Where people actually cross, and whether a crossing belongs there

Long blocks create crossings whether you provide them or not

Where the distance between controlled crossings exceeds what people will walk, they cross mid-block. That is not a compliance problem to be counted and deplored; it is a demand signal with a location. A mid-block analysis records where crossings actually happen, how many, and under what conditions — which is precisely the evidence needed to justify a treatment, and to place it where it will be used.

The dataset

• Observed crossing locations plotted along the block, with volumes per location
• Desire line mapping against existing controlled crossing positions
• Gap acceptance — the headway pedestrians accept and reject, and the resulting wait
• Pedestrian delay before crossing, distributed and averaged
• Vehicle speeds at the crossing point, including 85th percentile
• Two-stage and refuge-island crossing behaviour where a median exists
• Sight-line and visibility obstruction assessment from both approaches
• Vulnerable user share — children, older pedestrians, mobility aid users

Supporting a warrant

Crossing warrants in most jurisdictions combine pedestrian volume, vehicle volume, speed and available gaps. All four are observable, and all four are in the survey. Where a location falls short of a signalised warrant, the same data usually supports a lesser treatment — a refuge island, a raised table, a curb extension, an RRFB — and shows which one addresses the actual constraint.

Frequently asked