IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

The relative effectiveness of signal related pedestrian countermeasures at urban intersections—Lessons from a New York City case study


  • Chen, Li
  • Chen, Cynthia
  • Ewing, Reid


Walking, the simplest form of transportation has many benefits for pedestrians and the society. Yet, pedestrians are a vulnerable group of people and safety concerns are a significant barrier in one's decision to walk. Multiple signal related pedestrian countermeasures have been proposed to promote pedestrian safety. Although the safety impacts of individual strategies have been investigated, their relative effectiveness is little known. Furthermore, those effective in reducing pedestrian crashes may be at odds with motorist safety.

Suggested Citation

  • Chen, Li & Chen, Cynthia & Ewing, Reid, 2014. "The relative effectiveness of signal related pedestrian countermeasures at urban intersections—Lessons from a New York City case study," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 69-78.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:32:y:2014:i:c:p:69-78
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2013.12.006

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Bechtel, Allyson K & MacLeod, Kara E & Ragland, David R, 2003. "Oakland Chinatown Pedestrian Scramble: An Evaluation," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt3fh5q4dk, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Jung, Soyoung & Qin, Xiao & Oh, Cheol, 2016. "Improving strategic policies for pedestrian safety enhancement using classification tree modeling," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 53-64.


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:32:y:2014:i:c:p:69-78. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.