MUTCD and Consideration of Pedestrians at Traffic Signals

Arterial roads that serve commercial development in suburban areas are often very wide and very busy. These roads are usually unfriendly to pedestrian travel but still generate pedestrian trips by citizens who don't have cars. Often the traffic signals on these wide arterials do not provide enough time for pedestrians to cross the intersections before conflicting traffic movements begin. In some cases, pedestrians have been struck by cars when the signal changed, but traffic engineers would not change the signal timing or add pedestrian detectors signals at these locations to improve pedestrian safety because they did not want to inconvenience motorists through longer signal delays. Such decisions violate universal access principles, discriminate against people without cars, and do not comply with national engineering standards for intersections where pedestrian travel occurs.

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) defines standard engineering practices for consideration of pedestrians at traffic signals. (MUTCD defines the uniformity standards for signals, signs and markings, to which traffic engineers are expected to generally comply, for safety, with some room for discretion. The purpose of uniformity is to treat similar situations in a similar manner to improve reliability and thus safety, convenience, and comfort.) The section on traffic signals can be found at

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/millennium/12.18.00/4.pdf

First, with respect to the effects of road widening on pedestrian signal times, the manual advises traffic engineers as follows:

"Section 4B.05 Adequate Roadway Capacity ....Before an intersection is widened, the additional green time pedestrians need to cross the widened roadways should be considered to ensure that it will not exceed the green time saved through improved vehicular flow."

The implication here is that the road should not be widened if the signal time required for pedestrians to safely cross the street will have such an unacceptable effect on throughput that it negates the benefit of widening. Nowhere does MUTCD suggest that pedestrians be shortchanged on the signal time just because the road is wide.

At intersections without pedestrian specific signals ("ped heads") MUTCD expects pedestrians to cross streets when they have a green light:

"Section 4D.04 Meaning of Vehicular Signal Indications .... 3. Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian signal head, pedestrians facing any green signal indication, except when the signal indication is a turn arrow for a vehicular movement in conflict with the desired path of the pedestrian, may proceed across the roadway within any marked or unmarked crosswalk."

Here is what MUTCD says specifically about the timing of green lights with respect to pedestrians:

" Section 4D.03 Provisions for Pedestrians - Standard: The design and operation of traffic control signals shall take into consideration the needs of pedestrian as well as vehicular traffic. If engineering judgment indicates the need for provisions for a given pedestrian movement, signal faces conveniently visible to pedestrians shall be provided by pedestrian signal heads or a signal face for an adjacent vehicular movement....Where pedestrian movements regularly occur, pedestrians should be provided with sufficient time to cross the roadway by adjusting the traffic control signal operation and timing to provide sufficient crossing time every cycle or by providing pedestrian detectors."

Traffic engineers are explicitly required to accommodate the needs of pedestrians where pedestrian travel occurs. Note that traffic engineers have the option to use signs to prohibit crossings in special situations where pedestrian travel should not occur, in favor of alternate routes:

"Section 4D.03....Option: If it is desirable to prohibit certain pedestrian movements at a traffic control signal, a PEDESTRIANS PROHIBITED (R9-3) or No Pedestrian Crossing (R9-3a) sign may be used (see Section 2B.39)."

In the cases of short signals, these signs were not installed because no alternative routes exist.

So what about "ped head" signals? When are they appropriate? MUTCD says that ped heads are mandatory in some places and highly recommended in others. They are never *not* recommended except where walking is prohibited. Here is where they are explicitly required by the standard:

"Section 4E.03 Application of Pedestrian Signal Heads... Pedestrian signal heads shall be used in conjunction with vehicular traffic control signals under any of the following conditions: A. If a traffic control signal is justified by a traffic engineering study and meets either Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume or Warrant 5, School Crossing (see Chapter 4C). B. If an exclusive signal phase is provided or made available for pedestrian movements in one or more directions, with all conflicting vehicular movements being stopped. C. At an established school crossing at any signalized location. D. When multi-phase signal indications (as with split-phase timing) would tend to confuse pedestrians guided only by vehicular signal indications."

Most commercially developed, busy suburban arterials do not meet these criteria, but some do. Here are the recommended locations for pedestrian signals under MUTCD:

"Guidance: Pedestrian signal heads should be used under any of the following conditions: A. If it is necessary to assist pedestrians in making a safe crossing or if engineering judgment determines that pedestrian signal heads are justified to minimize vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. B. If pedestrians are permitted to cross a portion of a street, such as to or from a median of sufficient width for pedestrians to wait, during a particular interval but are not permitted to cross the remainder of the street during any part of the same interval. C. If no vehicular signal indications are visible to pedestrians, or if the vehicular signal indications that are visible to pedestrians starting or continuing a crossing provide insufficient guidance for them to decide when it is safe to cross, such as on one-way streets, at T-intersections, or at multi-phase signal operations."

Many suburban and city-edge roads meet conditions A and C. If traffic engineers wish pedestrians to cross in two phases in order to minimize motor traffic delay, they have the option of B, in which case, the following requirement comes into play:

"If the pedestrian clearance time is sufficient only to cross from the curb or shoulder to a median of sufficient width for pedestrians to wait and the signals are pedestrian actuated, an additional pedestrian detector shall be provided in the median...."

Thus we see that ignoring  the needs of pedestrians on busy commercial arterials when designing and timing traffic signals does not comply with any of the safety and uniformity provisions of MUTCD. The addition of pedestrian detectors and pedestrian signals does comply with MUTCD and empowers pedestrians to cross more safely while minimizing delay to vehicle traffic.