In 2014 a little girl was killed and another seriously injured crossing the street outside the front entrance to Central Library at Springfield MA. City council requested that a HAWK (High Intensity Activated Crosswalk Beacon) system and a crosswalk be installed to allow for a less dangerous mid-block crossings.
Street safety advocate Charles Marohn describes how the Springfield Department of Public works wrote a letter concluding that such a system would not be installed. Among the justifications included was that a signalized crosswalk would not meet the warrant criteria in the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). A warrant is a threshold condition to help determine if a traffic control device is justified. Amazingly, the warrant condition for installing a signalized midblock crossing is five reported pedestrian crashes in a year!
The MUTCD is a manual maintained by the Federal Highway Administration that serves as a legal document and provides standards for traffic control devices on American streets. This manual contains many provisions that prioritize vehicle speed over safety. The story just told is just one example of many where the MUTCD warrant conditions have obstructed street safety improvements. Don Kostelec describes another example where the MUTCD warrant condition prevented a crosswalk from connecting a residential neighborhood to the only retailer that sells food in walking distance. As a result, people without a car need to risk their lives just to eat.
One major safety issue with the existing revision of MUTCD is its recommendation for setting speed limits. It recommends that the speed limit be set within 5 miles per hour of the speed below which 85% of motorists drive, also known as the 85th percentile speed. The National Transportation Safety Board recommends against this method as it is unsafe. It allows the 15 worst drivers out of 100 to set the speed limit.
As a result of incidents and problems like these, numerous safety advocates have called for MUTCD to be rewritten to prioritize safety. There is currently an opportunity. The MUTCD is currently undergoing its first revision in over 10 years, and the public comment period lasts until May 14, 2021.
Many street safety advocacy organizations have written about the need for safety improvements in the next revision. Among them:
- The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) calls for MUTCD reform here.
- Don Kostelec advocates for MUTCD reform here.
- Streetsblog here.
- Strong Towns here.
For those interested in digging into the details, the proposed full text revision of MUTCD can be found here.
NACTO notes that 15 North American cities have called for MUTCD to be rewritten to better prioritize safety. Streetsblog writes about Chicago’s letter to the Federal government on the topic here. Unfortunately as of this writing, Pittsburgh is not on the list. In an email, DOMI director Karina Ricks told me that her department is reviewing the document and will be providing comments. DOMI has done great work implementing traffic calming in Pittsburgh and hopefully they will join Pittsburgh’s voice to other cities.
The safety advocates encourage citizens to write to the Federal Highway Administration to advocate for safety improvements in the next revision. America Walks has a letter template that can be found here.
Here is my letter to the Federal Highway Administration:
Federal Highway Administration
US Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Ave S.E.
Washington, DC 20590
RE: MUTCD Should be revised to prioritize safety
Dear Acting Administrator Pollack and Secretary Buttigieg:
I write as a resident of Pittsburgh PA, concerned about the safety risks that our automotive transportation system represents to my family, community, and country. The Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) inappropriately prioritizes motorist convenience over safety, and fails to appropriately consider the needs of non-motorists.
Various advocacy groups such as NACTO and America Walks have called for a rewrite of the MUTCD to address its flaws. I concur with this request, and wanted to add my specific thoughts.
MUTCD should Prioritize Safety in Establishing Speed Limits
- Speed limits should be limited to safe levels based on the availability of pedestrian infrastructure in locations with pedestrian generating land uses such as commercial and residential land uses. In these pedestrian areas:
- Speed limits on streets without sidewalks shall not exceed 15 mph.
- Speed limits on streets without a buffer between the street and the sidewalk, such as a bollards, street trees, or guard rails, shall not exceed 25 mph.
- If mid-block crosswalks lack hybrid beacons or equivalent electrified signalization, the posted limit shall not exceed 25 mph.
- The speed limit on streets with travel lanes narrower than 10 ft shall not exceed 15 mph. This requirement shall not be construed to discourage construction of such narrow streets in locations where pedestrians may be present.
- While it is not necessary to have the same quality of infrastructure for cyclists as pedestrians on every street, cities should have a network of streets that allows cyclists to travel safely. Streets may be safe for cyclists either by providing a low speed limit (25 mph or lower) or a buffer protected dedicated bike lane. Cyclists should not have to excessively increase their travel distance to take a path on streets that meet one of these criteria.
- Use of the 85th percentile rule to set speed limits should be prohibited.
Traffic Control Devices Shall not Encourage Motorists to Exceed the Speed Limit
The use of double yellow lines to separate traffic encourages motorists to travel above 25 mph. These shall not be used on streets that lack side walks and should be discouraged on streets without buffered sidewalks.
Street markings should limit lane widths and turn radii to encourage motorists to limit speeds to the posted speed limit.
MUTCD should prioritize limiting the Travel Delay for Non-Motorists
Making travel convenient for non-motorists reduces automotive mode share, reducing congestion and air pollution, and improving travel times for motorists as well.
- Crosswalks should be located in a manner that avoids unreasonable pedestrian delay. Pedestrians will cross at a location without a crosswalk if required to travel unreasonably far for a crosswalk.
- Crosswalks shall not be positioned so as to require multistage crossings at signalized intersections if it can possibly be avoided.
- A crosswalk shall be placed as closely as practical to bus and transit stops.
- Content should facilitate municipalities giving dedicated lanes and signal priority to transit vehicles.
- A lack of pedestrian crossings or collisions shall not be the basis for failing to provide a marked crosswalk.
Require Safe Intersections
MUTCD should ensure that every urban and suburban signalized intersection has accessible pedestrian infrastructure, including curb ramps, audible and tactile signals, pedestrian signal heads that display “Walk” and “Don’t Walk” messages, and painted crosswalks.
Give Flexibility to Innovate
Traffic engineers should have the flexibility to try innovative methods to improve safety and the speed of transit vehicles. Artistic crosswalks should be permitted. Municipal engineers should also have flexibility to innovate with road surface markings to reduce the speed of cars, and safely increase the speed of transit vehicles and give them priority over lower occupancy vehicles.
Conclusion
I ask that FHWA reframe and rewrite the MUTCD, creating a path for guidance that more closely aligns with the equity, safety, and sustainability goals of American cities, as well as those of the Biden Administration.
Thank you,
Jonathan Salmans
