DOCSLIB.ORG

Treatment-Applications-Guide-To-Pedestrian-Crossing-Guidelines-April-2021.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Treatment-Applications-Guide-To-Pedestrian-Crossing-Guidelines-April-2021.Pdf 2021 PEDESTRIAN CROSSING GUIDELINES TREATMENT APPLICATIONS GUIDE 2510 J Street, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95816 916.822.5351 i | 2021 Pedestrian Crossing Guidelines Treatment Applications Guide TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 PRIMARY TREATMENTS 3 2.1 Crosswalk Visibility Enhancements 3 2.2 Raised Crosswalk 6 2.3 Pedestrian Refuge Island 7 2.4 Road Diet 9 2.5 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon 11 2.6 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon 13 3.0 SUPPLEMENTAL TREATMENTS 15 3.1 Tighter Curb Radii 15 3.2 Textured Pavement 15 3.3 Locate Transit Stops on the Far Side of the Intersection 15 3.4 Flashing Warning Beacon 15 3.5 Improved Right-Turn Slip-Lane Design 16 3.6 Traffic Calming Measures 16 3.7 Pedestrian-Activated Flashing (Embedded LED) Warning Sign 16 3.8 Raised Intersection 16 3.9 Protected Intersection 16 4.0 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION TREATMENTS 17 4.1 Shorter Cycle Lengths 17 4.2 Longer Crossing Times 17 4.3 Pushbuttons or Passive Pedestrian Detectors 17 4.4 Pedestrian Countdown Signal 18 4.5 Extended Pushbutton 18 4.6 Pedestrian Recall 18 4.7 No Turn On Red Restrictions 18 4.8 Protected Left-Turn 19 4.9 Leading Pedestrian Interval 19 4.10 Accessible Pedestrian Signals 19 4.11 Animated Eyes Pedestrian Pushbutton 19 4.12 Pedestrian Scramble Intersection 19 5.0 CONCLUSION 20 City of Sacramento | ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION The 2021 Pedestrian Crossing Guidelines Treatment • Peer Agency Guidance review, including: Applications Guide provides additional design and □ City of Oakland, CA implementation guidance to help City staff select pedestrian crossing treatments for new marked crosswalks □ City of San Diego, CA or to enhance existing marked crosswalks in combination □ San Francisco, CA with the guidance provided in the City of Sacramento □ Portland, OR 2021 Pedestrian Crossing Guidelines. The initial consideration of countermeasures should be done using the 2021 □ North Carolina Department of Transportation Pedestrian Crossing Guidelines’ Application of Pedestrian In addition to the detailed guidance on the primary Crossing Treatments by Location Type table, presented treatments, Section 3.0 Supplemental Treatments provides in Table 1 on Page 2. This table represents a summary guidance and information for supplemental treatments of the 2021 research and best practices related to that may be considered at a crossing location on a case- pedestrian crossing treatments and has been adapted from by-case basis based on site conditions and context. Finally, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Guide for Section 4.0 Signalized Intersection Treatments, provides Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations guidance for signalized intersection treatments that may be (2018). The recommendations from the FHWA guide have considered at signalized pedestrian crossing locations on a been adapted to fit the unique characteristics of pedestrian case-by-case basis. crossings in the City of Sacramento. In the following section (Section 2.0 Primary Treatments), treatment-specific application guidance for the primary treatments identified in the2021 Pedestrian Crossing Guidelines is provided. This guidance is adapted from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Field Guide for Selecting Countermeasures at Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Locations (FHWA Field Guide) (2018). This guidance has been supplemented with additional guidance and information from City of Sacramento practices, national best practices and research, and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) MUTCD and Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM), as appropriate. National best practices were obtained from the following sources: • National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Street Design Guide (2013) • FHWA Field Guide for Selecting Countermeasures at Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Locations (2018) • National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings (2006) • NCHRP Research Report 893: Systemic Pedestrian Safety Analysis (2018) • NCHRP Research Report 841: Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments (2017) • NCHRP Synthesis 498: Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways (2016) 1 | 2021 Pedestrian Crossing Guidelines TABLE 1 Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments by Location Type Source: Adapted from FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations (July 2018) City of Sacramento | 2 2.0 PRIMARY TREATMENTS 2.1 Crosswalk Visibility Enhancements FIGURE 1 Example Crosswalk Visibility Improvements #1 Source: FHWA, Field Guide for Selecting Countermeasures at Uncontrolled Pedestrians Crossings Locations, 2018. DEFINITION ROADWAY AND SITE INFORMATION This group of treatments includes high-visibility crosswalk Established midblock or intersection uncontrolled crossing markings, improved nighttime lighting, advance or in-street locations should be consistent with the 2021 Pedestrian warning signage, curb extensions, and parking restrictions. Crossing Guidelines ‘basic’ treatments and additional These features may be used in combination to indicate guidance recommendations. To reduce the risk of crashes preferred locations for people to cross, to increase involving pedestrians at an uncontrolled marked crosswalk, visibility of the crossing location, and to help reinforce the on-street parking restrictions and curb extensions should driver requirement to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians also be considered for implementation with the marked at crossing locations. crossing. Per the FHWA Field Guide, on roadways with 4 or more lanes and more than 9,000 vehicles per day, the risk for pedestrian crashes could increase if marked crosswalks are not combined with other treatments, such as refuge islands or Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons. The FHWA Field Guide recommends consideration of adding advance Yield Here To (Stop Here For) Pedestrians sign and yield (stop) line if the roadway(s) are described by one of the following sets of conditions: • Any ADT + 4 or more lanes (with or without a raised median) + any speed limit • Any ADT + any number of lanes + ≥ 35 mph speed limit 3 | 2021 Pedestrian Crossing Guidelines CONSIDERATIONS • Stop Here for Pedestrians signs should only be used where the law specifically requires that a driver must Crosswalk visibility enhancements are most needed when stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Otherwise, Yield the following are observed at the site: Here for Pedestrians signs should be used with shark’s teeth pavement markings. • Drivers not yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks • See MUTCD Section 2B.113 for more information about • Inadequate conspicuity/visibility of the crosswalk and/or Yield Here To (Stop Here For) Pedestrians signs and crossing pedestrian Section 3B.164 for more information about stop and • Noted conflicts at crossing locations yield lines. ADDITIONAL INSTALLATION AND DESIGN GUIDANCE IN-STREET OR OVERHEAD PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGN CROSSWALK MARKINGS • The In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign (sign R1-6 or R1- • High-visibility crosswalks may include a variety of 6b in the CA MUTCD) can be placed on the center line, crosswalk striping designs, such as ladder, continental, or on a lane line, or in conjunction with a median/refuge bar pairs. island. • High-visibility markings may be supplemented with the • The In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign shall not be pedestrian crossing warning signs (sign W11-2 in the post-mounted on the left-hand or right-hand side of the MUTCD1) on each approach to the crosswalk. roadway. • See MUTCD Section 2C.502 for more information about • Consider maintenance and prompt replacement of Non-Vehicular Warning Signs and Section 3B.18 for damaged in-street (and other) signs. more information about crosswalk markings. • If used, the Overhead Pedestrian Crossing sign shall be • Adjacent bus stops should be placed downstream of the placed over the roadway at the crosswalk location. crosswalk and not on the crosswalk approach. • See CA MUTCD Section 2B.125 for more information • Sufficient sight distance should be provided for vehicles about In-Street or Overhead Pedestrian Crossing signs. and pedestrians. Refer to the FHWA Crosswalk Visibility Enhancements • In school zones, yellow pavement markings should be Tech Sheet6 for more information about this set of used. treatments. OVERHEAD LIGHTING • Overhead lights should be placed in advance of uncontrolled crossings on both approaches to illuminate the front of the pedestrian and avoid creating a silhouette. • Consider placing the light fixtures 10 to 15 feet in advance of the crosswalk on both sides of the street. ADVANCE YIELD HERE TO PEDESTRIANS SIGN AND YIELD LINE • The stop line or “shark’s teeth” yield line is placed 20 to 50 feet in advance of a marked crosswalk to indicate where vehicles are required to stop or yield in compliance with the accompanying Yield Here To 3 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/traffic- Pedestrians sign. operations/documents/ca-mutcd/camutcd2014-chap2b- rev4-a11y.pdf 4 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/traffic- operations/documents/ca-mutcd/camutcd2014-chap3b- rev3-a11y.pdf 5 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/traffic- 1 https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/camutcd operations/documents/ca-mutcd/camutcd2014-chap2b- 2 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/traffic- rev4-a11y.pdf operations/documents/ca-mutcd/camutcd2014-chap2c- 6 https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/docs/
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Download The
    DEVELOPMENT OF AN AGENT BASED SIMULATION MODEL FOR PEDESTRIAN INTERACTIONS by MOHAMED HUSSEIN B.Sc., Ain Shams University, 2004 M.Sc., Ain Shams University, 2010 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Civil Engineering) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) December 2016 © Mohamed Hussein, 2016 Abstract Developing a solid understanding of pedestrian behavior is important for promoting walking as an active mode of transportation and enhancing pedestrian safety. Computer simulation of pedestrian dynamics has gained recent interest as an important tool in analyzing pedestrian behavior in many applications. As such, this thesis presents the details of the development of a microscopic simulation model that is capable of modeling detailed pedestrian interactions. The model was developed based on the agent-based modeling approach, which outperforms other existing modeling approaches in accounting for the heterogeneity of the pedestrian population and considering the pedestrian intelligence. Key rules that control pedestrian interactions in the model were extracted from a detailed pedestrian behavior study that was conducted using an automated computer vision platform, developed at UBC. The model addressed both uni-directional and bi- directional pedestrian interactions. A comprehensive methodology for calibrating model parameters and validating its results was proposed in the thesis. Model parameters that could be measured from the data were directly calibrated from actual pedestrian trajectories, acquired by means of computer vision. Other parameters were indirectly calibrated using a Genetic Algorithm that aimed at minimizing the error between actual and simulated trajectories. The validation showed that the average error between actual and simulated trajectories was 0.35 meters.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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) .
    [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]
  • Minneapolis Transportation Action Plan (Engagement Phase 3)
    Minneapolis Transportation Action Plan (Engagement Phase 3) Email Comment Topic Comment # The recommendations in this submission expand on this principle and support the overall Transportation Action Plan goals of designing transportation to achieve the aims of Minneapolis 2040, address climate change, reduce traffic fatalities and injuries, and improve racial and economic equity. In line with these goals, our most significant recommendations for the Prospect Park area are to • Invest in the protected bike network: extending the Greenway over the River, and building the Prospect Park Trail along railroad right-of- way • Transform University Avenue and Washington Avenues • Complete the Grand Rounds and use the Granary corridor to redirect truck traffic Priorities for transportation improvements in Prospect Park 1. Improve pedestrian infrastructure throughout the community including safe crossings of University Avenue SE (Bedford, Malcolm, 29th and 27th), Franklin Avenue SE (Bedford, Seymour) and 27th Avenue SE (Essex, Luxton Park to Huron pedestrian overpass). We encourage the city to narrow residential intersections, particularly in Bicycling, the Tower Hill sub-neighborhood where streets do not meet at right Walking, 1 angles, and crossing distances are significantly longer than needed. Additional Planters and plastic delineators could be used to achieve this ahead of Comments reconstruction. Maintenance and improvements should focus on public safety, adequate lighting and landscape upkeep. Throughout the neighborhood residents have cited safety (particularly at night), sidewalk disrepair, narrowness, snow and ice issues, and have expressed support for full ADA compliance. 2. Complete the Minneapolis Grand Rounds and the Granary Corridor (see Map 2) to enhance community access to city and regional parks and trails as well as to adjoining neighborhoods.
    [Show full text]
  • Selection of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments at Controlled and Uncontrolled Locations
    JOINT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PROGRAM INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PURDUE UNIVERSITY Selection of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments at Controlled and Uncontrolled Locations Suleiman Ashur Mohammad Alhassan SPR-3723 • Report Number: FHWA/IN/JTRP-2015/03 • DOI: 10.5703/1288284315522 RECOMMENDED CITATION Ashur, S., & Alhassan, M. (2015). Selection of pedestrian crossing treatments at controlled and uncontrolled locations (Joint Transportation Research Program Publication No. FHWA/IN/JTRP-2015/03). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University. http://dx.doi.org/10.5703/1288284315522 AUTHORS Suleiman Ashur, PhD, PE Professor of Civil Engineering and Program Coordinator Department of Engineering Indiana University–Purdue University Fort Wayne (260) 481-6080 [email protected] Corresponding Author Mohammad Alhassan, PhD Associate Professor of Civil Engineering and Program Coordinator Department of Engineering Indiana University–Purdue University Fort Wayne ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would acknowledge the help and support provided by the following individuals throughout the study: served as the Project Administrator; and the SAC committee members: Michael Holowaty, Jessica Kruger, and Greg RichardsDana Plattner, from INDOT,who requested Rick Drumm the study from andthe FHWA, served and as the Hardisk Business Shah Owner; from American Shuo Li of Structurepoint, INDOT’s Research Inc. The Office, authors who also acknowledge the assistance of the following students: Jerry Brown, Allee Carlasgrad, Austin Eichman, Elizabeth McClamrock, and Paul Robinson. The authors are thankful for the assistance of Naseera Azad in proofreading the draft of the report. JOINT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PROGRAM The Joint Transportation Research Program serves as a vehicle for INDOT collaboration with higher education institutions and industry in Indiana to facilitate innovation that results in continuous improvement in the planning, https://engineering.purdue.edu/JTRP/index_html design, construction, operation, management and economic efficiency of the Indiana transportation infrastructure.
    [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]