Developing Guidelines for Context Specific Crosswalk Design

About the report

Crosswalks can be marked as either transverse or high-visibility crosswalks (HVCs). The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) mandates HVCs at marked crosswalks at all unsignalized crossings, roundabouts, and pedestrian hybrid beacons, except on stop-controlled approaches, as IIM-TE-384.1 describes. At signalized intersections, marking type is left to engineering judgment per IIM-TOD-400. VDOT is responsible for the routine maintenance of a large crosswalk inventory. As HVCs have higher costs than transverse crosswalks, appropriate deployment is important. This report summarizes existing research regarding the contexts in which HVCs are effective, a survey of crosswalk marking practices in Virginia localities, and a study of HVCs and transverse crosswalks on Virginia roads at signalized intersections.

The first stage of this study involved a literature review to establish known contexts of HVC effectiveness. Research found that HVCs have a positive impact on numerous measures of effectiveness (detection distance, pedestrian compliance, driver speed, acceleration, braking, and yielding). HVC studies are typically limited to lower speed midblock crossings and uncontrolled intersections and often include limited sites or timeframes. Surrogate safety measures capture near misses between road users and were identified as a measure of effectiveness that may be used to quickly gather larger datasets at signalized intersections. Based on the literature review, this study recommends no changes to the current guidance regarding HVCs in IIM-TE-384.1 because the available research supports HVC effectiveness under the contexts described.

In the second stage of this project, a survey was distributed to Virginia localities to understand how crosswalk marking application varies statewide, documenting the differences between VDOT and locality practices. The survey found that many localities were familiar with or reported following VDOT crosswalk standards. Many localities have markings currently in place that would be remarked as HVCs if they were painted today, reflecting a movement toward HVCs consistent with existing research and VDOT guidance. The types of crosswalks used across different environments also varied significantly statewide. Notably, bar pair HVCs, VDOT’s recommended HVC marking type, were infrequently used. Based on the lack of bar pair crosswalks statewide, this study recommends further research on the lack of application.

The final stage of this study involved real-world data collection of pedestrian and vehicle near-miss data at urban signalized intersections with HVCs and transverse crosswalk markings through surrogate safety measures. Two statistical analyses were performed: the first assessed the rate of vehicle-pedestrian near misses, and the second analyzed the severity of vehicle-pedestrian near misses. HVCs were not found to affect the rate or severity of near misses at urban, high-speed, high-volume, signalized intersections. Results suggested nighttime hours increased the rate of near misses under these roadway conditions. Furthermore, right turning vehicles and higher pedestrian speeds were associated with lower post-encroachment time values, indicative of more severe near-miss interactions. This study recommends no changes to the current guidance to use engineering judgment regarding HVCs at signalized intersections in IIM-TOD-400. The literature review provides some evidence of improved pedestrian compliance at signalized intersections with HVCs. However, most studies do not include signalized intersections, and the current analysis of signalized intersections does not find evidence to support a change in the current guidance.

_{Disclaimer Statement:The contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s), who is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Commonwealth Transportation Board, or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Any inclusion of manufacturer names, trade names, or trademarks is for identification purposes only and is not to be considered an endorsement.}

Authors