The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2023-03-09 Council Work Session Agenda PacketCouncil Work Session Agenda March 9, 2023 – 5:30 pm 1.Call to Order / Roll Call 2.Pedestrian Crosswalk Policy* 3.Unscheduled Items 4.Adjournment *Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the house agenda packet book located by the Council Chambers entrance, or online at the City’s website at www.corcoranmn.gov. HYBRID MEETING OPTION AVAILABLE The public is invited to attend the regular Council meetings at City Hall. Meeting Via Telephone/Other Electronic Means Call-in Instructions: +1 312 626 6799 US Enter Meeting ID: 815 3998 5966 Press *9 to speak during the Public Comment Sections in the meeting. Video Link and Instructions: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81539985966 visit http://www.zoom.us and enter Meeting ID: 815 3998 5966 Participants can utilize the Raise Hand function to be recognized to speak during the Public Comment sections in the meeting. Participant video feeds will be muted. In-person comments will be received first, with the hybrid electronic means option following. For more information on options to provide public comment visit: www.corcoranmn.gov Memo To: City of Corcoran From: Steven Hegland, PE Kent Torve, City Engineer File: 193806101 Date: March 3, 2023 Subject: Pedestrian Crosswalk Policy Discussion Discussion Background As the City of Corcoran continues to grow, one of the many challenges will be the planning and management of interaction between our growing pedestrian facilities and our traffic network. With this growth comes many questions, concerns and requests for pedestrian improvements or pedestrian safety considerations. To date, staff manage these requests on a case by case basis as we meet with residents and discuss their concerns. We typically review the situation and engage in discussions on what if any alternatives there are to the specific circumstance. This approach has worked to date but we anticipate these types of requests will increase so we thought it was appropriate to discuss with the City Council our management strategies going forward and consider if developing a policy for pedestrian crosswalks is appropriate or if other approaches should be considered. Similar to other City Goals, we know staff time and City resources are at a premium. Reviewing, researching, creating and implementing these types of programs take staff time and budget so we want to have a discussion with the City Council on how they want to proceed. Work Session Outline Staff will provide a brief presentation at the March 9th Work Session to begin the discussion with the City Council on this topic. Below are some questions and thoughts that we think will be an important part of the conversation. Is developing a Pedestrian Crosswalk Policy appropriate? ·Having a policy may be beneficial as it allows for a process for these requests to be addressed consistently and in alignment with the overall city vision ·Development of a policy would take staff time and resources away from other pressing matters in the community. Is now the right time? ·Is what we are doing now fine? If we wanted to develop a policy what would that look like? ·There are several resources available for the City to consider in development of a policy o The MNDOT in conjunction with the Local Road Research Board provided a Policy Development Guideline which is attached. ·It could look a number of ways. The final programming really depends on how we want to make decisions and what kind of pedestrian facilities the City wants. ·Could be an interactive program that has community based approach and incorporates multiple avenues of feedback o Could incorporate feedback and guidance from multiple stakeholders. Evaluation committee approach. o May be very difficult to manage as many different stakeholders have different opinions. Agenda Item: 2. March 3, 2023 City of Corcoran Page 2 of 2 · It could be a very technical approach in which everything is compared to predefined warrants. o This creates consistency but engineering warrants often have high thresholds and may not create facilities that the City desires. o The LTAP Pedestrian Crossing Guide (Attached) is a very technical based approach which would show what that might look like. · It could be a guidance type approach that has general guidelines or flow charts like Albert Lea and Shakopee o Gives guidance but still requires someone to be the ultimate decision maker o Both the City of Albert Lea and Shakopee have this type of policy which guides potential solutions but there must be a decision maker in the end. How do we manage resource/funds to implement the policy/program? · There would be costs to managing/implementing an evaluation system, even if we continue to operate as we currently do. · City could consider an escrow type approach that requestor has to fund evaluations. · How to does the City fund the installation and ongoing maintenance and replacement of this infrastructure. Attachments MNDOT Local Road Research Board Policy Development Guide LTAP Pedestrian Crossing Guide City of Albert Lea Pedestrian Crossing Policy City of Shakopee Pedestrian Crossing Policy EŽĂĐƟŽŶƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚ ŝƌĞĐƚƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶƐƚŽŶĞĂƌĞƐƚ ŵĂƌŬĞĚ͕ĐŽŶƚƌŽůůĞĚ͕ŽƌŐƌĂĚĞ ƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞĚĐƌŽƐƐŝŶŐ 'ŽƚŽdĂďůĞϭ /ƐƚŚĞǀĞƌĂŐĞĂŝůǇdƌĂĸĐ;dͿ ŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶϭ͕ϱϬϬǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐƉĞƌ ĚĂǇ͍ ;ϭͿ /ƐŝƚĂŵƵůƟͲƵƐĞƉĂƚŚĐƌŽƐƐŝŶŐ͍ /ƐƚŚĞƌĞĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞƐƚŽƉƉŝŶŐƐŝŐŚƚ ĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ͍ ;ϮͿ ŽĞƐƚŚĞůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐĞƌǀĞĂ ŵŝŶŝŵƵŵǀŽůƵŵĞƚŚƌĞƐŚŽůĚŽĨĂƚ ůĞĂƐƚϮϬƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶƐƉĞƌŚŽƵƌŝŶ ĂŶǇŽŶĞŚŽƵƌ͍;ϯͿ ŽĞƐƚŚĞĐƌŽƐƐŝŶŐŵĞĞƚƚǁŽ ƟŵĞƐƚŚĞŵŝŶŝŵƵŵƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ ǀŽůƵŵĞ͍;ϯͿ /ƐƚŚĞŶĞĂƌĞƐƚŵĂƌŬĞĚŽƌ ĐŽŶƚƌŽůůĞĚĐƌŽƐƐŝŶŐŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶ ϯϱϬĨĞĞƚĂǁĂǇ͍ ZĞŵŽǀĞƐŝŐŚƚĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ ŽďƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƐ͕ƌĞĚƵĐĞĚƌŝǀŝŶŐ ƐƉĞĞĚƐ͕ŽƌĂĚĚĂĐƟǀĞ ĂĚǀĂŶĐĞĚǁĂƌŶŝŶŐ N N N N EŽƚ&ĞĂƐŝďůĞ N N ;ϭͿǆĐĞƉƟŽŶƐƚŽƚŚĞϭ͕ϱϬϬǀĞŚŝĐůĞŵŝŶŝŵƵŵĂǀĞƌĂŐĞĚĂŝůǇƚƌĂĸĐƚŚƌĞƐŚŽůĚŵĂǇďĞŵĂĚĞĨŽƌƐĐŚŽŽůĐƌŽƐƐŝŶŐƐŽƌĂƚƌĞŐŝŽŶĂůƚƌĂŝůĐƌŽƐƐŝŶŐƐ͘ •ƐĐŚŽŽůĐƌŽƐƐŝŶŐŝƐĚĞĮŶĞĚĂƐĂĐƌŽƐƐŝŶŐůŽĐĂƟŽŶƚŚĂƚŝƐƉĂƚƌŽůůĞĚKZĂĐƌŽƐƐŝŶŐůŽĐĂƟŽŶǁŝƚŚϭϬŽƌŵŽƌĞƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐĐƌŽƐƐŝŶŐƉĞƌŚŽƵƌ͘ •ZĞŐŝŽŶĂůƚƌĂŝůƐĂƌĞŝĚĞŶƟĮĞĚďǇƚŚĞDĞƚƌŽƉŽůŝƚĂŶŽƵŶĐŝůĂƐƚƌĂŝůƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚĂƐŵƵůƟͲƵƐĞĨĂĐŝůŝƟĞƐƚŽƐĞƌǀĞďŽƚŚƌĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶĂŶĚ ƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶƚƌŝƉƐ͘ǆĂŵƉůĞƐŽĨƌĞŐŝŽŶĂůƚƌĂŝůƐŝŶ^ĂŝŶƚWĂƵůŝŶĐůƵĚĞƌƵĐĞsĞŶƚŽZĞŐŝŽŶĂůdƌĂŝůĂŶĚ^ĂŵƵĞůDŽƌŐĂŶZĞŐŝŽŶĂůdƌĂŝů͘ ;ϮͿ ^ƚŽƉƉŝŶŐ^ŝŐŚƚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŝƐƚŚĞĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŶĞĞĚĞĚĨŽƌĂĚƌŝǀĞƌƚŽƐƚŽƉďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞƐƉĞĞĚĂƚǁŚŝĐŚƚŚĞǇĂƌĞƚƌĂǀĞůŝŶŐ͘'ĞŶĞƌĂůůǇ͕ƐƚŽƉƉŝŶŐ ƐŝŐŚƚĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞĐĂŶďĞĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚďǇŵƵůƟƉůǇŝŶŐƚŚĞƐƉĞĞĚďǇĞŝŐŚƚ͘&ŽƌŝŶƐƚĂŶĐĞ͕ϯϬŵŝůĞƐƉĞƌŚŽƵƌ;ŵƉŚͿƟŵĞƐĞŝŐŚƚĞƋƵĂůƐϮϰϬĨĞĞƚ͘ ;ϯͿ ^ĐŚŽŽůͲĂŐĞĚƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶƐĐŽƵŶƚƚǁŽƟŵĞƐƚŽǁĂƌĚƐƚŚĞŵŝŶŝŵƵŵƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶǀŽůƵŵĞƚŚƌĞƐŚŽůĚ͘ Figure 1. Pedestrian Crossing Site Evaluation Guidelines for Uncontrolled Locations Y Y Y Y&ĞĂƐŝďůĞ Y Y Start HereStart Here 16 8TZWHJ,ZNIJKTW.RUWT[NSL5JIJXYWNFS8FKJY^FY:SHTSYWTQQJI(WTXXNSL1THFYNTSX+-<&/ZQ^ Pedestrian Crossings: Uncontrolled Locations CENTER FOR TRANSPORTATION STUDIES Pedestrian Crossings: Uncontrolled Locations June 2014 Published ByMinnesota Local Road Research Board (LRRB)Web: www.lrrb.org MnDOT Office of MaintenanceMnDOT Research Services SectionMS 330, 395 John Ireland Blvd.St. Paul, Minnesota 55155Phone: 651-366-3780Fax: 651-366-3789E-mail: research@dot.state.mn.us 2 Acknowledgements The financial and logistical support provided by the Minnesota Local Road Research Board, the Minnesota Department of Transportation(MnDOT), and the Minnesota Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) at the Center for Transportation Studies (CTS), University of Minnesota for this work is greatly acknowledged. The procedures presented in this report were developed based on infor-mation from previously published research studies and reports and newly collected field data. The authors would also like to thank the following individuals and orga-nizations for their contributions to this document. TECHNICAL ADVISORY PANEL MEMBERS Tony Winiecki , Scott CountyPete Lemke, Hennepin CountyKate Miner, Carver CountyTim Plath, City of EaganMitch Rasmussen, Scott CountyJason Pieper, Hennepin CountyMitch Bartelt, MnDOTMelissa Barnes, MnDOTTim Mitchell, MnDOTAlan Rindels, MnDOTMark Vizecky, MnDOTDerek Leuer, MnDOTShirlee Sherkow, MnDOTJames McCarthy, FHWAJim Grothaus, CTS DATA COLLECTION John Hourdos and Stephen Zitzow, University of Minnesota PRODUCTION Research, Development, and Writing: Bryan Nemeth, Ross Tillman, Jeremy Melquist, and Ashley Hudson, Bolton & Menk, Inc. Editing: Christine Anderson, CTS Graphic Design: Abbey Kleinert and Cadie Wright Adikhary, CTS, and David Breiter, Bolton & Menk, Inc. This material was developed by Bolton & Menk, Inc., in coordination with the Minne- sota Local Road Research Board for use by practitioners. Under no circumstances shall this guidebook be sold by third parties for profit. The contents of this guidebook reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for facts and the accuracy of the data presented. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Minnesota Local Road Research Board or the Minnesota Department of Transportation at the time of publication. This guidebook does not con- stitute a standard, specification, or regulation. 3 Document Information and Disclaimer The information presented in this guidebook is provided as a resource to assist agencies in their efforts to evaluate uncontrolled pedestrian cross-ings and determine appropriate treatment options. The evaluation pro-cedure provided in this guidebook takes into account accepted practice, safety, and operations. Pedestrian crossings are an important feature of the multimodal transpor-tation system. They enable pedestrians and bicyclists to cross conflicting traffic so they can access locations on either side of streets and high-ways. Pedestrian crossings can be either marked or unmarked and can be placed at intersections or mid-block locations. Uncontrolled pedestrian crossings are crossing locations that are not controlled by a stop sign, yield sign, or traffic signal. This guidebook is a summary of the evaluation procedure presented in the Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation and Highway Capacity Manual Unsignalized Pedestrian Crossing Training Report. This guidebook considers best practices in pedestrian crossing evaluation by the Federal Highway Administration, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the American Association of State Highway and Trans-portation Officials (AASHTO), the Transportation Research Board, and other research. The information is intended to offer agencies a consistent methodology for evaluating uncontrolled pedestrian crossing locations on their roadways that considers both safety and delay. The final decision to implement the evaluation methodology or any of the crossing location treatment strategies presented in this guidebook re-sides with the agency. There is no expectation or requirement that agen-cies implement this evaluation strategy, and it is understood that actual implementation of the evaluation decisions will be made by agency staff. It is the responsibility of agencies to determine if the procedure presented in this guide is appropriate and consistent with their needs. • This guidebook does not set requirements or mandates. • This guidebook contains no warrants or standards and does not supersede other publications that do. • This guidebook is not a standard and is neither intended to be, nor does it establish, a legal standard of care for users or professionals. • This guidebook does not supersede the information in publications such as: - Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices - AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Opera- tion of Pedestrian Facilities - Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety - Best Practices Synthesis and Guidance in At-Grade Trail-Crossing Treatments - 2010 Highway Capacity Manual 4 Introduction and Background According to 2013 Minnesota State Statutes, “where traffic-control signals are not in place or in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk.” Ad-ditionally, “Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked cross-walk shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.” Although the state statute says that motorists should stop for a pedestrian within a marked crosswalk or crossing at an intersection, in practice motorists do not always stop for pedestrians and yield the right-of-way. Additionally, at locations with high traffic volumes, there may not be adequate gaps in the traffic stream to allow pedestrians to safely cross. These situations can result in crossings that are challenging to navigate and cause long delays for pedestrians, which may lead to a high risk-taking environment and decrease safety. Pedestrian crossing treatments that either reduce the crossing distance or increase driver yield rates have been shown to reduce the potential delay experienced by a pedestrian. While state statutes support the rights of pedestrians at all intersections and marked crosswalks, it is a small comfort when a crash between a vehicle and a pedestrian occurs because a motorist failed to stop and yield the right-of-way. Providing safe crossing situations for pedestrians relies on placing cross-walks and other pedestrian crossing treatments at appropriate locations in a way that also results in minimal pedestrian delay. The Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN MUTCD) states that crosswalk pavement markings should not be placed indiscriminately and an engineering study should be completed when crosswalk markings are being contemplated at a crossing. Defining where to place pedestrian crossing facilities—including mark-ings, signs, and/or other devices—depends on many factors, including pedestrian volume, vehicular traffic volume, sight lines, and speed. This guidebook presents a methodology for the evaluation of pedestrian cross-ing locations that takes into account both pedestrian safety and delay. Sources: State of Minnesota, “2013 Minnesota Statutes 169.21 Pedestrian,” 2013. Available: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes. [Accessed January 2014]. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Roseville, MN: MnDOT, January 2014. 5 Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation Methodology The evaluation of a pedestrian crossing location should be thoroughly documented. This includes not only the location details, evaluation, decisions, and design process, but also any stakeholder involvement and public comments. The evaluation methodology presented is based on re-search on the safety of pedestrian crossings and the procedure developed in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual on pedestrian delay. The jurisdictional authority has the final decision on the control and de-sign of pedestrian crossing facilities and features on their roadways. The evaluation methodology guidance is shown in the flowchart on pages 6–7. Field Data Review A Data Collection Field Review Worksheet is provided at the end of this guidebook (pages 28–29). The field data review should consider and col-lect information about the following elements: GEOMETRICS Crossing Length• Shorter pedestrian crossing lengths are preferred by pedestrians. • The crossing length (L) is measured from curb face to curb face and is the total length a pedestrian is exposed to conflicting traffic (as shown at right). • If there is a median, two separate crossing lengths are measured. • Pedestrian exposure is reduced on shorter crossings. ≈ MEASURING CROSSING LENGTH 6 April 30, 2014 Field Data Review Safety Review Ye s Yes Yes YesYes No HCM LOS Analysis Acceptable LOS? Stopping Sight Distance Provided? Access Spacing and Functional Classification Location on a Coordinated Signalized Corridor with Pedestrian Crossings Consistent with Primary Intersection Access Spacing or on a Grade Separated Facility? Review: • Origins and Destinations • Alternate Routes Alternative Route Available that Serves Same O-D Pair, has a Shorter Travel Time and can be Seen from the Crossing Location? Yes Yes Consider No Changes at Existing Crossing or Removal, if Location Does Not Need Treatments Consider Evaluation of Alternative Crossing Location No No No No Pedestrian Sight Distance Provided? Location has Tr eatments? No No Stopping Sight Distance Provided? Move Crossing Location and/or Modify Roadway to Meet SSD STEP1 STEP2 STEP3 STEP4 STEP5 STEP6 STEP7REPEAT STEP3 CBAGo To Sheet 1 of 2 UNCONTROLLED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING EVALUATION FLOWCHART 7 No No Yes HCM LOS Analysis Acceptable LOS? HCM LOS Analysis Acceptable LOS? Use Option(s)* Consider Appropriate Traffic Calming Treatments With or Without Uncontrolled Crossing Treatments Consider Appropriate Traffic Calming Treatments Consider Appropriate Uncontrolled Crossing Tr eatments May Need Tr affic Calming Tr eatments Also for School Locations ConsiderCrossing Guards as a Tr eatment Consider Appropriate Signing and Marking Treatment Consider Do Nothing, Pedestrian Re-Routing and/or Appropriate High Level Treatments (Traffic Signal, Pedestrian Overpass/ Bridge or Pedestrian Underpass/Tunnel)* Consider Appropriate Signing and Marking Treatments May Need Additional Tr eatment Options Ye s Yes No No No Yes N or Speed Limit > 40mph C or P No C P Ye s FHWA Safety GuidanceSchool Crossing? FHWA Safety Guidance Speed and Pedestrian Use Conditions Present? N or Speed Limit > 40mph School Crossing? <– 35 mph >– 20 peds/pk hr >– 14 peds/pk hr >35 mph <10,000 Population, or Major transit stop Reference: Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation and Highway Capacity Manual Unsignalized Pedestrian Crossing Tr aining Report. * The Application of a Crosswalk and any Treatments Shall Consider Engineering Judgment and shall be approved by the Jurisdictional Authority. STEP8 STEP9 STEP9 STEP10 STEP10 STEP11 STEP11 STEP11 STEP11REPEAT STEP4 RE P EAT STEP4 Consider Pedestrian Barriers and Pedestrian Re-Routing CBA UNCONTROLLED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING EVALUATION FLOWCHART Sheet 2 of 2 8 Median Width• A median wider than 6 feet can provide a refuge space for pedestrians. • A wider median is preferred by pedestrians. • The median width (W) is measured from curb face to curb face (as shown below). • A median should be sufficiently sized to handle the pedestrians using it. MEASURING MEDIAN WIDTH Crosswalk Width• Crosswalk width provide a defined area in which to cross. • Effective crosswalk width is measured at the narrowest point of the crossing, be it in the ramp or the crosswalk. • Crosswalk width (Wc) is the width measurement of at the narrow-est point of the crossing (as shown at right), unless other space is usable by pedestrians (i.e., in downtown locations). Curb Ramps • Curb ramps provide equal access to all users. • Pedestrian curb ramps are required for all pedestrian crossing locations. CURB RAMP DIAGRAM Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Requirements• ADA requirements for pedestrian crossings include grades, tactile surfaces/truncated domes, ramp width, and landing areas. • The requirements are expansive and are beyond the scope of this guidebook. • Please see the Minnesota Department of Transportation Acces-sibility Design Guidance, http:///www.dot.state.mn.us/ada/design .html, for detailed information. Sources: Minnesota Department of Transportation, “Accessibility and MnDOT,” [Online]. Available: http://www.dot. state.mn.us/ada/index.html. [Accessed November 2013]. MEASURING CROSSWALK WIDTH 9 Roadway Speed• Slower speeds are preferred by pedestrians. • The speed of a vehicle directly impacts the sight distance needed and the braking time of a vehicle. • The speed (S) is used to determine the stopping sight distance. The speed should be the 85th percentile speed of the roadway being crossed. In the absence of collected speed data, it is assumed that the 85th percentile speed is equal to the speed limit. • Slower speeds have been shown to reduce the possibility of a fatal crash in pedestrian/vehicle crashes based on study results by the Washington State Department of Transportation, as shown in the chart below. Roadway Curvature• The vertical and horizontal curvature of a roadway can impact sight lines for both motorists and pedestrians. • For more information on vertical and horizontal curvature, please see the American Association of State Highway and Transporta-tion Officials: A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (AASHTO Green Book). Sources: A. V. Moudon, L. Lin and P. Hurvitz, “Managing Pedestrian Safety I: Injury Severity,” Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA, February 2007. SIGHT OBSTRUCTION CAUSED BY ROADWAY CURVATURE 10 Stopping Sight Distance • Stopping sight distance (SSD) is the distance covered by a vehicle during a stopping procedure. SSD should be provided at all pedes- trian crossings. • The SSD considers both brake reaction distance and braking dis- tance. Where: SSD = stopping sight distance S = speed (mph) t = brake reaction distance, 2.5 s a = deceleration rate, ft/s2, default = 11.2 ft/s2 G = grade, rise/run, ft/ft For more information on SSD, please see the AASHTO Green Book. Pedestrian Sight Distance • While Minnesota State Statute requires that motorists stop for pe- destrians legally crossing, many pedestrians wait for an adequate gap in traffic before crossing. • Pedestrian sight distance (PedSD) is a term to describe the dis- tance covered by a motorist during the time it takes a pedestrian to recognize an adequate gap in traffic and cross the roadway. Where: PedSD = pedestrian crossing sight distance S = design speed (mph) L = crossing distance (ft) Sp = average pedestrian walking speed (ft/s), default = 3.5 ft/s ts = pedestrian start-up and end clearance time (s), default = 3.0 s Traffic and Pedestrian Data• The volume of vehicles on the roadway directly affects the number of gaps available for pedestrians to cross a roadway. • The volume of pedestrians using the crossing affects how motor-ists view the crossing. A highly used crossing may be more recog-nizable to a motorist, resulting in a safer crossing. 11 ADDITIONAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS Lighting• Lighting should be provided at intersection crossings and marked crossings that are used at night. • Intersection or pedestrian scale lighting may be appropriate to light the pedestrian crossing location. • Continuous street lighting can provide adequate lighting of pedestrian facilities but may need to be supplemented at pedestrian crossing locations. • Lighting should follow the recommended levels provided in the AASHTO Roadway Lighting Design Guide. • Lighting should provide positive contrast if possible. • Positive contrast lights the pedestrian from the front so they are more easily seen by approaching motorists. • Examples of lighting configurations are shown in the diagrams below and at right. TWO LANE MID-BLOCK CROSSING LIGHTING MULTI-LANE OR LONG MID-BLOCK CROSSING LIGHTING TRADITIONAL INTERSECTION LIGHTING (ALL LEGS) PEDESTRIAN CROSSING INTERSECTION LIGHTING (ALL LEGS) PEDESTRIAN CROSSING INTERSECTION LIGHTING (ONE LEG) 12 Crosswalk Pavement Markings• Crosswalk markings shall follow the designs as stated in the MN MUTCD. • High-visibility crosswalk markings include continental, zebra, and ladder (examples shown below and at right). Markings should be in good to excellent condition and highly visible to approaching traffic. Signing• Signing shall follow the design and placement as stated in the MN MUTCD. • Signing options are shown in the images below. CROSSWALK MARKING EXAMPLES ACCEPTABLE CROSSWALK MARKING PATTERNS STANDARD/TRANSVERSE CROSSWALK PAVEMENT MARKINGS CONTINENTAL CROSSWALK PAVEMENT MARKINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSING WARNING SIGN PLUS IN-ROAD SIGNS SCHOOL CROSSING WARNING SIGN Sources: Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Roseville, MN: Minnesota Department of Transportation, January 2014. C. V. Zeeger, J. R. Stewart, H. H. Huang, P. A. Lagerwey, J. Feaganes and B. Campbell, “Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report and Recommended Guidelines,” Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, September 2005. 13 Distance to Adjacent Pedestrian Crossing Facilities • If there is a nearby pedestrian crossing facility that can serve the same movements with a shorter travel time—and if this nearby crossing facility can be seen from the crossing location being stud- ied—the crossing location being studied may not be needed. • In some cases, an existing pedestrian crossing may not serve the pedestrian movements of the area and should be moved to a more appropriate location. • The other location may actually provide a shorter travel time when considering the time waiting to cross. • If pedestrians are already crossing at a location, they are unlikely to choose to cross at another location unless it is shorter, regardless of safety. It is important to provide crossings at locations where pedestrians are already crossing, or consider creating physical bar- riers if safety can be achieved and direction to a nearby crossing is provided. Distance to Adjacent Intersections with All-Way Stop, Signal, or Roundabout Control • An adjacent controlled crossing location may provide a shorter travel time when considering the time waiting to cross. Origins and Destinations • Review pedestrian paths between nearby origins and destinations. • Typical origins and destinations of importance include: - Bus stops to businesses and residences - High-density residential to bus stops and commercial/retail - Hospitals and medical centers to bus stops and parking - Retirement communities to bus stops and commercial retail - Schools/colleges/universities to housing and parking - Parks to residences - Recreational/community centers to residences and parking - Theatres and museums to parking - Trails to parks and other trails - Commercial/retail space to parking 14 Safety Review The safety review includes evaluating the crash records for the crossing location. Pedestrian crashes may necessitate a more in-depth look at the issues and concerns at a crossing location. Rear-end crashes at a location may indicate that motorists are stopping for pedestrians, but they may also indicate that there is inadequate stop-ping sight distance. Other types of crashes should be reviewed to deter-mine if the conflicts are impacting the crossing safety and if they indicate other intersection concerns. Stopping Sight Distance Every pedestrian crossing location should have adequate stopping sight distance (SSD). If adequate SSD cannot be provided at a potential cross-ing location, the location may not be suitable for a pedestrian crossing. Adequate SSD ensures that most motorists under normal conditions will be able to stop for a pedestrian that has entered the roadway. If adequate SSD is not provided, consider pedestrian barriers and pedes-trian routing to alternate crossing locations. HCM Level of Service Analysis To determine the level of service (LOS) of the current crossing condition, follow the procedure outlined in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. The methodology follows a six-step program, as shown below. Step 1: Identify Two-Stage Crossings Step 2: Determine Critical Headway Step 3: Estimate Probability of a Delayed Crossing Step 4: Calculate Average Delay to Wait for Adequate Gap Step 5: Estimate Delay Reduction due to Yielding Vehicles Step 6: Calculate Average Pedestrian Delay and Determine LOS 15 This six-step procedure to determine LOS for pedestrians at uncontrolled crossing locations is provided in the worksheets at the end of this guide-book (pages 30–34). The input information for use in the equations is provided in the input table on the second worksheet. An explanation of measuring crosswalk length (L) and crosswalk width (Wc) can be found on page 4 of this guidebook. LOS is generally deemed acceptable between A and D and deemed unac-ceptable at E or F. Local agency direction on acceptable service levels should be verified. If the LOS is acceptable and the location already has treatments such as signing and/or striping, consider making no changes at the existing crossing. If LOS is unacceptable, skip to Step 6. If this procedure is completed after Step 11, consider applying appropriate treatment option(s) if LOS is acceptable. If LOS is deemed acceptable, consider making no changes at the crossing or possibly removing treatments if they are not needed. Pedestrian Sight Distance If adequate service levels are provided, pedestrian sight distance (PedSD) should be checked if the crossing is absent of any treatment options. This indicates that the crossing is unmarked and unsigned. If adequate PedSD is provided, consider no changes at the existing crossing. Review: Origins and Destinations, Alternate Routes The potential origins and destinations in the area should be reviewed for the most likely path to see how it lines up with the crossing being analyzed. The most important thing to remember is that pedestrians will take the shortest possible route. Understanding this is essential to understanding why a route is being used, especially when there are alternatives available that may actually be safer and provide less delay. In some cases, existing crossings may not actually be placed in locations where pedestrians are using them if the understanding of origins and destinations is incorrect. Check to see if an alternative route can serve the same movements effec-tively while providing less delay. This includes the time to traverse to the alternative crossing, cross, and complete the movement to the destina-tion. Average wait time at signals should be added into the equation if the crossing requires traversing a traffic signal. If the primary origin-destination movements can be accomplished effec-tively at another crossing without much backtracking, consider making no changes at the existing crossing or adding pedestrian channelization and/or wayfinding. Also consider evaluating the alternate crossing loca-tion. Sources: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6th Edition, Washington DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2011. C. V. Zeeger, J. R. Stewart, H. H. Huang, P. A. Lagerwey, J. Feaganes and B. Campbell, “Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report and Recommended Guidelines,” Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, September 2005. Transportation Research Board, HCM 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 2010. 16 Access Spacing and Functional Classification The functional classification of the roadway and the current access con-trol of the roadway being crossed should be considered. Roadways that carry more than 12,000 vehicles per day and are classi-fied as high-mobility corridors are generally not candidates for marked uncontrolled pedestrian crossings. Marked uncontrolled pedestrian cross-ings should only be implemented on signalized roadway corridors if the spacing between the signalized intersections does not adequately serve the pedestrian traffic in the community. The spacing of pedestrian crossing facilities should follow the access spacing guidelines for signals and primary intersections on the corridor of interest. Primary access intersections are intersections that will remain full access over time while secondary access intersections may provide full or limited access over time. Due to the limited access along grade-separated roadway facilities, marked and unmarked pedestrian crossings on those facilities are lim-ited to interchanges, tunnels, and bridges. The high speed of the facili-ties, along with the driver expectations for conflicts, makes any at-grade crossing a safety concern. Speed and Pedestrian Use Consistent with previous research and evaluation methods, the conditions present at the crossing location should be reviewed and the need for the crossing should consider pedestrian traffic volume using the crossing. It is important that the pedestrian use data be collected at multiple times of day to get an accurate picture of the pedestrian traffic need. The high-est hour pedestrian need may not coincide with the highest hour traffic volume crossing the location. In such circumstances, the level of service should be evaluated for the highest pedestrian volume hour and the high-est vehicle volume hour separately. If the crossing location is on a roadway with speeds greater than 35 miles per hour (mph), is in a community of less than 10,000 people, or pro-vides a connection to a major transit stop, there should be a minimum of 14 pedestrians using the crossing during one hour of the day. If the crossing location is on a roadway with a speed of 35 mph or less, there should be a minimum of 20 pedestrians using the crossing during one hour of the day. The above pedestrian volume thresholds can be reduced by 0.33 if more than 50 percent of the pedestrian traffic using the crossing consists of the elderly or children. If these thresholds cannot be met, traffic calming treatments should be considered. In such cases, additional uncontrolled crossing treatments may be considered in conjunction with the traffic calming treatments. Uncontrolled crossing treatments should not be considered by them-selves. Sources: C. V. Zeeger, J. R. Stewart, H. H. Huang, P. A. Lagerwey, J. Feaganes and B. Campbell, “Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report and Recommended Guide lines,” Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, September 2005. K. Fitzpatrick, S. Turner, M. Brewer, P. Carlson, B. Ullman, N. Trout, E. S. Park and J. Whitcare, “Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings,” Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, 2006. 17 FHWA Safety Guidance Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance in the Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations should be determined based on the traffic volume, speed, and roadway type. The study indicates the types of treatments recommended for installing marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations. Research indicates that there is a statistically significant difference in the safety between a marked and unmarked crossing when traffic volume is over 15,000, or over 12,000 without a median, under most speeds, as shown in the table below. This research provides the basis for the guidance in Table 1 on page 18. Guidelines provided in the table include intersections and midblock loca-tions with no traffic signals or stop signs on the approach to the crossing. Crosswalks should not be installed at locations that could present an increased safety risk to pedestrians—such as where there is poor sight distance, complex or confusing designs, a substantial volume of heavy trucks, or other dangers—without first providing adequate design features and/or traffic control devices. Adding crosswalks alone will not make crossings safer, nor will they necessarily result in more vehicles stopping for pedestrians. Whether or not marked crosswalks are installed, it is important to con-sider other pedestrian facility enhancements (e.g., raised median, traffic signal, roadway narrowing, enhanced overhead lighting, traffic-calming measures, curb extensions, etc.) as needed to improve the safety of the crossing. Guidelines outlined in the table are general recommendations; good engineering judgment should be used in individual cases when deciding where to install crosswalks. Sources: C. V. Zeeger, J. R. Stewart, H. H. Huang, P. A. Lagerwey, J. Feaganes and B. Campbell, “Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report and Recommended Guide lines,” Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, September 2005. K. Fitzpatrick, S. Turner, M. Brewer, P. Carlson, B. Ullman, N. Trout, E. S. Park and J. Whitcare, “Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings,” Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, 2006. 18 Table 1: FHWA Safety Guidance Table Roadway Type (Number of Travel Lanes and Median Type) Vehicle ADT < 9,000 Vehicle ADT > 9,000–12,000 Vehicle ADT > 12,000–15,000 Vehicle ADT > 15,000 Speed Limit* < 48.3 km/h (30 mph) 56.4 km/h (35 mph) 64.4 km/h (40 mph) < 48.3 km/h (30 mph) 56.4 km/h (35 mph) 64.4 km/h (40 mph) < 48.3 km/h (30 mph) 56.4 km/h (35 mph) 64.4 km/h (40 mph) < 48.3 km/h (30 mph) 56.4 km/h (35 mph) 64.4 km/h (40 mph) Two lanes C C P C C P C C N C P N Three lanes C C P C P P P P N P N N Multilane (four or more lanes) with raised median**C C P C P N P P N N N N Multilane (four or more lanes) without raised me- dian C P N P P N N N N N N N *Where the speed limit exceeds 64.4 km/h (40 mph), marked crosswalks alone should not be used at unsignalized locations. **The raised median or crossing island must me at least 1.2 meters (4 feet) wide and 1.8 meters (6 feet) long to serve adequately as a refuge area for pedestrians, in accordance with MUTCD and Amerian Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines. C = Candidate sites for marked crosswalks. Marked crosswalks must be installed carefully and selectively. Before installing new marked cross-walks, an engineering study is needed to determine whether the location is suitable for a marked crosswalk. For an engineering study, a site review may be sufficient at some locations, while a more in-depth study of pedestrian volume, vehicle speed, sight distance, vehicle mix, and other factors may be needed at other sites. It is recommended that a minimum utilization of 20 pedestrian crossings per peak hour (or 15 or more elderly and/or child pedestrians) be confirmed at a location before placing a high priority on the installation of a marked crosswalk alone. P = Possible increase in pedestrian crash risk may occur if crosswalks are added without other pedestrian facility enhancements. These loca-tions should be closely monitored and enhanced with other pedestrian crossing improvements, if necessary, before adding a marked crosswalk. N = Marked crosswalks alone are insufficient, since pedestrian crash risk may be increased by providing marked crosswalks alone. Consider using other treatments, such as traffic-calming treatments, traffic signals with pedestrian signals where warranted, or other substantial crossing im-provements, to improve crossing safety for pedestrians. 19 School Crossings The safety of children as they get to and from school is of special consid-eration and may require the implementation of a crosswalk at locations that might otherwise not be considered. A school crossing location will traditionally have significant use by children that occurs in conjunction with standard school start and dismissal times, making the crossing use noticeable to motorists. Consider appropriate uncontrolled treatment op-tions, including crosswalk markings, signs, and crossing guards. MARKED AND SIGNED SCHOOL CROSSING ADULT SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD 20 Consider Appropriate Treatment Options Appropriate treatment options should be considered for crossing loca-tions based on the evaluation flowchart on pages 6–7. In many cases, the most appropriate option is to keep the location unmarked and unsigned, as any treatment may increase the crash potential at the location. The treatment options have been organized into four separate categories depending on their primary function in serving pedestrian crossings. Some of the options have not been shown to noticeably affect motorist yielding and service levels, but they are provided as examples that have been implemented by some agencies. SIGNING AND MARKING TREATMENTS Signing and marking treatments are generally low cost and provide little to no benefit in terms of operational impacts. The most significant im-pact is for high-visibility markings. The treatments can be appropriate by themselves on low-volume and low-speed roadways unless accompanied by other types of treatments. Potential signing and marking treatments are outlined in Table 2 on page 21 (treatments should be justified through an engineering study). Exam-ples of selected treatments are also shown at right. CROSSING WARNING SIGN CROSSWALK MARKINGS AND SIGN IN-STREET CROSSING SIGN HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSWALK MARKINGS Sources: “Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety,” MnDOT Office of Traffic, Safety and Technology, September 2013. “Best Practices Synthesis and Guidance in At-Grade Trail-Crossing Treatments,” Minnesota Department of Transportation, St.Paul, MN, September 2013. NCHRP Report 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington D.C., 2006. Assessment of Driver Yield Rates Pre- and Post-RRFB Installation, Bend, Oregon. Oregon Department of Transportation, Washington D.C., 2011. Bolton & Menk, Inc. Transportation Research Board, HCM 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, Washington D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 2010. Before-and-After Study of the Effectiveness of Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons Used with School Sign in Garland, Texas. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, TX, April 2012. 21 Table 2: Signing and Marking Treatments Treatment Advantages Disadvantages Recommended Locations Staged Pedestrian Yield Rate Unstaged Pedestrian Yield Rate Cost Crosswalk Markings Only • Inexpensive • Helps define a crossing location • Indicates to drivers that crossing location is present • Very little effect at night • Speeds increase over time • Not shown to reduce crashes • Not usually recommended alone • Low-volume and low-speed road- ways • Where justified NR NR $500–$2,000 Warning Signs • Inexpensive • Helps define a crossing location • Warning to drivers that crossing location is present • Tend to be ignored unless pedestrians use the crossing consistently • Proven to be inef- fective at reducing crashes at uncontrolled intersections • Where unexpected entries into the road by pedestrians may occur • At or before the crossing loca- tion • With or without a marked crosswalk NR NR $300–$1,200 Overhead Warning Signs • May decrease vehicle speed • Requires overhead structure • Tend to be ignored unless pedestrians use the crossing consistently • Multilane roadways • Mid- block crossing locations • Usually coupled with other measures such as RRFBs or beacons NR NR $60,000– $75,000 Colored Concrete/Brick Pavers • Inexpensive • Warning to drivers that crossing location is present • May decrease vehicle speed • Can be expensive • Not shown to reduce crashes • Downtown/urban conditions • Traffic signal locations • In con- junction with pavement markings NR NR $10,000– $75,000 Crosswalk Markings and Signs • Inexpensive • Warning to drivers that crossing location is present • May decrease vehicle speed • Make snow removal more difficult • Need consistent main- tenance and replacement due to vehicle hits • Where justified 7%7%$800–$3,200 In-Street Crossing Signs (25–30 mph) • Inexpensive • Additional warning to drivers that crossing location is present • Not shown to reduce crashes • Speeds increase over time • Downtown/urban conditions • Supplement warning signs at high pedestrian volume locations • In conjunction with pavement markings 87%90%$500–$1,000 High-Visibility Crosswalk Markings • May decrease vehicle speed • Not shown to reduce crashes • Speeds increase over time • Where justified • Urban condi- tions 61% (25mph) 17% (35mph) 91% (25mph) 20% (35mph) $5,000– $50,000 NR = No research found on effect to yielding rate 22 UNCONTROLLED CROSSING TREATMENTS Uncontrolled crossing treatments generally provide some level of in-creased yielding rate. They are typically applied to locations with marked crosswalks to provide additional operational and safety benefits in areas with higher volumes and speeds. Uncontrolled crossing treatement options are outlined in Table 3 on page 23 (treatments should be justified through an engineering study) . Select-ed treatment examples are also shown below. CENTER MEDIAN WITH REFUGE ISLAND IN-ROAD WARNING LIGHTS OVERHEAD FLASHING SIGNAL BEACONS PEDESTAL-MOUNTED FLASHING SIGNAL BEACONS RAPID RECTANGULAR FLASHING BEACONS 23 Table 3: Uncontrolled Crossing Treatments (in conjunction with markings and signs) Treatment Advantages Disadvantages Recommended Locations Staged Pedestrian Yield Rate Unstaged Pedestrian Yield Rate Cost Center Median with Refuge Island • Decreases pedestrian crossing distance • Provides higher pedestrian visibility • Reduces vehicle speeds approaching the island • Reduces conflicts • Increases usable gaps • Reduces pedestrian exposure time • May make snow removal more difficult • May be a hazard for motorists • Small islands not recommended on high-speed roadways ( >40 mph) • Wide, two-lane roads and multilane roads with suffi- cient right-of-way 34% 29% Variable depending on length School Crossing Guards • Inexpensive • Provides higher pe- destrian visibility • Highlights when a pedestrian crossing is being used • May require trained staff or local law enforcement, especially on high-speed and high-volume roadways • At school locations NR 86%Variable Pedestrian Crossing Flags • Inexpensive • Provides higher pedes- trian visibility to drivers assuming the flag is held in a noticeable location • No effect at night • Requires pedestrians to actively use a flag • Can be easily removed/stolen • Shorter crossings are preferred • Downtown/urban locations • High pedestrian volume locations • Across low-speed (<45mph) roadways 65% 74% <$500 Warning Sign with Edge Mounted LEDs • Highlights a crossing both at night and during the day • Requires pedestrian activation • Minimal to no effect on speed • In conjunction with in-road warning lights • Downtown/ urban conditions NR 28% $3,000– $8,000 In-Road Warning Lights • Highlights a crossing both at night and during the day • Provides higher driver awareness when a pedestrian is present • Snowplows can cause mainte- nance issues • No effect when road surface is snow covered • Requires pedestrian activation • Downtown/urban condi- tions NR 66% $20,000– $40,000 Pedestal Mounted Pedestrian Flashing Signal Beacons • Provides higher driver awareness when a pedestrian is present • Requires pedestrian activation • Not advisable on multilane streets • Not shown to reduce crashes • Low-speed school crossings • Two-lane roads • Midblock crossing locations NR 57% (two-lane, 35mph) $12,000– $18,000 Pedestrian Over- head Flashing Signal Beacons • Provides higher driver awareness when a pedestrian is present • Requires pedestrian activation • Multilane roadways • Mid-block crossing loca- tions • Lower speed road- ways active 47% passive 31% active 49% passive 67% $75,000– $150,000 Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFBs) • Provides higher driver awareness when a pedestrian is present • In- creases yielding percentage • Increas- es usable gaps • Reduces probability of pedestrian risk taking • Can be seen from 360 degrees • Requires pedestrian activation • Supplement existing pedes- trian crossing warning signs • School crossings • Midblock crossing loca- tions • Low- and high-speed roadways 84% 81% $12,000– $18,000 NR = No research found on effect to yielding rate 24 CENTER MEDIAN WITH REFUGE ISLAND ROAD DIET/4-LANE TO 3-LANE CONVERSION CURB BUMP-OUTS CHANNELIZED TURN LANE WITH RAISED CROSSING TRAFFIC CALMING TREATMENTS Traffic calming treatments are generally applied to locations ex-periencing high traffic speeds. Traffic speeds should be lowered to enable any type of at-grade crossing. Traffic calming treatments can also be used to shorten crossing distances and improve pedestrian visibility. The shortened crossing distances reduce the total time of exposure to conflicting traffic, resulting in safer crossing environ-ments. These treatments may be completed in conjunction with other uncontrolled crossing treatments. A variety of traffic calming treatments are outlined in Table 4 on page 25 (treatments should be justified with an engineering study). Examples of selected treatment options are also shown at right. For more information on traffic calming treatment options, please see these resources (in addition to the sources listed below): • LRRB Report MN/RC-1999-01, Effective Traffic Calming Applications and Implementation; • TRS 0801, Traffic Calming for High Speed Rural Highways • LRRB Report 2013-31, Implications of Modifying State Aid Standards: Urban Construction or Reconstruction to Accom-modate Various Roadway Users • http://mndot.gov/planning/completestreets Sources: “Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety,” MnDOT Office of Traffic, Safety and Technology, September 2013. “Best Practices Synthesis and Guidance in At-Grade Trail-Crossing Treatments,” Minnesota Department of Transportation, St.Paul, MN, September 2013. NCHRP Report 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington D.C., 2006. Assessment of Driver Yield Rates Pre- and Post-RRFB Installation, Bend, Oregon. Oregon Department of Transportation, Washington D.C., 2011. Bolton & Menk, Inc. Transportation Research Board, HCM 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, Washington D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 2010. Before-and-After Study of the Effectiveness of Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons Used with School Sign in Garland, Texas. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, TX, April 2012. 25 Table 4: Traffic Calming Treatments Treatment Advantages Disadvantages Recommended Locations Staged Pedestrian Yield Rate Unstaged Pedestrian Yield Rate Cost Center Median with Refuge Island • Decreases pedestrian crossing distance • Provides higher pedestrian visibility • Reduces vehicle speeds approaching the island • Reduces conflicts • Increases usable gaps • Reduces pedestrian exposure time • May make snow removal more difficult • May be a hazard for motorists • Small islands not recommended on high-speed roadways ( >40 mph) • Wide, two-lane roads and multilane roads with suffi- cient right-of-way 34%29% Variable depending on length Raised Crossings • Provides higher pedestrian visibil- ity to vehicles • Can reduce vehicle speeds • Make snow removal more dif- ficult • May reduce emergency vehicle response times • Only appropriate in low-speed/urban environments • Low-speed/urban environ- ments NR NR $5,000– $25,000 Lighting • Can be inexpensive • Can reduce vehicle speeds • No effect during daylight • Targeted crossing locations not located on a street with continuous roadway lighting NR NR $1,000– $40,000 Pavement Striping (Road Diet) • Can be inexpensive • May decrease vehicle speed • May decrease illegal right-side passing • Can be an interim solution • Does not provide a physical barrier between modes • Pedes- trian crossing distance same as existing • Four-lane undivided road- ways • Locations with very long crossings NR NR Variable depending on length Curb Bump-Outs/ Extensions • Can be inexpensive • Reduces pe- destrian crossing distance • Provides higher pedestrian visibility to vehicles • Reduces speed for turning vehicles • Decreases in illegal right-side passing • May make snow removal more difficult • Proximity of curb to through traffic may be a safety concern • Downtown/urban locations NR NR $5,000– $15,000 per crossing Channelized Turn Lanes (Corner Islands) (Not usually recom- mended as a pedestri- an crossing treatment) • Decreases pedestrian crossing distance • Provides higher pedestrian visibility • Decrease in illegal right-side passing • May require new pavement • Can be more challenging for visually impaired pedestrians • Right turning drivers often fail to yield to pedestrians • Can in- crease right-turn vehicle speeds • May make snow removal more difficult • Vehicle crashes may increase • Intersections with wide ap- proaches • Intersections with right turn lanes and sufficient corner right-of-way • Inter- sections with operational improvment needs NR NR $50,000– $100,000 per intersec- tion NR = No research found on effect to yielding rate 26 PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON TRAFFIC SIGNAL UNDERPASS OVERPASS Step 4 should be repeated after deciding on a treatment option. Determine the level of service (LOS) of the crossing condition with the potential treatment op-tions following the procedure as outlined in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. An acceptable service level should be determined by the agency. If acceptable service levels cannot be met:• Do nothing (consider leaving the crossing un-marked and unsigned), • Consider pedestrian routing to another location, and/or • Consider appropriate high-level treatments. Evaluate LOS for Treatment Options HIGH-LEVEL TREATMENTS High-level treatments are high cost and are generally implemented on high-volume and high-speed roadways. They are much more difficult to implement unless they are justified based on traffic and pedestrian volume. Possible high-level treatments are outlined in Table 5 on page 27, and examples of selected treatment options are shown below. For additional information on Treatment Options, please see the sources listed below. Sources: “Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety,” MnDOT Office of Traffic, Safety and Technology, September 2013. “Best Practices Synthesis and Guidance in At-Grade Trail-Crossing Treatments,” Minnesota Department of Transportation, St.Paul, MN, September 2013. NCHRP Report 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington D.C., 2006. Assessment of Driver Yield Rates Pre- and Post-RRFB Installation, Bend, Oregon. Oregon Department of Transportation, Washington D.C., 2011. Bolton & Menk, Inc. Transportation Research Board, HCM 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, Washington D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 2010. Before-and-After Study of the Effectiveness of Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons Used with School Sign in Garland, Texas. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, TX, April 2012. 27 Table 5: High-Level Treatments Treatment Advantages Disadvantages Recommended Locations Staged Pedestrian Yield Rate Unstaged Pedestrian Yield Rate Cost Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon • Provides higher driver awareness when a pedestrian is present • Has been shown to decrease pedestrian crashes • Potential increase in vehicle crashes • Can have spotty com- pliance rates due to a lack of driver understanding • Justified locations • Mid- block crossing locations 97%99%$150,000– $300,000 Traffic Signal • Provides higher driver awareness when a pedestrian is present • Easily understandable • May increase crashes due to the driver expectation of a green signal indication • High pedestrian volume crossings • Justified loca- tions, meets signal warrants NA NA $150,000– $300,000 Underpass Grade Separation • Removes pedestrian/vehicle conflicts • Potential of the crossing not being used • Very location specific • Very expensive • Drainage within an underpass can be problematic • Underpass would require lighting • Location with compatible grades • High pedestrian volume crossings • High-vol- ume roadways • High-speed roadways NA NA $800,000+ Overpass Grade Separation • Removes pedestrian/vehicle conflicts • Potential of the crossing not being used • Very location specific • Very expensive • Snow removal on overpass may be difficult • Location with compatible grades • High pedestrian volume crossings • High-vol- ume roadways • High-speed roadways NA NA $1,200,000+ NA = Not applicable or no research found on effect to yielding rates 28 29 30 31 32 33 34