U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000


Skip to content
Facebook iconYouTube iconTwitter iconFlickr iconLinkedInInstagram

Federal Highway Administration Research and Technology
Coordinating, Developing, and Delivering Highway Transportation Innovations

Report
This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information
Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-10-068
Date:November 2010

Crosswalk Marking Field Visibility Study

 

CHAPTER 3. MARKING PATTERN SELECTION

 

CROSSWALK MARKING PATTERNS BEING USED

OBSERVATIONS FROM ITE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE

CROSSWALK MARKINGS PATTERNS SELECTED FOR THIS STUDY

 

CROSSWALK MARKING PATTERNS BEING USED

In spring 2009, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Traffic Engineering Council (TENC) Committee 109–01 was formed. The objective of the committee was to document the crossing types and patterns being used at uncontrolled pedestrian crossings.(5) The focus of the committee was on the crosswalk marking patterns at a location rather than whether a marked crosswalk should be present. A recent Transit Cooperative Research Program/National Cooperative Highway Research Program project provided a summary of pedestrian crossing installation guidelines.(6,7) Examples of crosswalk markings along with the common name the ITE TENC committee used to describe them are shown in the following figures:

  • Figure 2 : two transverse lines crosswalk marking pattern.

  • Figure 3 : ladder crosswalk marking pattern.

  • Figure 4 : transverse with diagonal lines crosswalk marking pattern.

  • Figure 5 : continental crosswalk marking pattern.

  • Figure 6 : bar pairs crosswalk marking pattern.

  • Figure 7 : double continental crosswalk marking pattern.

 

This photograph shows a roadside view of two transverse lines at a raised crosswalk. The lines are two white horizontal strips.
Source: Texas Transportation Institute

Figure 2. Photo. Typical two transverse lines crosswalk marking pattern at a raised crosswalk (Bryan, TX).

 

This photograph shows ladder markings across a street as viewed from the curb. The markings consist of two white horizontal strips with several white vertical bars connecting the two strips.
Source: Texas Transportation Institute

Figure 3. Photo. Typical ladder crosswalk marking pattern (Boston, MA).

 

This photograph shows transverse with diagonal lines markings across a street as viewed from the curb. The markings consist of two thick, white horizontal strips with several thinner, diagonal lines connecting the two strips.
Source: www.pedbikeimages.org/Dan Burden

Figure 4. Photo. Typical transverse with diagonal lines crosswalk marking pattern (Aspen, CO).

 

This photograph shows continental markings across a street as viewed from the curb. The markings consist of several parallel, white vertical bars across the width of the street.
Source: Texas Transportation Institute

Figure 5. Photo. Typical continental crosswalk marking pattern (Chicago, IL).

 

This photograph shows an aerial view of bar pairs markings near an intersection. The markings consist of several sets of two parallel, white vertical bars across the width of the street.
Source: Scott Wainwright

Figure 6. Photo. Typical bar pairs crosswalk marking pattern (Seattle, WA).

 

This photograph shows double continental markings as viewed from the roadside. The markings consist of two sets of parallel, white vertical bars running across the width of the street. The sets of bars form two horizontal rows with about the width of the sidewalk between them.
Source: Dan Bergenthal

Figure 7. Photo. Typical double continental crosswalk marking pattern (Salt Lake City, UT).

 

The committee's activity started with an email listserv survey on crosswalk markings. The simple survey provided general insight into the marking patterns being used and identified potential members for the committee. While the survey was conducted informally, it did provide a general indication of preferences for patterns currently used. Summing the number of times a pattern was selected by a respondent generated the following distribution:

  • Transverse lines = 8.

  • Ladder = 8.

  • Continental = 12.

  • Diagonal = 2.

  • Other = 2.

The comments from the respondents gave insight into the reasons different marking patterns are selected. Areas of concern included the following:

  • Spacing the ladder or continental longitudinal lines to avoid the wheel path.

  • Providing a portion of crosswalk without markings so pedestrians or stopped motorcyclists can find bare pavement to obtain traction.

 

Top

 

OBSERVATIONS FROM ITE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE

While gathering information, the ITE TENC committee members had the opportunity to talk to those making decisions regarding crosswalk marking installations. Following is a summary of observations made by members of the committee:(5)

  • In some regions, the type of markings used is a function of the engineer's judgment. The cost of reapplying markings also influences decisions (e.g., diagonal markings wear more quickly because more of the markings are in the wheel path).

  • There is a concern regarding the minimal attention given to selecting a style of crosswalk markings in certain regions. This issue could become more critical with staff turnover.

  • Information regarding crosswalk markings needs to be distributed, especially better information on when to select a particular marking type.

  • A one– or two–sided "tech sheet" with key findings distributed through Local Technical Assistance Program centers could be a resource and a method to distribute information to local agencies responsible for applying crosswalk markings. The sheet could be used in pedestrian safety classes, pavement markings classes, and traffic control devices classes, as well as on any field technical assistance visits related to crosswalks. The ITE TENC committee has developed such a tech sheet.

  • The MUTCD allows numerous options for crosswalks in order to give flexibility to highway agencies. Perhaps there is a need for more tightly prescribed allowable options in the MUTCD to provide clearer direction on which types of markings are best suited for certain conditions. However, in the absence of definitive research showing specific safety benefits of one crosswalk style versus others, highway agencies would likely oppose reduction in the flexibility currently afforded to them.

 

Top

CROSSWALK MARKINGS PATTERNS SELECTED FOR THIS STUDY

During the development of the study approach, routes that included existing crosswalks in Bryan, TX; College Station, TX; and the TAMU campus were considered. During a conference call including the research team and representatives of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the decision was made to focus on evaluations of a smaller number of crosswalk marking patterns and to repeat the patterns at several locations. The conditions at a site, such as presence of lighting or posted speed, can have a significant influence on driver behavior. Therefore, repeating the patterns at several locations helps to isolate driver behavior differences to the markings rather than to another site characteristic. At the meeting between FHWA and the research team, the following patterns were selected for study:

  • Transverse lines.

  • Continental.

  • Bar pairs.

Transverse and continental markings were selected because they are the most common markings, according to the findings from the recent ITE TENC committee survey and in the judgment of the engineers present on the conference call. The bar pair markings were selected because they are being considered and, in several cases, installed by a number of communities. They may also represent a lower–cost alternative to continental markings because they use approximately two-thirds the marking material that would be present in a similar continental marking application.

 

Top

 

FHWA-HRT-10-068

 

Previous | Table of Contents | Next

Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000
Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center | 6300 Georgetown Pike | McLean, VA | 22101