City of Dallas Standards and Guidelines for Traffic Control and Safety Treatments at Trail-Road Crossings

Transcription

1 City of Dallas Standards and Guidelines for Traffic Control and Safety Treatments at Trail-Road Crossings Prepared by Max Kalhammer Senior Planner (Bicycle Coordinator) Strategic Planning Division Department of Sustainable Development and Construction and Elizabeth Ramirez, P.E., Steve Cherryholmes, P.E. Transportation Operations Division Department of Public Works and Transportation October 21 st,

2 Purpose for this Standard & Realities of Development 2

3 The Purpose of a Trail-Road Crossing Traffic Control and Safety Treatment Standard Traffic control and safety treatments at each trail-road crossing should be implemented to properly address current or typical trail usage, as well as the roadway traffic configuration and volume. Traffic control and safety treatments for each crossing type should be consistent and recognizable, to the greatest extent possible. A guideline for graduated safety measures can help to improve conditions at each crossing. 3

4 Realities of Developing a Standard in Real-Time Need to create standards (if they are non-existent) in the process of developing solutions to immediate issues sometimes there is no time or opportunity to test the condition of the baseline template, because conditions warrant using a more graduated safety measure need to have a base template that is flexible yet consistent enough to fit the appropriate elements into any crossing type, or with any graduated safety measure Approval of the standard by the City Council is still pending, in the form of inclusion in the update to the Dallas Bike Plan, or by some other means Treat the MUTCD/AASHTO Guides as a menu, from which you can combine and add to its content create variations on what standards exist, especially where they currently fall short wait for MUTCD/AASHTO updates before finalizing (if possible), or try to anticipate coming changes and additions submit your customized variations and additions as possible changes for future updates Push to plan for all that is recommended or required, not just what can be currently afforded Document all signage, pavement markings, and equipment in each scenario to attract the appropriate level of funding and to avoid out of site, out of mind budgeting and spending Implementation of complete solutions are preferred for safety and maintenance 4

5 Relevant Standards 5

6 Sign Placement on Shared-Use Paths Vertical height and horizontal distances of signage relative to a multi-use pathway are specified in the 2006 Texas MUTCD. The proposed change would allow the inside edge of a sign to be placed one foot closer to the pathway. Specifications for an overhead sign or traffic control device have been added - the minimum height of the sign s lower edge and the horizontal distance of the vertical element. overhead sign or other traffic control device Not less than 0.6 m (2 ft) Not less than 2.4 m (8 ft) Not less than 0.6 m (2 ft) post-mounted sign or other traffic control device edge of shared-use path Not less than 1.2 m (4 ft) Source: Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2006 Edition, p. 9B-2 FHWA, Notice of Proposed Amendments to MUTCD, January

7 Minimum Sign Sizes for Bicycle Facilities Minimum sign sizes for the roadway and shared-use pathways installed on or around bicycle facilities are specified in the 2006 Texas MUTCD. Source: Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2006 Edition, p. 9B-3 7

8 MUTCD Signs Appendix Some signs found in the Signs Appendix of the 2006 Texas MUTCD are also relevant to trail-road crossing issues. Source: Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2006 Edition, pp. AT- 24, AT-30 8

9 Examples of Signings and Markings for Shared-Use Paths and Roadways Relevant signage and pavement markings, and their distances and dimensions, are specified in the 2006 Texas MUTCD and in the 1999 AASHTO Guide. Source: Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2006 Edition, p. 9B-13 Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, AASHTO, p. 47 9

10 Example of Yield Lines at Un-signalized Midblock Crosswalks Source: Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2006 Edition, p. 3B-28 10

11 Example of Roadway Yield Line Layouts Source: Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2006 Edition, p. 3B-27

12 The Base Template and Crossing Types 12

13 Proposed variation on Yield Here to Pedestrians sign sign at un- signalized mid-block crosswalks Including a visual cue to the motorist about the presence of bicycles may help to adjust driver behavior. Combining this yield here to ped/bike regulatory sign saves on the cost of having a larger yield sign and a plaque below. 13

14 Early Mockup of Pavement Markings for Roadways 14

15 Base Template: Signage and Pavement Markings Trail 24 X24 Roadway 18 X18 24 X12 30 X30 24 X24 30 X42 18 X18 18 X18 24 X12 30 X36 9 X18 24 X24

16 Crossing Type 16

17 17

18 Crossing Type 18

19 Crossing Type 19

20 Crossing Type 20

21 Crossing Type 21

22 Graduated Safety Measures 22

23 Graduated Safety Measures Guideline This guideline for implementing graduated safety measures is designed to accommodate the future growth of trail user and roadway user interactions. 1. Base Template MUTCD Signage and Pavement Marking Package 2. Roadway Narrowing 3. Overhead Blinking Yellow Flasher 4. 4-Way Lighted Signal 5. Separated Grade Crossing 6. Street Closure 23

24 Graduated Safety Measure: Roadway Narrowing 24

25 Graduated Safety Measure: Overhead Blinking Yellow Flasher 25

26 Graduated Safety Measures: 4-Way 4 Traffic Signal and Roadway Narrowing 26

27 Near-Term Implementation Plans 27

28 Graduated Safety Measures: Roadway Narrowing (Striping), Traffic Signal 28

29 29

30 Implementation Plan for Standard - Santa Fe Trail 30