A reader
recently asked for my advice about adding crosswalk markings in his
community. I provided contact
information for a key contact in his town.
But I also provided a warning about the response he might receive.
The
crosswalk location of interest to him seemed, at first glance, to be a reasonable
place for additional street markings. The
street crossing connected a district that is largely residential with a
district that is more mixed-use, offering restaurants, niche retail, and office
space. A number of pedestrians already
cross at the spot he identified and it seems likely that more would follow if a
crosswalk was painted.
But the
location was also on a busy arterial, marked for 35 mph and often driven at
40. The nearest signals were several
blocks away in both directions.
I warned my
reader that he was likely to get pushback from City Hall about his suggestion. And the concern from City Hall would be reasonable,
because crosswalks often don’t function as we expect, especially as speeds
increase.
Although
drivers are required under the law to stop for pedestrians at crosswalks and
intersections regardless of the speed limit, the rate of compliance drops at speeds
above 30 mph. The cause is probably a
combination of the speed at a car approaches an intersection, reducing reaction
time, and of the additional stopping distance required at higher speeds.
On the other
side of the equation, pedestrians are often emboldened by a crosswalk, stepping
confidently into a street and trusting drivers to respect the painted stripes.
As a result and
paradoxically, vehicle/pedestrian accidents often increase when a new crosswalk is provided
on an arterial. Because many drivers
fail to respect crosswalks, pedestrians are often more safe when they are careful
to cross the street in the absence of a crosswalk. Perhaps elevated levels of stress have
unfortunate long-term health implications, but when the immediate goal is
reaching the far sidewalk, fear can be a good thing.
I’m eagerly
awaiting a report from the reader about his reception at City Hall.
Shortly
after this exchange, Smart Growth America released their “Dangerous by Design” report. The report looks at the conditions and design
standards of U.S. roads for use by non-motorists. I haven’t yet read the entire report and will
likely write further after I’ve completed my reading. But for today, I wanted to note one
particular finding from the report.
A study was
done on Florida arterials with speed limits of 35 to 40 mph, counting the
number of drivers who stopped for crosswalks where pedestrians were waiting to
cross. They found that only 1.1 percent
of all drivers stopped. Perhaps the rate
is Florida is lower than the national average, with drivers in other states more
respectful of pedestrians, but 1.1 percent is so appallingly low that it
remains an embarrassment regardless of the other states. And, although it’s only one data point, the
Florida study fully justifies the warning I gave to the reader to expect City
Hall pushback on his crosswalk idea.
Of course, another
way to look at the data is to question whether we’ve set speed limits too high
when pedestrians are likely to be present.
Which brings us back to the “Twenty is Plenty” argument. Perhaps 20 mph is too low for arterials, but
even 30 mph could have a dramatic impact on pedestrian safety.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
http://www.fastcompany.com/3028153/safer-crossing
ReplyDeleteA design solution.
Thanks for the link. The concept is an intriguing hybrid between conventional intersections and the open street concept that has been tried, with some success, in England.
Delete