Simplified Methodology for the Evaluation
of Pedestrian Safety in School Zones
This paper presents a FACTORS OF PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
A total of 4,248 pedestrians were killed
simplified methodology and 67,000 were injured in 2007 as a
consequence of a road crash in the United
that facilitates the States (NHTSA, 2008). The Common-
wealth of Puerto Rico had 144 pedestrian
safety evaluation fatalities in 2007, equal to 31.9 percent of
all road fatalities. The pedestrian fatality
of school zones by rate in Puerto Rico of 3.65 fatalities per
100,000 people was the highest in the
assessing the condition United States in 2007, followed by Wash-
ington, DC (3.23), Florida (2.91), New
of the pedestrian Mexico (2.64) and Louisiana (2.49).
The most common pedestrian ac-
infrastructure and the tions associated with road fatalities in the
United States were making an improper
traffic control devices crossing of an intersection or roadway
segment (20.7 percent); walking, playing,
and analyzing traffic working and so forth in the roadway (18.3
percent), failure to yield to vehicles (16.3
and pedestrian behavior. percent), not being visible (10.6 percent)
and darting or running into the road
(9.7percent) (NHTSA, 2008). MAPFRE
(2005) identified the primary factors as-
sociated with pedestrian crashes in the city
of Madrid, Spain, as the following
Pedestrian actions at the time of the
crash. Forty percent of crashes were related
to an action or omission on the part of the
pedestrian when crossing the roadway in
nonauthorized locations. The most frequent
violations were not using the crosswalks,
crossing the road inadequately and not fol-
lowing the traffic signal at an intersection.
Conditions of the road environment.
The roadway illumination and the weather
conditions play a major role, particularly
affecting the visibility of pedestrians.
Characteristics
By Alberto M. Figueroa Medina, Ph.D., P.E. of the road users.
María F. Alegría Velasco, MECE and Persons older than 65
Didier M. Valdés Díaz, Ph.D. years old tend to ex-
hibit diminished mo-
bility and perceptive capabilities that limit
their ability to properly perceive, react and
avoid a possible hazardous situation. In the
case of children, the perception of traffic
is altered by biological and psychological
36
conditions—often exhibited by entering
the roadway in a sudden movement or by
not following the road rules.
Characteristics of the road design.
The deficiencies on the road design (e.g.
intersections, pedestrian facilities) and
particular pedestrian attraction points
near the roadway (e.g. bus stops) need to
be carefully analyzed for improvements.
Mitman and Ragland (2007) con-
cluded that the behavior of pedestrians
and drivers depends upon their knowledge
about the traffic rules that control their
interaction on the road and that road users
have limited knowledge about the right-
of-way prioritization in crossing maneu-
vers, especially in unmarked crossings.
SAFETY IN SCHOOL ZONES
School zones are typically high pe-
destrian areas, particularly with children
and young people walking in groups or
individually without adult supervision.
These groups of pedestrians might exhibit
unpredictable behavior and take more
risks when walking or crossing the road.
MAPFRE (2005) indicates that young
people tend to overestimate their skills,
perceive inadequately the risks on the road
and are more susceptible to peer pressure
when making decisions.
The relationship between the school
infrastructure, the sidewalks and the pe-
destrian crossings determine the comfort
and safety level of pedestrian and cyclists in
school zones. Cynecky and Brownlee (2007)
identified aspects of school zones that should
be considered to reduce the trend of lack of
walking and bicycling of students and ease
traffic issues around school zones:
• School location must be carefully
planned to reduce trip distances for
pedestrians and bicyclists;
• Provide proper sidewalk widths;
• Provide control for heavy traffic
conditions around school zones, par-
ticularly in roadway crossings near
elementary schools;
ITE Journal / June 2010
 • Student drop-off areas for school buses
and parents must be separated; and
• Provide parking for school visitors,
staff and parents to avoid vehicles
parked on illegal spots.

The Safe Routes to School (SRTS)

program implemented by the FHWA has
the goal of increasing the health of school
children and youth by promoting the cre-
ation of safe routes and environments that
support walking or bicycling as a trans-
portation mode to go to school (FHWA,
2008) The program encourages state and
local agencies to perform the necessary
infrastructure improvements and establish
educational activities to support the SRTS
goals. The identification of the strengths
and areas for improvement in the school
areas is an essential element for the con-
sideration of recommendations and infra-
structure improvements under the SRTS
program. These safety efforts have been
fundamental elements of SAFETEA-LU
(Marchetti et al., 2007).
The city of Pasadena, California, USA,
developed school route maps and traffic
control plans for 19 elementary and inter-
mediate schools to educate parents and stu-
dents about the adequate routes for walking
to the schools (Yee et al., 2007). The study
observed that 64 percent and 57 percent
of students travel to/from the school by
private motor vehicles in the morning and
the afternoon, respectively. Walking was
the preferred transportation mode for 31
percent and 38 percent of the students in Figure 1. Methodology for the evaluation of pedestrian safety in school zones.
the morning and afternoon, respectively,
while the rest of the students travel by isting safety issues related to the traffic or selected as part of a periodic road mainte-
school bus, public bus, or other modes. pedestrian behavior. This procedure is rec- nance plan. Also, particular school zones
Suggestions included improvements in ommended for cities and small counties with a significant crash record or safety
traffic control devices and signalization or jurisdictions, particularly those without issues with pedestrians can be selected
consistent with the Manual on Uniform a transportation engineer on staff. The in- for evaluation.
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). tent is to apply the procedure as a comple- The second activity includes the col-
ment in the identification and evaluation lection of the school characteristics and
OBJECTIVE of safe pedestrian routes to schools. The student enrollment, its surroundings and
The objective of this paper is to pres- procedure can also serve as an initial safety infrastructure and the characteristics of
ent a simplified procedure to assess the analysis or stage prior to requiring the the adjacent roads. A field form was de-
condition of existing pedestrian facilities development of a road safety audit. veloped to record information about the
and road infrastructure in school zones. pedestrian facilities, the traffic control de-
The goal for the procedure is to be easy to METHODOLOGY FOR THE vices, the general road characteristics and
implement and serve as a straightforward EVALUATION OF PEDESTRIAN SAFETY observations of the traffic and pedestrian
tool for the inventory and evaluation of The process for the evaluation of the behavior. The observations can be com-
the condition of traffic control devices, school pedestrian facilities is shown in plemented with photographs of the signs,
roadway characteristics and pedestrian Figure 1. The first activity is the identifi- pavement markings, pedestrian crossings,
facilities near schools and to identify ex- cation of the school zones. Schools can be sidewalks and other relevant features.

ITE Journal / June 2010  37

 FIELD FORM FOR PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES IN SCHOOL ZONES Section 2: Adjacent Roadway Information Road 1 Road 2
Road Number / Name
Section 1: School Information
major arterial / minor arterial major arterial / minor
1. Name:_ _______________________________________________________ Road Class / collector / local arterial / collector / local
2. Academic Level: Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)
High School (10-12) Middle (7-9) Elementary (1-6) Kinder Posted Speed Limit
3. Private Public Number of Lanes per Direction
4. Student Enrollment:____________________________________________ Section 3:Pedestrian Facilities Road 1 Road 2
5. Area: Urban Suburban Rural Direction (North / South / East / West) N/S/E/W N/S/E/W N/S/E/W N/S/E/W
6. Location /Neighborhood: ________________________________________
Parallel On-street Parking Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No
7. City / Municipality:_____________________________________________
8. School Director:________________________________________________ Diagonal On-street Parking Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No
9. Contact Info:___________________________________________________
Perpendicular On-street Parking Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No
10. Sketch / plan of the study area
School Bus Stops / Parking Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No
Shoulder Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No
Sidewalk Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No
Sidewalk Width (Suggested 5 ft – 7 ft)
Sidewalk Condition D/R/E D/R/E D/R/E D/R/E
(Deficient / Regular / Excellent)
ADA Wheelchair Ramps Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No
Ramp Width (Suggested min. 3 ft)
Ramp Longitudinal Slope
(Suggested 1:12 = 8.3%)
Ramp meets ADA Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No
Pedestrian Bridge Yes / No Yes / No
Pedestrian Signals at Intersection/Crossing Yes / No Yes / No

Figure 2. Form section 1—school information. Figure 3. Form sections 2 and 3—adjacent roadway information and pedestrian facilities.

An analysis of the crash history from
at least three consecutive years can be
performed prior to collecting the data
from the school zone to identify trends
and factors of pedestrian crashes. The
integrated analysis of the crash data and
the information collected are used to
perform the evaluation of the pedestrian
safety in the school zone and to make
recommendations and propose safety
countermeasures.
The inventory form consists of five
sections to assess the pedestrian infra-
structure and traffic control devices in
the school zone. A description of each of
the five sections follows.
Section 1: Information about the School
This section (Figure 2) includes infor-
mation about the school and a sketch or
plan view of the surrounding area to show
relevant features of the school zone, such
as the location of roadway signs and the
pedestrian crossings.
Section 2: Information about the Access
Roads to the School
This section (Figure 3) requires infor-
mation about the streets and roads that
provide primary access to the school. The
form is divided in two columns to include
information from two roadways.
Section 3: Dimensions of Roadway Cross-
Section and Condition of Pedestrian Facilities
The information recorded in this sec-
tion (Figure 3) includes measurements of
the roadway cross-section, sidewalks and
wheelchair ramps, as well as observations
about the traffic control devices, parking,
bus stops and other aspects of roadway and
pedestrian facilities. The data are recorded
by traffic direction. Wheelchair ramps di-
mensions must follow the American with
Disabilities Act (ADA) standards.
The evaluation of the condition of the
sidewalks is performed using the follow-
ing categories:
• Deficient: Sidewalk does not have
the suggested minimum width of
5 feet, or contains fixed obstacles,
such as poles or trees, that make the
effective sidewalk width less than
the suggested minimum width. Side-
walks with a drop off of 3 inches or
higher between contiguous blocks
or with holes, raised concrete pieces,
or surface deformations present a
hazard to pedestrians or obstacle to
wheelchairs.
• Regular: Sidewalk has the suggested
minimum width of 5 feet, with no
fixed objects that could present a haz-
ard to pedestrians. Sidewalks with
drop offs less than 3 inches between
contiguous blocks or with minor sur-
face deformations.
• Excellent: Sidewalk with an effec-
tive width of 5 feet or more, with no
drop offs between contiguous blocks,
no surface deformations, no broken
blocks and no obstacles that affect
the sidewalk effective width, comfort
and safety of the pedestrian.
Section 4: Presence and Condition of
Traffic Control Devices
The evaluation of the condition of the
traffic control devices was performed us-
ing the standards and guidelines included
in Part 7 of the MUTCD 2003 (FHWA,
2007). The form was developed prior to
the publication of the MUTCD 2009,
but the form can be easily updated to
meet the rules for traffic control devices
in school zones. The evaluation includes
size, color, letter height, retroreflectivity,
and location of signs. Figure 4 shows sec-
tion 4 of the data form.
Section 5: Additional Information and
Studies
Other forms were developed for the
observations of the traffic and pedestrian
behavior in the school zone. A spot speed
study of the traffic along the school zone
is recommended to identify the percent-

38 ITE Journal / June 2010

age of vehicles going at a speed higher
Section 4: Traffic Control Devices
than the posted speed limit at the school
zone to establish adequate enforcement or A. PAVEMENT MARKINGS Road 1 Road 2

engineering countermeasures. The speed Pedestrian Crossing Yes / No Yes / No

data form is similar to the one provided in Crossing Line Width

____________ ft ____________ ft
(Standard width from 0.5 ft to 2 ft)
the Manual of Traffic Engineering Studies
Crossing Line – White Color Yes / No Yes / No
(ITE, 2000).
STOP Line Yes / No Yes / No
Observational studies of the pedestrian
behavior at the school midblock cross- YIELD Line / Symbol Yes / No Yes / No

ing or at a signalized intersection located Pavement Symbol or Message / Yes / No Yes / No

Which? _____________________ _____________________
along the pedestrian routes that provide
access to the school are also recommended B. SCHOOL ZONE SIGNS Road: _____________________Direction: N / S / E / W
to identify patterns of unsafe behavior and
violations to traffic control devices or road
operation rules. The results from the ob- Presence of Required School Signs

servational studies can be used to imple-

Yes / No Yes / No
ment educational or engineering strategies
to improve the behavior of students and Location (Related to School Zone)
_____________________ ft ____________________ ft
the general public traveling around the Meets Sign Size
Yes / No Yes / No
school zone. (MUTCD Section 7B.01)

Figure 5 shows the data form devel- Retroreflective (MUTCD Section

7B.02)
Yes / No Yes / No
oped for the pedestrian observations at Retroreflectomer Measure ____________________ ______________________
midblock crossings. Figure 6 shows the
Meets Letter Height
data form developed for the pedestrian (MUTCD Section 7B.06)
Yes / No Yes / No

observations at signalized intersections. Meets Sign Color

Yes / No Yes / No
(MUTCD Section 7B.07)
The data is organized in periods of 5 min-
utes, and the data is divided into gender
and into school or general pedestrians.
Presence of
Optional Signs
RESULTS FROM EVALUATION OF
SELECTED SCHOOLS Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No
The procedure was applied to four Meets Sign Size Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No
urban school areas located in the city of Retroreflective Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No
Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. The results from
Retroreflectomer
the data collection and the integrated Measure
________ ________ ________ ________ ________

analysis are summarized here to demon- Meets Letter

strate the use of the procedure. Table 1
presents the general characteristics of the
four schools selected.
The evaluation results of the traffic
control devices and the pedestrian facili-
ties in the school zones are presented us-
ing a chromatic system. The color scheme
uses RED for a sign or feature that is not
present in the school zone, YELLOW for
a sign or a feature present in the school
zone but with a condition that does not
meet the standard or the suggested value
or practice, and GREEN for a sign or
feature that is present and complies with
the standard or the suggested value or
practice. For the chromatic system of the
school signs, the color WHITE is added
to evaluate optional signs that are not
considered necessary for the school zone
or for signs that can be applied either with
Yes / No
Height
Meets Sign Color Yes / No
Figure 4. Form section 4—traffic control devices.
a symbol or text message. For example,
if the S4-5 Reduced Speed School Zone
Ahead sign is present, the alternate sign
S4-5a with the text message is not needed
and a WHITE circle will be recorded.
Figure 7 shows the chromatic system re-
sults for the signs. Figure 8 shows the
chromatic system results for the pedes-
trian facilities.
Evaluation of Traffic Control Devices and
Pedestrian Facilities
The evaluation of the signs in the
school zones does not require that all
conditions show green in the chromatic
Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No
Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No
system to be in compliance with the
MUTCD Part 7 as not all school signs are
mandatory. In addition, jurisdictions can
have their own rules which may be stricter
than the MUTCD. From the chromatic
system can be observed that only the
School Speed Limit Assembly and the
School Advance Warning Assembly are
present. There are issues with the School
Speed Limit Assembly sign in two of the
schools and the School Advance Warn-
ing Assembly sign does not comply with
MUTCD in all four school zones. None
of the other warning signs is present in
the school zones.

ITE Journal / June 2010  39

 Section 5: Additional Information – Pedestrian Behavior at Mid-Block Crossings Section 5: Additional Information – Pedestrian Behavior at Signalized Intersections
Road: ____________________ Location: __________________________________ Road: ____________________ Location: __________________________________
Inspector: _________________ Date: ______________________________________ Inspector: _________________ Date: ______________________________________

SCHOOL PEDESTRIANS SCHOOL PEDESTRIANS

Uses Does Not Use Uses Pedestrian Crossing Does Not Use
Time Period Pedestrian Crossing Pedestrian Crossing Total Time Period During WALK During DON’T WALK Pedestrian Crossing Total
(min.) (min.)
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
5 5
10 10
15 15
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
40 40
45 45
50 50
55 55
60 60
Total Total
REGULAR PEDESTRIANS REGULAR PEDESTRIANS
Time Period Uses Does Not Use Time Period Uses Pedestrian Crossing Does Not Use
(min.) Pedestrian Crossing Pedestrian Crossing (min.) During WALK During DON’T WALK Pedestrian Crossing
Male Female Male Female Total Male Female Male Female Male Female Total
5 5
10 10
15 15
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
40 40
45 45
50 50
55 55
60 60
Total Total

Figure 5. Form section 5—pedestrian behavior at midblock crossings. Figure 6. Form section 5—pedestrian behavior at signalized intersections.

Table 1. General characteristics of selected schools. and signs based on their importance to-
ward improving pedestrian safety.
School A B C D
Type Public Private Public Public Observations of Pedestrian Behavior
High school - Elementary and Kinder and The objective of the observations is to
Academic Level Middle
Vocational Middle Elementary identify pedestrian behavior trends when
Student Enrollment 1,124 340 340 500 crossing a roadway or at a signalized in-
Female = 28.8% Female = 55.9% Female = 51.5% Female = 53.0%
tersection. If a high percentage of cross-
Gender Distribution ing violations or conflicts with traffic is
Male = 71.2% Male = 44.1% Male = 48.5% Male = 47.0%
observed, a survey of the pedestrians in
Pedestrian Access
to School
1 1 2 2 the zone can be performed to identify
the reasons or motives associated with the
Road Type Adjacent 2-lane road
to School
2-lane road 2-lane road 1-lane road behavior and suggest possible strategies.
one direction
An observational study recorded the
Posted Speed Limit 15 mph 25 mph 25 mph 15 mph behavior of pedestrians at schools C and
D when crossing the roadway at the
For the evaluation of the pedestrian fa- total points could be used to develop a marked midblock crossing in front of
cilities, the ideal scenario for the chromatic priority list for the network of school the school. Observations were made from
system would be to see green indications for zones in a city or a county. For example 2:30 p.m. to 3:45 p.m. at each school
all the features. The results from the evalu- looking at Figure 8, schools A and C have in two days. Classes end at 3:00 p.m. in
ation of the four schools indicate major 3 green points each, school B has 1 green both schools.
issues with the pedestrian crossing at three point and school D has 6 green points A sample of 238 pedestrians (76.5 per-
of the school zones, while one of the school out of 8 total points. Schools could be cent were students) was observed dur-
zones does not have wheelchair ramps to listed in terms of their scoring to assign ing the midblock crossing study. Table
provide access to the school and three have a higher maintenance priority to those 2 shows the gender and pedestrian type
issues with their slopes and condition, based school zones exhibiting a lower point distribution of the sample. Figure 9 shows
on ADA standards and guidelines. total. Also, a scheme of relative weights the percentages by pedestrian type that did
A point rating scale can be incorpo- could be developed for the chromatic sys- not use the marked crossing to cross the
rated in the chromatic system and the tem to assign it to the pedestrian features road. The analysis reflects that the sample

40 ITE Journal / June 2010

behavior of the school and general pedes-
trians at both schools was similar with an
elevated number of crossings outside of
the marked area on the pavement.
The other study consisted of observ-
ing the crossing behavior of pedestrians
during lunch hour at a four-leg signalized
intersection in route to the food court of
a shopping center near the school. The
observations were made from 10:30 a.m.
to 11:45 a.m. for six days, consistent with
the lunch period of the school. The access
road to the school is the west approach
at the intersection. The north-south ap-
proaches at the intersection are linked to
the most important arterial in the city in
terms of traffic. The north and west inter-
section approaches each have four lanes
(two per direction), a median island and
a marked crossing. The east approach has
five lanes with no median and the south
approach has six lanes with a 2-foot-wide
median island. Regulatory signs prohib-
iting pedestrian crossings are installed
on the south and east approaches. The
south approach is the shortest path for
the students to reach the shopping center
from the school.
A sample of 1,280 pedestrians (63.5
percent were students) was observed
during the 4-leg signalized intersection
crossing study. A daily average of 213
pedestrians was observed. Table 3 shows
the gender and pedestrian type distribu-
tion of the sample.
Figure 10 shows the percentage by pe-
destrian type that did not use the marked
crossing to cross the intersection. The re-
sults indicate that males tend to take more Figure 7. Chromatic scheme for the assessment of school-related signs. (W=white; R=red; Y=yellow; G=green)
risks when crossing the intersection than
females do. The behavior of the student tion (north approach), but during the red CONCLUSIONS AND
and general pedestrian samples, although pedestrian signal. The question made to RECOMMENDATIONS
significantly different, cannot be com- pedestrians on the north approach was, Pedestrian safety in school zones has
pared directly because the origins/desti- Why did you cross the road during the red been promoted by SAFETEA-LU and the
nations of the general pedestrian trips are pedestrian signal at the intersection? A total SRTS program to provide safe pedestrian
unknown. Nonetheless, the behavior of of 115 pedestrians—41 students and 74 facilities that encourage more students to
the sample of student pedestrians shows general pedestrians—answered the sur- walk or use their bicycles to go to school.
a major safety issue that requires serious vey. Table 4 shows the main responses The high number of pedestrians in school
consideration. obtained from the pedestrians. zones and their surroundings, especially
The question made to pedestrians on in urban areas, increases the exposure of
Results of the Pedestrian Survey the south approach was Why did you cross students to roadway and traffic conditions
A survey was made to ask pedestrians the road in this side of the intersection? A and will increase the potential for conflicts
their reasons for crossing the signalized total of 242 pedestrians—202 students with vehicular traffic. Therefore, the effec-
intersection in the prohibited side of the and 38 general pedestrians—answered tive and efficient evaluation of the exist-
intersection (south approach) or for cross- this question. Table 5 shows the main ing pedestrian facilities and traffic control
ing in the allowed side of the intersec- responses obtained from the pedestrians. devices is of the utmost importance for

ITE Journal / June 2010  41

 the identification of safety strategies that
reduce the crash risk of pedestrians in the
school zones.
The assessment of the existing features
in the four school zones using the chro-
matic system allowed for the easy identifi-
cation of the strengths and weaknesses in
the traffic control devices and pedestrian
facilities and can be used to make a com-
parison between school zones and assign
priorities to schools with a low number of
good conditions. The chromatic system
can be easily modified to include other
evaluation conditions or ratings depend-
ing on the local requirements.
The evaluation showed lack of mainte-
nance in the crossing markings, signs and
pedestrian signals at intersections, as well
as lack of MUTCD compliance in signs.
The deficiencies in the traffic control
devices might cause confusion to pedes-
trians or drivers presenting a potentially
hazardous situation. An analysis of the
existing conditions complemented with
the crash history at the school zones is a
recommendation for the future in order
Figure 8. Chromatic scheme for the assessment of school pedestrian infrastructure. (R=red; Y=yellow; G=green) to identify which traffic control devices
are indeed needed to correct safety issues
Table 2. Sample distribution of the midblock crossing study. at the school zones.
The pedestrian behavior observed at
Pedestrian Type Male Female Total the midblock crossing and the signalized
Student Pedestrians 96 86 182 intersection showed major safety issues.
General Pedestrians 34 22 56 The midblock crossing study found that
Total 130 108 238 89 percent of the students at two of the
schools (at the elementary and middle
levels) do not cross the road at the marked
crosswalk. Male students (94 percent)
were more prone to not using the cross-
walk than female students (84 percent),
although both groups show an alarmingly
high number. Parents go to these schools
to pick up their kids and park their ve-
hicles on the street at both sides (neither
school has parking facilities for parents or
drop-off locations), generating a disorga-
nized flow of pedestrians searching for
the shortest path to their parked vehicle.
A practical strategy to manage the flow
of students crossing the road is the use of
school guards to control traffic during the
school entrance and exit periods.
The signalized intersection crossing
study found similar high numbers of
students making unsafe crossings. In-
adequate crossings were observed at the
Figure 9. Percentage of pedestrians that did not use the midblock school crossing. south intersection approach where cross-

42 ITE Journal / June 2010

ings are not allowed. Crossings were also Table 3. Sample distribution of the signalized intersection crossing study.
observed at the north approach when
the green vehicle signal was active. Only Pedestrian Type Male Female Total
13.4 percent of the 813 observed stu- Student Pedestrians 561 252 813
dents made the crossing at the correct General Pedestrians 255 212 467
approach during the red vehicle signal Total 816 464 1,280
at the intersection. The search for the
shortest path to reach their destination
was the main excuse of most students (75
percent) when making the crossing ma-
neuver in the wrong approach. Students
crossing the intersection at the marked
crossing, but during the green vehicle
signal, expressed “being distracted” (14.6
percent) and “no vehicles were approach-
ing the intersection, therefore had suf-
ficient time to cross” (34.1 percent) as
the two main reasons to explain their
unsafe behavior.
The pedestrian behavior at the school
zones provides sufficient evidence of un-
safe practices when students cross the road-
way. An aggressive educational strategy is
needed for students, parents, and teachers Figure 10. Percentage of pedestrians by crossing behavior at signalized intersection.
promoting safe practices when walking
and crossing the road. Improvements in Table 4. Responses to the question “Why did you cross the road
the maintenance schedule of traffic control
devices are also needed to provide efficient
during the red pedestrian signal at the intersection?”
control of the traffic and pedestrian traffic “I had time to cross, Did not
in order to provide safe routes to schools. “I was in a “I was there were no vehicles know/did
Pedestrian Type hurry” distracted” approaching” not answer
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Male students 11.1% 11.1% 33.3% 29.6%
The authors want to express their
Female students 7.1% 21.4% 35.7% 21.4%
gratitude to the FHWA Dwight D. Eisen-
hower Transportation Fellowship Program Total students 9.8% 14.6% 34.1% 26.8%
that supported María Alegría during the Male general 21.3% 8.5% 53.2% 10.6%
development of this study. n Female general 18.5% 7.4% 44.4% 14.8%
Total general 20.3% 8.1% 50.0% 12.2%
References
Cynecky, M. and Brownlee, R. 2007. School All pedestrians 16.5% 10.4% 44.3% 17.4%
Site Planning, Design and Transportation, ITE
Journal, Vol. 77, No. 9, pp. 28–32. Table 5. Responses to the question “Why did you
FHWA. 2008. Safe Routes to School. U.S.
Department of Transportation. http://safety.
cross the road in this side of the intersection?”
fhwa.dot.gov/saferoutes/index.htm. Last visited: “This is the “Drivers do not respect Did not
April 18, 2008. “Did not see shortest the pedestrian crossing know/did
FHWA. 2007. Manual on Uniform Traffic Pedestrian Type the sign” route” at the other side” not answer
Control Devices. 2003 Edition with Rev. 1 and Male students 9.8% 76.9% 2.1% 7.0%
2. U.S. Department of Transportation. Wash-
Female students 11.5% 70.5% 0.0% 8.2%
ington, DC.
ITE. 2000. Manual of Traffic Engineering Total students 10.3% 75.0% 1.5% 7.4%
Studies. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Male general 4.3% 34.8% 43.5% 8.7%
Washington, DC. Female general 13.3% 20.0% 53.3% 6.7%
MAPFRE. 2005. Accidentalidad Peatonal en
Total general 7.9% 28.9% 47.4% 7.9%
Núcleos Urbanos. MAPFRE Instituto de Segu-
ridad Vial, Madrid, Spain. All pedestrians 9.9% 67.8% 8.7% 7.4%

ITE Journal / June 2010  43

 Marchetti, L., Jones, K., and Pullen, N. 2007. María F. Alegría
Safe Routes to School: Roles and Resources for Velasco,
Transportation Professionals. ITE Journal, Vol. Alberto M. MECE is a traffic
77, No. 9, pp. 16–21. Figueroa Medina, and transportation
Mitman M. and Ragland D. 2007. What Ph.D., PE is an associate consultant for the City
They Don’t Know Can Kill Them. More Evi- professor in the Depart- of Popayán, Colombia,
dence on Why Pedestrian and Driver Knowledge ment of Civil Engineer- and a traffic safety en-
of the Vehicle Code Should Not Be Assumed. ing and Surveying at the gineer for the Fondo de
2007 Transportation Research Board Annual University of Puerto Rico Prevención Vial de Colombia. She received a B.S.
Meeting Proceedings, Washington, DC. at Mayagüez (UPRM) in Civil Engineering from the El Cauca University
NHTSA. 2008. Traffic Safety Facts 2007. and is also the deputy director of the Puerto Rico in Colombia and an M.E. in Civil Engineering
U.S. Department of Transportation, National Local Technical Assistance Program. Recent research from the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez.
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Wash- projects have inolved motorcycle safety, red-light-
ington, DC. running behavior and the inspection of safety Didier Valdés
Yee, R., Parisi, D. and Hondorp, B. 2007. Cre- devices for bridges in low-volume roads. He received Díaz,
ating a Citywide Safe Routes to School Program: a B.S. and M.S. in Civil Engineering from the Ph.D. is a professor
Pasadena, CA, USA’s Step-by-Step Approach. ITE UPRM and a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from in the Department of
Journal, Vol. 77, No. 9, pp. 22–25. Purdue University. He is a member of ITE. Civil Engineering and
Surveying at the Uni-
versity of Puerto Rico at
Mayagüez. He received
a B.S. in Civil Engineering from La Gran Co-
lombia University, an M.S. in Traffic and Trans-
portation Engineering from El Cauca University
in Colombia and a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering
from The University of Texas at Austin.

Advertise your
Requests for
Proposals right
here for as little as $300.
More than 18,000 ITE members and subscribers
read ITE Journal every month.
RFPs can also be posted on the ITE Web site for
30 days at the low rate of $150 for a 500-word
advertisement.
For more information please visit the ITE Web site,
www.ite.org or contact Christina Garneski at
+1 202-289-0222 ext. 128;
fax: +1 202-289-7722;
classifiedads@ite.org.
Receive a 10% discount off
the Journal portion of your
ad if you advertise on both
the ITE Web site and in ITE
Journal!

44 ITE Journal / June 2010