Different crosswalk styles for different situations

[jakeroot]

I'm forking this from another discussion because it's something I've been thinking about for a bit, but didn't want to hijack the other thread.



This difference [between yellow signs and fluorescent yellow green signs] actually reminds me of a problem I have with crosswalks:

In some states, the standard marking at signals or stop signs are transverse lines (the parallel white lines), and the yield-type crossings (slip lanes, RRFB crossings, et al) are zebra-style. The idea is that, as a driver, the different crosswalk styles would help distinguish certain situations. Transverse lines would indicate a standard intersection with a stop sign or signal, but the zebra markings would indicate a crossing where pedestrians may cross at random and would absolutely have right-of-way. Basically a situation where drivers need to be more cautious. The problem is that, in many states, there is no special design for one crosswalk over another; every crossing has the same design.

For example, I find the markings used by the city of Seattle very confusing, because every crosswalk is zebra style. I have to look for additional detail to tell whether or not I may have to stop, just yield to pedestrians, or even look for a signal. In Bellevue (Washington's second largest urban core), transverse markings are used at signals and stop signs, and zebra markings are used at yield situations (roundabouts, RRFBs, slip lanes, etc). So although signs and signals are always used, the crosswalks also provide additional information to me.

Traffic agencies may feel that they are doing the right thing by using the more "visible" option (zebra markings in my example, and fluorescent yellow green signs for all signage, not just in school areas, as a related situation/example), but sometimes that option needs to be used more carefully, otherwise it loses its distinction.



Curious if anyone has noticed this distinction or not. Might just be me. Not so much asking a question, but if I had one, it would be whether or not any distinction may be warranted. For me, the answer is yes.

Here are some photo examples:


Crosswalk Style 1, Bellevue WA by Jacob Root, on Flickr


Crosswalk Style 2, Seattle WA by Jacob Root, on Flickr

[tolbs17]

Here's a photo that can help with which type of crosswalks that are used.



Anyway, Greenville uses 3 of those 6 crosswalk types, with them being standard, continental, and ladder. I prefer continental and ladder due to higher visibility

Ladder - https://goo.gl/maps/r4E3he7V81Q8QWQs5

Continental - https://goo.gl/maps/JnHyCmjRGauJaBCE7 (they just resurfaced it that year so idk if it has been changed to something different, but I'm pretty sure it's the same)

All Standard - https://goo.gl/maps/PChbYaAjTBHxwTEd6 (Would like to have a roundabout here to avoid all that confusion!

Great thread!

Also, didn't you already have a thread here?

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14301.0

[jakeroot]

SF Better Street's terminology doesn't quite line up with the terms I've seen used before, but very well. For example, what they call "continental" I would call zebra, and what they call "standard" I would call "transverse".

Anyway, Greenville uses 3 of those 6 crosswalk types, with them being standard, continental, and ladder. I prefer continental and ladder due to higher visibility

Similarly here in WA, you'll find almost all types of crossings. Even some not shown here; the Seattle example (pictured above) uses a skip-style, what I've sometimes called piano style, that isn't seen anywhere else in the country, except Georgia where it is a variation of the ladder style. Snohomish County, WA also uses a unique style of the so-called 'continental' style where there is a gap in the middle, and usually outlined with raised reflective markers.

Also, didn't you already have a thread here?

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14301.0

I did, yes. But it has been a long time since I posted in there, and that thread wasn't specifically about what I was trying to address here. So I figured I would start another thread. Lots of new members since 2014.

[jeffandnicole]

How in the hell is this related? Well, traffic agencies may feel that they are doing the right thing by using the more "visible" option (zebra markings in my example, and fluorescent yellow green signs for all signage, not just in school areas), but sometimes that option needs to be used more carefully, otherwise it loses its distinction.



Curious if anyone has noticed this distinction or not. Might just be me. Not so much asking a question, but if I had one, it would be whether or not any distinction may be warranted. For me, the answer is yes.

Personally, here, I've never heard that there's distinctive styles based on what someone might do, and the style has no reflection on any sort of law.  It's all about visibility.

[1995hoo]

I've never known there to be any difference in meaning between the crosswalk styles. If anything, this intersection not too far from where I live suggests the opposite–different styles on opposite sides of the same intersection. (I've crossed the street using what tolbs17's image calls the "continental" style crosswalk closer to the camera's viewpoint. It's a scary experience because traffic is often moving at 50 mph or more–speed limit is 35. Even the bus drivers refuse to stop.) It's interesting and odd that the pedestrian warning sign is on the far side, although just behind the camera's viewpoint there's a sign admonishing drivers to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. (That sign is obsolete since the law was amended a year or two ago to require stopping for pedestrians rather than yielding.)

The inconsistency isn't limited to uncontrolled intersections. See this one not too far away from the one linked above; this intersection has traffic lights and pedestrian signals all the way around, but you can still see inconsistency in crosswalk style, and I note most–but not all!–other nearby signalized intersections use what tolbs17's image calls the "standard" style. Compare to this one nearby, for instance; people often try not to stop if you're going to or from the path around the lake to or from the pork chop island.

[ran4sh]

I agree that standardizing all crosswalks to use a high-visibility style is overkill and reduces the impact at locations where it is really needed.

Georgia is one of the states that does that: GDOT policy is for all crosswalks to use something resembling the "ladder" style as shown in tolbs17's image.

I have read a source somewhere, but I don't remember where, that the research actually suggests to use a "standard" style (just two transverse lines) for most crosswalks and save the "high-visibility" styles (the wide longitudinal stripes, whether it's with or without the transverse lines) for locations where they are needed due to visibility issues, high speeds, or other conditions that are dangerous for pedestrians.

As for MUTCD compliance, the "solid" and "dashed" designs shown in tolbs17's image are non-compliant, and I suspect the "zebra" design with the diagonal stripes is also non-compliant.

[jakeroot]

Personally, here, I've never heard that there's distinctive styles based on what someone might do, and the style has no reflection on any sort of law.  It's all about visibility.

It's not a matter of law, and I don't recall saying that it was. It's merely a policy, if a crosswalk is stop-controlled, it uses one style; non-stop controlled, another style.

NJ is not a place where I've seen any distinction made. In fact, I'm not aware of any Northeastern states that do.

I've never known there to be any difference in meaning between the crosswalk styles. If anything, this intersection not too far from where I live suggests the opposite–different styles on opposite sides of the same intersection. (I've crossed the street using what tolbs17's image calls the "continental" style crosswalk closer to the camera's viewpoint. It's a scary experience because traffic is often moving at 50 mph or more–speed limit is 35. Even the bus drivers refuse to stop.) It's interesting and odd that the pedestrian warning sign is on the far side, although just behind the camera's viewpoint there's a sign admonishing drivers to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. (That sign is obsolete since the law was amended a year or two ago to require stopping for pedestrians rather than yielding.)

The inconsistency isn't limited to uncontrolled intersections. See this one not too far away from the one linked above; this intersection has traffic lights and pedestrian signals all the way around, but you can still see inconsistency in crosswalk style, and I note most–but not all!–other nearby signalized intersections use what tolbs17's image calls the "standard" style. Compare to this one nearby, for instance; people often try not to stop if you're going to or from the path around the lake to or from the pork chop island.

Not to completely override your entire post, but Virginia is actually one place where I've seen the distinction made. Especially outside of NoVA though.

At the intersection you posted, I think that's a good example of old style (transverse) vs new style (the zebra style) mixed at one intersection simply because they didn't do both at the same time. There are many intersections across this country without any distinction and sometimes it's purely a mix of old and new markings.

Some random Virginia examples of what I mean (zebra for slip lanes, transverse for signal):

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8751271,-77.3075302,96m/data=!3m1!1e3
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0804288,-77.5003614,269m/data=!3m1!1e3
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.988786,-77.4332936,181m/data=!3m1!1e3
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9523951,-77.5164024,151m/data=!3m1!1e3

These were completely cherrypicked, but they are examples of how sometimes, some approaches are treated differently depending on the driver requirements.

[jakeroot]

I agree that standardizing all crosswalks to use a high-visibility style is overkill and reduces the impact at locations where it is really needed.
...
I have read a source somewhere, but I don't remember where, that the research actually suggests to use a "standard" style (just two transverse lines) for most crosswalks and save the "high-visibility" styles (the wide longitudinal stripes, whether it's with or without the transverse lines) for locations where they are needed due to visibility issues, high speeds, or other conditions that are dangerous for pedestrians.

That does seem to be the policy in some places. For example: Oregon, Alaska, British Columbia, Alberta, some cities in Washington, some parts of California, some parts of Virginia, etc.

I do agree with the policy, as I feel there are certain crosswalks, or at the very least certain kinds of approaches (such as those requiring a stop and those that do not) that may warrant a high visibility style. But when you use the high visibility option for all crossings, drivers become accustomed to that one style and then you have no high-visibility option for the approaches that may warrant it.

[US 89]

There are a few exceptions, but as a general rule, Utah uses the "continental" style at school crossings and the standard style at other pedestrian crossings. In addition, most city-maintained "continental" crossings in Salt Lake City actually feature two sets of markings (example).

Salt Lake City in particular will also use the "continental" style at certain high-volume non-school pedestrian crossings like these, but that isn't super common. Anything else is rare. UDOT has on occasion used the "zebra" style for high-visibility crossings like this one in SLC and the next two midblock crossings to the south.

[jakeroot]

There are a few exceptions, but as a general rule, Utah uses the "continental" style at school crossings and the standard style at other pedestrian crossings. In addition, most city-maintained "continental" crossings in Salt Lake City actually feature two sets of markings (example).

Salt Lake City in particular will also use the "continental" style at certain high-volume non-school pedestrian crossings like these, but that isn't super common. Anything else is rare. UDOT has on occasion used the "zebra" style for high-visibility crossings like this one in SLC and the next two midblock crossings to the south.

California has a similar school-zone policy; sometimes the crosswalk changes to the continental style (zebra style), but the tell-tale sign is always the color, which changes to yellow. Continental is increasingly used in non-school areas (such as along Lincoln Ave in Anaheim), but the yellow is always reserved for school zones.

I like UDOT's policy. Although you are a road-geek like the rest of us, the fact that you immediately knew that continental was reserved for school zones is a good indication that many regular drivers might realize this too, helping to raise awareness of the potential for children in a particular area, a potential not able to be realized in places where all crosswalks are high-vis.

[RobbieL2415]

ConnDOT always uses Continental.
A couple intersections in Hartford use Standard.

No intersection in CT uses a fully striped "box", either. Only the regular four corners of the intersection.

[Scott5114]

Oklahoma uses the continental style so uniformly that when I travel out-of-state and see other styles it takes me a moment to recognize them as crosswalks.

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

According to my experience as a pedestrian, the most dangerous crosswalks aren't midblock crosswalks, but crosswalks at busy traffic signals or unsignalized intersections. At a midblock crosswalk the traffic is coming at a right angle to you and you can easily wait for and identify a gap. Trying to cross a wide street at a traffic signal with turning conflicts is more terrifying because turning vehicles are coming from behind your shoulder and you might not be able to see them until they're about to hit you. And vehicles making left turns are usually concentrating on oncoming traffic and once they see a gap they might drive right into you.

This study found that high-vis markings at intersections in NYC (presumably mostly/all stop or signal controlled) reduced pedestrian crashes by 48%.

[roadfro]

I think Nevada used to make a distinction. Standard line pattern at most crossings (especially signalized intersections), but the "continental" stripes at crosswalks in school zones.

Lately, continental is used at practically all crosswalks, including most signalized intersections, except the standard lines are used at locations where there are pavers or other unique pavement is used to form the crosswalk.

[jakeroot]

No intersection in CT uses a fully striped "box", either. Only the regular four corners of the intersection.

Could you elaborate? I'm not sure I understand.

Oklahoma uses the continental style so uniformly that when I travel out-of-state and see other styles it takes me a moment to recognize them as crosswalks.

WSDOT is quite uniform, but individual cities set their own rules, and you can see just about every design somewhere in Washington. I'm guessing that's not true in Oklahoma?

[jakeroot]

According to my experience as a pedestrian, the most dangerous crosswalks aren't midblock crosswalks, but crosswalks at busy traffic signals or unsignalized intersections. At a midblock crosswalk the traffic is coming at a right angle to you and you can easily wait for and identify a gap. Trying to cross a wide street at a traffic signal with turning conflicts is more terrifying because turning vehicles are coming from behind your shoulder and you might not be able to see them until they're about to hit you. And vehicles making left turns are usually concentrating on oncoming traffic and once they see a gap they might drive right into you.

This study found that high-vis markings at intersections in NYC (presumably mostly/all stop or signal controlled) reduced pedestrian crashes by 48%.

Thank you for sharing that study. I can definitely see how high-vis markings can help drivers recognize a crossing. Part of me would like to think that drivers would be acutely aware of each edge of an intersection being a crosswalk by default, so they should always look. But many drivers likely don't encounter lots of pedestrians on their commute except key intersections, and it's definitely these key intersections where I think high-vis markings are warranted. I'm just not sold on them being the default at every single crossing.

I think Nevada used to make a distinction. Standard line pattern at most crossings (especially signalized intersections), but the "continental" stripes at crosswalks in school zones.

Lately, continental is used at practically all crosswalks, including most signalized intersections, except the standard lines are used at locations where there are pavers or other unique pavement is used to form the crosswalk.

I suspect this may be the case in quite a few areas. The zebra crossing (at least the variation used in the UK) may well be as old as the standard style, but I believe the standard style was possibly the default almost everywhere at one point. At least in areas that painted crosswalks, as many places did not even do that.

In California, there are many signalized intersections that now utilize continental/zebra markings. I don't think it's any indication of them becoming the norm, but they seem to be the norm in some key areas. But California definitely still uses the standard markings at most intersections, even new ones, with the high-vis style only for urban areas.

[UCFKnights]

Curious if anyone has noticed this distinction or not. Might just be me. Not so much asking a question, but if I had one, it would be whether or not any distinction may be warranted. For me, the answer is yes.

I wish MUTCD would require a distinction. When they put "standard" style crosswalks in without any other traffic control device, its a complete shit show at what people to do them. Some people stop when no one is around for no reason, others don't even slow down for pedestrians, and I generally feel like its making the situation less safe (pedestrians get some false comfort, vehicles randomly doing things like stopping for no reason), etc. I think continental should be standard, I think if you went to most people and asked them what crosswalk marks looks like, thats what they would draw first.

I wouldn't be too annoyed if standard is saved for low traffic, controlled (having either a stop sign or a light) crosswalks, but if there is no traffic control device, the least we can get is some stripes, its so much less confusing.

[Scott5114]

WSDOT is quite uniform, but individual cities set their own rules, and you can see just about every design somewhere in Washington. I'm guessing that's not true in Oklahoma?

I assume that cities can set their own rules, but when it comes to crosswalks everyone's just copied off of one another and ODOT and gone with the continental style.

[jay8g]

Personally, I expect that different crosswalk designs meaning different things is probably lost on the vast majority of people. I'd rather see a single consistent design used everywhere, and ideally the transverse design wouldn't be used at all due to maintenance issues. I was in Spokane recently, which uses the transverse style extensively (though it seems that they're gradually transitioning towards the Seattle style), and so many of their crosswalks were extremely worn out. Bellevue seems to be pretty good with maintenance, but, well, I'm sure they have a lot more money to put towards that than most cities do.

Tacoma is an interesting case with this too, historically not marking crosswalks at signalized intersections at all (though they generally do now).

[JMAN_WiS&S]

I know for a fact in my city, Eau Claire uses the scheme you described in the original post. It used to be inconsistent 10 years ago but the current engineer in office deems it important enough to denote. Even to such a degree that at one of our intersections where the overnight flash mode (yes we still have some intersections that do this, even tho they are fully actuated  ), the direction that has the flashing yellow has the continental, "piano keys" as I call them. I personally really like this way of denoting the crosswalks and wish more places followed it. I've found a lot of places are inconsistent.

[jakeroot]

Curious if anyone has noticed this distinction or not. Might just be me. Not so much asking a question, but if I had one, it would be whether or not any distinction may be warranted. For me, the answer is yes.

I wish MUTCD would require a distinction. When they put "standard" style crosswalks in without any other traffic control device, its a complete shit show at what people to do them. Some people stop when no one is around for no reason, others don't even slow down for pedestrians, and I generally feel like its making the situation less safe (pedestrians get some false comfort, vehicles randomly doing things like stopping for no reason), etc. I think continental should be standard, I think if you went to most people and asked them what crosswalk marks looks like, thats what they would draw first.

I wouldn't be too annoyed if standard is saved for low traffic, controlled (having either a stop sign or a light) crosswalks, but if there is no traffic control device, the least we can get is some stripes, its so much less confusing.

Definitely agreed on that last part, striped crossings (like the continental style) definitely should be used when there is no other traffic control device. At least that's my opinion.

Otherwise, I do echo your confusion. In my area (as mentioned in the OP), for those cities that use the standard markings, they are only used at intersections where a stop is required, or when there is a traffic light. So when I visited North Bend, WA recently, and discovered a ton of intersections using only the "standard" crosswalk design, I was a bit confused. At one, I instinctively slowed to a stop, thinking it was an all-way stop. Well, as it turns out, it was only a two-way stop, and I did not need to stop. People in places like NJ or CA, where the standard design is the norm for virtually every crosswalk (with some exceptions), probably scoff at my idiocy. But in the three places I drive the most, Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia, the "standard" design is only used when a stop is required, or there is a traffic light. Otherwise, the continental design is used.

[jakeroot]

Personally, I expect that different crosswalk designs meaning different things is probably lost on the vast majority of people. I'd rather see a single consistent design used everywhere, and ideally the transverse design wouldn't be used at all due to maintenance issues. I was in Spokane recently, which uses the transverse style extensively (though it seems that they're gradually transitioning towards the Seattle style), and so many of their crosswalks were extremely worn out. Bellevue seems to be pretty good with maintenance, but, well, I'm sure they have a lot more money to put towards that than most cities do.

If I recall correctly, Spokane actually uses the same approach as Bellevue, where "yield" crossings are zebra-style, and signalized or stop approaches are the standard design. But, the zebra-style design can be used on certain corridors even at fully signalized intersections when warranted (example of an intersection that has flip-flopped: first, continental, then standard (same as before but repainted), now continental again).

For example, Bellevue uses the continental style at almost every signal on 156th Ave NE, from Northup Way to the south edge of the Crossroads Mall (only recently installed -- not on GSV yet). Even though SOP in Bellevue is to use the standard design for signal or stop approaches, it seems this area is highly trafficked, and the city wanted to highlight the extra need for caution to drivers. As usual for Bellevue, however, they totally did it right, using a very tightly spaced zebra pattern that will likely experience some wear and tear, but relies less on the tire-track placement method that results in garbage like this (seriously, King County -- why even bother?!)

I think Renton is also now using the Bellevue approach, reserving the continental pattern for yield approaches, or highly-trafficked areas. I say this because Renton recently switched a bunch of streets downtown to two-way, and all of the intersections have all-way stops with the standard design; the original Seattle-style patterns were grinded away (no GSV yet).

Tacoma is an interesting case with this too, historically not marking crosswalks at signalized intersections at all (though they generally do now).

Actually, Tacoma historically used the standard design at signalized intersections. Way back in the day, it was somewhat common to use either standard markings or a different material for the crosswalk at certain intersections, as opposed to any markings. Eventually, the standard design came into "normalcy" (like, used all the time) by the 1940s, (!!) with a diagonal pattern applied in between the transverse lines for crosswalks requiring a yield (!!) (grainy picture, but you can see both in this 1940s aerial photo, and this much clearer 1950s aerial photo) (make sure to full screen all of these photos to see the full resolutions). At some point, Tacoma basically gave up marking crosswalks, basically just preserving some in key areas. But they did start to use the Seattle-style continental marking pattern in the 1990s, although it only became common in the last decade or so. As far as I can tell, there are virtually no standard design crosswalks left in Tacoma that aren't outlining a pattern (like stamped concrete or rainbow treatment), apart from a single downtown intersections (9th and A), where they have effectively faded into oblivion.

It should be noted that Pierce County never marked anything but school crossings until the last decade. Even the six lane expressway Canyon Road, which was only completed as recently as the late 2000s, had no crosswalk markings at first, though it does now.

[jakeroot]

I know for a fact in my city, Eau Claire uses the scheme you described in the original post. It used to be inconsistent 10 years ago but the current engineer in office deems it important enough to denote. Even to such a degree that at one of our intersections where the overnight flash mode (yes we still have some intersections that do this, even tho they are fully actuated  ), the direction that has the flashing yellow has the continental, "piano keys" as I call them. I personally really like this way of denoting the crosswalks and wish more places followed it. I've found a lot of places are inconsistent.

Ahh, yet another unique characteristic of Eau Claire. I recall that city using somewhat unique signal design standards relative to other Wisconsin cities as well.

[jay8g]

Eventually, the standard design came into "normalcy" (like, used all the time) by the 1940s, (!!) with a diagonal pattern applied in between the transverse lines for crosswalks requiring a yield (!!) (grainy picture, but you can see both in this 1940s aerial photo, and this much clearer 1950s aerial photo) (make sure to full screen all of these photos to see the full resolutions).

Very interesting! The diagonal lines design is in the MUTCD, but it hardly ever seems to be used outside of parking lots... I'm not sure I've ever seen it in use, in fact.

I didn't realize that their lack of marked crosswalks at signals was a somewhat recent thing. It certainly seems like it was an intentional policy for a while, since there are lots of relatively-major intersections with no traces of a marked crosswalk. 

[jakeroot]

Eventually, the standard design came into "normalcy" (like, used all the time) by the 1940s, (!!) with a diagonal pattern applied in between the transverse lines for crosswalks requiring a yield (!!) (grainy picture, but you can see both in this 1940s aerial photo, and this much clearer 1950s aerial photo) (make sure to full screen all of these photos to see the full resolutions).

Very interesting! The diagonal lines design is in the MUTCD, but it hardly ever seems to be used outside of parking lots... I'm not sure I've ever seen it in use, in fact.

I didn't realize that their lack of marked crosswalks at signals was a somewhat recent thing. It certainly seems like it was an intentional policy for a while, since there are lots of relatively-major intersections with no traces of a marked crosswalk.

I think Maryland uses the diagonal line pattern. But for sure, it's exceptionally rare. I cannot recall where, but some faded examples still remain. I think somewhere on Tacoma Ave near Wright Park.

It's definitely true that some areas of the city were...uhh... neglected. 12th and Sprague had marked crosswalks back in the 50s, but when 11th and 12th were made one way couplets in the 60s, they seem to have scrapped marked crosswalks. I think this period coincided with a general decline in Tacoma's economy, and this a decrease in revenue for the city, which may explain their apparent giving-up when it came to road markings.

If I recall correctly, the (former?) city traffic engineer, Kurtis Kingsolver, is actually quite adamant against marked crosswalks as he thinks it encourages pedestrians to enter without due care, reserving marked crossings only for where determined necessary by a study. That may partially explain why they are rare even today.