<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>Don’t Push the Red Button: A Case Against Manual Pedestrian Detection in Urban Areas</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1414306</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Traffic lights in urban transport systems are often designed to take into account the situation on the road, i.e. detect vehicles and optimize road traffic flow. A wide variety of methods is employed to detect vehicles - from cameras through induction loops to laser radars. However, pedestrians are usually left with the rather antiquated method of pressing a button. Such an approach can generate a number of problems, especially if the light settings are based on the premise that manual and automatic activation of lights are equally effective, i.e. that every pedestrian will by default press the button at the moment s/he approaches the crossing. Such an assumption (one of several made when installing pedestrian buttons) is false due to a number of factors. These include the need for the pedestrian to: identify that the lights need to be activated (which is the case at only selected crossings), find a push button, walk up to it and activate it. Another assumption is that the pedestrian will wait until the light changes to cross the road, regardless of the situation on the intersection. While this has been shown to be a false premise in the past, it is particularly unlikely to hold true when the pedestrian sees that parallel traffic streams have a green light while s/he has a red one (due to not pressing a button or pressing it too late). Additional problems may stem from inadequate accessibility of the buttons, the insufficient number or noticeability thereof, or their being situated off the default (shortest) path. While pedestrian buttons are often treated as a default solution, manual detection is in fact a way of reducing the attractiveness and effectiveness of walking as a mode of transport. This may not be obvious, but it is enough to imagine a pedestrian forced to go through the process delineated above (having to identify whether the lights will not change by themselves, if so - looking around for a way of activating them, moving to a given point where the lights can be activated, waiting for them to change, then going back to the track which was leading from the source of his/her journey to the destination) - at every intersection - to see that they are in fact a problem.  The paper presents a discussion of approaches to the activation of pedestrian lights based on the situation in Poland, with particular focus on Warsaw, where field research was conducted. The problems outlined above are quantified and possible solutions thereto are suggested.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2016 16:24:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1414306</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>To Go or Not To Go: Pedestrian Behavior at Intersections with Standard Pedestrian Call Buttons</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1236816</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Pedestrian safety is a major concern at signalized intersections because of an increased likelihood of pedestrian–vehicle conflicts. The objective of this study was to examine the factors possibly influencing the likelihood that a pedestrian would cross against the signal at an intersection. In Seattle, Washington, 800 pedestrians were observed at six intersections. Examined factors included gender, weather, the number of times the call button was pushed, the impact of other pedestrians at the crosswalk, and whether pedestrians returned to push the button. The model was also adjusted for differences in each intersection attributable to volume-to-capacity ratio, cycle lengths, and location. The findings from a logistic regression model showed that females were more likely to wait for a “Walk” signal than were males and that people were more likely to wait for a “Walk” signal when other pedestrians were at the intersection. Pedestrians were more likely to wait for the light to indicate the “Walk” signal if they pushed the button. This study suggests that the type of pedestrian call buttons placed at intersections may need to be tailored to the location and to the willingness of individuals to trust that the push button will activate a green pedestrian signal. Therefore, feedback on whether the push button is activated could be quite useful and should be further explored.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2013 13:55:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1236816</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Guidance for cost-effective selection of pavement marking materials for work zones</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1106498</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Pavement markings provide important information to motorists, especially in a work zone environment where alignments are often changed from what is typical. Unlike normal roadway applications, work zone pavement markings are often placed on the roadway for a limited period of time, such as during an interim phase of construction. The performance and total cost for each material may vary greatly depending on a number of factors, such as traffic volume, surface type, and project duration. The objective of this study is to develop a systematic approach to provide practitioners with objective guidance for selecting cost-effective pavement marking materials for work zones that meet specific performance requirements. A Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analyses were conducted to establish a cost-based decision support guidance given a set of factors influencing the performance of marking materials. Four types of materials considered in this study were paint, thermoplastics, temporary tapes, and traffic buttons. The analysis results indicated that traffic buttons perform slightly better at shorter phase durations and moderate traffic levels on the concrete surface. The use of thermoplastics was recommended as the lowest-cost alternative only on the asphalt surface with moderate project durations and traffic levels. Paint markings are recommended for short-duration projects regardless of traffic conditions or pavement surfaces.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:27:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1106498</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Pedestrians and Bicycles</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/798458</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This Transportation Research Record contains 24 papers on the subject of pedestrians and bicycles.  Specific topics addressed include the following:  yielding to pedestrians at unsignalized intersections; accessible pedestrian signals; pedestrian walking speed; pedestrian clearance intervals; neighborhood walkability; pedestrian flow modeling; driver and pedestrian comprehension of permissive left turns; pedestrian safety at intersections; pedestrian level-of-service of urban arterials with sidewalks; pedestrian accident causes; pedestrian push-button confirmation; pedestrian level-of-service in an urban resort district; midblock pedestrian-vehicle crashes; walking speed on unidirectional walkway and bidirectional stairway; pedestrian gap-acceptance behavior; pedestrian crossing locations, light conditions, and injury severity; pedestrian safety in numbers; pedestrian, bicyclist, and motorist behaviors at roundabouts; estimating bicycle usage; avoiding biased interpretation of bicycle surveys; estimating cycling demand for work or study trips; bicycle sidepath design; and a bicycle and pedestrian detection and classification algorithm for active-infrared overhead vehicle imaging sensors.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:02:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/798458</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Field Comparison of Two Types of Accessible Pedestrian Signals</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/781252</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The effects of two types of accessible pedestrian signals on the street-crossing behaviors of 24 totally blind participants were directly compared in this research. One accessible pedestrian signal (APS) used a sound generator and vibrating hardware, which were integrated into the pedestrian push button (the Polara device). These sounds were heard from the near vicinity of the push button, and a different message or repetition rate was used to indicate the “Walk” interval. The second APS used pulsing light-emitting diodes to illuminate the message in the pedestrian signal head to transmit a message to a handheld receiver carried by the blind traveler (the Relume device). The handheld receiver provided a “Walk” or “Wait” message, designated by variable tones, which was audible only to the user. A control condition consisted of crossing without any APS device. Data were collected on crossing speed, the latency from the start of the walk and entering the crosswalk, the number of cycles missed, and the accuracy of the crossing. The results indicated that the time to cross the street was significantly shorter when participants used the handheld device than when they used the audible push-button device or crossed without any APS. There was no significant difference in crossing times between participants who used the audible push-button device and those who crossed without an APS under the control condition. The latency to start crossing was significantly faster when the participants used the handheld device than when they used the audible push button or crossed without an APS under the control condition. The number of missed cycles was significantly lower when the participant used either APS device than when the participant crossed without an APS device, and there was no difference in the number of missed cycles between the two APS devices.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2006 11:54:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/781252</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Accessible Pedestrian Signals: The Effect of Push-Button Location and Audible “Walk” Indications on Pedestrian Behavior</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/781249</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Push-button–integrated accessible pedestrian signals (APSs) provide audible information from the push-button housing on both the location of the push button and the onset of walk intervals. APS systems must provide clear, unambiguous information on which crosswalk has the walk interval. Push buttons in the United States, including push-button–integrated APSs, are inconsistently located, and APSs do not use consistent sounds to convey the “Walk” indication. The present research (NCHRP Project 3-62) investigated the effects of push-button placement and the type of audible “Walk” indication on visually or cognitively impaired participants’ ability to determine which of two streets had the “Walk” signal. Participants performed this task most quickly and most accurately when each push-button–integrated APS was mounted on its own pole, the poles were placed along the outer line (farthest from the center of the intersection) of the associated crosswalk, each pole was located within a few feet of the curb, and the audible “Walk” indication from each APS was a fast tick (percussive sound) at 10 repetitions per second. The results further indicate that where two push buttons are installed on a single pole, verbal “Walk” messages (e.g., “Seventh; walk sign is on to cross Seventh”) result in greater accuracy than two different sounds (fast tick and cuckoo) to signal the two crossings.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2006 11:54:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/781249</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Determination of Pedestrian Push-Button Activation Duration at Typical Signalized Intersections</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/781248</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Recent advances in pedestrian push-button design, led by the development of accessible pedestrian signals (APSs), have created a new method of communicating traffic control information to pedestrians. Some APS devices have beaconing features or verbal (speech) message capabilities obtained by pressing and holding the pedestrian push button for approximately 3 s. Other features, such as the extension of the walk interval, may also be activated with an extended press of the push button. Recent research has suggested that 3 s may be excessive because it is hard for some users to hold the push button for this long. Additionally, most pedestrians may not hold the push button for this length of time. The problem lies in determining how long the APS push button should be pressed for a push-button information message or special accessibility features to be obtained. The primary objective of the research described in this paper was to develop a time distribution of typical pedestrian push-button activation durations. Data were obtained by attaching a voltage recorder to the pedestrian push-button circuit inside traffic signal controllers at eight locations in three cities in Wisconsin and Massachusetts. This device recorded the amount of time, to the nearest 1/100 of a second, that each pedestrian push button was pressed. A total of 1,439 push-button presses were recorded. The average push-button press duration was 0.2 s. More than 95% of all push-button presses recorded were less than 1.0 s. Only four push-button presses exceeded 3.0 s. The results show that the duration of an extended push-button press needed to obtain additional crossing information can be reduced to approximately 1 s without a significant number of false calls. A 1-s press will minimize the effort required for pedestrians to actuate special accessible features, while it will minimize unnecessary noise and vehicular traffic disruption.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2006 11:54:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/781248</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Accessible Pedestrian Signals: Effect of Device Features</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/777250</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The U.S. Access Board’s "Draft Guidelines for Accessible Public Rights-of-Way" recommends the use of push-button-integrated accessible pedestrian signals (APSs). This research compared the effect of specific features of push-button-integrated APSs on the ability of blind pedestrians to locate and correctly use push buttons and to cross accurately during the pedestrian phase. A rapid-tick walk signal promoted the fastest onset of crossing compared with speech messages and bird calls and is therefore the preferred signal. However, speech walk indications are needed where two APSs are mounted on the same pole. Although variations in the standard features made little difference to users who were thoroughly familiar with devices, empirical evidence from participants with less knowledge of the devices as well as subjective data lead to the recommendation that APS devices include a push-button locator tone, a rounded push button with an activation tone or message, a tactile arrow incorporated into the push button, responsiveness to ambient sound, and a push-button information message and beaconing in response to an extended button press.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:52:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/777250</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SERVICE LIFE OF BUTTON SIGN COPY</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/50559</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Both prismatic-button and reflective-sheeting legend materials are used for copy on New York's signs. Enclused-lens sheeting ("engineer" grade), used in the past, is shorter-lived and less bright than buttons; recently introduced encapsulated-lens sheeting ("high-intensity" grade) is a serious contender to buttons in this application.  This study was undertaken to determine button copy service life on New York's highways.  The findings showed 1) that button copy provides acceptable brightness for about 12 years, 2) by 12 years nearly all buttons have cracked to some degree, resulting in reduced brightness, 3) clearcoating, found on 10 percent of the buttons, causes an unacceptable loss of brightness, 4) deterioration of copy frames was usually slight and did not impair daytime legibility (those damaged to the extent that buttons were lost did lose nighttime legibility), 5) sign directional orientation did not appear to affect service life, 6) dirt accumulation and its effects on brightness were negligibile, and 7) at high angularity )large divergence and incidence angles) button reflectivity was less sensitive to age.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/50559</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>AN EVALUATION OF ILLUMINATED PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS IN WINDSOR, ONTARIO</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/690485</link>
      <description><![CDATA[At many intersections, pedestrians must push buttons to activate the Walk phase.  However, they often do not know whether the button has been pressed and whether it is functional.  If the Walk phase does not appear soon after the button has been pressed, they may believe that the button does not work and start crossing early, while the steady Don't Walk is still being displayed.  When a pedestrian presses an illuminated push button, a light near the button turns on, indicating that the Walk phase has been activated and will appear.  The objective of this study is to evaluate the effects of illuminated push buttons on pedestrian behavior.  In general, illuminated push buttons did not have a statistically significant effect on how often the pedestrian phases were activated, how many people pushed the button, how many people complied with the Walk phase, or such pedestrian behaviors as running, aborted crossings, and hesitation before crossing.  Only 17% and 13% of pedestrians pushed the button in the "before" and "after" periods, respectively.  In both the before and after periods, someone pushed the button in 32% of signal cycles with pedestrians.  The majority of pedestrians (67.8% with, and 72.3% without illuminated push buttons) who arrived when parallel traffic had the red and who pushed the button complied with the Walk phase.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2001 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/690485</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>BUTTON VS TAPE: FIELD PERFORMANCE STUDY AND RESEARCH FINDINGS OF ALTERNATIVE DELINEATOR MARKERS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/679781</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Following is a technical research report prepared by the research division on the subject of delineator markers and their field performance.  This report summarizes a one-year experimental field study conducted with the assistance of the maintenance division.  Performance history is discussed and a draft standard drawing (prepared by traffic and safety division) is submitted for review and discussion.  The purpose for this project was to find a faster and better method to install delineator markers; and to find alternative methods of marker installation which would last longer.  A literature search was performed to find other significant research on this subject. Also, a nationwide questionnaire survey was solicited.  From this research the concept of "target plates" and "target cylinders" was proposed to be installed as an experimental test section.  During July 1996 various brands of reflective sheeting and prismatic buttons were installed on I-215 in Salt Lake county and on I-70 in Salina canyon.  Performance data was collected and professional opinions taken from maintenance employees.  Research recommendations include: (1) use of 4"x4" target plate riveted to post, (2) contracting with traffic material suppliers to procure sheeting with greater retroreflective specific intensity, (3) use of plastic or metal target plates, (4) standard drawing for target plates.  (5) Target cylinders are not recommended for use.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2001 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/679781</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>AUTOMATED DETECTION OF PEDESTRIANS IN CONJUNCTION WITH STANDARD PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/667804</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Automated pedestrian detection systems provide the means to detect the presence of pedestrians as they approach the curb prior to crossing the street, and then these systems call the Walk signal without any action required on the part of the pedestrians.  These detectors can also extend the clearance interval in order to allow slower persons to finish crossing. Whether automated pedestrian detectors, when used in conjunction with standard pedestrian push buttons, would result in fewer overall pedestrian-vehicle conflicts and fewer inappropriate crossings (i.e., pedestrians' beginning to cross during a Don't Walk signal) was evaluated.  Before and after video data were collected at intersection locations in Los Angeles, California (infrared and microwave), Phoenix, Arizona (microwave), and Rochester, New York (microwave).  The results indicated a significant reduction in vehicle-pedestrian conflicts, as well as a reduction in the number of pedestrians beginning to cross during the Don't Walk signal.  The differences between microwave and infrared detectors were not significant.  Detailed field testing of the microwave equipment in Phoenix revealed that fine-tuning of the detection zone is still needed in order to reduce the number of false calls and missed calls.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/667804</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>LOCATOR TONES FOR PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/667805</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The two primary problems experienced by visually impaired persons at pedestrian-actuated intersections are determining whether there is a push-button and locating the push button. Many countries use accessible pedestrian signals much more widely than has been done in the United States, and a number of these--including Australia, Hong Kong, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, and Austria--routinely require the use of a locator tone.  Typically emanating from the push-button housing, a push-button locator tone indicates to pedestrians that they are expected to push a button to request a pedestrian phase.  It enables visually impaired pedestrians to locate the push button quickly and efficiently.  Research was undertaken to determine the effect of locator tone repetition rate on efficiency of pedestrians' location of the push-button pole.  Repetition rates of 1.0 and 1.5 Hz resulted in equal pole location speed, faster than that for the 0.5 Hz repetition rate, and were preferred over the 0.5 Hz repetition rate.  Locator tones 2 dB above ambient sound resulted in faster pole location than did tones 5 dB and 10 dB above ambient sound.  Push-button locator tones should have a standardized repetition rate between 1.0 Hz and 1.2 Hz so that it may be ensured that visually impaired pedestrians can efficiently locate push buttons.  Locator tones need be no more than 5 dB louder than ambient traffic sound.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/667805</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>MONITORING PREVENTION OF SINGLE VEHICLE RUN-OFF-THE-ROAD ACCIDENTS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/477965</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The principal objective of this study was to monitor existing sections of rural, multi-lane, divided highway in Texas that have received shoulder treatments designed to mitigate single vehicle run-off-the-road (SVROR) accidents.  The study evaluated SVROR accidents over an 8-year period, 1987-1994.  Statistical analyses of the pre- and post-treatment accident data indicated that SVROR accidents do occur on certain highway control sections at a rate suggestive of a potential problem.  Control sections can be evaluated for degree of SVROR problem potential by computing z scores for that particular highway control section and evaluating if the value exceeds 85% of the values of all other control sections over a period of several years. Highway control sections exhibiting a value above the 0.85 z score can be identified in the majority of those Texas control sections that received shoulder mitigation during the period 1989-1994; treated sections were not constructed prior to 1989. Two factors were found to influence the z score and evaluation of a control section:  very short highway control sections with SVROR accidents tend to inflate the z score and highway control sections with very high ADT and SVROR accidents tend to deflate the z score.  Discounting single years of unusually large numbers of SVROR accidents in a control section, comparative analyses of treated highway control sections and adjacent non-treated comparable highway control sections without treatments demonstrated a significant reduction in SVROR accidents as a result of some type of shoulder treatment. Analysis did not definitively identify particular types of shoulder treatments as being more effective than others. However, depressed grooves formed by milling are recommended as the best treatment in sections constructed in PCC and HMAC pavements, particularly in snow-removal regions.  Rolled-in grooves, using bars welded to a steel wheel roller, are recommended as the alternative to milled-in grooves.  One hundred-mm diameter non-reflectorized traffic buttons placed at 1.5 m intervals parallel to and offset 150 to 300 mm from the driving lane edge line are recommended for "chip-and-seal" type of shoulder paving or in other situations where milled or depressed grooves are not feasible.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/477965</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>EXPERIMENTAL PAVEMENT MARKINGS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/107992</link>
      <description><![CDATA[TRAFFIC LANE STRIPING MATERIALS INCLUDING HOT-APPLIED THERMOPLASTICS, PREFORMED PLASTICS, PRECAST BUTTONS, AND ARKANSAS STANDARD PAINT WERE EVALUATED FOR DURABILITY AND RELATIVE ECONOMY AND OBSERVED OVER A PERIOD OF 2 YEARS ON A 2 1/2 MILE SECTION OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY IN ARKANSAS, THAT INCLUDED CONCRETE AND BITUMINOUS SURFACES. IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT PRECAST BUTTONS AND PREFORMED PLASTICS DID NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE DURABILITY BECAUSE OF POOR ADHESION TO CONCRETE SURFACES. IT WAS FURTHER CONCLUDED THAT THERMOPLASTIC MATERIALS, AS COMPARED TO STANDARD PAINT, ARE ECONOMICALLY JUSTIFIED WHERE TRAFFIC DENSITY EXCEEDS 6000 VEHICLES PER DAY. /BPR/]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 1994 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/107992</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>