11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install GuidelinesCITY OF BOULDER
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD
AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: November 18, 2024
AGENDA TITLE:
Briefing and feedback regarding the Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines Update
PRESENTERS:
Valerie Watson, Interim Director of Transportation and Mobility
Stephen Rijo, Transportation Planning Manager
Devin Joslin, Principal Traffic Engineer
Lesley Mace, Senior Civil Engineering Project Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 2024 Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guideline Update project aims to align Boulder’s
pedestrian safety practices with the city’s values of safety, equity, and resilience, as outlined in
key guiding documents such as the Transportation Master Plan (TMP), Vision Zero Action Plan,
Sustainability, Equity, and Resilience Framework, and Citywide Strategic Plan. This document
responds to community concerns and questions regarding the guidelines, addressing how they
prioritize pedestrian safety, adapt to real-world road user behaviors, and incorporate the latest
standards and best practices for road safety. This approach underscores the city's ongoing work
to advance TMP and Vision Zero Action Plan goals, meet the needs of all road users, especially
those who are most vulnerable, while maintaining an accessible and connected multimodal
transportation network.
BACKGROUND
The City of Boulder's Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines outline a comprehensive
framework to improve pedestrian safety and mobility. The guidelines, originally established in
1996 and last updated in 2011, align with national standards from the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), the recently updated Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD), and best practices from peer agencies. These updates aim to enhance transparency
and consistency in the processes used to evaluate and determine the appropriate type of
pedestrian crossing treatments across the city.
The 2024 update emphasizes improvements through a citywide methodology and reflects
Boulder’s commitment to pedestrian safety as part of its Vision Zero Action Plan. Key
enhancements in the 2024 update include adjustments to the thresholds for implementing
advanced crossing treatments like Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs), also referred to as a High-
Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) signal, and Pedestrian Signals. Of note, there are
instances within this memo and the 2024 guidelines where HAWKs and pedestrian signals are
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 1 of 32
collectively referred to as crossings that provide a red indication, meaning that approaching
vehicle traffic is required to come to a complete stop at the crossing.
The guidelines consider factors such as pedestrian volumes, vehicle speeds, roadway volumes,
and lane configurations to determine appropriate treatments at crossing locations. Treatment
options range from marked crosswalks with static signage to more complex installations such as
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs), HAWKs, and Pedestrian Signals depending on
the factors listed above. The guidelines also prioritize streetlighting, and ADA-compliant curb
ramps to ensure safe, accessible, and efficient crossing facilities for all users.
Boulder’s Vision Zero commitment includes regular evaluation and updates to guidelines,
consideration of community feedback, and compliance with state and federal standards to meet
its goals for enhanced pedestrian safety and to facilitate multimodal travel within the city.
PUBLIC FEEDBACK
The City of Boulder has made significant strides in pedestrian safety through systematic updates
to the Pedestrian Plan, integrated within the TMP and supported by the Pedestrian Advisory
Committee (PAC). The PAC, established in 2018 to ensure community participation, played a
pivotal role in guiding updates by bringing in diverse perspectives and feedback on pedestrian
needs to the creation of the 2019 Boulder Pedestrian Plan. Their contributions were essential in
shaping Boulder’s commitment to creating safe, accessible, and inclusive pedestrian
infrastructure, with past updates focused on assessing current conditions, defining clear goals,
and establishing actionable strategies to drive improvements.
Building on this foundation, the 2024 Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines introduce
enhanced crossing treatments, explicitly prioritize pedestrian safety over vehicle level of service,
and target high-risk areas across Boulder. This update reflects extensive public feedback from a
community group and supports Boulder’s Vision Zero objectives and TMP goals, reinforcing the
city's dedication to a safe, accessible, and connected multimodal transportation network.
The community engagement process for this update spanned three phases to incorporate a range
of insights from a community and agency representative working group:
1. Winter–Spring 2024: Collected feedback on prior crossing experiences from community
members and reviewed information from the Pedestrian Advisory Committee past efforts.
2. Fall 2024: Presented the guideline update to a community and agency representative
working group and gathered feedback.
3. Fall 2024: Presentation to the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) to review
community group input and seek TAB feedback to finalize updates.
This inclusive, phased approach ensures that the guidelines reflect the community's priorities and
continue to advance pedestrian safety across Boulder.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE UPDATE AND KEY CONSIDERATIONS
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 2 of 32
The updates to the pedestrian crossing guidelines represent a forward-thinking approach. While
in some cases the new guidelines may result in a more enhanced crossing treatment type being
recommended at an existing crossing location, they are not designed to react to every such
situation identified across the current transportation system immediately. The guidelines do
establish a clear framework for ongoing improvements and outline a clear process for evaluating
requests for new crossings that result from either community member concerns, crash data, or
from continuing work to enhance the system, such as through the Core Arterial Network
initiative. Thus, this update provides staff with an outline and guidance to better prioritize and
address pedestrian safety across the city.
The goal is to integrate these guidelines into a subsequent pedestrian crossing treatment focused
action plan, allowing staff to identify, prioritize, and gradually implement these enhanced
treatments as part of a comprehensive, long-term strategy that assesses both existing and
potential new crossing locations. By taking this proactive step, it ensures that future upgrades
will be based on the most current standards and best practices, while being mindful of budget
constraints and the need for systematic, thoughtful improvements over time. It will also allow for
a concerted approach to seeking future external funding opportunities and provide a roadmap for
prioritized implementation.
Discussed below are some highlights of the new approaches infused within this guidelines
update and key topic areas staff considered.
Key Destinations:
• The update now includes key destinations that can be exempted from meeting minimum
pedestrian crossing volume thresholds including locations where the crossing being
evaluated: connects both ends of a multi-use path, is a crosstown bikeway or Greenstreet
that crosses a multi-lane collector or arterial, or is contiguous with a transit stop or public
school.
300’ Spacing:
• When block lengths are longer than 300 feet, locations are in an urban context, or when
providing access to a key destination, controlled crossings can now be permitted at a
minimum of 200-foot spacing, provided that the resultant pedestrian crossing does not
cross any auxiliary lanes or is not in an intersection influence area.
Posted vs Operating Speed:
• The crossing treatment selection matrix continues to use posted speed as the speed for
determining the crossing treatment type. This method aligns with the city’s long-term
goal of consistently setting speed limits using a context-sensitive methodology,
transforming corridors, and expanding automated enforcement to facilitate slower speeds
and better compliance with posted speed limits. Regardless of posted or operating speed,
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 3 of 32
the updated crossing treatment selection matrix now recommends a higher level of
crossing treatment across many more cases, particularly those that involve a multiple
threat.
MUTCD Warrants:
• The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 11th Edition, December 2023
(MUTCD) contains warrants for both pedestrian signals and HAWKs. However, the 2024
guidelines do not rely solely on these warrants to determine whether the city will install a
crossing treatment that provides a red indication. The warrants are a guide to help
practitioners decide between the two treatment types. As written, the guidelines, use a
combination of factors within the crossing treatment selection flowchart and matrix to
determine cases where a red indication is appropriate. In these cases, the red indication
will be considered for installation regardless of how the vehicular and pedestrian volumes
plot on the MUTCD warrants since the guidelines create allowances for exceptions to the
MUTCD’s minimum volume thresholds to install either a pedestrian signal or a HAWK.
The 2024 guidelines allow for a more nuanced assessment beyond that contained in the
MUTCD.
Crash History:
• Review of crash history is now considered in the pedestrian crossing treatment flowchart.
If a location does not meet the required pedestrian volume demand or qualify for an
exemption as a key destination, then the crash history can be reviewed to determine
whether there have been 3 or more crashes in a 5-year period that would be correctable
through the installation of a pedestrian crossing treatment.
Raised Crossings:
• Following FHWA guidance, raised crosswalks may be installed on 2-lane or 3-lane roads
with speed limits of 30 mph or less and annual average daily traffic below about 9,000.
Section 3.6 in the 2024 guidelines now provides more detail about the applicability of
raised crosswalks.
Multiple Threat Crashes:
• A multiple threat crash is a type of pedestrian crash that occurs on a roadway with two or
more lanes in the same direction when a vehicle in one of these lanes yields but the other
does not. The updated crossing treatment selection matrix now recommends crossings
with the potential for multiple threat crashes have either an RRFB or a red indication,
except in a few cases on 3-lane roadways with a striped median and speeds of 30 mph or
less.
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 4 of 32
Signal Coordination:
• A tradeoff of installing a red indication, which is required to display a steady yellow
clearance interval prior to the red indication, is that a pedestrian using the crossing may
be required to wait longer than compared to crossing with static signs or an RRFB. The
clearance interval is required for vehicular traffic to safely and completely stop in
advance of the crossing. The decision whether to coordinate the red indication or not with
adjacent traffic signals along the corridor depends on factors that can now be evaluated
on a site-by-site basis and seeks to strike a balance between safety and mobility. The
forthcoming update to the signal timing practices is the place where details related to
coordination of pedestrian crossings with red indications will be addressed. Some key
factors to consider include: transit frequency, proximity of pedestrian crossing to adjacent
signals, pedestrian crossing volume, and crossing distance.
Sight Distance:
• The 2024 guidelines now clarify that the required sight distance necessary at a potential
crossing location corresponds to the stopping sight distance required at the posted speed
limit as detailed in the AASHTO Green Book. The guidelines further clarify the various
mitigations to consider if the stopping sight distance cannot be met at a location,
including trimming vegetation or installing traffic calming to slow speeds. However,
there may be instances where the roadway horizontal or vertical curvature may be too
great to overcome feasibly, in which case another nearby crossing location should be
considered.
High Risk Network Considerations:
• The guidelines have been updated to address the Vision Zero Action Plan’s High Risk
Network (HRN) by incorporating the key risk factors associated with the HRN in the
decision-making structure of the guidelines. Factors that staff now consider while
selecting crossing treatment types are if a multi-use path is present, daily vehicle traffic,
vehicle speeds, land uses present, and the presence of signalized and unsignalized
intersections. All these factors are referenced in the decision flow of the 2024
guidelines, and influential to how staff will apply these guidelines to remedy the HRN
risk factors that influence crossing safety.
Framework and Objectives:
• The 2024 guidelines, grounded in recent research and federal standards, aim to create a
safer, more predictable, and user-friendly pedestrian network that prioritizes the
protection of all road users.
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 5 of 32
Alignment with Vision Zero Goals:
• The 2024 guidelines align with Vision Zero’s Safe System approach by implementing
data-driven treatments that are proven safety countermeasures to reduce the occurrence of
pedestrian and bicyclist crossing related crashes citywide. This includes using crash data
and contextual factors to select appropriate treatments, helping prevent crashes before
they occur, which is a central tenet of Vision Zero’s proactive mitigation goals.
Crossing Treatment Types:
• The 2024 guidelines now streamline treatments into three main types, whereas the 2011
guidelines provided six types with more emphasis on signage and physical adjustments.
The three main types are: static signs, RRFBs, and red indication (either HAWK or
pedestrian signal, depending on evaluated conditions).
Evaluation Procedures:
• The 2024 guidelines introduce a new matrix with updated, data-driven thresholds for
crossing treatment determination, that are in alignment with the MUTCD. It is anticipated
that this latest version of the MUTCD will be adopted for use in Colorado by early 2026.
Treatment Selection:
• The 2024 guidelines now recommend lowering the thresholds for more enhanced
crossing treatment types, such as pedestrian signals, HAWKs, and RRFBs, that enhance
pedestrian safety by addressing multiple-threat risks and improving driver yielding
compliance.
CONCLUSION
The guidelines help staff to consistently evaluate either the need for new pedestrian crossings or
modifications to existing crossings. The city is committed to enhancing safety for people walking,
biking, and using micromobility devices by implementing consistent and effective crossing
treatments throughout the transportation system. Ensuring safe and efficient crossings is essential
for meeting the city’s transportation and strategic goals.
This commitment involves providing a uniform approach to crossing treatments that are
thoughtfully designed to match the specific needs of each corridor. To achieve this, variations in
crossing treatment types may be considered based on engineering judgment per the Principal
Traffic Engineer based on historical data, ensuring that each solution is tailored to the unique
characteristics of the influence area. When applying engineering judgment, documentation must
be provided to explain the variance. By maintaining this continuity and flexibility, the city aims
to foster a safer, more predictable environment for pedestrians and drivers alike. The updates and
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 6 of 32
increased level of crossing treatments recommended represent a major safety benefit that will be
implemented as resources allow and bolstered by the upcoming prioritization and action planning
effort to follow these 2024 guidelines.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED
Staff is seeking TAB feedback regarding the updated Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines.
NEXT STEPS
• Finalize 2024 guidelines based on TAB feedback
• Initiate work on pedestrian crossing treatment focused action plan that will seek to
identify gaps in crossing treatments across the transportation system and develop a
prioritization methodology for seeking funding to implement new or enhance existing
crossings as part of a comprehensive, long-term strategy.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 7 of 32
Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 8 of 32
For More Information, please contact:
City of Boulder – Transportation Division
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, Colorado 80306
(303) 441-3266
Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 9 of 32
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 3
1.0 DEFINITIONS ....................................................................................................... 4
2.0 CROSSING LOCATION EVALUATION PROCEDURES AND CONSIDERATIONS
10
2.1 Evaluation Steps ............................................................................................. 10
2.2 Additional Evaluation Considerations .............................................................. 12
2.2.1 Geometric Considerations and Improvements ......................................... 12
2.2.2 Types of Crossing Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations ........................ 13
2.2.3 Minimum Vehicle Volume for Treatments ................................................ 14
2.2.4 Pedestrian Median Refuge and Minimum Median Refuge Width ............. 14
2.2.5 Distance to Nearest Marked or Protected Crossing ................................. 14
2.2.6 Selecting Between a Pedestrian Traffic Signal, HAWK Beacon, or RRFBs
15
2.2.7 Signal Progression and Traffic Operational Considerations ..................... 16
2.2.8 Unmarked Pedestrian Crossing Facilitation ............................................. 16
3.0 SUPPLEMENTAL POLICIES ............................................................................. 20
3.1 Avoiding Overuse of Crossing Treatments...................................................... 20
3.2 Multi-Use Path and GreenStreet Crossings .................................................... 20
3.3 Textured and Colored Pavement Treatments ................................................. 20
3.4 Accessible Crosswalks ................................................................................... 20
3.5 Raised Crossings at Right-Turn Bypass Islands ............................................. 21
3.6 Raised Crosswalks ......................................................................................... 21
3.7 Accommodation of Bicyclists ........................................................................... 21
3.8 Removal of Treatments ................................................................................... 21
4.0 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 23
Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 10 of 32
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1 – Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Flowchart .................................................................6
Table 1 – Criteria for Crossing Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations ........................................7
Crossing Location Evaluation Worksheet ..................................................................................16
Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 11 of 32
Executive Summary
Ensuring safe and efficient crossings for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other micromobility users is
essential for meeting the City of Boulder’s transportation and strategic goals. These initiatives are
key to enhancing mobility, reducing traffic congestion, and supporting sustainable transportation,
thereby fostering a more connected and accessible community.
The Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines serves to evaluate potential or
proposed unmarked crossings and mid-block crossing locations for pedestrians, bicyclists, and
other micromobility users. The guide can also be applied to existing marked crossing locations
when a street is undergoing maintenance or construction or adjacent land use is being
redeveloped. The user guide has a technical purpose, but also furthers multimodal transportation
options and safety goals.
This document provides guidance for the City of Boulder to apply a consistent and transparent
approach for determining the appropriate crossing facility type based on street characteristics and
adjacent land uses. It also creates a consistent experience for people walking, biking, and driving,
in order to increase the intuitiveness and thus compliance of the transportation network.
This document should be applied to determine crossing locations and types both reactively and
proactively. Reactively, these Guidelines can be used in response to a community member
request or a correctable crash pattern. Proactively, these Guidelines can be used as a part of a
corridor project, to inform the Capital Improvement Program, or as a part of a retrofit.
This document revises Boulder’s approach to pedestrian and bicyclist crossings, superseding the
2011 Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines with a new framework based on the
latest research, federal standards, and Vision Zero objectives. The updated guidelines are shaped
by recent studies and data, including a detailed crash analysis of current pedestrian and bicyclist
crossings in Boulder.
All elements of this document are subject to engineering judgment. Any element not specifically
allowed by this document requires an exception documented by the Principal Traffic Engineer.
This analysis has led to the development of new criteria and procedures for evaluating the need
for crossing treatments. The updated framework includes:
•Pedestrian Crossing Criteria and Procedures: A detailed "flowchart" approach to
assess the need for crossing treatments based on user volumes, user types, vehicular
volumes, nearby destinations, crash history, and roadway geometry.
•Applicable Crossing Treatments: A catalog of specific pedestrian crossing treatments
that correspond to various crossing scenarios, reflecting recent advancements and
federal standards.
•Vision Zero Action Plan Initiatives: The Vision Zero Action Plan has identified seven
common crash types that the City is actively working to reduce and enhance safety for:
o Red light running crashes
o Left-turn crashes
o Right-turn slip-lane crashes
o Right-turn on red crashes
Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 12 of 32
o Right-turn crashes
o Multi-use path crossing crashes
o Pedestrian crashes while crossing the street
The updated guidelines specifically focus on addressing the last two crash types: multi-use
path crossing crashes and pedestrian crashes while crossing the street. This
pedestrian crossing update has taken these patterns into consideration when developing the
latest guidelines, aiming to enhance safety and reduce incidents associated with these
crash types.
The City of Boulder has implemented various pedestrian crossing demonstration devices at over
40 locations, including enhanced crosswalk signage, pedestrian-actuated flashing signals, and
raised crossings at right-turn bypass islands. These measures have led to significant
improvements in driver compliance and pedestrian crossing safety. The updated federal guidance
and local data have been integrated into the revised guidelines to ensure alignment with best
practices and the latest safety standards.
In summary, the updated Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines are designed to
provide a consistent and informed approach to evaluating and implementing crossing treatments.
As funding for pedestrian improvements must be balanced with other transportation system
needs, these guidelines ensure that crossing treatments are prioritized and allocated effectively
based on resources, safety, and operational needs.
1.0 DEFINITIONS
This section includes the definitions of some of the common technical terms used in this
document.
Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
The amount of vehicular traffic that crosses an imaginary line across a roadway in a 24-hour
period. ADT information typically includes both directions of vehicle travel (if on a two-way street).
ADT is correlated with pedestrian delay when crossing a street.
Controlled Pedestrian Crossing
A pedestrian crossing where motorists are required to stop by either a stop sign, beacon or traffic
signal. This does not include a RRFB.
Crosswalk Lighting
Street lighting applied at a pedestrian crossing to help approaching motorists see a crossing
pedestrian. Crosswalk lighting is at a “vehicular scale” like roadside street lighting rather than a
“pedestrian scale” that is often used along a sidewalk.
Curb Extensions
A roadway edge treatment where a curbline is bulged out toward the middle of the roadway to
narrow the width of the street. Curb extensions are sometimes called “neckdowns” and are often
used at the location of a pedestrian crosswalk to minimize the distance and time that a crossing
pedestrian must be in the roadway.
Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 13 of 32
Differential Vehicle Queuing
See also Vehicle Queue. A condition on a roadway with two or more travel lanes in a single
direction where the line of stopped traffic in one travel lane is significantly longer than the line of
stopped traffic in the adjacent travel lane. Differential vehicle queuing across a pedestrian
crosswalk can cause a significant safety concern as it increases the potential for “multiple threat”
pedestrian crashes.
Gap in Traffic
A gap in traffic is the space between vehicles approaching the pedestrian crossing. Gaps are
typically measured in seconds, not distance, as it is the length of the gap in time in which a
pedestrian must be able to cross. A directional gap is the gap between vehicles approaching in a
single direction. A directional gap can be measured between vehicles in a single lane, or between
vehicles approaching in the same direction but in different lanes on a multi-lane approach. If there
is no median refuge at the crossing, a pedestrian will need to find an acceptable gap in traffic
approaching from two directions at once. This is much more challenging than finding a gap in
each approach direction separately.
GreenStreet
A low-traffic street prioritized for making walking and biking comfortable for people of all ages and
abilities.
High-intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) Beacon
A HAWK beacon is a type of crossing treatment used to both warn and control traffic at a
pedestrian crossing. It is actuated by a pedestrian push button and uses a combination of circular
yellow and red traffic signal displays to first warn motorists of a pedestrian that is about to cross
the street, then require the motorist to stop for the pedestrian crossing, and then release the
motorist to proceed once the pedestrian has cleared the crossing. When the red beacons are
active, either in a steady red or flashing red condition, motorists must stop at the crosswalk. The
red beacons begin to flash coinciding with the Flashing Don’t Walk indication being displayed to
the person using the crossing. Vehicles must stop and remain stopped on a steady red indication
and must stop and proceed only when the crossing is clear, and it is safe to do so during the
flashing red indication. The Beacon is a hybrid between a pedestrian traffic signal and a stop sign.
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices refers to a HAWK beacon as a Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon.
Lane
A portion of the roadway surface designated for motor vehicle travel, typically in a single direction,
that is delineated by pavement marking stripes. Types of lanes include: “through lanes” for travel
along the length of the roadway, often through intersections; “turn lanes” which are typically on
intersection approaches and provide space for left or right turning motorists; “bike lanes” which
are designated for bicycle travel, are narrower than vehicle lanes, and are usually located along
the outside edges of the roadway.
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
The MUTCD defines the standards used by road managers nationwide to install and maintain
traffic control devices on all streets, highways, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and site
roadways open to public travel. The MUTCD is published by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA).
Marked Crosswalk
Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 14 of 32
A pedestrian crossing that is delineated by white crosswalk pavement markings. Marked
crosswalks typically also are accompanied by a variety of traffic signs. Marked crosswalks would
require curb ramps if there is curb and gutter in an area.
Median Refuge
An area in the middle of a roadway where a crossing pedestrian can take shelter from approaching
traffic in either direction. In the context of these guidelines, the median refuge must include a
raised or quick-build median at least six feet wide (see Section 2.2.4 for a description of types of
median refuges). A median refuge allows a pedestrian to cross each direction of approaching
traffic in a separate step. By using the refuge, the pedestrian must only find an acceptable gap in
traffic for one approach direction at a time.
Micromobility
Any small, low-speed, human- or electric-powered transportation device, including bicycles,
scooters, electric-assist bicycles, electric scooters (e-scooters), and other small, lightweight,
wheeled conveyances. Can be privately owned or shared.
Minimum Pedestrian Volume Threshold
The minimum amount of pedestrian crossing traffic (typically in a one-hour period) that must be
present to “warrant” the installation of a pedestrian crossing treatment.
Motorist Compliance Data
Observations made and recorded at a pedestrian crossing where it is determined if the
approaching motorist complied with their legal requirement to yield to a crossing pedestrian who
is in or about to enter the crosswalk.
Multiple Threat Crashes
A type of pedestrian crash that occurs on a roadway with two or more lanes in the same direction.
A motorist who stops for a crossing pedestrian can obscure the view of the pedestrian from
another motorist approaching in the adjacent travel lane. If the second motorist does not slow
down, it creates the potential for a crossing pedestrian to step out in front of a high speed
approach vehicle.
Multi-Use Path Crossing
A location where a sidewalk designated as a multi-use path intersects a roadway at-grade, and
the path extends on both sides of the roadway.
Neckdowns
See Curb Extensions.
Pedestrian
Any person traveling by foot or a mobility device.
Pedestrian Traffic Signal
A conventional traffic signal with circular red, yellow, and green displays for motorists and
Walk/Don’t Walk signals for pedestrians that is applied at a pedestrian crossing. Pedestrian
signals are actuated through the use of a pedestrian/bicycle push button or innovative detection.
A pedestrian signal would be applied in a mid-block location since it would be considered a normal
intersection related traffic signal if it were to be applied at an intersection.
Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG)
Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 15 of 32
PROWAG is guidance from the Access Board under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
and the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) that addresses access to sidewalks and streets,
crosswalks, curb ramps, pedestrian signals, on-street parking, and other components of public
right-of-way. PROWAG also provides guidance for shared use paths, which are designed
primarily for use by bicyclists and pedestrians for transportation and recreation purposes.
Raised Median
An area in the middle of a roadway, commonly separating vehicles traveling in opposite directions,
that is surrounded by curb and gutter and is physically raised above the surrounding pavement
where vehicles travel. Raised medians often contain landscaped areas. See also Median Refuge.
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
RRFBs are small rectangular yellow flashing lights that are deployed with pedestrian crossing
warning signs. They are typically actuated by a pedestrian push button and flash for a
predetermined amount of time, to allow a pedestrian to cross the roadway, before going dark.
RRFBs are warning devices and do not themselves create a legal requirement for a vehicle to
stop when they are flashing.
School Crossing
A School Crossing is defined as a crossing location where ten or more student pedestrians per
school bell time hour are crossing.
Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing
An established pedestrian crossing that does not include a traffic signal, a HAWK beacon, or a
stop sign that requires motor vehicles to stop before entering the crosswalk. For example,
Boulder’s crosswalks with signs are considered “uncontrolled”.
Vehicle Queue
A line of stopped vehicles in a single travel lane, commonly caused by traffic control at an
intersection.
Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 16 of 32
Figure 1: Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Flowchart
Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 17 of 32
Table 1: Criteria for Crossing Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations
≤ 30
mph
35
mph
40
mph
≥ 45
mph
≤ 30
mph
35
mph
40
mph
≥ 45
mph
≤ 30
mph
35
mph
40
mph
≥ 45
mph
≤ 30
mph
35
mph
40
mph
≥ 45
mph
2 1 A1 B1 B1 B1 A1 B1 B1 C A1 B1 B1 C B1 B1 B1 C
2 Lanes (two way street with no median)2 0 A1 B1 B1 B1 A1 B1 B1 C A1 B1 C C B1 B1 C C
1 or 2 0 or 1 A2 B2 B2 B2 A2 B2 C C A2 C C C B2 C C C
3 0 or 1 A2 B1 C C A2 B1 C C A2 C C C B1 C C C
4 2 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
2 or 3 2 B2 B2 C C B2 C C C B2 C C C C C C C
5 2 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
3 to 6 4 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
Notes:
* Quick-build medians can be considered a refuge if they feature markings and vertical devices (e.g., delineator posts). Similarly, a 6-foot wide raised median next to a left turn lane can only be
considered a refuge for pedestrians if the left turning volume is less than 20 vehicles per hour (meaning that in most cases the left turn lane is not occupied while the pedestrian is crossing).
** A multiple threat lane is defined as a through lane where it is possible for a pedestrian to step out from in front of a stopped vehicle in the adjacent travel lane (either through or turn lane).
Treatment Descriptions:
A1 Install marked crosswalk with enhanced road-side signs.
A2 Install marked crosswalk with enhanced road-side and in-roadway (bollard mounted) signs.
B1
B2
C
Install marked crosswalk with enhanced road-side and median signs and RRFBs.
Specific Guidance : Install marked crosswalk with "State Law - Yield to Pedestrian" signs WITH pedestrian activated RRFBs mounted on the side of
the roadway and on median mounted signs; use standard (W11-2) advance pedestrian warning signs; use S1-1 signs for School Crossing locations.
Do not install marked crosswalk at uncontrolled crossing. Install HAWK beacon, pedestrian traffic signal, or grade-separated crossing.
Specific Guidance : Install HAWK beacon, pedestrian traffic signal, or grade-separated crossing; application of these treatments will consider corridor
signal progression, existing grades, physical constraints, and other engineering factors.
6 Lanes (two way street with or without median)
Specific Guidance : Install marked crosswalk with "State Law - Yield to Pedestrian" signs mounted on the side of the roadway with standard (W11-2)
advance pedestrian warning signs; use S1-1 signs for School Crossing locations.
Specific Guidance : Install marked crosswalk with "State Law - Yield to Pedestrian" signs mounted on the side of the roadway and on in-roadway
bollards; use standard (W11-2) advance pedestrian warning signs; use S1-1 signs for School Crossing locations.
Install marked crosswalk with enhanced road-side signs and RRFBs.
Specific Guidance : Install marked crosswalk with "State Law - Yield to Pedestrian" signs mounted on the side of the roadway WITH pedestrian
activated RRFBs mounted on the side of the roadway; use standard (W11-2) advance pedestrian warning signs; use S1-1 signs for School Crossing
locations.
2 Lanes (one way street)
3 Lanes w/Raised Median
3 Lanes w/Striped Median
4 Lanes (two way street with no median)
5 Lanes w/Raised Median
5 Lanes w/Striped Median
Roadway
Configuration
# of lanes
crossed to
reach a
refuge(*)
# of
multiple
threat
lanes(**) per
crossing
Roadway ADT and Speed Limit
1,500-9,000 vpd 9,000-12,000 vpd 12,000-15,000 vpd > 15,000 vpd
Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 18 of 32
2.0 CROSSING LOCATION EVALUATION PROCEDURES AND CONSIDERATIONS
2.1 Evaluation Steps
Evaluation of an individual crossing location for potential crossing treatments in the City of Boulder
should include the following four basic steps:
Step 1: Identification and Description of Crossing Location
Step 2: Physical Data Collection
Step 3: Traffic Data Collection and Operational Observations
Step 4: Apply Data to Figure 1 and Table 1 to Determine Appropriate
Treatments
The Crossing Location Evaluation Worksheet is included in this guidebook which will guide staff
through these steps. A detailed discussion of each of these procedures is provided in the following
text.
Step 1: Identification and Description of Crossing Location
a) Identify the pedestrian crossing location including the major street and specific location of
the crossing (i.e., cross-street, street address, intersecting path or trail, etc.).
b) Determine if the crossing location connects both ends of a multi-use path, is the location
where a cross-town bikeway/GreenStreet crosses a multi-lane collector or arterial, or is
contiguous with a transit stop or public school. If it does, the minimum pedestrian volume
requirements are not required to be met to apply the treatments prescribed in Table 1.
c) Note the posted speed along the major street at the crossing location.
Step 2: Physical Data Collection
a) Identify the existing traffic control and any existing crossing treatments (signs, markings,
or physical treatments), street lighting, and curb ramps.
b) Determine the existing roadway configuration including the number and type of lanes and
the presence of painted or raised medians at the crossing location.
c) Identify the nearest marked or protected crossing and measure the distance to this
crossing.
d) Measure the stopping sight distance (SSD) on all vehicular approaches to the crossing.
Note opportunities for vegetation trimming to address sight distance.
e) Determine if the location has appropriate availability of street lighting or an opportunity to
add lighting with the project.
Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 19 of 32
f) Determine if the location has curb ramp, types, widths, and frequency of use. Note if there
is an opportunity to add a curb ramp with the project.
Step 3: Traffic Data Collection and Operational Observations
a) Gather or collect pedestrian and bicyclist crossing volumes during the peak hours of use.
This will typically involve AM, midday, and PM peak hours. Locations near schools may
only require two hours of data collection (AM and PM peak hours corresponding to school
opening and closing times). All pedestrian and bicyclist volumes should include and
differentiate between pedestrians and bicyclists and should note separately the number
of young, elderly, and/or disabled pedestrians in which the young, elderly, and disabled
pedestrians should count as two times (2x) towards the pedestrian volume. For locations
where school crossing traffic is anticipated, the volume of student pedestrians or bicyclists
(school age pedestrians/bicyclists on their way to/from school) should also be separately
noted.
Whenever possible, pedestrian and bicycle volumes should be collected during warm-
weather months and during fair weather conditions to represent peak crossing activity. If
school traffic is a factor, the counts should be scheduled on school days when classes are
in session. Given the potential fluctuation in pedestrian/bicyclist traffic from day to day, it
may be considered to collect up to three days of data (use additional Crossing Location
Evaluation Worksheets as needed) to determine if an enhanced pedestrian crossing
treatment is warranted.
b) Gather or collect hourly and average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for automobile traffic
along the major and minor roadway at the crossing location, ideally while school is in
session. A one-day sample should be adequate, with hourly volumes collected during the
same hour as the pedestrian/bicyclist crossing volumes.
c) Due to the potential for vehicular traffic queues to impact safety at the crossings, the
presence of queues extending from downstream signals or intersections back into the
crossing location should be observed, as well as any "differential" queuing that may occur
on a lane-to-lane basis. While collecting automobile traffic data, the formation of vehicle
queues from adjacent intersections should be noted. If one or both directional queues
reaches back to the crossing location, the number of times per hour that it reaches the
crossing location should be noted, and the maximum queue length should also be
recorded. If there is more than one through lane in each direction, it should be noted if the
queues reaching back to the crossing are approximately the same length in each lane or
are there significant differences in the length of the queues in each lane. If the queues are
routinely of different lengths as they extend beyond the crossing location, notes should be
made as to the potential cause of the differential queuing.
d) Collect crash data from the most recent 5 years of available data. Determine if there is a
history of at least 3 bicycle- or pedestrian-involved crashes within the influence area of the
location. Crashes should be a crash type correctable by an enhanced crossing. The area
of influence is defined as within 150 feet of a proposed crossing location.
Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 20 of 32
Step 4: Apply Data to Figure 1 and Table 1 to Determine if a Pedestrian Crossing Treatment
is Warranted
a) Using the available data, utilize Figure 1 – Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Flowchart to
determine if a pedestrian crossing treatment is warranted.
Step 5: If a Pedestrian Crossing is Warranted, Determine the Appropriate Treatments
a) Using Table 1 – Criteria for Crossing Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations, determine
appropriate treatment(s) for signalized, stop-controlled, or uncontrolled locations. Also
consider and incorporate the information in Section 2.2 as appropriate.
2.2 Additional Evaluation Considerations
The following information should be considered by the user of these guidelines when determining
the appropriate pedestrian crossing treatment:
2.2.1 Geometric Considerations and Improvements
Wherever possible, geometric improvements to the roadway should be considered to increase
the safety and comfort of crossing locations. The goal of these geometric improvements is to
make changes to the roadway that reduce the type of device needed to provide a safe pedestrian
crossing. Geometric improvements should be considered at all locations where feasible,
especially when crossings are part of a corridor level improvement project. Corridor scale
improvements provide the best opportunity to make geometric improvements that increase
crossing safety and comfort such as, reduced speeds, fewer travel lanes, shortened crossing
distances, increased median refuge width, tighter turning radii and improved visibility, all of which
improve crossing safety.
A median refuge island should be considered at locations where feasible. Add curb extensions
where feasible if on-street parking exists and storm drainage can be accommodated. Changes to
turning radii and physical protection should be considered at intersection crossings where
feasible. These guidelines encourage users to be creative in their pairing of geometric
improvements and enhanced crossings wherever possible.
The City should consider opportunities for vegetation trimming to improve sight lines. If a
roadway’s vertical or horizontal geometry is creating sight distance obstructions, traffic calming
measures or other geometric improvements should be evaluated to reduce speeds sufficiently to
meet stopping sight distance requirements. If sight distance obstructions cannot be feasibly
overcome with these measures, other crossing locations should be considered.
When paired with improved crossing treatments, geometric improvements create a safer, more
comfortable crossing than if only one type of improvement was provided. This can effectively
reduce the type of devices recommended in Table 1, and provide an improved crossing
experience for a lower level of crossing treatment. The final crossing treatment is the sum of its
parts and combining geometric improvements with enhanced crossings where feasible adds up
to an overall improved treatment.
Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 21 of 32
2.2.2 Types of Crossing Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations
Table 1 identifies three primary types of uncontrolled crossing treatments for consideration
depending on the physical roadway conditions, speed limit, and vehicle volume at the potential
crossing location, etc. The crossing types are as follows:
Crossing Type A:
• Marked crosswalk
• “State Law – Yield to Pedestrians” signs mounted on the side of the roadway at the
crossing, with diagonal down arrow placards (W16-7P)
• Standard advance pedestrian warning signs (W11-2) mounted in advance of the crossing
• If the location is a school crossing then standard S1-1 signs should be used in place of
“State Law – Yield to Pedestrians” signs
• If the location is a multi-use path or cross-town bikeway crossing, W11-15 signs (including
a bicycle and pedestrian) can be used in place of “State Law – Yield to Pedestrians” signs
• If the location has a raised or striped median, an In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign (R1-
6) (bollard mounted) should be considered
Crossing Type B:
• Marked crosswalk
• “State Law – Yield to Pedestrians” signs mounted on the side of the roadway with diagonal
down arrow placards (W16-7P)
• Pedestrian actuated Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) mounted roadside
• Standard advance pedestrian warning signs (W11-2) mounted in advance of the crossing
• If the location is a multi-use path or cross-town bikeway crossing, W11-15 signs (including
a bicycle and pedestrian) can be used in place of “State Law – Yield to Pedestrians” signs
• On four-lane streets (two approach lanes in a single direction) with a raised or striped
median, median mounted should be considered. Standard on-median signs (W11-2)
should also be considered
• On four-lane streets (two approach lanes in a single direction), install advance yield lines
and “Yield Here to Pedestrians” (R1-5) signs
• If the location is a school crossing, then standard S1-1 signs should be used in place of
“State Law – Yield to Pedestrians” signs
Crossing Type C:
• Crossing is not suitable for an uncontrolled marked crosswalk
• Consider pedestrian traffic signal, HAWK beacon or grade-separated pedestrian crossing
• Must consider corridor signal progression, grades, physical constraints, and other
engineering factors
In Table 1 there are two columns that list:
• # of lanes crossed to reach a refuge
• # of “multiple threat” lanes per crossing
This information does not directly play in to the use of Table 1, but they do provide important
context for the user as they help distinguish the crossing types and support the difference in
recommended crossing treatments. These topics are discussed in more detail below.
Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 22 of 32
2.2.3 Minimum Vehicle Volume for Treatments
Recognizing the limited availability of resources to implement crossing treatments within the City,
crossing treatments should generally not be installed at locations where the ADT is lower than
1,500 vehicles. ADT is correlated with pedestrian delay when crossing a street, as the higher the
vehicle volume, the longer it will take for people crossing a street to find a gap in vehicle traffic.
At an ADT of 1,500 vehicles, according to Pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) from the Highway
Capacity Manual 2010, pedestrians have LOS A which indicates little to no delay finding a gap to
cross the street. Treatments for roadways with greater than 1,500 vehicles per day will be installed
based on the criteria in Figure 1 and Table 1.
2.2.4 Pedestrian Median Refuge and Minimum Median Refuge Width
A pedestrian refuge median is a useful tool in increasing the safety and efficiency of a pedestrian
crossing, and the presence of a median refuge will influence the type of pedestrian crossing
treatment that can be considered (see Table 1). In this context a pedestrian refuge median is
defined as a location in the middle of a pedestrian crossing where a pedestrian can take refuge,
thereby separating their crossing into two steps, across each direction of approaching traffic
separately. Separating the crossing into two directional crossings greatly increases the number
of acceptable gaps for pedestrians to safely cross a roadway. A pedestrian refuge can be some
type of raised median or quick-build approach as described below:
• A quick-build median can be considered a pedestrian refuge if it features both markings
and vertical devices such as delineator posts. A full-build median refuge island is preferred
when feasible.
• A raised median nose at an intersection can only be considered a pedestrian refuge for
the adjacent crosswalk if the median is at least 6 feet wide and the left turn volume is less
than 20 vehicles per hour. This low left turn volume means that during most pedestrian
crossings there will not be a vehicle in the left turn lane and the pedestrian will be
“shadowed” by the width of the median and the adjacent turn lane as they cross the street.
• A raised median at a mid-block pedestrian crossing can only be considered as a refuge if
it is at least 6 feet wide and includes curb ramps or a walkway at grade through the median.
A median of this width will allow over two feet on each side for splash protection; it will
store a group of pedestrians; and it will accommodate the storage of a bicycle without it
overhanging into the traffic lanes. For multi-use path crossing locations, a 10-foot median
refuge width is desirable to better accommodate bicycles with child trailers, recumbent
bicycles, and tandem bicycles.
2.2.5 Distance to Nearest Marked or Protected Crossing
The Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Flowchart in Figure 1 includes consideration of spacing
criteria for an uncontrolled crossing to the nearest marked or protected crossing. When block
lengths are longer than 300 feet, locations are in an urban context, or when providing access to
a key destination, controlled crossings can be permitted at a minimum of 200-foot spacing
provided that the resultant pedestrian crossing does not cross any auxiliary lanes or is not in an
intersection influence area.
Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 23 of 32
2.2.6 Selecting Between a Pedestrian Traffic Signal, HAWK Beacon, or RRFBs
Pedestrian traffic signals and HAWK beacons provide a red indication that requires vehicles to
stop for pedestrians. RRFBs provide flashing yellow warnings and do not require vehicles to stop
for pedestrians. Pedestrian traffic signals are considered for application at high volume pedestrian
crossings on roads that have high vehicle volumes and speeds, with multiple threats. Pedestrian
traffic signals are mid-block as a traffic signal at an intersection is a full traffic signal. Table 1
differentiates clearly between locations requiring either a RRFB or a pedestrian signal/HAWK;
however, Table 1 does not differentiate between a signal/HAWK.
These guidelines create allowances for exceptions to the MUTCD’s minimum volume thresholds
to install a pedestrian signal/HAWK. However, the MUTCD’s warranting procedures can be useful
for selecting either a pedestrian signal or a HAWK. One key criterion in this decision includes the
volume of pedestrians and if the pedestrian volume is so high that separation in time from vehicles
is necessary for overall efficiency; higher-volume crossings tend to be more suitable for
pedestrian signals. Another criterion is the pedestrian signal or HAWK’s operation and the delay
it creates for pedestrians. A forthcoming action from these guidelines is to create a traffic
operations policy for the coordination and timing of pedestrian signals and HAWKs. In general,
pedestrians expect lower delay to cross at HAWKs.
Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 24 of 32
Decision-Making Factors
When deciding between these options, the MUTCD and local guidelines stress the need to
evaluate several factors:
• Automobile, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Volumes: Higher volumes generally justify more
restrictive traffic control measures.
• Vehicular Speeds: Higher speeds may necessitate more prominent warning or control
devices.
• Crossing Distances: Longer crossing distances might require more robust pedestrian
control measures.
• Presence of Medians: Medians can provide refuge for pedestrians and impact the type
of control needed.
• Impact on Signal Progression: Consideration of how new signals or beacons will affect
overall traffic signal timing and flow.
• Proximity to Signalized Intersections: The effect on nearby signalized intersections and
overall traffic flow should be evaluated.
• Vehicle Queue Formation: Potential for vehicle queues to impact the effectiveness of
pedestrian controls.
• Adjacent Land Use: Certain land uses generate higher pedestrian demand or higher
demand from vulnerable users.
In conclusion, the selection of a pedestrian control device should be guided by a combination of
MUTCD guidelines, local influence area conditions, roadway geometry, and the direction provided
in these guidelines.
2.2.7 Signal Progression and Traffic Operational Considerations
The installation of RRFBs, HAWK beacons or pedestrian traffic signals can all have an impact on
the automobile traffic operation in a corridor. The automobile and pedestrian crossing volumes,
the spacing to the adjacent signalized intersections, the type of pedestrian population (college
students, elementary students, elderly, a mix, etc.) should all be considered when selecting the
crossing treatment type and how it will be operated. Where practical, HAWK beacons and
pedestrian traffic signals should consider innovative detection of people walking and biking to
reduce delay. Detection should ensure it is capturing users walking across, not along, the street.
The City of Boulder should develop a traffic operations policy on signal progression and traffic
operational considerations for HAWKS and pedestrian signals. Both HAWKs and pedestrian
signals will have an all-red indication. Consideration will be for the tradeoff between safety and
delay, for people driving, using transit, biking, and walking. This future policy should include
guidance on considerations for proximity to adjacent signals, traffic volumes, pedestrian/bicyclist
volumes, and how to balance delay for all modes.
2.2.8 Unmarked Pedestrian Crossing Facilitation
In certain locations, pedestrians cross roadways despite the absence of nearby amenities or land
uses such as multi-use paths, GreenStreets, cross-town bikeways, transit stops or schools, and
the pedestrian volume falls below the thresholds specified in Figure 1 for the installation of marked
Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 25 of 32
and signed treatments outlined in Table 1. Such measures might involve the installation of curb
ramps and/or a raised median refuge, recognizing the existing pedestrian traffic without actively
encouraging or attracting additional users to the crossing.
It is essential to comply with the Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG), which
mandate the inclusion of pedestrian ramps at all intersections to ensure accessibility. However,
the installation of these ramps alone does not render the intersection unsafe in the absence of
additional signage or markings. These treatments serve to acknowledge and accommodate
ongoing pedestrian or bicycle activity, enhancing safety for users already navigating the crossing.
They are intended to improve accessibility and safety without promoting or attracting additional
pedestrian traffic. Ignoring the crossing altogether is not considered a viable option. Such
treatments will be considered only if the location is situated more than 300 feet from the nearest
signed and marked pedestrian crossing, whether controlled or uncontrolled, and if there is minimal
potential to redirect pedestrians to a more formal crossing location.
Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 26 of 32
Crossing Location Evaluation Worksheet
YES NO
Posted Speed Limit mph
Existing traffic control:Stop Sign Traffic Signal Uncontrolled
Existing Crossing Treaments (if any):
Nearby Pedestrian Generators (school, transit stop, commercial, etc.)
Roadway Configuration:2-Lane 5-Lane w/ Striped Median
3-Lane w/ Striped Median 5-Lane w/ Raised Median
3-Lane w/ Raised Median 6 Lane
4 Lane Other:
Crossing Distance by Direction ft total ft to median ft to median
(if applicable & note direction)(if applicable & note direction)
Nearest Marked or Protected Pedestrian Crossing:ft
(For uncontrolled location only) Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) =ft ft
YES NO
Is there street lighting and curb ramps?YES NO
YES NO
Major Street Vehicular Volume Daily:ADT =veh/day Hourly:veh/hr
Vehicle Flow Rate (vehicles/second):veh/sec
TOTAL PEDS (Actual) (Include All Bicyclists
in Total Sum)
TOTAL PEDS (Adjusted for 2x Y/E/D)
////
////
# of Young Peds/ Bicyclists
# of Elderly Peds
# of Disabled Peds
# of Non-Y/E/D Peds/Bicyclists
Major Street Vehicular Volume (Hourly):
# of Transit Boardings (if applicable):
AM Mid-Day PM Other
to to to to
///
STEP 3a - TRAFFIC DATA
STEP 1 - LOCATION DESCRIPTION
Major Street:Crossing Location:
STEP 2 - PHYSICAL DATA
Distance to:
/
Pedestrian Crossing Volumes / Bicycle Crossing Volumes:
Time:
Date/Day of Week:
Does it connects both ends of a multi-use path, is the location where a cross-town
bikeway/GreenStreet crosses a collector or arterial, or is it contiguous with a transit
stop or public school?
Does stopping sight distance meet AASHTO requirements? If NO, are improvements to SSD
feasible?
Has there been a history of at least 3 bicycle- or pedestrian-involved crashes within the
influence area (150') of the location? Crashes should be a crash type that could be mitigated
by an enhanced crossing.
Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 27 of 32
Crossing Location Evaluation Worksheet (continued)
Nearest Intersection (Direction #1):Cross Street Name:
Located ft to the N S E W
of
crossing
YES NO ft
Y N Y N Y N Y N
Nearest Intersection (Direction #2):Cross Street Name:
Located ft to the N S E W
of
crossing
YES NO ft
Y N Y N Y N Y N
STEP 4 - APPLY DATA TO FIGURE 1 and TABLE 1
Recommended Treatment(s):
If multiple lanes per direction, are queue
lengths approximately equal?
If NO (above), which lane is longer (inside,
outside, middle) and by how much (feet)?
Other
How many times per hour did the
downstream vehicle queue back up into
pedestrian crossing?
Signalized?Distance from Crossing:
AM Mid-Day PM
If NO (above),which lane is longer (inside,
outside, middle) and by how much (feet)?
How many times per hour did the
downstream vehicle queue back up into
pedestrian crossing?
If multiple lanes per direction, are queue
lengths approximately equal?
STEP 3b - OPERATIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Signalized?Distance from Crossing:
OtherPMMid-DayAM
Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 28 of 32
3.0 SUPPLEMENTAL POLICIES
This section contains discussion of supplemental policies to guide the installation of crossing
treatments in the City of Boulder.
3.1 Avoiding Overuse of Crossing Treatments
The FHWA recommends that overuse of crosswalk markings should be avoided to maximize their
effectiveness. Crosswalks and sign treatments should be used discriminately within the City of
Boulder so that the effectiveness of these treatments is not deteriorated by overuse. Although
these treatments may be effective at individual locations, overuse of these treatments city-wide
may lead to a decrease in their value as drivers become desensitized to them. Criteria related to
minimum pedestrian volumes, key destinations, and crash history have been established in this
document with this in mind. Additional key destination types may be considered where the
destination is frequently accessed by walking and where there is a defined path of travel to that
destination.
3.2 Multi-Use Path and GreenStreet Crossings
When designing a crosswalk on an existing or proposed multiuse path, GreenStreet or cross-town
bikeway several key features are essential to ensure safety and usability for all users. First, the
crosswalk should be clearly marked with high-visibility, reflective paint or textured materials to
make it stand out against the surrounding path. Incorporating raised or textured elements can
also help alert pedestrians and bicyclists to the crosswalk’s presence. Adequate signage,
including both advance warning signs and those directly at the crossing, should be installed to
notify users of the crosswalk ahead. Per the MUTCD, the combined bicyclist/pedestrian sign
(W11-15) (see Figure 9B-3) may be used where both bicyclists and pedestrians might be crossing
the roadway. A TRAIL X-ING (W11-15P) supplemental plaque (see Figure 9B-3) may be mounted
below the W11-15 sign. Therefore, W11-15 can be used instead of W11-2 at multi-use path
crossings and crossings of GreenStreets or cross-town bikeways.
Additionally, the crosswalk should be well-lit to enhance visibility during low-light conditions.
Consideration for accessibility is crucial, so ensure that the crosswalk includes ramps with proper
gradients and tactile paving for visually impaired users. Finally, providing adequate sightlines and
clear sight distances, free from obstructions like vegetation or signage, helps ensure that all users
can see and react to each other in time.
3.3 Textured and Colored Pavement Treatments
Textured, brick, and/or colored pavement treatments should typically not be used in lieu of a
marked crosswalk. When such treatments are used, they are often aesthetic and not considered
traffic control devices. Retroreflective pavement markings are required at any location serving as
a marked crosswalk. Exceptions are granted for signalized intersection crossings, right-turn
bypass (raised) crossings, and for multi-use path crossings at driveways and unsignalized
intersections where the City has developed other treatments designed to call attention to the
crossings.
3.4 Accessible Crosswalks
Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 29 of 32
The City of Boulder is committed to ensuring that all new crosswalks comply with the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) to enhance mobility for all users. For new crosswalk installations on
curbed roadways, curb ramps will be equipped with detectable warning surfaces. Additionally, the
City plans to retrofit existing non-ADA compliant curb ramps with these surfaces as part of its
ongoing sidewalk maintenance program. However, due to site constraints, it may sometimes be
impractical to achieve full compliance with ADA standards. In such cases, when full compliance
is deemed technically infeasible based on engineering judgment, improvements should still be
made to the maximum extent practicable to ensure accessibility. The City shall comply with the
City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards to ensure curb ramps and crossings have
appropriate design requirements.
3.5 Raised Crossings at Right-Turn Bypass Islands
Raised pedestrian crossings at right-turn bypass islands meet the goals of these guidelines by
improving visibility for pedestrians, improving accessibility, and helping to mitigate the speed of
right-turning vehicle traffic. As a part of a Safe Streets and Roads for All grant, the city will be
evaluating the safety of right-turn bypass islands compared to other right-turn treatments to make
further citywide decisions regarding right-turn configuration.
3.6 Raised Crosswalks
FHWA defines raised crosswalks as “ramped speed tables spanning the entire width of the
roadway.” Raised crosswalks could be considered at locations denoted as marking/signs only
(Treatment A) per Table 1. The FHWA recommends that raised crosswalks be installed on 2-lane
or 3-lane roads with speed limits of 30 mph or less and annual average daily traffic below about
9,000. Raised crossings should generally be avoided on truck routes, emergency routes, and
arterial streets. Consideration for raised crosswalks should be determined in collaboration with
emergency services. The Design and Construction Standards Section 2-50 define the design
details of raised crosswalks.
3.7 Accommodation of Bicyclists
In locations where crossings serve a high volume of people biking, design accommodations for
bicyclists should be considered. As stated in Section 2.2.2, if the location is a multi-use path,
GreenStreet, or cross-town bikeway crossing, W11-15 (including a bicycle and pedestrian) can
be used in place of State Law – Yield to Pedestrians signs. Additionally, in locations with high
volumes of people biking, treatments should consider bicycle push buttons, larger refuge islands,
and detection for bicyclists. As stated by NACTO, “push buttons should be located so bicyclists
can activate the signal without dismounting. Push buttons should have a supplemental sign facing
the bicyclist’s approach to increase visibility.”
3.8 Removal of Treatments
Conditions that contribute to the need for a crosswalk or crossing treatments may change over
time, and an existing crosswalk or treatment may no longer be needed. When a roadway surface
is to be impacted by reconstruction or resurfacing, a review of any uncontrolled crosswalks should
be performed to determine their use and need. If the use of a crosswalk is less than half of that
which would be required for it to be warranted based on the criteria established in these guidelines
for a new installation, the crosswalk should not be replaced when the construction or resurfacing
is done and any other treatments will be removed. In such cases, residents and property owners
Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 30 of 32
within 1,000 feet of walking distance to the crosswalk in question will be notified via mail. In
addition, notices will be visibly posted for 30 days prior at the crossing location to inform the public
of the intent to remove them. City contact information will be provided in these mailings and
notices. Should concerns arise from the public as a result of that mailing or from the notification
sign at the crosswalk, staff may then begin a more substantial public process with concerned
parties.
Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 31 of 32
4.0 CONCLUSION
The City of Boulder is committed to enhancing safety for people walking, biking, and using
micromobility devices by implementing consistent and effective crossing treatments throughout
the City. The City strives to create a seamless pedestrian experience that aligns with driver
expectations, ensuring the highest level of safety for all road users. Ensuring safe and efficient
crossings for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other micromobility users is essential for meeting the
City of Boulder’s transportation and strategic goals. These initiatives are key to enhancing
mobility, reducing traffic congestion, and supporting sustainable transportation, thereby fostering
a more connected and accessible community.
This commitment involves providing a uniform approach to crossing treatments that are
thoughtfully designed to match the specific needs of each corridor. To achieve this, variations in
crossing treatment types may be considered based on engineering judgment per the City Traffic
Engineer based on historical data, ensuring that each solution is tailored to the unique
characteristics of the influence area. When applying engineering judgment, documentation must
be provided to explain the variance. By maintaining this continuity and flexibility, the City aims to
foster a safer, more predictable environment for pedestrians and drivers alike.
The Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines is a forward-thinking document that
serves to evaluate potential or proposed unmarked crossings and mid-block crossing locations
for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other micromobility users. The guide can also be applied to existing
marked crossing locations when a street is undergoing maintenance or construction or adjacent
land use is being redeveloped. The user guide has a technical purpose, but also furthers
multimodal transportation options and safety goals.
Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines
Page 32 of 32