State of Uncontrolled Crosswalk Control in the US and Recommended Application for Practitioners

Abstract: Based on literature review of practices of state and city agencies across the US, three major guidelines are used across the country for deciding traffic control devices (TCD) at uncontrolled crosswalks. These three are Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian Guide (referred to as Guide herein) and National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 562 (referred to as Report herein). The MUTCD contains design, application, placement, standards, guidance, options and support provisions for TCD related to mid-block crosswalks namely pedestrian warning sign, yield and stop signs, in-street sign, tubular markers, crosswalk markings, warning beacons, rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB), pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB) and traffic signals. Nevertheless, except for the PHB and traffic signals for which MUTCD contains warrants, it does not present selection criteria to choose the best TCD for a given crosswalk. Almost all states in the country use MUTCD since per the Highway Safety Act of 1966, each state is required to do so.

Alternatively, some of the agencies in the country use the Guide [e.g., Virginia, Imperial Beach] while others use the Report [e.g., Minnesota, Portland], but not both. The Guide recommends treatments based on pedestrian crash data with AADT, speed limit, number of lanes and presence of median as inputs. The recommended treatments in the Guide are high visibility signs and markings (referred to as HiVis herein), raised crosswalk, in-street pedestrian crossing sign, curb extension, pedestrian refuge island, RRFB, road diet and PHB. The Report first checks if MUTCD signal warrants are met and if not, recommends countermeasures based on pedestrian delays and driver yielding rates at the crosswalk. The treatments recommended in the Report are divided into three groups namely ‘crosswalk’ (standard crosswalk markings and signs), ‘enhanced/active’ (‘enhanced’ devices are always present enhancing the visibility of the crosswalk and ‘active’ devices are pedestrian activated) and ‘red’ (devices with a circular signal).

This abstract presents a case study by analyzing 10 mid-block crosswalks on the Ohio State University and demonstrates how combining all the three documents could lead to a better design than just using one of the three documents. For three crosswalks studied, the traffic signal or PHB warrants were not met, and the recommendations of the Guide and the Report was HiVis, which was the final recommendation. For two crosswalks, the traffic signal or PHB warrants were not met, but the Report’s recommendation was a standard crosswalk, but the Guide recommended HiVis (and hence high visibility markings and signs were the final recommendation). For the remaining five crosswalks, the signal warrant was met and hence a traffic signal was the final recommendation except for one location that had another signal within 300 ft. For this one location with another signal in its vicinity, the Guide recommended HiVis/refuge Island while the Report recommended a PHB and hence the PHB was recommended. Thus, this research provides guidance to practitioners for combining competing uncontrolled crosswalk installation frameworks to arrive at the safest countermeasure while accounting for pedestrian efficiency as well.