modified Puffin (crossing with the pedestrian stage) excluding adults accompanying children and the accompanied child Observe type Look right prior to crossing Look left prior to crossing Look right during first half crossing Look left during first half crossing Look right during second half crossing Look left during second half crossing None 6.5% (6) 30.9% (29) 51.0% (49) 30.2% (29) 82.3% (79) 42.1% (40) Large 74.2% (69) 54.3% (51) 34.4% (33) 54.2% (52) 10.4% (10) 41.1% (39) Slight 19.4% (18) 14.9% (14) 14.6% (14) 15.6% (15) 7.3% (7) 16.8% (16) Total (93) (94) (96) (96) (96) (95) Statistically significant differences from the standard Puffin shown in bold Driver behaviour The reaction of the first driver waiting at the stop line during the pedestrian stage was recorded. Table 8-14 shows the results. Overall, driver behaviour was unchanged. On average the first vehicle crossed the stopline (measured by centre of front wheel to the centre of the stopline) shortly after the start of vehicle green, 0.36 seconds at the standard Puffin and 0.22 seconds at the modified Puffin. There was no statistical difference. Nor was there any statistical difference in the proportion of drivers that cross in red-amber or vehicle red. The average times to cross the stopline were similar to a previous study [16] that reported a mean of 0.51 seconds at two Puffin crossings. However, the percentage of TRL 56 RPN1821

67 violations and 15 th percentile value at the modified crossing is somewhat different than shown in the previous study of 1% violations and seconds 15 th percentile value. While not statistically different, the results suggest an increase in red violations at the end of the pedestrian stage at the modified Puffin when compared with the standard Puffin (from 3.6% to 6.9%). This likely to be due to the two second all-red period added for the farside signals. All the violations were creeping after the pedestrian(s) had cleared the crossing. Similarly the 15 th percentile value for the modified Puffin crossing is notably earlier in the vehicle red amber than the standard Puffin. Table 8-14: First vehicle crossing the stopline time relative to start of vehicle green (excludes cyclists) Standard Puffin Modified Puffin Sample size Mean 0.36 sec 0.22 sec Standard Deviation 1.34 sec 1.88 sec 15 th percentile sec sec Number of vehicles that cross before vehicle green % crossing before vehicle green 30.9% 27.7% Number of vehicles that cross before vehicle red-amber 7 11 % crossing before vehicle red-amber 3.6% 6.9% No statistical difference 8.3 Risk assessment factors Factors identified by the risk assessment The risk assessment prior to the trial (Section 6.2.1) identified pedestrian uncertainty during the clearance period and pedestrian observation of traffic as assessment factors. Behavioural factors were coded from the video surveys to identify indicators of pedestrian uncertainty during the clearance period of the pedestrian stage. These factors were: Returning to the kerb; Hesitancy on the central island; Speeding up to complete the crossing; and Starting to cross during the clearance period. None of these behaviours were identified during the clearance period at the standard Puffin (Table 8-15). At the modified Puffin, there were two instances of pedestrians notably speeding up after the start of the blackout period (Table 8-16). These pedestrians started to cross in the green man. Overall, there was little indication of pedestrian uncertainty during the clearance period at either the standard or modified Puffin. The risk assessment also included pedestrian observation of on-coming traffic. This was shown to reduce before and during crossing (Section 8.2.4). This may reduce the safety benefits seen at Puffin crossings (discussed in Section 12). TRL 57 RPN1821

68 8-15: Risk assessment factors recorded at the standard Puffin Time in cycle pedestrian started to cross Returned to kerb Stopped/ paused on island Speed up Comments Green to traffic Pedestrians used the central island to help cross without using the pedestrian stage. Often starting to cross away from the crossing. Two used the push button on the central island to complete their crossing. Vehicle amber before the green man All-red before the green man One an accompanied child running for fun, the other a pedestrian in a hurry Green man Three were accompanied children running for fun (one of these also stopped on the island). Two were pedestrians (crossing together) who hurried to get to the crossing as the green man had already started. The other pedestrian speeding up was during in the green man and occurred for no obvious reason. There were no events associated with the clearance period. Clearance period TRL 58 RPN1821

69 Time in cycle pedestrian started to cross 8-16: Risk assessment factors recorded at the Modified Puffin Returned to kerb Stopped/ paused on island Speed up Comments Green to traffic All the 11 that speeded up also started to cross away from the crossing. Two also stopped on the island. Pedestrians used the central island to help cross without using the pedestrian stage. Often starting to cross away from the crossing. One used the push button on the central island. Vehicle amber before the green man All-red before the green man Both had reached the central island before the green man started. One of them then went on to quickly cross the second half during the green man Pedestrian saw approaching car and decided to return to kerb. Started to cross afterwards in the green man. The three speeding up did so while the green man was showing. No apparent reason. Green man Both began to cross much quicker after the end of the green man (i.e. the start of the blackout), one after notably glancing up to the signal. Clearance period Assessment events recorded throughout the analysis As a matter of course the risk assessment pedestrian behaviour events were recorded throughout the video analysis period. In total there were 19 pedestrians at the standard Puffin (10% of pedestrians) and 38 at the modified crossing (24% of pedestrians) that were recorded as being involved in one or more event. Tables 8-15 and 8-16 summarise the data. Appendix E.1 lists all the risk assessment data collected. By far the most common event was pedestrians stopping or pausing at the island while crossing against the red man usually starting to cross away from the crossing. Note that this is not associated with hesitancy, as per the risk assessment, but pedestrians using the island to cross against the red man. More pedestrians started to cross in the vehicle green at the modified crossing (Table 8-6) and this accounts for much of the difference shown. This behaviour is not believed to be due to the addition of the farside signals, and was not statistically different from the standard Puffin. However, there were more events associated with pedestrians starting to cross before the green man at the modified arrangement, including one pedestrian returning to the kerb. Starting to cross before the green man does appear to be strategy dependent (see Section 8.2.2) and more risk events were shown at the modified crossing Conflict analysis Three conflict events were recorded at the standard Puffin and three after modification (Appendix E.2). All six were low risk events, with a pedestrian slowing or speeding up, or a vehicle slowing, to avoid a potential conflict. Five of the six were associated with pedestrians crossing against the red man and at four of these the pedestrian started to TRL 59 RPN1821

70 cross the road away from the crossing. The one pedestrian that crossed between the studs came into conflict with a vehicle coming out of the side road, which was not visible when she started to cross. The sixth conflict was due to a pedestrian crossing away from the crossing but while the pedestrian stage was running. This was at the standard Puffin. The pedestrian came into conflict with a slowing vehicle. There is no indication that any of the conflicts were dependent upon the crossing type. TRL 60 RPN1821

71 9 Results summary 9.1 Questionnaire surveys Prior to modification, the Puffin crossing had high approval levels including ease of use (Fig 7-1), perceived safety (Fig 7-2, 7-3, 7-16), and user satisfaction (Fig 7-17). There were high levels of certainty about whether it was safe to continue crossing (Fig 7-3) and low levels of anxiety on the crossing (Fig 7-13). The addition of the farside pedestrian signals largely did not affect user s approval levels or perceptions of the crossing. However, where there were statistically significant changes, they were all negative: An increase in users perception of delay before the start of the green man phase* (Fig 7-6); Greater uncertainty about when they should start to cross (Fig 7-7); Reduced understanding of the red and green man signals (Fig 7-8); and Fewer pedestrians strongly agreeing it was easy to see the green and red man while waiting to cross (Fig 7-4). *Note that there was no change in the actual delay of the start of the green man. Behaviour was shown in the video surveys to underline the change in perceived delay. The sample size of older pedestrians was not large enough to undertake comparative statistical assessment. The results suggest that older pedestrians tend to be more anxious while on the crossing and more so at the standard Puffin. They were also less certain about continuing to cross, although their levels of certainty about continuing to cross were similar at both crossings. Older pedestrians also were more likely to perceive that nearside pedestrian signals were sometimes obscured by other pedestrians. Compared to the standard Puffin, older pedestrians were much less certain about when to start to cross at the modified crossing and thought they had to wait too long for the green man to appear. Also a greater number of older pedestrians felt that the green man/ audible signals were not long enough at the modified Puffin. Nevertheless, older pedestrians stated that their feelings of safety and satisfaction at the modified Puffin were similar to those for the standard Puffin. In the pre- modification survey, five users commenting on their crossing experience said they would prefer to see the green man while crossing (Table 7-15), and when directly asked 33% of pedestrians stated they preferred farside signals (Fig 7-20). The proportion of pedestrians who recall using the audible signal in their crossing decision was notably higher at the standard Puffin than after modification (Table 7-12, 7-13). The post-modification survey indicated that some pedestrians misunderstood the farside blackout period. Three-quarters of pedestrians reported they would hurry during the blackout period (Fig 7-24) and a small proportion (14%) reported that they might return to the kerb or stop mid-crossing on the island (Table 7-21). About a fifth of pedestrians were uncertain as to whether they could start to cross during the blackout period (Table 7-22). Compared with a crossing using farside signals only, the questionnaire survey indicated that pedestrian compliance in the blackout period may be improved if nearside signals are also provided, as the red man helps reinforce the message that pedestrians should not start to cross (Fig 7-22, 7-23). When asked directly, the majority of respondents stated that they preferred the combined arrangement of nearside and farside signals. The stated preferences for different combinations of pedestrian signals are listed below in order of preference: TRL 61 RPN1821

72 Combined nearside and farside arrangement (Table 7-17); No preference between far or nearside only (Fig 7-20); Farside signals only (Fig 7-20, Table 7-17) and, Near-side signals only (Fig 7-20, Table 7-17) Few pedestrians were aware of the on-crossing pedestrian detectors to allow safe passage. Only one person out of 100 knew that the standard crossing was known as a Puffin crossing. 9.2 Video surveys After the addition of farside pedestrian signals, pedestrians made significantly fewer observations (defined by head position). Specifically, they were less likely to: Look left before crossing; Look left during the first half of the crossing prior to entering the second half; and, Look right on the second half of the crossing. Additionally, pedestrians were also less likely to make a large observation to the right prior to crossing and on the first half of the crossing. Overall, driver behaviour was largely unchanged. However, for the modified crossing there was an indicated increase in red violations at the end of the pedestrian stage, from 3.6% to 6.9% for the first vehicles waiting at the stop line. The increase is likely to be due to the two-second all-red period added for the farside signals. All the violations were creeping after the pedestrian had cleared the crossing. After the modification a significant increase in pedestrians starting to cross just before the green man was noted. It corresponded with the increased perceived delay shown in the questionnaire surveys. Note that there was no change in the delay from the push button being pressed to the start of green man. The video survey also indicated that pedestrians crossed quicker when the farside signals were present. Potential reasons for these behavioural changes are: Reduced number of observations by pedestrians before and during crossing; Familiarity with farside signals increasing pedestrian confidence to start early and/or cross more quickly; Colder weather during the post-modification surveys prompting respondents to be less patient. Other external factors and individual differences between the samples on the survey days may also be casual factors; and The blackout period encouraging pedestrians to hurry. Also in terms of early starts only: The position of the farside pedestrian signal might have drawn attention to the red light shown to traffic before the green man appeared, increasing the perception of delay and encouraging pedestrians to cross before the green man was displayed; and Farside pedestrian signals enable pedestrians to stand closer to the kerbside and face the opposite carriageway while still seeing the pedestrian signal, thus facilitating pedestrians to enter the carriageway earlier. The risk assessment prior to the modification identified a number of behavioural factors to assess regarding uncertainty during the pedestrian clearance period: returning to the kerb, hesitancy on the central island, speeding up to complete the crossing, and starting to cross in the clearance period. These behaviours were not shown in either the pre- or TRL 62 RPN1821

73 post-modification surveys, with the exception of two instances of pedestrians notably speeding up in the blackout period at the modified Puffin. Overall there was little indication from the video surveys of pedestrian uncertainty during the clearance period at either the standard Puffin or the modified Puffin. There was an increase in risk assessment events associated with pedestrians starting to cross before the green man at the modified crossing, including one pedestrian returning to the kerb. 10 Assessment of disabled pedestrians 10.1 Introduction One of the objectives of the trial of farside pedestrian signals at Puffin crossings is to provide recommendations on the standard form of signalised pedestrian crossings in the Disability Discrimination Act: Good Practice Guide for Roads (Transport Scotland, 2011) [1]. This section considers the use of farside/ nearside pedestrian signals with regard to disabled pedestrians: whether there is a preferred location and if either strategy is disadvantageous. The results from the trial questionnaires are reviewed to ascertain whether disabled pedestrians noticed any difference when presented with farside signals at the Puffin crossing and, if so, what their attitude was towards this change. To augment the trial results, the views of certain disability groups were solicited regarding signalised pedestrian crossings and pedestrian signals, in particular. Previous research on the position of signals heads with regard to disabled pedestrians is also presented Background Signalised crossings traditionally have pedestrian signal aspects located on the farside of the carriageway. However, nearside pedestrian signals have become more common since the introduction of Puffin facilities (see section 4 for an overview of Puffin facilities). This has led to a mixture of different signalised crossing types that has called into question which pedestrian signal type is the most suitable for pedestrians with disabilities [19]. The 1995 Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) contained provisions making it unlawful to discriminate against a disabled person in relation to employment, the provision of goods, facilities and services, and the disposal and management of premises. The 2005 Disability Discrimination Act made substantial amendments to the 1995 Act building on amendments already made by other legislation since 1999 and, among other things, outlawed disability discrimination in the exercise of public functions. In December 2006, a new duty required government departments and agencies to publish a Disability Equality Scheme outlining how they would implement DDA 2005 responsibilities through policy guidance, planning and stewardship. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 has subsequently been replaced by the Equality Act 2010 which places a duty on public bodies to advance equality of opportunity between disabled and non-disabled persons and remove disadvantages experienced by persons with disabilities. The trial assists in considering whether or not a specific location of the pedestrian signal is systematically disadvantageous to disabled persons Previous Research Puffins have been promoted as being beneficial to disabled pedestrians with the extension of the pedestrian crossing period giving pedestrians with mobility impairment a greater degree of comfort and nearside signals being easier to see for pedestrians with TRL 63 RPN1821

74 sight impairments [17]. However, there has been little research specifically on the impact of the location of pedestrian signals on disabled users. Signalised Crossings: Designing for Learning Disabled Pedestrians (B. Hodgson, JCT Traffic Signal Symposium; 2009) [9] concludes that the best form of standalone signalised crossings for pedestrians with learning disabilities are Puffin crossings as the information given to pedestrians (i.e. red and green man only) is the easiest to understand and the nearside signals are in the same field of vision as approaching vehicles. Farside Pelican signals are the second most preferred mainly due to familiarity. Farside pedestrian signals with a blackout period were the least preferred arrangement. As part of the Pedestrian Perceptions of Road Crossing Facilities (TRL, Scottish Executive Central Research Unit; 2000) [20] study, 32 disabled people were asked about their attitude towards pedestrian crossings. Additionally, 890 general pedestrians were surveyed along with a self completion survey of 233 children. This study recommends that pedestrian crossings should be installed to Puffin standard although there is no consideration of the benefits of nearside signals. For the blind pedestrian sub group no preference for crossing type was found but it is recorded that some pedestrians with partial sight relied on the illuminated wait signal at Pelican crossings. This practice is considered potentially dangerous as the extinction of the wait signal may occur for reasons other than the start of the pedestrian crossing phase (e.g. lamp failure) and traffic may still be moving at speed through the crossing. The report does not consider the advantages of Puffins in relation to this scenario but needless to say they are safer as pedestrians with partial sight will use the green man signal as an invitation to cross when traffic is signalled to stop. The Review of the road safety of disabled children and adults (TRL Road Safety Division, DfT; 2002) [33] states that Puffin crossings with nearside signals are advantageous to pedestrians with a hearing impediment. An over-reliance on the green man signal alone is not recommended for these pedestrians and the nearside signal has the advantage of encouraging them to look in the direction of the oncoming traffic. It also considered that nearside signals may be beneficial to blind pedestrians with some sight as they may assist in providing safe, independent mobility of both children and adults as part of the engineering measures provided by Puffin crossings Trial results Very few pedestrians were observed in the farside pedestrian signal trial to have impaired mobility through disability (Table 7-11), or in the questionnaires classified themselves as having a disability. Three persons in the pre-survey questionnaire stated they had a disability (two mobility-related, the other was not recorded and two in the post survey one impaired hearing and the other impaired mobility). None of the respondents were blind or wheel chair users. The results from this small sample were augmented by the results from a separate RFID technology trial carried out at the same Puffin crossing. In addition to the trial of farside pedestrian signals, the Signalised Crossings for the 21st Century Steering Group commissioned a trial of the Use of RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) Technology at Puffin Crossings at the Craigmillar Park crossing (at Suffolk Road) based on RNIB React technology. In this trial disabled pedestrians received a location message and subsequently demanded the pedestrian phase remotely by means of a key fob. The crossing equipment itself was not altered and the timings were the same as for the farside pedestrian signal trial. The only adjustment to the crossing, other than the installation of the RNIB React based equipment, was the removal of the pedestrian demand cancel facility making the pedestrian demand latched. This measure removed the possibility of a blind pedestrian demanding the crossing and the demand being cancelled, for whatever reason, without the knowledge of the user. TRL 64 RPN1821

75 The RFID technology trialists undertook pre-trial and post-trial questionnaires. The pretrial questionnaires aimed to gauge the trialists experience of signalised crossings and their attitude towards them. The post-trial questionnaire captured the users experience of using signalised crossings with the assistance of the RNIB React system and attitudes towards the addition of RNIB React technology and associated issues (e.g. affordability, prevalence of the system). Additionally, the post-trial questionnaire included questions related to the addition of the farside pedestrian signal at the crossing. Trialists were asked if they had noticed any difference at the crossing, if so what that difference was and their attitude towards this difference. The questions regarding the position of the pedestrian signals are shown in Appendix H. There were thirty participants in the Use of RFID Technology at Puffin Crossings trial. Twenty six were blind and four were mobility impaired. Ten of the trialists classified themselves as totally blind. The trialists were asked Did you notice any differences in the green and red man lights that are shown to pedestrians at the crossing when compared to other Puffin crossings that you might have used? Sixteen respondents stated that they could not see any of the lights. Five trialists noticed a difference; all were blind or partially sighted. When asked to explain the difference only one noticed that there were additional signals on the farside of the crossing. This person expressed an opinion that this made the crossing easier to use. This person was blind with some useful residual vision. None of the pedestrians with mobility impairment noticed any difference between the pedestrian signals at the trial crossing and other Puffin crossings used. The other four trialists, who said they noticed a difference, thought that the signals were brighter and/or clearer. Two of these also commented that the signals were at a better level or lower. All five noticing a difference responded that they preferred the modified crossing over other Puffin crossings. However, the reasons given generally indicate the preference was associated with the presence of the nearside pedestrian signal rather than the addition of the farside signal e.g. easier to see as I have to be very close. and brighter, clear, more defined and at a better level. This may be because the nearside signal was superior to other nearside signals at Puffin crossings regularly used by the respondent, or the respondent did not realise that Puffin crossings have nearside signals as standard. One of the respondents preferred the modified crossing because the cars stopped earlier than other Puffin crossings Consultation Consultations were performed with some disability groups to understand the groups attitudes towards signalised questions. The disability groups were asked if they had any preferred crossing type or opinions on signalised crossings in general. The groups approached were RNIB, Action on Hearing Loss Scotland (formerly the Royal National Institute for Deaf people (RNID)), Guide Dogs (Guide Dogs for the Blind), Deafblind Scotland and the Scottish Accessible Transport Alliance (SATA). None of these groups had an official preference or opinion on the use of signalised crossings. RNIB, Action on Hearing Loss Scotland and Guide Dogs did, however, consider the issue and put forward statements. These are set out below. RNIB stated We don't have a policy statement as such on this - but the location of the green man at eye level on the same side of the crossing as the person waiting to cross is viewed as being good in relation to people who are blind or partially sighted. This is because you can stand close to the signal to see the green man and may have more chance of seeing it compared to the green man across the road. We would expect that in all situations there are items to back up the visual signal including audible (were safe to do so) and the inclusion of rotating cones. We haven't done any specific research on this, but by using a common sense approach this is what we would advocate. TRL 65 RPN1821

76 Action on Hearing Loss Scotland state: People who are deaf or hard of hearing experience key barriers to accessing public transport principally because they do not always access up-to-date transport information. When using pedestrian crossings, people who are deaf or hard of hearing rely on their sight and on visual clues. For this reason, we would like the visual clues to be standardised throughout Scotland, regardless of the type of crossing. For example, the green and red man should be well lit. People who are deafblind with both a visual and a hearing impairment have greater difficulties to maintain independence. We understand that a tactile signal exists on some of the crossings. We would like these tactile signals to be made available at all crossings. Also, we would like crossings to be regularly maintained so that both visual clues and tactile signals work as often as possible. Guide Dogs state: We believe that there should be controlled pedestrian crossings with dropped kerbs and tactile paving at regular intervals, and particularly near bus stops and key destination points. Controlled crossings should, wherever feasible, include audio and tactile rotating cones. At those areas where audio cannot be provided, for example, at split crossings, or junctions that are not an all stop, then it is very important that they do have the tactile rotating cone. All crossings whether they be controlled or not require to have associated tactile paving laid according to the guidelines. Puffins are very useful as they monitor a pedestrians pace of walking when making the crossing and thus they will always reach the other side before vehicles are given the go ahead to move. People who understand the workings of a puffin do then prefer them. However, we contacted 10 blind and partially sighted people to ask them their opinions of Puffins verses Pelicans and out of the 10 only 2 knew what a puffin crossing was. This concurs with what we had envisaged the answers to be. There does appear to be a need for education and marketing of some sort to develop knowledge. On the issue of near-sided pedestrian signal boxes. Some people who have useful vision can see these and also take that as a secondary cue to cross. However, many people with useful vision, might for example, on a bright day or glary day, find that vision will be reduced further and might not be able to see the red and green man signals even on the near-sided aspect. In addition, someone with retinitis pigmentosa are night blind although they can have some useful vision during the day but again reduced greatly in glare and sunlight. So to some people the near-side signal can be, at times, used as a secondary cue. Blind and partially sighted people will use the tactile to locate appropriate crossing/edge of pavement, then auditory and/or tactile cone as their primary cue to establish when it is safe to cross. As far as blind and partially sighted people using the far sided pedestrian signals to give some comfort whilst walking on the crossing as to 'it is still safe to cross the lights have not changed'. Although we have not carried out any research into this, our experience is, that although some people may be able to see something from a distance, that ability to fix on an object whilst walking would be difficult, or impossible task. People would, and should, be concentrating on keeping the correct cane technique, or encouraging their guide dog, walking straight, and at a reasonable speed Conclusion Most of the preference comments provided by disabled pedestrians regarding the pedestrian signals in the RFID trial related to the brightness and clearness of the nearside pedestrian signal. Only one respondent identified that the crossing also had farside pedestrian signals and commented that this made the crossing easier. This person was blind with some useful residual vision. There is evidence that nearside signals offer the most advantages to disabled pedestrians, due to the action of encouraging users to look in the direction of oncoming TRL 66 RPN1821

77 traffic, with the advantages that this gives to all users and documented in Section 4, and the use that nearside signals have to pedestrians with partial vision. This is largely supported by the limited research in this area and by the small consultation exercise undertaken as part of the trial. However, care must be taken in interpreting the conclusion that nearside signals are preferential to farside signals. A larger trial considering disabled users only would be necessary to conclude statistically that nearside crossings are preferred and/or are safer than farside signals. 11 Puffin fit for purpose assessment This section provides a brief assessment of Puffin facilities fitness for purpose compared with existing signalised pedestrian facilities, based upon the categories shown below. Previous research has shown that compared to existing signalised pedestrian facilities, Puffin facilities: Safety Significantly reduce accident frequency [8]; Severance Reduce severance. They offer greater crossing comfort [3,7], particularly for older pedestrian and pedestrians with reduced mobility [2,8,10,11,33], and can improve comprehension of the signals[7] which is helpful for pedestrians with learning disabilities [9]; Compliance Significantly improve pedestrian compliance in the clearance period at low and moderate pedestrian flows [5,6], and improves driver compliance compared with Pelican crossings [10]; Delay Cost Reliability There has been only limited study of Puffin facilities at higher pedestrian flow sites (i.e or more pedestrians crossing per hour) and further study is recommended [8]. Significantly reduce pedestrian and vehicular delay at traffic signal junctions [3,4]. Marginally increase vehicular delay compared to Pelican crossings; Puffin crossings have higher installation and maintenance costs due to the increased detection requirements; and On-crossing detection has proven to be robust and reliable. There have been operational and technical challenges with kerbside detection during its development [8]. There have been substantial advances by detector manufacturers in recent years. The potential benefit of kerbside detection can be limited at standalone crossings due to responsive pedestrian control, and its usage is optional [8,17]. At junctions with low and moderate pedestrian flows, kerbside detection can provide significant operational benefits [3,4,8]. TRL 67 RPN1821

78 12 Discussion Pedestrians found the Puffin crossing in its standard form (with nearside signals only) safe, and easy to use and understand. Satisfaction with this crossing was high. The introduction of the farside signal had little effect on pedestrians perceptions of the crossing, except to reduce their understanding of the pedestrian signals and potentially encourage crossing before the onset of the green man. Conversely, when asked directly, most pedestrians stated they preferred the combined arrangement. Anxiety on the crossing was low at the standard Puffin crossing and pedestrians had a high level of confidence that it was safe to continue. Several pedestrians commented that they preferred to see a green man while crossing. Pedestrians are used to farside pedestrian signals. However, when provided, this did not improve the overall crossing experience and the blackout period was seen by most as a signal to hurry. The results suggest that the farside signal reduced older pedestrians anxiety while on the crossing, although the sample size was too low for statistical comparison. Older pedestrians were also more likely to perceive that the nearside signals are sometimes masked by other pedestrians while waiting to cross. However, the addition of the farside signal appeared to increase uncertainty about when to cross and reduced satisfaction with the length of the green man/audible signals. Stated feelings of safety and satisfaction at the modified Puffin was similar to the standard Puffin. A higher proportion of pedestrians recall using the audible signal at the standard Puffin crossing than the modified crossing. If the audible was not presented at a crossing, it is possible that the pedestrians approval of a Puffin crossing could be reduced more than at a crossing with farside signals. A notable proportion of pedestrian injury accidents at standalone signalised crossings involve vehicle violations [8,10,11]. It seems logical that such accidents could be mitigated by increased observation. Fewer pedestrian observations at the modified Puffin when compared with the standard Puffin suggests that the addition of farside signals could reduce the safety benefits that have been shown at Puffin crossings. The additional all-red period at the modified Puffin will increase vehicle delay. Its effect would be marginal at standalone crossings and smaller if pedestrians crossed quicker, as indicated by this survey. Pedestrian waiting delay may also be increased slightly due to the start of the minimum vehicle period being delayed. The increase in cycle time will have a greater effect on vehicle and pedestrian delay if used at congested signalised traffic junctions with Puffin facilities. There can be safety implications associated with longer cycle times [13] such as reduced pedestrian compliance, and an increase in vehicle red violations at the end of the pedestrian stage with potential transfer of this behaviour to other crossings. Based upon the results of this trial, the likely effect of the combined near and farside pedestrian signal arrangement is a marginal disbenefit in the fit for purpose categories (Section 11), except for some elements of severance due to pedestrian stated preference for farside signals. However, it should be noted that satisfaction with the Puffin before the trial was high indicating that when pedestrians are not presented with a choice of signal arrangements, a standard Puffin does not appear to deter pedestrians from crossing. Additional farside signals should have no effect on reliability but would increase sign clutter and cost. At complex junctions, the additional signals may add confusion. Previous studies have shown that pedestrian understanding and compliance with the blackout period (and the flashing green man at Pelicans) is poor [2,6,7,8,14]. This study has shown that confusion and misunderstanding of the blackout period at farside pedestrian signals is present. The interview study indicated that nearside signal helps to reinforce that pedestrians should not start to cross in this period. An observational TRL 68 RPN1821

79 assessment of any change in compliance could not be made, as there were no recorded instances of pedestrians arriving during the clearance period. Guidance for the duration of the all-red period after the blackout is 1 3 seconds. The allred period could reasonably be reduced to one second at this site as there is little risk of non-compliance during the clearance period due to the low pedestrian flow level. There is also no need to warn of the onset of the vehicle stage for compliant pedestrians as they are protected by an extended clearance period provided by on-crossing detectors as well as the all-red period after maximum clearance time has been reached. Safety and pedestrian compliance issues could occur if pedestrians learnt that it is relatively safe to start to cross in the blackout period at modified Puffins (because of the on-crossing pedestrian detectors) and then transfer this behaviour to farside pedestrian facilities with a fixed clearance period. However, it should be noted that extendable blackouts are authorised at farside junction facilities (although not widely used) and at Toucan and Pegasus crossings with farside signals. The introduction of further signalcontrolled crossing configurations in the UK could reduce pedestrian s general understanding of signalised crossings. A study by TfL indicated that the perceived visibility of nearside signals increases with familiarity [2]. Puffins account for less than a third of signalised crossing in Scotland (and a similar proportion in England); source Traffic Signal Group: Signals Inventory Pedestrian are familiar with farside signals. However, there can be misunderstanding of signals given i.e. the green man when on the crossing and the clearance period before and during crossing. The further implementation of Puffin crossings is likely to increase pedestrian familiarity with nearside signals. Lack of pedestrian awareness of the safety provision provided by on-crossing detection was highlighted. Previous studies [4,7] have shown that awareness of this facility reduces the stated concern of some pedestrians regarding not being able to see the pedestrian signal indication while crossing. Both the questionnaire survey and separate consultation with disability groups indicates a lack of publicity and awareness of Puffin crossings. It should be noted that there has been no widespread publicity regarding Puffin crossings. The Department for Transport do provide a Puffin information pack that can be used by Local Authorities or other organisations to inform and publicise Puffin crossings the public. This trial was at a wide Puffin crossing with a low pedestrian flow. Perceived anxiety and uncertainty while on the crossing was a key driver for this study. Neither of these issues emerged as significant in the study, and at shorter crossing widths the potential for anxiety and uncertainty should be lower than the wide crossing studied. Studies of Puffin facilities with very high pedestrian flows are scarce and there is debate within the industry as to whether near or farside pedestrian signals are the most appropriate. High-level nearside repeater signals are recommended at high pedestrian flow sites [17]. Signal obscuration while waiting to cross was not prevalent at this site and the perceived visibility of the nearside signals was high. The addition of farside signals did not improve the situation. However, this could differ at crossings with high pedestrian flows. Separate analysis of disabled pedestrians through consultation with disability groups and a limited trial indicate that nearside pedestrian signals offer advantages over farside pedestrian signals, particularly for blind and partially sighted pedestrians due to improved visibility while waiting to cross. The farside signal may provide some comfort to pedestrians while crossing, however can detract from the task of crossing and increase misunderstanding of the signals. Overall, the effects shown in this study of the introduction of the farside signal at a Puffin crossing were neutral or negative, except for the pedestrians stated reference for the modified arrangement. TRL 69 RPN1821

80 13 Conclusions Prior to modification, the Puffin crossing had high approval levels. Anxiety on the crossing was low and there was a high level of confidence that it was safe to continue. The majority of pedestrians when asked directly stated they preferred the modified Puffin crossing with its nearside and farside signals. However, approvals levels did not increase and respondents perceptions of specific aspects of the modified Puffin crossing were less favourable. Pedestrians observations of traffic prior to and when crossing were lower at the modified Puffin crossing than at the standard Puffin crossing. This could reduce the documented safety benefits provided by Puffin crossings. After modification, a higher proportion of pedestrians started to cross before the onset of the green man and there was a perceived increase in delay before the start of the green man even though the timing of this period had not changed. The results also indicated that pedestrians crossed more quickly when farside signals were present. Few pedestrians were aware of the safety provision provided by on-crossing detection at Puffin crossings. There was an indicated increase in vehicle red violations at the end of the pedestrian stage due to the additional all-red period of the modified crossing. Nearside pedestrian signals offer advantages over farside-only pedestrian signals for blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Overall, the effects of the introduction of the farside signal were neutral or negative except for pedestrians stated preference for the modified arrangement. 14 Recommendations The recommendations are: When Puffin crossings are referred to in the DDA Good Practice Guide for Roads [16] it should be taken as referring to Puffins in their current form. The Puffin Crossings Good Practice Guide [17] should be referenced in the DDA guide. There should be greater publicity of Puffin crossings, in particular the on-crossing extension feature. Further public education on the meaning of farside pedestrians signals. The technical report from this study should be a TRL Published Project Report freely available to download from TRL s publication website. A brief article in a suitable publication (e.g. The Surveyor) should be produced to publicise the availability of the report. A study would be worthwhile concentrating on the operation of crossings with very high pedestrian flows to assess Puffin performance and develop further guidance for such situations if needed. A study considering a wider range of disabled users would provide further information on how the pedestrian signal arrangement affects people with different disabilities. TRL 70 RPN1821

81 15 Acknowledgements TRL and Halcrow would like to thank Transport Scotland for commissioning the study and the City of Edinburgh Council for their support throughout the trials. 16 References 1 Transport Scotland (2009). Disability Discrimination Act Good Practice Guide for Roads. Scottish Government. 2 Transport for London (2005). Puffin and Pelican Crossings: Views of Pedestrian Users. Outlook. 3 Davies H E H (1992). The Puffin Pedestrian Crossing: Experience with the first experimental sites. TRL Research Report 364. Crowthorne: TRL. 4 Ian Routledge Consultancy and the University of Southampton (2006). Operational benefits and the user acceptance of Puffin pedestrian facilities. UG336 project report for the DfT. (Unpublished). Available on request from TRL. 5 Murray SJ and Walton D (2009). Evaluation of a near-side PUFFIN display. Opus International Consultants Ltd. Central Laboratories Report Walker R, Winnett M, Martin A and Kennedy J (2005). Puffin crossing operation and behaviour study. TRL Published Project Report PPR Mott MacDonald and Imperial College London (2008). Pedestrian crossing behaviour at traffic signals. (Unpublished). Available on request from TRL. 8 Maxwell A, Kennedy J, Routledge I, Knight P and K Wood (2011) Puffin Pedestrian Crossing Accident Study. PPR 507. TRL Crowthorne. edestrian_crossing_accident_study.htm 9 Hodgson B (2009). Signalled crossings: designing for learning disabled pedestrians. JCT Traffic signal symposium Austin K and White P (1997). Reducing pedestrian and vehicle conflict at Pelican crossings. Traffic Engineering and Control, 38(5), pp Reading I A D, Dickinson K W, and Barker D J (1995). The puffin pedestrian crossing pedestrian-behavioural study. Traffic Engineering and Control. pp Preston B (1989). The behaviour and safety of pedestrians at Pelican crossings in Greater Manchester. Traffic Engineering and Control, 30(12), pp Kennedy J, Crabtree M, Castle J, Martin J and Elliott M (2009). The effect of traffic signal strategies on the safety of pedestrians. TRL Published Project Report PPR414. Crowthorne: TRL Sterling T, Knight P, Sharratt C, Walter L and Narine S (2009). The effect of re-timed invitation to cross periods on road users at signalised junctions in London. TRL Published Project Report PPR411. TRL: Crowthorne Department for Transport (2005). Traffic Advisory Leaflet 5/05. Pedestrian facilities at signalised junctions. London: The Stationary Office. TRL 71 RPN1821

82 16 Maxwell A (2006). Starting Amber - the first significant review since the 1960 s. Traffic Engineering and Control, July 2006, Vol 47 No.7, pp Department for Transport and County Surveyors Society (2006). Puffin Crossings Good Practice Guide Release Transport Scotland (2006). Roads for all - The Trunk Road Network Disability Equality Scheme and Action Plan. Transport Scotland Halcrow Group (2010). Trunk Roads Action Plan Roads for All : Use of Contemporary Technology Report. Halcrow Group Limited (Unpublished). 20 Scottish Executive Central Research Unit (2000). Pedestrian Perceptions of Road Crossing Facilities. J M Sharples and J P Fletcher, Transport Research Laboratory. Edinburgh: The Stationary Office Bookshop York I and Gutteridge S (2006). Assessment of Puffin Control Strategy. Unpublished Project Report UPR T/018/06 Crowthorne: TRL (Unpublished). Available on request from TRL. 22 The Stationary Office (2003). The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions Statutory Instrument 2002 No London: The Stationary Office The Stationary Office (1997). The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossing Regulations and General Directions Statutory Instrument 1997 No London: The Stationary Office Department of Transport (1995). Local Transport Note 2/95. The design of pedestrian crossings. London: TSO Horberg U and Erikson B (1980). Pedestrian behaviour at crossings with and without traffic lights. University of Uppsala, Sweden Uppsala Psychological Reports No Schoon J G (2006). Pedestrian behaviour at uncontrolled crossings. Traffic Engineering and Control, June 2006, Vol 48 No.6, pp Grayson G B (1975). Observations of pedestrians at four sites. Department of the Environment, Transport and Road Research. Laboratory Report LR670, Crowthorne. 28 Land (1992). Predictable eye-head coordination during driving. Nature, September 1992, Vol 359, pp Robinson G H, Koth B W, and Ringenbach J P (1975). Dynamics of the eye and head during an element of visual search. Department of Industrial Engineering. The University of Wisconsin, Madison. Tech. Report Market Research Society (2002). Code of practice for conducting market research in town centres The Stationery Office (2007). The Highway Code. TSO: London Smyth C, Maxwell A and Parker J (2011). The use of RFID technology at pedestrian crossings to assist disabled users. Seventh Annual Scottish Transport Applications and Research Conference, PTRC. 33 Williams K, Savill T and Wheeler A (2002). Review of the road safety of disabled children and adults. TRL Report559. Crowthorne, UK. TRL 72 RPN1821

83 17 Glossary All-red Period in the cycle were red is shown on all traffic signals including the red man aspects. Blackout The period in the farside pedestrian signal sequence where no signal is shown to pedestrians. It is shown after the green man and before the red man and denotes the clearance period. It indicates to pedestrians who have started to cross that they have time to complete their crossing but do not delay. At Pelican crossings a flashing green man is used instead. Clearance period The period between the end of the green man and the start of the vehicle stage. It allows time for pedestrians that started to cross at the end of the green man to clear the crossing before the vehicle stage. At crossings with a fixed clearance period it is typically based upon a 1.2m/s walking speed. At Puffin crossings this period is varied by oncrossing pedestrian detection up to a predefined maximum. Cycle time The time taken to complete a full sequence of the traffic signals, e.g. the time taken from start of green on the main road to the time it next receives start of green. Farside pedestrian signals The pedestrian red and green man signals are located on the opposite side of the carriageway. Green man Period in the pedestrian signal sequence where pedestrians are invited to start to cross. Nearside pedestrian signals The pedestrian red and green man signals are located at the kerbside where pedestrians are waiting to cross. The signals are usually integrated with the push button unit. A high level repeater signal is used at higher pedestrian flow sites. Pelican crossing The sole standard form of standalone (not at a junction) signalised crossing in the UK prior to the introduction of the Puffin crossing. Its main features are: Farside pedestrian signals; Flashing green man shown to pedestrians in the clearance period; and, Flashing amber shown to vehicles in the clearance period (two seconds after the start of the flashing green man). Puffin crossing/ facility A form of signalised crossing used in the UK since the early 1990 s. The main features are: Nearside pedestrian signals. They show only the red or green man. There is no requirement for an intermediate pedestrian signal (blackout or flashing green man) in the clearance period as the signals are not visible once on the crossing. On-crossing pedestrian detectors which provide an extension to the pedestrian clearance period when pedestrians are still on the crossing. There is no flashing amber traffic period as at Pelican crossings. Pedestrian kerbside detectors to cancel the pedestrian demand if there are no pedestrians in the wait area. Note, the term crossing is normally associated with standalone crossings (not at junctions), while facility is used for crossings within traffic signal junctions and generically for both types of installations. Red man Period in the pedestrian signal sequence that pedestrians should not use the crossing. TRL 73 RPN1821

84 Appendix A Questionnaire responses: Pre- modification Craigmillar Park Puffin Survey: Pre-questionnaire Interviewer Initials: Participant ID: Date: Time: AM/PM Weather Condition: Lollipop man present: Y=15 / N=85 Participant Gender: M = 32 / F = 60 Missing =8 Good morning/afternoon. I am from the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), we have been asked to conduct some research into pedestrian crossings for Transport Scotland. Would you be willing to answer some questions about your use of this crossing, it will only take 5 or 6 minutes A. Code when interviewee started to cross: Just prior to green man/ audible tone With green man/audible tone All-red - red to traffic and pedestrians (and blackout in post questionnaire) Red/Amber to traffic Green to traffic Missed - did not see =24 =67 =3 =0 = 6 =0 B. Code crossing behaviour: Completed crossing in one go without stopping Completed crossing but paused at central refuge (less than 3s) Completed crossing but stopped at central refuge (more than 3s) Did not complete the crossing returned to side that started to cross at Missed - did not see = 92 = 5 =2 =1 =0 C. Code whether the interviewed pedestrian push the request button? Yes No =87 =13 D. Code whether crossing alone or with other pedestrians (crossing from the same side) Alone =77 In a group =23 TRL 74 RPN1821

85 E. Code any of the following that apply to the respondent: Using walking stick or walking frame Crossing in wheelchair or motorised chair Pushing wheelchair Pushing pram or child s buggy etc Carrying small child or children Walking next to small child or children (under 8 years old) Carrying heavy bag/s (shopping, suitcases, etc) Otherwise encumbered or slowed down (write in how) Blind/ visually impaired None of the above = 2 = 0 =2 =7 =1 =4 =2 = 1 =0 1. Have you been interviewed at this crossing before? No 1 =99 Continue to Q2 Yes 2 =1 When? In last month? Over one month ago? Cease questionnaire Continue to Q2 2. How often do you use this crossing? This is the first time Less than once a month Once or twice a month Once a week Two to three times a week Nearly every day Missing =3 =5 = 12 =17 =28 =28 =7 3. How easy was it to use the crossing today? If 4/5 rating please ask WHY Very easy =60 Fairly easy =38 Neither easy nor difficult =1 Fairly difficult =1 Very difficult =0 If 3/4/5- Why was that? Can t see if the lights change 4. How sure were you about it being a safe time to start to cross? Very sure Fairly sure Neither sure nor unsure Missing =53 =45 =1 =1 TRL 75 RPN1821

86 5. What was it that helped you decide to start crossing when you did? (ask this as an open question and tick as many boxes as applicable) Gap in traffic =12 Stopping/stopped traffic =29 Green man shown =55 Audible tones =53 Rotating cones =0 Red traffic light shown to drivers =4 Lollipop man signal =6 Other pedestrians already crossing =0 Pedestrian signals blackout (on central island) =0 Other (write in): No other comments 6. How sure were you about it being safe to continue crossing once you had started? Very sure Fairly sure Neither sure nor unsure Missing =46 =47 =1 =6 7. What was it that helped you to decide to continue crossing to the other side? (ask this as an open question and tick as many boxes as applicable) Gap in traffic =5 Stopping/stopped traffic =32 Green man =46 Audible tones =60 Rotating cones on central island =0 Red traffic light shown to drivers =5 Other pedestrians crossing =1 Lollipop man signal =8 Pedestrian signals blackout (shown on central island) =0 Continued to cross because started etc =1 Other (write in): No other comments 8. Have you ever experienced any problems when using this crossing in its current form? (crossing was modified from a Pelican without a central island around April 2010 question refers to after modification) Yes = 5 Please describe: Cycles not stopping at red light It takes too long for pedestrians Slow to activate to let me cross Sometimes it was about crossing and I hesitate in the middle due to the audible tone stopping You feel rushed crossing here No = 94 Missing =1 TRL 76 RPN1821

87 9. I am going to read out a series of statements about this crossing in its current form. For each one, please tell me to what extent you agree or disagree Show code sheet strongly strongly Missi It is easy to see the green and red men while waiting to cross Sometimes I can t see the red and green men while I waiting to cross because there are people in the way agree disagree 10. Do you have any particular comments with regards to this crossing? audio should stay on longer, it's a very good guide bit confusing when the sound goes off as you think you have to hurry over everything seems fine to me green man could be above so we can see it when we cross I feel the beeping should go on longer I find it's much quicker to stop the traffic now, I also feel I have ample time to cross here now I like to be able to see the green man from across the road I think the middle island is a bit confusing maybe do away with it, I'd feel safer going straight across it should change a bit quicker to allow you to cross it s good to have the crossing as it s a busy road like the fact you've got a central island now, this helps break up your crossing might be my imagination but I feel I get longer time to cross over than before need more time to cross I feel because I think the beeping stops too soon, you can't see green man lights easily while in the middle of road new good system no, I preferred the old style crossing. I felt it gave you more time prefer older ones that you see the green man and know it's safe to cross prefer these ones because the traffic respond to these lights quicker prefer to see green man in front of me prefer to see the green man in front of me quick and efficient workings, no delays on crossing or stopping traffic sometimes I feel beeper goes off too quickly when in the middle of the road and I get a bit anxious that I don't have enough time to get across before traffic starts up again sometimes I feel rushed don't get long enough before green man lights go out sometimes I feel rushed when crossing with a wheelchair but I must say I find it okay when out walking by myself sometimes I feel the crossing changes quicker than other times and you have less time to get across the road the audio sound could stay on longer, it helps you when you cross. the green man could be on slightly longer the sound should stay on as long as the lights are at red TRL 77 RPN1821 ng I have to wait too long for the green man to appear Sometimes I am unsure about when I should start to cross The red and green man signals are easy to understand I feel hurried while on the crossing Sometimes I am unsure about whether I should continue crossing once I have started The green man time is long enough The audible tones are long enough I feel anxious while on the crossing If I start crossing here when the green man is showing, I have enough time to cross When reaching the central island I am unsure whether to stop or continue crossing I feel safe using this crossing I am satisfied with this crossing facility

88 the tones goes off, it makes you think you need to hurry- should keep them on longer time isn't long enough for me, green man could stay on longer you don't know if you can go right across as the green man goes off and that to me is the safest time to cross you get plenty time to cross 11. If you had come here a few months ago, you would have found a different type of signalised crossing here. Do you remember the old crossing here? How did it differ from this crossing? Yes =81 No =19 Don't know =0 beforehand you had the green man facing you from across the road bigger, no green man to take you across box at side of lights has changed shape brighter lights, new central island central point now central reservation is new could see green man from across the road could see the green man overhead dated looking lights didn't have the beeps different style signals green man in front of you green man in full view green man light was ahead of you and easier to locate green man on for longer green man signage is visible from across the other side green man was clearer had light in front of you before now they are at the side it changed much quicker it now has the bit in the middle it was old, this one is new lights easily visible from the other side lights were in front of you before with old crossing lights were visible ahead instead of to the side of you lights were visible from across the road modern, new one now more modern look more modern, new looking much the same new layout new lights- modern new lights new system? no beeping no beeping before no central island before no green man above now no green man in front, no central part no green man overhead now no green man signage in front of me no green man signal to be viewed across the road no green man to take you over no island before no middle bit not sure not sure what the change is old crossing had green man overhead old lights had green man on other side of road old looking, green man flashing longer old ones were slower to react old style crossing louder noise older one is old looking and slow to change red light on for longer signals were easily viewed from across the road slower long wait the old style green man follow you across there is a centre part in the road now there was no central crossing then this is the new Puffin style crossing, safer this one is quicker to cross this one is the new modern one they have all over Edinburgh time span was longer before was a pedestrian crossing you can see the lights from across the road you could view the green man from across the road now you have to rely on the beeping sounds you got longer to cross, traffic was stopped for longer you have to cross this one quicker new modern new ones higher for cars to see easy new signals with the bleeping noise TRL 78 RPN1821

89 If Yes 12. Do you prefer this crossing, or the previous crossing, or is there no difference? Strongly prefer previous crossing =2 Prefer previous crossing =8 No difference =41 Prefer this crossing =22 Strongly prefer this crossing =5 Missing =22 Why do you say that? (if preference shown) Strongly prefer previous crossing Green man easy to see-better system Green man helps you over Prefer previous crossing Could see lights better I feel I got longer to cross Prefer this crossing Bigger, clearer, more time to cross Easier to cross with central reservation I like the fact that it beeps It seems to work quicker and traffic stops regularly and quickly It's quicker Less delay in waiting to cross, quicker to respond to your touch, traffic stops quicker Modern quick, easy to cross More modern More responsive, lights quicker to change Much nicer now Quicker Quicker at stopping the traffic Quicker at stopping traffic Quicker to cross Quicker to stop traffic Safer Smart looking You have a middle bit now to stop and reassure you have enough time to do so Strongly prefer this crossing Central point to stop Get longer to cross now Not as cluttered, modern, child friendly Quicker crossing Note, not all respondents commented. If Yes 13. Would you say you felt safer using the previous crossing, or the new one, or is there no difference? Previous crossing much safer =3 Previous crossing a little safer =8 No difference =49 New crossing a little safer =16 New crossing much safer =2 Missing =22 TRL 79 RPN1821

90 Why do you say that? (if preference shown) Previous crossing much safer bigger quicker you don't have to think about it as much, it's what you're taught Previous crossing a little safer know when to cross sounds and green man on longer traffic was stopped for longer New crossing a little safer beeping goes on until you reach the other side beeps till you get to the other side get longer to cross the road gives you time enough to cross knowing it is going to beep till I get across the road like tones going off much quicker plenty time allocated to cross quicker at stopping traffic sensors in operation while you're crossing the patrolman is always here New crossing much safer easy to cross. audio sound good, does not change until you are off it Note, not all respondents commented. 14. This crossing has the pedestrian red and green man signals on the nearside (point out). Other types of crossing have the pedestrian signals on the far-side of the carriageway instead. Do you have any preference? (pre change question only) Strongly prefer far-side =9 Prefer far-side =24 No preference =61 Prefer nearside =1 Strongly prefer nearside =4 Don t know =1 Please provide comments if preference shown Prefer far-side easier to see easier to see it easier to see lights easier to see on other side and sort of eye level is best easier to spot lights from the opposite side easier to spot lights if they are in front of you easily established where lights were located and not so easy to see now while crossing this new one eye catching Strongly prefer nearside at right at hand easier to locate and see hand and easily located to hand Note, not all respondents commented. TRL 80 RPN1821

91 15. Do you know what this type of pedestrian crossing is called? (pre-change question only). Ask as open question Pelican =40 Toucan =0 Puffin =1 Zebra =1 Other (write in) =9 ( Green man crossing n=4, Pedestrian crossing =5) Don't know = This kind of crossing is called a Puffin crossing. Do you recall ever seeing or hearing any leaflets or other publicity about how to use Puffins? (pre-change question only) Yes =26 No =70 Not sure/don t know =4 17. What is the purpose of your current journey? Ask as open question and tick appropriate box(es) Commuting to/from work Personal business (e.g. doctor, bank, =28 =18 church) On employer s business =2 Taking or collecting child =24 Education Social / Leisure =1 =6 (e.g. pub, sport, cinema) Shopping =10 Don t know =0 Visiting/meeting friends or relatives 18. Are you =11 Other: 1 Working full-time (30+ hrs/week) =45 6 Not working (not looking for work) =7 2 Working part-time (<30hrs/week) =22 7 Retired =15 3 Full-time student =4 8 A house person =4 4 Part-time student=0 9 Other =0 5 Not working looking for work =3 10 Refused=0 19. Which age range best describes you? (give age range) = = = = = = = =2 Refused =0 20. Do you consider yourself to have a disability? The Disability Discrimination Act defines a person as disabled if; they have a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long term adverse affect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Yes =3 If Yes, how would you describe your disability? =0 No =96 Missing =1 Mobility Walk with the aid of a stick Third comment not stated Thank you very much for your time and input. TRL 81 RPN1821

92 Appendix B Questionnaire responses: Postmodification Craigmillar Park Puffin Survey: Post-questionnaire Interviewer Initials: Participant ID: Date: Time: AM/PM Weather Condition: Lollipop man present: N =100 Y =0 Participant Gender: M = 47 F = 52 Missing =1 Total =100 Good morning/afternoon. I am from the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), we have been asked to conduct some research into pedestrian crossings for Transport Scotland. Would you be willing to answer some questions about your use of this crossing?, it will only take 5 or 6 minutes. A. Code when interviewee started to cross: Just prior to green man/ audible tone With green man/audible tone All-red - red to traffic and pedestrians (and blackout in post questionnaire) Red/Amber to traffic Green to traffic Missed - did not see =26 =61 =5 =1 =4 =3 B. Code crossing behaviour: Completed crossing in one go without stopping Completed crossing but paused at central refuge (less than 3s) Completed crossing but stopped at central refuge (more than 3s) Did not complete the crossing returned to side that started to cross at Missed - did not see =91 =7 =1 =1 C. Code whether the interviewed pedestrian pushed the request button? Yes No =73 =27 D. Code whether crossing alone or with other pedestrians (crossing from the same side) Alone =82 In a group =17 Missing =1 TRL 82 RPN1821

93 E. Code any of the following that apply to the respondent: Using walking stick or walking frame Crossing in wheelchair or motorised chair Pushing wheelchair Pushing pram or child s buggy etc Carrying small child or children Walking next to small child or children (under 8 years old) Carrying heavy bag/s (shopping, suitcases, etc) Otherwise encumbered or slowed down (write in how) Blind/ visually impaired None of the above =1 =0 =3 =6 =2 =3 =4 =0 =0 =81 1. Have you been interviewed at this crossing before? No =91 Continue to Q2 Yes =9 When? Within the last two weeks? Within the last 3 months? Over 3 months ago? Cease questionnaire (note, only required for the second November survey) Continue to Q2 Continue to Q2 2. How often do you use this crossing? This is the first time Less than once a month Once or twice a month Once a week Two to three times a week Nearly every day Don t Know =3 =3 =13 =26 =41 =14 =0 3. How easy was it to use the crossing today? If 4/5 rating please ask WHY Very easy Fairly easy Neither easy nor difficult Fairly difficult Very difficult If 3/4/5- Why was that? =50 =47 =3 =0 =0 Sometimes I m not sure when to cross (No other comments) 4. How sure were you about it being a safe time to start to cross? Very sure Fairly sure Neither sure nor Fairly unsure Very unsure unsure =42 =57 =1 =0 =0 TRL 83 RPN1821

94 5. What was it that helped you decide to start crossing when you did? (ask this as an open question and tick as many boxes as applicable) Gap in traffic =35 Stopping/stopped traffic =42 Green man shown =62 Audible (beeping) tones =24 Rotating cones =0 Red traffic light shown to drivers =3 Lollipop man signal =0 Other pedestrians already crossing =0 Pedestrian signals blackout (no signal shown on far side display) =0 Other (write in): Did not wait, just crossed 6. How sure were you about it being safe to continue crossing once you had started? Very sure Fairly sure Neither sure nor Fairly unsure Very unsure unsure =42 =55 =2 =1 =0 7. What was it that helped you to decide to continue crossing to the other side? (ask this as an open question and tick as many boxes as applicable) Gap in traffic =14 Stopping/stopped traffic =42 Green man =31 Audible (beeping) tones =36 Rotating cones on central island =0 Red traffic light shown to drivers =7 Other pedestrians crossing =0 Lollipop man signal =0 Pedestrian signals blackout (no signal shown on far side display) =0 Continued to cross because started etc =2 Other (write in): =0 8. Have you experienced any problems when using this crossing in the last month? Yes 11 don't know if it is safe to continue as you don't see green man that s what helps us cross the road green man changes too quickly. lights go off too soon have to cross quick as beeping goes off quick not sure if I can continue crossing, beep stops very quick no time to cross not working a lot of the time only that there is a drain with no cover on it-should be covered for safety open drain at lights a bit dangerous when stepping off road onto pavement someone gone through in a hurry at red lights the tone goes off quick and you feel you have to rush across tone goes off quick and I feel I have to rush tones could stay on longer too short makes you go fast TRL 84 RPN1821

95 9. I am going to read out a series of statements about this crossing in its current form. For each one, please tell me to what extent you agree or disagree Show code sheet strongly Strongly No =89 agree disagree It is easy to see the green and red men while waiting to cross Sometimes I can t see the red and green men while I waiting to cross because there are people in the way I have to wait too long for the green man to appear Sometimes I am unsure about when I should start to cross The red and green man signals are easy to understand I feel hurried while on the crossing Sometimes I am unsure about whether I should continue crossing once I have started The green man time is long enough The audible (beeping) tone time is long enough I feel anxious while on the crossing (one missing) If I start crossing here when the green man is showing, I have enough time to cross When reaching the central island I am unsure whether to stop or continue crossing I feel safe using this crossing I am satisfied with this crossing facility Do you have any particular comments with regards to this crossing? beeping sound could be on longer, it's a better guide to help us cross and know it's safe to cross could do with the flashing green man on until it is safe to cross second part of crossing do not have to wait too long for green man don't have to wait too long for lights to change to green easy to use easy to use I like the fact you can see lights both where you stand and across the road green light could stay on longer green man goes off too soon green man should stay illuminated until you get to the other side I find there is no problem with crossing it is a very good idea as it stops the traffic and helps us get onto the road in our cars-if they take them away they will have to put up traffic lights keep the green man on for us it's what we know and have been taught like to be able to see green man as this is reassuring much better now it has got the walking detectors on, you are safe right until you are off onto the pavement need more time to get across lights change quickly no no problems with the crossing none not enough time given for elderly people to cross. green lights go out too soon nothing sometimes it can be slightly confusing as to whether I should or should not keep going when green light goes the beep helps you cross could have on longer there was no need to change the system it worked well before would like green man on far side to stay on longer would like more time to cross, to be able to see green lightall the way through till I reach the opposite side would like more time to cross. I feel safer when other people are crossing at the same time as TRL 85 RPN1821

96 11. Did you use this crossing anytime between May and September this year? Yes =94 No =6 Go to Question 15 me would like the beeping longer you get plenty time to cross If Yes 12. In early October a modification was made to the crossing, have you noticed what has changed? If so please state. Yes =55 Please state what has changed Lights on far side of road been installed recently added light at opposite side of road cameras on lights now cameras on top of lights far side signals added green and red man are across at the top of the lights green man ahead of you and also when you press green man and red man in front of you green man facing you as you cross green man is back on green man is now on longer and you can see him in front green man is on now so you can see it green man lights on other side of the street green man now showing green man on a bit longer green man on bit longer green man on display green man on display across from you when you are walking green man on for longer also you can see it green man on opposite side green man takes longer to come on I think they added sensors to crossing light can be seen from across the road light position changed light positions changed, there are central buttons on islands now lights added to opposite side of road lights on opposite side of road now lights position has changed I think more green lights installed across the other side of the road more lights more lights as you cross they are ahead of you now more lights now on far side more lights on other side new green and red man signal in front of you now new green man ahead of you new green man you can see new light fitted across the road so you can see them facing you new light you can see them now from across the road new lights on the opposite side of the road-lighting facing me now new lights positioned on offside you can see green light while crossing new look green man on display as you cross new round signals facing you as you cross new round signals in front of you help you cross new safer system you can see green man now now you can see red and green man while crossing TRL 86 RPN1821

97 No= 18 Go to Question 15 now you can see the lights from across the road off for a while to put in motion sensors red man in front of me now red man in front of you as you cross same as old ones you can see green man sensors or time delay system I think but not sure someone told me they have detectors on them now to give you more time to get across the facing lights across the road you can see the green man as you cross now you can see the green man now If noticed a change (N=55) 13. Do you prefer the crossing is it is now, or before the modification, or is there no difference? Strongly prefer previous crossing =1 Prefer previous crossing =4 No difference =17 Prefer this crossing =25 Strongly prefer this crossing =8 Why do you say that? (if preference shown) Strongly prefer previous crossing safer no need to change it Prefer previous crossing easy to see when to cross green light stayed on longer lights were on for longer you could see lights didn't change till you got to the other side quicker to cross Prefer this crossing able to see green man because of the lights positioning now better for kids to see the green man and learn about crossing can see green man light easier while you cross can see lights better can visually see green lights now as opposed to lights on my nearside are lost while crossing easier to see when to cross green man helps green man helps you across green man on longer guide for you to cross with I like green man lights idiot proof light position easy to use light positions are easier to see more time to cross prefer to see green man lights for assurance to keep crossing safer to cross you get help with the green man safer with green man to take you across used to green man crossing you can see the green man you can see the lights better when crossing you see lights better TRL 87 RPN1821

98 Strongly prefer this crossing green man in front of you helps you cross safe when the green man is on it is much safer makes you feel safer when you cross safer see the green man good guide to help you cross you can see lights better, more visible you can see the green man -helps you across No difference both much the same I feel just as safe with both types of crossing just as safe just as safe as each other or unsafe as each other, no difference no difference no difference noticed still easy to cross still safe still safe to cross still very safe look the same; same time to cross much the same If noticed a change 14. Would you say you felt safer using the crossing as it is now, or before the modification, or is there no difference (N=55)? Previous crossing much safer =1 Previous crossing a little safer =1 No difference =28 New crossing a little safer =12 New crossing much safer =13 Why do you say that? (if preference shown): Previous crossing much safer green man was on until you get over the road Previous crossing a little safer more time to cross New crossing a little safer because I can see the lights while crossing beeping and light positions make it easier buzzer reassures you while crossing green man guides you across green man is a better guide for us green man on to guide us help you cross road safer I like green man it is safer when you get the green man keeps you safe when you cross prefer to be able to see lights ahead of me safe to cross as green man is on New crossing much safer being able to see lights makes it much easier and safer feel safer with green man on until I reach the other side TRL 88 RPN1821

99 green man better to take you across green man helps to reassure you while crossing-still safe to do so green man is on green man out green man takes you across lights are much easier to see now and you keep an eye on them better safer with green man on trust the green man more we trust the green man you can see green man No difference both are safe both fairly safe both feel safe both feel safe to use both just as safe both quite safe both safe both safe to cross both safe to use both the same feel safe on both I have no preference really just as safe no difference no idea not much difference apart from extra lights not sure about light sequence same as before- both safe same as before-feel safe same level of confidence still feel safe still safe still very safe I am confident at this crossing safe to use 15. Far side pedestrian signals (point out) were added to this crossing in early October. This is in addition to the existing nearside pedestrian signals (point out). Have you noticed that the far side pedestrian signals blackout (show no signal) when the green man has finished? Yes =68 No = Have you noticed the blackout at signalised junction crossings with far side pedestrian signals? Yes =56 No =43 Missing =1 TRL 89 RPN1821

100 17. What do you think the purpose of the blackout is? (ask this as an open question and tick as many boxes as applicable) Allows time for pedestrians to clear the crossing =13 Shows red man will start soon =4 Shows traffic will start soon =6 Shows should not start to cross/ time to start crossing has finished =4 Shows that have time to finish crossing =7 Shows that the green man has finished =14 Do not know =43 Other (write in): = 16 gets more time to cross now gives you more time to cross-censors I have no idea it has none let you know that they are working make us go over the road quicker, let the traffic past quicker, no hold ups maybe you should not cross and wait till green light comes back on no idea no idea don't see any benefits no purpose at all, no need for it none I can think of save electricity the cars are getting ready to go to hurry you along you have to cross quick as it is going to change to red quick 18. What should you do if the blackout appears while you are crossing? (ask this as an open question and tick as many boxes as applicable) Cross quicker/ walk faster/ speed up =19 Continue but do not delay =21 Continue =21 Return to kerb =7 Stop on the island =7 Do not know =26 Other (write in): =0 19. What should you do if the blackout appears when you have not yet started to cross? (ask this as an open question and tick as many boxes as applicable) Start to cross =1 Start to cross if safe to do so =20 Do not start to cross =44 Press the push button =10 Wait for next green man =25 Other (write in): =0 TRL 90 RPN1821

101 20. I am going to read out a series of statements. For each one, please tell me to what extent you agree or disagree Show code sheet Strongly Strongly agree disagree I would start to cross in the blackout I would start to cross in the blackout if the nearside signal showed a red man At a crossing without far side signals, I would start to cross in the red man if the green man had recently finished I would start to cross in the blackout at a crossing without nearside signals I would hurry if the blackout started while I was crossing I would hurry if the red man started while I was crossing I prefer having both near and far side pedestrian signals I would prefer nearside pedestrian signals only I would prefer far side pedestrian signals only I find the blackout signal confusing Did you know that there are detectors at this crossing which provide additional time for slower pedestrians to finish crossing before the lights turn green for vehicles? Yes =14 No = Is there anything else you would like to add? I feel bad using button to stop traffic when I can get across without it I feel green man is an extra assurance to keep on going I personally would like a little more time to cross although time is adequate for most people when you get older I'd feel more relaxed with time to spare I think it is reassuring to be able to see the lights while crossing I think there are cameras there now for your safety I usually see older people hesitate because of this delay when green lights go off too quickly no no problems old style better safer helps us get out with the stop in traffic to join road with our car older people will have more time to cross only drain with no cover should have volume until you are off the crossing they do not have to change them, they used to be ok they used to be ok as they were TRL 91 RPN1821

102 23. What is the purpose of your current journey? Ask as open question and tick appropriate box(es) Commuting to/from work Personal business (e.g. doctor, bank, =12 =20 church) On employer s business =3 Taking or collecting child =10 Education Social / Leisure =9 =4 (e.g. pub, sport, cinema) Shopping =27 Don t know Visiting/meeting friends or relatives =13 Other: =2 24. Are you Working full-time (30+ hrs/week) =30 Not working (not looking for work) =7 Working part-time (<30hrs/week) =26 Retired =15 Full-time student =11 A house person =11 Part-time student =0 Other Not working looking for work =0 Refused 25. Which age range best describes you? (give age range) = = = = = = = =2 Refused =0 26. Do you consider yourself to have a disability? The Disability Discrimination Act defines a person as disabled if; they have a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long term adverse affect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Yes =2 If Yes, how would you describe your disability? No =98 Don t know my hearing is not as good not too steady on my feet TRL 92 RPN1821

103 Appendix C Tests of statistical significance C.1 Questionnaire data A 5% significance level was used throughout the analysis. In other words, p-values less than 0.05 indicate a significant result. P-values less than 0.01 indicate a significant result at the 1% level. The first set of statistical tests performed compared both the pre- and post-modification questionnaires for relevant questions. How easy was it to use the crossing today? (Fig 7-1) In both the pre and post questionnaires, 100 individuals were asked for their view on how easy it was to use the crossing. In each case, responses were measured on an ordinal scale ranging from very easy (1) to very difficult (5). The table below summarises the data for the two samples: Response Pre Post Very easy (1) Fairly easy (2) Neither easy nor difficult (3) 1 3 Fairly difficult (4) 1 0 Very Difficult (5) 0 0 Total Since different individuals were in each questionnaire, the samples were therefore independent. In addition, given the ordinal nature of the data, a Mann-Whitney (nonparametric) test was used in order to determine if the two independent samples (pre and post) have equally large ratings. The test showed there is no significant difference between the ratings given in the pre and post questionnaires in terms of how easy it was to use the crossing (U= ,N1=100,N2=100,p=0.153). How sure were you about it being a safe time to start to cross? (Fig 7-2) (U=4385, N1=99, N2=100, p=0.110). P-value non-significant. How sure were you about it being safe to continue crossing to the other side? (Fig 7-3) (U= , N1=94, N2=100, p=0.279). P-value non-significant. I am going to read out a series of statements about this crossing in its current form. For each one, please tell me to what extent you agree or disagree. Question Result Conclusion 9.1 (Fig 7-4) U= ,N1=98,N2=100,p=0.143 Non-Significant 9.2 (Fig 7-5) U= ,N1=98,N2=100,p=0.320 Non-Significant 9.3 (Fig 7-6) U=2681,N1=98,N2=100,p=<0.001 Significant 9.4 (Fig 7-7) U=3509,N1=98,N2=100,p=<0.001 Significant 9.5 (Fig 7-8) U=4120,N1=98,N2=100,p<0.05 Significant 9.6 (Fig 7-9) U=4258,N1=97,N2=100,p=0.125 Non-Significant 9.7 (Fig 7-10) U=4558,N1=98,N2=100,p=0.380 Non-Significant 9.8 (Fig 7-11) U= ,N1=98,N2=100,p=0.318 Non-Significant 9.10 (Fig 7-13) U= ,N1=80,N2=99,p=0.235 Non-Significant 9.11 (Fig 7-14) U=4660,N1=98,N2=100,p=0.536 Non-Significant 9.12 (Fig 7-15) U=4379,N1=98,N2=100,p=0.178 Non-Significant 9.13 (Fig 7-16) U= ,N1=97,N2=100,p=0.534 Non-Significant 9.14 (Fig 7-17) U= ,N1=98,N2=100,p=0.320 Non-Significant The following tests were performed on questions from just the post questionnaire. In each case, the two samples being compared relate to responses from the same individuals. In other words, the samples are dependent and the Mann-Whitney test performed previously is no longer appropriate. In addition, given the fact the data are ordinal, the appropriate test is the Wilcoxon signed ranks test (the non-parametric TRL 93 RPN1821

104 equivalent of the paired t test). Due to the larger sample sizes, the normal approximation was used for the test statistic. Comparing preference for nearside and farside only responses (Table 7-17): The test showed that there is a statistically significant difference between individual s ratings of having nearside pedestrian signals only and having far side pedestrian signals only (Z=-2.239,p=0.025). Comparing responses in Figures 7.22 and 7.23: Significant (Z=-4.64, p<0.001) Comparing responses in Figures 7.24 and 7.25: Significant (Z=-2.514, p=0.012) Tests were carried out on Question 9 to assess whether the presence of the crossing assistant had an effect on responses, excluding (see Appendix G): The 15 pedestrians that crossed when the lollipop man was present The 7 pedestrians who stated they used the lollipop man in their crossing decision Question Result Conclusion 9.1 (Fig 7-4) U= ,N1=98,N2=100,p=0.143 U=3458,N1=83,N2=100,p=0.026 U=3918,N1=91,N2=100,p=0.058 Significant at the 5% level when excluding all that crossed when the lollipop man present. 9.2 (Fig 7-5) U= ,N1=98,N2=100,p=0.320 U=4052,N1=83,N2=100,p=0.744 U=4414.5,N1=91,N2=100,p=0.711 Non-Significant 9.3 (Fig 7-6) U=2681, N1=98,N2=100,p<0.001 U=2244,N1=83,N2=100,p<0.001 U=2458,N1=91,N2=100,p< (Fig 7-7) U=3509,N1=98,N2=100,p<0.001 U=2911,N1=83,N2=100,p<0.001 U=3215,N1=91,N2=100,p< (Fig 7-8) U=4120 N1=98,N2=100,p<0.05 U=3274.5,N1=83,N2=100,p<0.01 U=3748.5,N1=91,N2=100,p< (Fig 7-9) U=4258,N1=97,N2=100,p=0.125 U=3656,N1=83,N2=100,p=0.151 U=3998.5,N1=91,N2=100,p= (Fig 7-10) U=4558,N1=98,N2=100,p=0.380 U=3781,N1=83,N2=100,p=0.284 U=4156.5,N1=91,N2=100,p= (Fig 7-11) U= ,N1=98,N2=100,p=0.318 U=3927,N1=83,N2=100,p=0.518 U=4291,N1=91,N2=100,p= (Fig 7-13) U= ,N1=80,N2=99,p=0.235 U=2819,N1=65,N2=99,p=0.157 U=3261.5,N1=73,N2=99,p= (Fig 7-14) U=4660,N1=98,N2=100,p=0.536 U=4031,N1=83,N2=100,p=0.731 U=4420,N1=91,N2=99,p= (Fig 7-15) U=4379,N1=98,N2=100,p=0.178 U=3684.5,N1=83,N2=100,p=0.173 U=4043.5,N1=91,N2=100,p= (Fig 7-16) U= ,N1=97,N2=100,p=0.534 U=3957.5,N1=83,N2=100,p=0.556 U=4296.5,N1=91,N2=100,p= (Fig 7-17) U= ,N1=98,N2=100,p=0.320 U=3785.5N1=83,N2=100,p=0.277 U=4237.5,N1=91,N2=100,p=0.384 All Significant (Average rank higher for full sample) Significant All Significant (Average rank lower for full sample) Non-Significant Non-Significant Non-Significant Non-Significant Non-Significant Non-Significant Non-Significant Non-Significant TRL 94 RPN1821

105 C.2 Video data The data below shows the detailed results of the video data statistical analysis referenced by the table number in the main body of the report. Time in cycle pedestrians started to cross Table 8-2, 3 by 2 Chi-squared = , p<0.01 Table 8-4, 3 by 2 Chi-squared = , p<0.01 Table 8-5, 2 by 2 Chi-squared = , p<0.01 Table 8-6, 2 by 2 Chi-squared = 3.836, p<0.10 (not statistically significant) Crossing path Table 8-7, 3 by 2 Chi-squared (excluding those crossing entirely outside the studs and combining part crossings) = 4.542, p<0.50 (not statistically significant) Crossing time Table 8-8, Two sample t test = 3.800, p<0.01 Table 8-9, Two sample t test = 1.573, p<0.50 (not statistically significant) Observation Observation was tested using a 2 by 2 Chi-squared proportion test for No observation v Large and Slight observation. If no statistical difference was shown, then test whether there is a difference between the proportion of slight and large observations using a 3 by 2 Chi-squared test for No observation, Large observation, Slight observation. Table 8-10 v 8-11 RP, 2 by 2 Chi-squared = (not statistically significant) RP, 3 by 2 Chi-squared = , p<0.01 LP, 2 by 2 Chi-squared = , p<0.01 R1st, 2 by 2 Chi-squared = (not statistically significant) R1st, 3 by 2 Chi-squared = , p<0.01 L1st, 2 by 2 Chi-squared = 8.344, p<0.01 R2nd, 2 by 2 Chi-squared = , p<0.01 L2nd, 2 by 2 Chi-squared = (not statistically significant) L2nd, 3 by 2 Chi-squared = 4.269, p<0.10 (not statistically significant) Table 8-12 v 8-13 RP, 2 by 2 Chi-squared = (not statistically significant) RP, 3 by 2 Chi-squared = , p<0.01 LP, 2 by 2 Chi-squared = , p<0.01 R1st, 2 by 2 Chi-squared =0.472 (not statistically significant) R1st, 3 by 2 Chi-squared = 7.931, p<0.01 L1st, 2 by 2 Chi-squared = , p<0.01 R2nd, 2 by 2 Chi-squared = , p<0.01 L2nd, 2 by 2 Chi-squared = (not statistically significant) L2nd, 3 by 2 Chi-squared = p<0.50 (not statistically significant) Driver behaviour Table 8-14 Start to cross time, Two sample t test = 0.815, p<0.50 (not statistically significant) When in the cycle first vehicle crosses the stopline: Green, Red amber, Red. 3 by 2 Chisquared = 3.555, p<0.10 (not statistically significant). TRL 95 RPN1821

106 Appendix D Video data analysis methodology D.1 Data coded The following information, taken from the video recordings, was entered into excel spreadsheets: General: Date, Camera, Weather, Analyst Green man start time (reset counter) Pedestrian crossing from near/ farside N/F Gender M/F Pedestrian type o a adult o c child 13 or less o ya young adult o oa older adult 70+ o ac accompanied child o apc adult with push chair Mobility impaired P/O o physical (including sight impairment) o object - e.g. carrying awkward objects Pedestrian arrive in clearance period Y Pedestrian start to cross time Pushed Button Y/N Vehicle violation- Y vehicle type car, lgv, hgv, psv, motorcycle, cycle Pedestrian stopped/ paused on island - S/P o s 3 or more seconds o p less than 3 seconds Pedestrian returned to kerb Y Pedestrian speeded up/ ran Crossing outside studs - 1 = all, 2 = part 1 st half, 3 = part 2 nd half Complete crossing time Green to traffic time Nearside vehicle front wheel crosses stopline time Farside vehicle front wheel crosses stopline time Conflict analysis 1. Obstruction - delayed start of movement 2. Precautionary braking or lane change when risk is minimal or peds slowing/ speed up/ changing direction when risk is minimal 3. Near miss 4. Very near miss 5. Collision Pedestrian observation prior to crossing Look right 0,1,2 Time last look right Look Left 0,1,2 Time last look left Pedestrian observation while crossing Look right 1 st half/ island 0,1,2 Look left 1 st half/ island 0,1,2 Look right 2nd half 0,1,2 Look left 2nd half 0,1,2 TRL 96 RPN1821

107 Notes o 1 Significant head movement = pedestrian appears to look down the road, beyond the immediate area before the stoplines o 2 Slight head movement = pedestrian appears to look to the area just beyond the stoplines Time last look = time at which head no longer aligned to recorded position (e.g for 'significant' when reaches 'slight') Potentially conflicting vehicle(s) while crossing Y/N Vehicle in view anytime while pedestrian on the crossing - Y/N D.2 Video analysis periods and pedestrian counts Tables D-1 and D-2 show the video analysis periods and counts. The pre-modification survey excludes the periods when the crossing assistant was present (highlighted in the tables below). The post-modification survey excludes dusk and the evening. Table D-1: Video analysis periods and pedestrian counts (all pedestrian types) Pre-modification (22/06/10) Post-modification (09/11 and 16/11/10) Period Ped Count Ped Stages Period Ped Count Ped Stages Starting Starting 07: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Sub Total : /11/10 17: : : : : : : Sub Total Total Total TRL 97 RPN1821

108 Table D-2: Video analysis periods and pedestrian counts (excluding adults accompanying children and the accompanied child) Pre-modification (22/06/10) Post-modification (09/11 and 16/11/10) Period Starting Ped Count Ped Stages Period Starting Ped Count Ped Stages 07: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Sub Total : /11/10 17: : : : : : : Sub Total Total Total TRL 98 RPN1821

109 Appendix E Risk assessment and conflict analysis data E.1 Risk assessment events Tables E-1 and E-2 show the risk assessment events recorded during the survey as defined in Section 8.3. Table E-1: Risk assessment events Pre modification Reference time Time in Returned to kerb Speedup Description 22/06/10 07:41:22 cycle started to cross Green to traffic 07:43:33 Green to traffic 07:45:01 Green to traffic 08:59:44 Green to traffic 11:05:15 Green to traffic 12:04:56 Green man 12:10:09 Green to traffic 12:16:41 Green to traffic 13:08:41 Green to traffic 13:18:30 Green man 13:49:09 Green to traffic 14:33:50 All red before green man 16:22:35 Green man Stopped/ paused on island - Paused - Male adult crossed against the red man - Paused - Male adult crossed against the red man - - Speeded up - - Speeded up Female adult crossed away from the crossing. Female adult crossed against the red man. Conflict event with vehicle (see Table E-3) - Paused - Male adult crossed against the red man - - Ran Young child accompanied by adult. Crossed within the studs. The child ran across the crossing for fun. - Paused - Male adult crossed against the red man initially outside the studs - Stopped - Female adult crossed against the red man initially outside the studs - Paused - Male adult crossed against the red man - Stopped Ran Young child accompanied by adult. Crossed within the studs. The child ran across the then stopped on the island waiting for the adult, and then ran the remaining part. The child ran for fun. - Stopped - Female adult started to cross against the red man and initially outside the studs. Stopped on the island and used the push button to complete the crossing. - - Ran Child accompanied by adult. Crossed within the studs. The child ran part of the crossing for fun. - - Ran Child accompanied by adult. Crossed within the studs. The child ran whole of the crossing for fun. TRL 99 RPN1821

110 Reference time Time in cycle started to cross 16:46:25 Green man 16:46:25 Green man 16:59:21 All red before green man 17:31:06 Green to traffic 17:57:53 Green man 18:16:19 Green to traffic Returned to kerb Stopped/ paused on island Speedup Description - - Ran Male adult started crossing outside the studs when green man already running. Ran with person below to get on the crossing. - - Ran Female adult started crossing outside the studs when green man already running. Ran with person above to get on the crossing. - - Ran Female ran the entire crossing, veering off the crossing in the second half. No observed reason, presumably in a rush to get home etc. - Stopped - Male adult crossing against the red man and outside the studs initially. Pushed button on central island to complete crossing. - - Speeded up Female adult crossing within the studs. Speeds up while crossing during the green man period. No obvious reason. - Paused - Male adult crossing against the red man and within the studs. Paused on the island to allow traffic to pass before completing his crossing. TRL 100 RPN1821

111 Table E-2: Risk assessment events Post modification Reference time Time in Returned to kerb Speed-up Description 09/11/10 07:47:15 cycle started to cross Green to traffic 07:55:17 Green to traffic 07:55:17 Green to traffic 08:02:57 Green to traffic 08:02:57 Green to traffic 08:17:20 Green to traffic 08:17:20 Green to traffic 08:37:35 Green to traffic 08:46:24 Green to traffic 08:46:24 Green to traffic 08:46:24 Green to traffic 09:12:59 Green to traffic Stopped/ paused on island - Paused - Male adult crossing against the red man and initially outside the studs. Paused on the island before completing his crossing. - Paused - Male adult crossing against the red man and initially outside the studs. Paused on the island before completing his crossing. - Stopped - Male adult crossing against the red man and initially outside the studs. Stopped on the island to allow traffic to pass before completing his crossing. - - Speeded up - - Speeded up Female adult crossing against the red man and away from the crossing. Male adult crossing against the red man and away from the crossing. - Stopped - Female adult crossing against the red man and initially outside the studs. Stopped on the island to allow traffic to pass before completing her crossing. - - Speeded up Female adult crossing against the red man and initially outside the studs. - Stopped - Female adult crossing against the red man. Only manages to cross second half after someone on n/s pushes button and lights change. - Stopped - One of group of three male adults crossing against the red man. Adult pressed the push button kerbside however had to wait for green man as the crossing was within the fixed green to vehicle period of 20 seconds. - Stopped - One of group of three male adults crossing against the red man. - Stopped - One of group of three male adults crossing against the red man. - Stopped - Female adult crossing against the red man. Stopped on the island to allow traffic to pass before completing her crossing. TRL 101 RPN1821

112 Reference time Time in cycle started to cross 09:26:40 Green to traffic 09:45:34 Green to traffic 11:35:39 All red before the green man 11:35:39 Green to traffic 11:35:39 Green to traffic 12:08:19 Green to traffic 12:19:12 Vehicle amber before the green man 13:11:16 Green to traffic 13:55:44 Green to traffic 14:15:31 Vehicle amber before the green man Returned to kerb Stopped/ paused on island Speed-up - Stopped Speeded up Description Male adult crossed against red man initially outside the studs. Pedestrian speeded up to avoid potential conflict with a vehicle on the first half of the crossing. Then stopped on the central island and used the push button to complete the crossing. (Conflict event see Table E-4) - Stopped - Female adult crossing against the red man and initially outside the studs. Stopped on the island to allow traffic to pass before completing her crossing. Returned to kerb - - Female adult pressed button and started to cross early. Saw approaching car and decided to return to kerb. Re started to cross in the green man. - Stopped - Female adult crossing against the red man and initially outside the studs. Stopped on the island to allow traffic to pass before completing her crossing. - - Speeded up - Stopped Speeded up - Stopped Speeded up - - Speeded up Female adult crossed against red man outside the studs. Pedestrian speeded up to avoid potential conflict with a vehicle on the latter part of the crossing. (Conflict event see Table E-4) Male adult crossed against red man initially outside the studs. Pedestrian quickly crossed the first half and then stopped on the central island until clear to cross. Male adult used push button then crossed immediately. Pedestrian stopped on central island, then continued quickly during the green man. Male adult crossed against red man initially outside the studs. - Stopped - Male adult crossed against red man initially outside the studs. Stopped on the island to allow traffic to pass before completing his crossing. - Stopped - Older adult used push button then crossed immediately. Pedestrian then stopped on the central island until the green man started. TRL 102 RPN1821

113 Reference time Time in cycle started to cross 14:21:17 Green to traffic 14:52:21 All-red before the green man 14:57:50 Green to traffic 15:55:12 Green man 15:57:34 All-red before the green man 16/11/10 07:38:02 Green to traffic 07:38:02 Green to traffic 08:19:34 Green to traffic 08:25:37 Green to traffic 08:28:31 All-red before the green man 08:40:44 Green to traffic Returned to kerb Stopped/ paused on island Speed-up Description - Stopped - Male adult crossed against red man. Stopped on the island to allow traffic to pass before completing his crossing. - - Speeded up Male adult used push button then started to cross before the green man had started. Crossed the second half quickly with the green man. - Paused - Male older adult with impaired mobility crossed against red man and initially outside the studs. Paused on the island before completing his crossing. - - Speeded up in clearance period Female older adult. Speeded up notably after the blackout started, and after looking up to the farside signal. Pedestrian also veered off last part of the crossing (away from waiting traffic). - - Ran Male adult used push button then crossed before the green man had started. Veered off and ran the second half of the crossing for no obvious reason. - Stopped - Female adult crossed against red man initially outside the studs. Stopped on the island to allow traffic to pass before completing her crossing. - Stopped - Male adult crossed against red man initially outside the studs. Stopped on the island to allow traffic to pass before completing his crossing. - Paused - Female adult crossed against red man initially outside the studs. Paused while crossing to avoid conflict with a cyclist. (Conflict event see Table E-4) - Stopped - Male adult with bicycle crossed against red man. Stopped on the island to allow traffic to pass before completing his crossing. - - Speeded up - - Speeded up Female adult used push button then crossed before the green man had started. Crossed quickly. Female adult crossed against red man initially outside the studs. TRL 103 RPN1821

114 Reference time Time in cycle started to cross 08:49:56 Green man 08:51:10 Green to traffic 09:40:10 Green to traffic 09:43:48 Green to traffic 09:47:50 Green to traffic Returned to kerb Stopped/ paused on island Speed-up - - Speeded up in the clearance period Description Female adult speeded up to a jog after the start of the blackout period and veers off the end of the crossing (away from traffic). - Stopped - Female adult crossed against red man. Stopped on the island to allow traffic to pass before completing her crossing. - - Speeded up - - Speeded up - - Speeded up Male adult crossed against red man initially outside the studs. Male adult crossed against red man. Male adult crossed against red man initially outside the studs. TRL 104 RPN1821

115 E.2 Conflict event Tables E-3 and E-4 detail the conflict analysis events recorded during the survey. The conflict levels are defined in Section 6.5. Table E-3: Conflict events Pre modification Reference time Conflict type Conflict level Reason Description 08:59:44 22/06/10 13:16:27 22/06/10 13:56:42 22/06/10 Pedestrian- Vehicle Pedestrian- Vehicle Pedestrian- Vehicle 2 Pedestrian speeding up to avoid conflict Vehicle slowed to avoid conflict 2 Vehicle slowed to avoid conflict 2 Vehicle slowed to avoid conflict Pedestrian crossing against red man Pedestrian crossing outside the studs when pedestrian stage running Pedestrian crossing against red man Female adult crossed against red man initially outside the studs. Pedestrian speeded up and vehicle slowed to avoid potential conflict. Male adult away from the crossing makes opportunistic crossing when pedestrian stage starts, causing a slowing car to slow sooner. Female adult crossed against red man at the crossing. Vehicle turning out of side road slowed to avoid potential conflict. Table E-4: Conflict events Post modification Reference time Conflict type Conflict level Reason Description 09:26:40 09/11/10 11:35:49 09/11/10 08:19:34 16/11/10 Pedestrian- Vehicle Pedestrian- Vehicle Pedestriancyclist 2 Pedestrian speeding up to avoid conflict 2 Pedestrian speeding up to avoid conflict 2 Pedestrian slowed to avoid conflict Pedestrian crossing against red man Pedestrian crossing against red man Pedestrian crossing against red man Male adult crossed against red man initially outside the studs. Pedestrian speeded up to avoid potential conflict with a vehicle on the first half of the crossing. Then stopped on the central island and used the push button to complete the crossing. Female adult crossed against red man outside the studs. Pedestrian speeded up to avoid potential conflict with a vehicle on the latter part of the crossing. Female adult crossed against red man initially outside the studs. Paused while crossing to avoid conflict with a cyclist. TRL 105 RPN1821

116 Appendix F Questionnaire responses (60 years+) The table below shows responses to Question 9 of the questionnaire survey for older participants. I am going to read out a series of statements about this crossing in its current form. For each one, please tell me to what extent you agree or disagree Show code sheet strongly Strongly agree disagree It is easy to see the green and red men while waiting to cross Pre Sometimes I can t see the red and green men while I waiting to cross because there are people in the way Pre Post Post I have to wait too long for the green man to appear Pre Post Sometimes I am unsure about when I should start to cross Pre Post The red and green man signals are easy to understand Pre Post I feel hurried while on the crossing Pre Sometimes I am unsure about whether I should continue crossing once I have started Pre Post Post The green man time is long enough Pre Post The audible (beeping) tone time is long enough Pre Post I feel anxious while on the crossing Pre If I start crossing here when the green man is showing, I have enough time to cross Post Pre When reaching the central island I am unsure whether to stop or continue crossing Pre Post Post I feel safe using this crossing Pre Post I am satisfied with this crossing facility Pre Post TRL 106 RPN1821

117 Appendix G Questionnaire responses excluding crossing assistant presence The table below shows responses to Question 9 of the pre-modification questionnaire survey excluding: The 15 pedestrians that crossed when the lollipop man was present. The 7 pedestrians who stated they used the lollipop man in their crossing decision (taken from the question shown in Tables 7-12 and 7-13). I am going to read out a series of statements about this crossing in its current form. For each one, please tell me to what extent you agree or disagree Show code sheet strongly Strongly agree disagree 9.1 It is easy to see the green and red men while waiting to cross Sometimes I can t see the red and green men while I waiting to cross because there are people in the way I have to wait too long for the green man to appear Sometimes I am unsure about when I should start to cross The red and green man signals are easy to understand I feel hurried while on the crossing Sometimes I am unsure about whether I should continue crossing once I have started The green man time is long enough The audible (beeping) tone time is long enough I feel anxious while on the crossing If I start crossing here when the green man is showing, I have enough time to cross 9.12 When reaching the central island I am unsure whether to stop or continue crossing I feel safe using this crossing I am satisfied with this crossing facility TRL 107 RPN1821

118 Appendix H Disabled users questionnaire responses from the RFID technology trial The RFID technology trial included questions related to the addition of the farside pedestrian signals at the crossing. Trialists were asked if they had noticed any difference at the crossing, if so what that difference was and their attitude towards this difference. The five respondents who answered yes to noticing a difference between the green and red man lights shown at the modified crossing compared to other Puffin crossings were all members of the blind or partially sighted group. Did you notice any differences in the green and red man lights that are shown to pedestrians at the modified crossing when compared to other Puffin crossings that you might have used? If yes, please describe the differences Yes No Did not use both crossings Cannot see any of the lights If yes please describe the differences =5 =7 =1 =16 A lot clearer and ped signals lower Brighter, clear, more defined and at a better level The lights on both sides of the crossing made it easier They are clearer They were brighter and clearer If you answered yes: Do you: (a) Prefer the green and red man pedestrian lights at Craigmillar Park (b) Prefer the green and red pedestrian lights at other Puffin crossings (c) Have no preference for the green and red man pedestrian lights at the modified crossing or other Puffins Please explain why (a) Prefer the green and red man pedestrian lights at Craigmillar Park =5 (b) Prefer the green and red pedestrian lights at other Puffin crossings =0 (c) Have no preference for the green and red man pedestrian lights at the modified crossing or other Puffins =0 Please explain why Brighter and clearer Brighter, clear, more defined and at a better level Cars stopped earlier Easier to see as I have to be very close to them to see them TRL 108 RPN1821

119

120 Trial of farside pedestrian signals at a Puffin crossing Puffin facilities were devised to increase pedestrian convenience and safety, reduce the number of unnecessary stops for drivers, and provide clearer and consistent signals to road-users by eliminating the flashing sequence at mid-block crossings and the pedestrian signal blackout at junctions. A feature of Puffin crossings is nearside pedestrian signals, the benefits being improved pedestrian compliance, comprehension and observation. However, concern has been expressed on the masking of the nearside signal and the absence of a visible signal once on the crossing. An on-street trial was commissioned by Transport Scotland at a Puffin crossing in Edinburgh fitted with both nearside and farside pedestrian aspects. The study sought to provide recommendations on the standard form of signalised pedestrian crossings in the Disability Discrimination Act: Good Practice Guide for Roads (Transport Scotland, 2009). Overall, the effects of the introduction of the farside signal were neutral or negative, except for the pedestrians stated preference for the modified arrangement. Other titles from this subject area PPR466 Safety evaluation of Compact MOVA Signal Control Strategy final report. M R Crabtree and K Wood INS003 Speed flow and density of motorway traffic. S O Notley, N Bourne and N B Taylor PPR448 Test of Heimdall detector in Winchester. K Wood PPR434 Test of TrafiCam vehicle detector in Winchester. K Wood PPR383 Guidance on the lighting requirements for traffic signs and bollards. J Cooper and J Mitchell PPR377 Investigation into traffic delays at level crossings. E Delmonte and S Tong PPR298 The travel of errant vehicles after leaving the carriageway. D A Lynam and J V Kennedy PPR252 Survey of MOVA and SCOOT operation at M42 Junction 6. K Wood, M Crabtree, A Kirkham, A Maxwell and R Robbins PPR206 International comparison of roundabout design guidelines. J Kennedy PPR292 A review of simplified Streetscape Schemes. A Quimby and J Castle PPR275 Development of a human factors road safety assessment tool: interim report. D Basacik, T Luke and T Horberry PPR240 Behaviour at cycle Advanced Stop Lines. D Allen, S Bygrave and H Harper Price code: 4X ISSN TRL Crowthorne House, Nine Mile Ride Wokingham, Berkshire RG40 3GA United Kingdom T: +44 (0) F: +44 (0) E: enquiries@trl.co.uk W: Published by IHS Willoughby Road, Bracknell Berkshire RG12 8FB United Kingdom T: +44 (0) F: +44 (0) E: trl@ihs.com W: PPR608