Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Transport and Map Symbols Range: 1F680–1F6FF
Transport and Map Symbols Range: 1F680–1F6FF This file contains an excerpt from the character code tables and list of character names for The Unicode Standard, Version 14.0 This file may be changed at any time without notice to reflect errata or other updates to the Unicode Standard. See https://www.unicode.org/errata/ for an up-to-date list of errata. See https://www.unicode.org/charts/ for access to a complete list of the latest character code charts. See https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/Unicode-14.0/ for charts showing only the characters added in Unicode 14.0. See https://www.unicode.org/Public/14.0.0/charts/ for a complete archived file of character code charts for Unicode 14.0. Disclaimer These charts are provided as the online reference to the character contents of the Unicode Standard, Version 14.0 but do not provide all the information needed to fully support individual scripts using the Unicode Standard. For a complete understanding of the use of the characters contained in this file, please consult the appropriate sections of The Unicode Standard, Version 14.0, online at https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode14.0.0/, as well as Unicode Standard Annexes #9, #11, #14, #15, #24, #29, #31, #34, #38, #41, #42, #44, #45, and #50, the other Unicode Technical Reports and Standards, and the Unicode Character Database, which are available online. See https://www.unicode.org/ucd/ and https://www.unicode.org/reports/ A thorough understanding of the information contained in these additional sources is required for a successful implementation. -
Pedestrian Crossing Treatments
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING TREATMENTS BEST PRACTICES Presented by: Doug Enderson, P.E., PTOE Cody Salo, P.E. 1 PRESENTER INTRODUCTIONS Doug Enderson, P.E., PTOE Cody Salo, P.E. Ped Crossing Experience: Ped Crossing Experience: • ADA Design-Build • RRFB • ADA Inventory & Retrofit • HAWK • RRFB • Accessible Signal Upgrades • HAWK • ADA Transition Plans • Equestrian Signal Design • Pedestrian Bridges • Accessible Signal Upgrades • Bulb-Outs • Bulb-Outs • ADA Training • Shared Use Paths • Shared Use Paths 2 THE AGENDA 1. Regulations & Policies 2. Pedestrian Crossing Elements 3. Crossing Treatments 4. Funding Options 5. Questions DISCLAIMER IMAGES, PROJECTS, and EXAMPLES have been sourced from many various locations/entities. WE ARE NOT CLAIMING THESE AS OUR OWN! 3 REGULATIONS & POLICY Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) ! National standards governing all traffic control devices ! Two revisions accepted in 2012 ! Ensures uniformity of TC devices 4 REGULATIONS & POLICY Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 1990 ! Prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities (Title II). ! All publicly-owned intersections/facilities must comply with: " Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) (Title III) Entities may choose to comply with… " Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) 5 REGULATIONS & POLICY A public entity shall: Evaluate its current services, policies,and practices, and the effects thereof, that do not or may not meet the“ requirements“ …Identify physical obstacles in the public -
The Saskatchewan Gazette, February 14, 2014 293 (Regulations)/Ce Numéro Ne Contient Pas De Partie Iii (Règlements)
THIS ISSUE HAS NO PART III THE SASKATCHEWAN GAZETTE, FEBRUARY 14, 2014 293 (REGULATIONS)/CE NUMÉRO NE CONTIENT PAS DE PARTIE III (RÈGLEMENTS) The Saskatchewan Gazette PUBLISHED WEEKLY BY AUTHORITY OF THE QUEEN’S PRINTER/PUBLIÉE CHAQUE SEMAINE SOUS L’AUTORITÉ DE L’ImPRIMEUR DE LA REINE PART I/PARTIE I Volume 110 REGINA, FRIDAY, february 14, 2014/REGINA, VENDREDI, 14 FÉVRIER 2014 No. 7/nº 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS/TABLE DES MATIÈRES PART I/PARTIE I SPECIAL DAYS/JOURS SPÉCIAUX ................................................................................................................................................ 294 PROGRESS OF BILLS/RAPPORT SUR L’éTAT DES PROJETS DE LOI (Third Session, Twenty-Seventh Legislative Assembly/Troisième session, 27e Assemblée législative) ........................................... 294 ACTS NOT YET PROCLAIMED/LOIS NON ENCORE PROCLAMÉES ..................................................................................... 295 ACTS IN FORCE ON ASSENT/LOIS ENTRANT EN VIGUEUR SUR SANCTION (Third Session, Twenty-Seventh Legislative Assembly/Troisième session, 27e Assemblée législative) ........................................... 299 ACTS IN FORCE ON SPECIFIC EVENTS/LOIS ENTRANT EN VIGUEUR À DES OCCURRENCES PARTICULIÈRES..... 299 ACTS PROCLAIMED/LOIS PROCLAMÉES (2013) ........................................................................................................................ 300 ACTS PROCLAIMED/LOIS PROCLAMÉES (2014) ....................................................................................................................... -
Pedestrian Crossings: Uncontrolled Locations
Pedestrian Crossings: Uncontrolled Locations CENTER FOR TRANSPORTATION STUDIES Pedestrian Crossings: Uncontrolled Locations June 2014 Published By Minnesota Local Road Research Board (LRRB) Web: www.lrrb.org MnDOT Office of Maintenance MnDOT Research Services Section MS 330, 395 John Ireland Blvd. St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Phone: 651-366-3780 Fax: 651-366-3789 E-mail: [email protected] Acknowledgements The financial and logistical support provided by the Minnesota Local DATA COLLECTION Road Research Board, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), and the Minnesota Local Technical Assistance Program John Hourdos and Stephen Zitzow, University of Minnesota (LTAP) at the Center for Transportation Studies (CTS), University of PRODUCTION Minnesota for this work is greatly acknowledged. Research, Development, and Writing: Bryan Nemeth, Ross Tillman, The procedures presented in this report were developed based on infor- Jeremy Melquist, and Ashley Hudson, Bolton & Menk, Inc. mation from previously published research studies and reports and newly collected field data. Editing: Christine Anderson, CTS The authors would also like to thank the following individuals and orga- Graphic Design: Abbey Kleinert and Cadie Wright Adikhary, CTS, and nizations for their contributions to this document. David Breiter, Bolton & Menk, Inc. TECHNICAL ADVISORY PANEL MEMBERS Tony Winiecki , Scott County Pete Lemke, Hennepin County Kate Miner, Carver County Tim Plath, City of Eagan Mitch Rasmussen, Scott County Jason Pieper, Hennepin County Mitch Bartelt, MnDOT This material was developed by Bolton & Menk, Inc., in coordination with the Minne- Melissa Barnes, MnDOT sota Local Road Research Board for use by practitioners. Under no circumstances shall Tim Mitchell, MnDOT this guidebook be sold by third parties for profit. -
2B-1 Application of Regulatory Signs Regulatory
6. REGULATORY SIGNS 2B-1 Application of Regulatory Signs Regulatory signs inform highway users of traffic laws or regulations and indicate the applicability of legal requirements that would not oth- erwise be apparent. These signs shall be erected wherever needed to fulfill this purpose, but unnecessary mandates should be avoided. The laws of many States specify that certain regulations are enforceable only when made known by official signs. Some regulatory signs are related to operational controls but do not impose any obligations or prohibitions. For example, signs giving ad- vance notice of or marking the end of a restricted zone are included in the regulatory group. Regulatory signs normally shall be erected at those locations where regulations apply. The sign message shall clearly indicate the require- ments imposed by the regulation and shall be easily visible and legible to the vehicle operator. 2B-2 Classification of Regulatory Signs Regulatory signs are classified in the following groups: 1. Right-of-way series: (a) STOP sign (sec. 2B-4 to 6) (b) YIELD sign (sec. 2B-7 to 9) 2. Speed series (sec. 2B-10 to 14) 3. Movement series: (a) Turning (see. 2B-15 to 19) (b) Alignment (sec. 2B-20 to 25) (c) Exclusion (see. 2B-26 to 28) (d) One Way (sec. 2B-29 to 30) 4. Parking series (see. 2B-31 to 34) 5. Pedestrian series (see. 2B-35 to 36) 6. Miscellaneous series (sec. 2B-37 to 44) 2B-3 Design of Regulatory Signs Regulatory signs are rectangular, with the longer dimension vertical, and have black legend on a white background, except for those signs whose standards specify otherwise. -
Evaluation of Alternative Traffic Signs for Use in Texas Border Areas
Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWAffX-99/1274-3 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC SIGNS FOR USE IN March 1999 TEXAS BORDER AREAS 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. H. Gene Hawkins, Jr., Dale L. Picha, Deborah C. Kreis, and Michael Report 1274-3 A. Knodler 9. Performing Organization Name and Address lO. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System 11. Contract or Grant No. College Station, Texas 77843-3135 Project No. 0-1274 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Research: Research and Technology Transfer Office September 1995 - August 1998 P. O. Box 5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Austin, Texas 78763-5080 15 Supplementary Notes Research performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Research Project Title: Traffic Control Devices for Drivers in Texas Border Areas 16. Abstract A three-year research project evaluated driver understanding of traffic control devices in Texas border areas. The report describes the activities and findings of the third and final year of the research study. In the third year, two surveys were conducted in both border and non-border locations. The passenger car driver survey addressed the Stop for School Bus, Fasten Safety Belts, and Right Lane Ends signs, plus the sign shape/color code. Spanish-language alternative legends were developed for each standard sign. -
Stop & Yield Signs
Stop & Yield Signs Stop and yield signs assign right-of-way to vehicles entering or crossing a roadway at an intersection. Stop signs alert drivers that they must come to a complete stop to ensure an intersection is clear of vehicles and pedestrians before proceeding through it. Yield signs alert drivers that they must prepare to slow down or stop to let vehicles on another approach proceed through an intersection. All-way stops An all-way stop requires vehicles approaching from all directions to come to a ALL-WAY STOP complete stop at the intersection before proceeding through it. INTERSECTION When approaching an all-way stop intersection, the vehicle that arrives first goes through the intersection first. If two vehicles come to a stop at the same time side-by-side, right-of-way goes to the vehicle on the right. If two vehicles come to a stop at the same time from opposite directions, both vehicles can proceed through the intersection at the same time, unless one vehicle is signaling to turn left, in which case the vehicle going straight through the intersection proceeds first, and then the vehicle turning left may proceed. An all-way stop is for intersections with moderate and relatively balanced traffic volume levels. If these conditions don’t exist, all-way stops may cause unnecessary delay and driver disobedience or disregard of stop signs. TWO-WAY STOP Two-way stops INTERSECTION A two-way stop only requires vehicles on the approach with the stop sign, usually a lower-volume, minor roadway, to come to a complete stop at the intersection. -
The Effects of Roundabouts on Pedestrian Safety
The Effects of Roundabouts on Pedestrian Safety Prepared for The Southeastern Transportation Center University of Tennessee – Knoxville Knoxville, Tennessee Prepared by John R. Stone, Ph.D KoSok Chae & Sirisha Pillalamarri Department of Civil Engineering North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695-7908 Funded by The Southeastern Transportation Center With a Grant from The University Transportation Centers Program U.S. Department of Transportation August 2002 NCSU Preface This project examines the safety aspects of modern roundabouts with respect to pedestrians. Since the emergence of modern roundabouts in the US, safety has been recognized as a major concern for the effectiveness of roundabout performance. Pedestrians may be more prone to unsafe crossings at roundabouts due to new geometries, signalization (or lack of it), right of way assignments for pedestrians and vehicles, and visual and auditory cues. This project documents case study, statistical, and simulation analyses regarding pedestrian safety at roundabouts. The results suggest that roundabouts are safe with respect to pedestrians. This report includes the following topics: • literature review summarizing international and US experience with roundabouts and pedestrians, • alternative research approaches, • case study analysis of a candidate roundabout intersection in Raleigh, NC, • statistical analysis for pedestrian crashes at the case study intersection, and • simulation of the case study intersection vehicle and pedestrian movements with the original intersection and with the candidate roundabout. Copies of the report are available from the Southeastern Transportation Center, University of Tennessee – Knoxville. We hope that the results of this research will continue to prove valuable to the roundabout community. i NCSU Acknowledgements The faculty and students who worked on this project gratefully appreciate the financial support of a “seed grant” from the Southeastern Transportation Center at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville under the auspices of the USDOT University Centers Program. -
PLANNING and DESIGNING for PEDESTRIANS Table of Contents
PLANNING AND DESIGNING FOR PEDESTRIANS Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ................................................................1 1.1 Scope of Guidelines.............................................................................. 2 1.2 How the Pedestrian-Oriented Design Guidelines Can be Used........ 5 1.3 How to Use the Chapters and Who Should Use Them ...................... 6 2. Pedestrian Primer ...................................................................9 2.1 What is Pedestrian-Oriented Design? ................................................. 9 2.2 Link Between Land Use and Transportation Decisions .................. 10 2.3 Elements of a Walkable Environment ............................................... 11 2.4 What Kind of Street Do You Have and What Kind Do You Want?... 12 2.4.1 "Linear" and "Nodal" Structures .......................................................................... 12 2.4.2 Interconnected or Isolated Streets ....................................................................... 14 2.4.3 Street Rhythm......................................................................................................... 15 2.4.4 "Seams" and "Dividers" ........................................................................................ 16 3. Community Structure and Transportation Planning.........17 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 17 3.2 Land Use Types and Organization..................................................... 18 -
Won't Crosswalks Make It Safer to Cross Streets?
About Cross Walks: Won’t Crosswalks make it safer to cross streets? A crosswalk is that area of a roadway where pedestrians have the right of way. Crosswalks may be “marked” or “unmarked”. A “marked crosswalk” is any crosswalk which is delineated by painted markings placed on the pavement. All other crosswalk locations are therefore “unmarked”. Under the Arizona Law, crosswalks exist at all intersections, extending across the street from the corner curbs, or on other parts of the street designated as pedestrian crossing locations by the painted lines, unless signed otherwise. Arizona State law states the following in ARS 28-793. Crossing at other than crosswalk A. A pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway. B. A pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right-of- way to all vehicles on the roadway. C. Between adjacent intersections at which traffic control signals are in operation, pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk. Q: Are marked crosswalks safer than unmarked crosswalks? A: The City of San Diego conducted a study on the issue in the 1970's, and the report conclusions are often cited as the first comprehensive study of crosswalk safety. Investigators in San Diego observed over 400 intersections during a five-year study period. The results demonstrated that during the five- year period, 177 pedestrians were hit in 400 marked crosswalks compared to 31 pedestrians hit in 400 corresponding unmarked crosswalks. -
On-Street Pedestrian Surveys of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments
Fitzpatrick, Ullman, Trout 1 On-Street Pedestrian Surveys of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments Kay Fitzpatrick Research Engineer Texas Transportation Institute, 3135 TAMU College Station, TX 77843-3135 phone: 979/845-7321, fax: 979/845-6481 email: [email protected] Brooke Ullman Associate Transportation Researcher Texas Transportation Institute, 3135 TAMU College Station, TX 77843-3135 phone: 979/ 862-6636, fax: 845-6001 email: [email protected] and Nada Trout Assistant Research Scientist Texas Transportation Institute, 3135 TAMU College Station, TX 77843-3135 phone: 979/845-5690, fax: 979/ 845-6006 email: [email protected] Prepared For Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Words: 5199 + 3*250 (tables) + 6*250 (figures) = 7449 words November 2003 TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal. Fitzpatrick, Ullman, Trout 2 ABSTRACT On-street pedestrian surveys were used to obtain the perspectives of pedestrians with regards to their experiences and needs at pedestrian crossing locations. Seven sites with five different treatments were ultimately selected for study. These treatments consisted of two marked crosswalk treatments, an in-roadway warning light treatment, a Hawk treatment, two Split Midblock Signal treatments, and a countdown pedestrian signal treatment at a signalized intersection. The survey was administered at the selected locations where pedestrians could be approached after they crossed at the study site. It was found through this study that as the control at a pedestrian crossing increases through the addition of signs, flashing lights, and/or signals, the pedestrians’ perception of safety also increases. Based on the responses of the survey participants, the factors that have the greatest influence on the pedestrian responses were: traffic volume, turning traffic, presence of disabled pedestrians, traffic speed, and the availability of an alternate crossing. -
Mn Mutcd-2B 2014
Chapter 2B. REGULATORY SIGNS TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 2B. Regulatory Signs Page Section 2B.1 Application of Regulatory Signs . 2B-1 2B.2 Design of Regulatory Signs . 2B-1 2B.3 Size of Regulatory Signs . 2B-1 2B.4 Right-of-Way at Intersections . 2B-7 2B.5 STOP Sign (R1-1) and ALL WAY Plaque (R1-3P) . 2B-8 2B.6 STOP Sign Applications . 2B-9 2B.7 Multi-Way Stop Applications . 2B-9 2B.8 YIELD Sign (R1-2) . 2B-10 2B.9 YIELD Sign Applications . 2B-10 2B.10 STOP Sign or YIELD Sign Placement . 2B-10 2B.11 Stop Here For Pedestrian Signs (R1-5 Series) . 2B-11 2B.12 In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs (R1-6a, R1-6b,R1-9a, and R1-9b) . 2B-12 6 . v e R 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign (R2-1) . 2B-14 N 2B.13.1 Bridge Speed Limit Sign (R2-X5) . 2B-16 M 6 . v e 2B.14 Truck Speed Limit Sign (R2-2P) . 2B-16 R N 2B.15 Night Speed Limit Sign (R2-3P) . 2B-16 M 2B.16 Minimum Speed Limit Sign (R2-4P) . 2B-17 2B.16.1 This section has been eliminated 3 . 2B.16.2 End Work Speed Zone Sign (R2-6c) . 2B-17 v e R N 2B.17 Higher Fines Signs and Plaque (R2-6P, R2-10, and R2-11) . 2B-17 M 2B.18 Movement Prohibition Signs (R3-1 through R3-4, R3-18, and R3-27) . 2B-18 2B.19 Intersection Lane Control Signs (R3-5 through R3-8) .