My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
10-02-2017 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2017
>
10-02-2017 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2018 2:23:41 PM
Creation date
3/14/2018 12:14:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
10/02/2017
Council Meeting Type
Work Session Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
171
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br /> <br />c. During the peak five-minute period of a pedestrian crossing, there are less <br />than five gaps in traffic where a pedestrian has sufficient time to cross the <br />street without impeding approaching vehicles. <br /> <br />2. There are several conditions where placement of marked crosswalks may not <br />make the crossing any safer and other improvements may be required or be <br />considered. Any of the following are indicators of such a condition: <br />a. Daily traffic volume exceeds 15,000 vehicles per day per lane. <br />b. Speed limit greater than 40 mph. <br />c. Site distance of pedestrians by motorists is less than 10 times the speed <br />limit. For example, a 35 mph speed limit, the site distance is less than 350 <br />feet. <br /> <br />3. Marked pedestrian crosswalks may be used to delineate preferred pedestrian <br />paths across roadways under the following conditions: <br />a. At locations with stop signs or traffic signals to direct pedestrians to those <br />crossing locations and to prevent vehicular traffic from blocking the <br />pedestrian path when stopping for a stop sign or red light. <br />b. At nonsignalized street crossing locations in designated school zones. Use <br />of adult crossing guards, school signs and markings, and/or traffic signals <br />with pedestrian signals (when warranted) should be considered in <br />conjunction with the marked crosswalk, as needed. <br />c. At nonsignalized locations where engineering judgment dictates that the <br />number of motor vehicle lanes, pedestrian exposure, average daily traffic <br />(ADT), posted speed limit, and geometry of the location would make the <br />use of specially designated crosswalks desirable for traffic/pedestrian <br />safety and mobility. <br /> <br />4. Marked crosswalks alone (i.e., without traffic-calming treatments, traffic <br />signals and pedestrian signals when warranted, or other substantial crossing <br />improvement) are insufficient and should not be used under the following <br />conditions: <br />a. Where the speed limit exceeds 40 mph. <br />b. On a roadway with four or more lanes without a raised median or crossing <br />island that has (or will soon have) an ADT of 12,000 or greater. <br />c. On a roadway with four or more lanes with a raised median or crossing <br />island that has (or soon will have) an ADT of 15,000 or greater. <br /> <br />If the request meets the requirements, as outlined above the marked crosswalk is considered a <br />candidate installation. Based on this analysis and further review by city staff and the Traffic <br />Safety Committee, a recommendation will be made to City Council to either install or not to <br />install the crosswalk. <br /> <br />If the requested location does not meet the requirements for installation, a letter to the resident <br />requesting the information, outlining the findings will be sent by the City Engineer. This letter <br />will include the City’s policy for appeal of the engineer’s decision. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.