Northeast Monroe Street is a major collector road in Peoria, Illinois. The length of the visited road corridor was 1.30 miles. The land use along NE Monroe Street was residential development (Mary St. to Spalding Ave.) and commercial (Spalding Ave. to Main St.). There are also a few small
neighborhood businesses along the corridor. NE Monroe Street is a two-lane roadway with a bike path and on-street parking on both sides. The visited corridor was also a bus route with stops
available at the intersections every two to three blocks. Each of the blocks was 400 to 450 ft. in length Figure E-1 shows an example of the land use and pedestrian attractions along the corridor. The
pedestrian attractions along the corridor included residential units, a school, churches, a park, a library, and small businesses. Most of the crosswalks along the corridor were marked and appeared ADA-compliant. Table E2 summarizes the land use, geometric, and traffic characteristics of NE Monroe St. (Mary St. to Main St.).
Based on the crash report analysis, the following factors were identified as the primary cause of crashes:
Failure to yield to the right-of-way
Crossing the road in the middle of the block
Pedestrians carelessly running into the street
Motorist’s failure to watch crossing pedestrians
Table E2. Site Characteristics of NE Monroe St. Data items collected NE Monroe St.
(Mary street to Main Street)
Crossing distance, ft 48
Lane number (Major
street) 2 (Two way)
Crosswalk Unmarked and marked crosswalk
Median No
SSD Adequate
Pedestrain Sight Distance
(PedSD) needs improvement
Bike path and parking lane Yes (on both side)
Posted speed, mph 30
Observed speed, mph 30 (Avg.)
40 (Max)
ADT (2012 count) 1900
Street Lighting Lamp or over headhead lighting (Not adequate)
Pedestrian attractions Residential units, school, church, park, library, and small business house/shop Alternative crossing distance, ft 400 ft (average) Crash record (2010-2014) Fatal= 1 B-Injury =2 C-Injury =2
Land use type Residential (Large part)
Commercial (smaller part)
E.1.1.1. Existing Pedestrian Treatments and Effectiveness
The following treatments are currently deployed along the corridor:
Marked crosswalk with warning sign and pedestrian actuated flashing beacon (Figure E-2)
o At intersection with Mary St. and Hancock St.
Unmarked crosswalk with no warning sign (Figure E-3)
o At intersection with Caroline St, Laveille St., Voris St., Morton St. Evans St., Morgan
St., Wayne St., and Green St.
No crosswalk
Figure E-2. Marked crosswalk with warning sign and pedestrian actuated flashing beacon.
Figure E-3. Unmarked crosswalk with no warning sign.
E.1.1.2. Issues Identified for the Corridor
The following issues were identified for the visited corridor:
Field observations suggested that the unmarked crosswalks pedestrian sight distances (PedSD) are limited. Pedestrian crossing sight distance was the length of roadway that must be seen from the crossing needed for crossing the roadway in the absence of a vehicle yielding. This distance includes both pedestrian start-up and clearance times and
the time to cross the roadway. The PedSD should be adequate at unmarked and unsigned crossings, so that pedestrians can see a conflicting vehicle and determine if they are able to cross the pedestrian safely at that location, before the vehicle reaches the crossing (Nemeth et al. 2014). This limited PedSD was mainly due to the presence of trees on both sides of the road, which blocks the view of pedestrians. In addition, on-street parking was permissible too close to the intersections, obstructing motorists and pedestrians from viewing each other.
Bus stops close to intersections (such as at intersection with Voris St., Wayne St., and Caroline St.) may cause the stopped buses to obstruct motorists from viewing the pedestrian in the crosswalk (Figure E-4.
Lighting condition needs to be improved, because overhead lighting was provided only at one approach at intersections (i.e. Mary St.) (Figure E-5). According to Gibbons et al. (2008) overhead lighting at one approach was not adequate for an intersection.
In a few places, pedestrian ramps need to be improved (Figure E-5)
Vehicle speeding was observed.
Figure E-5. Lighting at an intersection.
E.1.1.3. Suggested Improvements
According to the IL MUTCD, the “Advanced stop line” can be used 20 to 50 ft. upstream of the crosswalk to prevent the threat of multiple-threat pedestrian crashes. Multiple-threat crashes are those where one vehicle stops for a pedestrian in the crosswalk, which obstructs another motorist’s view of the pedestrian in the crosswalk (Fitzpatrick et al. 2014(a)). Because there was a parking lane along the corridor on the both sides of the road, parking should be prohibited 20 to 50 ft. upstream of the crosswalk to prevent blocking view of pedestrian at crossing. Figure E-6 illustrates the suggested improvements for pedestrian safety. Curb extension treatments can also be used at the intersections to reduce the pedestrian exposure time to traffic as well as to reduce the chance of multiple-threat pedestrian crashes.
Bus stops on the far side of the crosswalk were recommended to minimize the risk of multiple-threat crashes, which was caused by blocking the view of pedestrians for the motorists of the adjacent lane by the parked/stopped vehicle near to crosswalk.
Trimming the trees could improve pedestrian sight distance. In addition, pedestrian warning signs with an arrow can be installed to warn the drivers about the possibility of pedestrian’s road crossing activity.
Overhead lighting on all the approaches of the intersection should be installed to improve visibility.
Figure E-6. Parking prohibition close to crosswalk.
The use of a marked crosswalk with warning signs is recommended. Past study has found that for 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 (Zegeer et al. 2005). Therefore, the use of a marked crosswalk alone is not recommended.
All the pedestrian crosswalk ramps need improvement.