Report (Revised November 2010)

Pinellas Trail / Roadway Intersections Evaluation Assigning Priority and Determining Traffic Control at Shared Use Path / Roadway Intersections City of St. Petersburg Report (Revised November 2010) Prepared by: Theodore A. Petritsch Bruce W. Landis 18115 U.S. Highway 41, Suite 600 Lutz, Florida 33549 Certificate of Authorization # 4548

Evaluation and Recommendations for Roadway Page 2 of 27 INTRODUCTION In St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, and across the country, there is an increasing concern that the priority assigned to trail and roadway traffic at intersections and corresponding controls are not being implemented consistently or with due consideration of the intersection traffic conditions. This lack of a consistent methodology results in pathway and roadway users behaving unpredictably at intersections. This, in turn, can cause crashes. For example, in many cases a STOP sign (R1-1) sign is placed on the trail approaches just to make sure that pathway users behave in a safe manner. Often, motorists on low speed or low volume roadways will yield to users on the pathway; some even wave pathway users through the intersections. Consequently, pathway users may come to expect this yielding behavior from motorists. Some motorists, however, do not yield and surprise cyclists who expect to be able to ride through the intersection without yielding. Alternatively, a path user may come to expect motorists to yield at other intersections where motorists may be traveling faster and be less inclined to stop for path users. Essentially, the put-stop-signs-everywhere approach to pathway / roadway intersection control leads to users ignoring the signs or failing to stop / yield when necessary. When overused or placed inappropriately, STOP signs are not seen as fulfilling a real need. Consequently, they fail to command the attention and respect of pathway users 1. As users lose respect for the traffic control devices placed on the pathway, the safety of the shared use pathway is compromised. This is especially dangerous at locations where the R1-1 is warranted and non-compliance by some path users creates a serious safety problem. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices does not provide specific guidance on how to sign and stripe pathway / roadway intersections. The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities 2 states only that intersection striping should be placed as warranted by the MUTCD. Florida DOT design guidance 3 reiterates what is in the MUTCD. This lack of guidance contributes to the inconsistent and, in some cases, inappropriate, application of traffic control devices at these intersections, which, in turn, results in unpredictable and potentially dangerous behaviors on the part of motorists and path users. This report presents guidelines developed to fill the gap in the existing State and National guidance documents. It includes a methodology to determine which facility, the roadway or path, should receive priority at an intersection. It then describes what traffic control treatments would be appropriate at a midblock crossing of a roadway by a shared use path. It also provides background into how the methodology was developed. It presents a proposed set of guidelines for providing consistent crossing treatments to increase the safety and convenience of pathway users along trails in St. Petersburg. Then this report discusses the eight existing Pinellas Trail / roadway intersections in St. Petersburg and recommended modifications to those intersections that would result from the application of these guidelines. The guidelines presented and applied within this report represent a method to consistently apply traffic control devices at path / roadway intersections. The guidelines should be applied to the 1 FHWA, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Section 1A.02, FHWA, Washington, D.C., 2003. 2 AASHTO, Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, pg. 47, AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 1999. 3 FDOT, Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Handbook, FDOT, Tallahassee, FL, 2002.

Evaluation and Recommendations for Roadway Page 3 of 27 maximum extent possible to ensure the expectations of path and roadway users are met at all intersections along the Pinellas Trail or other trails in St. Petersburg. The Pinellas County MPO Traffic Signals and Median Control Committee have endorsed this methodology. The text of that endorsement is provided at the end of this report. BACKGROUND The Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) recently performed an evaluation of the roadway / pathway intersections along the Pinellas Trail. This report included a Trail Crossing Inventory by Jurisdiction and recommendations on what modifications to existing traffic control devices should be made at each intersection. The methodology used to develop the recommendations included inventorying the existing traffic control devices, traffic conditions, sight distances and other data pertinent to assigning priority and determining traffic control. Based upon this data, recommendations were made as to which facility should receive priority at the intersection and what changes should be made to the existing traffic control on the roadway and the trail. This recently completed Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization Pinellas Trail Signage Inventory is an attempt to address this concern of consistency at the intersections along the Pinellas Trail. While it makes recommendations concerning which specific facility should be given priority at the individual intersections evaluated and recommendations on changes to traffic control devices, it does not provide a methodology so others could obtain consistent results at any shared use path / roadway intersection. This omission means that the underlying reasons for the MPO s recommendations are not available and cannot be uniformly applied to the Pinellas Trail / roadway intersections under evolving traffic conditions, at new intersections resulting from Trail extensions, or along new pathways developed within St. Petersburg or the County. The result is likely to be the re-proliferation of STOP signs along pathways, which could once again breed disrespect for all traffic control devices along the path network, and result in a less safe system for path users. Another note concerning this MPO report is that the recommendations were restricted to conventional, static (not responsive to trail traffic) signing recommendations. Unfortunately, these conventional, static treatments often fail to result in the desired yielding behavior of motorists and / or pathway users. This report prepared for the City of St. Petersburg includes recommendations for treatments that include user activated traffic control devices. These devices have been studied recently around the country and have been shown to greatly increase the compliance rates (over static signs) of motorists and path users and reduce conflicts along pathways and non-motorized roadway crossings. This Pinellas Trail / Roadway Intersections Evaluation report provides a methodology for deciding whether the roadway or pathway should receive priority and then provides guidance for what traffic control devices should be installed based upon the traffic and geometric conditions of the roadway. It recognizes there is a lack of guidance in state and national documents addressing traffic control at pathway roadway crossings; where a sign may not provide enough easis for path or roadway users, but a signal may not be warranted. Consequently, this report goes

Evaluation and Recommendations for Roadway Page 4 of 27 beyond recommending which facilities, roadways or the pathway, should receive priority. It also goes into more detail than simply whether a 4-way stop, 2-way stop, yield control, or signals should be used. This report for St. Petersburg recommends specific signage and striping for trail intersections. It includes recommendations on what traffic control treatments should be provided at such pathway / roadway intersections. Some of the treatments recommended have just recently been adopted into the FHWA s MUTCD. One is not yet in the Manual, but has an interim approval from FHWA. EXISTING GUIDANCE One significant barrier to creating safe path crossings of roadways at midblock locations is the lack of guidance on what, and under what particular circumstances, treatments (grade separation, signalization, signage, or striping) should be used. Currently, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 4 provides several options for midblock pathway crossings, including: crossing advance and crossing signs, in-pavement flashing lights, and signalized crossings. However, the guidance for use of signage and other treatments is in the form of when used, do the following and not under these circumstances, use these devices. The MUTCD does provide specific guidance in the form of signal warrants for the application of midblock traffic signals for pedestrians. Additional guidance for grade separated crossings - is provided in a 1984 FHWA report 5. In this report, Axler created warrants for FHWA addressing the provision of grade separated crossings. Figure 1 shows the approximate pedestrian and motor vehicle volumes addressed by the MUTCD signal and FHWA grade separated crossing warrants. As can be seen there is a significant range of pedestrian volumes for which no substantial guidance is provided; for any pedestrian volumes under 100 per hour (for four hours) more guidance is needed. 4 FHWA, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Sections 2, 3, 4 and 9, Washington, D.C., 2003. 5 Axler, E.A., Warrants for Pedestrian Over and Under Passes, FHWA, 1984

Evaluation and Recommendations for Roadway Page 5 of 27 Figure 1. Range of Guidance for Pedestrian Crossings TREATMENT SELECTION METHODOLOGY This crossing treatment decision methodology answers four basic questions: 1. Should a grade separated crossing be provided? This process for determining the appropriate treatment for a pathway crossing of a roadway begins with determining whether or not the volumes on the path and crossing roadway are high enough such that they meet the proposed FHWA Axler Warrant for a grade separated crossing. 2. Is a traffic signal warranted? If traffic volumes are not high enough to warrant a grade separation, then it should be determined if the roadway and path volumes are high enough to warrant a signal using the MUTCD pedestrian warrants. 3. Is a designated midblock pathway crossing appropriate? Geometric or operational conditions should be evaluated to ensure providing a designated crosswalk will result in a safe, convenient crossing. 4. What specific measures should be installed? The specific traffic control devices that should be installed at particular crossings will vary with the traffic and roadway conditions. The methodology should help determine

Evaluation and Recommendations for Roadway Page 6 of 27 who should be given priority at intersections and what devices, or combinations thereof, should be installed at the intersection. The proposed crossing methodology is discussed in the following sections. Grade Separated Crossings Grade separated crossings are generally seen as the most desirable way to address conflicts between pathway and roadway users. Those provided along the Pinellas Trail are generally safe, convenient, and comfortable for all users. In the case where a separate underpass or overpass is being considered, a quantitative method may be needed to justify a grade separated crossing. In 1984, FHWA developed warrants for grade separated crossings. According to these warrants, a grade separated crossing is justified if Hourly pedestrian volume >300 in four highest continuous hour periods (speed >40 ) and inside urban area; Vehicle volume >10,000 during same period or ADT >35,000 (speed >40 ) and inside an urban area; and, The crossing site is at least 183 m (600 ft) from nearest alternative safe crossing. This warrant is graphically illustrated below in Figure 2. If this warrant is met, a grade separated roadway crossing should be considered to accommodate the pathway users. Figure 2. Axler Warrant for Grade Separation

Evaluation and Recommendations for Roadway Page 7 of 27 Signalized Crossings The MUTCD provides warrants for the installation of traffic signals. 6 Any of the warrants described in the MUTCD can be used for pathway / roadway intersections. When using the vehicular warrants, however, only bicyclists should be considered as volume on the path. Alternatively, bicyclists can be counted as pedestrians for the application of the Pedestrian Volumes warrant. The most common signal warrant used for the installation of traffic signals at pathway crossings is Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volumes. This warrant states that a signal for a midblock or intersection crossing can be considered if an engineering study finds both of the following: The pedestrian volume crossing the major street at an intersection or midblock location during an average day is 100 or more for each of any 4 hours or 190 or more during any 1 hour; and There are fewer than 60 gaps per hour in the traffic stream of adequate length to allow pedestrians to cross during the same period when the pedestrian volume criterion is satisfied. Where there is a divided street having a median of sufficient width for pedestrians to wait, the requirement applies separately to each direction of vehicular traffic. The MUTCD goes on to say that the Pedestrian Volume 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 ft, unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of [roadway] traffic. This warrant requires actual roadway traffic volume and pedestrian (or bicycle) counts for the pathway and motor vehicle counts on the roadway. Additionally, to satisfy the pedestrian warrant the number of adequate gaps in the roadway traffic stream must be counted. Unfortunately, determining the demand for a potential midblock pathway crossing location is not something that can be done by counting the existing number of individuals crossing the roadway. Some method using a surrogate site, or perhaps latent demand, must be employed to estimate the number of users that would cross at a new signalized crossing. The number of adequate gaps in a traffic stream is usually determined using a pedestrian gap study. 7 For application in this crossing treatment methodology, we have developed a chart that uses the probabilities of achieving 60 gaps per hour based upon motor vehicle volumes to provide a quick sense of whether or not a signal could be considered using the Pedestrian Volume signal warrant. This chart is provided in Figure 3 below. 6 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Chapter 4C, FHWA, 2003. 7 Manual on Transportation Engineering Studies, pp. 244-250, ITE, Washington, D.C., 2000.

Evaluation and Recommendations for Roadway Page 8 of 27 Figure 3. Pedestrian Volume Signal Warrant Unsignalized Crossings When a pathway / roadway intersection does not meet the warrants for a signal, unsignalized treatments should be considered. The following sections address three aspects concerning designating and designing unsignalized midblock path roadway crossings. First, we discuss geometric constraints which may make realigning the trail intersection to a near intersection a more appropriate crossing treatment than a designated midblock crossing. The next section discusses how to assign priority at a midblock path / roadway intersection. Then we provide guidance on the selection of traffic control devices for path / roadway intersections. Roadway geometric constraints Roadway geometrics are an important factor because they dictate if the midblock pathway crossing can be designed safely. Two primary factors need to be considered: sight distance and proximity to intersections. The sight distances available to motorists and path users must be adequate to allow for a safe crossing. Sight distance provided for motorists should be at least equal to the stopping sight distance for the design speed of the roadway. For these values refer to A Policy on the Geometric Design of Streets and Highways. 8 While motorists are required to yield the right of way to pedestrians, pedestrians are more comfortable crossing the street when they have adequate sight 8 AASHTO, A Policy on the Geometric Design of Streets and Highways, AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2005.

Evaluation and Recommendations for Roadway Page 9 of 27 distance for them to see far enough up the approach roadway to identify an adequate gap in traffic. Required gap lengths for path users to complete street crossings are discussed below and vehicles should be assumed as traveling at the roadway s design speed. Figure 4. Functional Area of an Intersection The proximity to intersections is an important consideration because of the complexity of motor vehicle movements on the approach to intersections. Essentially, if it can be avoided, midblock pathway crossings should not be placed within the functional area of an intersection. The functional area of an intersection includes both the approaches to and departures from the intersection and the longitudinal limits of the auxiliary lanes. 9 (See Figure 4. Assigning Priority at Unsignalized Pathway Crossings If a midblock crossing is to be designated, the first step is to determine which facility, the path or the roadway, should receive priority at the intersection. Assigning priority to the wrong facility will result in unpredictable and often inappropriate path user and motorist behaviors. For unsignalized crossings, the MUTCD provides guidance for assigning priority at path roadway intersections. It states, When placement of STOP or YIELD signs is considered, priority at a shared-use path/roadway intersection should be assigned with consideration of the following: A. Relative speeds of shared-use path and roadway users; B. Relative volumes of shared-use path and roadway traffic; and C. Relative importance of shared-use path and roadway. Speed should not be the sole factor used to determine priority, as it is sometimes appropriate to give priority to a high-volume shared-use path crossing a low-volume street, or to a regional shared-use path crossing a minor collector street. When priority is assigned, the least restrictive control that is appropriate should be placed on the lower priority approaches. STOP signs should not be used where YIELD signs would be acceptable. 10 9 AASHTO, A Policy on the Geometric Design of Streets and Highways, AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2005.

Evaluation and Recommendations for Roadway Page 10 of 27 It should not be a forgone conclusion that the roadway speeds will be higher than the pathway s. On sidepath type facilities (where the path is within the right of way of a parallel street) the motorists on the roadways intersecting the path frequently are reducing speeds to negotiate the adjacent roadway / side street intersection. Additionally, consideration given to the roadway having higher speeds might be offset by the volume of the pathway being much higher than that of the roadway. A local roadway might also be considered a lower priority than a regional pathway (such as the Pinellas Trail). The Pinellas Trail (existing and proposed extension) has a higher volume than the local roadways it crosses. However, on future extensions, or on other trails, it may be a factor to consider when assigning priority. For assigning priority at pathway intersections with two-lane roadways, we propose comparing the volumes and speeds of the Pinellas Trail and intersecting roadways to determine which facility should get priority. Figure 5 below shows how this would be applied. Essentially the slope of each line has been adjusted to reflect the proportionate speeds of the intersecting facilities (a 20 design speed was used for the Pinellas Trail). Using this assignment method and counts provided by the City and trail counts provided by the County 11, we applied Figure 5 to identify which facilities would receive priority at two-lane roadway intersections. For instance, based upon Pinellas County Pinellas Trail user counts there are about 1,600 users per day on the Pinellas Trail. Therefore, if the trail intersects a roadway with a daily traffic of 900 vpd, and a speed limit of 30, the trail would receive priority over the roadway. If however, the roadway had a speed limit of 45 roadway, the roadway would receive the priority. On four-lane roadways, the priority is automatically assigned to the roadway. This was done for a number of reasons. Multi-lane roadways are typically higher priority roadways; speeds are typically higher on multilane roadways; and with multiple lanes in each direction, there is a potential for multiple threat crashes. 10 FHWA, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, pg. 9B-2, FHWA, Washington, D.C., 2003. 11 An approximate average daily volume of 1600 users per day was used for the Pinellas Trail.

Roadway Volume, ADT Evaluation and Recommendations for Roadway Page 11 of 27 Intersection Priority, intersecting a 2 lane street as a function of roadway speed limit 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 Roadway Priority Roadway Speed Limit 15 20 25 30 35 45 55 900 vpd 500 Pathway Priority 1600users per day 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Path Volume, daily counts 1400 1600 1800 2000 (2 x user counts, approximately) Figure 5. Proposed priority based upon facility speeds. The Apparent Paradox of Roadway Priority. There is an apparent paradox with assigning the priority to the roadway at a shared-use path crossing. For example, on a multi-lane roadway the priority would be assigned to the roadway. Therefore, the traffic control on the approaches to the intersections signage, markings, flashing beacons are all placed to ensure the approaching path users know that they are required to yield the right of way to the roadway users. The conundrum becomes apparent when one realizes that a shared use path is a pedestrian facility (sidewalk) as well as a vehicular way. At every crossing of a shared use path and a roadway, there is a legal crosswalk, whether marked or not. According to Florida Statutes, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger. - Section 316.130(7), F.S. Moreover, with regard to bicyclists, the law states, A person propelling a vehicle by human power upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, has all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances. - Section 316.2065(10), F.S.

Evaluation and Recommendations for Roadway Page 12 of 27 Consequently, when priority is assigned to the roadway, we are apparently requiring pathway users to yield to traffic that is required by law to yield to pathway users. In actuality, when we assign priority at an intersection we are requiring traffic approaching the intersection to yield to traffic on the other approaches. However, this assignment of priority does not exempt path users or motorists from their obligation to yield to users already within the intersection. 12 This conundrum is not merely academic it underscores importance of careful design and selection of traffic control at path roadway intersections. Improper or incomplete design, and /or maintenance of pathway / roadway intersections have and will continue to contribute to crashes, injuries and deaths. Driveways. Shared use path crossings of driveways are a special case path /roadway intersection. How they are addressed is dependent upon the location of path with regard to parallel roadways. Where shared use paths that are along independent alignments (not adjacent to a roadway) cross driveways, priority should be assigned just as with any other path / roadway intersection. The relative speeds and volumes should be considered and priority set as described above. If the path is parallel and relatively close to an adjacent roadway, there are two options for assigning priority. Ideally, at unsignalized crossings, the path would be realigned to cross the driveway far enough away from the roadway paralleling the path to act as an independent intersection. If this can be done, then priority should be determined using the relative speeds and volumes of the driveway and the path. If, however, the path must remain close to the parallel roadway, then the path should be given the same priority over entering driveways as the parallel roadway. Appropriate Traffic Control for the Crossing Once the priority has been assigned at the intersection, appropriate traffic control treatments must be selected. The traffic control used at pathway / roadway intersections must accomplish several objectives: 1. Make pathway users and roadway users aware of the crossing conflict; 2. Make users understand their obligations with regard to yielding on the approach to the crossing; and, 3. Clarify the motorists obligations to path users within the crosswalk itself. The method for determining traffic control for pathway / roadway intersections described below addresses these three objectives. The width of the roadway being crossed by the trail users and the motor vehicle volumes are the determining factors for making this decision. This methodology uses these factors in combination to stratify roadways by volume for application of different traffic control device packages. For these guidelines, roadways are stratified into low-, medium-, and high-volume. The threshold volume for low- to medium-volume was determined using the amount of time a pedestrian can expect to wait for an adequate gap in traffic to cross the street. The medium- to high-volume threshold is based upon the midblock crossing study previously referenced. 12 Section 316.121(1), F.S. and Section 316.130(8)

Evaluation and Recommendations for Roadway Page 13 of 27 Low- to Medium-Volume Threshold. Low volume roadways were those on which a path user could expect to obtain an adequate gap to cross the street safely within 15 seconds of arriving at the pathway / roadway intersection. The 85 percentile delay time was used to determine the upper threshold for this roadway volume range; that is, 85 percent of the path users would be able to begin crossing in a safe gap within 15 seconds of arriving at the intersection. To calculate the required gaps, several assumptions about the users and the roadways were required. The lengths of adequate gaps were calculated assuming 12-foot lanes, a startup time of 2 seconds, and a crossing speed of 3.5 ft/sec. Table 1 below shows the gap lengths for different numbers of lanes. For roadways with a minimum 6-foot median, a pedestrian can select an adequate gap to cross one direction of traffic, cross to the median, wait for an adequate gap to cross the opposite direction of traffic, and cross to the far side of the roadway. For roadways without a minimum 6-foot median, the pathway user must select a gap that is adequate to cross the entire roadway. Table 1. Required Gap for a to Cross Number of lanes Gap length (sec) 1 5.43 2 8.86 3 12.29 Gap length is the time interval from when the rear of the first vehicle passes the observer to when the front of the second vehicle passes the observer and represents the time when the lane is clear of vehicles. Average gap length was calculated using the number of vehicles per hour per lane, a speed of 44 ft/sec (30 mi/h), and a vehicle length of 20 ft. Average gap length (sec) = 3600 seconds/vehicles per hour 20 feet/speed where 3600/vehicles per hour = number of seconds from when the front of the first vehicle passes a waiting pathway user to when the front of the second vehicle passes the pathway user 20/speed = the length of time for a vehicle to travel its own length Gap lengths were assumed to be normally distributed, with a mean of the average gap length and a standard deviation of 0.37 times the average gap length. That is, vehicles were assumed to pass the midblock crossing location randomly rather than in platoons. Using the NORMDIST function in Microsoft Excel, it is possible to calculate the proportion of gaps that are of any specified minimum duration for any traffic volume. The chart on the following page (Figure 6) shows gap lengths for 200 (top line), 400 (middle line), and 600 (bottom line) vehicles per hour in one lane. With 200 vph, nearly 97 percent of gaps are a

Proportion Evaluation and Recommendations for Roadway Page 14 of 27 minimum of 5.43 seconds (the gap length required to cross one lane of traffic). As traffic volumes increase, average gap lengths are shorter and fewer gaps will meet the same specified duration. Figure 6 also shows that with 400 vph, about 84 percent of gaps are a minimum of 5.43 seconds. With 600 vph, only 52 percent of gaps are a minimum of 5.43 seconds. Figure 6. Sample Probability Curves for Gap Lengths Proportion of Gaps That Are at Least "t" Seconds 1.000 5.43, 0.969 0.900 0.800 5.43, 0.838 0.700 0.600 0.500 0.400 5.43, 0.522 200 vph 400 vph 600 vph 0.300 0.200 0.100 0.000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Gap length (sec) As can be seen, as traffic volumes increase, crossing opportunities (i.e., adequate gaps) become fewer. As a result, the probability that a path user will find an adequate gap to cross within a reasonable time period (such as 10 seconds or 30 seconds) diminishes. The chart (Figure 7) below shows the probabilities of finding an adequate gap (i.e., 5.43 sec) within 10 seconds and within 30 seconds, for different volumes on a one-lane crossing. For example, with 600 vph, there is an 86 percent probability that a pathway user will experience a delay no longer than 10 seconds (that is, find an adequate gap within 10 seconds) and a 99 percent probability that the delay will not exceed 30 seconds. At 800 vph, these probabilities drop to 47 percent and 78 percent, respectively. Vehicles in one lane were also assumed to pass the observer independently of vehicles in another lane. Thus, the probability of encountering a 10-second gap in two lanes is simply the probability of a 10-second gap in Lane 1 times the probability of a 10-second gap in Lane 2. P(2 lanes) = P (Lane 1) X P (Lane 2). With this assumption in mind, the same reasoning can be extended to crossings involving 2-lane, 3-lane, and wider roadways. The number of acceptable gaps in traffic is also influenced by the speed of the vehicles on the roadway. Because a faster car takes less time to cross a point, for a given flow rate, higher speed vehicles actually increase the number of (theoretically) acceptable gaps in a traffic stream. Because this is a method for estimating the number of gaps, a conservative speed of 30 was chosen as the assumed speed for developing this methodology. If the user wishes to confirm the actual number of gaps, a pedestrian gap study could be performed.

Probability of delay <10 sec, <30 sec Evaluation and Recommendations for Roadway Page 15 of 27 Figure 7 Probability of a Pedestrian Getting an Adequate Gap 1 Lane Speed = 30 mi/h, adequate gap = 5.43 sec 1.000 600, 0.988 0.900 600, 0.861 0.800 800, 0.776 0.700 0.600 0.500 0.400 800, 0.467 10 sec 30 sec 0.300 0.200 0.100 0.000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Vehicles per hour Medum- to High-Volume Threshold. The medium- to high-volume threshold was chosen as 12,000 vpd. This volume was chosen as based upon a recent FHWA report 13 which concluded, Marked crosswalks alone (i.e., without traffic-calming treatments, traffic signals with pedestrian signals when warranted, or other substantial improvement) are not recommended at uncontrolled crossing locations on multilane roads (i.e., four or more lanes) where traffic volume exceeds approximately 12,000 The referenced study distinguishes between roadways with and without medians raising the threshold to 15,000 vpd for roadways with raised medians. To minimize the volume categories in the crossing guidelines, we chose to not differentiate between roadways with refuges and those without with regard to this guideline. Consequently, we have decided to use 12,000 vpd as the minimum value for high-volume roadways. The calculated and final threshold volumes are provided in Table 2. The hourly volume of 1,150 vph shown in Table 2 represents the application of an assumed daily peak hour factor (k factor) of 13 Zegeer, Charles V., J. Richard Stewart, Herman F. Huang, Peter A. Lagerwey, John Feaganes, and B.J. Campbell. Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations Final Report and Recommended Guidelines. Report No. FHWA-HRT-04-100. Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, February 2005.

Evaluation and Recommendations for Roadway Page 16 of 27 0.097. These thresholds pertain to an undivided roadway or a divided roadway with less than 6 ft of raised median. For a divided roadway with a minimum 6-foot raised median, these thresholds pertain to each direction of traffic. The Guidelines Total Traffic Volumes column of Table 2 contains generalized values based upon the calculated volumes. Table 2. Volume Thresholds for Pathway User Delay for Various Roadway Crossings Low volume (delay <=15 sec) < 665 < 343 (< 686) Medium volume 665-1,150 343-575 (686 1,150) High-volume >1,150 > 575 (>1,150) vplph = vehicles per lane per hour vph = vehicles per hour Calculated Volume Thresholds, vphpl (vph for crossing) 1 lane 2 lane 3 lane 4 lane < 218 (< 654) 218-384 (654-816) > 384 (>1,150) <154 (< 616) 154-288 (616 1,150) > 288 (>1,150) Guidelines Total Traffic Volume for Lanes Crossed, vph < 650 651 to 1,150 >1,150 The above table has been simplified for the actual crossing guidelines application. In the application, one would determine the volume of traffic in the lanes being crossed and use the table below (Table 3) to determine which table in the traffic control matrices to use. The proposed traffic control matrices are provided later in the Crossing Treatments Matrices section of this document. Table 3. Volume Thresholds for the Crossing Treatments Guidelines vpd = vehicles per day Traffic Volume in Lanes Being Crossed < 6,700 vpd Table 5 6,700 12,000 vpd Table 6 >12,000 vpd Table 7 A summary of the priority and treatments selected for each intersection is provided below. More detailed discussions of specific treatments follow the table.

Evaluation and Recommendations for Roadway Page 17 of 27 EVALUATION OF EXISTING PINELLAS TRAIL INTERSECTIONS The above described methodology was used to evaluate each of the existing trail intersections along the Pinellas Trail in St. Petersburg. The results of the existing intersection evaluations are provided below: Table 4 Priority and treatment for each intersection Roadway Roadway Volume vpd 14 Lanes (Divided or Undivided) Roadway Speed, Posted (85%ile) 5 Priority Facility Treatment Type 22 nd Ave N 16294 4 divided 35 (45) 22 nd Ave N RRFB w/ median * 9 th Ave N 5,726 2 divided 35 (40) 9 th Ave N Stop Control 64 th St S 6.864 2 undivided 35 (44) 64 th St S Stop Control 5 th Ave N 610 2 undivided 30 (26) Trail Yield Control 58 th St S 11,662 4 undivided 35 (44) 58 th St S Ped Hybrid Beacon* 49 th St S 18,101 4 undivided 35 49 th S S Ped Hybrid Beacon * 43 rd St S 3,296 2 undivided 30 (33) 43 rd St S Stop Control 40 th St S 2,780 2 undivided 30 (35) 40 th St S Stop Control 37 th St S 6,059 2 undivided 30 (41) 37 th St S RRFB* * The RRFB crossing & Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon are described in detail after the Crossing Treatments Matrices The intersection treatments proposed in the recently completed Pinellas Trail Extension Plan (from 31 st Street to Martin Luther King Jr. Street) are consistent with this methodology. Consequently, modifications to the intersection designs of the plan are not needed. 22 nd Avenue North Twenty-second Avenue North is a high volume 4-lane divided roadway with relatively high speed traffic. We concur with the MPO report that stop control is appropriate for the pathway users. We recommend a raised median refuge be provided for trail users at this intersection. If this median can be installed the RRFB crossing treatment is recommended. 9 th Avenue North The MPO report gives priority to the roadway at this intersection; STOP signs are provided for the trail users and trail crossing signs are provided for the roadway users. Given the speeds and volumes on the roadway, we recommend adding advance yield markings and the YIELD HERE TO PEDESTRIAN (R1-5) sign to the approach roadways. Ideally, a median refuge would be installed at this location as well. 14 Obtained from counts provided by the City of St. Petersburg.

Evaluation and Recommendations for Roadway Page 18 of 27 64 th Street South/5 th Avenue South This intersection currently has traffic control for the trail users (STOP signs) on the southern approach to 5 th Avenue South and the west approach to 64 th Street South. There appears to be no traffic control for trail users provided in the interim crossing area in the northeast corner of this intersection. Because of the speeds and volumes along 64 th Street South the priority for this part of the crossing should be given to 64 th Street. Due to the extremely limited sight distance on the northwest corner of the intersection, a STOP sign is appropriate. One should be included on the eastern approach to the crossing. The intersection of 5 th Avenue South and the Trail should be considered separately. Because of the low speeds and low volume of traffic on 5 th Avenue south, the trails should be given priority at this intersection. Additionally, there is adequate sight distance to allow for a YIELD control on the 5th Avenue South approaches to this intersection. Observations of users during the site review indicate that this STOP /YIELD combination is essentially how trail users are treating this paired intersection. 58 th Street South Fifty-eighth street is a four lane undivided roadway. This cross section requires long gaps to cross the roadway; the path user must have a gap adequate to cross four lanes at once. To cross 58 th Street (approximately 48 feet) it would take a bicyclist about 5.5 seconds and a pedestrian about 12 seconds (see Figure 8). 15 There are currently STOP signs placed for the trail users at this crossing. However, because of the traffic volume on the roadway, waiting for adequate gaps will result in some users becoming impatient and choosing inadequate gaps to cross the street. Since it does not appear that a median can be installed within the existing cross section, we recommend the installation of either a full signal or Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon at this crossing location. Because this location does not meet a volume warrant for signalization, justification for a signal would need to be prepared which documents expected delays to trail users and the consequences thereof. The Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon is included within the MUTCD in section 4.F. If a raised median can be included at this location, a crosswalk using the RRFB layout would be recommended. 15 Data for plot obtained from Characteristics of Emerging Road and Trail Users and Their Safety, FHWA Publication No. FHWA-=HRT-04-103

Evaluation and Recommendations for Roadway Page 19 of 27 Figure 8. Required gap for crossing a roadway of a given width 49 th Street South Forty-ninth Street South is similar in traffic character to 58 th recommendations for this intersection are the same. and consequently the 43 rd Street South Given the speeds and volumes along 43 rd Street, we concur with the MPO report that the current roadway priority be maintained. Sight distance restrictions on the eastern approach to this intersection make a YIELD control intersection impractical. Therefore a stop condition should be maintained on the trail. We further recommend the inclusion of advanced signage, yield markings, and YIELD HERE TO PEDESTRIANS IN CROSSWALK signs at this location. 40 th Street South This intersection should be treated the same as the 43 rd Street crossing. Again sight distance restrictions (this time on the western approach) require the use of a STOP sign for the trail. 37 th Street South Thirty-seventh Street has significantly higher volumes and speeds (40 85%ile) than 43 rd and 40 th Streets. Consequently, we recommend the use of the RRFB crossing treatment at this location.

Evaluation and Recommendations for Roadway Page 20 of 27 CROSSING TREATMENTS MATRICES The matrices on the following pages present packages of traffic control devices recommended for specific roadway conditions. While providing guidance, there are sometimes field conditions which make the strict adherence to any typical signing and marking scheme impractical. Therefore, when applied at new locations, each location should be reviewed in the field to ensure the proposed treatments are appropriate. The matrices assume that the roadway is given priority. If the pathway is to be given priority, then STOP or YIELD signs as appropriate should be installed on the roadway along with the applicable pavement markings (stop lines or yield markings). The following general notes apply to the crossing treatment matrices: General notes for applying the Crossing Treatment Methodology Matrices 1. Each column in the table represents a package of traffic control devices recommended for the specific crossing condition. 2. The designation of YES for the median assumes there is potential for installing a raised median at the crossing location and that one will be installed. Raised medians that can be used as ped refuges (6 feet wide or wider) will allow for less restrictive motor vehicle traffic controls to be used in conjunction with the midblock crossings. The use of Danish offsets (angled cuts through the median) should be considered at all crossings with raised medians. 3. On multi-lane roadways with medians on the approach, crossing signage should be placed in the medians as well as on the side of the roadway. 4. At all new crossings, slight reverse curves of the path (or kinks) on the approaches to intersections should be considered. These offsets are to alert path users to the upcoming intersections and to act as path calming to reduce the speeds of path users through the intersections. 5. The use of Danish offsets (angled cuts through the median) should be considered at all crossings with raised medians for two reasons. First, the offset through the median directs the path users attention toward the traffic about to be crossed. Secondly, by providing an angled cut through the median, longer users (tandems, bicycles with trailers) may be better accommodated in a narrower median. Cattle-gate style crossings which require two 90 degree turns in a short distance can restrict the passage of longer users; if used they should be carefully designed. 6. A solid yellow centerline stripe should be placed on all pathway approaches to path / road intersections. This centerline stripe should extend 127 feet (stopping sight distance for a bicyclist per AASHTO) back from the intersection. STOP or YIELD signs and applicable markings (stop lines or yield markings) should be applied to the path surface.

Evaluation and Recommendations for Roadway Page 21 of 27 7. Bollards should be used sparingly and only if they are needed to prevent motor vehicle access. On new paths only odd numbers of bollards should be used. This helps define a center of the path and gives users a definitive reference for riding on the right. Even numbers of bollards can cause confusion as to which side of the bollards a path user should ride. Where bollards are used they should be striped as obstructions as described in the MUTCD 16. Striping around central bollards, those separating path users traveling in opposite directions, should be yellow. Supplemental bollards separating users traveling in the same direction should be white. 8. When advance yield lines are used on the approach roadways they would be used in conjunction with solid lane lines extending back the stopping sight distance from yield lines. This is to enable law enforcement officers to determine when a motorist fails to yield when he could have done so. 9. On six-lane, undivided roadways, strong consideration should be given to providing a gradeseparated crossing of the roadway for peds/trail users. Until such time as this can be achieved aggressive channelization should be used to divert peds/trail users to the nearest safe crossing. 10. This guidance assumes that lighting will be considered and provided where needed for crossings that are used at night. 11. A Request to Experiment should be obtained from FHWA for all installations of non-standard treatments such as the RRFB and the Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon. 12. Once the treatment types in the lookup tables are finalized, typical application drawings will be provided in the final methodology. 16 FHWA, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, pg. 9C-03, FHWA, Washington, D.C., 2003.

DRAFT Crossing Treatments Methodology Page 22 of 27 Executive Summary Table 5: Roadway Volume less than 650 vehicles per hour, vph (6,700 vehicles per day 1, vpd) Lanes 2 lanes 4 - lanes Median No Yes No Yes Speed 30 35 40 45 Marked Crosswalks Trail Xing Sign (W15-1) w/ Arrow (W16-7p) 2 30 35 40 45 30 35 40 45 30 35 40 45 Advance Ped Xing Sign 2 (W1-2) Yield Here to Ped Signs (R1-5) 3 Advance yield lines 4 RRFB crossing 6: Ped Xing Signs (W11-2) with rapid rectangular flashing beacons, and supplemental striping 1 Assumes a K factor of 0.097 2 MUTCD Section 9B.18 3 MUTCD 2B.11 4 Placed 20-50 feet in advance of the crosswalk (Section 3B.16) 5 See attached description

DRAFT Crossing Treatments Methodology Page 23 of 27 Executive Summary Table 6 : Roadway Volume greater than 650 1 vph (6,700 vpd) and less than 1,150 vph (12,000vpd) Lanes 2 - lanes 4 - lanes 6 - lanes Median No Yes No Yes No Yes Speed 30 35 40 45 30 35 40 45 30 Marked Crosswalks Trail Xing Sign (W15-1) w/ Arrow (W16-7p) 2 35 40 45 30 35 40 45 30 35 40 45 30 35 40 45 Trail Xing Sign (advance) 2 Yield Here to Ped Signs (R1-5) 3 Advance Yield lines 4 Stop Lines 5 RRFB crossing 6: Ped Xing Signs (W11-2) with rapid rectangular flashing beacons, and supplemental striping Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon 7 1 Assumes a K factor of 0.097 2 MUTCD Section 9B.18 3 MUTCD 2B.11 4 Placed 20-50 feet in advance of the crosswalk (Section 3B.16) 5 MUTCD Section 3B.16 6 See attached description 7 MUTCD 4F

DRAFT Crossing Treatments Methodology Page 24 of 27 Executive Summary Table 7: Roadway Volume greater than 1,150 vph 1 (12,000vpd) Lanes 2 - lanes 4 - lanes 6 - lanes Median No Yes No Yes No Yes Speed 30 35 40 45 30 35 40 45 30 Marked Crosswalks Trail Xing Sign (W11-15) w/ Arrow (W16-7p) 2 35 40 45 30 35 40 45 30 35 40 45 30 35 40 45 Trail Xing Sign (advance) 2 Yield Here to Ped Signs (R1-5) 3 Advance yield Lines 4 Stop Lines 5 RRFB crossing 6: Ped Xing Signs (W11-2) with rapid rectangular flashing beacons, and supplemental striping Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon 7 1 Assumes a K factor of 0.097 2 MUTCD Section 9B.18 3 MUTCD 2B.11 4 Placed 20-50 feet in advance of the crosswalk (Section 3B.16) 5 MUTCD Section 3B.16 6 See attached description 7 MUTCD 4F

DRAFT Crossing Treatments Methodology Page 25 of 27 Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Crossing treatment The RRFB treatment is a combination of signage markings and ped activated strobe and feedback devices. Signage for the RRFB includes advance warning signs (W11-2) with AHEAD supplemental plaques (W16-9p), and YIELD HERE TO PEDS signs (R1-5). Pavement markings include solid white lane lines (on divided multi-lane roads) and advance Xs; the length of these lines is dependent upon the design stopping sight distance for the roadway. The pedestrian activated treatments are W11-2 signs with built in rectangular rapid flashing beacons. Additionally, ped visible strobes and a recorded message inform pedestrians of when the crossing is activated and instruct them to wait for motorists to yield. The Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon is the subject of an Interim Approval from FHWA. I:\Transportation Planning\Neighborhood\CIP Projects\Pinellas Trail Intersection Control\Crossing policy 9_1.doc

DRAFT Crossing Treatments Methodology Page 26 of 27 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Configuration and Phasing (Figure 4F-3 of the 2009 MUTCD) I:\Transportation Planning\Neighborhood\CIP Projects\Pinellas Trail Intersection Control\Crossing policy 9_1.doc

DRAFT Crossing Treatments Methodology Page 27 of 27 Text from Memo of Endorsement from the Pinellas County MPO TS&MCC To: From: Copy to: Subject: Honorable Chairman and Members of the MPO Paul Bertels, TS&MCC Chairman Tom Ferraro, BAC Chairman Traffic Control at Shared Use Path/Trail Report Date: November 20, 2007 At the meeting of November 28, 2007 the Traffic Signals Median Control Committee (TS&MCC) discussed the Traffic Control at Shared Use Path/Trail Report endorsed by the MPO s Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) and forwarded to the TSMCC for review. The City of St. Petersburg contracted with Sprinkle Consultants to develop a policy to provide uniform treatments of Shared Path/Trail and roadway intersections. This was in response the MPO s recommendations on Pinellas Trail crossings. The Florida Department of Transportation reviewed the proposed policy forwarded by the BAC and TS&MCC and provided comments on the report. The TS&MCC discussed the comments submitted and recommends that the MPO forward the comments provided by the FDOT to the City in order for them to be incorporated into the report by the consultant. The policies provided in the report will assist the local jurisdictions in determining the appropriate traffic control treatment at intersections of the Pinellas Trail and other shared path/trail locations countywide. The TS&MCC concurs with the BAC support of the proposed policy and requests the MPO forward FDOT s recommended edits and changes to the City in order for the report to be finalized. The modified report will be submitted to all local government jurisdictions to be utilized in determining the traffic control needed at these intersections. I:\Transportation Planning\Neighborhood\CIP Projects\Pinellas Trail Intersection Control\Crossing policy 9_1.doc