From Tech Transfer Newsletter, Spring 2003 » printer-friendly

Crosswalk Markings
For Better Or Worse?

Pedestrian Fatality Facts:

• Pedestrians account for 12% of all traffic fatalities.
• Over three-quarters (78%) of all pedestrian fatalities occur at non-intersections, and over half (54%) of these are on roads without crosswalks.
• Of the pedestrian fatalities at intersections, over 40% are at intersections with no marked crosswalk.
• About 30% of all pedestrian fatalities are related to improper crossing of the roadway or intersection.
• In 47% of the pedestrian-fatal single-vehicle accidents, alcohol was involved for either the driver or the pedestrian.

Will marking crosswalks save lives?

In considering how to provide safer crossings for pedestrians, the question should NOT simply be: "Should there be a marked crosswalk or not?" Instead, the question should be: "What are the most effective measures that can be used to help pedestrians safely cross the street?" Providing marked (painted) crosswalks is only one of the many measures that may be used at a pedestrian crossing to improve safety. Appropriate measures will depend on site conditions.

Crosswalk Controversy

There is considerable controversy in the U.S. over whether providing marked crosswalks will increase or decrease pedestrian safety at crossing locations not controlled by a traffic signal or stop sign. Public opinion generally holds that a marked crosswalk is a tool that works to enhance pedestrian mobility and safety. Markings are viewed as proof that pedestrians have a legitimate right to share the roadway. However, by legal definition, crosswalks may exist whether they are marked or not. Crosswalks, legally are defined as existing at all public street intersections, marked or unmarked; marked crosswalks are only required at mid-block locations. People tend to "feel" safer crossing in a crosswalk; many assume that drivers will be able to see the crosswalk markings equally as well as pedestrians, making it safer to cross between the lines.

When citizens request the installation of marked crosswalks, some engineers and planners still refer to the 1972 study by Bruce Herms as justification for not installing marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations. Herms' study found an increased incidence of pedestrian collisions in marked crosswalks, compared to unmarked crosswalks, at 400 uncontrolled intersections in San Diego, California. Questions have been raised about the validity of that study, and the study results have sometimes been misquoted or misused. The study did NOT conclude that all marked crosswalks are "unsafe." Other studies have tried, un-conclusively, to address this same issue since the Herms study, however disagreement and confusion remain.

New Findings On Crosswalk Markings

A recent, landmark study undertaken by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), yields fresh results about crosswalks and pedestrian safety at uncontrolled intersections. This study is based on 5 years of pedestrian accident data at 1,000 marked crosswalks and 1,000 matched, unmarked crossing sites. All of the sites were uncontrolled (had no traffic signal or stop sign on the approaches).

According to this study, under no condition did the presence of a marked crosswalk alone at an uncontrolled location result in a significantly lower pedestrian accident rate when compared to the pedestrian accident rate of an unmarked crosswalk. Furthermore, on multi-lane roads with traffic volumes greater than 12,000 vehicles per day, having a marked crosswalk alone (without other substantial improvements) was actually associated with a higher pedestrian accident rate when compared with an unmarked crosswalk. Therefore, the addition of a marked crosswalk alone, with no engineering, enforcement, or education enhancement, did not reduce pedestrian accidents for any of the conditions included in the study. The type of crosswalk marking (e.g. parallel lines, solid bar, zebra or ladder striped) and the condition of the crosswalk marking (e.g. excellent, good, fair or poor) had no significant effect on pedestrian accident rates.

In addition to crosswalk markings, this study also found several other factors were associated with pedestrian accidents. Traffic and roadway factors such as higher pedestrian volumes, higher traffic volumes (ADT), and greater number of traffic lanes were related to a higher frequency of pedestrian accidents. Surprisingly, after controlling for other factors, speed limit was not significantly related to pedestrian accident frequency. One possible explanation for this is that pedestrians may be more careful when crossing streets with higher speeds, avoiding short gaps between oncoming vehicles. However, as expected, higher speeds were associated with greater severity of injury to the pedestrian.

Installation of marked crosswalks at uncontrolled pedestrian crossing locations should not be regarded as a magic cure for pedestrian safety problems. However, marked crosswalks should also not be considered as a negative measure that will increase pedestrian accidents in all cases. Marked crosswalks are appropriate at some locations to help channel pedestrians to preferred crossing locations, but in many cases should be accompanied by other improvements. The guidelines presented in table 1 are those provided in the FHWA study.

Examples Of Measures To Help Pedestrians Cross Safely

A variety of pedestrian facilities have been found to improve pedestrian safety and/or ability to cross the street under various conditions. Considerations must always include pedestrians with disabilities, and enhancements must always conform to ADA requirements. Some examples for use at uncontrolled and/or signalized intersections include:

• Provide a median. Raised medians and crossing islands can improve pedestrian safety by giving pedestrians refuge when crossing multi-lane roads. Raised medians may provide aesthetic improvement and may control access to prevent unsafe turns out of driveways, as well. Refuge islands should be at least 4' wide and of adequate length for pedestrian storage while waiting for gaps. Landscaping should be designed and maintained to provide good visibility between pedestrians and approaching motorists from both directions.
• Install signals. On some high volume or multi-lane roads, traffic and pedestrian signals may be necessary. Audible signals assist the visually impaired. Countdown displays provide information to the pedestrian regarding the amount of time remaining to safely cross the street, which may help pedestrians make better decisions about when to enter, or not enter, the crosswalk. Review the MUTCD pedestrian signal warrant.
• Reduce street crossing distance. Curb extensions at intersections or mid-block locations reduce the effective street crossing distance for pedestrians.
• Utilize traffic calming techniques. Raised crosswalks can control vehicle speeds on local streets and at pedestrian crossings.
• Provide adequate nighttime lighting. Adequate nighttime lighting is particularly important near schools, churches, and community centers with nighttime pedestrian activity.
• Construct a grade separated crossing or pedestrian only street. Pedestrian bridges are very expensive and would only be considered in extreme situations, such as where pedestrian crossings are essential (e.g. school children crossing a highway), street crossing at-grade is not feasible for pedestrians, and no other measures are considered appropriate.
• Supplement crossing with pedestrian warning signs. Warning signs, flashers, and other traffic control devices can be used at unusually hazardous locations or in places where pedestrian crossing activity is not readily apparent.
• Install railings to direct pedestrians to their right while crossing. Directing pedestrians to the right after crossing the first half of the street increases the likelihood of looking for oncoming vehicles before crossing the second half of the street.
• Use more two- and three-lane roads when designing new road networks so fewer multi-lane arterials are required.
• Post an advance stop line with warning sign "STOP HERE FOR CROSSWALK."
• Eliminate parking across the crosswalk, or so close to the crosswalk that sight distance and visibility are impaired.
• Employ remote sensing technologies. Microwave or infrared detectors can be used to sense pedestrians waiting to cross, replacing or augmenting the standard push button used to activate the pedestrian call feature. Or, remote sensing can be used to detect pedestrians in the crosswalk and extend the clearance interval as necessary.
• Install in-pavement lighting to alert motorists to the presence of a pedestrian crossing or preparing to cross the street. Lighting can be activated for a fixed time interval, only when the signal displays "WALK", or combined with ITS technology to be activated only when a pedestrian is in the crosswalk.
• Adopt a transmitter/receiver system at signalized intersections. Infrared or LED transmitters located at the ped-head can transmit a speech message to hand-held receivers to assist the visually impaired. Audible messages may identify the location and direction of travel of the pedestrian, give the name of the street to be crossed, and provide real-time information when it's safe for the pedestrian to cross.

References

Contact the Institute of Transportation Studies Library for these documents and other related items.

Shankar, Umesh. Pedestrian Roadway Fatalities. Report No.DOT-HS-809-456, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., April 2003. Executive summary at: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2003/809-456.pdf

Zegeer, C., Stewart, J., and Huang, H. Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations. Report No.FHWA-RD-01-142, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, May 2001. Executive summary at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ safety/fourthlevel/pdf/Cros.pdf

Herms, B. "Pedestrian Crosswalk Study: Accidents in Painted and Unpainted Crosswalks." Record No.406, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1972.

Zegeer, C.V., Seiderman, C., Lagerwey, P., and Cynecki, M. Pedestrian Facilities User's Guide: Providing Safety and Mobility. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 1999.

Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities. Institute of Transportation Engineers, March 1998.

Zegeer, C. and Seiderman, C. "Designing for Pedestrians," Chapter 19. The Traffic Safety Toolbox, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1999.

Suggested Coursework

Learn more about safe pedestrian facilities at one of our training courses.

• TE-20 Designing Safe, Accessible Pedestrian Facilities.
  Coming Spring 2004
• PL-04 Traffic Calming: Strategies that Work.
  Click here for details.
• TE-11 Access Management and Site Design.
  Click here for details.
• Good Practices for Improving Safety at Intersection Locations.

Table 1.

* These guidelines include intersection and midblock locations with no traffic signals or stop sign on the approach to the crossing. They do not apply to school crossings. A two-way center turn lane is not considered a median. Crosswalks should not be installed at locations which could present an increased safety risk to pedestrians, such as where there is poor sight distance, complex or confusing designs, substantial volumes of heavy trucks, or other dangers, without first providing adequate design features and/or traffic control devices. Adding crosswalks alone will not make crossings safer, nor necessarily result in more vehicles stopping for pedestrians. Whether marked crosswalks are installed, it is important to consider other pedestrian facility enhancements, as needed, to improve the safety of the crossing (e.g., raised median, traffic signal, roadway narrowing, enhanced overhead lighting, traffic calming measures, curb extensions). These are general recommendations; good engineering judgment should be used in individual cases for deciding where to install crosswalks.

** Where speed limit exceeds 40 mph, marked crosswalks alone should not be used at unsignalized locations.