Seattle neighborhoods allowed to design custom crosswalk art

[kurumi]

Big picture: you know all the "I am not a robot" checks where you have to identify buses, traffic lights, or plain crosswalks? Fancy crosswalks is how we'll defeat the robot uprising

[hbelkins]

Bit of government over-reach, for sure. Good thing cities like Ames and Seattle take almost no federal money for their streets.

Doesn't matter. The MUTCD applies to all public highways, be they state or locally maintained, regardless of funding.

[paulthemapguy]

Nifty--I would suggest, however, a standard that the artwork stays at least 3-4" from the white lines delineating the crosswalk, to make sure those white lines are clearly visible.  Also, if this artwork takes a long time to install, that will lead to extended periods of shutdown for that roadway affecting both vehicle and pedestrian traffic.  So I'm guessing these artistic crosswalks wouldn't be applied to the busiest streets--at least, they ought not to be.

[jakeroot]

Unmarked crosswalks should be abolished.  All they do is encourage pedestrians to cross the street anywhere they feel like.

Like at street corners where they're legally allowed to? Not sure what you mean. I park across the street from my apartment, which is on the corner of an intersection without any marked crossings. I would literally need to walk four blocks out of my way to get to a marked crossing. For the record, virtually no one ever stops to allow me to cross.

Bit of government over-reach, for sure. Good thing cities like Ames and Seattle take almost no federal money for their streets.

Doesn't matter. The MUTCD applies to all public highways, be they state or locally maintained, regardless of funding.

You of all people don't agree with me on this? You really think the government should have a say in crosswalk designs?

Also, I believe that cities are allowed to basically do whatever they want, but they risk losing federal dollars for their projects. And they risk being sued for non-conforming markings and signs that lead to any collisions, so there's plenty of self-enforcement. In the case of these crosswalks, they have not been found to be dangerous, so there's no issue there. Besides, the crosswalks are legal marked crossings as they have transverse lines on either side. Even if this isn't the standard crosswalk design in whatever area these are installed in, they're still legal markings.

[jeffandnicole]

I don't care for the one of the left, because compared to the other 3 mentioned above it lacks visibility.

Likewise, the crosswalk thru the middle of the intersection should be blue throughout the entire crosswalk. The star is fine.

Do the feds send sternly worded letters when a crosswalk is poorly visible because the lines have faded due to traffic?

It's odd to argue that the blue isn't visible enough when it's ok to have a crosswalk that trucks and plows have basically wiped out of existence

It's all about consistency at intersections like this.  Just like most intersections won't have crosswalks with different stripe patterns, an intersection that is unconventional should be consistent where possible.  80% of the crosswalk painted blue and 20% unpainted isn't consistent.

We can argue all day long about issues found at a small sample of intersections, but they shouldn't be compared to properly marked intersections.

[jeffandnicole]

Unmarked crosswalks should be abolished.  All they do is encourage pedestrians to cross the street anywhere they feel like.

Like at street corners where they're legally allowed to? Not sure what you mean. I park across the street from my apartment, which is on the corner of an intersection without any marked crossings. I would literally need to walk four blocks out of my way to get to a marked crossing. For the record, virtually no one ever stops to allow me to cross.

I would think, what he meant, was that true crosswalks should be marked at all times.  When someone believes in unmarked crosswalks, they tend to exaggerate what an unmarked crosswalk is.  One should walk in a straight line from curb to curb, near the intersection.  I'd bet most people will walk in a line between 2 "whatever points are easiest", and are probably 20 or more feet away from the actual intersection.

Bit of government over-reach, for sure. Good thing cities like Ames and Seattle take almost no federal money for their streets.

Doesn't matter. The MUTCD applies to all public highways, be they state or locally maintained, regardless of funding.

You of all people don't agree with me on this? You really think the government should have a say in crosswalk designs?

Also, I believe that cities are allowed to basically do whatever they want, but they risk losing federal dollars for their projects. And they risk being sued for non-conforming markings and signs that lead to any collisions, so there's plenty of self-enforcement. In the case of these crosswalks, they have not been found to be dangerous, so there's no issue there. Besides, the crosswalks are legal marked crossings as they have transverse lines on either side. Even if this isn't the standard crosswalk design in whatever area these are installed in, they're still legal markings.

Such like the above, many people don't think the government should have any say in certain things...until they don't like said certain things when they will utilize the government's constitutional rights to have their say in said certain things to force the government to conform to the rules and regulations created and authorized by the government.

So, thus, yes, the government should have a say in crosswalk designs.  Without it, motorists would be permitted to plow thru pedestrians crossing without any regulation in place.  And yes, a pedestrian in a crosswalk does have more rights than a pedestrian jaywalking.  A motorist will be in more legal trouble hitting a pedestrian in a crosswalk than hitting one who is jaywalking.  Without a proper crosswalk, chances are the motorist will be convicted of a much less serious traffic violation because of a bad or unauthorized crosswalk design.

[GaryV]

At the risk of being censored and/or sanctioned...

I just put this out there, taking no stand whatsoever on the politics of it:

https://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/story/news/local/2019/10/04/michigan-heartbeat-coalition-anti-abortion-heatbeat-bill-battle-creek-crosswalks/3841829002/

[vdeane]

If anything, the dark red and dark blue are amplifying how bright the white stripe is. I fundamentally disagree that the effectiveness of the white stripe is even remotely diminished by the dark colors. I find your statement baffling, to be honest.

I had a hard time even seeing the dark red and blue when I drove that section of RI 114 each year.  It might be more visible in the street view than it was then.  Granted, I've never been there on a sunny day.
http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=ri114&state=RI&file=101_9908.JPG

[jamess]

Nifty--I would suggest, however, a standard that the artwork stays at least 3-4" from the white lines delineating the crosswalk, to make sure those white lines are clearly visible.  Also, if this artwork takes a long time to install, that will lead to extended periods of shutdown for that roadway affecting both vehicle and pedestrian traffic.  So I'm guessing these artistic crosswalks wouldn't be applied to the busiest streets--at least, they ought not to be.

In my experience, they take under 6 hours to finish. IE, less time than regular utility work from your friends at Verizon or the power company.

[US 89]

Not to mention that colors can decrease the visibility of even the white line.  Take the red, white, and blue centerline in Bristol, RI.  It's a LOT less visible than a traditional double-yellow line would be, or even the while lines used for the parking spaces.

If anything, the dark red and dark blue are amplifying how bright the white stripe is. I fundamentally disagree that the effectiveness of the white stripe is even remotely diminished by the dark colors. I find your statement baffling, to be honest.

But that's a center line, which should be yellow as it separates opposing traffic. As an unfamiliar tourist, if I were driving on that road, I would give serious thought to it being a one-way street.

In general, I oppose any sort of art or decoration on public roadway surfaces. Road markings are standardized for a reason, and the average driver may treat unusual or nonstandard markings differently than they would treat the standard equivalent. There's also the very real chance that the unusual crosswalk or road designs linked in this thread could be distracting for unfamiliar drivers seeing them for the first time.

[DaBigE]

There's also the very real chance that the unusual crosswalk or road designs linked in this thread could be distracting for unfamiliar drivers seeing them for the first time.

Like all the tourists who stop for photos?

[jamess]

There's also the very real chance that the unusual crosswalk or road designs linked in this thread could be distracting for unfamiliar drivers seeing them for the first time.

Isn't real world data more important than an online hypothesis?

[DaBigE]

There's also the very real chance that the unusual crosswalk or road designs linked in this thread could be distracting for unfamiliar drivers seeing them for the first time.

Isn't real world data more important than an online hypothesis?

The engineer in me agrees, but try explaining that to the family of someone who gets killed.

[jeffandnicole]

There's also the very real chance that the unusual crosswalk or road designs linked in this thread could be distracting for unfamiliar drivers seeing them for the first time.

Isn't real world data more important than an online hypothesis?

Yep. And in the real world, people find the most interesting and unusual things to take pictures of.  Objects like stars in the road and such are just asking for Kodak moments.  To use Philly for an example, Broad Street south of City Hall has a raised, curbed 6' median in the middle.  It's meant to deter traffic from making left turns out of garages and driveways and u-turns in the middle of Broad Street.  There's also vents for the subway below.  But any given day, and especially on the weekends, people crowd these medians to take wonderful pictures of City Hall. 

Nifty--I would suggest, however, a standard that the artwork stays at least 3-4" from the white lines delineating the crosswalk, to make sure those white lines are clearly visible.  Also, if this artwork takes a long time to install, that will lead to extended periods of shutdown for that roadway affecting both vehicle and pedestrian traffic.  So I'm guessing these artistic crosswalks wouldn't be applied to the busiest streets--at least, they ought not to be.

In my experience, they take under 6 hours to finish. IE, less time than regular utility work from your friends at Verizon or the power company.

Absolutely impossible, unless you're not including any time for setup and removal of lane closure signage, lane closure setup, drying time, etc.  They wouldn't be able to close more than one or two lanes any given day.  A project like this would have a timeline more like a week or so.

[hbelkins]

Bit of government over-reach, for sure. Good thing cities like Ames and Seattle take almost no federal money for their streets.

Doesn't matter. The MUTCD applies to all public highways, be they state or locally maintained, regardless of funding.

You of all people don't agree with me on this? You really think the government should have a say in crosswalk designs?

Also, I believe that cities are allowed to basically do whatever they want, but they risk losing federal dollars for their projects. And they risk being sued for non-conforming markings and signs that lead to any collisions, so there's plenty of self-enforcement. In the case of these crosswalks, they have not been found to be dangerous, so there's no issue there. Besides, the crosswalks are legal marked crossings as they have transverse lines on either side. Even if this isn't the standard crosswalk design in whatever area these are installed in, they're still legal markings.

Not necessarily saying I agree, just pointing out that the MUTCD does indeed apply. Someone mentioned the Des Moines crosswalks. They tried that in Lexington and FHWA sent them a "cease and desist" letter. I'm not sure how that got resolved, or even if it was resolved.

While I don't think the MUTCD should get bogged down in things like what fonts are appropriate, or what case wording should be in, there's a place for standardized markings and colors. But beyond that, there are appropriate places for social activism and public art. I don't necessarily think street/road surfaces are the best place for that. If someone wants to paint funky art or LGBT rainbows on private buildings at busy intersections, go for it. I'd rather see stark functionality in things meant to safely move vehicles and pedestrians.

[kphoger]

It's a road, not a blank canvas to spew extra paint and beliefs on the road.

+2

I grow weary of "statements" being made on streets infrastructure.

They say that crosswalks should be just the white lines. But hold on, haven't bright red (fake brick) patterns been allowed for decades?

FHWA has previously determined, perhaps in the same official interpretation ruling, that these are ok. IIRC, the distinction was that when such crosswalks are constructed of different contrasting materials (bricks, pavers, PCC concrete when the street is asphalt, etc) and not painted, it doesn't constitute a traffic control device. Such crosswalks also must have the typical white lines outlining the the contrasting pavement material to make it a legal marked crosswalk.

Which is to say, if you removed the white lines from these decorative crosswalk designs, then they would have no legal standing as a marked crosswalk–even with the rest of the paint still there.  An unmarked crosswalk, yes, but many states have slightly different laws when it comes to those.  For example, at a mid-block location between two stoplights, a pedestrian in many states is legally obligated to walk to either the nearest controlled intersection or the nearest marked crosswalk.  A fancy crosswalk design that fails to meet the basic defined criteria of a marked crosswalk runs the risk of inadvertently running pedestrians afoul of the law.

Unmarked crosswalks should be abolished.  All they do is encourage pedestrians to cross the street anywhere they feel like.

With the exception of the scenario I pointed out above, pedestrians are allowed to cross the street anywhere they feel like.  Outside of a marked or unmarked crosswalk, they need to yield to vehicles first but, so long as they do that, they're perfectly legal in crossing the street there.

Not to mention that colors can decrease the visibility of even the white line.  Take the red, white, and blue centerline in Bristol, RI.  It's a LOT less visible than a traditional double-yellow line would be, or even the while lines used for the parking spaces.

If anything, the dark red and dark blue are amplifying how bright the white stripe is. I fundamentally disagree that the effectiveness of the white stripe is even remotely diminished by the dark colors. I find your statement baffling, to be honest.

But that's a center line, which should be yellow as it separates opposing traffic. As an unfamiliar tourist, if I were driving on that road, I would give serious thought to it being a one-way street.

To me, it actually looks most like a track that I should follow, not a boundary I should not cross.  For example, a red and white solid stripe down a road I've actually driven multiple times specifically means that (it's the path a runaway truck should follow to the ramp).  Once I had determined that it was, in fact, a lane stripe, I would also determine that it was intended to divide same-way traffic.  And because a single solid white line does not prohibit changing lanes, I'd assume I could legally change lanes into the left lane and keep driving the same direction as before.

there are appropriate places for social activism and public art. I don't necessarily think street/road surfaces are the best place for that. If someone wants to paint funky art or LGBT rainbows on private buildings at busy intersections, go for it. I'd rather see stark functionality in things meant to safely move vehicles and pedestrians.

+1

[DaBigE]

While this art doesn't seem like it would likely cause any issues, how autonomous vehicles will react also needs to be a consideration as to what (if any) art should be ultimately approved. Will it confuse certain patterns for lane lines? Will the vehicle come to a complete stop because it doesn't know how to interpret what it's sensing?

[Revive 755]

According to this news article (emphasis mine):

* Seattle received a similar letter [to Ames, Iowa] in 2015, but contends [that city] data from three years before and after crosswalks were painted have shown vastly-improved pedestrian safety at those intersections.

Has the data been independently checked?  What were all the 'before' conditions?

As for FHWA's previous rulings on the matter:
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/3_09_8.htm

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/3_09_24.htm

[UCFKnights]

I don't care for the one of the left, because compared to the other 3 mentioned above it lacks visibility.

Likewise, the crosswalk thru the middle of the intersection should be blue throughout the entire crosswalk. The star is fine.

Do the feds send sternly worded letters when a crosswalk is poorly visible because the lines have faded due to traffic?

It's odd to argue that the blue isn't visible enough when it's ok to have a crosswalk that trucks and plows have basically wiped out of existence

It's all about consistency at intersections like this.  Just like most intersections won't have crosswalks with different stripe patterns, an intersection that is unconventional should be consistent where possible.  80% of the crosswalk painted blue and 20% unpainted isn't consistent.

We can argue all day long about issues found at a small sample of intersections, but they shouldn't be compared to properly marked intersections.

But crosswalks already have several different designs. My understanding is locally a "standard" low-use crosswalk just gets two parallel lines. If visibility is a concern, they will use the stripe pattern instead. If its high traffic as well, you'll get both marking applications done on the same crosswalk, with the full ladder design. And I've seen them use these variations at the same intersection

[jeffandnicole]

I don't care for the one of the left, because compared to the other 3 mentioned above it lacks visibility.

Likewise, the crosswalk thru the middle of the intersection should be blue throughout the entire crosswalk. The star is fine.

Do the feds send sternly worded letters when a crosswalk is poorly visible because the lines have faded due to traffic?

It's odd to argue that the blue isn't visible enough when it's ok to have a crosswalk that trucks and plows have basically wiped out of existence

It's all about consistency at intersections like this.  Just like most intersections won't have crosswalks with different stripe patterns, an intersection that is unconventional should be consistent where possible.  80% of the crosswalk painted blue and 20% unpainted isn't consistent.

We can argue all day long about issues found at a small sample of intersections, but they shouldn't be compared to properly marked intersections.

But crosswalks already have several different designs. My understanding is locally a "standard" low-use crosswalk just gets two parallel lines. If visibility is a concern, they will use the stripe pattern instead. If its high traffic as well, you'll get both marking applications done on the same crosswalk, with the full ladder design. And I've seen them use these variations at the same intersection

Again, I'm referring to one location.  Yes, there's a difference.  Refer to engineering schools and studies for more info.  Or, refer to posts within these forums when people ask why there's different traffic lights at an intersection, different sized signs, etc.  Consistently is preferred.

[jamess]

Absolutely impossible, unless you're not including any time for setup and removal of lane closure signage, lane closure setup, drying time, etc.  They wouldn't be able to close more than one or two lanes any given day.  A project like this would have a timeline more like a week or so.

Im speaking as someone who has participated in 2 of these projects in New Jersey. One literally a month ago.

The entire intersection was completed and open to traffic in 6 hours.

https://www.trentonian.com/news/trenton-health-team-to-paint-street-designs-to-slow-traffic/article_ba54bb4c-b9ee-11e9-9384-b3857965cc37.html

[jeffandnicole]

Absolutely impossible, unless you're not including any time for setup and removal of lane closure signage, lane closure setup, drying time, etc.  They wouldn't be able to close more than one or two lanes any given day.  A project like this would have a timeline more like a week or so.

Im speaking as someone who has participated in 2 of these projects in New Jersey. One literally a month ago.

The entire intersection was completed and open to traffic in 6 hours.

https://www.trentonian.com/news/trenton-health-team-to-paint-street-designs-to-slow-traffic/article_ba54bb4c-b9ee-11e9-9384-b3857965cc37.html

Made possible due to the entire intersection being closed, and on a Saturday.  Not always possible in all areas.

[jamess]

Absolutely impossible, unless you're not including any time for setup and removal of lane closure signage, lane closure setup, drying time, etc.  They wouldn't be able to close more than one or two lanes any given day.  A project like this would have a timeline more like a week or so.

Im speaking as someone who has participated in 2 of these projects in New Jersey. One literally a month ago.

The entire intersection was completed and open to traffic in 6 hours.

https://www.trentonian.com/news/trenton-health-team-to-paint-street-designs-to-slow-traffic/article_ba54bb4c-b9ee-11e9-9384-b3857965cc37.html

Made possible due to the entire intersection being closed, and on a Saturday.  Not always possible in all areas.

It's not possible to choose off peak hours to do this...?

As a reminder, you started by saying it was absolutely impossible to do this.

Additionally, it's pretty common to close half the road, work, and then switch sides.

[jeffandnicole]

Absolutely impossible, unless you're not including any time for setup and removal of lane closure signage, lane closure setup, drying time, etc.  They wouldn't be able to close more than one or two lanes any given day.  A project like this would have a timeline more like a week or so.

Im speaking as someone who has participated in 2 of these projects in New Jersey. One literally a month ago.

The entire intersection was completed and open to traffic in 6 hours.

https://www.trentonian.com/news/trenton-health-team-to-paint-street-designs-to-slow-traffic/article_ba54bb4c-b9ee-11e9-9384-b3857965cc37.html

Made possible due to the entire intersection being closed, and on a Saturday.  Not always possible in all areas.

It's not possible to choose off peak hours to do this...?

As a reminder, you started by saying it was absolutely impossible to do this.

Additionally, it's pretty common to close half the road, work, and then switch sides.

Thru an intersection, especially major intersections, it's not common.  You can close a quarter of it, and that's it. And you still need to put up the proper signage, road blockage stuff, etc.

Of course, if you just put up a few cones saying road closed, that's not exactly the proper way to close a road.  Or if the road was closed at, say, 7am and reopened at 6pm for painting that was done from 9-12 and 1-4, that's not 6 hours, that's 11 hours.  I find it very doubtful that a road was closed at the exact minute the project started, and reopened at the exact moment the painting was done.  In fact, even using your example above, the cones are still blocking the intersection and no one is around.  Does that mean that the painting was done so early that this pic was taken before 4pm?

[jamess]

Absolutely impossible, unless you're not including any time for setup and removal of lane closure signage, lane closure setup, drying time, etc.  They wouldn't be able to close more than one or two lanes any given day.  A project like this would have a timeline more like a week or so.

Im speaking as someone who has participated in 2 of these projects in New Jersey. One literally a month ago.

The entire intersection was completed and open to traffic in 6 hours.

https://www.trentonian.com/news/trenton-health-team-to-paint-street-designs-to-slow-traffic/article_ba54bb4c-b9ee-11e9-9384-b3857965cc37.html

Made possible due to the entire intersection being closed, and on a Saturday.  Not always possible in all areas.

It's not possible to choose off peak hours to do this...?

As a reminder, you started by saying it was absolutely impossible to do this.

Additionally, it's pretty common to close half the road, work, and then switch sides.

Thru an intersection, especially major intersections, it's not common.  You can close a quarter of it, and that's it. And you still need to put up the proper signage, road blockage stuff, etc.

Of course, if you just put up a few cones saying road closed, that's not exactly the proper way to close a road.  Or if the road was closed at, say, 7am and reopened at 6pm for painting that was done from 9-12 and 1-4, that's not 6 hours, that's 11 hours.  I find it very doubtful that a road was closed at the exact minute the project started, and reopened at the exact moment the painting was done.  In fact, even using your example above, the cones are still blocking the intersection and no one is around.  Does that mean that the painting was done so early that this pic was taken before 4pm?

Once again youre shifting the goal posts. You said it would take a week. Now you're nit picking if the cones were removed at 4pm on the dot.

You can close a quarter of it, and that's it. And you still need to put up the proper signage, road blockage stuff, etc.

Says who? Last week I saw them repainting the brick crosswalks in downtown Newark. Very, very busy street. The crew put up 5 cones about 30 feet before the crosswalk to close the lane. Once done, they picked them up, and put them down on the other lane to paint that half.

I find it very doubtful that a road was closed at the exact minute the project started, and reopened at the exact moment the painting was done.

You find it doubtful, but I was there, and thats how it was done. The project team knew what they were doing. They received a permit to close the street for the time needed, and nothing longer.

As you can see from the picture, the cones directed drivers through a gas station as a detour.

In fact, even using your example above, the cones are still blocking the intersection and no one is around.

Bottom left and top left are the 30 or so folks who did the work. Theyre in the shade. It was a hot day.


I find it incredible that you are so certain about how this was done when you were not there and I was!