CITY COUNCIL POLICIES
POLICY NAME:
Installation of Pedestrian Crosswalks POLICY NUMBER: 576-16
Effective Date: TBD Last Revised Date: 04/25/1978 Status: Proposed Page: 1 of 7
I. BACKGROUND
Crosswalks function to connect pedestrians through a network of sidewalks. Crosswalks can be categorized as either marked or unmarked. Marked crosswalks are delineated by white or yellow painted markings placed on the pavement that extend from curb to curb. Crosswalks without white or yellow painted markings on the pavement are c onsidered unmarked crosswalks. Pedestrians have the right -of- way in both marked and unmarked crosswalks.
Marked crosswalks are typically placed at intersections where there is substantial conflict between pedestrians and vehicles, where there is signific ant pedestrian activity, and /or where traffic movements are controlled, such as all -way stop -controlled intersections and signalized intersections. Marked crosswalks can also serve the purpose of guiding pedestrians onto a preferred path, encouraging pedestrians to use a particular crossing such as in the use of uncontrolled midblock marked crosswalks.
To enhance pedestrian safety, California enacted the “Daylighting Law” via Assembly Bill 413 (AB 413) which became effective in January 2025. This new state law made it illegal to park within 20 feet of the vehicle approach side of any marked or unmarked crosswalk, regardless of whether red curbs or signage is posted. California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 22500 (n) provides that “[a] person shall not stop, park, or leave standing…” any vehicle within 20 feet of the vehicle approach side of any marked or unmarked crosswalks or within 15 feet of any crosswalks with curb extension. It is important to note that the City of Chula Vista already had a similar law in place under Municipal Code Section 10.52.070.
The City’s original “Installation of Pedestrian Crosswalks” Council Policy was adopted on April 25, 1978 per Council Resolution No. 9086. This latest revision to the City’s “Installation of Pedestrian Crosswalks” policy was developed to provide a methodology that is representative of current best practices, but suited to the context of Chula Vista. In addition, this revised policy considers several fac tors and criteria described in the Federal Highway Administration’s ( FHWA) Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations which provides guidance on the use of various pedestrian-related safety measures, such as uncontrolled crossings, crosswalk visibility enhancements, pedestrian refuge islands, rectangular rapid flashing beacons, pedestrian hybrid beacons, and other measures.
CITY COUNCIL POLICIES
POLICY NAME:
Installation of Pedestrian Crosswalks POLICY NUMBER: 576-16
Effective Date: TBD Last Revised Date: 04/25/1978 Status: Proposed Page: 2 of 7
Finally, this revision also aims to highlight key regulatory provisions related to crosswalks. These include recent updates to the CVC concerning parking restrictions near crosswalks, rules governing when pedestrians may legally cross outside of designated crosswalks, and requirements for e -scooter operators to stop, dismount, and walk their device across a roadway—such as at a crosswalk—when making a turn, in accordance with applicable pedestrian regulations under the CVC.
REGULATORY REFERENCES
The following is a list of CVC and Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) sections with their content briefly summarized that are relevant to this Policy (Note: the summarized content is for informational purposes only, refer to CVC or CVMC, as appropriate, for specific regulations):
CVC 275 – Definition of “Crosswalk”
CVC 21950 – Requires that drivers of vehicles (including but not limited to motor vehicles, bicycles [CVC 21200], and motorized scooters [CVC 21221]) yield to pedestrians and operate “the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.”
CVC 21228 – When turning, e-scooter riders must stop, dismount and walk across roadway on foot, subject to restrictions on pedestrians per Chapter 5 of CVC. CVC 21954 – Requires that pedestrians in roadways outside of marked crosswalks or unmarked crosswalks at intersections yield to vehicles; however, it allows for them to be present or cross if they are not placing themselves in immediate danger of a collision and are e xercising due care for their safety.
CVC 22500 – “Daylighting Law”
CVMC 10.08.080 – Definition of “Crosswalk”
CVMC 10.52.070 – Prohibits parking vehicles in a crosswalk or within 20 feet of a crosswalk at an intersection
CVMC 10.73.110 – Prohibits parking electric micromobility vehicles within 15 feet of a marked or unmarked crosswalk
CVMC 10.76.010 – Authorizes the City Engineer to establish, designate and maintain crosswalks CVMC 10.76.020 – Prohibits installing crosswalks on blocks less than 600 feet in length and shall be located as nearly as practicable at midblock
CVMC 10.76.030 – City Engineer may place signs directing that pedestrians shall not cross in the crosswalk indicated
CVMC 10.76.040 – Pedestrians must only cross roadways in business districts at crosswalks
CITY COUNCIL POLICIES
POLICY NAME:
Installation of Pedestrian Crosswalks POLICY NUMBER: 576-16
Effective Date: TBD Last Revised Date: 04/25/1978 Status: Proposed Page: 3 of 7
II. PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to establish minimum criteria for the installation of pedestrian crosswalks between intersections or at intersections that are not controlled by stop signs or traffic signals and to provide guidance for crosswalk treatments based on roadway conditions.
III. POLICY
Staff shall conduct a study pursuant to this policy in order to determine whether installation of a marked crosswalk is warranted at a given location. If a location being considered for installation of a marked crosswalk does not meet the criteria of this policy, the City Engineer or designee may exercise engineering judgment in determining whether a marked crosswalk is recommended or appropriate at that location.
STEP 1: BASIC SCREENING CRITERIA EVALUATION
The following basic screening criteria are applied to determine if a proposed crosswalk location is suitable for further evaluation:
Pedestrian Demand: Is the pedestrian volume at the proposed crosswalk equal to 5 pedestrians 1 or more per hour during the peak pedestrian hour? If “No”, is the proposed cros swalk on a direct route to or from a pedestrian generator, such as a school, library, senior center, shopping center, park, or employment center?
Distance to Nearest Controlled Crossing: Is the proposed crosswalk location farther than 300 feet from the nea rest controlled pedestrian crossing 2 (measured from the nearest edge of the proposed marked crosswalk to the closest edge of the controlled crossing)? Approach Speed: Is the 85th percentile approach speed of the roadway that the proposed crosswalk would traverse less than 40 mph3?
1 The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) addresses mid -block crossings for signalization using 20 persons per hour demand as the lowest threshold for pedestrian hybrid beacon installation on higher speed roadways. However, existing volume of pedestrian demand is difficult to assess in the absence of a crossing; therefore, observed existing crossing dem and of five pedestrians per hour is appropriate for an unmarked and uncontrolled location for consideration of a marked crosswalk . 2 Per the CAMUTCD, midblock crossings should not be signalized if located within 300 feet of another traffic control signal unl ess the new signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. 3 Per the CAMUTCD, midblock crosswalks shall not be installed if posted speed limits exceed 40 mph.
CITY COUNCIL POLICIES
POLICY NAME:
Installation of Pedestrian Crosswalks POLICY NUMBER: 576-16
Effective Date: TBD Last Revised Date: 04/25/1978 Status: Proposed Page: 4 of 7
Sight Distance: Does the proposed crosswalk location have a sight distance (in feet) that is greater than 10 times the posted speed limit (in mph) 4 or will the sight distance be improved prior to installation of the crosswalk?
STEP 2: POINT SYSTEM EVALUATION
If all basic screening criteria are satisfied (i.e., answered as “Yes”), then the proposed crosswalk shall be further evaluated based on a point system, utilizing the following four warrant categories:
1. Pedestrian Volume – Assigns points based on the number of pedestrian crossings in a peak hour at the proposed crosswalk
2. Pedestrian Setting/Generators – Assigns points based on where the proposed crosswalk is located relative to pedestrian paths and land uses
3. General Factors – Assigns points based on various factors such as distance to nearest controlled crossing and vehicle volume
4. Gap Time – Assigns points based on the average number of adequate gaps in vehicle traffic at the proposed crosswalk
Table 1 presents the point sy stem scoring evaluation, noting the point value to be awarded by each question within the warrant categories. The point system includes a combination of “Yes/No” questions and data-related questions.
In order for a location to satisfy the point system warr ant evaluation, a threshold of 24 points must be achieved, which equates to 48% of the possible 50 points.
STEP 3: CROSSWALK TREATMENT EVALUATION
If the proposed crossing location meets both the Basic Screening and Point System warrants, then the most appropriate crossing treatments to be installed with the marked crosswalk are evaluated. The crossing treatments are based on:
1. Roadway Average Daily Traffic (ADT);
2. Roadway Configuration; and
3. Roadway Speed Limit.
4 Per the CAMUTCD, sight distance in feet is 10 times the posted speed limit in miles per hour.
CITY COUNCIL POLICIES
POLICY NAME:
Installation of Pedestrian Crosswalks POLICY NUMBER: 576-16
Effective Date: TBD Last Revised Date: 04/25/1978 Status: Proposed Page: 5 of 7
Table 2 presents thresholds for identifying supplemental crossing treatments to be considered with the installation of new marked crosswalks.
Generally, minimum treatments for an uncontrolled marked crosswalk include lighting with warning signage and associated pavement markings. As the roadway traffic volume, speed limit, and crossing distance increase, additional treatments become applicable. Intermediate treatments applicable to narrower, lower speed roads include additional warning signage, rectangular rap id flashing beacons, or traffic calming measures such as raised crosswalks or speed feedback signs. The widest roads with higher traffic volumes and speed limits would limit applicability of traffic calming measures and increase the likelihood that pedestrian hybrid beacons or traffic signals, which stop traffic for pedestrians, would be warranted.
In compliance with CVMC Section 10.76.010, the City Engineer or designee is authorized to adopt and approve on behalf of the City future amendments to Table 2 in this Policy. In addition, the installation of any supplemental traffic control devices at a proposed uncontrolled cr ossing meeting both the Basic Screening and Point System warrants will be as determined by the City Engineer or designee.
CITY COUNCIL POLICIES
POLICY NAME:
Installation of Pedestrian Crosswalks POLICY NUMBER: 576-16
Effective Date: TBD Last Revised Date: 04/25/1978 Status: Proposed Page: 6 of 7
Table 1: Marked Crosswalk Point System Evaluation
Point Warrant 1: Pedestrian Volume
Number of Crossings in Peak Hour (select one) Point
Value
Available
Points
Enter
Value
Points
Awarded
0 to 10 0
12 11 to 25 6
More than 25 12
Point Warrant 2: Pedestrian Setting/Generators
Condition (Yes/No?) Point
Value
Available
Points Yes/No? Points
Awarded
2a. The proposed crosswalk is in a commercial, mixed land use, or high density residential area. 3
10 2b. A pedestrian or shared use path is interrupted by a restricted crossing. 3
2c. A pedestrian attractor/generator is directly adjacent to the proposed crosswalk. 4
Point Warrant 3: General Factors
Condition (Yes/No?) Point
Value
Available
Points Yes/No? Points
Awarded
3a.1 Nearest controlled crossing is greater than 500 feet from the proposed crosswalk. 5
23 3a.2 OR, the nearest controlled crossing is greater than 300 feet from the proposed crosswalk. 2
3b. The proposed crosswalk will position pedestrians to be better seen by motorists. 5
3c. The proposed crosswalk will establish a mid-block
crossing between adjacent signalized intersections that are 750 feet or more apart.
4 3d. The proposed crosswalk is located within 100 feet of an existing bus stop. 4
3e. The ADT of the roadway that the proposed crosswalk
would traverse is between 3,000 and 15,000 vehicles per day and the speed limit is 35 mph or less.
5 Point Warrant 4: Gap Time
Average Number of Adequate Vehicular Gaps
(per 5-minute period)
Point
Value
Available
Points
Enter
Value
Points
Awarded
0-0.99 0
5 1-2.99 3
3-3.99 5
4-5.99 3
6 or more 0
CITY COUNCIL POLICIES
POLICY NAME:
Installation of Pedestrian Crosswalks POLICY NUMBER: 576-16
Effective Date: TBD Last Revised Date: 04/25/1978 Status: Proposed Page: 7 of 7
Table 2: Crosswalk Treatment Screening
Crossing
Distance1
Roadway ADT (vehicles per day) or Speed Limit (miles per hour) <1,500 and
25 mph
1,501 – 5,000 or
25 mph
5,000 – 12,000 or 30
mph
12,001 – 15,000 or 35
mph > 15,000 or 40 mph
< 40 feet A B B C C D2
40 to 52
feet A B C C D2 D
> 52 feet &
< 80 feet A B C2 C D2 D D
1. Crossing distance can be measured to a pedestrian island if one is present.
2. For streets with more than one lane at an approach or posted speed limit of 30 mph or greater.
Category Crossing Treatments*
A
The following are required:
(W11-2) Pedestrian Warning signage with the corresponding (W16-7P) arrow plaque as shown in CA MUTCD Section 2C.50
Installation of a street light (if missing) shall be required if the crossing is warranted B
At least one of the following is required:
(W11-2) Pedestrian Warning signage with the corresponding (W16-7P) arrow plaque as shown in CA MUTCD Section 2C.50
Installation of a street light (if missing) shall be required if the crossing is warranted (R1-6) State Law – Yield to Pedestrian sign if median or signal mast arm is present Raised crosswalk or other traffic calming treatments
C
At least two of the following are required:
Radar Feedback Signs
Striping changes such as narrower lanes, painted medians, road diets, or other speed reducing treatments. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs)
Staggered crosswalks and pedestrian refuge island
Other supplemental safety measures identified by City Engineer D
A traffic signal is required if the CA MUTCD warrants are met and it is recommended by a traffic engineering study. Otherwise, the following is required:
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon if the CA MUTCD warrants are met * Accessible pedestrian curb ramps shall be installed (if missing) if the crossing is warranted.
HISTORY
DATE ACTION RESOLUTION NO.
4/25/1978 Adoption 9086
TBD Revision Proposed