Concepts for Safe Trail Crossings
Techniques that can help improve pedestrian conditions and access at intersections are outlined in the following list and expanded in the subsequent sections:
-
Install a center median to provide a refuge for slower pedestrians (below);
- Install accessible pedestrian signals to assist in providing people with vision impairments enough time to cross the street;
- Increase crossing times so that people who walk slowly will have sufficient time to cross before the signal indication changes;
- Increase the crossing times so that people who delay the start of their crossing to confirm the WALK interval will have sufficient time to cross before the signal indication changes;
- Restrict right turns on red;
- Enhance the visibility of the crosswalk markings or consider a raised crosswalk with detectable warnings (truncated domes) at both ends;
- Reduce crossing distances and increase visibility through the construction of curb extensions (below);
- Reduce traffic speed;
- Clarify the pedestrian crossing area by installing raised crosswalks with detectable warnings (truncated domes) installed at both ends;
- Provide pedestrian lead time and an accessible pedestrian signal so pedestrians, including those with vision impairments, can assert themselves in the crosswalk before motorists start making right and left turns;
- Provide midblock signalized crossing with accessible pedestrian signal opportunities at busy intersections to encourage people to cross where there are fewer potential points of conflict between pedestrians and motorists;
- Provide a curb extension to decrease crossing distances and increase pedestrian visibility; and
- Add traffic and pedestrian signal indications if they do not already exist.
In addition, if commercial facilities are primarily located on one side of a very busy street, public transportation, such as buses, should drop people off on the commercial side of the street whenever feasible to reduce the number of crossings.
8.2 Midblock crossings
Midblock crossings are locations between intersections where a marked crosswalk has been provided. Midblock crossings are often installed in areas with heavy pedestrian traffic to provide more frequent crossing opportunities. They may also be added near major pedestrian destinations, such as schools, where people might otherwise cross at unmarked locations.
Midblock crossings may or may not be regulated. In many situations, midblock crossings are easier for pedestrians to use because traffic is flowing in no more than two directions. However, midblock crossings present some design challenges because motorists often do not expect pedestrians to be crossing at a midblock location. In addition, midblock crossings are difficult for pedestrians with vision impairments to locate; if signalized, pedestrians with visual impairments are often unable to identify when it is their turn to cross because their customary cue, the surge of traffic in the street beside them, isn't present. If not signalized, they are often unable to tell when there is a gap in traffic or whether all approaching cars have stopped (the sound of one idling car can mask the sound of approaching cars).
A variety of strategies can be employed to identify midblock crossings to people with vision impairments. If the crossing is signalized, an accessible pedestrian actuated signal device with a locator tone should be provided. Another strategy is to include raised directional wayfinding surfaces across the width of the sidewalk (perpendicular to the sidewalk path of travel). This alerts the pedestrian with visual impairments to the midblock crossing, and they are able to follow the directional surface to the curb on the other side of crossing. In the United States, relatively few midblock crossings incorporate raised directional surfaces, although they are more widely used in other countries, including Japan and England.
8.5 Crosswalks
Crosswalks are a critical part of the pedestrian network. A crosswalk is defined as "the portion of a roadway designated for pedestrians to use in crossing the street" (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1998). Crosswalks are implied at all intersections whether or not they are marked. Midblock crossings include all marked crosswalks that do not occur at intersections. Midblock crossings are only created if a marked crosswalk is provided. The agency responsible for the roadway must ensure that all marked and unmarked crosswalks and midblock crossings are optimized for the safety and accessibility of all pedestrians.
8.5.1 Crosswalk markings
Crosswalk markings, if provided, are used to define the pedestrian path of travel across the roadway and alert drivers to the crosswalk location. Marked crosswalks should be designed in accordance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Although the MUTCD provides options for crosswalk markings, the continental design is recommended because research indicates that it is the most visible to drivers (Knoblauch et al., 1988). The ladder design is created with white longitudinal lines at a 90 degree angle to the line of the crosswalk. The lines should be approximately 305 mm to 610 mm (12 in to 24 in) wide and spaced 305 mm to 610 mm (12 in to 24 in) apart (USDOT, 1988). The continental design can also be installed so that the primary paths for vehicular tires are between the crosswalk markings, which helps to reduce wear and maintenance. Use of the continental design for crosswalk markings also improves crosswalk detection for people with low vision and cognitive impairments. It is recommended that the continental design be used consistently to mark all crosswalks; otherwise the impact of less visible markings may be weakened by comparison. The crosswalk featured on the left is more susceptible to wear from motor vehicle tires than the crosswalk figure on the right. In addition, the crosswalk on the right is more visible to approaching traffic.
5.2 Crosswalk research
In recent years, there has been much debate surrounding the safety implications of marking crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections. Previous research results were contradictory in terms of whether pedestrian vehicle crashes were occurring with more, less, or the same frequency at marked and unmarked crosswalks. The contradictory findings can be attributed to limitations of the research project designs, which contained many confounding variables and small, potentially biased sample sizes and sites.
A large study entitled Evaluation of Pedestrian Facilities was completed by the Federal Highway Administration to address the limitations found in previous research (Zeeger, Stewart, & Huang, 1999). None of the sites in the study had traffic signals or stop signs on the approach to the crosswalk. The study examined the safety of marked and unmarked crosswalks and the impact of additional pedestrian treatments, such as signal indications, lights, and traffic calming measures. The study evaluated 1,000 marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations or locations with no traffic control devices and 1,000 matched but unmarked sites in 30 geographically dispersed cities in the United States. Detailed information collected for each site included pedestrian crash history, pedestrian and traffic volumes, number of lanes, speed limit, type of median, type and condition of crosswalk markings, and crosswalk location. Results of the study indicated that:
-
Higher pedestrian volumes, higher average daily traffic (ADT) rates, and a greater number of roadway lanes are related to a higher incidence of pedestrian crashes;
-
Crosswalk location, speed limit, direction of traffic flow, crosswalk condition, and crosswalk marking pattern were not related to the incidence of pedestrian crashes;
-
The presence of a median decreased the pedestrian crash risk;
-
Marked crossings had a higher incidence of pedestrian crashes on multi-lane (4 or more lanes) roads with high ADTs;
-
Marked and unmarked crossings had similar incidences of pedestrian crashes on all 2-, 3-, and multi-lane roads with lower ADTs;
-
Pedestrians ages 65 and above were over represented in crashes; and
- The installation of marked crossings did not alter motorist behavior (e.g., stop or yield to pedestrians) or pedestrian behavior (e.g., crossing without looking).
According to the research, on smaller roadways with lighter traffic volumes, markings do not decrease the pedestrian crash risk; conversely, on large, high-volume roadways, the risk actually increases. However, Zegeer, Stuart and Huang (1999) indicated that the higher risk observed on multi-lane roadways with high ADT rates results from:
-
An overall higher risk as the number of lanes or ADT rate increases regardless of markings;
-
Recognition that multi-lane roadways with high ADT rates represent the most difficult scenarios for pedestrian crossings, and
-
The fact that marked crossings draw pedestrians to cross in that location, particularly in areas where the crossing is perceived to be difficult.
8.5.3 Recommendations for enhancing pedestrian safety and access
Zegeer, Stuart, and Huang emphasized that the needs of pedestrians to safely cross streets cannot be ignored and that engineering and roadway treatments should be used to minimize the pedestrian crash risk. Based on these recommendations, it is not appropriate to always remove crosswalk markings from multi-lane roadways with high average daily traffic. Instead, the markings should be enhanced with appropriate additional pedestrian treatments such as signing, traffic calming, signalization, or other countermeasures.
Zegeer, Stuart and Huang (1999) offered a variety of recommendations based on the results of their research. Although the study was focused on safety issues, it is interesting to note that the majority of their recommendations for improving pedestrian safety would improve access for people with disabilities. Based on these research results and recommendations for enhancing access to pedestrian rights-of-way (U.S. Access Board, 1999a), the following recommendations are made for the design of pedestrian crosswalks:
-
Design crosswalks as enhanced crossings that combine highly visible markings (ladder striping) with additional pedestrian treatments, such as shorter crossing distances, traffic calming, and medians;
- Design crosswalks so that all pedestrians can travel within the marked area throughout the entire crossing. Crosswalk designs should provide for a 1.22 m (48 in) clear space at the bottom of diagonal curb ramps;
-
Avoid restrictions for pedestrians to cross on only one leg of an intersection unless a solid barrier and accessible information about the restricted crossing pattern is provided to pedestrians with visual impairments;
-
Ensure that midblock crossings will be detectable by and accessible to pedestrians with vision impairments;
- Maintain crosswalk markings and consider additional treatments whenever a street is resurfaced;
- Do not install marked crosswalks without additional treatments, such as traffic calming and signing, on multi-lane roadways with high average daily traffic;
- Provide raised medians and curb extensions on multi-lane roads;
- Consider traffic signals and pedestrian actuated signal devices at difficult or problematic pedestrian crossings;
- Consider flashing signals and lights and advanced warning signs to increase the visibility of the crosswalk;
- Install traffic calming measures to reduce vehicle speeds (see Chapter 10);
- Increase the crossing time if the crossing is signalized;
- Maintain the expected pedestrian travel pattern;
- Design corners with smaller turning radii; and
- Provide generous sight distances and unobstructed sight lines between vehicles and pedestrians.
8.5.3.1 Flashing signals
Pedestrian safety is maximized when drivers are aware of the crosswalk location and know when a pedestrian is attempting to cross. People who use wheelchairs are at a lower height than other pedestrians and may be more difficult for motorists to detect. People with vision impairments cannot establish eye contact with an approaching motorist, which may also decrease the probability that they will be seen or that the motorist will know that a crossing will be attempted. Flashing lights that are activated only when a pedestrian is attempting to cross can enhance crosswalk detection by motorists. The flashing lights, in conjunction with advanced warning signs for the lights, can provide the motorists with more warning of the crossing. A variety of intermittent lighting styles may be used, including:
-
Flashing traffic signals over the crosswalk;
-
Imbedded flashing lights in the crosswalk surface; and
-
Flashing signals to warn motorists if pedestrians are present
This lighted crosswalk is in the center of the Village of Chittenango, NY.
8.7 Medians
Medians are the portion of a divided roadway that separates traffic flows heading in opposite directions (US DOT, 1994b). At roundabouts, these are called splitter islands. Medians help pedestrians cross intersections by reducing the crossing distance from the curb to a protected area. This allows pedestrians to cross during smaller gaps in traffic. For this reason, medians are especially helpful for pedestrians who are unable to judge distances accurately. In addition, medians also help people with slow walking speeds to cross wide intersections during a short signal cycle. Medians are also useful at irregularly-shaped intersections, such as sites where two roads converge into one (Earnhart & Simon, 1987). In commercial districts, medians provide pedestrians with valuable protection from oncoming traffic. In residential areas, they serve as traffic calming devices and green space.
Whenever possible, medians should be raised to separate pedestrians and motorists. Raised medians make the pedestrian more visible to motorists and they are easier for people with vision impairments to detect. Raised medians should be designed with a cut-through at street level or a ramp. This provides pedestrian access to individuals who cannot travel over a curb. Detectable warning surfaces should be placed at the edge of both ends of the median in order for the streets to be recognized by pedestrians who are visually impaired. If the corner includes a pedestrian actuated control device, one should also be located at the median. (See Chapter 6.5 for more information.)
8.10 Skewed intersections
Streets planned on a grid are generally easiest for pedestrians to negotiate because they result in intersections at 90 degree angles. Perpendicular intersections are easier to negotiate because the path of travel is clear and direct, and sight lines are good in all directions. Skewed intersections occur when streets cross at angles other than 90 degrees and create complicated scenarios for both pedestrians and drivers
Skewed intersections should be avoided whenever possible during the planning stages of the development process. However, in some areas site constraints prevent the installation of perpendicular intersections. When skewed intersections are unavoidable, the intersection should be designed so that the angle between intersecting streets is as close to 90 degrees as possible. In addition, if major alterations are being done to an existing skewed intersection, transportation agencies should consider whether it is possible to reconfigure the intersection so that the crossings are more perpendicular.
At some skewed intersections, the crosswalks are moved back from the intersection to allow the crossing distance to be shorter and more perpendicular to the sidewalk. However, this design is only recommended if pedestrians with vision impairments can identify the unusual crossing location. People with vision impairments rely on predictable pedestrian travel paths to determine their crossing direction and location. Therefore, they are likely to experience difficulty locating crosswalk paths that are not aligned with the sidewalk path of travel. To enhance detection, a barrier or landscaping can be installed at the expected crossing location and an accessible pedestrian signal with a locator tone should be provided to identify the crosswalk location. Including raised directional surfaces (tiles to help locate the crosswalk) may also be useful for pedestrians with vision impairments. In addition to the drawbacks for pedestrians with vision impairments, other potential problems for this layout include:
-
Pedestrians will use the most direct route to cross regardless of the crosswalk markings;
-
Sight lines needed by turning motorists are decreased if the crosswalk is pushed too far back;
-
Pedestrian visibility is decreased because they are crossing in a location that is different from what motorists expect;
-
Motorists are often accelerating as they pass through the crosswalk;
-
Cars may miss the stop line in advance of the intersection and have to stop suddenly in the middle of the crosswalk; and
-
Cars may pull into the crosswalk to enhance their sight lines, which will block the pedestrian path of travel.
Permitting pedestrians to cross in the expected location is preferred to pushing the crosswalks back from the intersection, although this design increase the crossing distance. The following strategies are recommended to improve skewed intersections with this design:
-
Install curb ramps perpendicular to the curb;
-
Provide longer crossing times and accessible pedestrian signals if the intersection is signalized;
-
Provide marked crosswalks delineated with the continental pattern;
-
Add medians with truncated domes to reduce crossing distances; and
-
Consider installing intersection guidestrips which provide directional information for pedestrians with vision impairments. When intersection guidestrips are installed, it would be beneficial to inform the community of their presence so that pedestrians with visual disabilities know they are there and understand how they should be used.
Section 3E.01 General
Support:
When used for guidance or regulation of traffic, colored pavements are traffic control devices. Colored pavements also are sometimes used to supplement other traffic control devices.
Guidance:
Colored pavements should be used only where they contrast significantly with adjoining paved areas.
Standard:
Colored pavements shall not be used as a traffic control device, unless the device is applicable at all times. Colors for pavements used as traffic control devices shall be limited to the following:
- Red shall be used only on the approach to a STOP sign that is in use 24 hours a day.
- Yellow shall be used only for median islands separating traffic flows in opposite directions.
- White shall be used for delineation on shoulders, on channelizing islands where traffic passes on both sides in the same general direction, and for crosswalks.
Guidance:
The length of the red colored pavement on the approach to a STOP sign should relate to the 85th-percentile speed, or the posted or statutory speed limit and should give the road user 2 to 4 seconds of warning.
Section 9C.01 Functions of Markings
Support:
Markings indicate the separation of the lanes for road users, assist the bicyclist by indicating assigned travel paths, indicate correct position for traffic control signal actuation, and provide advance information for turning and crossing maneuvers.
Section 9C.02 General Principles
Guidance:
Bikeway design guides should be used when designing markings for bicycle facilities (see Section 9A.05).
Standard:
Markings used on bikeways shall be retroreflectorized.
Guidance:
Pavement marking symbols and/or word messages should be used in bikeways where appropriate. Consideration should be given to selecting pavement marking materials that will minimize loss of traction for bicycles under wet conditions. Standard: The colors, width of lines, patterns of lines, and symbols used for marking bicycle facilities shall be as defined in Sections 3A.04, 3A.05, and 3B.22.
Support:
Figures 9B-7 and 9C-1 through 9C-8 show examples of the application of lines, word messages, and symbols on designated bikeways. Option: A dotted line may be used to define a specific path for a bicyclist crossing an intersection (see Figure 9C-1) as described in Sections 3A.05 and 3B.08.
Section 9C.03 Marking Patterns and Colors on Shared-Use Paths
Option:
Where shared-use paths are of sufficient width to designate two minimum width lanes, a solid yellow line may be used to separate the two directions of travel where passing is not permitted, and a broken yellow line may be used where passing is permitted (see Figure 9C-2).
Guidance:
Broken lines used on shared-use paths should have the usual 1-to-3 segment-to-gap ratio. A nominal 0.9m (3 ft) segment with a 2.7m (9 ft) gap should be used. If conditions make it desirable to separate two directions of travel on shared-use paths at particular locations, a solid yellow line should be used to indicate no passing and no traveling to the left of the line. Markings as shown in Figure 9C-2 should be used at the location of obstructions in the center of the path, including vertical elements intended to physically prevent unauthorized motor vehicles from entering the path.
Option:
A solid white line may be used on shared-use paths to separate different types of users. The R9-7 sign
(see Figure 9B-2) may be used to supplement the solid white line. Smaller size letters and symbols may be used on shared-use paths. Where arrows are needed on shared-use paths, half-size layouts of the arrows may be used (see Section 3B.19). Fixed objects adjacent to shared-use paths may be marked with object markers (Type 1, 2, or 3).
Standard:
All object markers shall be retroreflective. Markers such as those described in Section 3C.01 shall also be used on shared-use paths, if needed. Obstructions in the traveled way of a shared-use path shall be marked with retroreflectorized material or appropriate object markers. On Type 3 markers, the alternating black and retroreflective yellow stripes shall be sloped down at an angle of 45 degrees toward the side on which traffic is to pass the obstruction.
Midblock Crossings
Midblock type crossings are the most straightforward of the three configurations.
Figure 20 (below) shows an example of a midblock crossing. Midblock
crossings should be far enough away from existing intersections between
roadways to be clearly separate from the activity that occurs as motorists
approach these intersections (such as merging movements, acceleration/
deceleration or preparations to enter turn lanes). There are many other
variables to consider when designing this type of intersection, including
right of way assignment, traffic control devices, sight distance for both bicyclists
and motor vehicle operators, refuge island use, access control,
and pavement marking. These issues are discussed in more detail later in
this section.
Skewed Intersections
Another important consideration for midblock crossings is the treatment
for a skewed crossing. Figure 21 below depicts a path realignment to achieve a
90-degree crossing. A minimum 45-degree crossing angle may be acceptable
to minimize right-of-way requirements.
Refuge Islands
Refuge Islands: Refuge islands should be considered for path-roadway
intersections in which one or more of the following apply: (1) high volumes
of roadway traffic and/or speeds create unacceptable conditions
for path users, (2) roadway width is excessive given the available crossing
time, or (3) the crossing will be used by a number of people who
cross more slowly, such as the elderly, schoolchildren, persons with disabilities,
etc.
The refuge area should be large enough to accommodate platoons of users,
including groups of pedestrians, groups of bicyclists, individual
tandem bicycles (which are considerably longer than standard bicycles),wheelchairs, people with baby strollers and equestrians (if this is a permitted
path use). The area may be designed with the storage aligned
across the island or longitudinally (see example in Figure 23 below). Adequate
space should be provided so that those in the refuge area do not feel
threatened by passing motor vehicles while waiting to finish the crossing.
Signage
Adequate signing and marking are essential on shared use paths, especially
to alert bicyclists to potential conflicts and to convey regulatory
messages to both bicyclists and motorists at highway intersections. In addition,
guide signing, such as to indicate directions, destinations,
distances, route numbers and names of crossing streets, should be used
in the same manner as on highways. In general, uniform application of
traffic control devices, as described in the MUTCD 2, provides minimum
traffic control measures which should be applied. The image below left features a trail crossing on the Harlem Valley Rail Trail. The signage reminds motorists that pedestrians have the right of way, and identifies the location as a trail crossing. Notice the presence of a marked crosswalk. The image on the right features the standard yellow pedestrian crossing warning sign.
General guidance on signing and marking is provided in the MUTCD 2.
Care should be exercised in the choice of pavement marking materials.
Additional signing can also be helpful to encourage users to share the
path and follow path user etiquette such as giving audible signals before
passing on the left. Warning signs should also be used in areas where the
recommended criteria herein cannot be met due to physical constraints.
Reduced versions [450 mm x 450 mm (18” x 18”)] of the signs in Section
9B-13 of the MUTCD 2 may be used to warn users of sharp curves, intersections,
etc.
Markings
Pavement markings at a crossing should accomplish two things: channel
path users to cross at a clearly defined location and provide a clear message
to motorists that this particular section of the road must be shared
with other users.
For the path user, stop signs, stop bar pavement markings, yield signs,
caution signs or other devices should be used as applicable.
For a roadway user, a clear message must be presented in a location
where it will be seen by that user. Traditional treatments have included
the bicycle crossing sign (WII-I), the pedestrian crossing sign (WIIA-2),
the pedestrian crosswalk lines [double 150-mm (6-inch) lines spaced not
less than 1.8 m (6 feet) apart], or flashing yellow lights at the crosswalk.
However, signs are frequently placed at the side of the road, out of motorists’
line of sight, and historically, flashing yellow lights have also
been used at non-crosswalk applications. In recent years, new applications
have been developed, including the following, which may be
suitable for urban and suburban settings, but may not be suitable for rural
areas:
- “Zebra-style" or colorized pavement crosswalks, which are far
more visible than traditional designs.
- Raised platform crosswalks, which can be useful to define roadway
space for non-motorized users and stress the need for motorists to
yield to that space.
- Pedestrian-friendly intersection crossings, which incorporate appropriate
signal heads and infrared motion detectors, pressure mats
or other technologies.
- Midblock neck-downs or intersection curb-bulbs at the crossing to shorten the crossing distance.
- The above suggestions should be considered on a case-by-case basis and
should always be evaluated with regard to the safest overall method for
accommodating both path users and roadway users.
Restriction of Motor Vehicle Traffic
Shared use paths may need some form of physical barrier at highway intersections
to prevent unauthorized motor vehicles from using the
facilities. Provisions can be made for a lockable, removable (or reclining)
barrier post to permit entrance by authorized vehicles. Posts or bollards
should be set back beyond the clear zone on the crossing highway or be
of a breakaway design. The post should be permanently reflectorized for
nighttime visibility and painted a bright color for improved daytime visibility.
Striping an envelope around the post is recommended as shown in
Figure 26. When more than one post is used, an odd number of posts at
1.5-m (5-foot) spacing is desirable. Wider spacing can allow entry to motor
vehicles, while narrower spacing might prevent entry by adult
tricycles, wheelchair users, and bicycles with trailers.
An alternative method of restricting entry of motor vehicles is to split the
entry way into two 1.5-m (5-foot) sections separated by low landscaping.
Emergency vehicles can still enter if necessary by straddling the landscaping.
The higher maintenance costs associated with landscaping
should be acknowledged before this alternative method is selected.
Sustrans (England) - The National Cycle Network - Guidelines and Practical Details - Chapter 5 - Junctions and Crossings
Cycle Track Giveway Crossing
- Cycle track priority road crossing should only be used for crossing single carriageway roads where the vehicle flow is less
than 4000 vehicles per day and vehicle speed is less than 30mph. Where speeds exceed this, speed reducing features may be
appropriate.
- The flat top road hump should be constructed in a contrasting colour or material to give prominence to the traffic calming
feature. The road hump design and location must comply with the Road Hump Regulations, including signing
requirements.
- This facility will require reasonable visibility between the cycle track and the carriageway dependent upon the circumstances
at a particular location. Reasonable visibility will therefore be provided between the cycle track and the footway and thus it
is unlikely that sign Diag No. 963.1 will be necessary.
- The designer should be aware that the maximum permitted height of a road hump is 100mm, and kerbs are generally 125mm.
Providing a level crossing may necessitate dropping the kerb line slightly.
- This detail shows an arrangement to give cyclists priority to cross a minor road. In choosing such an arrangement designers
should. be aware that this does not accord the same priority to pedestrians.
- Diag No. 950 is shown on this drawing to illustrate the range of circumstances in which it can usefully be employed. In
practice, it will normally be sited at a greater distance from the feature than it has been possible to show in the drawing. Advice is given in Chapter 4 of the Traffic Signs Manual. Note that the distance on plate Diag No. 572 should be in yards.
- Diag No. 7014 "Changed Priorities Ahead" will be used on the approaches to the crossing when relevant. When priorities are changed then local publicity will be given to the change.
Cycle Track Priority Crossing
- Where traffic flows are less than 4000 vehicles per day on a single carriageway the cycle track priority crossing should be
considered.
- This detail is not suitable for vehicle flows greater than 6000 vehicles per day or where speeds are greater than 50mph.
- If visibility between the cycle track and the footway is inadequate and it is not possible to incorporate measures to improve visibility then traffic sign Diag No. 963.1 may be necessary to advise pedestrians of a cycle track crossing. Unnecessary use of
this will cause sign clutter.
- Where visibility is poor (see Figure 8.6) it is preferable to use all the signs and markings available for the Give Way (Diag
No.s 602, 1003 and 1023) for the cyclist rather than a barrier/chicane with "Cyclists Dismount" signs which are not considered
acceptable. The use of the "Stop" sign is not appropriate for cycles, given the slower speeds at which cyclists can be expected to
be traveling compared with motor vehicles. The "Stop" sign also requires approval from the Secretary of State.
- Increased prominence of crossings or additional route guidance for cyclists may be necessary. Discussion with Sustrans and DOT to determine an appropriate solution is encouraged.
- Diag No. 950 is shown on this drawing to illustrate the range of circumstances in which it can usefully be employed. Its
location is diagrammatic only. Advice is given in Chapter 4 of the Traffic Signs Manual. Note that the distance on plate Diag No. 572 should be in yards.
- Where carriageway width permits, it may be advantageous to provide a central refuge. This will benefit both cyclist and pedestrian safety.
- A build-out can usefully be employed as a traffic calming feature, where the road is heavily parked or where there is a high pedestrian flow on the footway. Narrowing the carriageway to a single lane with build-outs on both sides and assigning priority to
one direction is a valuable feature for a cycle track crossing. However, care must be taken not to create problems for cyclists on the main carriageway. See Figure 6.1 note 1.
Cycle Track Crossing with Refuge Island
-
In urban areas, this detail is not suitable for vehicle speeds greater than 50mph and/or traffic flows greater than 8,000 vehicles per day.
-
If visibility between the cycle track and the footway is inadequate and it is not possible to incorporate measures to improve visibility then traffic sign Diag No. 963.1 may be necessary to advise pedestrians of a cycle track crossing. Unnecessary use of this will cause sign clutter.
-
Where visibility is poor (see Figure 8.6) it is preferable to use all the signs and markings available for the Give Way (Diag No.s 602, 1003 and 1023) for the cyclist rather than a barrier/chicane with "Cyclists Dismount" signs which are not considered acceptable. The use of the "Stop" sign is not appropriate for cycles, given the slower speeds at which cyclists can be expected to be traveling compared with motor vehicles. The "Stop" sign also requires approval from the Secretary of State.
- Guidance details for minimum carriageway beside the refuge are given in Figure 6.2.
- Generally the crossing area within the refuge should have a longitudinal width between 3.Om and 4.0m (absolute minimum 2.5m) to accommodate groups of cyclists/families, and should be flush with the adjacent carriageway.
6. Diag No. 950 is shown on this drawing to illustrate the range of circumstances in which it can usefully be employed. Its location is diagrammatic only. Advice is given in Chapter 4 of the Traffic Signs Manual. Note that the distance on plate Diag No. 572 should be in yards.
- Where pedestrian flows on the footway are high it may be advantageous to bend out the footway (as shown), or provide a build-out (see Figure 5.7). This will allow cyclists to wait at the Give Way line without impeding pedestrians. If this is not feasible then the Give Way lines can be placed at the back of the footway.
- Segregation on the immediate approaches to the crossing may not be appropriate in all circumstances, as research has shown
that cyclists and pedestrians will wait and cross in the most convenient positions for the movement they are making, which will
not necessarily coincide with the space allocated to them. Consideration may be given to the inclusion of Give Way lines within
the refuge.
-Top-
