DOCSLIB.ORG

COST ESTIMATES for Traffic Management

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
COST ESTIMATES for Traffic Management COST ESTIMATES For Traffic Management Prepared by: Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission Prepared for: City of Columbus May 2005 STUDY AREA Cost Estimates for Traffic Management 2 COST SUMMARY LINDEN AREA TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN Program Cost Estimates Northwest Linden Traffic Calming Cost $2,370,694 Sidewalk Cost $3,893,971 TOTAL $6,264,665 Northeast Linden Traffic Calming Cost $2,979,906 Sidewalk Cost $5,685,881 TOTAL $8,665,787 Central West Linden Traffic Calming Cost $6,849,636 Sidewalk Cost $3,688,906 TOTAL $10,538,542 Central East Linden Traffic Calming Cost $4,751,091 Sidewalk Cost $5,746,867 TOTAL $10,497,958 South Linden Traffic Calming Cost $5,965,733 Sidewalk Cost $5,418,741 TOTAL $11,384,474 Total Traffic Calming Cost $22,917,060 Total Sidewalk Cost $24,434,366 Grand Total for Linden $47,351,426 NOTE: These estimates include traffic calming treatments and sidewalks in portions of Clinton Twp. which may be subject to funding and implementation constraints based on county and township authority. Cost Estimates for Traffic Management 3 Northwest (NW) Linden Neighborhood: Traffic Calming Treatment Cost Estimates NUMBER OF Street & Phase TREATMENTS Maize Road Karl Road North Broadway Oakland Hiawatha Norris Northridge Lenore 12123123Park Treatment Type Road Diet 1.2 1.4 0.6 Green Street 1.5 Speed Table Intersection Table Raised Intersection Modified Intersection (1) (2) Channelized Intersection Choker Chicane 4 Median 3113 Median Tree Chicane Curb-Extension Mini-Circle 21 Mini-Roundabout 2 2 2 1 Roundabout Pedestrian Refuge Island Closure Pedestrian Connector Radii Reduction Other Total Cost Per Street/Phase $11,904 $279,000 $13,888 $317,750 $155,000 $5,952 $906,750 $77,500 $310,000 $72,075 $162,750 $38,750 $19,375 (#) NOTES: : See Table B: Estimated Special Costs Table A: ESTIMATED UNIT COSTS Table B: ESTIMATED SPECIAL COSTS* # Treatment Type Base Cost 25% Contingen20% Engineeri 10% Inspection Total Cost Neighb'd Treatment Type Cost Per Unit 25% Contingen20% Engineeri 10% Inspection Total Cost Unit 1 Modified Intersection 200,000 50,000 40,000 20,000 $310,000 NW Road Diet 6,400 1,600 1,280 640 $9,920 mile 2 Modified Intersection 200,000 50,000 40,000 20,000 $310,000 NW Green Street 31,000 7,750 6,200 3,100 $48,050 mile 3 Channelized Intersection 75,000 18,750 15,000 7,500 $116,250 NE Speed Table 4,500 1,125 900 450 $6,975 item 4 Channelized Intersection 75,000 18,750 15,000 7,500 $116,250 NE Intersection Table 17,500 4,375 3,500 1,750 $27,125 item 5 Other - Visual Treatments 1,000 250 200 100 $1,550 NE Raised Intersection 35,000 8,750 7,000 3,500 $54,250 item 6 Other - Road Widening 900,000 225,000 180,000 90,000 $1,395,000 CW Modified Intersection Varies with location (see Table B: Estimated Special Costs) item 7 Other - Road Widening 780,000 195,000 156,000 78,000 $1,209,000 CW Channelized Intersection Varies with location (see Table B: Estimated Special Costs) item 8 Other - 3 Conversions to 2-way 0 0 0 0 $0 CW 9 Other - Road Widening 730,000 182,500 146,000 73,000 $1,131,500 CE Choker 20,000 5,000 4,000 2,000 $31,000 item 10 Other - Road Widening 600,000 150,000 120,000 60,000 $930,000 CE Chicane 20,000 5,000 4,000 2,000 $31,000 item 11 Other - Add/Improve Xwalks 100,000 25,000 20,000 10,000 $155,000 CE Median 35,000 8,750 7,000 3,500 $54,250 100-foot 12 Other - Rebuild Street 930,000 232,500 186,000 93,000 $1,441,500 CE Median Tree Chicane 60,000 15,000 12,000 6,000 $93,000 item 13 Other - Improve Circles 20,000 5,000 4,000 2,000 $31,000 CE Curb-Extension 10,000 2,500 2,000 1,000 $15,500 item 14 Other - 2 Improved Circles 40,000 10,000 8,000 4,000 $62,000 CE Mini-Circle 12,500 3,125 2,500 1,250 $19,375 item 15 Other - 8 Conversions to 2-way 0 0 0 0 $0 CE Mini-Roundabout 50,000 12,500 10,000 5,000 $77,500 item 16 Channelized Intersection 220,000 55,000 44,000 22,000 $341,000 S Roundabout 250,000 62,500 50,000 25,000 $387,500 item 17 Other - Rebuild Street 2,300,000 575,000 460,000 230,000 $3,565,000 S 18 Other - 19 Conversions to 2-way 00 0 0 $0S Pedestrian Refuge Island 35,000 8,750 7,000 3,500 $54,250 item Street Closure 15,000 3,750 3,000 1,500 $23,250 item * NOTES: Conversions to 2-way assume signage changes only, no costs were assigned; Road widenings and rebuildings Pedestrian Connector 20,000 5,000 4,000 2,000 $31,000 item use generalized budget-level cost estimates based on ODOT data, actual costs will vary depending on project details; other Radii Reduction Varies with location (see Table B: Estimated Special Costs) item items are unique Cost Estimates for Traffic Management 4 Northeast (NE) Linden Neighborhood: Traffic Calming Treatment Cost Estimates NUMBER OF Street & Phase TREATMENTS Ferris Road Cleveland Avenue Karl Road Cooke Huy Sale Case Dresden Elmore Walford Walmar Northridge 1212 123 Treatment Type See NW Linden Road Diet 1.2 0.6 Green Street Speed Table 33 4 Intersection Table Raised Intersection Modified Intersection Channelized Intersection (3) (4) Choker Chicane 2 Median 10 26 Median Tree Chicane Curb-Extension Mini-Circle 11 Mini-Roundabout 4 1 1 Roundabout Pedestrian Refuge Island 2 Closure Pedestrian Connector 1 Radii Reduction Other (5) Total Cost Per Street/Phase $11,904 $310,000 $108,500 $116,250 $658,750 $1,488,000 $0 $0 $0 $20,925 $41,850 $31,000 $105,400 $5,952 $19,375 $62,000 NOTES: (#) : See Table B: Estimated Special Costs Table A: ESTIMATED UNIT COSTS Table B: ESTIMATED SPECIAL COSTS* # Treatment Type Base Cost 25% Contingen20% Engineeri 10% Inspection Total Cost Neighb'd Treatment Type Cost Per Unit 25% Contingen20% Engineeri 10% Inspection Total Cost Unit 1 Modified Intersection 200,000 50,000 40,000 20,000 $310,000 NW Road Diet 6,400 1,600 1,280 640 $9,920 mile 2 Modified Intersection 200,000 50,000 40,000 20,000 $310,000 NW Green Street 31,000 7,750 6,200 3,100 $48,050 mile 3 Channelized Intersection 75,000 18,750 15,000 7,500 $116,250 NE Speed Table 4,500 1,125 900 450 $6,975 item 4 Channelized Intersection 75,000 18,750 15,000 7,500 $116,250 NE Intersection Table 17,500 4,375 3,500 1,750 $27,125 item 5 Other - Visual Treatments 1,000 250 200 100 $1,550 NE Raised Intersection 35,000 8,750 7,000 3,500 $54,250 item 6 Other - Road Widening 900,000 225,000 180,000 90,000 $1,395,000 CW Modified Intersection Varies with location (see Table B: Estimated Special Costs) item 7 Other - Road Widening 780,000 195,000 156,000 78,000 $1,209,000 CW Channelized Intersection Varies with location (see Table B: Estimated Special Costs) item 8 Other - 3 Conversions to 2-way 0 0 0 0 $0 CW 9 Other - Road Widening 730,000 182,500 146,000 73,000 $1,131,500 CE Choker 20,000 5,000 4,000 2,000 $31,000 item 10 Other - Road Widening 600,000 150,000 120,000 60,000 $930,000 CE Chicane 20,000 5,000 4,000 2,000 $31,000 item 11 Other - Add/Improve Xwalks 100,000 25,000 20,000 10,000 $155,000 CE Median 35,000 8,750 7,000 3,500 $54,250 100-foot 12 Other - Rebuild Street 930,000 232,500 186,000 93,000 $1,441,500 CE Median Tree Chicane 60,000 15,000 12,000 6,000 $93,000 item 13 Other - Improve Circles 20,000 5,000 4,000 2,000 $31,000 CE Curb-Extension 10,000 2,500 2,000 1,000 $15,500 item 14 Other - 2 Improved Circles 40,000 10,000 8,000 4,000 $62,000 CE Mini-Circle 12,500 3,125 2,500 1,250 $19,375 item 15 Other - 8 Conversions to 2-way 0 0 0 0 $0 CE Mini-Roundabout 50,000 12,500 10,000 5,000 $77,500 item 16 Channelized Intersection 220,000 55,000 44,000 22,000 $341,000 S Roundabout 250,000 62,500 50,000 25,000 $387,500 item 17 Other - Rebuild Street 2,300,000 575,000 460,000 230,000 $3,565,000 S 18 Other - 19 Conversions to 2-way 00 0 0 $0S Pedestrian Refuge Island 35,000 8,750 7,000 3,500 $54,250 item Street Closure 15,000 3,750 3,000 1,500 $23,250 item * NOTES: Conversions to 2-way assume signage changes only, no costs were assigned; Road widenings and rebuildings Pedestrian Connector 20,000 5,000 4,000 2,000 $31,000 item use generalized budget-level cost estimates based on ODOT data, actual costs will vary depending on project details; other Radii Reduction Varies with location (see Table B: Estimated Special Costs) item items are unique Cost Estimates for Traffic Management 5 Central West (CW) Linden Neighborhood: Traffic Calming Treatment Cost Estimates NUMBER OF Street & Phase TREATMENTS McGuffey Road Weber Road Hudson Street North Broadway ComoReis Howey Hamilton Misc.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Download Toolkit for a School Route Review
    PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION DEWCH I NI GERDDED I’R CYMRU YS GOL Toolkit for a School Route Review A step by step guide to running a School Route Review Help us create a walking nation We are Living Streets Cymru, part of the UK charity for everyday walking and the people behind the Walk to School Campaign. We’ve got a big ambition: that every child that can, walks to school. Useful links Run your own School Route Review livingstreets.org.uk/who-we-are/wales Advertise your event – download a poster to put up at school. Invite parents, Councillors and local residents – download template letters in Welsh or English. Living Streets - Walk to School livingstreets.org.uk/what-we-do/walk-to-school Living Streets - WOW Walking Challenge livingstreets.org.uk/what-we-do/projects/wow Living Streets - Park and Stride Guide livingstreets.org.uk/media/2035/park-and-stride-print.pdf Active Travel Act wales.gov.uk/active-travel Sustrans - Active Journeys sustrans.org.uk/active-journeys-school-wales The Daily Mile thedailymile.co.uk/ Keep Wales Tidy keepwalestidy.cymru If you would like this toolkit or further information by email please contact [email protected] Contents What is a School Route Review? 2 Why carry out a School Route Review? 3 Step 1 - getting ready to review 5 Classroom ideas Lesson plan Step 2 - walking the walk 11 Carrying out the School Route Review Step 3 - reporting the review 14 Case studies 16 Malpas Court Primary School - Newport St Mellons Church in Wales Primary School - Cardiff Nant-y-Parc Primary School - Caerphilly School Route Review Checklist 22 Poster 26 1 What is a School Route Review? A School Route Review is a great way of discovering some of the things that might stop families walking to school.
    [Show full text]
  • Shared Streets and Alleyways – White Paper
    City of Ashland, Ashland Transportation System Plan Shared Streets and Alleyways – White Paper To: Jim Olson, City of Ashland Cc: Project Management Team From: Adrian Witte and Drew Meisel, Alta Planning + Design Date: February 2, 2011 Re: Task 7.1.O White Paper: “Shared Streets and Alleyways” - DRAFT Direction to the Planning Commission and Transportation Commission Five sets of white papers are being produced to present information on tools, opportunities, and potential strategies that could help Ashland become a nationwide leader as a green transportation community. Each white paper will present general information regarding a topic and then provide ideas on where and how that tool, strategy, and/or policy could be used within Ashland. You will have the opportunity to review the content of each white paper and share your thoughts, concerns, questions, and ideas in a joint Planning Commission/Transportation Commission meeting. Based on discussions at the meeting, the material in the white paper will be: 1) Revised and incorporated into the alternatives analysis for the draft TSP; or 2) Eliminated from consideration and excluded from the alternatives analysis. The overall intent of the white paper series is to explore opportunities and discuss the many possibilities for Ashland. Shared Streets Introduction Shared Streets aim to provide a better balance of the needs of all road users to improve safety, comfort, and livability. They are similar to European concepts such as the Dutch based ‘Woonerf’ and the United Kingdom’s ‘Home Zone’, with some distinct differences. This balance is accomplished through integration rather than segregation of users. By eschewing many of the traditional roadway treatments such as curbs, signs, and pavement markings, the distinction between modes is blurred.
    [Show full text]
  • Dallas Avenue Traffic Calming Department of Mobility and Infrastructure
    Dallas Avenue Traffic Calming Department of Mobility and Infrastructure Katy Sawyer, P.E., Project Engineer Craig Toocheck, Staff Engineer August 1, 2018 South Dallas Ave characteristics: • Focus area: Wilkins to Forbes • 30 feet wide • About 8,000 vehicles/day • Speed limit 25 MPH • Median speed ~37 MPH • Parking lane on west side, minimally used • Cemetery on east side SAFE CROSSINGS Crosswalk Policy + Traffic Calming High-visibility crosswalks can improve A concrete pedestrian refuge island provides a yielding to pedestrians when speeds are slow. place to wait and slows traffic (New York City) • Elements like high-visibility crosswalks and pedestrian refuge islands can, under the right conditions, slow traffic speeds and make crossing the street safer and easier. SAFE CROSSINGS Permanent Refuge Island (Capital Construction) A refuge island with plantings (Vancouver, BC) A refuge island with pedestrian crossing signs (Silver Spring, MD) SAFE CROSSINGS Interim Refuge Islands A high-visibility crosswalk and pedestrian refuge island, Trial pedestrian refuge islands built from rubber curbs and built using interim materials (Seattle, WA) pedestrian crossing signs (Atchison, KS) BULBOUT/BUMPOUT Horizontal Control • Characteristics • Extension of the curbline toward the centerline of the street • Can be achieved via physical curb, paint, pavement removal or other techniques • Typical use • Appropriate on most street types • Paired with crosswalks can narrow pedestrian crossing distance and improve visibility • Considerations • Street cleaning
    [Show full text]
  • City of Nashua Guide to Traffic Calming
    City of Nashua Guide to Traffic Calming Prepared with assistance from the Nashua Regional Planning Commission iTRaC Program March 2008 Photos: Nashua Regional Planning Commission Staff Guide to Traffic Calming March 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES ..........................................................................................1 1.1 BULBOUT AND CURB EXTENSIONS ............................................................................................................4 1.2 CHICANES ..................................................................................................................................................5 1.3 CHOKERS/NECKDOWNS ...........................................................................................................................6 1.4 GATEWAYS .................................................................................................................................................7 1.5 LANDSCAPING ...........................................................................................................................................8 1.6 MEDIANS....................................................................................................................................................9 1.7 MODIFIED T-INTERSECTIONS...................................................................................................................10 1.8 PARTIAL STREET CLOSURE/ENTRANCE BARRIERS .................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Highway Design Manual
    HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Chapter 18 Pedestrian Facility Design Revision 49 March 30, 2006 This page intentionally left blank. CHAPTER 18 PEDESTRIAN FACILITY DESIGN Contents Page 18.1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................18-1 18.2 CHAPTER OBJECTIVES ...............................................................................................18-1 18.3 POLICY...........................................................................................................................18-1 18.4 DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................18-2 18.5 PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS.................................................................................18-4 18.5.1 Pedestrian Generator Checklist .......................................................................18-4 18.5.2 Pedestrian Data Acquisition .............................................................................18-7 18.5.3 Pedestrian Traffic Forecasting .........................................................................18-8 18.5.4 Pedestrian Level of Service..............................................................................18-8 18.5.5 Pedestrian Facility Documentation.................................................................18-11 18.6 PEDESTRIAN FACILITY DESIGN ...............................................................................18-14 18.6.1 Pedestrian Facility Design under Americans
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 Design Elements I Have Met but One Or Two People Who Understand the Art of Walking
    Chapter 5 Design Elements I have met but one or two people who understand the art of walking. Henry David Thoreau, American Philosopher This section identifies design elements The Design Elements are organized for improving Oakland streets, side- into the following three sections. First, walks, and paths. Rather than propos- the Sidewalk Guidelines section gives ing design standards, the Pedestrian minimum requirements for sidewalks Master Plan presents design elements and utility zones. Second, the Crossing to inform designers, planners, and pol- Treatments section explains best prac- icymakers on available design treat- tices for crosswalks and corners. And ments and best practices for pedestri- third, the Traffic Calming section ans. When implementing these ele- presents concepts for reducing motor ments, engineering judgment will vehicle speeds. determine the specific locations and features of each design. Pedestrian Master Plan | 65 Sidewalk Guidelines Proposed sidewalk guidelines apply aids. It should also be proportionate to to new development and depend upon street size and pedestrian volumes. available street width, motor vehicle volumes, surrounding land uses, and All streets require a utility zone pedestrian activity levels. Standardizing to accommodate above ground 72" sidewalk guidelines ensures a minimum public infrastructure including street level of quality for all sidewalks. ILLUSTRATION 13 furniture, lampposts, street trees, SIDEWALK FOR TWO PEDESTRIANS and signs. Locating this infrastructure IN WHEELCHAIRS The City of Oakland currently in the utility zone prevents it from requires a minimum 48" wide side- encroaching on the through passage minimum widths for passage, not walk with a 36" through passage for zone. The utility zone also creates an sidewalk width recommendations.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines on the Implementation of Pedestrian Refuge Island Along National Roads
    Republic of the Philippines DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS -O\f ....t1-;U; /1.- OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Manila DEPARTMENT ORDER ) SUBJECT GUIDELINES ON THE ) IMPLEMENTATION OF PEDESTRIAN REFUGE No. 34 ~ ISLAND ALONG Series of 2012 ~t>t-~f'1J. ) NATIONAL ROADS In order to provide additional safety measures for pedestrians crossing the national road and as a suppletory to D.O. No. 62, series of 2011, pedestrian refuge island shall be provided along the center of the carriageway where pedestrians may safely wait until vehicular traffic clears. Henceforth, the following guidelines on the proper location and installation of pedestrian refuge island in conjunction with the pedestrian crossing markings are hereby prescribed: 1. Pedestrian refuge island shall be provided in roadways having clear carriageway width of at least 4 lanes. 2. The island shall be installed at the following locations where there are concentration of pedestrians: 2.1 In front of school, church, market and other areas for public use. 2.2 At approaches of unsignalized intersection. 3. The island shall have a minimum width of 1.50 meters and total length of 30.0 meters, (Figures 1 and 2). 4. Minimum distance between two consecutive pedestrian refuge island along the highway shall not be less than 500 meters. 5. At-grade crosswalk passage shall be provided for the entire width of refuge island having width of less than 5.0 meters in order to provide convenient accessibility for Persons With Disabilities (PWD), (Figures 3 and 4). For refuge island having width of more than 5.0 meters, ramp for PWD shall be provided.
    [Show full text]
  • To Stop the Use of Property Intentionally
    Glossary of Planning Terms Access Management: Access picking fruit, feeding animals, or staying at management is the process of balancing a Bed & Breakfast on a farm. the competing needs of motor vehicle mobility and land access. Access Americans with Disabilities Act management provides access to land (ADA): A comprehensive, federal civil development while simultaneously rights law that prohibits discrimination on preserving the safe and efficient flow of the basis of disabilities in employment, traffic, including bicyclists and state and local government programs and pedestrians, on the roadway system. activities, public accommodations, transportation, and telecommunications. Accessory Dwelling Unit: An independent dwelling unit that is clearly Apartment: A dwelling unit used subordinate to a single-family detached exclusively for lease or rent as a residence. dwelling, as distinguished from a duplex or other two-family dwelling. It may be Archeological Resources: Places that internal or external to the main unit. have the potential to yield information about the past through study of the Adaptive Reuse: Rehabilitation or landscape and remains of previous human renovation of existing building(s) or intervention on the landscape. structures for any use(s) other than the present use(s). Architectural and Cultural Heritage: Places, people, objects, stories, traditions, Affordable Dwelling Unit: Refers to and ideas from and about the past that units required under the Affordable relate to us today. Dwelling Unit Ordinance, units are committed for a 30-year term as affordable Architectural and Historic Surveys: to households with incomes at 60 percent Studies of the properties within a or less of the area median income.
    [Show full text]
  • Bird Rock1-4
    LA JOLLA HERMOSA La Jolla Hermosa Boulevard BACKGROUND This historic trolley car street has an unusual width for present day residential homes. Block lengths are very long in several areas, adding to potential for speeding. 6' 6’ 10’ 4' 10’ 6' 6' Residents are concerned with speed (31 mph in most ROW 50 Feet areas), and the wide crossing distances for pedestrians. Typical Cross Section Some spillover commercial and work center parking Bike Lanes affects residents. Refuge Islands V PHASE ONE Tree Wells Maintain full The Walkable Communities proposed plan includes access to all bike lanes. The southern portion can provide diagonal driveways parking on one or both sides of the roadway. Traffic volumes here are very low, and a narrower lane street section will create a quiet, peaceful atmosphere. Bike lanes should be dropped in this section, allowing more maneuvering width for bicyclists. A mini-roundabout is also recommended for Forward and La Jolla Hermosa for this phase. A mini-roundabout on La Jolla Hermosa and Colima can also be considered for this phase. Bike lanes should be 6.0 feet wide and marked with an outer stripe, 8.0 inches wide. Parking lanes should be marked with 4.0 inch stripes, and be 6.0 to 7.0 feet wide. Travel lanes should be narrowed to about 10.0 feet. This reduced visual width to travel lanes can reduce speeding by many drivers. It is common to see reductions of speed of 7.0 miles per hour. PHASE TWO OR THREE Refuge islands (short medians) and increased landscaping can be added in Phase Two.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Guidelines
    PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES Downtown Aberdeen 6 CHAPTER OUTLINE: OVERVIEW OVERVIEW These recommended guidelines originate from and adhere to national design standards as defined by the American SIDEWALKS AND Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), WALKWAYS the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Federal Highway GREENWAY TRAIL Administration (FHWA) Pedestrian Facilities Users Guide, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and the MARKED CROSSWALKS NCDOT. Another major source of information in this chapter is CURB RAMPS the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, found online at http://www.walkinginfo.org. Should the national standards be RAISED OR LOWERED revised in the future and result in discrepancies with this chapter, MEDIANS the national standards should prevail for all design decisions. A ADVANCE STOP BARS qualified engineer or landscape architect should be consulted for the most up to date and accurate cost estimates. BULB-OUTS PEDESTRIAN OVERPASS/ The sections below serve as an inventory of pedestrian UNDERPASS design elements/treatments and provide guidelines for their ROUNDABOUTS development. These treatments and design guidelines are important because they represent minimum standards for TRAFFIC SIGNALS creating a pedestrian-friendly, safe, accessible community. The PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS guidelines are not, however, a substitute for a more thorough evaluation by a landscape architect or engineer upon LANDSCAPING implementation of facility improvements. Some improvements may also require cooperation with the NCDOT for specific ROADWAY LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS design solutions. STREET FURNITURE AND WALKING ENVIRONMENT TRANSIT STOP TREATMENTS The Pedestrian and Bicyle Information Center, AASHTO, PEDESTRIAN SIGNS AND the MUTCD, nationally WAYFINDING recognized trail standards, BRIDGES and other sources have all informed the content of this TRAFFIC CALMING chapter.
    [Show full text]
  • Access Restrictions: Liveable Streets, Play
    L E P T S HORT POLICY BRIEFS - 3 J u n e 2 0 1 9 CITIZENS AND NEIGHBOURHOODS vulnerable users, especially children. To reduce the impact they have on children’s ACCESS RESTRICTIONS: LIVEABLE STREETS, health, several boroughs have been PLAY STREETS AND SCHOOL STREETS implementing school streets, including Lewisham, Islington and Camden. EVIDENCE Hackney has published a guide for local authorities who wish to explore the - One in three children in the UK are growing possibility of implementing school streets. up in cities with unsafe levels of particulate Boroughs and UK public authorities can pollution (Unicef UK, 2017). implement the measure by using - Exposure to air pollution may be harming all experimental traffic orders, which allow organs of the body (Schraufnagel & al., parking authorities to modify traffic or 2019). parking regulations for an 18-months period - 63% of teachers would support a ban on requiring no prior public consultation: motor vehicles outside schools (Sustrans, consultation takes place alongside the trial, 2019). allowing for citizen feedback on the actual - Nearly a third of children ages 2-15 are effects of the scheme. There may be some overweight or obese (UK National public backlash, but results tend to be government, Childhood obesity action plan, positive in the long run, with high levels of 2017). acceptance once the scheme is in place. This was the case in the pilot led by CHALLENGE S Croydon. Changing the way streets are used to Expanding on school streets and in prioritise pedestrians and vulnerable partnership with Public Health England, road users by restricting motorised thirteen boroughs are experimenting with vehicle access to some streets.
    [Show full text]
  • Active Transportation Plan
    Active Transportation Plan nd 2 Edition Adopted by the Fridley Council February 11, 2020 Engineering Department Community Development Department February 2020 1 Introduction The City of Fridley is committed to providing residents with safe opportunities for walking, biking, and other non-automobile transportation. The Active Transportation Plan (the Plan) guides the City’s planning and construction of infrastructure needed for a well-maintained sidewalk and trail system. The 1st edition of the Plan was written in 2013 based on the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan. In the following years, many of the Plan’s original goals have been achieved and a new 2040 Comprehensive Plan has been developed. This 2nd edition reflects the progress that has been made as well as the new Comprehensive Plan goals related to Active Transportation. Purpose This plan’s purpose is to guide the City’s installation and maintenance of infrastructure needed to achieve mobility equity and support opportunities for active transportation (walking, biking, assisted mobility, transit, etc.). It is well documented that increased walking and biking improves health and quality of life. Additionally, improved active transportation infrastructure can increase a community’s desirability, encourage higher spending at commercial establishments, and reduce crime. Shifting travel from vehicles to transit, bikes, and walkways also decreases the greenhouse gas emissions associated with transportation, which is the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States according to the Environmental Protection Agency. In a city such as Fridley, where residents face many barriers to movement due to high- volume roadways and railways, a well-developed trail and sidewalk network is particularly important to increasing sense of place and community connection.
    [Show full text]