They had these at my alma mater, it's the only time I've seen them, and they really do work as it shows in the video.

While I'm not arguing the benefits of raised crosswalks, the video seems a little biased. Initially, the people are crossing the street where there is NO crosswalk. Then, people are using a raised crosswalk. What about the standard crosswalk? Doesn't that get any attention?

I agree with Keifer, the video shows a very bad example. I would worry that in northern climates this type of crosswalk would become more of a hazard than a benefit.

Here in Chicago we already get huge potholes this time of year. Pedestrians are often forced to walk outside of the crosswalk areas to avoid hazards. Something raised would be a perfect place for ice to build up on the leading and trailing edges. combine this ice with a few well placed potholes forcing pedestrians to abandon the crosswalk and you could have a very nasty slip hazard.

Not to mention I'm not sure many of these would last more than two winters after an I-DOT plow gets a hold of them. I am all for cross walks but this seems a bit excessive.

On the other hand these could make a southern city center even more pedestrian friendly. I just don't see this working where it freezes.

I wonder how long it's going to take these newer ideas on pedestrian-friendliness to catch on with city planners. Both the raised crosswalk and the chicane (I saw a wonderfully implemented one of these just outside a city park in Decatur, Georgia last weekend, and it really worked) are marvelous ideas, but you don't see them in widespread use yet.

The idea of limiting car access is a loaded topic, especially when the conventional wisdom is to ram as many lanes of traffic through an area as possible. Congestion? We'll just nick off a little more right-of-way and widen the road. But in actual practice, adding lanes only increases congestion (a good example of this is when the parkways and expressways were built in New York City in the 1930s--instead of alleviating congestion, they just attracted more traffic). So I'm curious to see if city planners realize that the "silver bullet" for both controlling traffic congestion and making cities safer for pedestrians and greener is by making roads more troublesome for cars to negotiate. There is a point at which many motorists will decide that there just isn't enough space on the road for them, or that it's just plain easier to walk.

I am in full favor of condensed neighborhoods and walking friendly cities and towns. But I am FULLY opposed to things like this. I agree with Yaz that they can be a hazard in wintery weather. I opposed to speed bumps, humps, and raised walkways. As automobiles just won't vanish overnight, there needs to be a way for them to continue to drive around without fabricated road hazards. Maybe I live in a place that is less trafficky than other cities. My closest city has a lot of sidewalk and ample crossing opportunities. These speed bumps can also be hazards to drivers if they come upon them quickly (when no pedestrians) and could do serious damage to a car from the elevation/bump being too abrupt.

Actually this video is a perfect example of what happened on 43rd Street off 9th Avenue in NYC. There is a school in the middle of the block there. Kids would cross illegally to get to school. It was dangerous. Now there is a crossing there. So that would dispute the 2nd comment. There are plenty of places that people cross that do not have a crosswalk to begin with. I know a place in NJ they did the same thing with a raised crosswalk. Also one in Cambridge.

I would use the raised crosswalks to launch my Ducati. Yeeeee-haaaaw!

I love these things. Had them in a few spots in California. They work very well for pedestrians and speed control. And launching Ducatis.

A previous claymation on here about chicanes was also clearly biased.

Maybe they should raise them 5 feet up so the cars can't pass :)

In Yucatan, Mexico, this type of system has been in use for many many years, and they work perfectly.

For you Northerners, not everybody has access to icy cold winters.

In the South here, raised crosswalks would be a good idea - kind of. But we're also more of a car people as well.

And walking around in Houston is a joke.

Great. Now I have to slow down (brake dust), go over the bump (suspension/chassis wear), then accelerate (use fuel) again and again.

That's much greener.

@ yazheirx and chris

If cars drive slowly over speed bumps and raised crosswalks they have nothing to fear. Only cars that drive too fast may lose an exhaust pipe, well that is there own fault.

Cars driving too fast are the real hazard on the road.

Anonymous says above that a previous claymation was also biased...

Have no idea how something can be biased demonstrating how something works using claymation. Give us all a break....

@Lumox: really makes you just want to get out of your car and walk, doesn't it?

@ lumox: in residential areas you should just drive slowly all the time.

I cycle across three of these on my less than five minute cycle commute in the morning. They work very well in keeping traffic calm. In the UK, they are known as Zebra Crossings and if at any point someone is at one end of them, all traffic has to stop. A failure to stop is an offense (and one that is regularly enforced in Oxford).

O.k.. i am new here so take it easy on the first timer! Comments regarding "standard crosswalks". Maybe it is that i just didn't understand the comment but I put some thought on this for awhile. I am pretty sure these raised crosswalks are for highways, avenues, busy streets that don't want to spend even more time waiting for pedestrians. Less time waiting, less gas waisted. hmmm. "standard crosswalks" have really nothing to do with it. Ive spent time in south and central America and found these raised crosswalks a blessing when traveling. Keeping in mind, lots of poverty areas have housing right on top of highways and have no way of crossing to the local super market or other necessities. To experience these raised cross walks in action among poverty stricken cities is surely a sight and a blessing. Again, maybe i just didn't understand the comment made before.

I agree with the Chicago resident above that, while these might work in southern climates, they could be very problematic in northern climates. Here in Syracuse, either they would ruin the snowplows, or the snowplows would ruin them, and it wouldn't take more than a good storm or two for that to happen -- no way they'd last a full two winters.

I'm sorry, how would plows ruin something made of cement?! Do plows ruin sidewalks and bridges within two years? thats just silly! if you have ever seen these things before you would understand there capability.

This is one of the many excellent concepts discussed in "A Pattern Language" (Alexander, et. al., 1977). This book should be required reading for city planners/architects. I don't see the problem with plows or cars as long as the slope is sufficiently gradual. It also seems to me that a raised surface would be drier ( a blessing for pedestrians) and therefore less likely to develop potholes.