Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTSC Packet 05-12-2011CITY OF SARATOGA TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: May 12, 2011 TIME: 6:30 PM — 9:30 PM LOCATION: Administrative Conference Room 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 Call to Order Roll Call: Biester, Bustamante, Coulter, Guichard, Kirk, Musselman and Vita Report on Posting of the Agenda: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 5, 2011. Accept Agenda Items: No additional items may be added pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2. Oral & Written Communication Any member of the public may address the Commission about any matter not on the agenda for this meeting for up to three minutes. Commissioners may not comment on the matter but may choose to place the topic on a future agenda. Approval of Draft Minutes Draft Traffic Safety Commission Minutes for March 10, 2011 Sheriff's Report to the Commission New Business 1. Traffic Matrix 11271 Issue: Request No Parking on Via de Marcos Action: TSC will make recommendation 2. Traffic Matrix 11272 Issue: Concerns with intersection on south bound Saratoga at Cox Avenue Action: TSC will make recommendation 3. Traffic Matrix 11273 Issue: Speeding on Arroyo de Arguello Action: TSC will make recommendation Old Business 4. Traffic Matrix 1/270 Issue: Discussion of Crosswalk Policy Action: TSC will make a recommendation Announcements by Commissioners and Staff - Dagmar project completion Adjournment to Next Regular Meeting Thursday, July 14, 2011 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a disabled person and you need a disability - related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 408.868.1269 or ctclerlai_@saratoga.ca.us Requests must be made as early as possible and at least one full business day before the start of the meeting. In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of material provided to the Traffic Safety Commission by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the Public Works Department at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made available for public review at the Public Works office at the time they are distributed to the Traffic Safety Commission. Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Public Works Analyst for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Traffic Safety Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on May 5, 2011 at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us. CITY OF SARATOGA TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Draft Action Minutes DATE: March 10, 2011 TIME: 6:30 PM - 9:30 PM LOCATION: Administrative Conference Room 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 Call to Order at 6:32 p.m. Roll Call: Biester, Bustamante, Coulter, Guichard, Kane, Kirk, and Vita Absent: Bustamante Staff: Traffic Planner Church, Public Works Director Cherbone and Analyst Borel Report on Posting of the Agenda: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 3, 2011. Borel reports. Accept Agenda Items: No additional items may be added pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2. No additions. Oral & Written Communication Any member of the public may address the Commission about any matter not on the agenda for this meeting for up to three minutes. Commissioners may not comment on the matter but may choose to place the topic on a future agenda. No speakers Approval of Draft Minutes Draft Traffic Safety Commission Minutes for January 13, 2011. Approved 5-0-1, Kane abstained. Sheriff's Report to the Commission (6:35 pm) Lt. Morrissey reports New Business 1. Traffic Matrix #266 (6:40pm) Issue: Concerns with crosswalk at Quito and McCoy Action: TSC will make recommendation MOTION: Install ladder style striping to crosswalk and add pedestrian crossing signs at the side of the road on both sides of the street. APPROVED 5-0-1, Kirk abstained. 2. Traffic Matrix #267 (7:50 pnQ Issue: Traffic issues on 4` Street and Springer Avenue Action: TSC will make recommendation MOTION: Recommend no action be taken at this time. APPROVED 6-0 3. Traffic Matrix #268 (8:10 pm) Issue: Request street light on corner of Pierce and Old Oak Way Action: TSC will make recommendation MOTION: Recommend no action be taken at this time. APPROVED 6-0 4. Traffic Matrix #269 (7:15 pm) Issue: Request for sidewalk on Quito Road between Old Adobe and Vessing Road Action: TSC will make recommendation No action — referred to Pedestrian, Equestrian, Bicycle and Trails Advisory Committee (PEBTAC). 5. Discussion of Crosswalk Policy (8:30 pm) Review Memo from Fehr & Peers and discuss further at the next meeting. 6. Review Traffic Safety Commission Capital Improvement Projects List (8:45 pm) Prioritized remaining projects. Announcements by Commissioners and Staff Possible meeting date change? Starting September 2011, will move TSC meetings to the first Thursday of the Month. Adjournment at 9:05 p.m. to the Next Regular Meeting Thursday, May 12, 2011 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a disabled person and you need a disability - related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 408.868.1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us Requests must be made as early as possible and at least one full business day before the start of the meeting. In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of material provided to the Traffic Safety Commission by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the Public Works Department at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made available for public review at the Public Works office at the time they are distributed to the Traffic Safety Commission. Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Public Works Analyst for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Traffic Safety Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on March 3, 2011 at the office of the City of Saratoga, 1301 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Kristin Borel Traffic Matrix #271 From: David Vannier [dsvannier@yahoo.comj Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 12:15 PM To: Kristin Borel Subject: Re: Traffic Safety Commission Kristin: Thank you for following up on our inquiry. I will definitly try to make the meeting Thursday May 12 to try to answer any questions the commission may have about our concerns. I'll try to restate my concern below: Via De Marcos is a very quiet street, with few cars, roughly an equal number of bicyles, and far more walkers. The opening of a trail head on the street has created new hazzards to these group with the occassional park vehicles on the blind corner. The trail head enters the road just before a turn in the road. This turn has always been a little blind requiring care. Being right on the creek, with open space on both sides of the road, there are a number of trees blocking the view of the corner. But this addition has created occasional addition hazzards when people who hike the trail park directly in front or accross from the head. Some of the groups of walkers are rather large, and many times stray significantly away from the sides of the road. Although this is not a daily occurance, we have seen walkers almost get hit a couple of times, which in my opinion is partially to blame on all three parties (walkers, driver, & park car). My opinion is that there isn't much that we can do about the walkers. Based on their group, I think they are doing the best they are able to do, and am in full support of them. They just make me drive a little slower, which I'm ok with. The drivers, well hopefully they will be going off to college before long, but we can count on some people always being distracted, and new people will move in with new young drivers. So I'm not sure what can be done here. The last though I think is fairly easy to address: parked cars. Anyone who has the energy and ability to hike a trail certainly could park their car and walk an extra 20- 50 feet rather than park directly across or in front of the trail head. From the Gypsy Hill entrance to Via De Marcos, parking up hill from the trail head would not have to be very far to get away from the corner. Past the trail head, I realize would be a little farther, but that is because of the bridge, and would be relatively level ground. Either would put them outside the blind corner. This seems like a relatively cheap thing to do to improve the safety of the walkers and bike riders. The bike riders are another issue. Most riders who come to our street ride fast down the hill (both sides), most likely to limit the effort to go back up the hill on the other side. This tends to mean that they swing wide on the corner. The parked cars have added issues for them. Personally I don't feel sorry for them. They know they aren't doing the right thing, but don't think it will affect them. When it does, they will learn. Unfortunately the hard way. But I don't believe that we can live in a padded room either, so it is kind of their choice. I just don't know how I would live with myself if I killed someone with the car. Hopefully that helps. If some pictures of the area would help, I could take them and send it to you as well. Let me know if there is anything else you need. On another note. My wife & I would like to thank everyone who helped us the other day. We did not know that the office was closed in the afternoon, and we just causually walked it. The courtesy that was shown was beyond professional and something I rarely find these days. My thanks for everything. Dave Original Message From: Kristin Borel To: dsvannier(Wvahoo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 11:16 AM Subject: Traffic Safety Commission Hi David. It was a pleasure speaking with you today. When you get a chance please send me an email describing your situation and concerns on Via de Marcos and I will get the process started. I will schedule it for the May 12th Traffic Safety Commission meeting. Here is a link to the Traffic Safety Page on the City's website. 4/28/2011 cck of SARA 40F a0 City of Saratoga Trails San Marcos Open Space Trail September 2010 SAN 1 MARCM 35 76o R JRGLND-Y— w --CT; G Saratoga Retirement Community r EY C EEK 1 (PINNACLE 0 Trailhead 110 O , ire tr• \ J I , I mo =Eken Pe Saratoga Campbel J MAP AREA Unincorporated Santa Clara County Los Gatos 1 Monte Sereno Traffic Matrix #272 Kristin Borel From: Lawrence Armentano [larmenta@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 1:03 PM To: Kristin Borel Subject: Re: Traffic Safety Commission Hi Kristin, Hope this will help. My husband and I have noticed more cars racing (not driving) in the bike lane trying to make a right turn from Saratoga Ave. on to Cox Ave. The cars are starting to turn into the bike lane as much as two blocks before the area with the bumps and flag. When they reach the bumps, they pull left into the lane of thru traffic. I, personally, have had to stop short because of someone quickly pulling in front of me(from the bike lane). My husband drives a small car. Several times he thought he would be hit by cars pulling partially in his lane to avoid the bumps. I think it would be helpful and safer for both cars and bikes if the flags and bumps were started on the block before where they now are placed.(place them on two blocks not just one). I think they should be placed closer to the right lane instead of next to the curb. This would keep the bikers close to the curb and away from the cars. It would also prevent cars from driving in the bike lane. We are both afraid that something bad will happen if nothing is done to change the present situation. Please feel free to call if we can be more helpful. Thank you for your time and attention. Larry and Linda Armentano Kristin Borel Traffic Matrix #273 From: Marc P. Schuyler [marc@schuylerlawgroup.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 2:55 PM To: caroline.schuyler@comcast.net; Kristin Borel Subject: RE: Traffic Safety Commission Hi Kristin — Thanks! The only thing I'd add is to what Caroline has said below, re the Christmas eve incident, is that it was a drunk driver who was effectively taking the back roads, so as to once again avoid Sunnyvale Saratoga. I think there's two primary and possibly -related problems — (a) people regularly drive too fast (and it's a purely residential neighborhood); and (b) there is "heavy" commute traffic from people looking to bypass Sunnyvale Saratoga. I think Caroline was trying to say also that people who live in the cul desacs don't stop when they emerge onto Arroyo De Arguello, but I think that's a different problem than what I'm focused on. Best Regards, Marc From: Caroline (Comcast Account) [mailto:caroline.schuyler@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 2:27 PM To: 'Kristin Borel' Cc: marc@schuylerlawgroup.com Subject: RE: Traffic Safety Commission Hi Kristin — I will plan to attend the meeting on May 12th — thanks for the info on that. Also, I am copying my husband Marc on this email in case he wants to chime in. As for the speeding issue on our street Arroyo de Arguello, let me first explain exactly where we are on the street. We live at the second house after the train track that cuts across Arroyo de Arguello; our house is across from Norada Court. We have lived here nearly six years and during this time have found that most cars drive much faster than the 25 mph limit. There are three reasons for this situation. The first one and the one that is most evident is that MOST people take Arroyo de Arguello, either from Wardell or Prospect, to completely bypass the heavily trafficked and signaled Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road. So, what we have found are people speeding through our neighborhood, either on the way to Wardell/Pierce or to Prospect so as to avoid Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. Many times I've been crossing the street and have had to end up jogging across the street so as to avoid someone blitzing down our street. In addition, when I've been with my kids, and we are crossing the street, cars have not even slowed down... it's pretty shocking. The second reason for this speeding is that once a car crosses the train tracks (at Norada Court), the street curves to the left and then widens quite a bit. At this point, we hear cars accelerating around the turn and continue speeding down all the way to Wardell because the road remains wide to that point. The third and final reason is that there are several cul-de-sacs off of Arroyo de Argeullo starting with Norada Court — and not every cul-de-sac has a stop sign at the end of it where it meets Arroyo de Arguello. What 1 have found repeatedly is that cars are rolling down their street toward Arroyo de Arguello, then briefly look one way and then continue into the street without verifying whether a car is coming from the opposite direction. Very often 1 end up beeping my horn so they stop — and sometimes they don't. One other thing I should mention, on December 24x', 2009, we had a terrible accident in front of our house. In the evening (around 10 p.m.), a car came speeding over the train tracks and could not make 4/28/2011 Page 2 of 2 turn that banks to the left. It ended up careening into a parked car that was parked on the right, then bounced over to the opposite side of the street, hit another parked car at our neighbor's house. That parked car was hit so violently that it was thrown 75 yards across the street. I really think that some speed bumps (akin to what was put in on Cox between Gene's Market and Quito) or two stop signs would be very helpful. I hope this helps explain the situation. Please let me know if you have any questions. Caroline Original Message From: Kristin Borel [mailto:kborel@saratoga.ca.us] Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 3:11 PM To: caroline.schuyler@comcast.net Subject: Traffic Safety Commission Hi Caroline It was a pleasure speaking with you today. When you get a chance please send me an email describing your situation and concerns on Arroyo de Arguello and I will get the process started. I will schedule it for the May 12th Traffic Safety Commission meeting. You are welcome to come to the meeting and speak on this item. The meetings start at 6:30 pm and are held in our Administrative Conference Room. I will send out an Agenda about a week before the meeting. Here is a link to the Traffic Safety Page on the City's website. We have some good information about Stop Sign Warrants (when we put in stop signs) and about 85 %-tile which is a significant number when measuring speeds on a street. Call me if you have any questions. Thanks for your help. http://www.saratoga.ca.usleityhallIcomms/traffic/default.asp Sincerely, Kristin Borel Public Works Analyst City of Saratoga phone/fax: 408-868-1258 website: www.saratoga.ca.us 4/28/2011 FEHR/ PEERS MEMORANDUM Traffic Matrix #270 Date: March 10, 2011 To: John Cherbone, Public Works Director, City of Saratoga From: Franziska Church/Sohrab Rashid Subject: Crosswalk Guidelines for the City of Saratoga, California 1025-446-1 The transportation system in Saratoga was originally developed before the City was incorporated and was based on planning principles for rural communities. These principles included construction of numerous local streets without finished curbs, gutters, or sidewalks. Given the relatively low traffic volumes on most streets, the combination of pedestrian and vehicle traffic in the roadway does not typically result in problems. The City does strive to provide crosswalks on all of its minor and major arterial roadways throughout the City, though gaps in pedestrian paths and sidewalks do exist. Even without the provision of sidewalks on many of the City's streets, pedestrians have a need to cross roadways to reach their destination. However, the decision to install a crosswalk .should be done with careful consideration of location, demand, pedestrian access route, traffic volumes, roadway width and lanes, speed, sight distance, and other factors as appropriate. This memorandum outlines basic guidelines with respect to crosswalks at signalized, uncontrolled, and mid -block locations. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Crosswalks really serve two functions: 1) to highlight the presence of pedestrians to drivers and 2) to guide pedestrians to the appropriate location for crossing a roadway. At controlled locations (signalized intersections or stop -controlled approaches) best practices recommend that crosswalks are marked on all approaches (i.e., legs of the intersection) using standard crosswalk markings or high -visibility markings, except at; • Crossing locations with heavy right- or left -turn volumes • Intersections with inadequate sight distance. At uncontrolled locations, including mid -block locations, crossings should be marked where all of the following occur: • Sufficient demand exists • The location has sufficient sight distance • Safety considerations do not preclude a crosswalk Demand considerations at uncontrolled crossings include: • A high number of pedestrians currently using the crosswalk (typical thresholds used include 40 pedestrians in a hour) or: 160 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 675, San Jose CA 95113 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com John Cherbone March 10, 2011 Page 2 of 6 FEHRk PEERS • The crossing is on a direct route to or from a pedestrian generator, such as a school, library, senior center, shopping center, park, or employment center Special treatments at uncontrolled locations should be considered if: • a crosswalk is deemed appropriate at an uncontrolled crossing location on either a multi- lane street (three or more lanes), or • on two-lane streets with ADT greater than 12,000, or • where the posted speed limit exceeds 30 miles per hour. A crosswalk should not be installed if sight distance in feet is less than ten times the speed limit. For example, if an intersection has an approach speed of 25 miles per hour, the unrestricted view of pedestrians by motorists should be at least 250 feet. I. FUNCTION OF CROSSWALKS Well -marked pedestrian crossings accomplish dual goals. They prepare drivers for the likelihood of encountering a pedestrian, and they create an atmosphere of walkability and accessibility for pedestrians. In California, it is legal for pedestrians to cross any street, except at unmarked locations between immediately adjacent signalized crossings or where crossing is expressly prohibited. Marked crossings reinforce the location and legitimacy of a crossing. Why do cities mark crosswalks? Crosswalk Function: • Creating reasonable expectations where pedestrians may cross a roadway • Predictability of pedestrian actions and movement • Channelization of pedestrians to designated crossing locations Advantages of marked crosswalks: • Help pedestrians find their way across complex intersections • Designate the shortest path • Direct pedestrians to locations of best sight distance Disadvantages of marked crosswalks: • May create a "false sense of security" for pedestrians • At uncontrolled locations on multi -lane streets with higher traffic volumes, may result in a greater number of pedestrian collisions if additional enhancements are not provided • Maintenance incurs costs In pedestrian -friendly cities, crossing locations are treated as essential links in the pedestrian network. At mid -block locations, pedestrians cannot cross legally without a marked crosswalk. When there are pedestrian generators in these locations, it may be appropriate to create safe, convenient crossing opportunities. Without mid -block crossing locations, pedestrians face the John Cherbone March 10, 2011 Page 3 of 6 FEHR PEERS following three choices: detour to a controlled crossing location; detour to an intersection where it is legal to cross, even if not controlled; or jaywalk (cross illegally). Steps in identifying candidate locations for crosswalks The first step in identifying candidate crosswalk locations is to identify the places people would like to walk (pedestrian desire lines) which are affected by local land uses (homes, schools, parks, commercial establishments, etc.) and the location of transit stops. This information forms a basis for identifying pedestrian crossing improvement areas and prioritizing such improvements, thereby creating a convenient, connective and continuous walking environment. The second step is identifying where it is safest for people to cross. Of all road users, pedestrians have the highest risk because they are the least protected. National statistics indicate that pedestrians represent 14 percent of all traffic incident fatalities while walking accounts for only three percent of total trips (based on the 2000 Census walking represents less than one percent of all commute trips). Pedestrian collisions occur most often when a pedestrian is attempting to cross the street at an intersection or mid -block location'. Several major studies of pedestrian collision rates at marked and unmarked crosswalks have been conducted. In 2002, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published a comprehensive report on the relative safety of marked and unmarked crossings. In 2006, another study was completed that further assists engineers and planners in selecting the right treatment for marked crosswalks. This document presents a variety of special treatment options to mitigate safety, visibility or operational concerns at specific locations. It. CROSSWALK SAFETY RESEARCH A study by the City of San Diego in 1970 found that a higher rate of collisions involving pedestrians occurred at uncontrolled locations with marked crosswalks. However, the City of San Diego study, which was widely used by many other cities as a rationale for removing marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations, fails to differentiate between different types of streets and crossing locations. A separate study conducted on California State highways reached similar conclusions in 1996, but this study was also limited in its applicability to City streets that typically have fewer lanes and carry less traffic volume than State highways. A landmark study conducted by in 2001 for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) analyzed five years of pedestrian collisions at 1,000 marked crosswalks and 1,000 matched unmarked comparison sites in 30 U.S. cities. The study found that no meaningful crash risk differences occur on two-lane roads or on low-volume multilane roads. However, on multi -lane roads with traffic volumes greater than about 12,000 vehicles per day, having a marked crosswalk alone (without other substantial roadway treatments) was associated with a higher pedestrian crash rate than having an unmarked crosswalk. The researchers concluded that on many roads, particularly high-speed and multi -lane roads, more substantial improvements are often needed for safer pedestrian crossings, such as providing raised median islands, installing traffic signals (with pedestrian signals) when warranted, implementing speed -reduction and lane -reducing measures, and/or other measures. The results from these studies should not be interpreted as justification to simply take out marked crosswalks or to fail to install marked crosswalks at appropriate pedestrian crossings. By taking Pedestrian Crash Types, A 1990's Information Guide, FNWA; This paper analyzed 5,076 pedestrian crashes that occurred during the early 1990's. Crashes were evenly selected from small, medium, and large communities within six states: California, Florida, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Utah. John Cherbone March 10, 2011 Page 4 of 6 FEHR' PEERS such an approach, the safety and mobility needs of pedestrians are not adequately met. Instead, these studies underscore the need for roadway owners/operators to develop a balanced and strategic crosswalk policy. A recent research effort jointly sponsored by the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) focused on determining the effectiveness of many of the pedestrian safety engineering countermeasures for unsignalized crossings that were recommended in the 2001 FHWA study. As a result .of this study, specific guidelines for selecting effective pedestrian crossing treatments for unsignalized intersections and midblock locations are now available based on key input variables (such as pedestrian volume, street crossing width, and traffic volume). The study also suggested modifications to the pedestrian traffic signal warrant in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD). III. CONTROLLED LOCATIONS Best Practices The following is the recommended, or best practice, for pedestrian treatments in crosswalks at signalized intersections or stop -controlled approaches (i.e., vehicles stop at approach in question). • Mark Crosswalks on all approaches (i.e., legs of the intersection) using standard crosswalk markings or high -visibility markings. Where the accident data or observations of conflicts identify a crosswalk of particular concern, consider special treatments • Pedestrian signals should be timed for a pedestrian travel speed of 4 feet per second2. If there are special land uses such as senior centers or schools within 100 feet of the intersection, slower walking speeds (3.5 feet per second) should be considered The following two situations are exceptions to the policy of marking crosswalks on all approaches: • Crossing locations with heavy right- or left -turn volumes that occur during the same signal phase as the conflicting pedestrian movement where protected signal phasing for the heavy movement or other solutions are infeasible3 • Intersections with inadequate sight distance" of pedestrians. Elimination of crosswalks in these instances should only occur after other solutions have been deemed infeasible 2 The current standard of 4 feet per second is based on Califomia Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Traffic Manual, 1996. The rate of 3.5 feet per second is recommended for pedestrian crossings by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Part 11: Best Practices Design Guide, 2001. 3 Alternative pedestrian crossings should be identified and it may be necessary to install barrier treatments to reinforce that pedestrian should not cross at the location without a marked crosswalk. Unrestricted sight distance of pedestrians by motorists should be at least ten times the speed limit (for example, 250 feet for a street with a speed limit of 25 miles per hour). John Cherbone March 10, 2011 Page 5 of 6 Special Treatments FEHR' PEERS A number of innovative treatments for pedestrians can be used at signalized intersections, mostly related to pedestrian signals. At locations with high pedestrian volumes and pedestrian -vehicle conflicts, special treatments could include bulbouts or curb extensions, reduced corner radii, special pavement stencils, countdown signals, or other treatments as appropriate. IV. UNCONTROLLED LOCATIONS This section describes best practices for considering the installation of crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections and mid -block locations, safety considerations, and special treatments in locations where special consideration is recommended. When to Install Crosswalks at Uncontrolled or Mid -Block Intersections The following is the recommended, or best practice, for pedestrian treatments at uncontrolled approaches to intersections that are not controlled by traffic signals or stop signs or at mid -block locations5. Crossings should be marked where all of the following occur: • Sufficient demand exists to justify the installation of a crosswalk (see Demand Considerations below) • The location has sufficient sight distance (sight distance in feet should be greater than 10 times the speed limit), and/or sight distance will be improved prior to crosswalk marking • Safety considerations do not preclude a crosswalk Demand Consideration: Uncontrolled crossings should be identified as a candidate for marking if there is a demonstrated need for a crosswalk. Need can be demonstrated by: • A high number of pedestrians currently using the crosswalk (typical thresholds used include 40 pedestrians in a hour) or: • The crossing is on a direct route to or from a pedestrian generator, such as a school, library, senior center, shopping center, park, or employment center Special Treatments for Uncontrolled Locations Fehr & Peer has developed a Crosswalk Treatment Identification Tool that identifies special crosswalk treatments based on roadway characteristics. The Crosswalk Treatment Identification Tool should be used to determine if special treatments are needed to ensure safe crossing at uncontrolled locations. The crossing should be a high -visibility style when either of the following criteria are met: • a crosswalk is deemed appropriate at an uncontrolled crossing location on either a multi- lane street (three or more lanes) • on two-lane streets with ADT greater than 12,000 5 The most common crosswalk of this type will be at intersections where a minor side street has a stop sign and a major street is uncontrolled. John Cherbone March 10, 2011 Page 6 of 6 • where the posted speed limit exceeds 30 miles per hour.. FEHR'S" PEERS High visibility crosswalks include the textured pavement crosswalk, the "ladder," and the "broken ladder." The use of textured crosswalks should be selective due to higher maintenance costs. They may also be supplemented with signs and inpavement flashers. Safety Considerations at Uncontrolled Locations A crosswalk should not be installed if sight distance in feet is less than ten times the speed limit. For example, if an intersection has an approach speed of 25 miles per hour, the unrestricted view of pedestrians by motorists should be at least 250 feet. Where safety concerns become evident after installation of special treatments, pedestrian signal warrants, established in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, should be tested to determine whether the crossing warrants a signal. In the event that a signal is determined to be inappropriate, the crosswalk should not be marked.