Last October, we wrote about colorful crosswalks. As we discussed then, many local agencies are drawn to these for various reasons and they are popular in some circles. Still, there are concerns and it is likely that they can be designed to resolve those. For example, the current Delaware MUTCD states that, “when patterned pavement or other aesthetic treatments are used to depict crosswalks, 12-inch wide transverse solid white lines should be used to define the crosswalk” (Part 3B.18).
The new national MUTCD addresses the issue in a little more detail and so we can expect that the revised Delaware MUTCD will also, but for that we have to wait another year and a half, plus or minus. Let’s look at the national MUTCD for some clues, realizing that for those of us in Delaware, the current Delaware MUTCD remains in effect until revised.
In the national MUTCD, crosswalks are discussed in general in Part 3C. For aesthetic treatments, Part 3H provides further direction. Specifically, it points out that, “If non-retroreflective colored pavement is used as a purely aesthetic surface treatment (see Section 3H.03) within the provisions of this Chapter and are not intended to communicate regulations, warnings, guidance, or other information to road users, the colored pavement is not considered to be a traffic control device, even if it is located between the lines of a crosswalk.”
Recognizing that, “Aesthetic surface treatments are sometimes used between the transverse lines within a crosswalk…”, the Part 3H standard says that, “Aesthetic surface treatments shall not interfere with traffic control devices.” It goes on to say, “Aesthetic surface treatments shall not be of a surface that can confuse pedestrians with vision disabilities that rely on tactile treatments or cues for navigation. Colors used for aesthetic surface treatments shall be outside the chromaticity coordinates that define the ranges of acceptable colors for traffic control devices. Patterns that constitute a purely aesthetic surface treatment shall be devoid of advertising and shall not contain elements of retroreflectivity. Patterns that constitute a purely aesthetic surface treatment for the interior area of a crosswalk shall not be designed to encourage road users to remain in the crosswalk, engage or interact with the pattern, or otherwise inhibit users from crossing the street in a safe and efficient manner.”
There is further guidance that follows and any local agencies considering these should examine them for assistance in the best design. In the recent Federal Highway Administration Executive Summary and General Overview (March 6, 2024) recorded webinar, the team addressed these a bit (starting about the 51 minute mark).
“It’s important to recognize that there’s no such traffic control device as a rainbow or multicolored crosswalk marking. All crosswalk markings are required to be white, and in one of the standard marking designs that’s specified in the MUTCD. Whether or not an aesthetic or artistic treatment is applied to a roadway surface is up to the jurisdiction. However, there’s a high degree of judgment involved in how close those treatments can be to an official marking or other traffic control device to the extent that they could interact with or obscure that device. So road owners and operators ultimately have the responsibility to ensure the safety of their road users. And while there’s often a safety intent associated with some of these treatments, there’s mixed evidence as to whether they improve safety, and there is some evidence that they can actually degrade safety under some conditions. So the safety of all road users, including those with different abilities, must be the primary consideration when agencies are considering the application of an aesthetic surface treatment or road art. Federal highway administration is still conducting research on some of these more complex aesthetic surface treatments, particularly in the vicinity of crosswalks. We don’t yet have a full understanding of the safety applications, including effects on low vision population who rely on the standard crosswalk markings for cues to find their way. In many cases where there’s a need to improve pedestrian safety, one of the standard high visibility, crosswalk marking designs might be the optimal solution. The standard crosswalk marking patterns have been evaluated for visibility and effectiveness, and you can find more information on that in the FHWA’s Crosswalk Marking Selection Guide.”
What does all this tell us? Well, like many aspects of transportation design, there are different schools of thought and varying priorities. There are clear objectives for safety and accommodation with traditional crosswalk designs, while the goals of these non-conventional approaches can vary, so it may take some experimenting to find approaches that are compatible, at least in some settings. But as experimenting goes, these are typically colorful and fun to look at, so we have that going for us.
The 11th Edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD), the national version, became effective January 18th. States must adopt the 11th Edition National MUTCD or have a State MUTCD or Supplement that is in substantial conformance with the National MUTCD as their legal State standard for traffic control devices within two years. Progress is underway for Delaware’s manual. In the interim, the current Delaware MUTCD remains in effect. But curiosity killed the cat and if you want an understanding of what changed in the national MUTCD to see what’s likely coming our way, there are a series of webinars that you will find helpful from the Federal Highway Administration. The recording of the first and second ones are available for viewing and others are said to follow. New to the MUTCD? The overview will be great for you. Are you well-versed or even a MUTCD geek of sorts? You will love the question and answer portion.
You must be logged in to post a comment.