Geometric Design Strategies for Improving Pedestrian Safety and Accessibility at Signalized Intersections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The City of Winnipeg has one of the highest modes shares of pedestrians in the prairies (Statistics Canada, 2011 National Household Survey), and continually investigates new methods for improving the safety of pedestrians at signalized intersections through geometric design improvements. Our design approach is typically through the lens of people with a range of disabilities but the end result is increased safety for people of all ages and abilities. This also results in making the pedestrian environment more convenient which encourages people to walk more. The changes in geometric design of the intersection must also be done in unison with the placement and utilization of the evolving traffic control devices. Over the last five years, the City has researched, implemented and monitored various innovations in geometric design treatments at signalized intersections along with traffic control devices for the purposes of increase the safety and convenience of pedestrians. This process has included review and continuous dialogue with various stakeholders including the Mayor’s Access Advisory Committee, Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB) and the Vision Impaired Resource Network. Through this paper, the City of Winnipeg presents the various geometric design strategies to share the success of our experience. The paper will include the following highlights including appended dimensioned geometric figures: How pedestrians with varying levels of vision loss and mobility constraints prefer to navigate signalized intersections which influence geometric design decisions; How APS installation practices affects the layout and design of sidewalk and curb ramps; Commentary on how median widths and bullnose design can improve pedestrian navigation and safety; Commentary on the success of Audible Pedestrians Signals (APS) and Pedestrian Countdown Signals (PCS) implementation; Commentary on the success of utilizing smart channel designs for right turn channelization in lieu of tradition compound curves; Commentary on the effect of placing curb ramps at various locations at channelized and non-channelized intersections; Commentary on the importance of separating pedestrians and cyclists leading up to and at intersection crossings; Commentary on the success of curb extensions to reduce pedestrian crossing distances.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".