The following list responds to the need we have often heard that there is no central repository for guidance documents and research on pedestrian design and traffic calming. We welcome additional reviews or recommendations of other publications from professionals in the field.
The following valuable resources were obtained from www.walkinginfo.org, which is made available by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center:
Herms, Bruce. 1972. Pedestrian Crosswalk Study: Accidents in Painted and Unpainted Crosswalks, Transportation Research Record No. 406, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
This oft-quoted, and usually misinterpreted study examined the pedestrian crash rates of painted versus unpainted crosswalks in San Diego. Herms' speculation that painted crosswalks confer a "false sense of security" and therefore cause higher pedestrian crash rates has been disproven by more detailed and larger studies. Still the paper serves as a warning not to paint a crosswalk without carefully considering whether the location will require additional safety features to make crossing safe.
Knoblauch, R.L., Nitzburg, M., and Seifert, R.F., 1999. Pedestrian Crosswalk Case Studies, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
This study examined the behavior of pedestrians and motorists as the pedestrians crossed in painted and unpainted crosswalks. Pedestrians were found to be no more or less cautious in the two situations, while motorists were more cautious where there was a painted crosswalk. These results contradict the speculation of Herms (1972) that crosswalks provide a "false sense of security" to pedestrians, causing them to relax caution while crossing a street.
Zegeer, Charles, J. Richard Stewart, Herman H. Huang, and Peter A. Lagerwey. 2002. Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
To quote from this report's abstract: "The study results revealed that on two-lane roads, the presence of a marked crosswalk alone at an uncontrolled location was associated with no difference in pedestrian crash rate, compared to an unmarked crosswalk. Further, on multi-lane roads with traffic volumes above about 12,000 vehicles per day, having a marked crosswalk alone (without other substantial improvements) was associated with a higher pedestrian crash rate (after controlling for other site factors) compared to an unmarked crosswalk. Raised medians provided significantly lower pedestrian crash rates on multi-lane roads, compared to roads with no raised median. Older pedestrians had crashes that were high relative to their crossing exposure. More substantial improvements were recommended to provide for safer pedestrian crossings on certain roads, such as adding traffic signals with pedestrian signals when warranted, providing raised medians, speed-reducing measures, and others."
Nolan, Robert. 2003. Traffic fatalities and injuries: the effect of changes in infrastructure and other trends. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35 (2003): 599-611.
This seminal study examined thousands of crashes in all 50 states over a 14-year period. The statistical model eliminated a bias inherent in similar studies by accounting for all known crash factors. The results show that typical "safety" improvements such as adding and widening lanes have actually increased rather than decreased injuries and fatalities. Such improvements tend to increase speed and simplify the driving task, possibly making drivers less cautious. Measured crash reductions are rather due to seat belt use, better medical care, reduced alcohol consumption, and increased average age of drivers.
Litman, Todd. 2004. Whose Roads? Defining Bicyclists' and Pedestrians' Right to Use Public Roadways, Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Downloadable at http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf
Many people believe that non-motorized modes (walking, cycling, and their variations) have an inferior right to use public roads compared with motor vehicles. This reflects the belief that motor vehicles are more important to society than non-motorized modes, and that roads are funded by motorists. This paper investigates these assumptions. It finds that non-motorized modes have the legal right to use public roads, that non-motorized modes provide significant transportation benefits, and pedestrians and cyclists pay a significant share of roadway costs. Although motorist user fees (fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees) fund most highway expenses, funding for local roads (the roads pedestrians and cyclists use most) originates mainly from general taxes. Since bicycling and walking impose lower roadway costs than motorized modes, people who rely primarily on non-motorized modes tend to overpay their fair share of roadway costs and subsidize motorists.
Homburger, W. Deakin, E. Bosselmann, R. Smith, and Beukers. 1989. Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).
Residential Streets, 3rd Edition, American Society of Civil Engineers, ITE, National Association of Home Builders, and the Urban Land Institute, 2001.
Traditional Neighborhood Development: Street Design Guidelines, ITE 1999.
Peter Swift, P. E., Dan Painter, AICP, Matthew Goldstein
This paper compared accident frequency rates on streets of different widths in Longmont, Colorado. It revealed a dramatic increase in injury accident frequency as street width increases. By far, the safest residential street width was 24'. This finding calls into question the standard 36'-40' widths typical in the San Diego region.
Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities, ITE & Congress for New Urbanism. 2006.
The 255-page draft manual, released in March 2006 as proposed guidance pending further comments, is titled "Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities." Recognizing the place for cars, transit, bikes and pedestrians on arterial and collector streets, it gives planners and designers guidance for interpreting existing American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) "Green Book" policy. View the manual at no cost or order it for $30 at www.cnu.org.
Design examples include a high-capacity thoroughfare in an urbanizing area; creating a retail-oriented main street; transforming a suburban arterial; and converting a central business district from four to three lanes. Topics include on-street parking configuration and width; mid-block crossings and pedestrian refuge islands; snow removal; curb return radii; and modern roundabouts.
Burden, Dan, with Michael Wallwork, Ken Sides, Ramon Trias, and Harrison Bright Rue. 1999. Street Design Guidelines for Healthy Neighborhoods, Local Government Commission Center for Livable Communities.
Dan Burden and his team examined streets in older, traditional neighborhoods, specifically those that seem to serve traffic effectively while encouraging low speeds and safety for other users. The result is this deceptively simple guidebook for every type of street imaginable, most of which are narrower and far safer than conventional standards allow.
San Diego Association of Governments, 2002. Planning and Designing for Pedestrians: Model Guidelines for the San Diego Region. Community Design + Architecture, Inc. and W-Trans.
WalkSanDiego. 2003. Slow Down! Taming Neighborhood Traffic. Produced in cooperation with the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, and the California Center for Injury Prevention. Order form on WalkSanDiego.org Home Page.
Burden, Dan and Paul Zykovsky. 2001. Emergency Response: Traffic Calming and Traditional Neighborhood Streets. Walkable Communities, Inc. and Local Government Commission, Center for Livable Communities. Order from the Local Government Commission, www.lgc.org.
Burden, Dan. 2000. Streets and Sidewalks, People and Cars: The Citizen's Guide to Traffic Calming, Local Government Commission, Center for Livable Communities.
City of Encinitas. 2003. Traffic Calming Guidelines
City of Carlsbad. 2001. Residential Traffic Management Program. Available from the Carlsbad Engineering Department, Transportation Division. Phone (760) 602-2752.
City of San Diego. 2006. Traffic Calming Program Handbook, prepared by Fehr and Peers and Katz Okitsu and Associates.