Shared Usage of Trails and Paths

Key Findings and Issues

The SPBP addresses the notion of requiring bicyclists to use sidewalks. The SPBP indicates that such shared usage is problematic, in that most sidewalks are not designed to accommodate both bicycles and pedestrians. Bicyclists are impeded by pedestrians and pedestrians may feel threatened by the presence of bicycles. The SPBP states that requiring bicyclists to use sidewalks does not adequately serve commuter and serious cyclists, may reduce pedestrian use, and may increase the risk of injury to sidewalk users.

Policies, Plans and Actions

The SPBP emphasizes Utah Code 27-14-6, which states "Pedestrian safety considerations shall be included in all state highway engineering and planning where pedestrian traffic would be a significant factor on all projects within the state or any of its political subdivisions." UDOT policy issue A.06 in the SPBP gives municipalities the option of closing sidewalks to bicycle travel within limited areas if there is a capacity or safety concern. The designation of pedestrian sidewalks as bikeways is strongly discouraged. UDOT policy issue A.07 states that bicyclists may be required to dismount and walk their bicycles through crosswalks and yield to pedestrians.

Recommendations

The SPBP's stance on shared-use sidewalks is sensible. It is recommended that bicycles not be prevented from using sidewalks, but that there be no requirement to use them. Jordan and Leso (2000) offer a number of suggestions for minimizing conflicts on paved, shared-use pedestrian-bicycle-jogging-skating paths. These include providing a yellow centerline on blind curves, and white lines with directional arrows at driveways and roadway crossings. The purpose of the striping would be to reduce the number of path users straying onto the wrong side of the path.

Snow Removal

Key Findings and Issues

Snow removal along sidewalks and shoulders is of particular concern for pedestrians. A walkway that has not been cleared of snow may force a pedestrian to either use the opposite side of the street, or walk along the roadway shoulder. If the pedestrian attempts to use the sidewalk, his or her mobility may be impaired, and the risk of a slip or fall is imminent. At numerous locations, the interface between the sidewalk and road at a crossing is blocked by snow that has been piled onto the shoulder. A pedestrian's options include taking a detour, hurdling the snowpile, or walking along the edge of a traffic lane. On roads with no sidewalk, snow is typically cleared onto the shoulder. If the shoulder is inaccessible because of snow, a pedestrian may be forced to encroach upon a lane of moving traffic. Each of these conditions presents a safety hazard to the pedestrian.

In a national survey, Briscoe (2001) found that 70 percent of agencies do not cite owners for failing to clear sidewalks, but that the 30 percent who do are often quite vigilant. A total of 58 percent of all agencies surveyed had been sued at least once for a sidewalk incident; in only 25 percent of the cases was the homeowner alone targeted for recovery of injury-related damages. As an example, one city agreed to a $25,000 settlement in response to being sued after a pedestrian fell on an ice-covered sidewalk.

Policies, Plans and Actions

In the SPBP, UDOT policy issues J.03 and J.04 indicate that snow removal from sidewalks and paths is the responsibility of local governments and adjacent property owners. It is probable that most of the agencies in Utah defer the responsibility for clearing sidewalks to adjacent property owners. Municipal ordinances regarding snow removal can be associated with deadlines for clearance as well as penalties.

Recommendations

The potential liability for failing to clear sidewalks, along with the associated safety hazards, should be made clear to the presiding agencies. Periodic inspections of sidewalk snow removal should be conducted to verify that they are being cleared. A record of citizen complaints should be kept on file and reviewed after each winter season. Property owners should be instructed on their responsibilities for sidewalk maintenance and municipal ordinances regarding sidewalk snow clearance should be enforced as needed.

A roadway snow removal technique that is consistent in retaining either access to the sidewalk or space along the shoulder (for roads with no sidewalk) is desirable for pedestrians. It is not known if snowplow training includes lessons on pedestrian-enabling snowpile placement. The incorporation of such lessons is recommended. Alternatively, access between a sidewalk and the road could be retained as part of walkway snow clearance. One problem, however, may be in determining who is responsible for maintaining access between a sidewalk and a road. For example, a property owner might clear the adjacent sidewalk, but be unwilling to clear snow that has been piled along the shoulder - particularly if the pile was created by a snowplow. This problem needs to be rectified. Further study, discussions with community groups and business owners, and the development of a policy are suggested.

Statewide Legislation

Key Findings and Issues

During the summer of 2000, UDOT conducted a survey of state DOTs on their efforts to facilitate pedestrian crossings. The 28 states that responded experienced 50 percent of the nation's year 1999 pedestrian fatalities (Traffic Safety Facts 1999). The survey results indicate that the responding states were not as progressive as local jurisdictions in applying state-of-the-art pedestrian crossing warning systems. The state DOTs were, however, using traditional pedestrian facilities such as pushbuttons and pedestrian-actuated signals, bridges, underpasses, barriers, and refuges. Slightly less than half of the responding state DOTs were involved in pedestrian safety education activities. These activities typically included school crossing guard training, safety brochures, and community programs. Only six of the 28 states had a policy for grade-separated pedestrian crossings. The overall assessment is that a minority of the responding states were aggressive and current in their accommodation of pedestrian crossings. The results indicate a need for increased attention to pedestrian safety policies and programming at the state level. The survey is discussed in detail in Cottrell (2001).

Policies, Plans and Actions

The State of Utah passed the Pedestrian Safety and Facilities Act (PSFA) in 1998. The PSFA allowed counties and municipalities to construct pedestrian facilities, including sidewalks and pedestrian safety enhancements, along state highways. The PSFA also allowed counties and municipalities to use their Class B and C road funds for pedestrian safety devices. Highway authorities were mandated to consider pedestrian safety in all highway engineering and planning where pedestrian traffic would be significant. A State Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Coordinating Council was created by the Act to perform a number of duties, including the promotion of pedestrian safety plans, the review of state and local plans relating to pedestrian safety, and the making of recommendations on pedestrian safety to highway authorities, law enforcement agencies, and school districts.

Recommendations

While the PSFA was a groundbreaking piece of legislation, the Act does not require that funds be dedicated to pedestrian improvements. McCann and DeLille (2000) argue that funding levels are correlated to pedestrian mode splits. Further, an increase in the pedestrian mode split may be related to the provision of pedestrian facilities, which may be associated with an improved level of pedestrian safety (ibid.). It is recommended, therefore, that a funding mechanism, based on either requirements or incentives be established. The scope of the requirements and incentives may be restricted to state-owned highways. The need for innovative funding mechanisms is discussed in the "Local Planning and Community Advocacy" section.

Usage of Controlled-Access Highways

Key Findings and Issues

Ten percent or more of the pedestrian-vehicle crashes were fatal along seven state highway corridors in Utah between 1997 and 1999. Along three of the corridors, however, 24 percent or more of the pedestrian-vehicle crashes were fatal. All three of those corridors were freeways.

Policies, Plans and Actions

The SPBP indicates that regulations regarding pedestrian usage of freeways have evolved. Whereas in 1970 pedestrians were prohibited from using interstate freeways, today statutes do not prohibit such usage. The SPBP states that a pedestrian using the shoulder of a controlled-access highway (or any roadway) is not afforded the same legal protection as a pedestrian using a sidewalk or crosswalk. UDOT policy issue F.02 in the SPBP suggests that restrictions on pedestrian usage of highways consider the availability of alternative routes.

Recommendations

The following freeway corridors featured the highest ratios of pedestrian fatalities to pedestrian-vehicle crashes (0.24 to 0.38) in Utah between 1997 and 1999. It is suggested that these corridors be considered for pedestrian safety management strategies. It is possible that some of the fatally-injured pedestrians were construction or maintenance workers. These corridors are:

• I-15: Provo-Orem boundary to Perry (91.9 miles)
• I-80: Tooele interchange to I-84 interchange (88.9 miles)
• I-215: 3900 South interchange to 2200 North interchange (24.3 miles)

It is evident that the high speeds of travel on these freeways contribute to the high likelihood of a pedestrian fatality in the event of a motor vehicle collision. In California, a special warning sign is posted along freeway segments that see intermittent pedestrian crossings. The sign is shown in Figure 1. These signs alert motorists to the possibility of pedestrian activity where it would not otherwise be expected. The impact of these signs on pedestrian safety is unknown. The installation of such signage, however, is recommended for freeway sites or segments that witness recurring pedestrian incidents. It is recognized that these signs must be applied carefully, to avoid the encouragement of pedestrian crossings at high-speed locations.