Olney Crosswalk - Correct Inaccurate Statements to Media
On behalf of the Action Committee for Transit, I request that the SHA issue a formal correction of statements made by its spokesperson to the Gazette, concerning crosswalk markings on Route 108 in Olney.
As reported in the Gazette, someone recently marked the unmarked crosswalk on Route 108 at the intersection of Homeland Drive. Christopher Bishop of SHA is quoted as saying that SHA plans to “remove the crosswalks.” The reporter completed the interview believing that the crosswalk is a fake. Of course, the crosswalk is very real as a matter of state law, whether it is marked or not. SHA can only remove the crosswalk markings — the crosswalk remains in existence.
Telling drivers that this crosswalk is a “fake” encourages them to break the law by failing to yield to pedestrians. We urge SHA, when it issues its correction, to remind drivers that they are required to stop when a pedestrian is in the unmarked crosswalk at this location and elsewhere.
Also in need of correction is the explanation of the reason for removal of the crosswalk markings. SHA is quoted second-hand in the article as saying pedestrians should not cross there. But pedestrians cannot reasonably be asked to make a detour to the nearest marked crosswalk, a 1/3 mile round trip, in order to cross the street. MUTCD gives a different reason — it discourages marking of unsignalized crosswalks on multilane arterials on the grounds that it makes them less safe for pedestrians. (As explained in this blog post, I do not believe the research supports this assertion.) If SHA is keeping the crosswalk unmarked because it believes that pedestrians are safer in unmarked crosswalks, it should say so.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Ben Ross, Vice-President
Action Committee for Transit