DOCSLIB.ORG

Pedestrian Crosswalk Signals at Roundabouts: TRB Roundabout Conference May 2005

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pedestrian Crosswalk Signals at Roundabouts: TRB Roundabout Conference May 2005 N N a a t t i i o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t Page 1 of 15 Page 1 of 15 C C o o n n f f e e r r e e n n c c e e 2 2 0 0 0 prove pedestrian safety and to allow for the safety and to allow for the prove pedestrian 0 oadway. A dashed yield line for vehicles marks the vehicles oadway. A dashed yield line for 5 5 D D R R A A F F T T Roundabouts have raised splitter islands at each approach that approach that at each splitter islands Roundabouts have raised islands splitter a street. These entry and exit lanes of separate the reduce vehicle speed. and thus to deflect traffic are designed between the refuge a pedestrian also provide Splitter islands lanes. outbound traffic inbound and geometric, to mostly a variety of design techniques, Engineers use a roundabout. as they approach, circulate, and exit slow vehicles to Australia continue Design practices from Europe and in roundabouts. to modern roundabouts; Introduction at roundabouts; Board proposed guidelines US Access USA; in Great Britain and the Pedestrian signal thresholds/warrants signals; Examples of roundabouts with pedestrian crosswalk and at roundabouts; Mid-block crossings at for Highway Safety response to requiring crosswalk signals Insurance Institute • • • • • • There are an estimated 50,000 modern roundabouts worldwide, and more than 700 have been There are an estimated 50,000 modern roundabouts worldwide, and more than 700 have are now considering 1990. Many jurisdictions States since in the United constructed capacity and efficiency, reduce increase roadway roundabouts to improve vehicle safety, to identify community gateways.and vehicular delay and emissions, with a circular unsignalized intersection below) is an A typical modern roundabout (Figure the roundabout entering and a circulatory roadway around central island the island. Vehicles r on the circulatory yield to vehicles already of the and defines the boundary at each entering street of the circulating roadway outside edge circulatory roadway. MODERN ROUNDABOUTS crossing of the visually impaired. There are many roundabout locations that may warrant a visually impaired. There are many roundabout locations the crossing of and some recent examples of successful installations pedestrian signal and this paper shows removed. where the pedestrian signal was subsequently Midblock one roundabout location in the USA and the UK. Many engineersplanners warrants are described and signal crossing a roundabout should at signals crosswalk whether to install pedestrian decision of feel that the not be mandated by a blanket judgment and warrants and should engineering be based on policy. This paper includes: BACKGROUND recommended signals that traffic Act (ADA) Guidelines have The proposed American Disability crosswalks to im all roundabout be located at Pedestrian Crosswalk Signals at Roundabouts: Applicable? Where are they Bill Baranowski, P.E. RoundaboutsUSA Pedestrian Crosswalk Signals at Roundabouts: TRB Roundabout Conference May 2005 Crosswalk Signals at Roundabouts: Pedestrian N N a a t t i i o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t Page 2 of 15 Page 2 of 15 C C o for accessible sidewalks, sidewalks, for accessible o n n f f e e r r e e guidelines n n c c e e es, traffic consultants, standard-setting standard-setting consultants, es, traffic 2 2 0 0 and by the thousands annually, duplicating the and by the thousands annually, 0 0 he crashes that occur when vehicles are hit vehicles are occur when he crashes that 5 5 D D R R proposing pedestrian signals at all roundabout crossings crossings at all roundabout signals pedestrian proposing A A F F T T guideline The Access Board is considering Committee recommendations Committee Board is considering as it adapts The Access public right-of-way. A more effective use in the current ADA standards for draft to be lumped together Roundabouts seemed in June 2002. was published with free right-turns at all types of intersections. what the US feel that roundabouts Many engineers designing and planners "guaranteed gap" for for in new roundabouts (the is asking Access Board pedestrian channelization by means of landscaping, railings, bollards with chains and bollards with railings, by means of landscaping, pedestrian channelization prohibited; are similar devices where pedestrian crossings locations; identify crossing warnings, other) to tones, detectable cues (locator ft./sec walking speed); signals (3.0 longer crossing times at and at roundabout; signals pedestrian-activated signals. Audible Pedestrian Signals (APS) at existing traffic • • • • • organizations, and disability organizations. On January 10, 2001, the committee submitted its On January 10, 2001, the committee organizations. and disability organizations, report to the Board recommending a new national set of The U.S. Access Board is a Federal agency that develops accessibility guidelines for buildings for guidelines agency that develops accessibility a Federal The U.S. Access Board is and facilities covered by committee to the ADA and Board established a other laws. In 1999, the The members for public rights-of-way. of the make recommendations on accessibility guidelines local State and organizations, engineering traffic Federal agencies, committee represented government and public works agenci transportation US ACCESS BOARD street crossings, and related pedestrian facilities including access to roundabouts. to roundabouts. including access facilities street crossings, and related pedestrian http://www.access-board.gov/rowdraft.htm in urban, suburban, application for engineers as they refine design approaches influence U.S. and rural areas. Europe -- where roundabouts are common U.S. have -- and in the in western Studies conducted less severe than vehicular crashes at more traditional are at roundabouts found that crashes the most compelling reason cited by crashes is vehicular serious in The reduction intersections. increase vehicular Roundabouts for the installation of roundabouts. engineers transportation signalized safety for two main reasons: 1) they reduce or eliminate the risk arising at of an across the path traffic and turn gaps in oncoming when motorists misjudge intersections 2) they eliminate t vehicle; and approaching Pedestrian Crosswalk Signals at Roundabouts: TRB Roundabout Conference May 2005 Crosswalk Signals at Roundabouts: Pedestrian have run a red light or stop/yield sign. vehicles on the opposing street that broadside by United States be built in the will The roundabout community that roundabouts anticipates years annually by the hundreds in the coming and now being repeated and 1980s the 1970s Australia during in Britain and trends first throughout western Europe. For example, France went from 12,000 roundabouts in 1990 to were mid-1970s. In 2001, there over 23,000 roundabouts today. Most the have been built since but only 86 involving resulting in 1,329 injury accidents, 23,000 roundabouts in France pedestrians. The report recommends: N N a a t t i i o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t Page 3 of 15 Page 3 of 15 C C o o n n f f e e r r e e n n c c e e 2 2 0 (MUTCD) pedestrian crossing warrant criteria pedestrian warrant crossing (MUTCD) 0 0 0 5 5 D D R R ections, even in signalized intersections with audible signals. intersections in signalized even ections, A A S AT ROUNDABOUTS F F T T a pedestrian pushbutton. When the beacon is activated, vehicles must stop and let vehicles must beacon is activated, When the pushbutton. a pedestrian have passed, the vehicles may pedestrians When the street. cross the pedestrians proceed. pushbutton. pushbutton. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Traffic Control Manual on Uniform 2. activated by or a combination of the two or in-pavement flashers Flashing Yellow beacon 1. by a pedestrian with Green-Yellow-Red activated Standard traffic signal signals require fairly high pedestrian crossing volumes for extended periods of time. The MUTCD crossing require fairly high pedestrian 190 or more hours or requires a minimum pedestrian of 100 or more pedestrians for four volume The The pedestrian signal warrants discussed here are for two types of pedestrian crosswalk crosswalk for two types of pedestrian here are discussed The pedestrian signal warrants signals: PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK SIGNAL WARRANTS IN THE USA PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK safety and pedestrian roundabouts are provided to increase Pedestrian crosswalks at be will only objectives convenience without incurring excessive delays to traffic. These the maximum number who would sited to attract of pedestrians achieved if crosswalks are opportunity to recognize at random, and also to give drivers adequate the street otherwise cross one car the crosswalk at least The common practice is to situate them in time to stop safely. and two or more car away from the roundabout entry line for single-lane roundabouts (25-ft.) with a refuge island A (45-50 ft.) from the entry line for dual-lane roundabouts. lengths away are required to cross pedestrians island so that minimumprovided in the splitter 10-ft. width is a time. only one traffic stream at Pedestrian Crosswalk Signals at Roundabouts: TRB Roundabout Conference May 2005 Crosswalk Signals at Roundabouts: Pedestrian visually impaired pedestrians) is more stringent than what the visually impaired pedestrians are what the visually impaired pedestrians stringent than is more visually impaired pedestrians) provided in typical signalized inters most intersections), the case for (which is phase protected pedestrian isn’t a As long as there detect cannot Visually impaired pedestrians are in conflict with turning vehicles.
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]
  • 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]
  • Neighborhood Road Design Guidebook a Massachusetts Guide to Sustainable Design for Neighborhood Roads
    NEIGHBORHOOD ROAD DESIGN GUIDEBOOK A MASSACHUSETTS GUIDE TO SUSTAINABLE DESIGN FOR NEIGHBORHOOD ROADS A joint project of the Massachusetts Chapter of the American Planning Association Home Builders Association of Massachusetts Prepared for the Citizen Planner’s Training Collaborative March 14, 2012 Overview 2 1. Why a new Guidebook now? 2. Who will use this? 3. What is the general approach 4. Examples of recommended design standards 5. Cross Sections 6. Implementation Why Now? 3 1. Road design for whom? 2. Change in vehicle types 3. What is a win-win approach? 4. Length of time to change rules and regulations Why a new Guide now? 4 Massachusetts guide for Neighborhood Roads to create model guidelines and match local settings. This is called “context sensitive” design. Other road design manuals don’t get at local streets very well Who might use the Guidebook? 5 There are many “actors” in Transportation Design Engineers and designers (private and public sectors) Applicants who are building new infrastructure as part of their projects; Planning Directors/Planners; Planning Boards, Board of Selectmen, Fire and Emergency Service providers; Regional Planning Associations – link to state funding and state projects; Abutters; Land use and environmental advocates; and Finally –build roads that benefit the USERS What kind of Guidebook? 6 Project Goals Reduce environmental impacts of roadway development, operation and maintenance; Encourage Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) in residential roadway design; Provide specific guidelines and references for municipal application; Promote innovative techniques for stormwater management; and Reduce maintenance costs of roadways and stormwater systems. What kind of Guidebook? 7 Project Goals (contin.) Encourage consistency in approach and rationale in residential roadway design across Massachusetts; Promote inter-connectivity of roads; Promote pedestrian and non- motorized access; Promote universal accessibility; and Provide guidance for the design of neighborhood scale residential roads.
    [Show full text]
  • Pedestrian Safety Is Everyone's Responsibility
    Who is a Pedestrian? Driver Responsibilities at School Crossings For more information on pedestrian safety When approaching a school crossing where for drivers and walkers: there is an adult school crossing guard: • All drivers must follow the directions of the Madison Police Department Pedestrian school crossing guard. Traffic Enforcement Safety Team • If directed by the school crossing guard to (T.E.S.T.) ..................................... 261-9687 stop, the driver shall stop at least 10 feet from Speeding Hotline ......................... 266-4624 Safety the school crossing and shall remain stopped until the school crossing guard directs you to Central District ............................ 266-4575 is proceed. East District ................................. 267-2100 • The owner of a vehicle involved in a violation North District .............................. 243-5258 of this law is liable for the violation and can South District .............................. 266-5938 Everyone’s receive a ticket in the mail based on the adult Pedestrians are young, old, and every age in school crossing guard’s report. West District ............................... 288-6176 between. Some have not yet begun to walk and Responsibility need to be carried or pushed in a stroller. Some Internet ... www.cityofmadison.com/police/ have difficulty walking and need the help of canes, walkers, wheelchairs or other mobility devices (manual or motorized). You have been a Traffic Engineering pedestrian at some point today, even if it was just getting to your car.
    [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]
  • Highway Safety Act of 1973
    * * PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SAFETY STUDY Highway Safety Act of 1973 * (Section 214) Of T t ^. STATES Of a^ * MARCH 1975 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY * ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 * PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SAFETY STUDY Highway Safety Act of 1973 (Section 214) MARCH 1975 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 CONTENTS Page SECTION I: SYNOPSIS A. Introduction .............................................. 1 B. Executive Summary ......................................... 2 C. Background .............................................. 4 D. Study Methodology ......................................... 7 E. Congressional Recommendations ................................ 12 SECTION II: PEDESTRIAN SAFETY Introduction .............................................. 13 A. Review and Evaluation of State and Local Ordinances, Regulations, and Laws Pertaining to Pedestrian Safety .................................. 14 B. Review and Evaluation of Enforcement Policies, Procedures, Methods, Practices and Capabilities for Enforcing Pedestrian Rules ................ 35 C. Relationship Between Alcohol and Pedestrian Safety ................... 36 D. Evaluation of Ways and Means of Improving Pedestrian Safety Programs ...... 43 E. Analysis of Present Funding Allocation of Pedestrian Safety Programs and an Assessment of the Capabilities of Federal, State and Local Governments to Fund Such Activities and Programs .................... 45 F. Findings ................................................59
    [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]