My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
06-01-2020 Council Work Session Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2020
>
06-01-2020 Council Work Session Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/2/2021 1:57:27 PM
Creation date
11/17/2021 11:39:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
06/01/2020
Council Meeting Type
Work Session Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
257
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
Jane Rose, Anoka County <br />CSAH 34 (Birch St) Pedestrian Crossing Review and Analysis <br />May 18, 2020 <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />School Crossing: <br /> <br />Rice Lake Elementary School is located north of CSAH 34 (Birch Street) between West <br />Tomahawk Trail and West Shadow Lake Drive. The primary area that children walk to the school <br />is between Ware Road on west and Deerwood Lane on the east. The majority of the walkers to <br />and from the school are coming from the south side and need to cross CSAH 34 (Birch Street). <br />Currently, the school uses crossing guards at the existing crossing of CSAH 34 (Birch Street) at <br />the West School Entrance. A figure showing the current walking areas is included in Appendix B. <br /> <br />The safety of children getting to and from school is a special consideration in determining if <br />marked crosswalk are needed. Based on review of the walking areas and the location of the <br />existing pedestrian underpass located west of West Shadow Lake Drive , the school crossing <br />should be provided at the School Entrance/Tomahawk Trail intersection and not at West Shadow <br />Lake Drive. In addition, additional crosswalk treatments should be considered to help make the <br />crossing use more noticeable to motorists on CSAH 34 (Birch Street). <br /> <br />Additional Treatment Analysis: <br /> <br />A marked, and signed crosswalk alone may not be enough to facilitate safe and efficient <br />pedestrian movements. Pedestrian crossing enhancements have been shown to significantly <br />improve motorist yielding behavior. The Pedestrian Facility Treatments table from the “MnDOT <br />Traffic Engineering Manual, Chapter 13 – Non-Motorized Facilities, June 2015” shown in <br />Appendix B provides guidance on when and what type of treatment is appropriate for specific <br />roadway configurations. For each of the proposed crossing locations the following was assumed: <br /> <br />• Two-lane roadway <br />• ADT between 11,975 (existing) and 14,000 (2040) <br />• Speed Limit of less than 30mph at the roundabouts. <br /> <br />Based on the guidance it can be concluded that only marked and signed crosswalk be considered <br />at any of the proposed crossing locations. Although, additional crossing treatments are not <br />recommended, since the crossings at the School Entrance / Tomahawk Trail is a school crossing, <br />additional treatments were reviewed and analyzed. Two additional crossing treatments could be <br />considered, each is reviewed and discussed below: <br /> <br />Warning Sign with Edge Mounted LEDs <br />These are enhanced standard crosswalk signs with flashing LED lights around the <br />boarder. This type of sign is designed to alert the driver that a pedestrian is crossing the <br />roadway. They are pedestrian activated and blink for a period of time to allow the <br />pedestrian to cross. <br /> <br />Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFB) System <br />Another option to enhance the pedestrian crossing is the use of Rectangular Rapid <br />Flashing Beacons (RRFB) system to supplement the existing standard pedestrian <br />crossing signing. They provide a higher driver awareness when a pedestrian is present <br />increasing the percentage of vehicles yielding. They are pedestrian activated and flash <br />for a period of time to allow the pedestrian to cross. <br /> <br />Completing the level of service and delay analysis assuming the installation of the signs or <br />RRFB’s, the crossing would have an improved operation. Table 2 below shows a summary of the <br />level of service and delays compared to the crossings with just signing and markings. The <br />capacity analysis worksheets are included in Appendix C. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.