Maryland SHA Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines

CHAPTER 10: ROADWAY CROSSING DESIGN

10.1 Introduction
The term crosswalk is defined in the Maryland Code:

§ 21-101. Definitions.

Crosswalk “means that part of a roadway that is: (1) Within the prolongation or
connection of the lateral lines of sidewalks at any place where 2 or more roadways
of any type meet or join, measured from the curbs or, in the absence of curbs, from
the edges of the roadway; or (2) Distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines
or other markings.”

As a result of this definition, there are two types of crosswalks: marked crosswalks and
unmarked crosswalks. As defined in the Maryland MUTCD, a marked crosswalk is “any
portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated as a pedestrian
crossing by lines on the surface, which may be supplemented by contrasting pavement
texture, style, or color.” Legal crossings without painted lines or other markings are known
as unmarked crosswalks and drivers are required by law to stop for pedestrians in these
locations just as they are at marked crosswalks (See Figure 10.1 below). Crosswalk markings
are desirable in certain places because they alert motorists to locations where they should
expect pedestrians and show pedestrians a preferred crossing location. The decision of
where to locate crosswalk markings requires careful consideration and the use of engineering
judgment. This chapter addresses where to mark crosswalks, how to design crosswalks, and
engineering measures to improve the safety of crosswalks.

Figure 10.1 - Examples of Marked and Unmarked Crosswalks

10.2 Where to Mark Crosswalks

Below are guidelines for where to mark crosswalks at controlled and uncontrolled locations.
A controlled location is one with a traffic signal or stop sign. An uncontrolled location is one
without a traffic signal or stop sign. Guidance will also be presented for where engineering
treatments should be used in conjunction with marked crosswalks in order to improve the
safety of pedestrians crossing the roadway.

Page 10-1
 Maryland SHA Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines

General Considerations
When marking crosswalks at controlled and uncontrolled locations, designers should
consider the following general factors:

x Bus stops: The locations of bus stops and marked crosswalks should be coordinated.
For safety reasons, it is preferred that a bus stop is located at the far side of the
intersection (Zegeer et al, February 2002).
x Adequate sight distance: Pedestrians and motorists should be able to see each other.
x Convenience: Crosswalks should be located to provide the most direct connection
between destinations.
x Signage: See Chapter 11 for information on signs at crosswalks.
x Potential for shortening crossing distance: Shortened crossing distances reduce the
amount of time that pedestrians are exposed in the roadway. Information on road diets,
curb extensions and pedestrian refuge islands is presented later in this chapter.
x Traffic calming: Appropriate use of traffic calming will reduce excessive vehicle speeds
at crosswalks and may result in a safer environment. (Refer to the ITE/FHWA
publication, Traffic Calming: State of the Practice for more information on traffic calming.)
x Use of other innovative safety features: Many other innovative safety features are
described in this design guide.

Controlled Locations
Marked crosswalks shall be provided across all street approaches to signalized intersections
(on all legs of the intersection except those legs where a pedestrian crossing is determined to
be unsafe). Marked crosswalks may also be considered at STOP controlled intersections
where pedestrian traffic commonly occurs – particularly along routes that serve parks,
schools, transit stops, and other similar areas.

Uncontrolled Locations
A recent national research project completed by the Federal Highway Administration
provides specific guidance on the installation of crosswalks and other safety measures at
uncontrolled locations (Zegeer et al, February 2002). As the authors of the report state:

“When considering marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations, the

question should not simply be: ‘should I provide a marked crosswalk or
not?’ Instead, the question should be: ‘Is this an appropriate tool for getting
pedestrians across the street?’ Regardless of whether marked crosswalks are
used, there remains the fundamental obligation to get pedestrians safely
across the street.”

Figures 10.2 and 10.3 offer guidance on the use of crosswalk markings at uncontrolled
locations based on the FHWA study. Figure 10.2 provides a decision tree for determining
whether a specific location is an appropriate candidate for an uncontrolled marked
crosswalk. Based on the outcome of the decision tree, Figure 10.3 provides further guidance
on the appropriate type of design treatment given the amount and speed of traffic at this
location.

Page 10-2
 Staff visits the site to Insufficient need to justify
gather data a marked crosswalk
Decision: is this an
appropriate location for
an uncontrolled marked
crosswalk?
No

Location is along a
route that serves 20 pedestrians
No
a pedestrian per hour or 60 in
generator, such as four hours cross
a bus stop, at the location
business district,
school, park, or
hospital

Yes
Yes

Nearest
No
marked
Direct pedestrians to the
crosswalk is
nearest marked crosswalk
more than 300
feet away

Yes

There is
adequate
Yes stopping sight No Unsafe location for a
distance for marked crosswalk unless
vehicles sight distance is
approaching the addressed
crosswalk

Location
No Location
Location No Location No crosses a
crosses a four
crosses a crosses a four or more
or more lane
two-lane three-lane lane street
street without a
street street with a raised
raised median
median

Yes Yes Yes Yes

See Figure 10.3 See Figure 10.3 See Figure 10.3 See Figure 10.3
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Sources: Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations, 2002 and
City of Sacramento Public Works Department

Figure 10.2 - Uncontrolled Marked Crosswalks

Page 10-3
Instructions: Complete the flow chart in Figure 10.2 and refer to the corresponding level below.

Level 1: 2 Lane Street Level 3: 4 or more Lanes with a Raised Median

ADT POSTED SPEED ADT POSTED SPEED
30 mph or less 35 mph 40 mph or more 30 mph or less 35 mph 40 mph or more

Longitudinal or Longitudinal or
diagonal crosswalk diagonal crosswalk
markings plus an markings plus an
Longitudinal or Longitudinal or engineering Longitudinal or Longitudinal or engineering
Up to 12,000 cars diagonal crosswalk diagonal crosswalk treatment (see 9,000 cars or diagonal crosswalk diagonal crosswalk treatment (see
per day markings markings below) fewer per day markings markings below)

Longitudinal or
diagonal crosswalk
markings plus an
Longitudinal or Longitudinal or Pedestrian signal Longitudinal or engineering Pedestrian signal
diagonal crosswalk diagonal crosswalk or grade separated diagonal crosswalk treatment (see or grade separated
12,000-15000 markings markings crossing 9,000-12,000 markings below) crossing

Longitudinal or Longitudinal or Longitudinal or

diagonal crosswalk diagonal crosswalk diagonal crosswalk
markings plus an markings plus an markings plus an
Longitudinal or engineering Pedestrian signal engineering engineering Pedestrian signal
15,000 cars or diagonal crosswalk treatment (see or grade separated treatment (see treatment (see or grade separated
more per day markings below) crossing 12,000-15,000 below) below) crossing

Pedestrian signal Pedestrian signal Pedestrian signal

or grade separated or grade separated or grade separated
15,000 or more crossing crossing crossing

Level 2: 3 Lane Street Level 4: 4 or more Lanes without a Raised Median

ADT POSTED SPEED ADT POSTED SPEED
30 mph or less 35 mph 40 mph or more 30 mph or less 35 mph 40 mph or more

Longitudinal or Longitudinal or
diagonal crosswalk diagonal crosswalk
markings plus an markings plus an
Longitudinal or Longitudinal or engineering Longitudinal or engineering Pedestrian signal
9,000 cars or diagonal crosswalk diagonal crosswalk treatment (see 9,000 cars or diagonal crosswalk treatment (see or grade separated
fewer per day markings markings below) fewer per day markings below) crossing

Longitudinal or Longitudinal or Longitudinal or Longitudinal or

diagonal crosswalk diagonal crosswalk diagonal crosswalk diagonal crosswalk
markings plus an markings plus an markings plus an markings plus an
Longitudinal or engineering engineering engineering engineering Pedestrian signal
diagonal crosswalk treatment (see treatment (see treatment (see treatment (see or grade separated
9,000-12,000 markings below) below) 9,000-12,000 below) below) crossing

Longitudinal or Longitudinal or
diagonal crosswalk diagonal crosswalk
markings plus an markings plus an
engineering engineering Pedestrian signal Pedestrian signal Pedestrian signal Pedestrian signal
treatment (see treatment (see or grade separated or grade separated or grade separated or grade separated
12,000-15,000 below) below) crossing 12,000-15,000 crossing crossing crossing

Longitudinal or
diagonal crosswalk
markings plus an
engineering Pedestrian signal Pedestrian signal Pedestrian signal Pedestrian signal Pedestrian signal
treatment (see or grade separated or grade separated or grade separated or grade separated or grade separated
15,000 or more below) crossing crossing 15,000 or more crossing crossing crossing

Menu of Engineering Treatments

Road Diet
Crossing Islands
Curb Extensions
Advance Stop Lines
In-Roadway Warning Lights
Pedestrian Signals
Grade Separated Crossing (should not be used in conjunction with longitudinal or diagonal crosswalk markings)

Figure 10.3 - Engineering Treatments for Uncontrolled Marked Crosswalks

Page 10-4
 Maryland SHA Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines

The intent of Figures 10.2 and 10.3 is to provide initial guidance on whether an uncontrolled
location might be a candidate for a marked crosswalk alone and/or whether additional
geometric and/or traffic control improvements are needed. As a part of the review process
for pedestrian crossings, an engineering study should be used to analyze such other factors,
including (but not limited to), as gaps in traffic, approach speed, sight distances, illumination,
the needs of special populations, and the distance to the nearest traffic signal.

The spacing of marked crosswalks in uncontrolled situations should also be considered so

that they are not placed too close together. Overuse of marked crosswalks may breed driver
disrespect for them, and a more conservative use of marked crosswalks is generally
preferred. Thus, it is recommended that in situations where marked crosswalks alone are
acceptable, a higher priority be placed on their use at uncontrolled locations having a
minimum of 20 pedestrian crossings per peak hour (or 15 or more elderly and/or child
pedestrians per peak hour). In all cases, good engineering judgment must be applied. (Zegeer
et. al., February 2002)

Figure 10.4 shows design guidance for marked and unmarked crosswalks at uncontrolled
locations.

10.3 Crosswalk Markings

When it has been determined that a marked crosswalk is an appropriate
treatment for a given location, Figure 10.5 provides a summary of
guidelines for the design of the marked crosswalk, including crosswalk
width. Further guidance is given in the Maryland MUTCD.

Decorative Crosswalk Markings

Some residents request decorative crosswalk markings because they
find them to be more aesthetically pleasing than other types of
crosswalk markings. In general, high visibility crosswalk markings are
strongly preferred over decorative markings because they are easier for
motorists to see. In the event that decorative crosswalk markings are
used in place of high visibility markings, they should be edged with 12-
inch wide reflective white lines. In addition, the decorative surface must
be firm, stable and slip resistant (vertical displacement shall not exceed
1.4 inch, and horizontal gaps shall not exceed 1/2 inch).

10.4 Midblock Crossings Figure 10.6 - Example of Decorative

Midblock crossings are a type of uncontrolled marked crosswalk and Crosswalk Markings
are subject to the standards in Section 10.2. While every attempt should
be made to cross pedestrians at intersections, midblock crossings are a
necessary pedestrian movement in many urban, suburban and rural locations. Since
pedestrian travel speeds are much slower than other modes of transportation, pedestrians
have a particularly strong desire to travel the shortest possible distance between two points.
For example, when faced with the option to cross an 80-foot wide road at a midblock
location versus walk 600 feet to the nearest intersection, cross at the crosswalk and walk
back down the street, the majority of pedestrians cross midblock. Assuming a walking speed
of 4 feet per second, the midblock crossing in this example requires 20 seconds to complete,
while the alternative route requires more than 5 minutes.

Provisions for midblock crossings should be carefully considered, because a poorly designed
midblock crossing will violate driver expectance and could cause safety problems for
pedestrians. In some situations, the flow of traffic created by adjacent timed traffic signals

Page 10-6
 Maryland SHA Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines

produces highly reliable gaps, one direction at a time, that allow pedestrians to cross the
roadway easily. In these locations mid-block crossings may provide a safer alternative to
pedestrians that would otherwise have to cross at a busy intersection with conflicting turning
movements. In other situations, there may not be enough gaps for pedestrians to cross at the
midblock location unless a pedestrian-activated traffic signal is added.

Since no two midblock crossings are alike, there is no single standard design. Engineering
judgment must be used, based on the design principles described throughout this design
guide. In general, however, midblock crossings should be considered at locations that are
already a source of a significant number of midblock crossings, or are anticipated to generate
midblock crossings as a result of new development, and/or where the land use is such that a
pedestrian is highly unlikely to cross the street at a nearby intersection.

Page 10-7
 Maryland SHA Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines

10.5 Measures to Improve Crossing Safety

The remainder of this chapter will present a toolbox of options for increasing the safety of
pedestrians crossing the roadway. Signs and signals will be covered separately in Chapter 11.
Engineering judgment will be necessary for picking the appropriate tools for a given
location.

Removing travel lanes – “road diets”

Figure 10.7 - Example Before a Road Diet Figure 10.8 - Example After a Road Diet
(Photo by Peter Lagerwey) (Photo by Peter Lagerwey)

Roadway width is directly correlated with pedestrian safety. Wide roadways with multiple
lanes expose pedestrians to increased crash risk. Some roadways may have more travel lanes
than necessary for the amount of motor vehicle traffic they carry. A “road diet” may be
possible for such roads. For example, an engineering analysis may determine that it is
possible to reduce the cross section of a four lane road to a two-lane road with a center turn
lane. Reducing the number of lanes on a multi-lane roadway can generate a number of
positive benefits for both pedestrians and motorists, including:

x reduced motor vehicle collisions

x reduced crossing distances for pedestrians at intersections
x slower vehicle speeds
x additional space for streetscape and/or bike lane improvements
x additional space to provide a landscaped median

Four-lane roads with average daily traffic volumes of less than 25,000 are potential
candidates for road diet treatments. Six-lane roads with volumes of 30,000 or less may also
be candidates. Projected future traffic volumes should also be taken into consideration when
proposing road diet projects.

Design of Crossing Islands

Figures 10.9 and 10.10 show examples of a continuous raised median and a raised crossing
island at crosswalks. In the FHWA crosswalk study, it was found that “the presence of a
raised median (or raised crossing island) was associated with a significantly lower pedestrian
crash rate at multi-lane sites with both marked and unmarked crosswalks (Zegeer et al,
February 2002).” Figure 10.9 shows a crosswalk through a continuous raised median.
Although the detail shows a midblock location, a similar design is also possible at an
intersection location. Figure 10.10 shows a raised crossing island. The detail shows the

Page 10-11
 Maryland SHA Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines

crossing island at an intersection location, but raised crossing islands are also possible at
midblock locations.

Curb Extensions
Curb extensions, as shown in Figure 10.11, are another
method for shortening pedestrian roadway crossing
distance. Curb extensions are possible on roadways with
on-street parking, at both midblock and intersection
locations.

Curb extensions should not be used on roadways where

parking is prohibited or is uncommon. If curb
extensions are used on roadways with no or limited
parking, great care shall be taken to ensure that they do
not create a hazardous condition for bicyclists, i.e. they
shall not force bicyclists to merge into motor vehicle Figure 10.12 - Example of a Curb Extension
lanes. (Photo by Dan Burden)

Advance Stop Lines

Figure 10.13 shows an application of advance stop lines, an optional treatment at
uncontrolled midblock crosswalks. Research suggests that advance stop lines reduce the
instance of multiple-threat crashes, in which a motorist in one lane stops for a pedestrian
crossing the roadway, and the pedestrian is hit by a motorist in the adjacent lane that does
not stop. (Van Houten; Van Houten and Malefant)

Channelizing Devices
Channelizing devices such as landscaping and fences can be used to encourage pedestrians to
use marked crosswalks. Channelization should be in accordance with existing specifications.

Free Flow Right Turn Design for Improved Pedestrian Safety

As stated in FHWA’s Pedestrian Facilities Users Guide: Providing Safety and Mobility, “while right-
turn slip lanes are generally a negative facility from the pedestrian perspective due to the
emphasis on easy and fast motor vehicle travel, they can be designed to be less problematic
(Zegeer et al, March 2002).” Figure 10.14 shows details for how to design free flow right
turns for improved pedestrian safety.

Page 10-12