7719 SOUTH MAIN STREET MIDVALE, UT 84047 P 801.307.3400 MEMORANDUM DATE: December 8, 2017 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT NUMBER: 344-7517-003 PROJECT NAME: Keith Ludwig, P.E. Midvale City Lesley Burns, Midvale City Charles Allen, P.E., PTOE, Parametrix Kai Tohinaka, Parametrix Center Street Pedestrian Crossing Analysis Center Street Pedestrian Crossing Analysis INTRODUCTION Midvale City requested the assistance of Parametrix to evaluate the pedestrian crossing conditions on Center Street between I-15 and State Street. In light of concerns about pedestrian safety and ongoing development near the TRAX station, Midvale City desires to identify the short-term and long-term vision for corridor pedestrian treatments. The following scope and budget outlines the Parametrix proposal to aid in this effort. AREA DESCRIPTION Midvale Center Street between I-15 and State Street is a 5-lane facility with a 35 MPH speed limit. Sidewalks which run the full length of each side are connected by four pedestrian crossings at 425 West, 300 West, Grant Street, and Center Square. Figure 1 provides an overview of the corridor and Table 1 below shows the characteristics of each of the pedestrian crossings. Figure 1: Study Area Detail
Table 1: Crossing Detail Crossing Length Crosswalk Makings 1 Advanced Warning School Zone Major Generators 425 West 68 ft Longitudinal Yes Yes 2 Club, Midvale Park, Residential Midvale Elementary/Middle, Boys & Girls 300 West 68 ft Transverse Yes Yes Midvale Middle, Midvale Park, Residential Grant Street 72 ft Transverse No No Residential, Zions Bank Center Midvale Center Station, TOD Residential, Square 66 ft Transverse No No Strip-Mall Commercial 1 See Figure 14 for examples. 2 Reduced speed school zone with crossing guard Data Collection Pedestrian and vehicle counts were collected on September 28, 2017. The pedestrian counts were collected at five minute intervals at each of the four crossing locations for a 12 hour period starting at 7:00 AM. The vehicle counts were collected at the intersection of 300 West and Center Street also for 12 hours in five minute intervals beginning at 7:00 AM. 425 West The 425 West crossing is in a reduced speed school zone, with overhead school zone flashers and a crossing guard. It uses a high visibility longitudinal marking pattern with school crossing signs on either end. It has advanced crossing signs and pavement markings at approximately 400 feet to the east and west. It connects the northeast corner of 425 West to 40 feet west of the southwest corner of Chapel Street. Figures 2 shows the 425 West crossing and its treatments. The crossing connects Midvale Park, Midvale Boys & Girls Club, and residences north of Center street to Midvale Elementary School, Midvale Middle School, and residences to the south of Center Street. The catchment boundaries of both Midvale Elementary and Midvale Middle School cross Center Street to the north. Additionally the Midvale Boys & Girls Club draws from Midvale Elementary, and staff walk children across Center Street on a daily basis. This is the most heavily trafficked crossing by a wide margin, with 373 daily crossings. A majority of this traffic is during the 1:00-4:00 period during school out-load and Boys & Girls Club afterschool activities. It has a pedestrian peak-hour flow of 135 people. Figure 3 below shows the 425 West crossing pedestrian flow. Figure 2: Crosswalk at 425 West Center Street Pedestrian Crossing Analysis 2 December 8, 2017
Figure 3: 425 West Pedestrian Flow 300 West The 300 West crossing is in a school crosswalk zone, but unlike at 425 West it is not a reduced speed zone and does not have a crossing guard. And while it is in a school zone, it does not have the longitudinal crossing markings required by the Utah MUTCD, but rather has a simple transverse configuration with school crosswalk signs on either side. It has advanced school crossing pavement markings and signs at approximately 400 feet to the east and west. Figures 4 and 5 show the crossing at 300 West and it accompanying advanced warnings. The crossing connects the northwest corner of 300 West to approximately 55 feet east of the southwest corner of Pioneer Street. It provides connections between residences and Midvale Park to the north to residences to the south. It has 48 daily crossings with a peak-hour flow of 23 people. Figure 6 below shows the 300 West crossing pedestrian flow. Figure 4: Crosswalk at 300 West Figure 5: Advanced Warnings for 300 West Crosswalk Center Street Pedestrian Crossing Analysis 3 December 8, 2017
Figure 6: 300 West Pedestrian Flow Grant Street The Grant Street crossing a simple transverse configuration with crosswalk signs on either side. This crossing has no advanced warning signs. Figure 7 shows the crossing at Grant Street. This crossing primary connects residential areas to the north and south. It has 54 daily crossings with a peak-hour flow of 15 people. Figure 8 below shows the Grant Street crossing pedestrian flow. Figure 7: Crosswalk at Grant Street Figure 8: Grant Street Pedestrian Flow Center Street Pedestrian Crossing Analysis 4 December 8, 2017
Center Square The Center Square crossing has a transverse marking pattern with crosswalk signs on either side. The crossing connects the northeast corner of Center Square to 75 feet west of the southwest corner of Roosevelt Street. Figure 9 shows the crossing at Center Square. Its primary traffic generators are the Midvale Center TRAX station, the new TOD Apartment Complex, strip-mall commercial and single family residences. It has 52 daily crossings with a peak-hour flow of nine people. It important to note that pedestrian volume data does not likely include the full traffic generation of the new apartment complex. Partial occupation of the apartments only began near the time of data collection. Figure 10 below shows the Grant Street crossing pedestrian flow. Figure 9: Crosswalk at Center Square Figure 10: Center Square Pedestrian Flow SAFETY DATA Parametrix gathered historic crash data for Center Street (I-15 to State Street) from the UDOT Traffic & Safety Division. The data included crashes from 2014 through 2016. During this three-year time period, there were 56 recorded crashes along Center Street. The most common crash type was rear-end, with 21 crashes. The prevalence of unique roadway characteristics, which cause temporary stoppages along Center Street, including four crosswalks, the 20 MPH school zone and a rail crossing, may contribute to the high prevalence of rear-end crashes on this un-signalized stretch of road. The second most common crash type was angle crashes, with 18 crashes. Twelve of the crashes were single vehicle, including two bicycle and one pedestrian collisions. Additionally, there were three sideswipe and two head on crashes. Figures 11 and 12 show crashes by manner of collision. Center Street Pedestrian Crossing Analysis 5 December 8, 2017
Figure 11: Crash locations by Manner of Collision (2014-2016) Figure 12: Crashes by Manner of Collision (2014-2016) 25 20 18 21 15 12 10 5 3 2 0 Single Vehicle Angle Sideswipe Same Direction Front to Rear Head On (front-to-front) Twenty-one of the crashes occurred within 100 feet of a pedestrian crossing. Three were within 100 feet of the 425 West crossing, with two single vehicle and one angle crash. One of the two single vehicle crashes involved a pedestrian. Six were within the 300 West crossing, with four single vehicle, one rear end and one angle. Two of these single vehicle crashes involved bicycles. Nine crashes were within 100 feet of the Grant Street crossing, including four rear end, two angle, one head on, one sideswipe and one single vehicle. Three of the crashes were within 100 feet of the Center Square crossing, with two rear end and one angle. Table 2 shows the crossing area crashes by manner of collision. Additionally, one pedestrian crash occurred this year (outside of data collection series) at the Grant Street crossing Table 2: Crashes within 100 Feet of Crossings Angle Single Vehicle Rear End Sideswipe Head On 425 West 1 2 0 0 0 300 West 1 4 1 Grant Street 2 1 4 1 1 Center Square 1 0 2 0 0 Center Street Pedestrian Crossing Analysis 6 December 8, 2017
CROSSING ANALYSIS There are numerous at-grade crossing treatments and amenities and it is important to find the right treatment for the right location. An improperly designed treatment will result in low driver and pedestrian compliance and create new safety hazards for the surrounding transportation network. For example, a painted crosswalk on a 10- lane interstate will achieve virtually no driver compliance because of the high travel speeds and because drivers do not expect to see pedestrians on a freeway. This situation would create an extreme hazard for both pedestrians and drivers. On the other extreme, installing a traffic signal to control pedestrian crossings on a residential cul-de-sac will achieve no pedestrian compliance because pedestrians feel comfortable crossing a quiet street without assistance and do not want to wait for a pedestrian walk signal when there are likely to be no oncoming vehicles. Finding the right combination of crossing treatments is critical to making a crossing effective. Data documented in National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 562, Improving Pedestrian Safety at Signalized Crossings confirms that the safest and most effective crossings often use strategic traffic control devices or design elements to meet the information and control needs of both motorists and pedestrians. NCHRP Report 562 states that when considering a treatment, it is important to consider desirable characteristics such as: 1. Making the street crossing task simple and convenient for pedestrians 2. Making sure crossing pedestrians have excellent visibility 3. Making sure vehicle speeds are slowed or controlled in the area of the pedestrian crossing 4. Making sure drivers are more aware of the presence of the crosswalk 5. Making sure drivers yield the right-of-way to legally crossing pedestrians To evaluate the appropriateness of existing pedestrian amenities on Center Street, Parametrix applied guidelines within NCHRP Report 562. The guidelines provide thresholds for pedestrian amenity treatments based on a number of different criteria including pedestrian volumes, road volume, road width and speed limit. There are several potential categories of treatments: Enhanced: High-Visibly Signs and Markings, Median Refuge Islands, In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs Active: flashing Amber Beacons, Pedestrian Crossing Flags, In-Roadway Warning Lights Red: Pedestrian Crosswalk Signal, Half Signal, HAWK, Pedestrian Beacon Signal Enhanced treatments include devices that are active in the crossing at all times, such as static signage, and pavement markings. Active treatments are devices that activate a warning when pedestrians are present or crossing a street, such as flashers or pedestrian flags. The Red category includes signals or beacons that display a circular red signal to motorists when activated by pedestrians. This includes HAWK, PELICAN, or TOUCAN signals. The Signal category includes conventional traffic signals which are administered by guidelines in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Finally, each category can be further sub-divided as being HC High Compliance, or LC Low Compliance. NCHRP Report 562 contains guideline plots to aid in identifying the appropriate pedestrian treatment for various roadway scenarios. Parametrix applied the roadway, traffic and pedestrian parameters for the Center Street crossings to the plot best representing site conditions. Figure 13 shows the guideline plot and Table 3 summarizes the roadway and pedestrian characteristics used to select and populate the plot. Center Street Pedestrian Crossing Analysis 7 December 8, 2017
Figure 13: Pedestrian Amenity Treatment Guideline Plot Source: Figure A-16, NCHRP Report 562 Table 3: At-grade Crossing Evaluation Inputs Input 425 West 300 West Grant Street Center Square Peak Hour of Ped Crossings 1:15 2:15 PM 2:50 3:50 PM 2:20-3:15 PM 12:00-1:00 PM Roadway Width 68 ft 68 ft 72 ft 66 ft Vehicle Speed 35 mph 35 mph 35 mph 35 mph Walking Speed 3.5 ft/sec 3.5 ft/sec 3.5 ft/sec 3.5 ft/sec Major Road Volume 944 veh/hr 1,256 veh/hr 1,115 veh/hr 940 veh/hr Pedestrian Crossing Volume 135 ped/hr 23 ped/hr 15 ped/hr 9 ped/hr Examining Figure 13, the plotted points indicate the appropriate treatment type for each crossing. If there are fewer than 20 pedestrian crossings during the peak hour, as such is the case for Center Square and Grants Street marked in blue, than no signs, signals, or markings are recommended. Instead, NCHRP Report 562 suggests exploring geometric changes such as median refuge islands or curb extensions, which would alter the roadway characteristic. If there more than 20 pedestrian crossings then some form of treatment is recommended depending upon the magnitude of the pedestrian movement and vehicle traffic. Both 425 West and 300 West, marked in red, meet this threshold and a Red category treatment is recommended. Center Street Pedestrian Crossing Analysis 8 December 8, 2017
SHORT-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS The crossings at 425 West and 300 West both have sufficient pedestrian traffic to validate a red type crossing treatment, per NCHRP Report 562. While they do meet the threshold, both crossings are in a school zone, and so are required to meet the Utah MUTCD standards for school zone crossings. 425 West is in a reduced speed school zone, and warrants overhead school speed zone assembly and an adult crossing guard. The crossing guard is effectively a red treatment during peak conditions. No additional treatments are needed at this crosswalk, and none would likely be allowed per the Utah MUTCD. The crossing at 300 West, while also falling within the recommendation for a red style treatment, is not serviced by a crossing guard. While conditions would warrant a crossing guard here for an elementary school, this school zone is for Midvale Middle School and per the Utah MUTCD a crossing is not required. The proximity to 425 West also makes any red treatments here undesirable, and so an active treatment type would be best for this crossing. Additionally, the Utah MUTCD states that Longitudinal crosswalk markings shall be used for all school crosswalks within School Crosswalk Zones and Reduced Speed School Zones. The crossing at 300 West currently has simple transverse markings. Incorporating longitudinal crosswalk markings would not only bring the crossing into compliance with the Utah MUTCD, but would also increase visibility, encouraging better compliance from vehicles. Figure 14 shows three styles of crosswalk markings. Additional active treatments, such as pedestrian flags, could also be deployed here to increase vehicle compliance. Figure 14: Crosswalk Pavement Markings Source: Utah MUTCD For the remaining two crossings at Grant Street and Center Square, guidance from NCHRP Report 562 would call for their removal, because the roadway characteristics are not conducive to a crosswalk alone and the pedestrian volume is not great enough to justify a more invasive crosswalk treatment. However, while justifiable, the closing of the Grant Street and Center Square crosswalks may not be desirable as it would disrupt pedestrian street connectivity and the walkability of the area. Thus, if the two crossings are to be kept, it is recommended that Center Street Pedestrian Crossing Analysis 9 December 8, 2017
measures are taken to increase their visibility, thereby improving vehicle compliance. Two simple measures to be taken would be to add advanced warning signage and utilize a high-visibility diagonal crossing pattern. It is also important to take into account low pedestrian volumes at the Center Square crosswalk may be subject to change due to high vacancy at the new apartment complex. At the time of data collection only partial occupation of the apartments was beginning to occur, and at the time of this report, half of the development is still under construction. This is a transit oriented development aimed at catering to individuals who are likely to utilize nearby transit facilities, namely the nearby TRAX station. This means that once fully occupied with a stable resident population, there would be an expected increase in pedestrian traffic at the Center Square crossing, which is the direct route from the apartments to the TRAX station. That being said, the Center Square crossing could easily fall within the recommendations for a Red signal in the near future. Midvale City should continue to monitor pedestrian conditions as development progresses. If a Red signal becomes justifiable at the Center Square crossing, it may also be necessary to consider relocating this crossing. A signal at the current location may result in queuing back onto the rail crossing. This could be prevented by relocating the crossing directly adjacent to the rail crossing (See Figure 15). Local examples of this configuration exist in Midvale at the Bingham Junction TRAX crossing and in Sandy at the 9400 South TRAX crossing. Figure 16 shows the Bingham Junction crossing. Figure 15: Center Square Crossing and Potential Relocation Figure 16: Bingham Junction Pedestrian Crossing Center Street Pedestrian Crossing Analysis 10 December 8, 2017
Table 4 shows the short-term recommendations for the Center Street crossings. As shown in the crossing analysis above, Center Street is not appropriate for simple transverse crosswalks. The NCHRP Report 562 recommends a simple crosswalk for this type of road only when the road volume is less than 600 vehicles per hour. During peak pedestrian traffic conditions Center Street does not see less than 800 vehicles per hour, and so, at a minimum, some crossing treatments should be advanced to improve vehicle compliance. Table 4: Short-Term Recommendations Crosswalk Recommended Action 425 West No Action 300 West Longitudinal school zone pavement markings, with active treatments such as pedestrian flags. Grant Street Upgrade pavement markings to high-visibility diagonal, implement advance warning signage. Center Square Upgrade pavement markings to high-visibility diagonal, implement advance warning signage. Red signal when needed, with possible relocation. Though part of the Enhanced pedestrian amenity category, geometric changes such as bulb-outs, curb extensions and center refuge islands would also be helpful at these crossings, but the layout of the existing roadway and the location of cross streets don t allow for these types of improvements. There is no significant shoulder for the creation of bulb-outs and curb extensions, and center refuge islands would restrict left-turn movements at cross streets. LONG-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSIONS The conditions at the 425 West and 300 West crossings are likely stable, with little development potential and established land uses in the area. Additionally, they are both in school zones and under the guidance of the Utah MUTCD. The changes recommended above will likely meet the needs at these crossings long-term. The Grant Street and Center Square crossings are more subject to future development, and in particular, the Center Square crossing is right in the middle of ongoing transit oriented development. It is important that the city be proactive to increased pedestrian traffic produced by new development and upgrade these crossings accordingly. At vehicle peak hour (see Figure 17), the suggested treatment for a pedestrian crosswalk across Center Street is either no treatment or Red depending upon pedestrian volumes. This leaves few options in the future when additional development may generate more pedestrian traffic. In this scenario, upgrading the two crossings at Grant Street and Center Square to red treatments is not desirable because having two red crosswalks and a crossing guard within a ½ mile stretch of road may be problematic. Another tactic would be to consolidate the crossings at Grant Street and Center Square. This would limit the number of reds along the corridor and still provide a way for pedestrians to cross the road safely. The issue here would be a disruption of the pedestrian grid, a detriment to walkability. Finally, the most pedestrian-focused approach would be to reduce the roadway to a 3-lane configuration. Fully embracing a transit-oriented philosophy, this strategy would allow for shorter crossing distances and better vehicle compliance. In this scenario, less impactful crossing treatments would be adequate for the vehicle peak hour. For example, Figure 18 illustrates the pedestrian-amenity guidelines for a street with 34 feet of pavement roughly equivalent to a 3-lane road. As can be seen in Figure 18, enhanced/active treatments are suitable for pedestrian volumes up to 100 pedestrian crossings per hour. Further study would determine if a lane reduction would be feasible given the vehicle demand on the corridor, but the 3-lane configuration could be of lesser impact on vehicle movement than having several red crossing treatments along the corridor. Center Street Pedestrian Crossing Analysis 11 December 8, 2017
Figure 17: Existing Roadway Guidelines Plot, Vehicle Peak Hour Figure 18: 3-lane Roadway Guidelines Plot, Vehicle Peak Hour Center Street Pedestrian Crossing Analysis 12 December 8, 2017