HomeMy WebLinkAbout#11 - Pedestriam Crosswalk Marking STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 3, 2024
REGULAR
AGENDA ITEM: Approve Pedestrian Crosswalk Policy and Crosswalk Marking
Recommendations.
SUBMITTED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
REVIEWED BY: Nicole Miller, City Administrator Marty Powers, Public Works Director
Chad Isakson, Assistant City Engineer
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: Should the City Council approve the Pedestrian Crosswalk Policy and
Crosswalk Marking Recommendations?
BACKGROUND: In April 2024, SRF, Inc. was retained to develop a pedestrian crosswalk policy to guide
the City in determining when to mark a crosswalk and when to leave a crosswalk unmarked. The work also
included a study for determining crosswalk markings and treatments for several intersections located along
39th Street and Laverne Avenue in the Old Village. The need for a pedestrian crosswalk policy is in
response to an increase in resident and property owner requests for specific crosswalk improvements.
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: SRF presented the draft findings and recommendations for the
specific crosswalk treatments at the September, 2024 council workshop, together with a draft pedestrian
crosswalk policy. Based on council input at the workshop, a final Pedestrian Crosswalk Policy has been
prepared for council adoption. In addition, Crosswalk Markings are recommended to be installed in 2025
at two intersections after being evaluated in accordance with the proposed Crosswalk Policy. The two
intersections include 39th Street N and Laverne Avenue N; and at 39th Street N and Wildflower Drive.
It should be noted that the crosswalk markings at the 39th Street N and Wildflower Drive intersection is
only warranted if the crosswalk is determined to be along a key destination route formally approved by the
City Council. At this time no formal key destination route has been adopted, however, staff believes that
this route will be adopted prior to the crosswalk marking installation in 2025.
FISCAL IMPACT: Installation of Crosswalk Treatments are estimated to be $8,000, at $4,000 per
Crosswalk, and will be paid for through the Street Fund.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the Pedestrian Crosswalk
Policy dated December 2024, and Crosswalk Marking Recommendations for the intersections at 39th Street
North and Laverne Avenue North; and at 39th Street North and Wildflower Drive. The recommended
motion for the action is as follows:
“Move to approve the Pedestrian Crosswalk Policy dated December 2024, and Crosswalk Marking
Recommendations for the intersections at 39th Street North and Laverne Avenue North;
and at 39th Street North and Wildflower Drive.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Pedestrian Crosswalk Policy, dated December 2024.
2. Draft Old Village walking/bicycle Key Destination route for future consideration.
3. SRF Memo on Proposed Crosswalk Improvements, dated November 27, 2024.
4. Crosswalk Marking Exhibit: 39th Street N and Laverne Avenue N.
5. Crosswalk Marking Exhibit; 39th Street N and Wildflower Drive.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK POLICY
PREPARED BY:
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
December 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1
Background ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Crosswalk Marking Policy .............................................................................................................................................. 2
All Way Stop Control and Signalized Intersections .......................................................................................... 2
Side-Street Stop Control Intersection ................................................................................................................... 2
Roundabouts ................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Mid-BLock Crossings .................................................................................................................................................. 2
Uncontrolled Intersection ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Criteria Definitions .................................................................................................................................................... 3
Removal of Crossing Infrastructure ....................................................................................................................... 4
Appendix ............................................................................................................................................................................. 5
APPENDIX
Crossing Evaluation Process
Minnesota State Statute
Crosswalk Marking Definitions
Crossing Control Definitions
Crossing Infrastructure Treatments
1
PURPOSE
Pedestrian safety is a top priority for the City of Lake Elmo. With an increasing number of distractions
for both pedestrians and drivers, it is important to understand that it is everyone's responsibility to
ensure pedestrian safety.
Pedestrian crosswalks are an integral part of our transportation infrastructure. To be effective and
promote safety, marked crosswalks should be limited in use and must be installed only after careful
consideration and review. The review shall be done with adherence to accepted guidelines and good
engineering practice. The City of Lake Elmo has developed this Policy to determine when a crosswalk
will be marked or remain unmarked throughout the City.
BACKGROUND
Whether marked or unmarked, legal crosswalks exist at all legs of all intersections where sidewalks
normally exist, including T-intersections, except where closed and appropriately signed. Marking a
crosswalk will not necessarily increase the safety for pedestrians crossing the roadway. Some studies
have found that crosswalk markings can create a false sense of security in a pedestrian, and markings
do not necessarily result in higher compliance with vehicles stopping for pedestrians. Therefore, the
City carefully reviews each request for crosswalks to determine if installing a crosswalk is appropriate
for that intersection.
As defined in Minnesota State Statute Chapter 169, motorists are required to stop for pedestrians
who have entered a legal crosswalk at any intersection, regardless of whether crosswalk markings
are present, until the pedestrian has passed the lane in which the vehicle is stopped. Pedestrians are
also permitted to cross the street between intersections, provided they yield right of way to vehicles,
and they do not cross between adjacent intersections with traffic signals.
2
CROSSWALK MARKING POLICY
This policy applies to streets owned and maintained by the City of Lake Elmo. Roadways not owned
by the city must be addressed by the appropriate jurisdictional authority.
A marked crosswalk is any crosswalk that is delineated by markings placed on the pavement for the
purpose of directing pedestrians to use a particular location to cross the street. Marked crosswalks
should connect to established sidewalks/trails at both ends. ADA accessible ramps should be
included at both ends of marked crosswalk installations unless there are engineering reasons they
cannot be provided. Street lighting should be considered at all crosswalk locations. The provisions
of the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN MUTCD) shall be followed.
ALL WAY STOP CONTROL AND SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTIONS
At locations controlled by a traffic signal or all way stop, it is the City Policy that crosswalks should
be marked at all legs if a sidewalk or shared use path exists at the intersection.
Although no explicit industry standard exists for all way stop control and signalized intersections,
many local agencies mark crosswalks at all legs when such a crossing is warranted due to existing
walking/biking connections at the intersection. This is further supported by guidance from the
National Association of Transportation Officials (NACTO) advising the marking of a crosswalk at all
legs when warranted.
SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROL INTERSECTION
At locations across a stop-controlled leg of a side street stop-controlled intersection, it is the City
Policy that crosswalks will remain unmarked, unless the crossing directly serves a key destination as
defined in the “Criteria Definitions” section.
ROUNDABOUTS
It is the City Policy that crosswalks at roundabouts should be marked in accordance with roundabout
engineering design.
MID-BLOCK CROSSINGS
The use of mid-block, uncontrolled crosswalks is generally discouraged unless an engineering study
determines a specific need for this type of crosswalk. If permitted and established by the City, mid-
block crosswalks will be marked and may include additional safety features and enhancements as
determined by an engineering evaluation and the Public Works Director.
3
UNCONTROLLED INTERSECTION
Marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations must be carefully selected and designed to ensure that
they enhance, rather than reduce, pedestrian safety. Each uncontrolled crossing location requires
staff review and engineering evaluation in accordance with criteria outlined in this Policy and the
following flowchart.
4
Criteria Definitions
Minimum vehicle volume threshold: Marked crosswalks should generally not be considered
for roadways with less than 1,000 average annual vehicles per day (AADT) unless as part of a
designated school walking route.
Minimum pedestrian/bicycle volume threshold: The pedestrian and bicycle crossing demand
during a 24-hour period meets one or more of the following criteria. The count hours do not
need to be consecutive. Follow this process to complete the criteria:
1. Collect a total of 24 hours of pedestrian and bicycle counts that are broken down by 1-
hour increments.
2. Select the 4 highest, 1-hour increment pedestrian/bicycle counts from the 24-hour period
of collected data.
3. The minimum pedestrian/bicycle volume threshold must meet one or more of the
following criteriay:
20 pedestrian/bicycle crossings in 1 of the 4 hours
15 pedestrian/bicycle crossings in 2 of the 4 hours
10 pedestrian/bicycle crossings in 3 of the 4 hours
5 pedestrian/bicycle crossings in 4 of the 4 hours
Pedestrian or bicycle involved crash in the last ten years: ≥1 crash involving a pedestrian or
bicyclist at the existing point crossing under review over the last 10 years. A crash not
addressable by engineering design (e.g., impaired driver, etc.) does not count.
Location directly serves a key destination: For this Policy a key destination includes a school
or public park immediately adjacent to the crossing location, and established school route,
or the crossing location is along a designated walking/bicycle route to/from the Old Village
in a plan that has been formally adopted by the City of Lake Elmo.
Sight distance requirement: The required sight distance for a vehicle to come to a complete
stop at the point of crossing per AASHTO’s guidance using the roadway’s design speed.
Remove obstruction: If an obstruction is present (e.g., sign, tree, utility pole, etc.), reviewing
if the obstruction can be removed to meet the specific crossing sight distance requirement.
REMOVAL OF CROSSING INFRASTRUCTURE
Conditions that contribute to the need for a crossing enhancement may change over time, or a
crossing may no longer be needed. When a roadway surface is to be impacted by reconstruction or
resurfacing, a review should be performed to determine their use and need. If a crosswalk or crossing
meets the criteria outlined in this assessment, it should be maintained. If it does not meet the criteria,
it should be brought to the City Engineer and Public Works Director for consideration of removal. In
lieu of a removal, a crossing may also be reviewed for changes to align with the latest guidance or
changing conditions.
5
APPENDIX
1
CROSSING EVALUATION PROCESS
The following steps are guidance for reviewing each uncontrolled crossing location. This process is
intended to help guide the reviewer through a methodical and data driven process such that
engineering judgment can be effectively applied.
1. Performing field review and preliminary data collection to understand existing conditions and
potential issues. Preliminary data collection includes existing, easily accessible data that the
reviewer may use to determine if the crossing is acceptable for additional review performed
by steps 2, and 3.
2. Collect data to complete the review using recommended data points. The process includes
the following steps:
a. Identify crossing location
b. Collect traffic volumes
c. Collect pedestrian and bicycle volumes
3. Evaluate the point of crossing using the flowchart and perform a high-level review to
understand if a location is appropriate for consideration of an enhanced crossing.
DATA COLLECTION
Data collection is a key component of this analysis. It is critical that all data points identified below
are collected and properly organized to ensure the uncontrolled crossing location is successfully
reviewed for potential improvements. Sometimes staff may be very familiar with the location and
have a good understanding which may allow some of the data to be “approximated”, though it is
important that all data inputs are completed to maintain the integrity of the process.
Crossing Identification
Major Street: Name of the street crossed by the location under review.
Minor Street or Crossing Location: The connecting street of an intersection or specific
location identified for the mid-block crossing.
Key Destination: Review if the crossing is: 1) immediately adjacent to a school or public park,
2) along a designated school walking route, or 3) along a city-approved walking/biking route
to/from the Old Village Area.
Traffic Data
Traffic Control: If a crossing under review is at an intersection, identify the traffic control
present (side-street stop control, all-way stop, or traffic signal).
Existing AADT: The most recent average annual daily traffic (AADT) available at the point of
crossing.
2
Multimodal Data
Sidewalk: Identify if a sidewalk directly connects to the crossing under review.
Shared-use Path: Identify if a shared-use path/multiuse trail directly connects to the crossing
under review.
Crosswalk Lighting: Identify if lighting is present that would illuminate the crossing and
specifically note if that lighting is pedestrian-scale.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Volume: Record the four peak hour totals for pedestrians and
bicyclists. A best practice is collecting data between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. during warmer months
(i.e., April-June or September-October) and when school is in session. Collecting both a
weekday and weekend count is also recommended. Previously collected count data within
two years of this assessment can be applied if location conditions have not changed
significantly.
Pedestrian Crashes: The total number of pedestrian-involved crashes that are recorded at
the point of crossing in the last ten years. Highlight serious injury or fatal crashes and remove
preventable crashes (e.g., driver impaired, etc.) if present.
Bicycle Crashes: The total number of bicycle-involved crashes that are recorded at the point
of crossing in the last ten years. Highlight serious injury or fatal crashes and remove
preventable crashes (e.g., driver impaired, etc.) if present.
3
MINNESOTA STATE STATUTE
Minnesota State Statute Chapter 169 defines a crosswalk and pedestrians, as well as the rights of
pedestrians and motorists regarding when and where to yield right-of-way. The definitions and legal
language detailed in this section provide a foundation for how pedestrian crossings are viewed in
Minnesota and considered by this assessment.
169.011 Definitions
Subdivision 20. Crosswalk.
"Crosswalk" means (1) that portion of a roadway ordinarily included with the prolongation or
connection of the lateral lines of sidewalks at intersections; (2) any portion of a roadway distinctly
indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface.
Subdivision 20. Pedestrian.
"Pedestrian" means any person afoot or in a wheelchair.
169.21 Pedestrian
Subdivision 2. Rights in absence of signal.
(a) 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. The driver must remain stopped until the pedestrian has
passed the lane in which the vehicle is stopped. No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other
place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the
driver to yield. This provision shall not apply under the conditions as otherwise provided in this
subdivision.
(b) When any vehicle is stopped at a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk
to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the
rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle.
(c) It is unlawful for any person to drive a motor vehicle thro ugh a column of school children crossing
a street or highway or past a member of a school safety patrol or adult crossing guard, while the
member of the school safety patrol or adult crossing guard is directing the movement of children
across a street or highway and while the school safety patrol member or adult crossing guard is
holding an official signal in the stop position. A peace officer may arrest the driver of a motor vehicle
if the peace officer has probable cause to believe that the driver has operated the vehicle in violation
of this paragraph within the past four hours.
(d) A person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a misdemeanor. A person who violates this
subdivision a second or subsequent time within one year of a previous conviction under this
subdivision is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
4
Subdivision 3. Crossing between intersections.
(a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or at an
intersection with no marked crosswalk shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.
(b) Any pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian
crossing has been provided shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.
(c) Between adjacent intersections at which traffic-control signals are in operation pedestrians shall
not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk.
(d) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section every driver of a vehicle shall (1) exercise due
care to avoid colliding with any bicycle or pedestrian upon any roadway and (2) give an audible
signal when necessary and exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously
confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway.
5
CROSSWALK MARKING DEFINITIONS
Unmarked crosswalk: A legal crosswalk that does not feature any crosswalk striping or
markings per state statute.
Marked crosswalk: A legal crosswalk that features crosswalk striping or pavement markings.
Left: Example of crosswalk visibility
enhancements (crosswalk marking,
signage, and lighting). Source: Federal
Highway Administration
Above: Example of a continental crosswalk
marking which is a industry recognized
best practice. Source: Kittelson &
Associates
6
CROSSING CONTROL DEFINITIONS
Uncontrolled crossing: A legal crossing of a roadway intersection approach or mid-block
crossing of a roadway between two intersections with no traffic control at the point of
crossing.
Controlled crossing: A legal crossing of a roadway intersection approach or mid-block
crossing of a roadway between two intersections controlled by a stop sign or traffic signal.
7
CROSSING INFRASTRUCTURE TREATMENTS
Any location reviewed for a crosswalk should in tandem have a detailed engineering review
completed to determine if additional crossing infrastructure enhancements should be implemented.
TRAFFIC VOLUME REVIEW
Review the number of lanes at the point of crossing to ensure that the total number of lanes (travel
and turn lanes) at the point of crossing is adequate for the traffic volumes. Right sizing the crossing
distance is critical to all modes of travel, but particularly important to pedestrians and bicyclists, as
the goal is to minimize their time in the hazard zone.
Engineering review of right- and left-turn lanes if applicable at the point of crossing to verify
if they are necessary or if they can be removed.
If roadway design or turn lanes are not appropriate, consider lane reductions or turn lane
removal before proceeding.
The overall objective of this is to eliminate the multilane
threat by removing lanes to improve visibility. When
one car stops for a person crossing the roadway, the
second car may not be visible to the person crossing
nor is that person visible to the second driver.
ROADWAY GEOMETRIC TREATMENT ASSESSMENT
The following process reviews opportunities to slow speeds, reduce crossing distance, and improve
visibility of people crossing the roadway.
1. Narrow Travel Lanes: MnDOT identifies the following lane width best practices per the
Performance-Based Practical Design – Process and Design Guidance. These are superseded
by MnDOT’s own design standards though used as an example for consideration by the City
of Lake Elmo. Studies have credited tighter lane widths by neutrally or positively impacting
safety without affecting traffic operations.
Rural Roadways: 11- or 12-foot-wide lanes
Urban and Suburban Roadways: 10-foot-wide lanes (≤35 mph and turn lanes), 11-
foot-wide lanes (suitable for all other typologies), 12-foot-wide lanes (≥50 mph
and/or non-motorized traffic is absent).
8
2. Reduce Conflict Points: Consider moving the crossing to a location with the least number of
conflict points depending upon engineering judgement. This could include an intersection
leg with lower turning vehicles or overall traffic, as well as moving a crossing entirely out of
an intersection and to a mid-block location.
3. Crossing Lighting: Ensure lighting is present that illuminates the entire crossing (curb ramp
to curb ramp) per state and federal guidance.
4. Geometric Improvements: Context-specific traffic calming measures using geometric
improvements should 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. Reducing the radius
to as small as practical can create significant benefits via reduced crossing distance
and vehicle turning speeds.
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.
5. Signage Improvements:
Pedestrian Warning Sign: Static sign used at marked crosswalks following the MN
MUTCD.
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB): A crossing enhancement that is activated
by a pedestrian or bicyclist and uses two rapid and alternate flashing yellow
rectangular beacons. RRFBs are applicable on roadways with higher pedestrian
demand, traffic volumes, and traffic speeds. Use MnDOT guidance to determine if a
location is appropriate.
0 0.25 0.50.125 Miles ´
Lake Elmo Old Village
Old Village Area
Proposed Moratorium Area - "Old Village Corridor Area"
Memorandum
www.srfconsulting.com
3701 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 100 | Minneapolis, MN 55416-3791 | 763.475.0010
Equal Employment Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
SRF No. 17843
To: Jack Griffin, PE – City Engineer
City of Lake Elmo
From: Christopher Brown, ACIP, PTP – Project Manager
Date: November 27, 2024
Subject: Proposed Crosswalk Projects
This memorandum documents the recommendations for the intersections at 39th Avenue and Laverne
Ave N and 39th Avenue and Wildflower Drive in the City of Lake Elmo.
1. Policy criteria met to establish marked crosswalk.
The intersections were evaluated with the draft City of Lake Elmo Pedestrian Crosswalk
Policy and met the criteria needed to mark a crosswalk. This determination was made
using the flowchart and criteria definitions found in the policy document.
To meet the requirements to mark a crosswalk, the location first has to meet the existing
traffic volume threshold which both do:
· Laverne Avenue N: 1,800 AADT
· Wildflower Drive: 1,600 AADT
Second, the crosswalk location must meet one of the following criteria: minimum
pedestrian/bicycle volume threshold; have a documented pedestrian or bicycle crash in
the last ten years; or directly serve a key destination.
· Laverne Avenue N: meets the pedestrian/bicycle volume threshold with greater
than 10 crossings per hour for a total of three hours (13, 13, 11).
· Wildflower Drive: It is expected that this intersection will be along the key
destination route for walking/bicycles in the Old Village Area. Formal designation
of this route is anticipated prior to the Crosswalk installation in 2025.
Third, the location must meet sight distance requirements which both locations do.
2. Intersection scope of improvements.
Both crosswalks along 39th Street N have the same recommended improvements with
added signage and crosswalk markings following MUTCD guidance and best practices.
Jack Griffin, PE November 27, 2024
City of Lake Elmo Page 2
For signage, both crosswalks will have advanced pedestrian crossing warning signage
before the crosswalk and at the crossing location with a downward arrow. In all, 4 30” x
30” W11-2 signs, 2 24”x 12” W16-7PL signs, and 2 24” x 12” W16-9P signs will be used.
A W11-2 and W16-9P will be placed 100 feet ahead of the crosswalk in each direction
while a W11-2 and W16-7PL will be place at the crosswalk.
For the crosswalk markings, preformed thermoplastic pavement markings will be applied
into grooves that have been cut into the roadway surface at the crosswalk with ADA
accessible ramps. The markings will be 6’ x 3’ with 3’ spacing between each marking.
3. Estimation of cost
The estimated cost for these improvements is $4,000 per intersection or a total of $8,000
based on the breakdown below.
· Crosswalk = $15/SF
o 3’ x 6’ x 5 = 90 SF
o 90 SF x $15/SF = $1,350
· Sign = $80/SF
o (30” x 30” + 24” x 12”) x 4 = 33 SF
o 33 SF x $80/SF = $2,640
· Total = Approximately $4,000 per intersection
Pedestrian Crossing – 39th St N at Laverne Ave N Pedestrian Crossing Figures 024 17843 October 2024 Lake Elmo, Washington County, MN 39th St NLaverne Ave NCrosswalk Details6’3’3’(Preform Thermo GR IN)100’100’W11-2 (30” x 30”)SigningDetailsW16-7PL (24” x 12”)W16-9P (24” x 12”)
Pedestrian Crossing – 39th St N at Wildflower Dr Pedestrian Crossing Figures 024 17843 October 2024 Lake Elmo, Washington County, MN 39th St NWildflower DrCrosswalk Details6’3’3’(Preform Thermo GR IN)100’100’W11-2 (30” x 30”)SigningDetailsW16-7PL (24” x 12”)W16-9P (24” x 12”)