TRAFFIC AND PARKING COMMISSION TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ATTACHMENT: Streets Outreach. Complete. Crosswalk Policy CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS.

Transcription

1 CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS L) TRAFFIC AND PARKING COMMISSION TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Traffic and Parking Commission Martha Eros, Transportation Planner Christian Vasquez, Transportation Planning Analyst Complete Streets Plan July 12, 218 ATTACHMENT: A. Complete Streets Walk Audit Highlights B. Draft Crosswalk Policy Memorandum (Iteris, Inc.) C. Draft Roadway Treatment Options Memorandum (Iteris, Inc.) This report provides an update on the Complete Streets Plan walk audit and upcoming outreach events, and a summary of the proposed crosswalk policy and roadway treatment options that will be included in the Plan. Iteris Project Manager John Lower will provide an update on the proposed crosswalk policy and lead a discussion on roadway treatment options at the July 12th Traffic & Parking Commission (TPC) meeting. Complete Streets Outreach On June 9, 218, approximately 25 community members attended the Complete Streets Plan walk audit event. The participants were split into groups and walked along two corridors: (1) Crescent Drive towards Wilshire Boulevard and (2) South Santa Monica Boulevard towards Roxbury Drive. The participants were asked to identify safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles, and transit along their route and to offer suggestions for improvement. After the walk audit, the groups participated in mapping and tabletop exercises to document patterns of behavior observed on the walk, and provided suggestions on how to re-design each corridor. Attachment A provides a summary of the input received at the walk audit event. The third community workshop is scheduled for Wednesday, August 22, 218, in the Municipal Gallery starting at 6:3 p.m. This workshop will serve as an opportunity for the community to provide input on the draft Complete Streets Plan based on community input and professional standards. The Complete Streets Plan survey is scheduled to be closed on July 31, 218. Approximately 25 survey responses have been received to date. Staff is coordinating with the City s Communications team to promote the survey before it closes. Community members may continue providing input at the monthly TPC meetings and/or via the Complete Streets website at Crosswalk Policy The Complete Streets Plan scope of work includes developing crosswalk policies to develop crosswalk standards and guide future crosswalk installations in the City. On June 7, 218, the TPC provided input on a proposed crosswalk policy presented by staff and Iteris. Attachment B is a draft memorandum prepared by Iteris with an updated proposed crosswalk policy that incorporates the TPC s input, including a description of materials (e.g., paint, thermoplastic) for marking crosswalks and guidelines for creative crosswalk installation.

2 TPC: Complete Streets Plan Page 2 The TPC discussed forwarding the proposed crosswalk policy to City Council for consideration ahead of the Complete Streets Plan. Pending the TPC s recommendations at the July 12th meeting, staff plans to present the proposed crosswalk policy to the City Council and Traffic & Parking Commission Liaison Committee to receive feedback and direction. Roadway Treatment Options The Complete Streets Plan scope of work includes developing a toolbox of pedestrian and bicycle treatments for the City. Attachment C is a memorandum prepared by Iteris summarizing roadway treatment options that could be included in the toolbox for the Complete Streets Plan.

3 ATTACHMENT A

4 2 II I interested in the potential for a pedestrian overpass to encourage more pedestrian traffic. Finally, along Crescent, they recommended adding digital parking occupancy signage and to remove permit parking on the east side. Another theme was the desire to indicate shared-use zones for bikes, scooters, and pedestrians. Participants were Reducing the turn radius Adding a second turn lane Enhancing visibility of speed limit signs Introducing scramble crossings Participants desired design solutions to slow traffic.the intersection of Crescent and South Santa Monica was the area of greatest concern. Suggestions included: RECOMMENDATIONS: route. as a need for rideshare drop-off areas. Additionally, they addressed the need to enhance parking options along this Participants were most concerned with vehicular speeding and conflicts between vehicles and cyclists/pedestrians at intersections. They also noted the introduction of the Purple Line and how that would impact pedestrian travel as well ROUTE 7: CRESCENT DRIVE TO WILSHIRE BOULEVARD The first group walked from Crescent Drive to Wilshire Boulevard while the second group traveled along South Santa Monica Boulevard. Participants were then asked to identify safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles, and June 9th, in addition to Commissioners and City staff from a cross-section of departments. Participants were split into transit along their route and to offer suggestions for improvement. groups to conduct a 9-minute watk audit, followed by tabletop exercises focused on how to re-design each corridor. Approximately 25 community members attended a walk audit for the Beverly Hills Complete Streets Plan on Saturday, SUMMARY: WALK AUDIT HIGHLIGHTS m

5 Workshop, and monthlytraffic and Parking Commission meetings. that will continue to solicit feedback and public input throughout the plan development, including an August 22nd Community feedback will be incorporated into the network maps for each modality. Additional events are planned NEXT STEPS: In addition to business concerns, they noted that wheelchairs and strollers have a hard time navigating this area. They also noted that utility boxes make the sidewalk more narrow, inhibiting outdoor patio space for area businesses. introduction in order to understand the impact. They were supportive of the partial road diet and eager to see it implemented on a larger stretch of the corridor. They were excited about the scramble crossings and suggested additional data be collected a few months after red). they did not offer many suggestions for improvement other than enforcement of existing rules (ex. no right turn on Participants were most concerned with the traffic infractions along this route among vehicles and cyclists, though RECOMMENDATIONS: North side of the street. Participants were most concerned with vehicular speeding along South Santa Monica Boulevard. Additionally, they identified narrow sidewalks as inhibiting pedestrian activity for the restaurants and small businesses located on the ROUTE 2: SOUTH SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD

6 ATTACHMENT B

7 To: City of Beverly Hills From: John Lower, FITE, LCI Beverly Hills, CA North Rexford Drive Community Development Department Deepak Kaushik, Senior Engineer DRAFT MEMORANDUM Date: July 3, South Grand Avenue, Suite 53 iteris.com Los Angeles, CA 917 RE: Beverly Hills Complete Streets Planning Services Draft The City of Beverly Hills is situated in the middle of a high density travel corridor between downtown Los local streets traversing the City of Beverly Hills. San Diego-developed Senior Pedestrian curriculum on pedestrian safety.2 Los Angeles Westside Purple Line Extension Section 2 Profile FY16.pdf accessed June 21, pdf, accessed June 21, surrounds Beverly Hills and is the origin and/or destination of many trips that pass through Beverly Hills, County as having the most pedestrian fatalities (265). The City of Los Angeles, which effectively The GHSA compared 216 pedestrian crash data nationwide by County, and identified Los Angeles have increased faster than all other types of traffic fatalities over the past decade, and now are at a 25- Safety funding Pedestrian Assessments in cities with high collision rates, and sharing the University of year high. The GHSA noted the State of California approach to counter the increasing pedestrian crash rates includes the State Department of Transportation installation of more roundabouts, Office of Traffic Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) documents that pedestrian deaths in the United States Pedestrian safety is both an historic and an increasing concern, both locally and nationally. The Cienega boulevards, and 2) the southwest quadrant of Wilshire and Reeves Drive can be expected to ridership. City of Beverly Hills Purple Line stations at 1) the northeast quadrant of Wilshire and La serve many of the Purple Line forecast 36,1 daily riders. These may include trips by residents, of a citywide crosswalk policy. Pedestrian volumes are robust today and will grow with the completion of Purple Line horizon year employees and tourists. Introducing more pedestrian traffic into an area where the most common crash factors are failure to yield right-of-way, unsafe speed, and improper turning necessitates consideration Angeles and Santa Monica. This corridor has the highest density of population and employment in Los Angeles County1, and produces high volumes of vehicle, transit and pedestrian traffic along arterials and 1. Introduction Citywide Crosswalk Policy

8 accounted for 43 percent of these. Beverly Hills shares the increasing trend in pedestrian crashes depicted for the City of Los Angeles in Figure 1. City of Beverly Hills pedestrian injury crashes experienced a 52 percent increase between 211 s 42 incidents and 215 s 64 reported pedestrian crashes. guidelines at the federal, state and selected local agency levels, with the intent to inform development 2. Background on Crosswalks environment that results in walking as a desirable travel choice, particularly for short trips, within the intersections and mid-block locations, and by collaborating with community groups to identify and implement needed and desirable improvements.4 iteris iteris.com 81 SOUth Grand Avenue, Suite 53 Los Angeles, CA 917 Los Angeles Traffic 23 Fatalities C1 Vuinerab! road users account for over two-thirdt of all traffic deaths In Los Angetes I P ED E ST P IAN S a. 57 * 17 VEH!CLE OCCUPANTS * 6 2 MOTORCYCLISTS I I I I I I * 2* * 211 1D* 7t14 2*4.r. *, -1r ; 51 5i 1, % -! The City of Beverly Hills Circulation Element includes a goal for a safe and comfortable pedestrian City. This is intended to be accomplished via policies for provision of well-marked pedestrian crossings at lteris Crosswalk Policy Research Summary (dated March 28, 218) presented a review of crosswalk of a City of Beverly Hills crosswalk policy. It is included as Attachment A. page 12, accessed June 21, Circulation% pdf, page , accessed June 21, Figure 1: Los Angeles Traffic Fatality Trends

9 IterI South Grand Avenue, Suite 53 ites.com Los Angeles, CA 917 For any installed crosswalk, the continental style crosswalk marking is recommended due to its longer detection distance by approaching drivers. Continental crosswalks feature two-foot wide white (or yellow in school zones) painted stripes paired with a limit (stop) line setback from the crosswalk to reduce vehicular encroachment into the crosswalk. The crosswalks alert motorists that they are approaching a pedestrian zone and are safer than pedestrian crossings marked by two thin lines connecting two corners of an intersection. : t C \ - C>S - I FHWA s 21 Crosswalk Marking Field Visibility Study5 evaluated the daytime and nighttime visibility of three crosswalk markings: transverse, continental, bar pairs. The study concluded that continental and bar pair markings should be considered default for all crosswalks since their detection distance is longer compared to transverse markings. Figure 2 shows continental and bar pair markings have statistically similar sight detection distance at around 45 feet during the day and 35 feet during the night. 6 4 t 2 U Continental Day Pairs frtransverse I Night Light Level ear Figure 2: Least Square (LS) Mean Detection Distance by Marking Type and Light Levelfor Study Sites The City has already implemented continental crosswalks at multiple locations. As existing crosswalks are maintained, other patterns will be replaced with continental crosswalks. There are a number of different materials used for marking crosswalks, including colored pavement, paint, thermoplastic and preformed tape. Transportation agencies weigh several factors when determining which marking material is most appropriate including costs, durability, reflectivity, and friction coefficient (avoiding slip hazards). Colored pavement is durable, but is not as reflective or visible to approaching motorists as other options. They can also create aesthetic issues as various utility maintenance projects cut the pavement, and the color of replacement pavement never matches the original. Paint striping in California must be water based, which requires refreshment and associated lane closure traffic disruptions at least every three years. Thermoplastic is the crosswalk marking material most favored by communities interviewed as part of the FHWA Guide for Maintaining 3

10 lines for both day and night visibility by motorists and by onboard sensors of highly automated vehicles. Only a few communities surveyed in the FHWA Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced newer product that can help improve safety by clearly marking stop bars, crosswalks, and channelizing Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety Research Report.6 Preformed pavement marking tape is a crossing island. features if any of the following conditions are met: o the distance from adjacent signalized intersections, o the average daily traffic (ADT), o the geometry of the location, o the possible consolidation of multiple crossing points, the availability of street lighting, o other appropriate factors. and o the number of lanes, o the presence of a median, o the pedestrian volumes and delays, o the posted or statutory speed limit or 85th-percentile speed, installed at a location away from a traffic control signal or an approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD follow the table quote the FHWA guidelines verbatim. Table 1 presents a summary of the FHWA guidance for installing marked crosswalks and other surrounding land uses, and major points of origin/destination must be considered. roadway ADT, roadway type and speed limit. It should be noted that Table 1 and the footnotes which elements. Collision history, average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, traffic speeds, roadway characteristics, pedestrian crossing facility enhancements. The criteria for crosswalk installation include conditions by 3. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Guidelines Several strategies were mentioned for reducing slip hazards associated with thermoplastic, including use Safety Research Report mentioned that they have had slip hazard issues with crosswalk markings. of newer thermoplastic mixtures that contain sand or other coarse materials for reducing slip hazards South Grand Avenue, Suite 53 iteris.com Los Angeles, CA 917 Bricks and stamped concrete were noted as creating hazards for bicyclists. The installation of marked crosswalks requires a comprehensive evaluation of a variety of traffic FHWAs Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) documents that crosswalk lines should not be used indiscriminately. An engineering study should be performed before a marked crosswalk is sign. The engineering study should consider: As shown in Table 1, FHWA guidelines require that crosswalks must be enhanced with additional safety 1. The speed limit exceeds 4 mph. 2. ADT is greater than 12, on roadways with four or more lanes and without a raised median or 3. ADT is greater than 15, on roadways with four or more lanes and with a raised median or 6 bike/tools solve/fhwasa 1337/research report/chap2e.cfm, accessed June 23, 21$. 4

11 South Grand Avenue, Suite 53 iteris.com Los Angeles, CA 917 crossing island. In consideration of this information with City staff, it is agreed that any new crosswalk in the City of Beverly Hills shall be accompanied by supplemental safety measure(s) as developed in a new crosswalk policy. 5

12 iteris iteris.com 81 South Grand Avenue, Suite 53 Los Angeles, CA 917 TABLE 1: FHWA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INSTALLING MARKED CROSSWALKS AND OTHER NEEDED PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS AT UNCONTROLLED LOCATIONS7 2Lanes C C P C C P C C N C P N 3tanes C C P C p p P P N P N N Multilane (4 or more lanes) with raised C C P C P N p p median*** N N N N Multilane (4 or more lanes) without C P N P P N N N raised median*** N N N N Notes: These guidelines include intersection and midblock locations with no traffic signals or stop signs on the approach to the crossing. They do not apply to school crossings. A two-way center turn lane is not considered a median. Crosswalks should not be installed at locations that could present an increased safety risk to pedestrians, such as where there is poor sight distance, complex or confusing designs, a substantial volume of heavy trucks, or other dangers, without first providing adequate design features and/or traffic control devices. Adding crosswalks alone will not make crossings safer, nor will they necessarily result in more vehicles stopping for pedestrians. Whether or not marked crosswalks are installed, it is important to consider other pedestrian facility enhancements (e.g., raised median, traffic signal, roadway narrowing, enhanced overhead lighting, trafficcalming measures, curb extensions), as needed, to improve the safety of the crossing. These are general recommendations; good engineering judgment should be used in individual cases for deciding where to install crosswalks. ** Where the speed limit exceeds 4 mph, marked crosswalks alone should not be used at unsignalized locations. The raised median or crossing island must be at least 4 feet wide and 6 feet long to serve adequately as a refuge area for pedestrians, in accordance with MUTCD and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines. C = Candidate sites for marked crosswalks. Marked crosswalks must be installed carefully and selectively. Before installing new marked crosswalks, an engineering study is needed to determine whether the location is suitable for a marked crosswalk. For an engineering study, a site review may be sufficient at some locations, while a more in-depth study of pedestrian volume, vehicle speed, sight distance, vehicle mix, and other factors may be needed at other sites. It is recommended that a minimum utilization of 2 pedestrian crossings per peak hour (or 15 or mote elderly and/or child pedestrians) be confirmed at a location before placing a high priority on the installation of a marked crosswalk alone. P Possible increase in pedestrian crash risk may occur if crosswalks are added without other pedestrian facility enhancements. These locations should be closely monitored and enhanced with other pedestrian crossing improvements, if necessary, before adding a marked crosswalk. N = Marked crosswalks alone are insufficient, since pedestrian crash risk may be increased.by providing crosswalks alone. Cbnsider using other treatments, such as traff,c.calming treatments. to signals where warranted, or other substantial crossing improvement to improve croccing edestrians safety fic 4. arked s it es non 6

13 For The City of Beverly Hills it is recommended that any intersection with traffic signal, yield or stop sign 4. Crosswalk Pohcy Recommendations shown in Table 3. Supplemental safety measures for new crosswalks where the above considerations are met shall become more intense as number of travel lanes, vehicle ADT and speeds increase. These thresholds are recommended checklist for requested crosswalk consideration and supplemental safety measures is presented in Table 2 and 3 below Crosswalk Installation control be provided with continental crosswalks. At non-controlled locations, midblock crosswalks can South Grand Avenue, Suite 53 iteris.com Los Angeles, CA 917 be considered by the City Traffic Engineer based on the following criteria. In this section, a criteria-driven process is detailed for determination of crosswalk installation. The TABLE 2: SAMPLE CROSSWALK CRITERIA CONSIDERATION CHECKLIST Criteria Item Checklist Consideration Yes No Comment The following criteria must be marked Yes to justify crosswalk installation: Does the pedestrian volume equal a minimum of Pedestrian Volume 2 pedestrians crossing a location during the If Yes, consider location. pedestrian peak hour? Is the minimum distance between the proposed Location crosswalk location and the nearest controlled pedestrian crossing at least 25 feet? LJ If Yes, consider approach speed. 7

14 Yield iteris iteris.com 8! South Grand Avenue, Suite 53 Los Angeles, CA 917 TABLE 3: SUPPLEMENTAL SAFETY MEASURES Crossing Distance2 Roadway ADT (vehicles per day) <1 1,51 5, 5, 12, 12,1 15, > 15, B B B C D 1. For streets with more than one lane at an approach or posted speed limit of 3mph or greater. 2. Crossing distance can be measured to a pedestrian island if one is present Category Crossing Treatments A B The following are required: fwll-2) Pedestrian Warning Signage with the corresponding (W16-7P) arrow plaque as shown in CA MUTCD Section 2C.5 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB5) Adequate lighting Acceptable grade and curvature lines of sight At least one of the following is required: (R1-6) State Law to Pedestrian sign if median or signal mast arm is present Raised crosswalk or other traffic calming treatments C At least two of the following are required: Radar Feedback Signs Striping changes such as narrower lanes, painted medians, road diets, or other speed reducing treatments. RRFBs. Staggered crosswalks and pedestrian refuge island. Other supplemental safety measure identified by City Traffic Engineer analysis D A Traffic Signal is required if the CA MUTCD warrants are met and it is recommended by a traffic engineering study. Otherwise the following is required:. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon if the CA MUTCD warrants are met W11-2 sign and W16-7P plaque at the crosswalk location, together with the Rectangular Rapid flashing Beacon are shown in Figure 3. These are the minimum recommended supplemental safety measures. $

15 iteris iteñs.com 81 South Grand Avenue, Suite 53 Los Angeles, CA 917 Example of an RRFB dark (left) and illuminated during the flash period (center and right) mounted with W11-2 sign and W16-7P plaque at an uncontrolled marked crosswalk8 8 approval/ia21/index.htj, accessed July 3, Figure 3:

16 iteris ites.com 81 South Grand Avenue, Suite 53 Los Angeles, CA 917 Installation of in-street Pedestrian Crossing signs (R1-6) which indicate State Law Yield to Pedestrians within Crosswalk as shown in Figure 4. This is one possible supplemental safety measure. STATE WITHIN CROSSWALK R 1-6 Figure 4: R1-6 sign and Example of Sign Placement 1

17 crossing treatment will follow. Crossing treatments will consist of appropriate signage per CA MUTCD guidelines. The following signage shall be included: If the proposed location meets the criteria for crosswalk installation, then an assessment of appropriate Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2l) Roadside Units to broadcast 5G or Dedicated Short Range Pedestrian hybrid beacons (Hawk signal), such as the ones programmed at the Lasky Drive/South Santa Monica Boulevard intersection Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFB), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Communications of pedestrian locations, headings and speeds to Connected Vehicles that would support the crosswalk. Such measures would include the following (coupled with required crosswalks shall include supplemental safety measures through the installation of enhanced technology. this treatment can be most effective when combined with crosswalk enhancements. Thus, all marked Figure 6: Yield Here to Pedestrian Sign (R1-5) and Yield Line ( Shark Teeth Markings) at Unsignalized Mid-block Crosswalks (MUTCD) teeth markings) approximately 2 feet in advance of the crosswalks, to encourage Installation of Yield Here to Pedestrians signs (R1-5) and associated yield lines ( shark drivers to stop further in advance of the new crosswalk, as shown in Figure 6. There should be no parking between the yield line and crosswalk. iteris iteris.com 81 South Grand Avenue, Suite 53 Los Angeles, CA 917 a) Two wa roadway Dtci,on of 61o15m Ho5OIi While high-visibility crosswalks with appropriate signage can improve the overall visibility of a crosswalk, In this section, a set of criteria will be detailed for determination of the type of enhancement measure MUTCD signage at a minimum): has issued an interim approval for RRFB. Signalized crosswalks, must meet CA MUTCD warrant Raised crosswalk, such as Beverly Gardens Park shown in Figure 7. Radar Speed Feedback Signs, shown in Figure 8. (CV) for On-Board Unit calculation of whether a warning is issued to the CV driver. 11 -f* [i1 Lqerd

18 iteris iteris.com 81 South Grand Avenue, Suite 53 Los Angeles, CA 917 Figure 7: Raised Crosswalk at Beverly Gardens Park Figure 8: Radar Speed Feedback Sign 12

19 Creative crosswalks may be considered with use colors, textures, and patterns to enliven city streets 4.2 Creative Crosswalk Installation to last three years prior to installation. crosswalk removal: recommended that the City follow the California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section guidelines for 4.3 Crosswalk Removal Continental Crosswalk markings. If the site reflective white parallel bars, in continental has an existing standard crosswalk, it may be layout. traffic control devices or legends will be considered. bond well. advertising or shapes such as logos, or any text or colors that can be confused with standard between the bars. Always include the considered only at intersections with existing repainted as a continental crosswalk as part obscure or interfere with regulatory crosswalk markings needed for safety. No commercial neighborhood, mark the gateway to a district, or otherwise create local identity and pride South Grand Avenue, Suite 53 iteris.com Los Angeles, CA 917 as engaging and safe places for people. They can be designed to reflect the special character of a Creative Crosswalk treatments may be of the project. Decorative elements may be added only The material used shall be a special, highly durable road-marking paint approved by the City. All locations and design proposals must be reviewed and approved by a City traffic engineer. While creativity and artistic innovation is encouraged, Creative Crosswalk treatments cannot Only locations where pavement is in good condition will be considered, allowing the materials to Crosswalk removal: This section details procedures for consideration of crosswalk removal. It is A 3-day notice of potential removal would be provided to residents and a public hearing would be required. In addition, an evaluation of pedestrian-related collisions would be conducted. Crosswalk removal would be recommended if data shows that collisions have increased after installation of a crosswalk compared 13

20 MEMORANDUM footnotes which follow the table quote the FHWA guidelines verbatim. 1. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Guidelines draft policy prepared for consideration. presented. Upon review of this information by the City, preferred best practices will be identified and a guidance for future mobility needs in the City. Essential to the Complete Streets Plan is a policy with AUACHMENT TO DRAFT CITYWIDE CROSSWALK POLICY MEMORANDUM To: City of Beverly Hills From: Iteris, Inc. Community Development Department $1 South Grand Avenue, Suite North Rexford Drive Los Angeles, CA 917 Beverly Hills, CA 921 Date: March 2$, 21$ RE: Beverly Hills Complete Streets Planning Services Crosswalk Policy Research Summary The City of Beverly Hills Complete Streets Plan is being conducted by Iteris Inc. to provide comprehensive criteria for consideration of marked crosswalk placements throughout the City. This memo presents a review of crosswalk guidelines at the federal, state and selected local agency levels, with the intent to inform development of a City of Beverly Hills crosswalk policy. A summary of the criteria for crosswalk installation, technology enhancement, and crosswalk removal is The installation of marked crosswalks requires a comprehensive evaluation of a variety of traffic elements. Collision history, average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, traffic speeds, roadway characteristics, surrounding land uses, and major points of origin/destination must be considered. Table 1 presents a summary of the FHWA report intended to provide guidance for installing marked crosswalks and other pedestrian crossing facility enhancements. The criteria for crosswalk installation is conditions by roadway ADT, roadway type and speed limit. It should be noted that Table 1 and the

21 TABLE 1: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INSTALLING MARKED CROSSWALKS AND OTHER NEEDED PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS AT UNCONTROLLED LOCATIONS 3Lanes C C P C P P P P N P N N Multilane (4 or mote lanes) with raised C C P median*** C P N P P N N N N Multilane (4 or more lanes) without C P N P P N N N N N N N raised_median*** Notes: These guidelines include intersection and midblock locations with no traffic signals or stop signs on the approach to the crossing. They do not apply to school crossings. A two-way center turn lane is not considered a median. Crosswalks should not be installed at locations that could present an increased safety risk to pedestrians, such as where there is poor sight distance, complex or confusing designs, a substantial volume of heavy trucks, or other dangers, withoutfirst providing adequate design features and/or traffic control devices. Adding crosswalks alone will not make crossings safer, nor will they necessarily result in mare vehicles stopping for pedestrians. Whether or not marked crosswalks are installed, it is important to consider other pedestrian facility enhancements (e.g., raised median, traffic signal, roadway narrowing, enhanced overhead lighting, traffic-calming measures, curb extensions), as needed, to improve the safety of the crossing. These are general recommendations; good engineering judgment should be used in individual cases for deciding where to install crosswalks. ** Where the speed limit exceeds 4 mph, marked crosswalks alone should not be used at unsignalized locations. The raised median or crossing island must be at least 4 feet wide and 6 feet long to serve adequately as a refuge area for pedestrians, in accordance with MUTCD and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines. C = Candidate sites for marked crosswalks. Marked crosswalks must be installed carefully and selectively. Before installing new marked crosswalks, an engineering study is needed to determine whether the location is suitablefor a marked crosswalk. For an engineering study, a site review may be sufficient at some locations, while a more in-depth study ofpedestrian volume, vehicle speed, sight distance, vehicle mix, and otherfactors may be needed at other sites. It is recommended that a minimum utilization of 2 pedestrian crossings per peak hour (or 15 or more elderly and/or child pedestrians) be confirmed at a location before placing a high priority on the installation of a marked crosswalk alone. P = Possible increase in pedestrian crash risk may occur if crosswalks are added without other pedestrian facility enhancements. These locations should be closely monitored and enhanced with other pedestrian crossing improvements, if necessary, before adding a marked crosswalk. N = Marked crosswalks alone are insufficient, since pedestrian crash risk may be increased by providing marked crosswalks alone. Consider using other treatments, such as traffic-calming treatments, traffic signals with pedestrian signals where warranted, or other substantial crossing improvement to improve crossing safety for pedestrians. 1

22 As shown in Table 1, crosswalks conditions are met: must be enhanced with additional features if any of the following 1. The limit exceeds 4 mph. 2. ADT is 12, on with crossing island. 3. ADT is 15, on roadways with crossing island. speed greater than greater than roadways four four or more lanes and or more without a raised median or lanes and with a raised median or Furthermore, the nighttime FHWA s 21 Crosswalk Marking Field Visibility Study2 and visibility of crosswalk markings: bar pairs (shown in Figure 1). three transverse, continental, evaluated the daytime Bar Pair Markings Figure 1: Crosswalk Markings3 Continental Markings Transverse Markings The and bar pair markings should be crosswalks since is longer and bar pair markings have statistically similar sight during day and 35 during night. study concluded that continental continental the their detection distance feet the compared to transverse considered default for all markings. Figure 2 shows 45 detection distance at around feet Figure 2: Least Square (IS) Mean Detection Distance by Marking Type and Light Level for Study Sites 6 ti 4 q2 Continental Day Bar Pairs Light Level Transverse Night 2 IBID

23 this this 2. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) The California of Transportation (Caltrans) follows FHWA guidelines for of crosswalks. The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) crosswalks as providing guidance crossing by defining and of travel. Section 3B.184 of CA MUTCD, included in Appendix A, provides specific design, and signage crosswalk markings. paths the Department striping for for pedestrians who the are the roadways the installation defines marked delineating guidance on In case of crosswalk removal, California Vehicle Code (CVC), Section hearing 3 days prior to removal of a crosswalk. removal crosswalk location. the at least posted at the the the scheduled There requires a public should also be a notice of 3. Local Jurisdictions At local agency level, cities typically have own of guidelines and policies for facilities. lteris and crosswalk policies City of West Hollywood, and San Diego. The reviewed, and in Table 2, include following: the Pasadena reviewed the latest pedestrian documents their set summarized for the the pedestrian City of West Hollywood in provides a of prioritized and City s be more comfortable, safe, inviting and bicyclists of all ages and abilities. A crosswalk policy is included in Appendix of Plan with criteria be used as guideline crosswalks and install crosswalk The crosswalks devices. Crosswalks used guide optimal locations crossing, and inform drivers of locations where they should cross. City of Pasadena Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidance, adopted in 216 document provides a toolbox of pedestrian and vehicular at uncontrolled crossings. The are designated as basic and enhanced. For instance, recommendation of a crosswalk without additional signage or technology is considered a basic Criteria for enhanced beyond striping, such as rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFB), is also included in report. City of San Diego Marked Crosswalk Criteria document is Council Policy provides a set of basic warrants and point warrants for crosswalk installations. The document also includes guidelines for additional to support crosswalk, and crosswalk removal. Furthermore, in 215, City of San Diego also high visibility crosswalks6 as City for all crosswalks. The goal is style crosswalks all crossing City. strategies to pedestrians 6 the installation/removal, to pedestrians to that continental Pedestrian and Bicycle Mobility Plan, tools to enhance the to are not considered safety for standard at the to enhanced to future treatments the streets to adopted for marked technology. treatment. are features at Uncontrolled Locations set and document notes that to the pedestrians expect treatments treatment treatments adopted to eventually implement throughout the the continental

24 . Distance nearest Pedestrian Volume TABLE 2: CROSSWALK TREATMENT GUIDELINES Treatment Criteria West Hollywood7 Pasadena8 San Diego N of pedestrians/hour must meet MUTCD 4C-5 warrant for any four hour period* Pedestrian volume 2 pedestrian/hour during any two hours, not necessarily consecutive. Pedestrian volume 1 pedestrian/hour during peak pedestrian hour. Note: children, seniors and disabled persons count as 1.5 pedestrians. 2- and 3-lane roadways** 3mph and ADT < 12, 35mph and ADT < 9, gth percentile approach speed 4mph Approach Speed See Table 1 4-lane roadway without median Note: doesn t apply when pedestrian hybrid beocon or 3mph and ADT < 9, pedestrian traffic signal will be installed Crosswalk Installation Distance between proposed Distance to nearest crosswalk location and nearest... location controlled crossing controlled pedestrian crossing > 3. feet Visibility N/A 4-lane roadway with median 35mph and ADT < 9, between proposed crosswalk. Distance and nearest controlled pedestrian crossing > 3 feet Pedestrian can be easily seen from a feasible stopping sight distance between proposed crosswalk location and controlled pedestrian crossing > 25 feet Minimum distance required by speed limit $5ih Percentile Speect Stopping Sight Distance (MPH) (feet) 25 i so Illumination N/A N/A Proposed crosswalk location must have existing lighting df

25 Treatment Criteria West Hollywood7 Pasadena9 San Diego9 Accessibility N/A N/A Proposed crosswalk location must have accessibility to disabled persons or have accessibility improvements programmed Pedestrian Volume 1 pedestrians use crosswalk in a four hour period N A N/A 2-lane roadway ADT> 15, vehicles and speed > 4mph Enhanced Crosswalk Technology 3-lane roadway ADT> 9, vehicles and speed > 35mph ADT ADT> 1, vehicles ADT> 1,5 vehicles 4-lane roadway without median > 3mph and ADT > 9, 4-lane roadway with median > 35mph and ADT > 9, Roadway width Roadway width is 4 feet N/A Roadway width 4 feet Distance to nearest controlled crossing Distance to nearest controlled device > 3 feet N A N A Pedestrian Related Collisions Consideration of the pedestrianrelated collisions at the crosswalk within a 12 month period in compliance with the MUTCD. N/A N/A # of pedestrians/hour <4 in the Pedestrian Volume N/A N/A highest peak hour Crosswalk removal Distance to nearest controlled crossing Visibility Pedestrian Related Collisions Distance between crosswalk and nearest controlled crosswalk < 3 N/A N/A feet Visibility issues that cannot be corrected If pedestrian accidents increases after installation of crosswalk compared to last three year prior to installation N/A N/A N/A N/A

26 Treatment Criteria West Hollywood7 Pasadena San Diego9 Other Crosswalk causes constant intersection gridlock. Must follow CVC Section guidelines Must follow CVC Section guidelines for Must follow CVC Section for crosswalk removal, crosswalk removal. guidelines for crosswalk removal. Note: N/A criteria not available or not specified in document 9See Appendix B for CA MUTCD Pedestrian Warrant Volume 99See Appendix C Pasadena Pedestrian Crossing Treatments, Table 2 and Table 3 ***See Appendix D - San Diego Council Policy, Table 2 for detailed information on crossing treatment

27 Appendix A - CA MUTCD Crosswalk Markings

28 (Ri-i) sign, traffic control signal or some other traffic control device. Option: 22 A limit line may be placed in advance of a crosswalk where vehicles are required to stop, in compliance with a STOP Support: 23 If a marked crosswalk is in place, it would normally function as a limit line. 24 Typical limit line markings are shown in Figure 3B-13(CA). Standard: shall not be less than 12 inches or greater than 24 inches in width. diagonal or longitudinal lines are used without transverse lines to mark a crosswalk, the crosswalk should be not Section 3B.18 Crosswalk Markings Standard: STOP ON TRACKS (R8-8) signs (see Section 8B.9), or one or more similar signs. hatching within the intersection area; or INTERSECTION (DRIVEWAY) (CROSSING) (R1O-7) signs (see Section 2B.53), one or more DO NOT following alternatives: message such as DO NOT BLOCK or KEEP CLEAR; vehicles must not block. Section 3B.17 Do Not Block Intersection Markings Standard: space between the triangles shall be I foot. California MUTCD 214 Edition Page 682 (FHWA s MUTCD 29 Edition, including Revisions I & 2, as amended for use in California) 25 The individual triangles comprising the yield line shall have a base of 2 feet wide and a height of 3 feet. The Support: 26 Figure 3B-i 6(CA) shows typical yield line layout for streets and highways. Support: oo Refer to CVC for entering intersection, rail crossing or marked crosswalk. Option: 1 Do Not Block Intersection markings may be used to mark the edges of an intersection area that is in close proximity to a signalized intersection, railroad crossing, or other nearby traffic control that might catise vehicles to stop within the intersection and impede other traffic entering the intersection. If authorized by law, Do Not Block Intersection markings with appropriate signs may also be ILsed at other locations. 2 If used, Do Not Block Intersection markings (see Figure 3B 18 3B-I 8(CA)) shall consist of one of the A. W1ide solid white lines that outline the intersection area that vehicles must not block; B. Wide solid white lines that outline the intersection area that vehicles must not block and a white word C. Wide solid white lines that outline the intersection area that vehicles must not block and white cross D. A white word message, such as DO NOT BLOCK or KEEP CLEAR, within the intersection area that 3 Do Not Block Intersection markings shall be accompanied by one or more DO NOT BLOCK Support: 1 Crosswalk markings provide guidance for pedestrians who are crossing roadways by defining and delineating paths on approaches to and within signalized intersections, and on approaches to other intersections where traffic stops. 2 In conjunction with signs and other measures, crosswalk markings help to alert road users of a designated pedestrian crossing point across roadways at locations that are not controlled by traffic control signals or STOP or YIELD signs. 3 At non-intersection locations, crosswalk markings legally establish the crosswalk. 4 When crosswalk lines are used, they shall consist of solid white lines that mark the crosswalk. They Gitidance: 5 Iftransverse lines are used to mark a crosswalk, the gap between the lines should not be less than 6feet. If less than 6feet wide. Chapter 38 Pavement and Curb Markings November Part 3 Markings

29 Pavement California MUTCD 214 Edition Page 683 (FHWA s MUTCD 29 Edition, including Revisions I & 2, as amended for use in California) 6 Crosswalk lines, fused on both sides ofthe crosswalk, should extend across thefitti width ofpavement or to the edge ofthe intersecting crosswalk to discourage diagonal walking between crosswalks (see figures 33-] 7 and 33-19). 7 At locations controlled by traffic control signals or on approaches controlled by STOP or YIELD signs, crosswalk tines should be instatted where engineeringjudgment indicates they are needed to direct pedestrians to the proper crossing path(s). 8 Crosswalk tines should not be used indiscriminately. An engineering stitdy should be performed before a marked crosswalk is instatted at a tocation awayfrom a traffic control signal or an approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign. The engineering study should consider the number of lanes, the presence ofa median, the distance from adjacent signalized intersections, the pedestrian volumes and delays, the average daily traffic (ADT), the posted or statutory speed limit or 85ii-percentile speed, the geometry of the location, the possible consolidation of multiple crossing points, the availability ofstreet lighting, and other appropriate factors. 9 New marked crosswalks across uncontrolled roadways should include alone, without other measures designed to reduce traffic speeds, shorten crossing distances, enhance driver awareness of the crossing, and/or provide active warning ofpedestrian presence, should not bc installed across uncontrolled roadways where the speed limit exceeds 4 mph and either: A. The roadway has four or more lanes oftravel without a raised median or pedestrian refuge island and an ADT of 12, vehicles per day or greater; or 3. The roadway has foitr or more lanes oftravel with a raised median or pedestrian refuge island and an ADT of 15, vehicles per day or greater. 9a If a marked crosswalk exists across an uncontrolled roadway where the speed limit exceeds 4 mph and the roadway has four or more lanes of travel and an ADT of 12, vehicles per day or greater, advanced yield lines with associated Yield Here to Pedestrians (R1-5, R1-5a) signs should be placed 2 to 5 ft in advance of the crosswalk, adequate visibility should be provided by parking prohibitions, pedestrian crossing (Wi 1-2) warning signs with diagonal downward pointing arrow (W16-7p) plaques should be installed at the crosswalk, and a high-visibility crosswalk marking pattern should be used (See Figure (CA)). Support: io Chapter 4F contains information on Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons. Section 4L.3 contains information regarding Warning Beacons to provide active warning of a pedestrian s presence. Section 4N.2 contains information regarding In-Roadway Warning Lights at crosswalks. Chapter 7D contains information regarding school crossing supervision. Guidance: ii Because non-intersection pedestrian crossings are generally unexpected by the road user, warning signs (see Section 2C. 5) should be installedfor all marked crosswalks at non-intersection locations and adequate visibility should be provided by parking prohibitions. Support: 12 Section 3B.16 contains information regarding placement of stop line markings near crosswalk markings. Option: 13 For added visibility, the area of the crosswalk may be marked with white diagonal lines at a 45-degree angle to the line of the crosswalk or with white longitudinal lines parallel to traffic flow as shown in Figure 3B When diagonal or longitudinal lines are used to mark a crosswalk, the transverse crosswalk lines may be omitted Guidance: 14a This type of marking should be used at locations where substantial numbers of pedestrians cross without any other traffic control device, at locations where physical conditions are such that added visibility of the crosswalk is desired, or at places where a pedestrian crosswalk might not be expected. 15 Ifused, the diagonal or tongitutdinal tines should be 12 to 24 inches wide and separated by gaps of 12 to 6 inches. The design ofthe lines and gaps should avoid the wheel paths fpossible, and the gap between the lines should not exceed 2.5 times the width of the diagonal or longitudinal lines. Option: 16 When an exclusive pedestrian phase that permits diagonal crossing of an intersection is provided at a traffic control signal, a marking as shown in Figure 3B-2 may be used for the crosswalk. Chapter 3B and Curb Markings November 7, 214 Part 3 Markings

30 California MUTCD 214 Edition Page 684 (FHWA s MUTCD 29 Edition, including Revisions I & 2, as amended for use in California) Guidance: 17 Crosswalk markings should be markings. located so that the citrb ramps are within the extension of the crosswalk SlLpport: is Detectable warning surfaces mark boctndaries between pedestrian and vehicular ways where there is no raised curb. Detectable warning surfaces are required by 49 CFR, Part 37 and by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) where curb ramps are constructed at the sidewalks and the roadway, for marked and unmarked crosswalks. Detectable warning surfaces contrast visually with adjacent walking surfaces, either tight-on-dark, or dark-on-light. The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG) (see Section contains specifications for design and placement Standard: 19 Crosswalk markings near shall be yellow as provided in CVC See Part 7. Option: 2 Pedestrian crosswalk markings may be placed at intersections, representing extensions of the sidewalk lines, or on any portion of the roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing. Refer to CVC 275. Guidances 21 In general, crosswalks should not be marked at intersections unless they are intended to channelize pedestrians. Emphasis is placed on the use of marked crosswalks as a channelization device. 22 The following factors may be considered in determining whether a marked crosswalk should be used: A. Vehicular approach speeds from both directions. B. Vehicular volume and density. C. Vehicular turning movements.. Pedestrian volumes. E. Roadway width. F. Day and night visibility by both pedestrians and road users. G. Channelization is desirable to clarify pedestrian routes for sighted or sight impaired pedestrians. H. Discouragement of pedestrian use of undesirable routes. I. Consistency with markings at adjacent intersections or within the same intersection. Option: 23 Crosswalk markings may be established between intersections (mid-block) in accordance with CVC 2116(a). Guidance: 24 Mid-block pedestrian crossings are generally unexpected by the motorist and should be discouraged unless, in the opinion of the engineer, there is strong justification in favor of such installation. Particular attention should be given to roadways with two or more traffic lanes in one direction as a pedestrian may be hidden from view by a vehicle yielding the right-of-way to a pedestrian. Option: 25 When diagonal or longitudinal lines are used to mark a crosswalk, the transverse crosswalk lines may be omitted. Standard: 26 However, when factor determined the need to mark a crosswalk is clarification of pedestrian for sight-impaired the crosswalk lines shall be marked. Option: 27 At controlled approaches, limit lines (stop lines) help to define pedestrian paths and are therefore a factor the engineer may consider in deciding whether or not to mark the crosswalk. 28 Where it is desirable to remove a marked crosswalk, the removal may be accomplished by repaving or surface treatment. Guidance: 29 A marked crosswalk should not be eliminated by allowing it to fade out or be worn away. Support: 3 The worn or faded crosswalk retains its prominent appearance to the pedestrian at the curb, but is less visible to the approaching road user. Standard: 31 Notification to the public shall be given at 3 days prior to removal of an existing marked crosswalk. The notice of proposed removal shall inform the public how to provide input related to removal and shall be posted at the crosswalk identified for removal. Refer to CVC Chapter 33 Pavement and Curb Markings November 7, 211 Part 3 Markings the IA.ll) schools that pedestrians, transverse least junction of the the scheduled of detectable warning surfaces. routes the scheduled

31 Pavement California MUTCD 214 Edition Page 685 (fhwa s MUTCD 29 Edition, including Revisions I & 2, as amended for use in California) Option: 32 Signs may be installed at or adjacent to an intersection directing that pedestrians shall not cross in a crosswalk indicated at the intersection in accordance with CVC 21 16(b). 33 White PED XING pavement markings may be placed in each approach lane to a marked crosswalk, except at intersections controlled by traffic signals or STOP or YIELD signs. Section 3B.19 Parking Space Markings Support: 1 Marking of parking space boitndaries encourages more orderly and efficient use of parking spaces where parking turnover is substantial. Parking space markings tend to prevent encroachment into fire hydrant zones, bus stops, loading zones, approaches to intersections, curb ramps, and clearance spaces for islands and other zones where parking is restricted. Examples of parking space markings are shown in Figure 3B 21 3B-21(CA). Standard: 2 Parking space markings shall be white. Option: 3 Blue lines may supplement white parking space markings of each parking space designated for use only by persons with disabilities. Support: 4 AdditionaL parking space markings for the purpose of designating spaces for use only by persons with disabilities are discussed in Section 3B.2 and illustrated in Figure 3B 22 3B-22(CA). The design and layout of accessible parking spaces for persons with disabilities is provided in the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) (see Section 1A.l 1). Support: 5 Refer to CVC 225 through for parking space markings. 6 Refer to Section 2B.39 for Parking Regulations. Policy on Parking Restrictions Option: 7 Local authorities may, by ordinance, provide for the establishment of parking meter zones and cause streets and highways to be marked with white lines designating parking spaces. Refer to CVC Section Standard: 8 Where the proposed zones are on State highways, the ordinances shall be approved by Caltrans. 9 Local authorities shall furnish a sketch or map showing the definite location of all parking meter stalls on State highways before Caltrans approval is given. Support: 1 The District Directors have been delegated the authority to approve such ordinances. ii The desirable dimensions of parking meter stalls are 8 feet by 24 feet with a minimum length of 2 feet. Guidance: 12 At all intersections, one stall length on each side measured from the crosswalk or end of curb return should have parking prohibited. A clearance of 6 feet measured from the curb return should be provided at alleys and driveways. 13 At signalized intersections parking should be prohibited for a minimum of 3 feet on the near side and one stall length on the far side. See Figure 38-21(CA). Standard: 14 The departmental approval for the installation of the parking meters shall be covered by an encroachment permit. Option: 15 Local authorities may by ordinance permit angle parking. Refer to CVC 2253, Support: 16 Caltrans does not approve ordinances establishing angle parking on State highways. 17 Diagonal parking stalls are not permitted on State highways. Chapter 3B and Curb Markings November 7, 214 Part 3 Markings

32 Pavement - California MUTCD 214 Edition (FHWA s MUTCD 29 Edition, including Revisions I & 2, as amended for use in California) Page 731 Figure 3B47 (CA). Examples ofcrosswalk Enhancements at Uncontrolled Multilane Approaches A -Two-way roadway - Miclbock Legend Direction of travel Optional NOTE: Adequate visthlity should be provided. N Ri-I Chapter 3B and Curb Markings Part 3 Markings November 7, 214

33 Pavement California MUTCD 214 Edition (FHWA s MUTCD 29 Edition, including Revisions I & 2, as amended Cor use in California) Page 734 Figure 3B-19. Examples of Crosswalk Markings I II *High visibility Crosswalk Marking I Spacing of lines selected to avoid wheel path Figure 3B-19 (CA). Examples of Crosswalk Markings I L Ladder*J )1iiitIIIiiii1 / : Spacing of lines Connental* setected to avoid I wheel path *High visibility Crosswalk Marking [ Chapter 38 and Curb Markings Part 3 Markings November 7, 214

34 Pavement California MUTCD 214 Edition (FIiWA s MUTCD 29 Edition, including Revisions I & 2, as amended for use in California) Page 735 Figure 3B-2. Example of Crosswalk Markings for an Exclusive Pedestrian Phase that Permits Diagonal Crossing * * * Inside markings are optional Chapter 313 and Curb Markings Part 3 Markings November 7, 214

35 Appendix B - CA MUTCD Pedestrian Volume Warrant

36 Highway Traffic California MUTCD 214 Edition Page 831 (FHWA s MUTCD 29 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 65 vehicles per hour for intersections with three approaches or 8 vehicles per hour for intersections with four or more approaches. B. The plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume minor-street approach (one direction only) for 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-3 for the existing combination of approach lanes. Option: 4 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 4 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 1,, Figure 4C-4 may be used in place of Figure 4C-3 to evaluate the criteria in the second category of the Standard. 5 this warrant is the only warrant met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, the traffic control signal may be operated in the flashing mode during the hours that the volume criteria of this warrant are not met. Git idance: 6 If this warrant is the only warrant met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, the traffic control signal should be traffic-actuated. Section 4C.5 Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume Support: 1 The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant is intended for application where the traffic volume on a major Street is so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street. Standard: 2 The need for a traffic control signal at an intersection or midblock crossing shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following criteria is met: A. For each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing the major street (total of all crossings) all fall above the curve in Figure 4C-5; or B. For 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day, the plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing the major street (total of all crossings) falls above the curve in Figure 4C-7. Option: 3 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 35 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 1,, Figure 4C-6 may be used in place of Figure 4C-5 to evaluate Criterion A in Paragraph 2, and Figure 4C-8 may be used in place of Figure 4C-7 to evaluate Criterion B in Paragraph 2. Standard: 4 The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest traffic control signal or STOP sign controlling the street that pedestrians desire to cross is less than 3 feet, unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. 5 If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, the traffic control signal shall be equipped with pedestrian signal heads complying with the provisions set forth in Chapter 4E. Gti idance: 611 this warrant is met and a traffic control signal is jttsttfied by an engineering study, then: A. If it is installed at an intersection or major driveway location, the traffic control signal shottld also control the minor-street or driveway traffic, should be traffic-actuated, and should include pedestrian detection. B. If it is installed at a non-intersection crossing, the traffic control signal should be installed at least 1 feet from side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP or YIELD signs, and should be pedestrian actuated. lithe traffic control signal is installed at a non-intersection crossing, at least one of the signal faces should be over the traveled way for each approach, parking and other sight obstructions shottld be prohibited for at least 1 feet in advance of and at least 2 feet be ond the crosswalk or site Chapter 4C Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 214 Part 4 Traffic Signals

37 distance, and the instctttation should include suitable standard signs and pavement markings. C. furthermore, if it is installed within a signal system, the traffic control signal should be coordinated. Option: 7 The criterion for the pedestrian volume crossing the major Street may be reduced as much as 5 percent if the 15th-percentile crossing speed of pedestrians is less than 3.5 feet per second. 8 A traffic control signal may not be needed at the study location if adjacent coordinated traffic control signals consistently provide gaps of adequate length for pedestrians to cross the street. accommodations should be made through curb extensions or other techniques to provide adequate sight control signals are so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of vehicular platooning. and the proposed and adjacent traffic control signals will collectively provide a progressive operation. following criteria is met: Standard: Section 4C.7 Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System prohibited for at least 1 feet in advance of and at least 2 feet beyond the crosswalk or site accommodations should be made through curb extensions or other techniques to provide adequate sight number of minutes in the same period (see Section 7A.3) and there are a minimum of 2 schoolchildren implementation of other remedial measures, such as warning signs and flashers, school speed zones, school traffic control signal along the major street is less than 3 feet, unless the proposed traffic control signal gaps in the traffic stream during the period when the schoolchildren are using the crossing is less than the crossing guards, or a grade-separated crossing. and adequacy of gaps in the vehicular traffic stream as related to the number and size of groups of schoolchildren at an established school crossing across the major street shows that the number of adequate faces shottld be over the traveled way for each approach, parking and other sight obstructions should be from side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP or YIELD signs, and shottid be pedestrian Section 4C.6 Warrant 5, School Crossing Standard: during the highest crossing hour. California MUTCD 214 Edition Page 832 (FRWA s MUTCD 29 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Support: 1 The School Crossing signal warrant is intended for application where the fact that schoolchildren cross the major street is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. For the purposes of this warrant, the word schoolchildren includes elementary through high school students. 2 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered when an engineering study of the frequency 3 Before a decision is made to install a traffic control signal, consideration shall be given to the 4 The School Crossing signal warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. Gicidance: 5 If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal isjttsttfied by an engineering study, then: A. If it is installed at an intersection or major driveway location, the traffic control signal should also control the minor-street or driveway traffic, should be traffic-actitated, and should inclttde pedestrian detection. B. If it is installed at a non-intersection crossing, the traffic control signal should be installed at least 1 feet actuated. If the traffic control signal is installed at a non-intersection crossing, at least one of the signal distance, and the installation should include suitable standard signs and pavement markings. C. Furthermore, if it is installed within a signal system, the traffic control signal should be coordinated. Support: Oi Progressive movement in a coordinated signal system sometimes necessitates installing traffic control signals at intersections where they would not otherwise be needed in order to maintain proper platooning of vehicles. 2 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the A. On a one-way street or a street that has traffic predominantly in one direction, the adjacent traffic B. On a two-way street, adjacent traffic control signals do not provide the necessary degree of platooning Chapter 4C Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 214 Part 4 Highway Traffic Signals

38 Traffic California MUTCD 214 Edition (FHWA s MUTCD 29 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Page Figure 4C-5. Warrant 4, Pedestrian Four-Hour Volume TOTAL OF ALL PEDESTRIANS CROSSING MAJOR STREET- PEDESTRIANS PER HOUR (PPH) MAJOR STREET TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) Note: 17 pph applies as the lower threshold volume. Figure 4C-6. Warrant 4 4, Pedestrian Four-Hour Volume (7% Factor) TOTAL OF ALL PEDESTRIANS CROSSING MAJOR STREET- PEDESTRIANS PER HOUR fpph) MAJOR STREET TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES VEHICLES PER HOUR fvph) Note: 75 pph applies as the lower threshold volume. Chapter 4C Control Signal Needs Studies Part 4 Highway Traffic Signals November 7, 214

39 for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossings Appendix C - Pasadena Pedestrian Crossing Treatments

40 q I CITY Of Pc1SPDtNf1 Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidance I Table 2. Treatments Applicable for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossings Across 2- and 3-lane Roadways Colored cells indicate that a corresponding conceptual diagram of these treatments is available in Fqure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8. arid Figure 9 Average Daily Traffic <15, [U) 15, [U] Speed Limit MPH 35 MPH 4 MPH [a] Marked Crosswalk Alone May be Sufficient (2-lanes) yes yes no yes no no.. only ADT only ADT [a] Marked Crosswalk Alone May be Sufficient (3-lanes) <12, <9, no no no no 3 MPH 35 MPH 4 MPH Type Category Treatment Striping Basic Yield Line [b) x x x x x x 3 A + Striping Basic High visibility crosswalks (Continental/Ladder Striping) [b] x x x x x x Signal/signage Basic In-street Pedestrian Signage x x Signal/signage Basic Roadside Signage [b] x x x x x x Signal/signage Enhanced Flashing Beacons (Including RRFB) [bc] x x x x x Signal/signage Enhanced LED-Enhanced Signage [c] x x x x x Signal/signage Enhanced Traffic signal, with pedestrian signal, where warranted [ci 3-lane 3-lane Geometry Enhanced Median, Refugee Island or Split Pedestrian Crossover x x x x x x Geometry Enhanced Chicane x x Geometry Enhanced Choker x x x x Geometry Enhanced Corner Bulb Outs and Curb Extensions x x x x x x Geometry Enhanced Lane Width Reduction x x x ADT <25, Geometry Enhanced Raised P it Øpeed Table it ADT Geometry Enhanced Speed humps x ADT <25, Other Basic Removal of Sight Distance Obstructions x x x x x x [a] FHWA recommendations indicate that under low-voiume, low-speed conditions, marking a crosswalk alone may be sufficient for uncontrolled crossings; under higher volume, higher speed conditions, additional treatments are highly recommended due to potential increases in pedestrian crash rates without any additional treatments. [by Treatments may be packaged together. Crossing treatments consisting of a yield line, high visibility crosswalk, roadside signage, and RRFB are a suggested treatment package. [c[ LED-Enhanced Signage, Flashing Beacons, and Traffic Signals provide similar functions. A single enhanced signal/signage treatment should be chosen based on an engineering study. [d[ Treatments are cumulative. For roads with higher volames and speeds, additional treatments should be considered to enhance comfort and visibility at crossings. F ) 46

41 . - no Ty I pçc 1kI1..J Ll I Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidance rj Table 3. Treatments Applicable for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossings Across 4-lane Roadways (With and Without Medians) Cotord cells indicate that ci corresponding conceptual diagram otthese treatments is available in Figure 1Q Figure 11, Ftgure 12, and Figure 13 A Type Category Treatment Average Daily Traffic <15, [di 15,-25,_[di >25, [di MPH 35 MPH 35 MPH Speed Limit MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH [a] Marked Crosswalk Alone May be only ADT only ADT no no no no Sufficient no (with no Median) no <12, <9, [a] Marked Crosswalk Alone May be only ADT no no no Sufficient no no (without no Median) no <9, - Striping Basic Yield Line [b] x x x x x x x x x High visibility crosswalks Striping Basic (Continental/Ladder Striping) [b] X S C X X X X X x Signal/signage Basic Roadside Signage [bj x x x x x x x x x Signal/signage Basic Flashing Beacons (Including RRFB) [b,c] x x x x x x Signal/si9nage Enhanced LED-Enhanced Signage [ci x x x x x x x x x Stgtâ1) Enhanced Pedestnan hybnd beacon ( HAWK signal ) [c] x x x X Xr\ Traffic signal, with pedestrian signal, where Enhanced warranted (C] X S X X - Medan. Refugee Island or Split Pedestrian Basic Crossover bj x x x x a x x x x Enhanced X X Enhanced Choker x x x x ihanced Co juts and Curb Extensions x a x x x x Geometry Enhanced Lane Width Reduction x x Geometry Enhanced Raised Pedestrian Crossing/Speed Table x Geometry Enhanced Speed humps x x Other Basic Removal of Sight Distance Obstructions x x x x x x x x x Ro.. [a] FHWA recommendations indicate that under low-volume, low-speed conditions, marking a crosswalk alone may be sufficient tot uncontrolled crossings; under higher volume, higher speed conditions, additional treatments are highly recommended due to potential increases in pedestrian crash rates without any additional treatments. [b) Treatments may be packaged together, crossing treatments consisting of a yield line, high visibility crosswalk, roadside signage, RRFB, and median refuge island are a suggested treatment package. [c[ LED-Enhanced Signage, Flashing Beacons, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, and Traffic signals provide similar functions. A single enhanced signal/signage treatment should be chosen based on an engineering study. [d] Treatments are cumulative. For roads with higher volumes and speeds, additional treatments should be considered to enhance comfort and visibility at crossings. ) 48

42 Appendix D - San Diego Council Policy

43 . Yield Crossing >52 Table 2: CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL POLICY Crossing Treatment Thresholds for Uncontrolled Marked Crosswalks if Warrants are Met Roadway ADT Distance2 eludes per da) A B C1 C D I. for streets with more than one lane at an approach or posted speed limit 3 mph or greater 2. Crossing distance can be measured to a pedestrian refuge island if one is present. CURRENT <1,5 1,51 5, 5,1 12, 12,1 15, > 15, <4 A B B C 4 to 52 A B C D Crossing Treatments Table 3 presents treatment requirements for the categories shown devices or treatments are proven, they may the City Engineer s approval. be considered in in Table 2. As new lieu of these treatments, with Table 3: Crossing Treatments for Uncontrolled Marked Crosswalks if Warrants are Met F1jLjtA.A A At least one of the following is required: (R1-6) State Law to Pedestrian sign if median is present B Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) c The following is required: (Wl1-2) Pedestrian Warning Signage with the corresponding (tvl6-7p) arrow plaque as shown in CA MUTCD Section 2C.5. Raised crosswalk or other traffic calming treatments if the City of San Diego s Traffic Calming Guidelines are met At least two of the following are required: Radar Speed Feedback Signs. RRFBs Striping changes such as narrower lanes, painted medians, road diets, or other speed reducing treatments. Staggered crosswalks and pedestrian refuge island Horizontal deflection traffic calming treatments if the City of San Diego s Traffic Calming Guidelines are met A Traffic Signal is required if the CA MUTCD warrants are met and it is recommended by a traffic engineering study. Otherwise at least one of the following is required: D Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon if the CA MUTCD warrants are met Horizontal deflection traffic calming treatment with RRFBs if the City of San Diego s Traffic Calming Guidelines are met 1. Horizontal deflection treatments include, but are not limited to: roundabouts, pedestrian refuge islands, and pedestrian pop-outs. CP-2-7 Page 7 of 9

44 ATTACHMENT C

45 To: City of Beverly Hills From: tens, Inc. MEMORANDUM between 211 and 216. through the City, create safer and welcoming environments for all road users, and enhance the walkability, 2. Background the CRF, the higher the number of crashes prevented. Effectiveness for Pedestrian Crashes document CRFs to represent a percentage reduction in collisions that Where available, the countermeasures described in this document present a Crash Reduction Factor practices including those recommended in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA 217 Proven 5afety Countermeasures), and the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO s) Urban Street for information and feedback purposes. facilities throughout the City, and this toolbox will be included as part of the final Complete Streets Plan. that address crash patterns and different types of collisions reported in the City of Beverly Hills. A proven currently being evaluated to improve safety for all modes of travel. Safety countermeasures are identified safety countermeasure toolbox will be developed to guide the design and operations of transportation 1. Introduction South Grand Avenue, Suite 53 iteris.com Los Angeles, CA 917 Community Development Department John Lower, FITE, LCI 455 North Rexford Drive Gina Escalante, Transportation Planner Beverly Hills, CA 921 Date: July3,218 RE: Beverly Hills Complete Streets Planning Services DRAFT Roadway Treatment Options This memorandum summarizes roadway treatment options, also referred as safety countermeasures, The countermeasures presented in this document are introduced to the Traffic and Parking Commission In order to develop a countermeasure toolbox appropriate to the City of Beverly Hills, Iteris reviewed best Design Guide. fcrf) metric to determine its effectiveness. FHWA s Toolbox of Countermeasures and Their Potential may be expected if a specific countermeasure or group of countermeasures is implemented. The higher The City s ongoing Complete Streets Program is intended to improve safety for all modes of travel in and bikeability, and economic vitality of local districts. To provide regional context, injury crash data for Beverly Hills and nearby cities is presented in Figure 1. As shown, three of the five cities (Beverly Hills, Culver City, and Los Angeles) have experienced an increase in the number of annual injury crashes 1

46 Figure 1. Total Injury Collisions by City 1) 2 The most vulnerable road users, those most likely to be injured in a crash, are pedestrians and bicyclists. Figure 2 shows that pedestrian and bicyclist crashes account for about 2 percent of all injury crashes in Beverly Hills, which is comparable with nearby cities. Source: Collision Analysis, Fehr & Peers 218. Beverly Hills Santa Monica.:=:: West Hollywood Culver City City of Los Angeles iteris.com Los Angeles, CA South Grand Avenue, Suite 53

47 35% 33% Figure 2. Pedestrian/Bicyclist Crashes as % of AN Injury Crashes iteris iteris.com Los Angeles, CA South Grand Avenue, Suite 53 H4- U C >- D C rd 3 Primary collision factors for injury crashes in the City of Beverly Hills are shown in Figure 3. Failure to yield right-of-way, followed by unsafe speed and improper turning, are the most common collision factors. Source: Collision Analysis, Fehr & Peers 21$ Beverly Hills Santa Monica West Hollywood Culver City City of Los Angeles % 5% 1% 15% 17% 2% 2 / 19% 25% 3% 31%

48 o = ) D u_i ca D C U C a) ( C,) 4- L)) c: 2 C,) U (a aj U. C c-i Lfl - E 8u o m a) to U a) P C (a v-i (U Cto (U H 4- a 4-, H U) a. 2 a 2 2 a4-, D a) a. a) 4- (a v-i C D 4- >_ a) LI I C.-, LI a) < $ co $ $ $ U4- E D z 4d $H m 2 C U. > I C (a 4- a) a) I a) I a a) o?j ) U >_ Ca C C LI a) U c.

49 iteris iteris.com 81 South Grand Avenue, Suite 53 Los Angeles, CA 917 Crash types for Beverly Hills are compared with nearby cities in Figure 4. The City of Beverly Hills is shown to experience a higher than average number of broadside and sideswipe crashes. 1% Figure 4. Crash Types by City 9% 8% 7% 6% U >. 5% 33% 31% 32% 4-4% 34% 29% 3% 2% 1% ; 23% 28% % Beverly Hills Santa Monica West Hollywood Culver City City of Los Angeles S Rear End S Broadside a Sideswipe I Hit Object I Vehicle/Pedestrian I Head-On Source: collision Analysis, Fehr & Peers 218 5

50 iteris iteris.com 81 South Grand Avenue, Suite 53 Los Angeles, CA 917 Figure 5 documents the crash types in the City of Beverly Hills by year. Broadside crashes have consistently been a higher share of crash types than any other category in Beverly Hills, and the number of broadside crashes has grown. 3 Figure 5. City of Beverly Hills Crash Types by Year 25 2 LI, Vehicle/Pedestrian Head-On Sideswipe Rear End Broadside Hit Object Source: Collision Analysis, Fehr & Peers 218 Figure 6 shows injury crashes by time of day. It documents that the number of crashes occurring during hours of darkness have significantly increased in both 215 and

51 Numberof Collisions co o D ) 3 -n :3- ) I ) 3 9 > 3 no >a -D 3 di 3

52 In summary of this background crash data, the City of Beverly HiUs is experiencing: An increasing number of injury crashes, with the most common injury collision factors comprised countermeasures are proposed for consideration. Subsections 3.3 through 3.5 address pedestrian safety. countermeasures are covered in Subsections 3.8 through 3.1. summarized in Table 1. Subsections 3.1 and 3.2 are ongoing Capital Improvement Programs, yet additional Projects (CIP) for implementation that could help reduce collisions in the City of Beverly Hills, as 3. Countermeasure Toolbox crashes (37%) in 211 to 25 broadsides out of 6 total injury crashes (42%) in 216 of South Grand Avenue, Suite 53 iteris.com Los Angeles, CA 917 o Failure to yield rightof-way o Unsafe speed, and o Improper turning Broadside crashes are most common o They have been historically higher than in other nearby cities, and o Their numbers have grown from Crashes during hours of darkness are an increasing pattern. The following are countermeasures currently being evaluated as part of the City s Capital Improvement Bicyclist safety countermeasures are presented in Subsections 3.6 and 3.7, and motorist safety Table 1 Summary of Countermeasure Toolbox Countermeasure CRF Broadside Rear-End Sideswipe Pedestrian Bicycle capital Improvement Program Traffic signal coordination Improve striping and signage visibility 17% 15% x x x x x x x Leading pedestrian interval flpi) Pedestrian safety Median and pedestrian refuge island 6% 46%-56% X x Bulb-outs 37% X Bicycle safety High Visibility bike lanes 5% X High Visibility bike boxes 35% X Right-sizing roadway 19%-47% X X X X Vehicle safety Left-turn restrictions 25%-5% X X Neighborhood traffic circles 9% X 8 approximately 13 broadsides out of 35 total injury

53 The City of Beverly Hills has already initiated a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) to upgrade traffic signal 3.1. Traffic Signal Coordination 9 A CIP to upgrade roadway striping and signage has also been initiated by the City of Beverly Hills. in hours of darkness. Traffic sign technology has changed dramatically in the last few years, with breakthroughs in retroreflectivity. Significantly brighter signs deliver optimal performance in retroreflective technology. 1 Source: positive guidance for drivers of vehicles on the street today (legacy vehicles) and by sensing equipment on navigation and faster decision-making for both drivers and automated vehicle systems. A reduction in collisions Connected Vehicles. This recommendation will be great value in addressing the pattern of crashes that occur Retroreflective signs are now available that provide better readability, which results in more accurate Countermeasure description: High visibility striping and signage increases comprehension of their intended 3.2. Improve Striping and Signage Visibility presented at the 215 Transportation Research Board. Based on Estimation of the Safety Effects of an Adaptive Traffic Signal Control System paper CRF: 1 7% Type of Collision: Broadside: Signal coordination results in the platooning of vehicles, allowing for larger gaps in collisions. Rear end: By vehicles maintaining uniform speeds as part of a coordinated system, rear end collisions could be reduced as abrupt vehicle stops could be less frequent. traffic that could facilitate permitted left-turn maneuvers, leading to the reduction in broadside can be counted and provided optimized traffic signal green times. demand to improve operations. Advanced traffic controllers can accommodate time of day plans and/or adaptive signal timing based on real time demands at the intersection. Vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists Countermeasure description: Implement major arterial traffic signal coordination based on traffic Absent V2l, the traffic signal coordination program is described below. may consider related measures for traffic signals, such as enhancing their visibility with the addition of V2l deployment, due to their ongoing pilot deployment research in the cities of New York and Tampa Bay, enable roadway infrastructure communications with Connected (not yet Autonomous) Vehicles that are expected to have significant market penetration over the next five years. This would facilitate Vehicle-to Infrastructure (V21) communications for applications such as construction zone/reduced speed zone ahead warnings, pedestrian in cross walk warnings, and many others. Although no CRFs are available for literature suggests up to an 8% reduction in crashes when the entire vehicle fleet is connected. The City for Roadside Units (RSUs) with Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC), and/or 5G cell sites, to reflective borders. control equipment that can be more traffic responsive. It is recommended to deploy additional technology iteñs.com Los Angeles, CA South Grand Avenue, Suite 53

54 retroreflective signs, and fluorescent tech nology. has been reported with the implementation of retroreflective signage (see CRF section). In addition, smart signs are compatible with traditional signage. Street name signs are available with internal LED lights that diffuse lighting across the entire sign to improve visibility. Figure 7 shows examples of pavement markings, The 217 FHWA s Proven Safety Countermeasures2 references the CMF Clearinghouse, CMF ID awareness at pedestrian and bicycle conflict points, thus reducing the potential for collisions. lanes, thus avoiding the potential for sideswipe collisions, particularly across intersections where locations that could lead to broadside collisions. Rear end: Improved signage visibility could provide drivers with increased awareness resulting in lanes are skewed. Type of Collision: CjImprove street name sign visibility Mam Letter height 12 inches InItial uppercase letter followed by lowercase iteris iteris.com 81 South Grand Avenue, Suite 53 Los Angeles, CA 917 Figure 7. Examples of Improved Signing and Striping Visibility Broadside: Improved signage visibility could provide drivers with increased awareness of conflict less abrupt stops and subsequent rear end collision reduction. Sideswipe: Improved striping visibility could result in better alignment of vehicles within travel Vehicle vs. pedestrian/bicyclist: Improved signage visibility could result in increased driver CRF: 15% 2 Source: 1

55 2l South Grand Avenue, Suite 53 iteñs.com Los Angeles, CA for a reduction in total crashes of 15% with the implementation of back plates with retroreflective borders Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Countermeasure description: Leading pedestrian intervals (LPI) are proposed to allow pedestrians a head start to enter an intersection before vehicles. This allows for increased visibility of pedestrians and could reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. Type of Collision: Vehicle vs. pedestrian: Collisions involving vehicles versus pedestrians within an intersection crosswalk could be reduced by the LPI treatment due to the increased visibility that pedestrians would have by getting the head start into the intersection. CRF: 6% The 217 FHWA s Proven Safety Countermeasures3 reports a 6% reduction in pedestrian-vehicle collisions at intersections with the implementation of LPI., Leading Pedestrian Interval N)jmOnJbec WAEs4 1.c P *itfl st$t cn$*qrd b oe tb 3.4. Median and Pedestrian Refuge Island Countermeasure description: Median and pedestrian refuge islands shorten crossing distances for pedestrians, and are typically used at locations with three or more travel lanes4. The refuge areas could allow for shorter signal walk phases, which could potentially result in reduced vehicle delay. Type of Collision: Vehicle vs. pedestrian: Collisions involving vehicles versus pedestrians could be reduced with the refuge island, as pedestrians would not need to make long crossing movements in one traffic signal phase due to the shorter distance provided. This allows the pedestrian to dwell in a protected area that is clearly visible to an on-coming vehicle. CRF: 46%-56% The 217 FHWA s Proven Safety Countermeasures5 reports a 46% reduction in pedestrian crashes with the implementation of raised medians, and a 56% reduction in pedestrian crashes with the Source: Source: blication/urban-street-design-guide/intersection-design-elements/crosswalks-anu crossings/pedestria n-safety-isla nds/ Source: 11

56 implementation of crossing refuge islands. iteris.com Los Angeles, CA 9U markings are currently under construction on North Santa Monica Boulevard. Class IV Bikeways are Research from Australia and New Zealand yields similar findings about bike lanes Type of Collision: Vehicle vs. pedestrian: Collisions involving vehicles CRF: 37% The 28 FHWA s Desktop Reference for Crash highway, as specified in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The MUTCD provides bike lanes are currently striped on Burton Way and Crescent Drive. Class II bike lanes with solid green physically separated from vehicle traffic. These facilities can improve cyclist safety when constructed well. namely, Type of Collision: Vehicle vs. bicyclist: By delineating high visibility bike lanes the motorist is alerted to the potential 6 Toward an Active California State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Technical Report, p7. 12 interaction with bicyclists. This increased awareness acts as a traffic calming measure and improve may increase cyclist safety when they are designed following best practices.6 intersections with bike lanes use exclusive left turn lanes. On the whole, it appears that bicycle facilities guidance on signage and pavement markings to delineate the right- of- way assigned to bicyclists. Class II increase cyclist safety when designed to be greater than 3 feet wide, painted as colored lanes, and when that they can Countermeasure description: A Class II bike lane is a striped lane for one-way bicycle travel on a street or 3.6. Install High Visibility Bike Lanes Reduction Factors reported a CRF of 37%. especially helpful at locations with acute or obtuse angle where vehicles can make turns at high speeds drivers. and pedestrians may not be directly visible to implementation of bulb-outs. Bulb-outs are versus pedestrians could be reduced with the reducing exposure to vehicles, and often reduce traffic speeds, thus increasing driver s reaction time. Countermeasure description: Bulb-outs, or curb extensions, extend the sidewalk into the parking lane, thereby increasing visibility of pedestrians to drivers. Bulb-outs also shorten pedestrian crossing distance, 3.5. Bulb-outs. I South Grand Avenue, Suite 53

57 . I South Grand Avenue, Suite 53 iteñs.com Los Angeles, CA 917 driver anticipation of bicycling activity, thus reducing the potential for vehicle versus bicyclist collisions. Michigan Department of Transportation s Best Design Practices for Walking and Bicycling in Michigan7 reported a reduction in bicycle-involved potential collisions with the implementation of bike lanes. CRF: 5% Based on the 23 Transportation Research Record Survey of North American Bicycle Commuters; Design and Aggregate Results Install High Visibility Bike Boxes Countermeasure description: Bike boxes increase visibility for bicyclists and provide a buffer between crosswalks and vehicles9, as shown in Figure 8. Right turns on red are restricted at intersections with bike boxes. In 216, the FHWA issued an Interim Approval1 of bike boxes based on findings from over 25 experiments performed by different agencies. The City of Beverly Hills would have to request and obtain Interim Approval from the FHWA to install bike boxes, in accordance with Section 1A.1 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Figure 8. Examples of Bike Boxes at Intersection ftê Source: NACTO Source: DOT_Research_ReportRcl572_Part6_387521_7.pdf Source: DOTResearch_Report_RC1572_Part6_ _7.pdf Source: blication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/intersection-treatments/bike-boxes/ Source: 18/ia 18.pdf 13

58 . I South Grand Avenue, Suite 53 iteris.com Los Angeles, CA 917 Type of Collision: Vehicle vs. bicyclist: Bike boxes allow for the bicyclist to have a refuge area within clear sight of a driver, thus reducing the potential for a vehicle to not see the bicyclist s movement at the intersection. Michigan Department of Transportation s Best Design Practices for Walking and Bicycling in Michigan reported a reduction in pedestrian and bicycle-involved potential collisions with the implementation of bike boxes. CRF: 35% The 2$ FHWA s Desktop Reference for Crash Reduction Factors12 reported a CRF of 35% 3.8. Right-sizing Roadway Countermeasure description: Right-sizing of roadways involves reallocation of existing pavement widths, typically reducing a roadway from four lanes undivided to two lanes divided by a center median. This could create room for wider and/or protected bike lanes, and facilitate the creation of bicycle friendly districts. This countermeasure is also a traffic calming strategy. It is generally considered feasible where daily traffic volumes are less than 2, vehicles per day on existing four-lane undivided roadways. Type of Collision: Broadside: By including a center Four-Lane Undivided Three-Lane median for vehicles to make left-turns, left-turning vehicles would no longer block through traffic behind them and could be less prone to make abrupt turns in small vehicle gaps that could lead to broadside collisions. In addition, vehicles could only need to cross one lane of travel. Sideswipe: By adding the center median, vehicles would not need to make a lane change to avoid a leftturning vehicle. Providing the center lane and one travel lane could reduce (Adapted from We1ch 1999) potential for sideswipe collisions. Read End: Right-sizing could reduce rear end collisions in locations by allowing left-turns to be made from the center median rather than from the through lane. Vehicle vs. bicyclist: With the reduction in travel lanes, striped bicycle lanes could provide bicyclists with an exclusive lane, reducing the conflicts with vehicles, thus lowering collision potential. Source: 12 Source: 14

59 reported a 29% reduction in total crashes. The 217 FHWA s Proven Safety Countermeasures 3 reports a 19-47% reduction in total collisions The 2$ Accident Modification Factors for Traffic and ITS Improvements (NCHRP Report 617) CRF: 19%-47% 15 Source: Source: solely on traffic control devices. Neighborhood Traffic Circles reduce conflict points among all modes by traffic calming effects on streets by reducing vehicle speeds using geometric design rather than relying replace signals, two-way stop controls, and all-way stop controls. Neighborhood Traffic Circles can have benefits compared to other intersection types, most notably a reduction in severe crashes. They can Countermeasure description: Neighborhood Traffic Circles provide substantial safety and operational 3.1. Neighborhood Traffic Cirdes corridor access management countermeasure. The website references the Highway Safety Manual with findings of 25-31% reduction in injury and fatal crashes with the restriction of leftturns. reduction in rear-end collisions. 5% estimated reduction in turning collisions. 5% estimated reduction in loss-of-control collisions. The 217 FHWA s Proven Safety Countermeasures 5 includes left turn restrictions as part of its The 24 FHWA s Signalized Intersections: informational Guide 6 reports a 5% estimated CRF: 25%-5% movements backing into the through lane. Where left turn pockets are eliminated, pavement locations where left-turn pockets of sufficient lengths are not provided and result in left-turn width exists for protected pedestrian refuge areas between opposing travel lanes. Type of Collision: Broadside: Left turn restriction or prohibition operations could reduce left-turn conflicts that can lead to broadside collisions. Rear end: Left turn restriction or prohibition operations could reduce rear end collisions in on selected major arterials and to reduce cut-through traffic. from side streets. This strategy may be implemented all day or during peak hours to improve operations left-turn conflicts at intersections Countermeasure description: Left turn restrictions are an access management tool that could help reduce 3.9. Left turn Restrictions iteris.com Los Angeles, CA South Grand Avenue, Suite 53 either 15 Source: access mgmt/ 16 Source: or both left turns from the arterial and left turn onto the arterial

60 present at conventional intersections, thus reducing the total number of potential conflict points and the Traffic Circles. The physical shape of Neighborhood Traffic Circles eliminate crossing conflicts that are significant safety improvements at intersections converted from conventional forms to Neighborhood turning all entering and exiting movements at intersections into right turns. Numerous studies have shown 16 Source: reduction in Seattle, Washington 7. The Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System reported a 9% crash movements. the reduction of vehicle conflict points, eliminating left-turn movements across oncoming through Type of Collision: Broadside: Neighborhood Traffic Circles have the potential to reduce broadside collisions through Hollywood is shown in Figure 9. Additional treatment may include setting the crosswalk back to improve lines of sight between pedestrians and motorists. most severe of those conflict points. An example of a Neighborhood Traffic Circle in the City of West iteris ites.com South Grand Avenue, Suite 53 Los Angeles, CA CRF: 9% Source: Google Maps view of Laurel Avenue/Norton Avenue in West Hollywood