5.1.
Public Works Committee
- Meeting Date:
- 06/20/2017
- Submitted For:
- Grant Riemer
- By:
- Grant Riemer, Engineering/Public Works
Title:
Pedestrian Crosswalk Applications in the City of Ramsey
Purpose/Background:
Purpose/Background:
The purpose of this case is to review the various types of pedestrian crosswalks that exist in the city of Ramsey and how their application and design differ depending on their location. We will also review how location, sight distances, traffic speeds, volumes both pedestrian and vehicular all factor into the decision making process.
The purpose of this case is to review the various types of pedestrian crosswalks that exist in the city of Ramsey and how their application and design differ depending on their location. We will also review how location, sight distances, traffic speeds, volumes both pedestrian and vehicular all factor into the decision making process.
Timeframe:
15-20 minutes
Observations/Alternatives:
Crosswalks and their design vary greatly. They can be as simple as two sidewalks on the opposite sides of an intersection to pedestrian activated traffic signals costing almost $100k. There are two basic classifications of crosswalks, controlled and uncontrolled. A controlled crosswalk would be at an intersection controlled by a traffic signal, stop sign or yield sign. An uncontrolled crossing would any crossing away from a traffic control signal or sign, a good example would be a mid block crossing. Staff will focus mainly on the uncontrolled crossings, as these are the type most requested by residents. Below is a listing of types of Pedestrian crossings we have throughout the city and motorist yield rate associated with each. Staff will present illustrations of each type of crossing at the meeting.
1. Pedestrian crossings in the COR use colored concrete instead of paint to delineate the crosswalk. Aesthetically more pleasing, but doesn't provide much advance warning to motorists.
2. High visibility signs and painted road markings. Yield rate 20% when speed is under 35 mph and 61%-91% under 25 mph
3.High visibility signs and painted road markings on high speed road. Yield rate 7%
4. Median Refuge Islands Yield rate 29%-34%
5. Rectangular Rapid- Flash Beacon (RRFB) Yield Rate 81%-84%
6. HAWK Beacon System Yield Rate 97%-99%
Staff has attached several examples of work sheets that we use to help determine if a crosswalk is needed and if the location is suitable for a crosswalk. The first work sheet "Pedestrian Level of Service" (LOS) and can be used to evaluate how a crossing is functioning or could be used to determine if a crossing is actually needed in a certain location.
The second work sheet is used to collect data at the crossing, such as sight distances, vehicle stopping distance, traffic counts for both vehicles and pedestrians, vehicle speeds, lighting, street width, etc. This work sheet helps staff determine if the location is suitable for a pedestrian crossing and if so what type of crossing treatment would be most effective.
1. Pedestrian crossings in the COR use colored concrete instead of paint to delineate the crosswalk. Aesthetically more pleasing, but doesn't provide much advance warning to motorists.
2. High visibility signs and painted road markings. Yield rate 20% when speed is under 35 mph and 61%-91% under 25 mph
3.High visibility signs and painted road markings on high speed road. Yield rate 7%
4. Median Refuge Islands Yield rate 29%-34%
5. Rectangular Rapid- Flash Beacon (RRFB) Yield Rate 81%-84%
6. HAWK Beacon System Yield Rate 97%-99%
Staff has attached several examples of work sheets that we use to help determine if a crosswalk is needed and if the location is suitable for a crosswalk. The first work sheet "Pedestrian Level of Service" (LOS) and can be used to evaluate how a crossing is functioning or could be used to determine if a crossing is actually needed in a certain location.
The second work sheet is used to collect data at the crossing, such as sight distances, vehicle stopping distance, traffic counts for both vehicles and pedestrians, vehicle speeds, lighting, street width, etc. This work sheet helps staff determine if the location is suitable for a pedestrian crossing and if so what type of crossing treatment would be most effective.
Funding Source:
General fund cost center 0260 traffic engineering
Recommendation:
Informational only
Action:
None at this time. Crosswalk requests and evaluations would be brought back on an individual basis for review and approval.
Attachments
- The COR
- Standard Residential
- Armstrong Blvd
- Round About
- RRFB
- HAWK
- LOS Ratings
- LOS Variolite
- LOS Armstrong
- Data Collection Armstrong
- Crossing Treatment Yield Rates
- Data collection Variolite St
Form Review
| Inbox | Reviewed By | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Kurt Ulrich | Kurt Ulrich | 06/15/2017 08:54 AM |
- Form Started By:
- Grant Riemer
- Started On:
- 06/09/2017 08:32 AM
- Final Approval Date:
- 06/15/2017