Crosswalks in Omaha: Myth or Reality, Boom or Bust?!
The topic of crosswalks may seem like a yawn, but they are a proven safety measure on our streets.
Just talk to my partner, who will no longer cross 72nd Street at Jones Circle to get lunch without recording his walk on his phone due to the numerous times he’s nearly been struck by speeding, reckless, or distracted drivers in the unmarked crosswalk with a stop-line.
You may notice the worn-away stripes from an old crosswalk in these photos. These marked crosswalks were not ground-down or removed by the city but worn away over time after they were initially installed in conjunction with the capital improvement project that widened 72nd Street to six lanes.
Well-placed and well-marked crosswalks, especially in combination with other safety measures, can ensure that a pedestrian makes it home safely and a driver doesn’t have to live with the consequences of killing or injuring someone.
First, what’s a crosswalk?!
The answer to the question above isn’t nearly as simple as you’d think.
An intersection crosswalk doesn’t have to be “marked” to be a crosswalk. This was new to me and was something I learned in recently released City of Omaha traffic safety videos.
In the City’s video directed to drivers, the narrator says:
“Whether you encounter a pedestrian at a marked or unmarked crosswalk, pedestrians have the right of way.”
In the video directed to pedestrians, the narrator asks and answers,
“But what about areas where there are no traffic signals? Most crosswalks in Omaha are unsignalized, and while some are marked with additional signs, striping, or even pedestrian-activated beacons to provide more visibility, the vast majority of crosswalks at intersections are unmarked. Whether you are in a marked or unmarked crosswalk, you have the right-of-way, and motorists and cyclists should yield to you!”
How many drivers know, let alone abide by, this law?
These Traffic Safety videos are informative but unless you visit the Keep Omaha Moving site, you’ll likely never see them. My understanding is that there are talks internally and with other advocacy groups to release these videos in shorter/split-separated clips so that they can easily be promoted throughout the community.
Types of Crosswalks
There’s more than one type of crosswalk. Here is a quick crosswalk primer:
Marked Crosswalks are delineated via paint or tape.
Unmarked crosswalks are the “implied” but invisible crosswalks that exist at all intersections/corners.
Signalized or controlled crosswalks have traffic signals or stop signs, while uncontrolled crosswalks do not.
Materials for marking crosswalks may consist of paint, inlay, or thermoplastic tape; however, paint is not recommended by the FHWA for “high visibility” crosswalks.
Designs can range from. . .
two parallel white lines (basic/transverse crosswalk), all the way to. . .
parallel stripes with two bordering, perpendicular lines (“ladder style”/perpendicular bar)
See the descriptive image to the right from a post by the consultant working on the upcoming FHWA’s “Crosswalk Marking Effectiveness Guide.”
Remember, the efficacy of any crosswalk also depends on the design of the road and the speed of the cars!
How We Talk About Crosswalks
Language matters, and what language we use to talk about crosswalks also matters.
For instance, when a pedestrian was struck earlier this year, this is how it was reported in the media:
“Police say a pedestrian was crossing Cuming Street northbound, not at a crosswalk, just before 8 p.m. Friday when he was struck by a vehicle.”
It is not uncommon for police to say a pedestrian was crossing “not at a crosswalk” or “just outside a marked crosswalk.” We do, however, appreciate when police clarify “crossing mid-block,” like in this article.
This type of language used to discuss crosswalks can be perceived as “victim-blaming.”
While the context and location of where a pedestrian was struck IS important, as they can be used to audit and assess the design and conditions of road design in the city, crashes are still complex situations, often with multiple factors.
So what language SHOULD be used instead?
Here’s language from the recently released Omaha Vision Zero Media Guide:
“Assigning a simple cause to a crash does not tell the full story. Instead of assigning a simple cause to a crash, there is the opportunity to ask deeper questions such as, “What could have prevented the crash?” Other examples of questions are, “If a street had been designed with traffic-calming features and a slower speed limit, would the driver have been speeding?” “If there was a safe pedestrian crossing, would the pedestrian have been crossing the road in an unsafe location?” “Are there strong, well-funded community mental health programs in Omaha to help someone address their mental health challenges and end their alcoholism so they do not drive their car intoxicated?”
And
“Assigning singular blame to a crash victim is always inappropriate. This is especially the case when pedestrians and cyclists are injured or killed. Sometimes the behavior of a pedestrian or cyclist may have contributed to the crash occurring, but for a pedestrian or cyclist to be hit, a driver is always involved. Statements like “the pedestrian was wearing dark clothing” do not portray the true or full situation, nor does it help the audience to understand the root of the issue.”
This guide is a media guide but oftentimes, the media gets its information from the Omaha Police Department, so these discussions need to be had with the police as well. And from my interactions with the traffic unit officers on the TAC, I believe they will be open and amenable to updating their language if it works within the confines of crash report forms, etc.
The Current State of Crosswalks in Omaha
Policy:
Marked crosswalk at a signalized intersection in downtown Omaha
Q. Have you ever wondered why we don’t have marked crosswalks at all signalized or stop-controlled intersections?
Q. Have you ever seen residents trying to cross streets quickly or with an arm extended to warn drivers not to impede the intersection?
Q. As you drive or walk around Omaha, you may ask yourself, “What is the City’s policy on marked crosswalks?”
A. Currently, there isn’t a concrete policy for crosswalks in the City of Omaha, other than that, you will find marked crosswalks at:
All signalized crossings in downtown and other BIDs (Business Improvement Districts)
School Crossings
When outside this criteria, marked crosswalks may be considered on a case-by-case basis based on crash history and intersection geometrics.
Maintenance:
Maintaining marked crosswalks in a city that spans 140 square miles and 5,000 miles of roadway is one of the biggest obstacles to having all the crosswalks that many want.
Regarding scheduled maintenance of marked crosswalks in Omaha, per a 2017 response from the City of Omaha Mayor’s Hotline:
“Per our guidelines and regulations, painted crosswalks are maintained by Public Works at least once annually, sometimes twice. Tape markings last several years and are monitored for quality to determine when they need to be reapplied.”
Oftentimes, in response to questions about fading crosswalks, we will hear that “resources are limited” or there are “budget constraints.” And while this is a valid argument, it doesn’t mean that our residents should be made to feel unsafe when crossing the street.
Internally, some folks in the city are looking to increase the budget for operations and maintenance of crosswalks, but this will only go so far.
So how do we get more resources?
The leadership of Omaha typically is against any tax increases, tho there has been support of bonds.
But in a city big on public-private partnerships, maybe that’s an option for increasing the funding for both the installation and maintenance of marked crosswalks.
Think of the possibilities if Omaha had a centralized group, whether private or not-for-profit, that partnered with the city to inventory and monitor crosswalks throughout the city and create volunteer opportunities for crosswalk maintenance.
Debate & Growth on the Topic of Crosswalks
Debate on the “false sense of security”
There’s been both debate and growth in the city regarding crosswalks. A few years ago, as you’ll see in this KMTV 3 New Now video on the “Omaha Town Hall Meeting on Area Roads and Infrastructure” (1:26:48), city leadership said,
“the painted pedestrian crosswalks give pedestrians a false sense of security”
This phrasing, which is a hot topic in pedestrian advocacy circles, is based on a 1972 study titled “Pedestrian Crosswalk Study: Accidents in Painted and Unpainted Crosswalks.”
While the study did show that more pedestrians were struck in marked crosswalks vs. unmarked crosswalks, it doesn’t seem to normalize the data for the fact that nearly three times as many pedestrians crossed at the marked crosswalks vs. the unmarked crosswalks. If you have more people crossing at a marked crosswalk, then it is likely that the number of pedestrians struck there will be higher due to volume.
Additionally, this study noted six potential disadvantages to marked crosswalks, the first of which was:
“They may cause pedestrians to have a false sense of security and to place themselves in a hazardous position with respect to vehicular traffic.”
It also identified eight advantages to marked crosswalks, including:
1. They may help pedestrians orient themselves and find their way across complex intersections.
2. They may help show pedestrians the shortest route across traffic.
3. They may help show pedestrians the route with the least exposure to vehicular traffic and traffic conflicts.
4. They may help position pedestrians where they can be seen best by oncoming traffic.
Using the “false sense of security” language that originated in the 1972 study is the opposite of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, instead, we’ve kept the out-of-date bathwater and tossed out only the baby. It’s an intriguing old-school study, but it shouldn’t be used to inform how we think about traffic today.
For an editorial view of this study and its continued use, check out this blog post titled “A False Sense of Certainty.”
Debate and research on “false sense of security” continue to this day.
A 2015 study titled “Evaluation of the False Sense of Security for Pedestrians at Varied Crosswalk Treatments” showed:
The most statistically significant difference between pedestrians in crosswalks is not about the crosswalk design so much as whether or not the pedestrian was texting while crossing.
There was a statistically significant increase in pedestrians looking before crossing in crosswalks with “overhead flashing beacons with bollards” and “pedestrian countdown signals.”
The only crossing where there was a lower rate of “looking before crossing” was at T-intersections.
So the data about the “false sense of security” may no longer be valid, but more than that, it just means we need to design better crossings with multiple safety measures rather than not expanding the conversation.
Growth on Crosswalk Mentality
You can see growth in the city’s mindset by looking at the safety treatments in the Blackstone area of Omaha. These safety countermeasures were implemented after pedestrian deaths occurred in this area and at the urging of city residents, city staff such as the Public Works Department, the Blackstone Business Improvement District, and the local advocacy group Mode Shift Omaha.
Beyond high-visibility crosswalks, the City also added the following treatments to the roads in the Blackstone District:
Improved walk signal timing
Improved lighting
Pedestrian warning signs
Increased pedestrian visibility via “leading pedestrian intervals.”
The Future of Crosswalks in Omaha
Based on discussions I’ve participated in at the Vision Zero TAC meetings, I believe the future of crosswalks is bright, but maybe not so bright that we need to buy shades just yet.
One of the benefits of the upcoming Vision Zero Action Plan is that it will add more tools to the toolboxes of all city administration and staff. However, this is still dependent on what the final document looks like. Many on the committee that is helping to develop the plan are proponents of multi-layered safety measures that will improve our intersections for all.
But it looks as if the Plan may give the City opportunities to expand the existing crosswalk policy and provide them at locations where they historically haven’t been placed. No matter what happens, it is reasonable to assume that crosswalk-placement and design will be based on data.
Crosswalk Placement & Design - A 72nd Street Analysis
Locating and designing crosswalks should be based on evidence and data.
The DOT & FHWA’s Guide For Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations includes a decision-making matrix (image below) for crosswalk placement and treatment.
Let’s walk through this matrix using 72nd & Jones Circle in Omaha as an example.
This is the location where my partner crosses for lunch each day.
It’s on 72nd Street between Dodge and Pacific Streets.
Refer to Table 1: Application of Pedestrian Crash Countermeasures by Roadway Feature, above
AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) for this location (35,395 vehicles) would put 72nd & Jones Circle in the 3rd group of columns of the table
72nd is a 4+ lane road with a raised median (this would put it in the 4th row)
The posted speed limit is 35 mph, tho based on anecdotal evidence, drivers often exceed this speed limit. (The posted speed limit would locate this intersection in the middle column of the 3rd set of columns)
Signalized intersection
For this intersection the table indicates the following are countermeasures that should always be considered but not necessarily mandated or required:
Advanced yield here to (stop here for) pedestrians sign and yield (stop) line
Pedestrian hybrid beacon
* Pedestrian refuge * this treatment could be applied to 72nd street if it did not already have a raised median.
Pedestrian refuge islands are usually 4 to 8 feet wide, and I don’t believe the existing median is that wide, thus shouldn’t necessarily be considered a “pedestrian refuge” at this point. But this is something we will research further!
For this intersection, the table indicates that the following is a countermeasure that “signifies that crosswalk visibility enhancements should always occur in conjunction with other identified countermeasures.”
High-visibility crosswalk markings
Parking restrictions on crosswalk approach
Adequate nighttime lighting levels, and
Crossing warning signs
For this intersection, the table indicates that the following countermeasures are “candidates for treatments at a marked uncontrolled crossing location.”
Curb extension
Road diet
While 72nd & Jones is not an uncontrolled location, we believe applying a road diet to 72nd Street could turn this road into a transportation avenue worthy of the center of Omaha.
Road diets reduce lanes, thus encouraging drivers to go slower, and include benefits for other road users beyond drivers, such as pedestrians and cyclists.
An example from the FHWA of a high-visibility crosswalk that includes a multi-layered approach to safety.
Takeaways & To Remember
Crosswalks exist whether or not they are marked or painted
When referencing crosswalks or crossings and pedestrian or cyclist deaths, be astute and aware when choosing your words.
Take the Crosswalk Matrix in this post and apply it to intersections in your neighborhood to see what safety treatments may be adequate or possible at that location
Don’t cross the street while texting
We need to be creative regarding funding and budgets, especially for the maintenance of crosswalks.
Remember, even if Omaha increases its number of marked crosswalks, they still need to be approached in a multi-layered way, including other safety measures such as
traffic-calming,
signage, and
some type of enforcement.
Even though this post is dense, we barely scratched the surface of crosswalks in Omaha, let alone in America and the world!
What are your thoughts on crosswalks?
Did you learn anything new or thought-provoking in this post?
Please join the conversation and comment below!
Cover image by Jonatan Hernandez via Unsplash