School Safety Crossing Analysis Final Report December, 2010 School Safety Crossing Analysis THE PLANNING COMMISSION THE COASTAL REGION MPO BOARD Shedrick Coleman, Chairman Pete Liakakis, Chairman J. Adam Ragsdale, Vice‐Chairman Otis Johnson, Vice‐Chairman Jon Pannell, Secretary Russ Abolt Lacy Manigault, Treasurer LTC José Aguilar Russ Abolt Jason Buelterman Ellis Cook Shedrick Coleman Ben Farmer Mark Egan Stephen Lufburrow Curtis Foltz Timothy Mackey Patrick S. Graham Tanya Milton Tennyson Holder Susan Myers William W. Hubbard Rochelle Small‐Toney James Hungerpiller Joseph Welch McArthur Jarrett Glenn Jones Mike Lamb Chad Reese Patrick Shay Rochelle Small‐Toney Vance Smith Anna Maria Thomas Wayne Tipton Steven Weathers This report is available at: http://www.thempc.org/Transportation/Transportation_Studies.htm "The opinions, findings and conclusions in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Department of Transportation, the State of Georgia, or the Federal Highway Administration." "Prepared in cooperation with the Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration." NOTE: Recommendations in this report were developed by a licensed Professional Engineer and reviewed by a licensed Professional Engineer and Professional Traffic Operations Engineer for Quality Assurance and Quality Control. Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Current Requirements ...................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 School Crossing Models .................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Charlotte, North Carolina .............................................................................................................. 7 3.2 Phoenix, Arizona ......................................................................................................................... 10 3.3 St. Petersburg, Florida ................................................................................................................. 11 4.0 Pedestrian Crossing Toolbox ........................................................................................................... 13 5.0 School Crossing Recommendations ................................................................................................ 25 5.1 Recommended Crossing Improvements at St. James Catholic School ....................................... 25 5.2 Recommended Crossing Templates ............................................................................................ 28 Appendix MPC School Crossing Safety Analysis, Existing Conditions Report………………………………………………………….34 Final, December 2010 1 Figures Figure 1: MUTCD (2009) Typical School Zone Signage ................................................................................. 4 Figure 2: MUTCD (2009) School Crossing Signage ........................................................................................ 5 Figure 3: MUTCD (2009) Overhead Pedestrian Crossing Sign ...................................................................... 5 Figure 4: MUTCD (2009) SCHOOL Word Marking ......................................................................................... 6 Figure 5. Montgomery Cross Road at Laberta Boulevard Long‐Term Crosswalk Improvement Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 6. St. James Catholic School Recommended Internal Traffic Pattern .............................................. 27 Figure 7. Template 1: Midblock Crossing on Two‐Lane Roadway .............................................................. 29 Figure 8. Template 2: Crossing at Intersection of Two Two‐Lane Roadways ............................................. 30 Figure 9. Template 3: Midblock Crossing on Four‐Lane Roadway .............................................................. 31 Figure 10. Template 4: Crossing at Intersection of Two Four‐Lane Roadways ........................................... 32 Figure 11. Template 5: Midblock Crossing on Five‐Lane Roadway ............................................................. 33 Final, December 2010 2 1.0 Introduction The Chatham County‐Savannah Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC) wishes to provide state‐of‐ the‐practice guidance for school zone crossing treatments throughout the Chatham County‐Savannah region. This report has been developed in response to concerns brought before the Chatham County Commission about a particular school crossing on Montgomery Cross Road at St. James Catholic School. With the understanding that other school crossing locations in the county may also need safety enhancements as traffic has increased over the years, the MPC is providing in this report crossing templates in addition to recommendations for the St. James Catholic School location. In order to develop the specific recommendations for the crossing at St. James Catholic School, an existing conditions analysis was conducted and the results are documented in Appendix A. This analysis included an inventory of roadway characteristics, existing roadway signage and striping, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, available traffic and safety data, and school‐related traffic patterns. The Existing Conditions Report identifies short‐term improvements for the St. James pedestrian crossings that can be implemented prior to the start of the 2010 school year on August 16. To inform the development of recommendations for treatments within the region in addition to those at St. James Catholic School, this study provides an overview of practices used throughout the United States as well as the current standards that are used at school pedestrian crossings. Through an analysis of these measures, this study presents a toolbox of implementable crossing treatments and templates that can be utilized at school crossings throughout the Chatham County‐Savannah area. This study also provides long‐term recommended improvements for the pedestrian crossings located at the St. James Catholic School in Chatham County. 2.0 Current Requirements The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the United States Department of Transportation serves as the primary source for standard signage, striping, and signalization on all public roadways in the United States. It also provides guidelines for the treatment school zones, and is recognized as the industry standard for traffic control measures in these areas. This section outlines typical pedestrian crossing treatments within school zones as set forth by the MUTCD. All applications of signage, striping, and signalization should meet or exceed the standards presented by the MUTCD. Final, December 2010 3 The figure below shows example signing for a school zone. Signs should be placed at the start and end of school zones so that motorists are aware of reduced speed limits through the school zone as well as pedestrian presence in the area. The start of a school zone should be at least 200 feet in advance of the school grounds, a school crossing, or other school‐related activities. Figure 1: MUTCD (2009) Typical School Zone Signage Treatments for pedestrian crossings are also included in the MUTCD. Crossings within a school zone should be accompanied with advance warning and school crossing signage, shown in the following figure. Final, December 2010 4 Figure 2: MUTCD (2009) School Crossing Signage The in‐street State Law sign shown above should only be used along the center line or other lane lines at unsignalized locations, not post‐mounted along the side of the roadway. The overhead pedestrian crossing sign, shown at right, may also be used in school zones to remind road users of laws regarding right of way at unsignalized pedestrian crossings. This sign should be placed over the roadway at the crosswalk location and may replace the standard sign with schoolchildren symbol (S1‐1) at unsignalized Figure 3: MUTCD (2009) Overhead Pedestrian crossings, shown in Figure 2. Crossing Sign Crosswalk markings provide guidance for pedestrians as they cross the roadway by delineating the designated crossing area, and they should be solid white. The 2009 edition of the MUTCD states that new crosswalks should not be installed without other measures to lower vehicle speeds across roadways with a speed limit above 40 mph and that are uncontrolled and either: Final, December 2010 5 A. The roadway has four or more lanes of travel without a raised median or pedestrian refuge island and an average daily traffic (ADT) of 12,000 vehicles per day or greater; or B. The roadway has four or more lanes of travel with a raised median or pedestrian refuge island and an ADT of 15,000 vehicles per day or greater.1 Crosswalks should consist of two transverse stripes spaced no less than six feet apart, extending the full width of the pavement and at least 6 inches and no more than 24 inches in width (12 inches preferred). The area of the crosswalk may also be marked with white lines parallel to the traffic flow or at a 45‐ degree angle to the line of the crosswalk. Lines should be 12 to 24 inches wide, separated by gaps of 12 to 60 inches. Gaps between lines should be less than 2.5 times the width of the lines, and