CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS TRAFFIC AND PARKING COMMISSION

Transcription

1 CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS TRAFFIC AND PARKING COMMISSION TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ATTACHMENT: Traffic and Parking Commission Martha Eros, Transportation Planner Christian Vasquez, Transportation Planning Analyst Crosswalk Policy A. Crosswalk Policy Recommendations (Iteris, Inc.) B. Crosswalk Policies Research Summary (Iteris, Inc.) June 7, 2018 The Complete Streets Plan scope of work includes developing crosswalk policies to guide future crosswalk installations in the City and crosswalk standards. Iteris consultants will lead a discussion on crosswalks at the June 7 th Traffic & Parking Commission (TPC) meeting. Attachment B is a copy of the Crosswalk Policies Research Summary prepared by Iteris, Inc. that was included in the April and May 2018 TPC packets. Discussion Attachment A is a memorandum prepared by Iteris, Inc. outlining proposed crosswalk policy and treatment guidelines for the City. The proposed crosswalk policy recommendations for TPC consideration are as follows: Guidelines and criteria to determine crosswalk installation o Traffic elements evaluation: collision history, average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, traffic speeds, roadway characteristics, surrounding land uses, and major points of origin/destination. o Continental markings per MUTCD standards as the preferred marking o Crossing treatments per MUTCD standards (e.g., pedestrian crossing/yield signs, shark teeth markings) Enhanced technology installation o Signalized crosswalks o Raised crosswalks o Pedestrian hybrid beacons o Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFB) Crosswalk removal procedure o 30-day notice to residents o Public hearing Staff and Iteris recommend following the City of San Diego s crosswalk criteria standards with modifications as follows: Reduce the 85 th percentile approach speed from 40 mph to 35 mph Add grade of roadway as a criteria the Traffic Engineer may consider Include pedestrian volume criteria: 100 pedestrians use crosswalk in a four hour period Identify ADT volumes based on number of lanes on roadway and speed limits Consider pedestrian-related collisions at crosswalk within a 12-month period

2 TPC: Crosswalk Policy Page 2 Recommendation Staff seeks TPC input on the proposed crosswalk policy recommendations. Staff and Iteris consultants will present final policy recommendations at the July 12, 2018 TPC meeting.

3 Attachment A

4 MEMORANDUM To: City of Beverly Hills From: Iteris, Inc. Community Development Department 801 South Grand Avenue, Suite North Rexford Drive Los Angeles, CA Beverly Hills, CA Date: May 30, 2018 RE: Beverly Hills Complete Streets Planning Services Crosswalk Policy Update This memorandum presents crosswalk policies currently being explored by Iteris in coordination with the City of Beverly Hills. A final Crosswalk Policy for the City will be part of the Complete Streets Plan. The policies presented in this document are introduced to the Traffic and Parking Commission for information and feedback purposes. 1. Introduction Iteris Crosswalk Policy Research Summary (dated March 28, 2018) presented 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. At the local agency level, Iteris reviewed the crosswalk policies for three cities: West Hollywood, Pasadena and San Diego. San Diego s policy was identified as the most conservative approach and the preferred best practice. Iteris, in coordination with the City of Beverly Hills, is investigating a crosswalk policy that builds off of policies recommended by the City of San Diego. The City will develop approval authority procedures for installation of crosswalks once it has been determined the proposed location meets the criteria set in the policy. 2. Preliminary Crosswalk Policy Recommendations Marked crosswalks are defined in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) as providing guidance for pedestrians who are crossing roadways by defining and delineating paths of travel. The crosswalk policy would consist of guidelines and criteria that would help determine the installation of a crosswalk. Three sections have been identified as a starting point for the City s crosswalk policy: 1. Crosswalk installation: in this section, a set of criteria will be detailed for determination of crosswalk installation. The installation of marked crosswalks requires a comprehensive evaluation of a variety of traffic elements such as: collision history, average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, traffic speeds, roadway characteristics, surrounding land uses, and major points of origin/destination must be considered. The preferred marking is continental style crosswalks, which the City has already implemented at multiple locations. Furthermore, if the proposed location meets the criteria for crosswalk installation, then an assessment of appropriate crossing treatment will follow. Crossing treatments consist of appropriate signage per CA MUTCD WORKING DOCUMENT 1

5 guidelines. The following signage are being evaluated: a. Installation of signs W16-7P and W11-2 at the crosswalk location, similar to the one installed at the Alfred Street/Pico Boulevard unsignalized crossing shown in Figure 1. Figure 1: Signage at Alfred St/Pico Blvd City of Los Angeles b. Installation of in-street Pedestrian Crossing signs (R1-6) which indicate State Law Yield to Pedestrians within Crosswalk as shown above in Figure 2. Figure 2: R1-6 sign and Example of Sign Placement WORKING DOCUMENT 2

6 c. Installation of Yield Here to Pedestrians signs (R1-5) and associated yield lines ( shark teeth markings) approximately 20 feet in advance of the crosswalks, to encourage drivers to stop further in advance of the new crosswalk, as shown in Figure 3. It should also be noted that there should be no parking between the yield line and crosswalk Figure 3: Yield Here to Pedestrian Sign (R1-5) and Yield Line ( Shark Teeth Markings) at Unsignalized Mid-block Crosswalks (MUTCD) 2. Installation of enhanced technology to support crosswalk: in this section, a set of criteria will be detailed for determination of enhanced technology that would support the crosswalk. Such technology being evaluated include the following: a. Pedestrian hybrid beacons (Hawk signal), such as the ones programmed at Lasky Drive and South Santa Monica Boulevard b. Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFB), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has issued an interim approval for RRFB. The Team will continue to investigate this option for the City. c. Signalized crosswalks, must meet CA MUTCD warrant d. Raised crosswalk, such as Beverly Gardens Park shown in Figure 4. WORKING DOCUMENT 3

7 Figure 4: Raised Crosswalk at Beverly Gardens Park 3. Crosswalk removal: this section will detail procedures for consideration of crosswalk removal. Local jurisdictions such as San Diego follow the California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section guidelines for crosswalk removal: a. 30-day notice to residents and a public hearing are required Table 1 presents the preliminary crosswalk criteria being evaluated by Iteris for the City of Beverly Hills and the existing crosswalk criteria for the City of San Diego. It should be noted that additional criteria, beyond what is presented by the City of San Diego, is currently being evaluated by Iteris and listed in the table as other. For these cases, a has been noted for San Diego and a short description of the criteria is detailed for the City of Beverly Hills. WORKING DOCUMENT 4

8 TABLE 1: CROSSWALK TREATMENT GUIDELINES Treatment Criteria Beverly Hills (Preliminary) San Diego 1 Crosswalk Installation Pedestrian Volume Approach Speed Distance to nearest controlled crossing Visibility Pedestrian volume 10 pedestrian/hour during peak pedestrian hour. Note: children, seniors and disabled persons count as 1.5 pedestrians. Pedestrian volume 10 pedestrian/hour during peak pedestrian hour. Note: children, seniors and disabled persons count as 1.5 pedestrians. 85 th percentile approach speed 35mph 85 th percentile approach speed 40mph Distance between proposed crosswalk location and nearest controlled pedestrian crossing > 250 feet Minimum distance required by speed limit Distance between proposed crosswalk location and nearest controlled pedestrian crossing > 250 feet Minimum distance required by speed limit Illumination Proposed crosswalk location must have existing lighting Enhanced Crosswalk Technology Accessibility Other Pedestrian Volume ADT Roadway width Proposed crosswalk location must have accessibility to disabled persons or have accessibility improvements programmed City Traffic Engineer may consider other factors such as grade of roadway. Proposed crosswalk location must have accessibility to disabled persons or have accessibility improvements programmed 100 pedestrians use crosswalk in a four hour period. Marked crosswalks alone may not be sufficient if: 2 to 3-lane roadways with 35mph < speed < 40mph ADT between 9,000 15,000 4-lane roadway with 30mph < speed < 35mph ADT between 9,000 12,000 Roadway width 40 feet ADT > 5,000 12,000 vehicles depending on roadway width. Roadway width 40 feet Pedestrian Related Collisions Consideration of the pedestrian-related collisions at the crosswalk within a 12 month period in compliance with the CA MUTCD. Crosswalk Removal Other Must follow CVC Section guidelines for crosswalk removal. Notice and opportunity to be heard must be provided to the public not less than 30 days prior to the scheduled date of removal. Note: : City does not have specific guideline. The City of Beverly Hills may develop their own. Must follow CVC Section guidelines for crosswalk removal. Notice and opportunity to be heard must be provided to the public not less than 30 days prior to the scheduled date of removal. 1 WORKING DOCUMENT 5

9 Attachment B

10 MEMORANDUM To: City of Beverly Hills From: Iteris, Inc. Community Development Department 801 South Grand Avenue, Suite North Rexford Drive Los Angeles, CA Beverly Hills, CA Date: March 28, 2018 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 guidance for future mobility needs in the City. Essential to the Complete Streets Plan is a policy with 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 presented. Upon review of this information by the City, preferred best practices will be identified and a draft policy prepared for consideration. 1. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Guidelines 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 footnotes which follow the table quote the FHWA guidelines verbatim.

11 TABLE 1: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INSTALLING MARKED CROSSWALKS AND OTHER NEEDED PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS AT UNCONTROLLED LOCATIONS 1 Roadway Type (Number of Travel Lanes and Median Type) 30 mph Vehicle ADT 9, mph 40 mph Vehicle ADT > 9,000 to 12,000 Vehicle ADT > 12,000 to 15,000 Speed Limit** mph mph mph mph 30 mph 40 mph 30 mph Vehicle ADT > 15,000 2 Lanes C C P C C P C C N C P N 3 Lanes C C P C P P P P N P N N Multilane (4 or more lanes) with raised median*** Multilane (4 or more lanes) without raised median*** 35 mph C C P C P N P P N N N N C P N P P N N N 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, 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 40 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 20 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. 40 mph 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

12 As shown in Table 1, crosswalks must be enhanced with additional features if any of the following conditions are met: 1. The speed limit exceeds 40 mph. 2. ADT is greater than 12,000 on roadways with four or more lanes and without a raised median or crossing island. 3. ADT is greater than 15,000 on roadways with four or more lanes and with a raised median or crossing island. Furthermore, the FHWA s 2010 Crosswalk Marking Field Visibility Study 2 evaluated the daytime and nighttime visibility of three crosswalk markings: transverse, continental, bar pairs (shown in Figure 1). Figure 1: Crosswalk Markings 3 Bar Pair Markings Continental Markings Transverse Markings 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 450 feet during the day and 350 feet during the night. Figure 2: Least Square (LS) Mean Detection Distance by Marking Type and Light Level for Study Sites IBID

13 2. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) follows the FHWA guidelines for the installation of crosswalks. The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) defines marked crosswalks as providing guidance for pedestrians who are crossing roadways by defining and delineating paths of travel. Section 3B.18 4 of the CA MUTCD, included in Appendix A, provides specific guidance on the design, striping and signage for crosswalk markings. In the case of crosswalk removal, the California Vehicle Code (CVC), Section requires a public hearing at least 30 days prior to the scheduled removal of a crosswalk. There should also be a notice of removal posted at the crosswalk location. 3. Local Jurisdictions At the local agency level, cities typically have their own set of guidelines and policies for pedestrian facilities. Iteris reviewed the latest pedestrian and crosswalk policies for the City of West Hollywood, Pasadena and San Diego. The documents reviewed, and summarized in Table 2, include the following: City of West Hollywood Pedestrian and Bicycle Mobility Plan, adopted in 2017 provides a set of prioritized strategies and tools to enhance the City s streets to be more comfortable, safe, and inviting to pedestrians and bicyclists of all ages and abilities. A crosswalk policy is included in Appendix G of the Plan with criteria to be used as guideline for marked crosswalks installation/removal, and to install enhanced crosswalk technology. The document notes that crosswalks are not considered safety devices. Crosswalks are features used to guide pedestrians to optimal locations for crossing, and to inform drivers of locations where they should expect pedestrians to cross. City of Pasadena Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidance, adopted in 2016 this document provides a toolbox of pedestrian and vehicular treatments at uncontrolled crossings. The treatments are designated as basic and enhanced. For instance, the recommendation of a crosswalk without additional signage or technology is considered a basic treatment. Criteria for enhanced treatment beyond striping, such as rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFB), is also included in the report. City of San Diego Marked Crosswalk Criteria at Uncontrolled Locations this document is Council Policy that provides a set of basic warrants and point warrants for crosswalk installations. The document also includes guidelines for additional treatments to support the crosswalk, and crosswalk removal. Furthermore, in 2015, the City of San Diego also adopted high visibility continental crosswalks 6 as City standard for all future crosswalks. The goal is to eventually implement continental style crosswalks at all crossing throughout the City. 4 Chap3B.pdf

14 TABLE 2: CROSSWALK TREATMENT GUIDELINES Treatment Criteria West Hollywood 7 Pasadena 8 San Diego 9 Pedestrian Volume Approach Speed See Table 1 # of pedestrians/hour must meet MUTCD 4C 5 warrant for any four hour period* Pedestrian volume 20 pedestrian/hour during any two hours, not necessarily consecutive. 2 and 3 lane roadways** 30mph and ADT < 12,000 35mph and ADT < 9,000 4 lane roadway without median 30mph and ADT < 9,000 Pedestrian volume 10 pedestrian/hour during peak pedestrian hour. Note: children, seniors and disabled persons count as 1.5 pedestrians. 85 th percentile approach speed 40mph Note: doesn t apply when pedestrian hybrid beacon or pedestrian traffic signal will be installed 4 lane roadway with median 35mph and ADT < 9,000 Crosswalk Installation Distance to nearest controlled crossing Distance between proposed crosswalk location and nearest controlled pedestrian crossing > 300 feet Distance between proposed crosswalk location and nearest controlled pedestrian crossing > 300 feet Distance between proposed crosswalk location and nearest controlled pedestrian crossing > 250 feet Minimum distance required by speed limit Visibility Pedestrian can be easily seen from a feasible stopping sight distance Illumination Proposed crosswalk location must have existing lighting content/uploads/sites/6/2017/04/pasadena Pedestrian Crossings Volume 1 FINAL.pdf pdf

15 Treatment Criteria West Hollywood 7 Pasadena 8 San Diego 9 Accessibility Proposed crosswalk location must have accessibility to disabled persons or have accessibility improvements programmed Pedestrian Volume 100 pedestrians use crosswalk in a four hour period 2 lane roadway ADT > 15,000 vehicles and speed > 40mph Enhanced Crosswalk Technology ADT ADT > 10,000 vehicles 3 lane roadway ADT > 9,000 vehicles and speed > 35mph 4 lane roadway without median > 30mph and ADT > 9,000 4 lane roadway with median > 35mph and ADT > 9,000 ADT > 1,500 vehicles *** Roadway width Roadway width is 40 feet Roadway width 40 feet Distance to nearest controlled crossing Distance to nearest controlled device > 300 feet Pedestrian Related Collisions Consideration of the pedestrianrelated collisions at the crosswalk within a 12 month period in compliance with the MUTCD. Pedestrian Volume # of pedestrians/hour < 40 in the highest peak hour Crosswalk removal Distance to nearest controlled crossing Visibility Distance between crosswalk and nearest controlled crosswalk < 300 feet Visibility issues that cannot be corrected Pedestrian Related Collisions If pedestrian accidents increases after installation of crosswalk compared to last three year prior to installation

16 Treatment Criteria West Hollywood 7 Pasadena 8 San Diego 9 Other Crosswalk causes constant intersection gridlock. Must follow CVC Section guidelines for crosswalk removal. Must follow CVC Section guidelines for crosswalk removal. Must follow CVC Section guidelines for crosswalk removal. Note: : criteria not available or not specified in document *See Appendix B for CA MUTCD Pedestrian Warrant Volume **See 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

17 Appendix A CA MUTCD Crosswalk Markings

18 California MUTCD 2014 Edition (FHWA s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Option: 22 A limit line may be placed in advance of a crosswalk where vehicles are required to stop, in compliance with a STOP (R1-1) sign, traffic control signal or some other traffic control device. 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-103(CA). Standard: 25 The individual triangles comprising the yield line shall have a base of 2 feet wide and a height of 3 feet. The space between the triangles shall be 1 foot. Support: 26 Figure 3B-16(CA) shows typical yield line layout for streets and highways. Page 682 Section 3B.17 Do Not Block Intersection Markings Support: 00 Refer to CVC for entering intersection, rail crossing or marked crosswalk. Option: 01 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 cause 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 used at other locations. Standard: 02 If used, Do Not Block Intersection markings (see Figure 3B-18 3B-18(CA)) shall consist of one of the following alternatives: A. Wide 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 message such as DO NOT BLOCK or KEEP CLEAR; C. Wide solid white lines that outline the intersection area that vehicles must not block and white crosshatching within the intersection area; or D. A white word message, such as DO NOT BLOCK or KEEP CLEAR, within the intersection area that vehicles must not block. 03 Do Not Block Intersection markings shall be accompanied by one or more DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION (DRIVEWAY) (CROSSING) (R10-7) signs (see Section 2B.53), one or more DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS (R8-8) signs (see Section 8B.09), or one or more similar signs. Section 3B.18 Crosswalk Markings Support: 01 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. 02 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. 03 At non-intersection locations, crosswalk markings legally establish the crosswalk. Standard: 04 When crosswalk lines are used, they shall consist of solid white lines that mark the crosswalk. They shall not be less than 6 12 inches or greater than 24 inches in width. Guidance: 05 If transverse lines are used to mark a crosswalk, the gap between the lines should not be less than 6 feet. If diagonal or longitudinal lines are used without transverse lines to mark a crosswalk, the crosswalk should be not less than 6 feet wide. Chapter 3B Pavement and Curb Markings November 7, 2014 Part 3 Markings

19 California MUTCD 2014 Edition (FHWA s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Page Crosswalk lines, if used on both sides of the crosswalk, should extend across the full width of pavement or to the edge of the intersecting crosswalk to discourage diagonal walking between crosswalks (see Figures 3B-17 and 3B-19). 07 At locations controlled by traffic control signals or on approaches controlled by STOP or YIELD signs, crosswalk lines should be installed where engineering judgment indicates they are needed to direct pedestrians to the proper crossing path(s). 08 Crosswalk lines should not be used indiscriminately. An engineering study should be performed before a marked crosswalk is installed at a location away from 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 of a median, the distance from adjacent signalized intersections, the pedestrian volumes and delays, the average daily traffic (ADT), the posted or statutory speed limit or 85th-percentile speed, the geometry of the location, the possible consolidation of multiple crossing points, the availability of street lighting, and other appropriate factors. 09 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 of pedestrian presence, should not be installed across uncontrolled roadways where the speed limit exceeds 40 mph and either: A. The roadway has four or more lanes of travel without a raised median or pedestrian refuge island and an ADT of 12,000 vehicles per day or greater; or B. The roadway has four or more lanes of travel with a raised median or pedestrian refuge island and an ADT of 15,000 vehicles per day or greater. 09a If a marked crosswalk exists across an uncontrolled roadway where the speed limit exceeds 40 mph and the roadway has four or more lanes of travel and an ADT of 12,000 vehicles per day or greater, advanced yield lines with associated Yield Here to Pedestrians (R1-5, R1-5a) signs should be placed 20 to 50 ft in advance of the crosswalk, adequate visibility should be provided by parking prohibitions, pedestrian crossing (W11-2) 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 3B-17(CA)). Support: 10 Chapter 4F contains information on Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons. Section 4L.03 contains information regarding Warning Beacons to provide active warning of a pedestrian s presence. Section 4N.02 contains information regarding In-Roadway Warning Lights at crosswalks. Chapter 7D contains information regarding school crossing supervision. Guidance: 11 Because non-intersection pedestrian crossings are generally unexpected by the road user, warning signs (see Section 2C.50) should be installed for 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 If used, the diagonal or longitudinal lines should be 12 to 24 inches wide and separated by gaps of 12 to 60 inches. The design of the lines and gaps should avoid the wheel paths if possible, 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-20 may be used for the crosswalk. Chapter 3B Pavement and Curb Markings November 7, 2014 Part 3 Markings

20 California MUTCD 2014 Edition (FHWA s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Guidance: Page Crosswalk markings should be located so that the curb ramps are within the extension of the crosswalk markings. Support: 18 Detectable warning surfaces mark boundaries 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 junction of sidewalks and the roadway, for marked and unmarked crosswalks. Detectable warning surfaces contrast visually with adjacent walking surfaces, either light-on-dark, or dark-on-light. The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG) (see Section 1A.11) contains specifications for design and placement of detectable warning surfaces. Standard: 19 Crosswalk markings near schools shall be yellow as provided in CVC See Part 7. Option: 20 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. Guidance: 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. D. 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 21106(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 the factor that determined the need to mark a crosswalk is the clarification of pedestrian routes for sight-impaired pedestrians, the transverse 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: 30 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 least 30 days prior to the scheduled removal of an existing marked crosswalk. The notice of proposed removal shall inform the public how to provide input related to the scheduled removal and shall be posted at the crosswalk identified for removal. Refer to CVC Chapter 3B Pavement and Curb Markings November 7, 2014 Part 3 Markings

21 California MUTCD 2014 Edition (FHWA s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Page 685 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 21106(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: 01 Marking of parking space boundaries 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: 02 Parking space markings shall be white. Option: 03 Blue lines may supplement white parking space markings of each parking space designated for use only by persons with disabilities. Support: 04 Additional parking space markings for the purpose of designating spaces for use only by persons with disabilities are discussed in Section 3B.20 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.11). Support: 05 Refer to CVC through for parking space markings. 06 Refer to Section 2B.39 for Parking Regulations. Policy on Parking Restrictions Option: 07 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: 08 Where the proposed zones are on State highways, the ordinances shall be approved by Caltrans. 09 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: 10 The District Directors have been delegated the authority to approve such ordinances. 11 The desirable dimensions of parking meter stalls are 8 feet by 24 feet with a minimum length of 20 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 30 feet on the near side and one stall length on the far side. See Figure 3B-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 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 Pavement and Curb Markings November 7, 2014 Part 3 Markings

22 California MUTCD 2014 Edition (FHWA s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Page 731 Chapter 3B Pavement and Curb Markings November 7, 2014 Part 3 Markings

23 California MUTCD 2014 Edition (FHWA s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Page 734 Chapter 3B Pavement and Curb Markings November 7, 2014 Part 3 Markings

24 California MUTCD 2014 Edition (FHWA s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Page 735 Chapter 3B Pavement and Curb Markings November 7, 2014 Part 3 Markings

25 Appendix B CA MUTCD Pedestrian Volume Warrant

26 California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 831 (FHWA s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 650 vehicles per hour for intersections with three approaches or 800 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: 04 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-4 may be used in place of Figure 4C-3 to evaluate the criteria in the second category of the Standard. 05 If 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. Guidance: 06 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.05 Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume Support: 01 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: 02 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: 03 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 10,000, 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: 04 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 300 feet, unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. 05 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. Guidance: 06 If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal is justified 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-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 100 feet from side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP or YIELD signs, and should be pedestrianactuated. If the 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 should be prohibited for at least 100 feet in advance of and at least 20 feet beyond the crosswalk or site Chapter 4C Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 Highway Traffic Signals

27 California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 832 (FHWA s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) accommodations should be made through curb extensions or other techniques to provide adequate sight 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. Option: 07 The criterion for the pedestrian volume crossing the major street may be reduced as much as 50 percent if the 15th-percentile crossing speed of pedestrians is less than 3.5 feet per second. 08 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. Section 4C.06 Warrant 5, School Crossing Support: 01 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. Standard: 02 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered when an engineering study of the frequency 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 gaps in the traffic stream during the period when the schoolchildren are using the crossing is less than the number of minutes in the same period (see Section 7A.03) and there are a minimum of 20 schoolchildren during the highest crossing hour. 03 Before a decision is made to install a traffic control signal, consideration shall be given to the implementation of other remedial measures, such as warning signs and flashers, school speed zones, school crossing guards, or a grade-separated crossing. 04 The School Crossing signal warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest traffic control signal along the major street is less than 300 feet, unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. Guidance: 05 If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal is justified 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-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 100 feet from side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP or YIELD signs, and should be pedestrianactuated. If the 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 should be prohibited for at least 100 feet in advance of and at least 20 feet beyond the crosswalk or site accommodations should be made through curb extensions or other techniques to provide adequate sight 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. Section 4C.07 Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System Support: 01 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. Standard: 02 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following criteria is met: A. On a one-way street or a street that has traffic predominantly in one direction, the adjacent traffic control signals are so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of vehicular platooning. B. On a two-way street, adjacent traffic control signals do not provide the necessary degree of platooning and the proposed and adjacent traffic control signals will collectively provide a progressive operation. Chapter 4C Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 Highway Traffic Signals

28 California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 838 (FHWA s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 Highway Traffic Signals

29 Appendix C Pasadena Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossings

30 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 Figure 6*, Figure 7^, Figure 8 +, and Figure 9 =. * * * ^ + = Type Category Treatment Average Daily Traffic <15,000 [d] 15,000 [d] Speed Limit 30 MPH 35 MPH 40 MPH 30 MPH 35 MPH 40 MPH [a] Marked Crosswalk Alone May be Sufficient (2-lanes) yes yes no yes no no [a] Marked Crosswalk Alone May be Sufficient (3-lanes) only ADT <12,000 only ADT <9,000 no no no no Striping Basic Yield Line [b] x x x x x x 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) [b,c] 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 [c] 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 <25,000 Geometry Enhanced Raised Pedestrian Crossing/Speed Table x ADT <25,000 Geometry Enhanced Speed humps x ADT <25,000 Other Basic Removal of Sight Distance Obstructions x x x x x x [a] FHWA recommendations indicate that under low-volume, 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. [b] 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 volumes and speeds, additional treatments should be considered to enhance comfort and visibility at crossings. 46

31 Table 3. Treatments Applicable for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossings Across 4-lane Roadways (With and Without Medians) Colored cells indicate that a corresponding conceptual diagram of these treatments is available in Figure 10*, Figure 11^, Figure 12 +, and Figure 13 =.. * * * ^ + = + Type Category Treatment Average Daily Traffic <15,000 [d] 15,000-25,000 [d] >25,000 [d] 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 no no no Sufficient (with Median) <12,000 <9,000 [a] Marked Crosswalk Alone May be Sufficient (without Median) only ADT <9,000 no no no no no no no no Striping Basic Yield Line [b] x x x x x x x x x High visibility crosswalks Striping Basic (Continental/Ladder Striping) [b] x x x x x x x x x Signal/signage Basic Roadside Signage [b] 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/signage Enhanced LED-Enhanced Signage [c] x x x x x x x x x Signal/signage Enhanced Pedestrian hybrid beacon ( HAWK signal ) [c] x x x x x Traffic signal, with pedestrian signal, where Signal/signage Enhanced warranted [c] x x x x Median, Refugee Island or Split Pedestrian Geometry Basic Crossover [b] x x x x x x x x x Geometry Enhanced Road Diet x x x x x x Geometry Enhanced Choker x x x x Geometry Enhanced Corner Bulb Outs and Curb Extensions x x x x x x x x x Geometry Enhanced Lane Width Reduction x x x Geometry Enhanced Raised Pedestrian Crossing/Speed Table x x Geometry Enhanced Speed humps x x Other Basic Removal of Sight Distance Obstructions x x x x x x x x x [a] FHWA recommendations indicate that under low-volume, 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. [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