Attachment 1 City of Salinas Crosswalk Policy Guidelines.pdf — Salinas City Council, August 20, 2024

Report:

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
Submitted by:Submitted to:

Fehr & Peers
160 W. Santa Clara Street
Suite 675
San Jose, CA 95113
408 278 1700
June, 2014
City of Salinas

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014

Table of Contents

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Background and Context .............................................................................................................................. 2 Policy Context ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 General Plan ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Pedestrian Plan ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Existing Marked Crosswalk Inventory .......................................................................................................................... 5

3. Crosswalk Fundamentals .............................................................................................................................. 7 Types of Crosswalks ............................................................................................................................................................ 7 Where Is Crossing the Street Legal? ............................................................................................................................ 8 Why do Cities Mark Crosswalks? ................................................................................................................................... 9 Steps to Identify Candidate Locations for Marked Crosswalks ......................................................................... 9 When to Install Marked Crosswalks .......................................................................................................................... 10

4. Uncontrolled Crossing Enhancement Toolbox ........................................................................................13 Mid-Block Crossings ........................................................................................................................................................ 13 Crosswalk Safety Research ............................................................................................................................................ 13 Treatment Selection ......................................................................................................................................................... 15 Treatment Options ........................................................................................................................................................... 17

5. Controlled Crosswalk Treatment Toolbox ...............................................................................................25 Preferred Crossing Treatments .................................................................................................................................... 25 Enhanced Crossing Treatments ................................................................................................................................... 28

6. Education, Enforcement, and Encouragement Programs......................................................................42

Appendices
Appendix A: Citywide Crosswalk Inventory ............................................................................................................................. 44 Appendix B: Pedestrian Level of Service Calculations ......................................................................................................... 45 Appendix C: Pedestrian Collision Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 48 Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
List of Figures

Figure 1: City of Salinas Map ........................................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2: Marked Crosswalk Placement Flowchart ............................................................................................................... 11 Figure 3: Feasibility Analysis for Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations ..................................................................... 12 Figure 4: Salinas Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions, 2005-2010 ............................................................................................. 50 Figure 5: Salinas Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions Resulting in Injuries and/or Fatalities, 2005- 2010 .................. 52 Figure 6: Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions for School-Age Children Occurring within ¼-Mile of Schools ......... 57

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014

List of Tables

Table 1: Recommendations for Installing Marked Crosswalks and Other Needed Pedestrian Improvements at Uncontrolled Locations .............................................................................................................................................................. 15 Table 2: Application of Enhanced Treatments for Uncontrolled Locations ................................................................ 17 Table 3: Uncontrolled Crossings: Geometric Treatments .................................................................................................. 18 Table 4: Uncontrolled Crossings: Striping and Signage ..................................................................................................... 21 Table 5: Uncontrolled Crossings: Beacon, Lighting, and Signal Treatments .............................................................. 23 Table 6: Controlled Intersections: Geometric Treatments ............................................................................................... 29 Table 7: Controlled Intersections: Striping and Signage .................................................................................................. 34 Table 8: Controlled Intersections: Signal Hardware and Operational Measures ...................................................... 36 Table 9: Pedestrian LOS Calculations ....................................................................................................................................... 46 Table 10: Top Pedestrian-Vehicle Collision Locations, Salinas, 2005-2010 ............................................................... 49 Table 11: Top Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions Locations, Injury or Fatality, 2005- 2010 .......................................... 51 Table 12: Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) for Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions in Salinas, 2005- 2010 ................ 53 Table 13: Age Ranges for Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions in Salinas, 2005-2010 ...................................................... 55

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
1 1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Salinas initiated development of these Crosswalk Policy Guidelines to prescribe a formal and transparent process for marked crosswalk implementation. The City regularly receives requests to install marked crosswalks from residents, businesses, and institutions. However, designing a safe roadway crossing for pedestrians is a complex process; the installation of crosswalk striping alone does not necessarily constitute a safe pedestrian crossing.

The Crosswalk Policy Guidelines are aimed at improving pedestrian safety and enhancing pedestrian mobility. A comprehensive pedestrian safety strategy contains a three-pronged approach of engineering, enforcement, and education programs. This document focuses on engineering elements, such as pedestrian crossing treatments and intersection design.

This document describes the function of crosswalks and their legal context in the California Vehicle Code.

It discusses the advantages and disadvantages of marked crosswalks and summarizes research in the United States focused on pedestrian safety and crosswalks. It provides a summary of best practices related to numerous pedestrian treatments, including geometric, signage and striping, and signal hardware or operational measure treatments.

The purpose of this document is to enable the City to respond to crosswalk requests in a manner that improves pedestrian accessibility and maintains public safety. It provides information to be used when making decisions about where standard crosswalks (two, parallel white stripes) can be marked; where crosswalks with special treatments, such as high-visibility crosswalks, flashing beacons and other special features, should be employed; and where crosswalks will not be marked due to safety concerns resulting from volume, speed, or sight distance issues.

This report was produced in cooperation with the City of Salinas. The suggestions presented in this report are based on local knowledge, data analysis, and discussions with the City of Salinas. These suggestions, which reflect general knowledge of best practices in pedestrian design and safety, are intended to guide City staff in making decisions for future safety improvement projects in the City, and they may not incorporate all factors that may be relevant to the pedestrian safety issues in the City. Final implementation of these guidelines will at all times involve engineering judgment.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
2 2. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
The City of Salinas has several planning-level documents that provide the primary policy context for this Crosswalk Policy. These documents provide policy support for pedestrian-friendly land uses, built environment characteristics, and design standards in Salinas. This chapter provides a summary of the City’s relevant plans and polices that address pedestrian safety, including the General Plan and Pedestrian Plan.

POLICY CONTEXT

GENERAL PLAN
The City’s current General Plan (September 2002) includes several elements that address the pedestrian environment and safety, including the housing element, conservation/open space element, community design element, and circulation element . The General Plan used new urbanism principles to guide the future transportation and land use development in the City. The following goals and policies provide support for pedestrian-friendly design within Salinas:
 Community Design Element, Goal 3: Create a community that promotes a pedestrian-friendly, livable environment.
o Policy CD-3.1: Create and preserve the distinct, identifiable neighborhoods that have traditional neighborhood development (TND) characteristics. Specifically, each neighborhood should have the following characteristics:
 An approximately 5-minute walk from perimeter to center;  Housing densities should increase from perimeter to center (i.e., neighborhoods should be more densely populated at the center);
 The neighborhood center should be the location of retail space, office space, and upper story residential above commercial and office space;
 A civic or public space such as a plaza or park should be at the neighborhood center;  Small parks should be distributed throughout the neighborhood;  Schools should lie within the neighborhood and be easily accessible and within walking distance;
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
3  When not adjacent to agricultural operations, which may require a variety of buffering techniques, the neighborhood edge should be bordered by either a natural corridor or the edge of an adjacent neighborhood across a pedestrian-friendly boulevard; and  Front yard setbacks should decrease from the neighborhood edge to neighborhood center.
o Policy CD-3.6: Provide and maintain a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere by encouraging “pedestrian zones” with increased landscaping, use of traffic-calming techniques on local streets, adequate separation of automobile traffic, and the inclusion of amenities such as lighted crosswalks and increased lighting along sidewalks. o Policy CD-3.8: Promote the use of alternative modes of transportation, including bus, rail, bicycling, and walking.
 Circulation Element, Goal C-5: Provide safe routes to school, work, shopping, and recreation for pedestrians.
o Policy C-5.1: Increase availability of safe and well-maintained sidewalks in all areas of the City. o Policy C-5.2: Encourage all new bus stops and changes in existing bus stops to take pedestrian access into consideration.
o Policy C-5.3: Ensure that all pedestrian route improvements meet with ADA standards for accessibility.
o Policy C-5.4: Encourage parking lot designs that promote pedestrian access and safety. o Policy C-5.5: Improve the walking environment by providing safe and attractive sidewalks, cut-throughs, and walkways, for both recreational and commuting purposes.  Housing
o Policy H-1.10: Promote the development of neighborhoods, or sub-communities, designed to encourage pedestrian and mass transit by offering employment or services for the daily needs of residents, while reducing the need for autos.
 Conservation/Open Space
o Policy COS-6.4: Support alternative modes of transportation, such as walking, biking, and public transit, and develop bike- and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods to reduce emission s associated with automobile use.
o Policy COS-7.12: Link activity centers, recreational opportunities, transit nodes, and other services to the integrated trails network.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
4 PEDESTRIAN PLAN
The City of Salinas’ Pedestrian Plan was adopted in May 2004 to support the principles and policies of the City’s General Plan . The Pedestrian Plan includes goals and strategies to increase walking in the City in support of health, transportation, quality of life/social, economic, and environmental benefits. The plan specifically outlines these goals:

1. Promote the development and design of pedestrian facilities that are convenient, safe, attractive, comfortable, interesting, and interconnected to provide continuity of travel

2. Reduce the number of pedestrian-related accidents in Salinas

3. Condition New Development to install appropriate streets, sidewalks, pedestrian access ramps, traffic calming measures, lighting, and related facilities to encourage walking

4. Develop a Traffic Calming Policy to address vehicular speeds in residential and commercial areas

5. Develop a Suggested Routes to School Program for all elementary schools in Salinas

6. Educate the general public to increase the number of overall walking trips within Salinas

7. Identify needs of walking districts or areas to increase walking trips The Pedestrian Plan includes strong policy support, as well as a project list for infrastructure upgrades and ongoing programs to encourage walking in the City. Appendix A of the Plan also includes a Pedestrian Facilities Toolbox, with design guidance for some pedestrian facilities and treatments, such as sidewalks/walkways, curb ramps, crosswalks, transit stops, driveways, curb radii, and roadway lighting.

The Plan’s guidance for marked crosswalks has a three-pronged approach as follows:
 Accessibility – The crosswalk be located for convenient pedestrian access, preferably at controlled intersections (signals, all-way stops, etc.).
 Design – The design, use, and installation of crosswalks shall conform to the Caltrans Traffic Manual and Federal Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), most recent edition. 1  Safety – Crosswalk markings must be placed to include a ramp so that a wheelchair does not have to leave the crosswalk to access the ramp.

1 As of April 2013, the most recent editions include the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2012), based on the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2009).

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
5 EXISTING MARKED CROSSWALK INVENTORY
An up-to-date inventory of existing pedestrian facilities is an important and efficient approach to identify gaps and deficiencies in the existing pedestrian network. The City maintains this inventory in a computer aided drafting (CAD) database, and applies it to citywide Suggested Routes to Schools maps for distribution to local schools in the City. This section summarizes the existing marked crosswalk inventory within Salinas, current as of April 2013. Figure 1 presents a map of the City of Salinas.

Appendix A presents a Citywide map showing existing marked crosswalks in the City, with a note if they are located at a stop-sign or traffic signal, in a school zone, or have been upgraded with other enhancements. Twenty-eight ( 28) enhanced crosswalks are currently marked in Salinas, generally at uncontrolled locations near schools, such as El Gablan Elementary, on Linwood Drive at Sequoia Street as shown in the photo below. These crossings are enhanced with high visibility, continental style markings with alternating white and fluorescent yellow-green blocks, which is an application unique to Salinas, and “LOOK” stencils at each corner encouraging pedestrians to look both ways before crossing .

W Blanco Rd
Espinosa Rd
Williams Rd
N Main St
E Alisal St
E Boronda Rd
S Davis Rd
Natividad Rd
San Juan Grade Rd
Harris Rd
E Laurel Dr
N Sanborn Rd
Boronda Rd
Russell Rd
W Market St
E Blanco Rd
Freedom Pkwy
Constitution Blvd
W Laurel Dr
S Sanborn Rd
E Bernal Dr
Hatton Ave
Loyola Dr
Hilltown Rd
Spreckels Ln
E Boronda Rd
4th St
Hilltown Rd
Main St
Del Monte Ave
Hartnell A&M College
East Campus
Alisal High School
Alvarez High School
Hartnell College
Salinas
High
School
La Paz
Middle School
El Sausal
Middle School
Gavilan View
Middle School
Palma
High School
Washington
Middle School
North Salinas
High School
Mount Toro
High School
Sherwood
Elementary
School
Lincoln
Elementary
School
Harden Middle School
Bardin
Elementary
School
Santa Rita
Elementary School
La Joya
Elementary School
Boronda
Elementary
School
Fremont
Elementary
School
Sancgez
Elementary
School
Henry F Kammann
Elementary School
Rocca Barton
Elementary School
Los Padres
Elementary
School
Salinas Christian School
Notre Dame
High School
Alisal Community
Elemementary School
Monterey Park
Elementary School
El Gabilan
Elementary School
Nativadad
Elementary
School
Mission Park
Elementary School
University Park
Elementary School
Madonna del Sasso
Elemementary School
Loma Vista
Elementary School
Roosevelt
Elementary School
John E Steinbeck
Elemementary School
Sacred Heart
Elementary School
Frank Paul
Elementary School
Laurel Wood
Elementary School
City of Salinas
Figure 1Path: N:\Projects\_SJ11_Projects\SJ11_1252_Crosswalk_Policy_Guidelines\Graphics\GIS\Fig_1_City_of_Salinas.mxd

School
Park
0 0.5 1
Miles
F
£¤101
£¤
101

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
7 3. CROSSWALK FUNDAMENTALS
Pedestrian crossing and right- of-way laws vary state to state, and are often a source of driver or pedestrian uncertainty and confusion for when crossing is legal. This section outlines the types of crosswalks, where crossing the street is legal in California, and the steps the City should take in identifying locations for marked crosswalks.

TYPES OF CROSSWALKS
Crosswalks are primarily classified by three characteristics:
1) Whether they are marked (demarcated with striping on the street) or unmarked (no striping)

2) Whether they are controlled (by a traffic signal or stop-sign) or uncontrolled (with no intersection control)

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
8 3) Whether they are located at an intersection (where two streets meet) or mid-block (between intersections)

The following section outlines where crossing the street is legal in California. Based on pedestrian safety and crosswalk marking research, some types of crosswalks are safer than others (e.g., generally marked, controlled crosswalks at an intersection have lower risk of pedestrian collisions than a mid-block, uncontrolled crosswalk). A summary of relevant pedestrian safety research is provided in Chapter 4.

Chapters 4 and 5 in this document provide guidance on why, where, and how to treat crosswalks at uncontrolled and controlled locations, respectively, based on this research.

WHERE IS CROSSING THE STREET LEGAL?
In California, a legal crosswalk exists where a sidewalk meets a street, regardless of whether the crosswalk is marked (i.e., with or without striping to denote the crosswalk) . Pedestrians may legally cross any street, except at unmarked locations between immediately adjacent signalized crossings, or where crossing is expressly prohibited. Marked crosswalks reinforce the location and legitimacy of a pedestrian crossing.

These legal statues are contained in the California Vehicle Code (CVC) as follows:
 Section 275 defines a legal crosswalk as:
o That portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at intersections where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right angles, except the prolongation of such lines from an alley across a street.
o Any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface (such as a marked midblock crossing).  Section 21950 describes right-of-way at a crosswalk:

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
9 o The driver of a marked vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.
 Section 21955 describes where pedestrians may not cross a street:
o Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices or by police officers, pedestrians shall not cross the roadway at any place except in a crosswalk.

WHY DO CITIES MARK CROSSWALKS?
Sidewalks and crosswalks are essential links within a pedestrian network. Whether commuting, running an errand, exercising, or wandering, pedestrians will need safe and convenient crossing opportunities to reach their destinations. A marked crosswalk has three (3) primary functions:
1) To create reasonable expectations where pedestrians may cross a roadway 2) To improve predictability of pedestrian actions and movement 3) To channel pedestrians to designated crossing locations (often selected for their optimal sight distance)
Advantages of Marked Crosswalks
Marked crosswalks offer the following advantages:
 They help pedestrians find their way across complex intersections  They can designate the shortest path
 They can direct pedestrians to locations of best sight distance  They assure pedestrians of their legal right to cross a roadway at an intersection or mid-block crossing
This last bullet point is important. The California Vehicle Code gives the right-of-way to pedestrians at any marked or unmarked crosswalk (as noted above), although the law is not always obeyed by road users, including both drivers and pedestrians. Drivers often fail to yield the right- of-way without the visual cue of a marked crosswalk. Pedestrians also do not always know the right- of-way law, and will either wait for a gap in traffic, or assert their right- of-way by stepping in to the roadway. Strategies for this challenge are discussed in the Education and Enforcement section of this document, Chapter 6.

STEPS TO IDENTIFY CANDIDATE LOCATIONS FOR MARKED CROSSWALKS

Identifying candidate locations for marked crosswalks involves two steps.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
10 The first step is to locate the places people would like to cross the street. These locations are called pedestrian desire lines , which represent the most desirable, and typically most direct, places that people want to cross a street. Pedestrian desire lines are influenced by elements of the roadway network, such as transit stops, and nearby land uses (homes, schools, parks, trails, commercial centers, etc.). This information provides a basis for identifying pedestrian crossing improvement areas and prioritizing such improvements, thereby creating a convenient, connected, and continuous walking environment.

The second step in identifying candidate locations for marked crosswalks is to identify where people can cross safely. The primary consideration in this step is adequate stopping sight distance. Of all road users, pedestrians have the highest risk of injury in a collision because they are the least protected. The crosswalk safety treatment toolboxes in Chapters 4 and 5 provide numerous options for enhancing pedestrian safety at uncontrolled and controlled crossings, respectively, with treatment selection based on the overall context of the crosswalk – including surrounding land uses, roadway characteristics, and user characteristics.

WHEN TO INSTALL MARKED CROSSWALKS
Once candidate locations are identified, an engineering evaluation should be conducted to determine if a marked crosswalk should be installed at an uncontrolled or mid-block location, and if so, what visibility enhancements should be included in the design. Crossings should be marked where all of the following occur:
 Sufficient demand exists to justify the installation of a crosswalk  Sufficient sight distance as measured by stopping sight distance calculations exists and/or sight distance will be improved prior to crosswalk marking
 Safety considerations do not preclude a crosswalk
Figures 2 and 3 describe the overall procedures from the moment City staff receives a request for a new marked crosswalk (or considers removing an existing marked crosswalk) to the installation of the treatment. As described, the first steps to determine the appropriate location and treatment for the crosswalk include a staff field visit.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
11 Figure 2: Marked Crosswalk Placement Flowchart

Severe injury or fatal pedestrian
collision occurs
Use Salinas Pedestrian
Toolbox and engineering
judgment to determine
treatment options
Citizen walkability audits identify a
location for marked crosswalk
installation or improvement
Citizen surveys identify a key location
for marked crosswalk installation or
improvement
if yes
if no
Are demand
considerations met? (see
Figure 6)
This is not a good
location for a
marked crossing.

Action will result in
Within one month, begin
Traffic Investigation
process, including staff
field visit
Action will result in
Action may result in
Action may result in
City Staff receives request for a marked
crosswalk installation or improvement
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
12 Figure 3: Feasibility Analysis for Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations

Note: Where no engineering action is recommended in Chart 2, consider applicable education and enforcement efforts. if yes
if no
if yes
if no
if yes
if no
if yes
if no
if yes
if no
feasible
infeasible
20 pedestrians per hour
(in any two hours, not
necessarily consecutive)
cross at the location
Location along a suggested route to
school path or which connects two
pedestrian generators such as a
school, park, bus stop, or hospital
expected to generate pedestrians on a
regular basis
Nearest appropriately
marked or protected
crosswalk is at least 300
feet or more away
Insufficient need
to justify a
marked crosswalk

Low speed (posted or prima
facie 25 MPH), two-lane roadway

Pedestrians can be easily
seen from a feasible
stopping sight distance

Direct pedestrians
to the nearest
marked or
protected crosswalk
Can the sight distance
obstruction be removed or
the speed limit lowered?
Use Salinas Pedestrian
Toolbox and engineering
judgment to determine
treatment options
Direct pedestrians to the
nearest marked crosswalk
or consider installing stop
sign, signal, or grade
separation
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
13 4. UNCONTROLLED CROSSING ENHANCEMENT TOOLBOX
This section presents best practices for the installation of marked crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections and mid-block locations. Uncontrolled crossings require additional consideration during planning and design since traffic signals and stop signs are not provided to require motorists to stop – they must recognize the pedestrian and yield accordingly. Thus, providing appropriate enhancements to improve the visibility and safety of pedestrians crossing the street at an uncontrolled location is critical .

CROSSWALK SAFETY RESEARCH
Several studies of pedestrian safety at uncontrolled crossings have been completed, from which conflicting research had emerged in the past. Studies conducted in San Diego in the 1970s showed that pedestrian collision risk at marked,
uncontrolled crosswalks was greater than at unmarked crossings.

This led many cities to remove marked crosswalks, as they were suspected of providing a false sense of security that drivers would yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. However, a more recent study
2 by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
comprehensively reviewed crossing safety at 1,000 marked and 1,000 matching unmarked crosswalks in 30 U.S. cities, controlling for site context factors. The study concluded that site factors related to pedestrian-involved collisions included pedestrian average daily traffic (ADT), vehicle ADT, number of lanes, median type, and the region of the U.S. At uncontrolled locations on two-lane roads and multi-lane roads with ADT below 12,000 vehicles, FHWA found that the presence of a marked crosswalk alone, compared with an unmarked crosswalk, made no
statistically significant difference in the pedestrian crash rate.

However, on multi-lane roads with an ADT of greater than 12,000 vehicles (without a raised median) and 15,000 vehicles (with a raised median) the presence of a marked crosswalk

2 Zeeger, C., J. Stewart, and H. Huang. Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations .

Publication FHWA-RD-01-142, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2001.

Mid-Block Crossings
Crosswalks can be marked at intersections
and mid-block points. Mid-block crossings
play an important role for pedestrian
access; without mid-block crossing
locations, pedestrians may face the
undesirable choice to detour to a
controlled crossing location, detour to an
intersection where crossing is legal even if
not controlled, or cross illegally (if the
midblock crossing is between two
signalized intersections). Where signals are
spaced far apart (generally more than 600-
800 feet), pedestrians may have to detour
several minutes to a controlled crossing
location. Pedestrians are more likely to
wait for a gap in traffic and cross at an
unmarked location, rather than travel a
distance out of their way to find a marked
crosswalk. Mid-block crossings also offer
an important safety consideration: fewer
potential conflict points between
pedestrians and motorists.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
14 without other improvements was associated with a statistically significant higher rate of pedestrian collisions compared to sites with an unmarked crosswalk.

The results of the study should not encourage city officials to simply remove (or fail to install) marked crosswalks. Rather, the report suggested adding crosswalk enhancements to the marked crosswalks to balance mobility needs with safety needs. These improvements include providing raised medians on multi-lane roads, installing traffic and pedestrian signals where warranted, adding curb extensions, providing adequate lighting, and designing intersections with tighter turn radii.

In the FHWA study, about 70 percent of the pedestrian crashes occurred at marked crosswalks on multi- lane roads. Of the pedestrian crashes at marked crosswalks, 17.6 percent were classified as multiple-threat collisions. Multiple-threat collisions occur as one
car slows down to allow pedestrians to cross, but
a second car approaching from behind in the
adjacent lane may not see the pedestrian, as
illustrated in the image to the right. The slowing
vehicle blocks the sight line of both the
pedestrian and the second motorist, leading to
the pedestrian-vehicle collision. Multi-lane
roadways are therefore not well-served by
unmarked or marked crosswalks alone. At these
sites, the study concluded, engineers should
consider countermeasures that provide additional
safety to pedestrians and alert motorists to upcoming crosswalks. These countermeasures include advanced yield lines with corresponding signs informing motorists where to yield. Other more substantial measures may also be considered, such as signalization, illumination, or raised medians. The summary in Table 1 below shows when marking a crosswalk only should not be considered.

Multiple threat conflicts on multi -lane roadways occur where a vehicle yielding to a pedestrian inhibits sight lines to another oncoming vehicle.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
15 TABLE 1: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INSTALLING MARKED CROSSWALKS AND OTHER NEEDED

PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS AT UNCONTROLLED LOCATIONS

With these studies as a backdrop, the remainder of this chapter outlines a decision making process to identify appropriate treatments and presents a variety of treatment options to mitigate safety, visibility, or operational concerns at specific locations.

TREATMENT SELECTION
At uncontrolled locations, a marked crosswalk with striping only may not provide adequate visibility to the pedestrian crossing, especially at high volume, high speed, or multi-lane crossings. Enhancements should

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
16 be considered for installation to supplement crosswalk striping. Appropriate treatments should be identified based on:
 Site characteristics: presence of pedestrian desire lines, available sight distance and visibility, lighting
 Geometric configuration of the roadway: number of vehicle travel lanes and presence of curb extensions or median refuge islands
 Travel data: 85th percentile speeds, posted speed limits, and average daily traffic (ADT) volumes.

Marked crosswalks alone should not be installed on multi-lane streets (two or more lanes per direction; three or more lanes total) under the following conditions 3:
 Speeds of greater than 40 miles per hour
 Average daily traffic volumes (ADT) greater than 12,000 without a raised median or pedestrian refuge island
 Average daily traffic volumes (ADT) greater than 15,000 with a raised median or pedestrian refuge island
Locations with speeds and ADT volumes below these thresholds may also warrant enhancements. The Uncontrolled Treatment Toolbox outlines considerations for the use of enhancements in various contexts as summarized in Table 2 . This Toolbox may be used to identify potential treatments at a candidate uncontrolled crosswalk location based on the results of Figures 2 and 3 in Chapter 3.

A calculation of Pedestrian Level of Service forms the basis for the treatment identification. Pedestrian Level of Service is the average delay experienced by pedestrians as they are waiting to cross the street.

Expected motorist compliance is another other key variable for treatment identification. Compliance is based on field observations and engineering judgment. It is meant to reflect typical motorist responses to pedestrians attempting to cross the street. If drivers are likely to stop for a pedestrian, the compliance is rated “high.” If drivers rarely stop for pedestrians, compliance is “low.” The compliance rate should be assumed to be low for all locations where the speed limit is greater than 30 MPH. Table 2 summarizes the appropriate treatments based on level of enhancement needed (with the most significant enhancement required with the worst LOS and compliance rates).

3 California MUTCD, Section 3B. 18.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
17 TABLE 2:

APPLICATION OF ENHANCED TREATMENTS FOR UNCONTROLLED LOCATIONS Pedestrian Level
of Service
Expected Motorist Compliance
Low
(or Speed >30 mph) Moderate High

LOS A-D
(average delay up
to 30 seconds)
LEVEL 3
2 lane road: In-pavement flashers,
overhead flashing beacons
Multi-lane road: RRFB
Plus LEVELS 1 and 2
LEVEL 2
Curb Extensions, Bus Bulb,
Reduced Curb Radii,
Staggered Pedestrian Refuge
Plus LEVEL 1
LEVEL 1
High Visibility Crosswalk
Markings, Advanced Yield
Lines, Advance Signage

LOS E-F
(average delay
greater than 30
seconds)
LEVEL 4
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon, RRFB,
or Direct Pedestrians to Nearest
Safe Crossing
Plus LEVELS 1 and 2
LEVEL 3
2 lane road: In-pavement
flashers, overhead flashing
beacons
Multi-lane road: RRFB
Plus LEVELS 1 and 2
LEVEL 2
Curb Extensions, Reduced
Curb Radii, Staggered
Pedestrian Refuge
Plus LEVEL 1
Notes: A pedestrian refuge island (median) is recommended for consideration in all scenarios with more than 2 lanes of traffic.

Level 1 represents a minor intervention, appropriate for situations with lower speeds and traffic volumes and high driver yielding rates. Higher levels represent more significant interventions, as may be needed on higher speed or volume roadways, wider roadways, and roadways where motorists are less likely to yield to pedestrians. Treatments may be combined with higher level treatments added to lower level treatments (i.e., flashing beacons with curb extensions). Additional funding sources should be identified as needed for these enhancements. Failing to provide an enhanced crosswalk and/or removing a marked crosswalk should be an option of last resort.

Application of Table 2 is operationalized by the XWalk+ Tool that accompanies this policy. The Tool is embedded in an Excel platform and was developed to guide the user through application of the methods and processes summarized in this document. It should not replace understanding of local context or application of engineering judgment, but may be used to supplement this document.

TREATMENT OPTIONS
The following tables described preferred pedestrian safety treatments for uncontrolled locations with different roadway characteristics:
 Table 3: Geometric Treatments
 Table 4: Striping and Signage
 Table 5: Signal Hardware and Operational Measures
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
18 Within each table, devices are categorized in three levels based on the level of safety concern they are meant to address: Level 1 (all cases), Level 2 (enhancements), and Level 3 (advanced enhancements).

Categories of improvements are cumulative; for example, a Level 2 device should also include appropriate Level 1 devices.

TABLE 3:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
6-1. Fewer Travel Lanes (“Road Diet”)

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Fewer travel lanes decrease roadway
width and crosswalk length, reduce
speeds, reduce left-turn and rear-end
collisions, and often eliminate the
multiple-threat collision. It takes an
average pedestrian almost four seconds
to cross each additional travel lane.

Therefore, reducing the number of travel
lanes minimizes the amount of time that
pedestrians are in the crosswalk. More
travel lanes than necessary can also
increase vehicle travel speeds; research
has shown that the severity of
pedestrian collisions increases with
vehicle travel speed. Where fewer travel
lanes are not possible, travel lanes can
be narrowed to as little as nine feet,
especially left- and right-turn pockets.

Level 1
$20/LF4

6-2. Removal of Sight-Distance
Obstructions

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
If objects impede sight-distance, this
may result in an unsafe condition where
motorists and pedestrians are unable to
see each other. Items such as parked
cards, signage, landscaping, fencing, and
street furniture should be placed in a
location that will not obstruct sight
distance.

Level 1 $150/EA5

4 Cost includes removal of existing pavement markings and repainting. Assumes existing curbs are to remain as is. 5 Item removed is anticipated to be no larger than a sign and post.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
19 TABLE 3:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
6-3. Pedestrian Refuge Island

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Raised islands are placed in the center of
the roadway separating opposing lanes
of traffic with cutouts or ramps for
accessibility along the pedestrian path.

Median refuge islands are
recommended where right-of-way
allows and conditions warrant. Studies
show medians are one of the most
important safety enhancements
available for crosswalks. They simplify
complicated multi-lane crossings by
breaking the crossings/conflicts into two
stages.

Level 1 $130/LF6
6-4. Curb Extensions

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Curb extensions extend the curb and
sidewalks further into the roadway,
shortening the length of the crosswalk.

They act as a traffic calming device by
narrowing the effective width of the
roadway and slowing turning speeds.

Because they extend into the roadway,
often past parallel-parked vehicles, they
improve visibility for pedestrians. The
also provide space for street furniture,
landscaping, bicycle parking, and signs
and signal poles. Curb extensions can
be constructed with reduced curb radii
and to accommodate ADA
improvements, such as directional curb
ramps.

Level 1 $140/LF7

6 Cost includes new curb and concrete barrier. Assumes a 6 foot median. 7 Cost includes removal of existing curb, new curb, new sidewalk, and new bollards. Cost does not include curb ramps.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
20 TABLE 3:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
6-5. Split Pedestrian Crossover (SPXO)

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
This measure is similar to traditional
median refuge islands; the difference is
that the crosswalks in the roadway are
staggered such that a pedestrian crosses
half of the street and then walks toward
traffic to reach the second half of the
crosswalk. This measure must be
designed for accessibility by including
rails and truncated domes to direct
sight-impaired pedestrians along the
path of travel.

Level 1
Note: see Table
11 for a
Pedestrian
Signal
$130/LF8
6-6. Raised Crosswalk

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Raised crosswalks are speed tables (flat-
topped speed humps) outfitted with
crosswalk markings and signage,
providing pedestrians with a level street
crossing. By raising the level of the
crossing, vehicles drive more slowly
through the crosswalk and pedestrians
are more visible to approaching
motorists.

Level 2 $4,000/EA
6-7. Pedestrian Overpass/Underpass
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
This measure consists of a pedestrian or
pedestrian/bicycle overpass or
underpass of a roadway. It provides
complete separation from motor vehicle
traffic, normally where no other
pedestrian facility is available, and
connects off-road trails and paths across
major barriers. Overpasses and
underpasses should be used as a
measure of last resort because of their
cost and barriers to their
effective/efficient use, with
topographical and desire line
considerations influencing their design.

Personal security concerns must also be
addressed in the design of these
facilities.

Level 3 $150/SF
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013.

8 Same materials as 6-3

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
21 TABLE 4:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: STRIPING AND SIGNAGE
Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
7-1. High Visibility Markings

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
All uncontrolled marked crosswalks
should feature high-visibility markings.

Various striping patterns are available.

The City of Salinas has recently installed
white and fluorescent yellow green
continental style markings. Triple four
striping, as shown in the photo to the
left, is recommended for use in future
installations.

Level 1 $6/Ft
7-2. Advanced Yield Line

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Advanced yield lines, often referred to
as “sharks teeth”, should be striped at all
marked, uncontrolled crosswalks on
multi-lane roadways. They should be
placed 20-30 feet in front of the
crosswalk. Their intention is to identify
where vehicles should stop when
yielding to a pedestrian to maintain
adequate sight lines.

Level 1 $100/EA

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
22 TABLE 4:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: STRIPING AND SIGNAGE
Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
7-3. Advanced Warning Signs

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
High-visibility yellow or fluorescent-
yellow-green (FYG) signs are posted at
crossings to increase the visibility of a
pedestrian crossing.

Level 1 $1,000/EA
7-4. In-Street Pedestrian Crossing
Sign

Image Source: FHWA
This measure involves posting
regulatory pedestrian signage on lane
edge lines and/or road centerlines. The
in-street pedestrian crossing sign may
be used to remind road users of laws
regarding right-of-way at an
uncontrolled pedestrian crossing. They
can be installed on medians and may
also be temporary signs, placed by
school crossing guards during school
hours.

Level 1 $400/EA
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
23 TABLE 5:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: BEACON, LIGHTING, AND SIGNAL TREATMENTS Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
8-1. Pedestrian-Scale Lighting

Image source: www.ci.mil.wi.us
Pedestrian-scale lighting improves
visibility along a pedestrian’s path and
across driveways. It also improves
visibility at pedestrian/vehicle conflict
points in crosswalks.

Level 1 $10,000/EA9
8-2. Flashing Beacon

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Flashing amber lights are installed on
overhead or post-mounted signs, in
advance of the crosswalk or at the
crosswalk’s entrance. Full-time flashing
beacons are not recommended; flashing
beacons are most effective when they
are activated by the crosswalk user (they
should rest on dark). By resting on dark,
they can also be solar powered.

Level 2 $50,000/EA

9 Cost assumes light every 100 feet

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
24 TABLE 5:

UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS: BEACON, LIGHTING, AND SIGNAL TREATMENTS Treatment Description Level Estimated Cost
8-3. Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacon (RRFB)

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
The RRFB is an enhancement of the
flashing beacon that replaced the
traditional slow flashing incandescent
lamps with rapid flashing LED lamps.

The RRFB may be push-button activated
or activated with passive detection. This
treatment was approved for use in
California via Interim Approval IA-11-83
in 2011. Any installations should be
reported to Caltrans for documentation,
but do not require pre-approval for
experimentation.

Level 2 $25,000/EA
8-4. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)

Image Source: FHWA
The PHB is a pedestrian-activated
beacon that is a combination of a
beacon flasher and a traffic control
signal. When actuated, the PHB displays
a yellow (warning) indication followed
by a solid red indication. During the
pedestrian clearance interval, the driver
sees a flashing red “wig-wag” pattern
until the clearance interval has ended
and the beacon goes dark. The device is
included in the 2012 California MUTCD
for use at midblock locations.10
Level 3 $50,000/EA
8-5. Pedestrian Signal

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
A pedestrian signal is a conventional
traffic control device with warrants for
use based on the MUTCD. The
pedestrian warrants were revised with
the 2009 Federal and 2012 California
MUTCD.

Level 4 $100,000/EA
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013.

10 Use of the device at side- street stop control locations currently requires separate permission from the CTCDC (though this is under review).

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
25 5. CONTROLLED CROSSWALK TREATMENT TOOLBOX
Controlled crosswalks are located at stop-controlled or signalized intersections. Generally, these crossings do not need enhancements beyond standard crosswalk markings (two parallel lines), as the traffic signal or stop-sign controls allocation of right- of-way. However, in some cases, such as in the Downtown, at skewed intersections, or near schools, the City may consider providing enhanced crossings to create a sense of place or improved aesthetics, or to improve visibility . This chapter presents preferred and enhanced measures for pedestrian treatments at controlled locations to:
 Improve the visibility of pedestrians to motorists and vice-versa  Communicate to motorists and pedestrians who has the right-of-way  Accommodate vulnerable populations such as the disabled, children, and the elderly  Reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles
 Reduce vehicular speeds at locations with potential pedestrian conflicts All treatments identified in this chapter are required or allowed by the standards and specifications in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD).

PREFERRED CROSSING TREATMENTS
Preferred crossing treatments are identified as the basic pedestrian crossing improvements to be provided at all stop-controlled and signalized intersections. New controlled intersections should be designed with these treatments included; existing controlled intersections that require retrofits may be prioritized and upgraded as City funds become available. These treatments are based on recommended best practices in pedestrian safety:
11  Mark crosswalks on all legs of the intersection that serve a key desire line  Provide advanced stop bars in advance of each crosswalk  Minimize the number of vehicle traffic lanes pedestrians must cross  Provide median refuge islands and thumbnails, as width and path of turn maneuvers allow  Remove sight-distance obstructions
 Provide directional curb ramps for each crosswalk (e.g., two per corner). The Standard Drawings for

11 See America Walks Signalized Intersection Enhancements that Benefit Pedestrians http://americawalks.org/wp- content/upload/America-Walks-Signalized-Intersection-Enhancement-Report-Updated-8.16.2012.pdf (2012).

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
26 Sacramento include best practices for directional curb ramp design (see drawing T-77 in Transportation document at: http://portal.cityofsacramento.org/Utilities/Resources/Specs-and- Drawings)
 Eliminate free right-turn slip lanes, where feasible, and mitigate for pedestrian safety where they remain
 Locate bus stops on the far-side of the intersection (or in front of mid-block crossings)  Minimize cycle lengths
 Reduce prevalence or eliminate permitted signal phasing where pedestrian crossings exist  Provide pedestrian signal heads for all crossings at signalized intersections  Provide adequate pedestrian clearance intervals (crossing time) at signalized intersections Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
27 Source: Standard drawings for the City of Sacramento Department of Transportation, 2007 (http://portal.cityofsacramento.org/Utilities/Resources/Specs-and-Drawings)

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
28 ENHANCED CROSSING TREATMENTS
At high volume pedestrian crossing locations or other areas designated by the City as pedestrian zones, the City may provide additional crosswalk enhancements at controlled intersections. These treatments provide improve drivers’ awareness of pedestrians by slowing traffic through geometric changes, providing signal timing or phasing modifications, or enhancing striping or signing to improve visibility.

The following tables describe the preferred and optional enhanced pedestrian safety treatments that may be used at the City’s discretion for controlled locations:
 Table 6: Geometric Treatments
 Table 7: Striping and Signage
 Table 8: Signal Hardware and Operational Measures
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
29 TABLE 6:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description Level Cost
9-1. Fewer Travel Lanes (“Road Diet”)

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Fewer travel lanes decrease roadway
width and crosswalk length, reduce
speeds, reduce left-turn and rear-end
collisions, and often eliminate the
multiple-threat collision. An average
pedestrian takes almost four seconds to
cross each additional travel lane.

Preferred $20/LF12
9-2. Pedestrian Refuge Island with
“Thumbnail”

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Median pedestrian islands provide a
refuge for pedestrians to stand if they
do not have sufficient time to cross a
street. They can be enhanced with
median pedestrian push buttons at
signalized crossings. Median islands can
be installed throughout a corridor or
only at specific crosswalks.

Preferred $130/LF13

12 Cost includes removal of existing pavement markings and repainting. Assumes existing curbs are to remain as is. 13 Cost assumes 6 foot median and includes new curb and concrete barrier.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
30 TABLE 6:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description Level Cost
9-3. Removal of Sight-Distance
Obstructions

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
If objects impede sight-distance, an
unsafe condition may arise where
motorists and pedestrians are unable to
see each other. Items such as parked
cards, signage, landscaping, fencing, and
street furniture should be placed in a
location that will not obstruct sight-
distance.

Preferred $150/EA14
9-4. Directional Curb Ramps with
Truncated Domes

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Curb ramps offer wheelchair access
to/from the sidewalk and crosswalk.

Truncated domes, or tactile strips, warn
blind pedestrians that they are about to
enter a crosswalk. The best practice for
curb ramps is to install two per corner so
that each ramp points directly into the
crosswalk and to the curb ramp at the
other side of the street. Corner bulbouts
can be used to increase the amount of
space available for directional curb
ramps.

Preferred $4,000/ea

14 Item removed is anticipated to be no larger than a sign and post

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
31 TABLE 6:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description Level Cost
9-5. Right-Turn Lane Design

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Free right-turns allow vehicles to turn
right at high speeds. Since the vehicles
are not typically controlled by the traffic
signal in this circumstance, crosswalks
across the turn lanes are usually
uncontrolled crosswalks. Controlled
right-turn movements are preferable for
pedestrians because they require a
vehicle to stop on red before turning
right. Where “pork-chop” islands that
channelize right-turns are necessary to
provide acceptable turning radii, raised
crosswalks are a pedestrian
enhancement. Other options include
signalizing the crossing (especially if it is
multi-lane) and designing the “pork-
chop” for slower speeds and better
visibility of pedestrians.

Preferred $25,000/EA15

15 Cost to remove assuming no electrical costs

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
32 TABLE 6:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description Level Cost
9-6. Far-Side Bus Stops

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Far-side bus stops allow pedestrians to
cross behind the bus, improving
pedestrian visibility. Far side bus stops
also enhance transit operations by
providing a guaranteed merging
opportunity for buses. Exceptions for
far-side bus stops include considerations
for bus routing, sufficient sidewalk area,
and conflicts with parking, land uses, or
driveways.

Preferred $1,000/EA16
9-7. Curb Extensions

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Curb extensions extend the curb and
sidewalks farther into the roadway,
shortening the length of the crosswalk.

They act as a traffic calming device by
narrowing the effective width of the
roadway and slowing turning speeds.

Because they extend into the roadway,
often past parallel-parked vehicles, they
improve visibility for pedestrians. The
also provide space for street furniture,
landscaping, bicycle parking, and signs
and signal poles. Curb extensions can
be constructed to accommodate ADA
improvements, such as directional curb
ramps.

Enhanced $140/LF17

16 Cost assumes no sidewalk or paving work
17 Cost includes removal of existing curb, new bollards, curb, and sidewalk. Cost does not include curb ramps.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
33 TABLE 6:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: GEOMETRIC TREATMENTS
Treatment Description Level Cost
9-8. Reduced Turn Radius

Image Source: AARP
Vehicles travel faster through turns with
a large radius. Reducing the radius of a
corner is an effective way of reducing
vehicle speeds. In suburban
environments, turn radii generally do
not need to exceed 30 feet. In urban
environments turn radii can be 10 feet
or less, especially where the meeting of
one-way streets prohibits turning
movements. Where on-street parking is
permitted and/or bicycle lanes are
present on one or both streets,
consideration for further reductions of
radii should occur acknowledging that
the effective radius is increased with on-
street parking. Corner curb radii on
multi-lane streets should acknowledge
that trucks turning right can turn into
two lanes.

Enhanced $175/LF18
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013

18 Cost includes removal of existing curb, new bollards, curb, and sidewalk. Cost does not include curb ramps.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
34 TABLE 7:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: STRIPING AND SIGNAGE
Treatment Description Level Cost
10-1. Marked Crosswalks

Image Source: Google Maps
Marking a crosswalk across all
approaches of an intersection
improves pedestrian accessibility. At
a four-way intersection, a closed
crosswalk forces pedestrians to cross
via three crosswalks instead of one.

Crosswalks on all approaches can
often be accommodated without a
significant impact to traffic signal
operations.

Preferred $15/LF19
10-2. Advanced Stop Bar

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Advanced stop bars are placed five
to seven feet in front of crosswalks.

They keep vehicles from
encroaching into the crosswalk when
stopped at a red signal or stop sign.

Preferred $7.50/LF

19 Cost includes both lines of crossing.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
35 TABLE 7:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: STRIPING AND SIGNAGE
Treatment Description Level Cost
10-3. High Visibility Markings

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
High-visibility crosswalks at
controlled locations are appropriate
in areas with high pedestrian
volumes, at crosswalks with skewed
geometries, or near sensitive land
uses (such as schools).

Enhanced $6/Ft
10-4. Textured Pavement or Colored
Crosswalks

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Textured pavement can be used in
crosswalks or in intersections as an
aesthetic enhancement. Because of
its texture, it may also calm traffic by
slowing vehicles before they cross
an intersection. It can also make
crosswalks more visible. Textured
pavement can be made of brick or,
alternatively, both concrete and
asphalt can be stamped to look like
brick or stone. At controlled
locations, standard crosswalk
striping should be provided in
addition to the textured pavement.

A smooth, non-slip surface is
preferable.

Enhanced $15/SF
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
36 TABLE 8:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description Level Cost
11-1. Adequate Crossing Times

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
The 2012 California MUTCD requires a
walking speed of 3.5 feet per second be
assumed to determine crossing times as
a default minimum (4.0 feet per second
was previously the guidance). A speed
slower than 3.5 feet per second can be
used where slower pedestrians routinely
use the crosswalk, such as locations near
schools, hospitals, or senior centers.

Preferred N/A20
11-2. Pedestrian Countdown Signal

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Pedestrian countdown signals give
pedestrians “Walk” and “Don’t Walk”
signals with a second-by-second
countdown for each phase. Research
suggests that pedestrians are more
likely to obey the “Don’t Walk” signal
when delivered using a countdown
signal. The device has been shown to
enhance safety for all road users. The
2012 California MUTCD requires that all
new pedestrian signals be countdown
signals.

Preferred $500/EA

20 No construction costs associated with measure. Only preparation and implementation costs

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
37 TABLE 8:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description Level Cost
11-3. Pedestrian Signals and Push
Buttons

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Mounting push buttons for different
crosswalks on one pole can be
confusing for blind pedestrians. Push
buttons should be separated by ten feet
and placed within five feet of each curb
ramp, one per crosswalk. At long
crosswalks (≥60 feet) with a median
refuge island, push buttons can be
placed in the median for pedestrians
who may not be able to cross the entire
crosswalk in one cycle length. In areas
with high pedestrian volumes,
eliminating pedestrian push buttons and
providing a pedestrian phase in every
cycle, can enhance walkability (and
signal compliance).

Preferred $1,000/EA21
11-4. Short Cycle Lengths

Image Source: Institute of Transportation
Engineers
Long cycle lengths at signalized
intersections result in long pedestrian
wait times to cross a street. By
shortening an intersection’s cycle length,
pedestrians do not have to wait as long
to cross after pushing the button to
request a “Walk” signal.

Preferred N/A22

21 Cost includes pole
22 No construction costs associated with measure. Only preparation and implementation costs

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
38 TABLE 8:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description Level Cost
11-5. Protected Left-Turns

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Where permitted left-turns are allowed,
denoted by a “Left Turn Yield on Green”
sign, left-turning vehicles can conflict
with pedestrians in the crosswalk. By
making the left-turn protected, so that it
is allowed only with a green arrow, the
“Walk” signal at a crosswalk occurs at
the same time that through- and right-
turning vehicles in the same direction
receive a green light. This reduces the
risk of left-turning vehicle conflicts with
the opposing crosswalk; since left-turns
typically occur at a higher speed than
right-turns, collisions of increased
severity can be avoided by protecting
left-turns.

Preferred $20,000-
50,000/EA23
11-6. Accessible Pedestrian Signals

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Accessible pedestrian signals (APS) and
detectors provide information, such as
“Walk” indications and direction of
crossing, in non-visual formats to
improve accessibility for blind
pedestrians. Audible options for
accessible pedestrian signals include
audible tones and speech messages.

Vibrotactile push-buttons are effective
options that alleviate the impacts of
noise created by audible pedestrian
signals. They are also accessible to deaf
pedestrians. APS should always be
provided when two push buttons are
located on one pole and where persons
with disabilities are expected frequently
at a crossing. At other locations, APS is
currently a best practice, but is expected
to become a requirement when the
proposed rulemaking of the Public
Rights of Way Accessibility Guidelines
(PROWAG) is finalized.

Enhanced $2,500/EA

23 Assumes left turn lane is existing, so no roadway work is necessary. Only signal work.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
39 TABLE 8:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description Level Cost

11-7. Pedestrian Recall

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Pedestrian recall gives pedestrians a
“Walk” signal at every cycle. No push-
button or detection is necessary since a
“Walk” signal will always be given.

Pedestrian recalls are useful in areas
with high levels of pedestrian activity.

They demonstrate that an intersection is
meant to serve both vehicles and
pedestrians. In general, pedestrian recall
should be used if pedestrians actuate a
“Walk” signal 75 percent of the time
during three or more hours per day.

Recall can be used 24-hours a day or
during peak hours for pedestrians (in
which case push buttons should
continue to be provided).

Enhanced N/A24

24 No construction costs associated with measure. Only preparation and implementation costs

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
40 TABLE 8:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description Level Cost
11-8. No Right Turn on Red

Image Source: FHWA
When attempting to turn right on red,
motorists must look left to see if the
road is clear; motorists often do not look
right before turning and may not see
pedestrians to their right. Restricting
right turns on red can reduce conflicts
between vehicles and pedestrians.
“Blank out” turn restriction signs (see
11-9 below) are more effective than
conventional “No Right Turn on Red”
signs. “No Right Turn on Red” signs that
specify time-of-day restrictions or
“When Pedestrians are Present” are
confusing to motorists and are often
disregarded.

Enhanced $1,500/EA25
11-9. Blank-Out Turn Restriction LED
Sign

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
The ubiquity of conventional turn
restriction signs, usually for no right turn
on red, contributes to their disregard by
motorists. Blank out turn restriction
signs activate only when the specified
movement is prohibited. The LED sign is
also very visible.

Enhanced $2,00026

25 Cost includes 2 signs: one on mast arm and other on pole nearby 26 Cost includes installation

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
41 TABLE 8:

CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS: SIGNAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES Treatment Description Level Cost
11-10. Animated Eyes

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Animated eyes pedestrian signals
feature eyes that move from side to side
when a “Walk” signal is given. The
signals remind pedestrians to look for
turning vehicles before proceeding into
the crosswalk. Research has indicated
that animated eyes pedestrian signals
reduce conflicts between vehicles and
pedestrians. Source: http://www.cers-
safety.com/pedestriansignals.pdf
Enhanced $2,00027
11-11. Leading Pedestrian Interval
(LPI)

Image Source: Fehr & Peers
A leading pedestrian interval (LPI)
advances the “Walk” signal for a few
seconds while through-vehicles continue
to receive a red indication. By allowing
pedestrians to get a head start into the
crosswalk, it can reduce conflicts
between pedestrians and turning
vehicles. The 2012 California MUTCD
recommends that LPIs be at least three
seconds in duration. Right-turn on red
restrictions may be needed with LPIs are
installed in locations with lower
pedestrian volumes.

Enhanced
No construction
costs only
preparation and
implementation
costs
11-12. Push Button for Extended
Crossing Time

Image Source: FHWA
Some pedestrians may need extra time
to safely cross a street. Traffic signals
can be retrofitted to provide pedestrians
with increased crossing time by
extending the duration of a pushbutton
press.

Enhanced $1,000/EA28
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013.

27 Cost includes installation
28 Cost includes pole

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
42 6. EDUCATION, ENFORCEMENT, AND ENCOURAGEMENT

PROGRAMS
The prior chapters in this policy describe engineering treatments to improve pedestrian safety and enhance walkability. Engineering, however, is only one aspect of a comprehensive pedestrian safety strategy. Education, enforcement, and encouragement, are also crucial, as outlined in the City’s Pedestrian Master Plan. This section presents best practices for education, encouragement, and enforcement components of pedestrian safety programs that may be considered to supplement the Crosswalk Policy Guidelines.

EDUCATION
The following is a list of pedestrian safety practices for educating pedestrians and motorists about safe and lawful behavior:
 Website – provide informational materials relating to pedestrian safety  Videos – post information such as public service announcements to the City’s website  Community outreach events – provide opportunities for pedestrian education such as Mayor’s night out events
 Pamphlets – make informational materials available through the City  Student group involvement – promote pedestrian safety by involving and educating student groups
 Street/Bus Stop/School Banners – place advertisements in high activity pedestrian areas  Yard Signs – communicate roadway conditions to motorists and pedestrians  Strategic partnerships – partner with groups such as American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) to promote pedestrian safety
 Local media campaigns – involve local media in pedestrian safety campaigns  Classroom curricula – collaborate with local school districts to develop pedestrian safety curricula for schools
 Structured skills practice – develop a program that trains pedestrians in safe behavior  Games, coloring books, etc. – develop or provide fun and educational materials for children Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014
43 ENFORCEMENT
The following is a list of pedestrian safety practices for enforcing pedestrian and vehicular right- of-way laws:
 Officer training courses – provides law enforcement with full understanding of pedestrian laws and safety practices
 Traffic complaint hotline – provides a method for citizens to alert the City when a public facility is of concern, such as inoperable traffic signal
 Community enforcement – provides a mechanism for community members to help enforce traffic laws, such as a radar gun checkout program
 Adult school crossing guards – provides a trained adult to help pedestrians cross the street  Pedestrian decoys – target enforcement activities with a staged pedestrian or motorist, targeting motorists or pedestrians who do not comply with traffic laws  Partnership with media, stakeholders, and City departments – involve various stakeholders in pedestrian education campaigns and efforts

ENCOURAGEMENT
The following is a list of pedestrian safety practices that encourage pedestrians and motorists to engage in safe and lawful behavior:
 Wayfinding – install signage directing pedestrians to designated routes and destinations  Walking school buses/Walking Wednesdays –organize activities by schools and/or parents that have students walk to school in groups on selected days  Community walking audits – lead or support community members on walk around an area noting positive practices and areas for improvement
 Silver sneaker awards – distribute awards encouraging physical activity among seniors  Incentives/contests – reward those who walk or demonstrate safe walking habits  Peer-to-peer education – develop program to educate pedestrians through interaction with peers trained in pedestrian safety

44 APPENDIX A:

CITYWIDE CROSSWALK INVENTORY

45 APPENDIX B:

PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014

46 The pedestrian delay calculations included in the Crosswalk Tool rely on the methodology recommended in NCRHP Report 562 (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_562.pdf). A full discussion of this methodology is found in Appendix A of the NCHRP report. The key equations in the tool include:

TABLE 9:

PEDESTRIAN LOS CALCULATIONS
Road Characteristics Description
Speed on the major street (mph) Use the major road posted or statutory speed limit for the facilities or, if available, the 85th percentile speed.

Pedestrian crossing distance (ft)
Pedestrian crossing distance represents the distance that a pedestrian would need to cross before reaching either the far curb or a median refuge island. The distance would be between the near and far curbs if a painted or raised median refuge island is not present, or to the median refuge island if the island is present. Note if a parking stall is present, its width should be included in the crossing distance measurement. Crossing distance rather than number of lanes was selected for the procedure so that the extra time needed by a pedestrian to cross bike lanes, two- way left-turn lanes, wide lanes, etc. could be considered.

Counts Description
Peak-hour pedestrian volume
crossing major roadway (ped/h)
Pedestrian volume is the number of pedestrians crossing the major roadway in a peak hour. The count includes all pedestrian crossings of the major roadway at the location.

Major road peak hour vehicle
volume (veh/h)
Vehicle volume represents the number of vehicles and bicycles on both approaches of the major road during a peak hour. If a painted or raised median refuge island is present of sufficient size to store pedestrians (minimum of 6 ft [1.8 m] wide), then consider the volume on each approach individually. In the signal warrant calculations, use the volume on both approaches (Vmaj-s). For the delay calculations, the volume (Vmaj-d) would reflect either both approaches if a refuge island is not present or each approach individually if a refuge island is present.

Local Parameters Description
Motorist compliance for region
(high or low)
Compliance reflects the typical behavior of motorists for the site. If motorists tend to stop for a pedestrian attempting to cross at an uncontrolled location, then compliance is “high.” If motorists rarely stop for a crossing pedestrian, then compliance is “low.”
Pedestrian walking speed (ft/s)
Walking speed represents the speed of the crossing pedestrians. Recent research has suggested walking speeds of 3.5 ft/s (1.1 m/s) for the general population and

3.0 ft/s (0.9 m/s) for the older population. If calculating for a site, determine the 15th percentile value of those using the crossing.

Pedestrian start-up time and
end clearance time (s)
Start-up time is used in the calculation of the critical gap. A value of 3 s is suggested in the Highway Capacity Manual.

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014

47 TABLE 9:

PEDESTRIAN LOS CALCULATIONS
Calculations Description
Signal warrant check (ped/hr)
Regression equations were determined for the plots shown in the 2012 CA MUTCD Figures 4C-7 and 4C-8. These equations can calculate the minimum number of pedestrians crossing the major road needed to meet the signal warrant based on the major road volume. The recommendation made in 2006 to the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is that the vehicles signal warrants values for crossing two lanes be used as the pedestrian signal warrant values. Both the peak vehicle hour and the peak pedestrian hour may need to be checked.

PHB warrant check
Regression equations were determined for the plots shown in the 2012 CA MUTCD Figures 4F-1 and 4F-2. These equations can calculate the minimum number of pedestrians crossing the major road needed to meet the HAWK signal warrant based on the major road volume.

Critical gap (s), tc
Critical gap is the time in seconds below which a pedestrian will not attempt to begin crossing the street. For a single pedestrian, critical gap (tc) can be computed using Equation 18-17 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. The equation includes consideration of the pedestrian walking speed (Sp), crossing distance (L), and start- up and end clearance times (ts). tc = (L/Sp) + ts
Major road flow rate (veh/s), v
Flow rate is a measure of the number of vehicles per second (v). For high-speed conditions, the number of vehicles is adjusted by dividing by 0.7. Flow rate is determined by: Low speed: v = Vmaj-p/3600 high speed: v = (Vmaj-p/0.7)/3600 It is based on the major road volume (Vmaj-d), which is the total of both approaches (or the approach being crossed if median refuge island is present) during the peak hour (veh/h).

Average pedestrian delay
(s/person), dp
The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual includes Equation 18-21 that can be used to determine the average delay per pedestrian at an unsignalized intersection crossing (s/person). dp = (1/v)*(EXP(v*tc)-(v*tc-1)). It depends upon critical gap (tc), the vehicular flow rate of the crossing (v), and the mean vehicle headway.

Total pedestrian delay (ped-h)
Total pedestrian delay (Dp) uses the average pedestrian delay (dp) and multiplies that value by the number of pedestrians (Vp) to determine the total pedestrian delay for the approach. Dp = (dp × Vp)/3,600
Source: NCHRP Report 562, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_562.pdf

48 APPENDIX C:

PEDESTRIAN COLLISION ANALYSIS
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014

49 PEDESTRIAN COLLISION ANALYSIS
Vehicle-pedestrian collision data is one source of information to identify pedestrian safety “hotspots”.

Collision data was obtained from the California Highway Patrol Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) for the City of Salinas between January 2005 and December 2010, the five (5) most recent years of available data at the time this report was authored.

The locations of pedestrian collisions were mapped to illustrate the pedestrian-vehicle collisions throughout Salinas. A total of 363 vehic le-pedestrian collisions occurred in Salinas between 2005 and 2010. Figure 4 shows the number and location of collisions at intersections throughout Salinas from 2005-2010. Table 10 lists the locations with the highest number of vehicle-pedestrian collisions Citywide.

As shown, the intersection of N. Sanborn Road and Garner Avenue has the most frequent pedestrian collisions, with 14 occurring between 2005 and 2010.
29 TABLE 10:

TOP PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE COLLISION LOCATIONS, SALINAS, 2005-2010 Intersection Number of
Collisions Intersection Number of
Collisions
N. Sanborn Road and Garner Avenue 14 Lincoln Avenue and Central Avenue 4 Salinas Street and W. Alisal Street 7 Geil Street and S. Main Street 4 N. Main Street and E. Laurel Drive 6 N. Main Street and Lamar Street 4 Williams Road and Bardin Road 5 Alisal Street and Wood Street 4 Harden Parkway and N. Main Street 5 E. Alisal Street and N. Madeira Avenue 4 E. Alisal Street and Sanborn Street 5 E. Market Street and Carr Avenue 4 E. Bernal Drive and N. Main Street 4 N. Sanborn Road and Freedom Parkway 4 Source: SWITRS, 2005-2010.Fehr & Peers, 2013.

Notes: This list is based on number of collisions and does not adjust for vehicle or pedestrian volumes (exposure).

Collisions occurring 25 feet or closer to an intersection were assigned to the nearest intersection.

29 The City recently received a Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant to provide intersection safety improvements along the Sanborn Road Corridor that includes pedestrian benefits. (countdown signals/eliminates permitted left turns).

W Blanco Rd
Espinosa Rd
Williams Rd
N Main St
E Alisal St
E Boronda Rd
S Davis Rd
Natividad Rd
San Juan Grade Rd
Harris Rd
E Laurel Dr
N Sanborn Rd
Boronda Rd
Russell Rd
W Market St
E Blanco Rd
Freedom Pkwy
Constitution Blvd
W Laurel Dr
S Sanborn Rd
E Bernal Dr
Hatton Ave
Loyola Dr
Hilltown Rd
Spreckels Ln
E Boronda Rd
4th St
Hilltown Rd
Main St
Del Monte Ave
Hartnell A&M College
East Campus
Alisal High School
Alvarez High School
Hartnell College
Salinas
High
School
La Paz
Middle School
El Sausal
Middle School
Gavilan View
Middle School
Palma
High School
Washington
Middle School
North Salinas
High School
Mount Toro
High School
Sherwood
Elementary
School
Lincoln
Elementary
School
Harden Middle School
Bardin
Elementary
School
Santa Rita
Elementary School
La Joya
Elementary School
Boronda
Elementary
School
Fremont
Elementary
School
Sancgez
Elementary
School
Henry F Kammann
Elementary School
Rocca Barton
Elementary School
Los Padres
Elementary
School
Salinas Christian School
Notre Dame
High School
Alisal Community
Elemementary School
Monterey Park
Elementary School
El Gabilan
Elementary School
Nativadad
Elementary
School
Mission Park
Elementary School
University Park
Elementary School
Madonna del Sasso
Elemementary School
Loma Vista
Elementary School
Roosevelt
Elementary School
John E Steinbeck
Elemementary School
Sacred Heart
Elementary School
Frank Paul
Elementary School
Laurel Wood
Elementary School
Salinas Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions, 2005-2010
Figure 4Path: N:\Projects\_SJ11_Projects\SJ11_1252_Crosswalk_Policy_Guidelines\Graphics\GIS\Fig_2_Collisions.mxd One Collisions
Two Collisions
Three Collisions
Four Collisions
Five or More Collisions
School
Park
0 0.5 1
Miles
F
£¤101
£¤
101

Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014

51 Figure 5 shows the higher severity pedestrian-vehicle collisions, including those with pedestrian injuries and fatalities, and Table 11 lists the locations with the highest number of fatalities and injuries. Similar to Table 1, N. Sanborn Road and Garner Avenue has the highest frequency of pedestrian-vehicle collisions, with 14 injuries and two fatalities occurring between 2005 and 2010.

TABLE 11:

TOP PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE COLLISIONS LOCATIONS, INJURY OR FATALITY, 2005-2010 Intersection Number of Injuries
(Fatalities) Intersection Number of Injuries
(Fatalities)
N. Sanborn Road and Garner
Avenue 14 (2) E. Alisal Street and N. Pearl
Street 4 (0)
N. Main Street and E. Laurel
Drive 7 (0) Freedom Parkway and N.

Sanborn Road 4 (0)
Salinas Street and W. Alisal
Street 7 (0) E. Laurel Drive and Towt
Street 4 (0)
E. Alisal Street and N. Sanborn
Road 6 (0) W. Alisal Street and Lincoln
Avenue 4 (0)
Williams Road and Bardin Road 6 (0) S. Main Street and Geil Street 4 (0)
Harden Parkway and N. Main
Street 5 (0) N. Main Street and Lamar
Street 4 (0)
Alisal Street and Wood Street 4 (0) N. Main Street and Bernal Drive 4 (1)
E. Alisal Street and N. Madeira
Avenue 4 (0) E. Alvin Drive and
McKinnon Street 4 (0)
Source: SWITRS, 2005-2010.Fehr & Peers, 2013.

Notes: This list is based on number of collisions and does not adjust for vehicle or pedestrian volumes (exposure).

Collisions occurring 25 feet or closer to an intersection were assigned to the nearest intersection.

W Blanco Rd
Espinosa Rd
Williams Rd
N Main St
E Alisal St
E Boronda Rd
S Davis Rd
Natividad Rd
San Juan Grade Rd
Harris Rd
E Laurel Dr
N Sanborn Rd
Boronda Rd
Russell Rd
W Market St
E Blanco Rd
Freedom Pkwy
Constitution Blvd
W Laurel Dr
S Sanborn Rd
E Bernal Dr
Hatton Ave
Loyola Dr
Hilltown Rd
Spreckels Ln
E Boronda Rd
4th St
Hilltown Rd
Main St
Del Monte Ave
Hartnell A&M College
East Campus
Alisal High School
Alvarez High School
Hartnell College
Salinas
High
School
La Paz
Middle School
El Sausal
Middle School
Gavilan View
Middle School
Palma
High School
Washington
Middle School
North Salinas
High School
Mount Toro
High School
Sherwood
Elementary
School
Lincoln
Elementary
School
Harden Middle School
Bardin
Elementary
School
Santa Rita
Elementary School
La Joya
Elementary School
Boronda
Elementary
School
Fremont
Elementary
School
Sancgez
Elementary
School
Henry F Kammann
Elementary School
Rocca Barton
Elementary School
Los Padres
Elementary
School
Salinas Christian School
Notre Dame
High School
Alisal Community
Elemementary School
Monterey Park
Elementary School
El Gabilan
Elementary School
Nativadad
Elementary
School
Mission Park
Elementary School
University Park
Elementary School
Madonna del Sasso
Elemementary School
Loma Vista
Elementary School
Roosevelt
Elementary School
John E Steinbeck
Elemementary School
Sacred Heart
Elementary School
Frank Paul
Elementary School
Laurel Wood
Elementary School
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
Salinas Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions
Resulting in Injuries and/or Fatalities, 2005-2010
Figure 5Path: N:\Projects\_SJ11_Projects\SJ11_1252_Crosswalk_Policy_Guidelines\Graphics\GIS\Fig_3_Collisions_Injury_Fatality.mxd 0 0.5 1
Miles
F
£¤101
£¤
101
Pedestrian Injuries
One Collision
Two Collisions
Three Collisions
Four or More Collisions

kj One Fatality
kj Two Fatalities
School
Park
Pedestrian Fatalities
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014

53 Primary Collision Factor
Table 12 lists the most common primary collisions factors (PCFs) for pedestrian-vehicle collisions in Salinas. The top three PCFs were pedestrian right- of-way violation (wherein the motorist is at fault), pedestrian violation (wherein the pedestrian is at fault), and unsafe speed (wherein the vehicle’s speed is the primary cause of the collision). In total, motorists are at fault for over 50 percent of pedestrian collisions. Pedestrian violations account for approximately one-third of collision factors.

TABLE 12:

PRIMARY COLLISION FACTORS (PCFS) FOR PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE COLLISIONS IN SALINAS, 2005-2010
Primary Collision Factor % of Total
Pedestrian Right-of-Way 36.4%
Pedestrian Violation 34.4%
Not Stated 5.2%
Unsafe Speed 4.4%
Unsafe Starting or Backing 3.0%
Traffic Signals and Signs 2.8%
Unknown 2.8%
Improper Turning 2.5%
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug 2.2% Automobile Right-of-Way 1.7%
Improper Passing 1.1%
Other Improper Driving 1.1%
Wrong Side of Road 0.8%
Other Hazardous Violation 0.8%
Unsafe Lane Change 0.6%
Source: SWITRS 2005-2010, Fehr & Peers, 2013
Day of the Week
The following statistics and charts show the number of pedestrian collisions that occur by day of the week and hour of the day. Between 2005 and 2010, collisions occurred most frequently on Fridays and Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014

54 Saturdays, with 72 and 57 collisions, respectively. Monday had the third highest number of pedestrian collisions (55).

Pedestrian collisions occur in a pattern similar to typical morning and evening commute peak hours:
between 2005 and 2010, 32 pedestrian collisions occurred in the 8:00 am hour, and 41 collisions in the 6:00 pm hour.

47 55
40 42
50 72
57 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Source: SWITRS, 2005 - 2010
Chart 1: Pedestrian Collisions by Day of Week
32 20
33 41
15 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
45 12:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM
9:00 PM
10:00 PM
11:00 PM
12:00 AM
Source: SWITRS, 2005 - 2010
Chart 2: Pedestrian Collisions by Hour
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014

55 Weather Conditions

Chart 3 displays the weather conditions during pedestrian collisions in Salinas. The majority of pedestrian collisions took place when the weather was clear, which indicates that in 80% of collisions, weather was likely not a factor in condition of the roadway; however, sun glare may have contributed to some of these collisions. The weather was cloudy in 34 of the collisions and raining in 21. Wind was noted in one (1) collision, “Other” in one (1) collision, and in three (3) reports weather was not reported .

Age Statistics
TABLE 13:

AGE RANGES FOR PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE COLLISIONS IN SALINAS, 2005-2010 Age Range % of Total
0-15 28%
16-30 29%
31-45 18%
46-60 17%
61+ 9%
Source: SWITRS 2005-2010, Fehr & Peers, 2013
Table 13 provides a summary of pedestrian age data for collisions in Salinas. The ages are grouped in five categories: ages 0-15, ages 15-30, ages 31-45, ages 46-60, and ages 61 and above. The greatest 303
34 21 3 1 1
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Clear Cloudy Raining Not Stated Wind Other
Source: SWITRS, 2005 - 2010
Chart 3: Pedestrian Collisions by Weather
Crosswalk Policy Guidelines
June 2014

56 proportion of collisions involved the age group 16-30, which accounted for 29 percent of the collisions, followed closely by the age group 0-15, which accounted for 28 percent of pedestrian collisions. Together, pedestrians under 30 years of age account for over half of the pedestrians involved in collisions.

Near Schools
The frequency of pedestrian-vehicle collisions was also reviewed for school-age children (five years old through 18 years old) within ¼-mile of schools. Figure 6 shows the locations of these pedestrian-vehicle collisions. In total, 33 collisions occurred that meet these criteria, or approximately 10 percent of the total pedestrian-vehicle collisions occurring Citywide.

SUMMARY
While walking accounts for only a small percentage of trips, 30 according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), pedestrian fatalities represented 13 percent of total fatalities in traffic crashes in 2010 (“Traffic Safety Facts: 2010 Data,” 2012). This implies that pedestrians are over represented in collisions compared to the number of trips made by walking. Pedestrian collisions are also known to be underreported, since those collisions with no injury or fatality often go without a police report and are, thus, not added to the City or SWITRS databases for analysis.

Collision data for the City of Salinas was obtained from the California Highway Patrol Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) between January 2005 and December 2010, the five (5) most recent years of available data at the time this report was authored. Based on this data, 363 vehicle-pedestrian collisions occurred in Salinas between 2005 and 2010. The most common primary collision factors included pedestrian right- of-way violation (wherein the vehicle is at fault), pedestrian violation (wherein the pedestrian is at fault), and unsafe speed (wherein the vehicle’s speed is the primary cause of the collision).

Weekends (Fridays through Sundays) had higher collision frequency, on average, than weekdays; however, collision frequency tended to follow peak vehicle commute times – 8:00 am, 4:00 pm, and 6:00 pm have the highest number of pedestrian collisions.

Age is also an important variable in understanding collision frequency, as 57 percent of pedestrian collisions involved pedestrians under the age of 30. This indicates that safe routes to school education, enforcement, and engineering efforts should be a priority for the City.

30 According to the 2010 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, the walking mode for work trips in the United States is 2.8 percent.

W Blanco Rd
Espinosa Rd
Williams Rd
N Main St
E Alisal St
E Boronda Rd
S Davis Rd
Natividad Rd
San Juan Grade Rd
Harris Rd
E Laurel Dr
N Sanborn Rd
Boronda Rd
Russell Rd
W Market St
E Blanco Rd
Freedom Pkwy
Constitution Blvd
W Laurel Dr
S Sanborn Rd
E Bernal Dr
Hatton Ave
Loyola Dr
Hilltown Rd
Spreckels Ln
E Boronda Rd
4th St
Hilltown Rd
Main St
Del Monte Ave
Hartnell A&M College
East Campus
Alisal High School
Alvarez High School
Hartnell College
Salinas
High
School
La Paz
Middle School
El Sausal
Middle School
Gavilan View
Middle School
Palma
High School
Washington
Middle School
North Salinas
High School
Mount Toro
High School
Sherwood
Elementary
School
Lincoln
Elementary
School
Harden Middle School
Bardin
Elementary
School
Santa Rita
Elementary School
La Joya
Elementary School
Boronda
Elementary
School
Fremont
Elementary
School
Sancgez
Elementary
School
Henry F Kammann
Elementary School
Rocca Barton
Elementary School
Los Padres
Elementary
School
Salinas Christian School
Notre Dame
High School
Alisal Community
Elemementary School
Monterey Park
Elementary School
El Gabilan
Elementary School
Nativadad
Elementary
School
Mission Park
Elementary School
University Park
Elementary School
Madonna del Sasso
Elemementary School
Loma Vista
Elementary School
Roosevelt
Elementary School
John E Steinbeck
Elemementary School
Sacred Heart
Elementary School
Frank Paul
Elementary School
Laurel Wood
Elementary School
Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions for School-Age
Children Occurring within ¼-mile of Schools
Figure 6Path: N:\Projects\_SJ11_Projects\SJ11_1252_Crosswalk_Policy_Guidelines\Graphics\GIS\Fig_4_Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions for School-Age Children.mxd

Collision with No Injury
Collision with One Injury
Collision with Two Injuries
Collision with Three Injuries
School
Park
0 0.5 1
Miles
F
£¤101
£¤
101
Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions for
School-Age Children Occurring
within ¼-mile of Schools

Salinas City CouncilAugust 20, 2024

Salinas City Council
August 20, 2024