SR-9-A (93)
LUTM:PB:RF:fb:XWALKORD:WP51FB
Council Meeting, March 17, 1992
q~A
MAR 1 'j", 1992
Santa Monica, California
To: Mayor and City Council
From: City staff
Subject: Recommendation to Approve a Policy on the Installation
and Removal of Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Intersections
and to Direct the city Attorney to Prepare an Ordinance
Amending section 3327 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
Relating to Crosswalks
Introduction
This report recommends that the city council approve a POllCY on
the lnstallation and removal of crosswalks at uncontrolled
intersections; and, direct the City Attorney to prepare an
ordinance amending section 3327 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
relating to crosswalks.
Background
In recent months, two major Santa Monica thoroughfares, Pica
Boulevard and Montana Avenue, have been resurfaced. Subsequent to
resurfacing of these streets, the Parking and Traffic Engineering
Division has not replaced a number of crosswalks which were
previously in place at uncontrolled l.ntersections. The decision to
not replace these crosswalks was rendered in the interest of
traffic and pedestrian safety, using generally accepted traffic
englneering guidelines.
The City Council has questioned this
decision, and has directed staff to submit a report for their
consideration.
q-A
Page 1 of 12
~1AR L j l~"'i
Mayor and City Councl1
March 17, 1992
In preparing for this report, staff examined section 3327 of the
Municipal Code. That section appears to give the City Parking and
Traffic Engineer the authority and responsibility to install and
malntain crosswalks, but not to remove or otherwise delete them.
Discussion
Durlng the past several years, traffic engineering studies in
Southern california, and elsewhere across the nation, have found
that the pedestrian accident rate at uncontrolled (non-signalized)
intersections is lower at locations where no marked crosswalks
exist, compared to those locations where crosswalks are painted.
In order to increase pedestrian safety and to reduce potential City
tort liability, staff has prepared a policy recommending that
painted crosswalks not be installed, or reinstalled, on City
streets at uncontrolled lntersections or at midblock locatlons,
except where there is a traffic engineering finding of need for
such a crosswalk, based on specific criteria.
The presence or absence of a marked crosswalk does not in any way
change the pedestrian's right of way at most intersections.
Section 21950 of the California Vehicle Code sets forth the
pedestrian's right-of-way at crosswalks. It states:
Page 2 of 12
Mayor and City council
March 17, 1992
Right-of-Way at Crosswalks
21950
(a) The driver of a 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, except as
otherwise provided in this chapter.
(b) The prov1sions of this section shall not relieve a
pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her
safety. No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other
place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle
which 1S so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No
pedestr1an shall unnecessarlly stop or delay traffic while in
a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
(c) The provisions of subdivision (b) shall not relieve a
dr1ver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for
the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or
withln any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.
Similarly, Section 275 of the California Vehicle Code states:
Page 3 of 12
Mayor and City council
March 17, 1992
275. "Crosswalk" is either:
(a) That portion of a roadway included within the prolongation
or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at
lntersection where the intersecting roadways meet at
approximately right angles, except the prolongation of such
lines from an alley across a street.
(b) Any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for
pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface.
Notwithstanding the forego1ng provisions of this section,
there shall not be a crosswalk where local authorities have
placed signs indicating no crossing.
Thus, under California law, an unmarked crosswalk is no different
from one that is marked.
Section 3327 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code authorizes and
requires the City Parking and Traffic Engineer to establish and
maintain crosswalks at locations where, in his opinion, there is a
particular danger to pedestrians crossing the roadway. It states:
Page 4 of 12
Mayor and City council
March 17, 1992
section 3327. Parking and Traffic Engineer to Establish Crosswalks.
The Parking and Traffl.c Engineer hereby is authorized and
required to establish and maintain, or cause to be established
and maintained, and to designate upon the surface of the
roadway by appropriate devices, marks or white or yellow
lines, crosswalks approximately equal in width to the adjacent
sidewalk at all intersections and between the intersections
where, in his opinion, there is particular danger to
pedestrians crossing the roadway.
This section does not grant to the City Parking and Traffic
Engineer any authority to remove or delete any crosswalk, once it
has been established and designated. As noted below, there are
situations where it is appropriate, and may be necessary, to remove
a crosswalk. Accepted standards established by state and federal
agencies clearly indicate circumstances wherein crosswalks are not
appropriate.
This situation is reflected in the CalTrans Traffic Manual which
states, in part:
Crosswalk markings serve primarily to guide pedestrians in to
the proper path. Pedestrian crosswalk markings should not be
used indiscriminately, as their presence can be detrimental to
pedestrian safety. In some cases, pedestrians can be given a
Page 5 of 12
Mayor and City council
March 17, 1992
false sense of security due to the prominent appearance of the
crosswalk to the pedestrian, resulting in a lack of caution.
The crosswalk markings may not be visible to the driver from
a safe stopping distance. (1)
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices takes a similar
position in stating, in part:
Crosswalk markings should not be used indiscriminately. An
engineering study should be required before they are installed
at locations away from traffic signals or STOP signs.(2)
Since 1960, there have been numerous studies relating pedestrian
safety and marked crosswalks. In Southern California such studies
have been conducted by the County of Los Angeles and the cities of
San Diego, Los Angeles and Long Beach. All of the studies found
that pedestrlan accident and injury rates are much lower at
unmarked crosswalks.
Apparently, pedestrians are more cautious,
when they do not have the false sense of safety created by a
painted crosswalk.
1. IIParagraph 6-02.12 Crosswalks and Crosswalk Linesll, Traffic
Manual, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento,
California, Apr11 1987, Page 6-7.
2. nparagraph 3B-18 Crosswalks and Crosswalk Lines", Manual on
Uniform Traff ic Control Devices for streets and Hiqhways, u. S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, D.C., 1988, Page 3B-23
Page 6 of 12
Mayor and city Council
March 17, 1992
For example, a review of pedestrian accidents at non-signalized
intersections in the City of Santa Monica during 1990 revealed that
there were 36 accidents in marked crosswalks, 3 were in unmarked
crosswalks, and 5 were undetermined as to location.
A study in San Diego found that, at uncontrolled intersections,
pedestrians in a marked crosswalk were twice as likely to be hit by
a vehicle as those in unmarked crosswalks{3). A Los Angeles study
of 41 crosswalks which were not restored after repaving, found that
accidents involving pedestrians were reduced by one-half(4). And a
1986 study in Long Beach found that marked crosswalks have an
accident rate more than double that of unmarked crosswalks. (5)
Law enforcement and traffic engineering officials have observed
that pedestrians have become more aggressive and assertive in
marked crosswalks.
And, as noted in the Traffic Enqineerinq
Handbook, IIpedestrians often consider themselves outside the law,
3. Herms, Bruce F., IIpedestrian Crosswalk study: Accidents in
Pa inted and Unpainted Crosswalks n, Hiqhway Research Record
Number 406 - Pedestrian Protection, Highway Research Board,
Washington, D.C., 1972, Pages 1 - 13.
4. Wyma, Mike, "L.A. Crosswalks: Increasingly a Walk on the wild
Side", Los Anqeles Times, Wednesday July 6, 1988, Part V,
VIEW, Pages 1 and 4.
5. Willdan Associates, Crosswalk and Pedestrian Safety study,
Industry, Californ1a, February 1986.
Page 7 of 12
Mayor and City Council
March 17, 1992
and enforcement typically is low.
They want to get to their
destinations by the shortest distance! so they jay-walk and avo1d
both overpasses and underpasses It . (6)
At the same time, there are greater numbers of cars on the road,
drivers are increasingly aggressive, and there are an increasing
number of drivers not originally trained in California and who are
not familiar with our laws pertaining to pedestrians and their
r1ghts of way.
The increasing incidence of motor1sts fa1ling to properly observe
marked crosswalks and the more aggressive behaV10r by pedestr1ans
combine to produce dangerous, sometimes lethal, results. The more
careful pedestrian behavior, as found at unmarked crosswalks, 1S a
way to mitigate this growing problem.
Based on this information, the Parking and Traffic Engineering
Division generally no longer recommends the use of painted
crosswalks, except at controlled locations, where more positive
control of vehicle traffic is available, such as at traffic signals
or stop signs. Exceptions to this policy will occur when there is
a traffic engineering finding of need for a crosswalk at a
particular location. Such findings will be made on an individual,
6. Pline, James L., Editor, "Traffic Engineering Handbook, Fourth
Edi tionll, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1992, Page 19.
Page 8 of 12
Mayor and city council
March 17, 1992
case-by-case basis, after an appropriate study has been completed.
This policy should also minimize the City's liability with respect
to traffic control devices. The policy has been discussed with the
Santa Monica Police Department, and they concur in its
implementation. This policy is not unique to Santa Monica.
Several other Southern California cities have adopted similar
pollcies in the interest of traffic safety.
It should be noted that the proposed policy does not envision a
mass removal of crosswalks. It simply provides for the deletion or
non-reinstallation of crosswalks at uncontrolled locations as
streets are resurfaced. The only time an existing crosswalk would
be removed is where there is a specif1c finding of a significant
unsafe condition, based on a traffic engineering investigatlon. An
example of this situation is the removal of the crosswalk on Ocean
Avenue near the Loew's Hotel. Staff believes that the need to
actually remove an existing crosswalk will occur very seldom.
The crosswalk locations on both Montana Avenue and pico Boulevard
have been studied by the Parking and Traffic Engineering Division.
The intersections have been considered on a case-by-case basis. At
this time, there is no traffic engineering finding of need for
reinstallation of crosswalks at any of the uncontrolled
intersections along either Montana Avenue or Pico Boulevard.
Page 9 of 12
Mayor and City council
March 17, 1992
However, these studies have resulted in the reconunendation to
install a traffic signal at the intersection of pico Boulevard and
26th Street, subject to the availability of funds for design and
construction. While the standard warrants are not met at this
location, staff is of the opinion that the demand for pedestrian
crossings arising out of the nearby clinic, combined with the
speeds observed on pico Boulevard at 26th Street and the distance
between the signalized 1ntersections at Cloverfield Boulevard and
stewart Street makes the installation of a traffic signal
desirable. And, staff will continue to monitor these Montana
Avenue and P1CO Boulevard locations, and will recommend appropriate
changes when a need arises.
Proposed Policy
The city Parking and Traffic Engineer may authorize the
installation of marked crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections if
the following criteria are met:
a. The measured demand for pedestrian crossings is 80 or more
pedestrians per hour during each of the four (4) peak traffic
hours; and,
b. The measured 85th percentile of vehicle speed at the location
is less than 45 miles per hour; and,
c. There is adequate stopping sight distance on the approaches to
the crosswalk at the measured 85th percentile vehicle speed;
and,
Page 10 of 12
Mayor and City Council
March 17, 1992
d. The location is more than 500 feet from any traffic signal
controlling traffic on the roadway on which the crosswalk is
to be installed, except when all vehicle traffic signal
indications facing toward the crosswalk location are of a
programmable or other type which are not visible to
motorists at or approaching the intersection; and,
e. there is adequate street lighting at the location; and,
f. There are minimum conflicting attention demands.
The City Parking and Traffic Engineer may authorize the removal or,
in the case of a street resurfacing or resealing, the non-
reinstallation of crosswalks which do not meet the above criteria,
based on a specific finding for each such location where a
crosswalk is to be removed or not to be reinstalled.
The city Parking and Traffic Engineer shall not install a crosswalk
at any location where, in his or her professional judgement, such
crosswalk will create an unsafe condition, based on a specific
finding for each such location.
Budqet ! Financial Impact
There is no budget or financial impact resulting from the proposed
ordinance. However, the city/s liability may be reduced.
Page 11 of 12
Mayor and city council
March 17, 1992
Recommendation
It is recommended that:
1. The city council adopt the above described policy on the
installation and removal of crosswalks at uncontrolled
intersections; and,
2. The city Attorney be directed to prepare, in cooperation with
the city Parking and Traffic Engineer, an ordinance amending
section 3327 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to provide
authority for the Parking and Traffic Engineer to remove or
delete crosswalks when, in his or her professional judgement,
such crosswalks do not contribute to traffic and pedestrian
safety and are no longer warranted.
Prepared by:
Paul Berlant, Director of Land Use
and Transportation Management
Ron Fuchiwaki, City Parking and Traffic Engineer
Frank Barnes, Special Projects Engineer
Page 12 of 12