#02 - Cross Walk Discussion - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

15 3. Crossing Lighting: Ensure lighting is present that illuminates the entire crossing (curb ramp to curb ramp) per state and federal guidance. 4. Traffic Calming: Context-specific traffic calming measures using geometric improvements should always be considered. Each item is further defined in the section below. ▪ Curb Radius: Review the turning curb radius to understand if a reduced radius can be achieved based upon context-specific needs and design vehicles (i.e., if the roadway is a freight or bus route). Reducing the radius to as small as practical can create significant benefits via reduced crossing distance and vehicle turning speeds. Curb radius design should be based upon roadway type, crossing activity, and turning vehicle needs. ▪ Curb Extension: An extension or bump out of the curb into the roadway and typically a minimum of six-feet-wide though design is context specific. This could include removal or narrowing of a roadway shoulder to reduce the crossing distance. Special attention should be given to existing on-street bicycle infrastructure (e.g., bike lane) to ensure it does not remove space at the intersection for that connection. ▪ Pedestrian Refuge Island: A raised median that is a minimum of eight-feet-wide though ten-feet or greater is preferred to ensure it is wide enough to accommodate bikes. ▪ Several more traffic calming infrastructure opportunities are identified in best practice documents and guidance (e.g., NACTO, ITE, FHWA, etc.) and could be implemented based upon staff review and engineering judgement. Step 3: Evaluate Crossing Infrastructure Enhancements Review the crossing enhancement evaluation matrix to determine potential infrastructure improvements at the point of crossing. The improvement options are divided into four options which are further described in the matrix table below. ▪ Consider Lane Reduction: Review the existing and future roadway volumes to determine if a lane reduction can be implemented prior to potential crossing improvements to maximize crossing infrastructure and minimize cost. ▪ Markings and Signage: The most basic treatment for a location that qualifies for enhanced crossing. Two different scenarios for marking and signage (M&S 1 and M&S 2) specify which signs and roadway markings are included. ▪ Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon: Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) are generally designed for locations with higher traffic volumes and pedestrian activity. Three different scenarios for RRFBs (RRFB 1, RRFB 2, and RRFB 3) specify which combination of markings and signs should be used in coordination with the RRFBs. ▪ Further Analysis Required: An engineering assessment is required to determine if a pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB) or pedestrian signal are warranted per the MN MUTCD (which both require higher pedestrian volumes), as well as pedestrian demand, roadway conditions and context, and available gaps in traffic. The need for, and feasibility of, a grade-separated pedestrian crossing requires a more detailed engineering review to