HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/18/2000, 2 - CITYWIDE CROSSWALK POLICY AND UPGRADE PROGRAMC
FROM:
council
apenaa izEpont
C I T Y OF S A N L U I S O B I S P O
Michael McCloskey, Director of Public Works
01/18/00
Im N ®61/
2
Prepared By: Timothy Scott Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works
James Hanson, Traffic Engineering Assistant
SUBJECT: Citywide Crosswalk Policy and Upgrade Program
CAO RECOMMENDATION
(A) Adopt a resolution establishing the City Of San Luis Obispo Department of Public
Works Policy on Pedestrian Crosswalks.
(B) Approve, as part of the Marsh Street Parking Garage Expansion project, the installation
of in- ground crosswalk pavement lighting to increase pedestrian safety at the crosswalk
location.
REPORT -IN- BRIEF
Each year the City receives numerous requests to install marked crosswalks, improve current
crosswalk demarcation and consider increased traffic control (which often takes the form of a
traffic signal request) for pedestrian crossing locations. Recent high profile vehicle vs. pedestrian
collisions have heightened the sensitivity regarding the current City practice of how it treats
pedestrian crossing locations and what guidelines are used to justify crosswalk and traffic control
device installations.
During the last half of 1999 a comprehensive review of various crosswalk and pedestrian
crossing locations was conducted to determine if additional traffic control methodologies could
be utilized to achieve greater levels of pedestrian safety.
This review revealed that while current State guidelines are being met, there is little uniform
treatment in regards to pedestrian markings, signal indications or advance warning signs at many
locations. Many of the crosswalks that are marked do not have similar traffic warning devices
alerting drivers of the upcoming crosswalk location. Some traffic signals have marked
crosswalks, pedestrian push buttons, and pedestrian signals... while some _do not. In addition, a
few crosswalks have been installed at locations that might not be appropriate for pedestrian
crossings and could lead to pedestrian safety issues.
The attached Department of Public Works Policy on Pedestrian Crosswalks (Attachment B)
establishes a uniform treatment for crosswalk installations and traffic control devices. The policy
will provide City staff with a toolbox of options when considering requests for pedestrian safety
and mobility. A review of other cities' crosswalk policies was undertaken to gather information
on current industry standards for crosswalk installations and suggested levels of traffic control.
2 -1
City Council Meeting 01/18/00
Citywide Crosswalk Policy
Page 2
The proposed policy uses State of California guidelines as a basis for traffic control device
installation and incorporates many successful treatments used by other cities in establishing safe
pedestrian crossings. The policy also establishes guidelines for the installation of innovative new
pedestrian safety technologies such as in- ground pavement lighting that could benefit certain
uncontrolled crosswalk locations within the City.
Finally, the City Council at its August 17, 1999 meeting directed staff to review the mid -block
uncontrolled crosswalk located on Marsh Street between Morro Street and Osos Street and make
recommendations for increased traffic control to improve pedestrian safety. An analysis has been
conducted for this location using the draft crosswalk policy. Staff is recommending that the City
install in- ground pavement lighting at this location as an initial step in improving pedestrian
safety.
DISCUSSION
Background — What Does the City Do for Pedestrian Crossing Safety Right Now?
Section 10.32.010 of the Municipal Code states that "The city traffic engineer shall establish and
designate crosswalks at intersections and other places by appropriate devices and marks or lines
upon the surface of the roadway... ". The City uses State of California guidelines regarding the
installation of traffic signals, traffic control devices and pedestrian signal timing at all signalized
locations. These guidelines do not establish minimum thresholds for marked crosswalk locations.
The State of California Traffic Manual and the Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD) indicate that marked crosswalks should be provided where there is a
demonstrated need to channelize pedestrians and encourage them to cross streets at specific
locations.
In the 1970's the City of San Diego in conjunction with the State office of Traffic Safety and the
National Highway Safety Bureau conducted a study entitled "Accidents in Painted and
Unpainted Crosswalks" that accumulated data over a five -year period at 400 locations. Each
intersection had one painted and one un- painted crosswalk. The study concluded that although
the use of marked crosswalks when compared to the use of unmarked crosswalks was 2.9 to 1,
the accident ratio was 4.6 to 1. This means that a pedestrian is 1.6 times more likely to be
involved in a traffic collision while using a marked crosswalk than an unmarked crosswalk.
These numbers were adjusted for both vehicle and pedestrian volumes so that skewing of the
data did not take place.
The significant conclusion of the study was that pedestrians often feel a false sense of security at
marked crosswalk locations because they rely on the markings to force drivers to stop rather than
waiting for an adequate gap in traffic before crossing the street. The study also recommends that
the installation of marked crosswalks at locations not controlled by a traffic signal or stop sign
should be undertaken with care only after a proper engineering investigation.
2 -2
City Council Meeting 01/18/00
Citywide Crosswalk Policy
Page 3
While the San Diego study has been debated by transportation professionals for years,
subsequent studies conducted by the Federal Government and other independent cities have
reaffirmed the conclusion that marked crosswalks should be installed only at appropriate
locations.
The City of San Luis Obispo has used the recommendations of these studies as general guideline
for the installation of marked crosswalks within the City.
The Policy — What's Different From Existing Policy and Practice
The proposed policy establishes minimum pedestrian and motor vehicles volumes that should be
observed for justification of future crosswalk installation requests. These volume guidelines have
been adapted from other cities' crosswalk policies that have experienced beneficial results from
their use. As an example, the City of Ventura, California experienced a 41% reduction in the
amount of pedestrian collisions in the two -year period following implementation of a similar
program.
The proposed crosswalk policy and crosswalk upgrade program does not deviate from the
recommended practices established by the previously mentioned studies or other State
guidelines. The proposed policy looks to implement a toolbox of choices that staff can
implement to increase pedestrian awareness and safety. The policy continues to use State
guidelines for all recommendations regarding traffic control devices such as traffic signals, stop
signs and flashing beacons.
A significant current deficiency in the status of city crosswalks is in the non - uniform treatment at
both controlled and uncontrolled crosswalks. While we technically meet State minimum
recommendations there are many examples that exist of marked crosswalks that have dissimilar
advance warning signage, crosswalk demarcation, pedestrian signal indications or pedestrian
actuation devices. The proposed policy attempts to set uniform treatment standards (the tools) for
all similar crosswalk locations in the city.
The highlights of these policy recommendations are:
1. Marked crosswalks should be installed at all traffic signal locations within the city to
inform pedestrians of proper crossing locations. Where pedestrian crossings at signalized
locations are prohibited due to safety concerns, proper signage - should be installed to
inform pedestrians of crossing restrictions.
2. Pedestrian signal indications and push buttons should be installed at all signalized
locations to provide greater assistance to pedestrians in crossing the street.
3. WlIere warranted, "High Visibility" (zebra) type markings should be used at uncontrolled
marked crosswalk locations to better inform drivers passing through the area of the
crosswalk and that there is a potential for pedestrians to cross at the location.
2 -3
City Council Meeting 01/18/00
Citywide Crosswalk Policy
Page 4
4. Advance signage and markings should be similar at all crosswalk locations whether
controlled or uncontrolled by traffic control devices.
5.. Additional signage, markings and markers should be installed at school crosswalks that
are located along suggested school routes.
6. On multi -lane arterials, the number and location of marked crosswalks should be limited
to specific intersections rather than mid -block locations. These locations should possess
characteristics for promoting pedestrian safety and should be highly visible for
approaching motor vehicles.
What's Innovative About the New Policy?
An issue that has received much attention recently is the use of non - standard warning devices
and automated enforcement systems that appear to offer greater protection for pedestrians at
crosswalk locations. The use of in- ground pavement lighting has been approved by the State of
California for experimental use at crosswalk locations that do not meet signal warrant criteria but
will benefit from additional warning to approaching motorists that the crosswalk is occupied.
These devices have proven to be effective particularly on multi -lane roadways where pedestrians
are often hidden by stopped vehicles in one of the travel lanes. Because these devices are
expensive ($25,000 to $30,000 each) their use should be limited to locations that demonstrate
high benefits of their use. When compared to the full cost of traffic signals ($100,000 minimum)
they do offer a lower cost alternative when signals are not the sole solution to pedestrian safety
concerns.
1500MErAMW iopkrzq j
Figure 1— Example of In- ground Pavement Lighting
The recommended crosswalk policy contains minimum criteria that should be met before the
City considers the use of in- ground pavement lighting. The criteria have been specifically set to
parallel traffic volumes required for flashing beacon installation and fall below those required for
2 -4
City Council Meeting 01/18/00
Citywide Crosswalk Policy
Page 5
traffic signalization. In this manner, the likelihood of numerous installations is limited to only
those locations that will benefit from their use.
Marsh Street Mid -block Crosswalk - A Test of the Recommended Policy
As part of discussion regarding the expansion of the Marsh Street parking structure, the City
Council directed staff to review the need for additional traffic control at the mid -block crosswalk
on Marsh Street located between Osos Street and Morro Street. As a test case for the
recommended crosswalk policy, current and future conditions of this crosswalk were analyzed to
determine the most appropriate traffic control and warning devices for this location.
In October 1999, pedestrian and motor vehicle counts were collected for the crosswalk. These
volumes are presented in Table 1. Forecast pedestrian volumes identified as part of the EIR
conducted for the Marsh Street expansion were then added to the existing volumes to determine
if additional traffic control will be necessary under future conditions. The EIR assumptions of
traffic distribution were not modified as part of this analysis.
TABLE 1: MARSH STREET MID-BLOCK PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES
HOUR
OBSERVED
NET"'
SUBTOTAL
PEDESTRAIN
PEDESTRIAN
PEDESTRIANS
MARSH
PEDS
VOLUMES
VOLUME
OCT 1999
PROJECT
DIVERTED TO
REMAINING
PED
BRIDGEBI
ON
ADDMONS
CROSSWALK
(EST.
11:00 AM - 12:00
276
94 (125)
370
259
111
PM
12:00 PM - 1:00
319
162 (216)
481
361
120
PM
1:00 PM - 2:00 PM
314
150 (200)
324
243
81
2:00 PM - 3:00 PM
255
150 (200)
405
284
121
3:00 PM - 4:00 PM
267
173(230)__
73 (230
440
308
132
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM
332
165 (220)
497
348
149
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM
288
131 (175)
419
293
126
Notes: a) The Marsh street Parking Expansion Garage EIR assumed a net increase of 310 new parking spaces. The actual net increase of the
approved project is 232 spates. The forecast volumes of the EIR have been reduced accordingly (25%). For comparative purposes the
EIR numbers are in parenthesis.
b) The Marsh Street Parking Expansion Garage Expansion EIR identified a 75% reduction of new pedestrians that would be diverted
to the new Marsh Street pedestrian bridge.
Tables 2 and 3 show Warrant analysis for both traffic signals and in- ground pavement lights
using the draft policy.
2 -5
City Council Meeting 01/18/00
Citywide Crosswalk Policy
Page 6
TABLE 2 — PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
WARRANT
I SATISFIED?
1
Pedestrian volume crossing major street is 100 or more for each of
Yes
any four hours or is 190 or more during any one hour; AND .
2
There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street traffic
Yes
2
stream of adequate q length for pedestrians to cross; AND
Yes
3
The nearest traffic signal along the major street is 90m (300 ft.)
No
AND '
r 4away;
The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progression along
No
4
the major street.
Yes
As indicated, pedestrian volumes satisfy both volume warrants for signals and in- ground
lighting. However, disruption to main street traffic flow along Marsh Street and particularly the,
inadequate spacing of the adjacent signalized intersections indicates that a traffic signal is not the .
most appropriate traffic control device that can be implemented at this location at this time.
Traffic signals should not be installed if there are other less - restrictive measures that can be
implemented that can satisfy safe traffic objectives. This is clearly the case regarding the use of
in- ground pavement lighting at the Marsh Street crosswalk
TABLE 3 — IN- GROUND PAVEMENT LIGHTING WARRANT ANALYSIS
WARRANT
SATISFIED?
1
The pedestrian volume is 100 or more per hour for a period of any
Yes
four hours of the day, or; there are 100 groupings of two or more
pedestrians for a continuous 2 -hour period twice a day, AND
2
The pedestrian volume after dark is 75 or more for any one hour or:
Yes
25 or more for a period of any four hours during the night time;
AND
3
The roadway conducts 10,000 ADT or more; AND
Yes
4
The 85`h percentile approach speed is 35 MPH or less; AND
Yes
5
The roadway has two or more vehicular travel lanes in one
Yes
direction but not more than four through lanes in both directions.
By its very nature, a traffic signal will halt all main street traffic and cause delay regardless of
the number of pedestrians or the pedestrian clearance time to cross the street. Motor vehicles
must await a green indication and also yield to the crosswalk whether one pedestrian or ten are
crossing, or all pedestrians have already completed the crossing. Further, if a traffic signal is
installed and adequate sight visibility achieved (moving the stop bar west along Marsh) the
available queuing area along Marsh will be drastically reduced and may cause congestion to back
up through the Chorro Street intersection.
In comparison, the in- ground pavement system allows automobiles to continue on as soon as
pedestrians complete their crossing and have vacated the crosswalk. Congestion and delay are
reduced at the same time that additional pedestrian warning is being afforded to the pedestrians.
2 -6
City Council Meeting 01/18/00
Citywide Crosswalk Policy
Page 7
Staff is therefore recommending that in- ground pavement lighting be installed at the Marsh
Street crosswalk as part of the Marsh Street Garage expansion. The use of in- ground pavement
lighting at this location will allow the City the opportunity to test out the validity of the
crosswalk policy assumptions and make modifications based upon their effectiveness. Their use
at this time will also allow for actual pedestrian patterns to develop from the new garage
structure that can be revisited on an annual basis to determine if the more restrictive traffic signal
control is warranted.
Other Crosswalks
The Marsh Street crosswalk is an example in this report because Council directed staff to address
that location .prior to the Marsh Street Expansion plans and specifications being recommended
for approval. While it is too early to predict exactly how the proposed policy will affect all
crosswalks in the community, Table 4 lists some of the City's crosswalk locations that are of
public concern, and how they could potentially be modified using the new policy.
TABLE 4 — CROSSWALKS LOCATIONS OF PUBLIC CONCERN
LOCATION
HOW MIGHT THE POLICY
TIMEFRAME
CHANGE THE CROSSING?
Johnson/Sydney
Upgrade crosswalk to high- visibility
3 -6 months
(hi -vis). Upgrade advance warning
signage. Improve pavement markings.
Grand/Slack
Review crossing for flashing beacon
3-6 months
requirement. Upgrade crosswalk to hi-
vis. Upgrade advance warning signage.
Improve pavement markings.
Orcutt/Laurel
Review crossing for potential marked
2-4 months unless
crosswalk location. Review transit stop
significant CIP expenditure
location and its relationship to
required.
crossings in the area. If warranted,
crosswalk to be hi -vis.
Broad/Lawrence
Review possible signalization
6-8 months
(Caltrans controlled)
requirements.
(awaiting Villa Rosa's full
occupation)
Tanglewood/Sydney
Review crossing for potential marked
6 -8 months
crosswalk location. If warranted,
crosswalk to be hi -vis.
The timeframes mentioned in Table 4 are tentative based upon the perceived level of
investigation that will be required to fully analyze the locations. They also take into
consideration the significant number of other traffic operation requests currently being worked
upon by staff.
2 -7
City Council Meeting 01/18/00
Citywide Crosswalk Policy
Page 8
FISCAL EVIPACTS
Installation of in- ground pavement lighting will cost approximately $30,000 for the Marsh Street
crosswalk. This money is available in the Marsh Street Garage Expansion project budget and
does not need an additional appropriation from Council. This project would precede the parking
expansion project and could be installed in the next few months to assist pedestrian crossings
during construction phases of the project.
Staff is not requesting additional funding to create programs to implement the crosswalk policies
at this time. Minor installation and removal of traffic control devices such as pavement markings
and signage is covered by the Maintenance and Operations budget. Because this policy only
looks to establish the "tools" of appropriate pedestrian crosswalks, staff does not - believe that
additional appropriations are necessary. However, as individual locations :are identified and
components of the program are implemented, staff will need to return to Council with specific
funding requests. It is anticipated that a better understanding of annual expenditure needs
regarding this program will be know for the FY 2001 -02 budget process.
If the Council feels that expedited implementation of this crosswalk policy is desired, additional
capital expenditures to make the needed changes to city infrastructure will be required. Staff
estimates'that expenditures to fully implement the crosswalk policy, including pedestrian signal
indications and push buttons, remarking and removing of various crosswalks and installing
additional advance warning devices could be as high as $100,000 for the first two years of the
upgrade program. Annual expenditures after the first few years should be slight if the
recommended policy proves effective in improving pedestrian safety.
CONCLUSIONS
The recommended crosswalk policies were developed to address specific concerns regarding
crosswalk and pedestrian crossing safety issues and provide consistency throughout the City. It is
important to . note that this pedestrian policy and subsequent crosswalk upgrades will be an
ongoing program that will continue to look at future needs and changing circumstances. It is
anticipated that the policy will evolve over time based upon feedback of the community and
results in accident reduction. Beginning in 2000, the Public Works Department hopes to begin
(assuming workload levels can be addressed) issuing an annual Traffic Safety Report that will
identify high accident locations observed in the previous calendar year. This report will be used
as a tracking device to gauge the success or shortcomings of the recommended crosswalk policy
and provided assistance in making future revisions that are considered necessary.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council has the authority to install traffic control devices according to Sections 21100 and
214019a) of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and in accordance with the State of California
City Council Meeting 01/18/00
Citywide Crosswalk Policy
Page 9
Traffic Manual. The Council at its discretion may amend or modify the proposed crosswalk policy.
If Council should elect to amend or modify the proposed policy, the potential for additional City
liability should be reviewed and considered.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Resolution _ (Series 2000)
Attachment B - Department of Public Works, Citywide Crosswalk Policy
2 -9
ATTACHMM A
RESOLUTION NO. (2000 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ADOPTING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
POLICY ON PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS
WHEREAS, the City Council and the City's General Plan actively encourages pedestrians and
alternative modes of transportation within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has identified that pedestrian safety and mobility should be
proactively pursued and implemented throughout the City, and
WHEREAS, the State of California Vehicle Code and Traffic Manual authorize the City Council
to install, maintain and set policy regarding the use of traffic control devices, traffic signs and
striping and other traffic control methods.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Approve and adopt the Department of Public Works Policy on Pedestrian'
Crosswalks.
SECTION 2. Authorizes the Director of Public Works to implement the policy and
make modifications as necessary to ensure the success of the crosswalk
safety program.
Upon motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
M
Mayor Allen Settle
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
'V
rx. Jole nsen ity ttomey
2 -10
City Of
san Luis OBispO
fi� �!I L ! I �I
=
Department of Public Works
Traffic Engineering Division
Operating Policies
MARKED PEDESTRIAN
(Title)
ATTACHMENT B
EFFECTIVE
DATE:
APPROVED
BY:
SECTION: TRAFFIC
PAGE 1 OF 4
0 POLICY
OBJECTIVE
To establish guidelines on where pedestrian crosswalks, pedestrian traffic control warning devices
and other miscellaneous pedestrian control devices are installed on City streets.
SUMMARY
A. GENERAL
A crosswalk is a unique traffic control device. It can be marked or unmarked. Crosswalk
markings Should Not be used indiscriminately because it has been shown that pedestrians
may develop a false sense of security regarding their use of a marked location. However, a
marked crosswalk should be installed where an engineering study is performed that
determines if marked crosswalks are appropriate at locations that are not controlled by traffic
signals, flashing beacons or stop signs.
B. INSTALLATION OF A MARKED CROSSWALKS ON UNCONTROLLED APPROACHES
OF AN INTERSECTION
Based on industry standards in both the Caltrans "Traffic Manual ", the "Manual of Uniform
Traffic Control Devices" (MUTCD) and criteria that have been successful in other similar
jurisdictions, the following guidelines should be used to determine appropriateness of marked
crosswalks on public streets. Marked crosswalks may be considered for installation at
uncontrolled locations if the following requirements are met:
• The pedestrian volume is 40 or more per hour during the peak hour of pedestrian usage, or;
there are 30 groupings of two or more pedestrians for a continuous 2 -hour period twice a day,
and;
• The 85th percentile approach speed is below 40 MPH, and;
• The roadway has less than three travel lanes in one direction, and;
• The proposed crosswalk has adequate lighting for nighttime visibility (if the location satisfies
all other criteria the City shall install street lighting as part of the crosswalk installation), and;
• There is an unrestricted visibility of the crosswalk for a minimum distance as listed in Table
A -1:
2 -11
; J' ! it
i.
SUMMARY-
SECTION: TRAFFIC
PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS I I PAGE 2 OF 4
Table A -1 Minimum Si ht Distance
Design Speed Minimum Sight
Design Speed Minimum Sight
(MPH) Distance (m)
(MPH) Distance (m)
20 38
45 a 110
25 46
50 (a) 131
30 61
55 (a) 152
35 76
60(a) 177
40 91
65 (a) 201
(a) City Traffic Engineer must approve crosswalks
with greater than 40 MPH design.
• If residential, the roadway conducts 2,700 ADT or more, and:
• There is no controlled crosswalk (by a traffic signal or stop sign) within one block (200m)
of the proposed crosswalk.
The City Traffic Engineer may authorize the installation of a marked crosswalk(s) that does
not satisfy all of the criteria in Section B if it is deemed that, based on analysis, other unique
circumstances wan-ant the installation of the marked crosswalk. The circumstances include
but are not limited to: school pedestrian crosswalks on a City approved "Safe Route to School
Map ", channelization of pedestrians to a single point of crossing, or otherwise clarify the
appropriate place for a safer crossing.
All marked crosswalks installed at uncontrolled locations should be "high - visibility" ladder
type crosswalks.
C. INSTALLATION OF MARKED CROSSWALKS BETWEEN INTERSECTIONS
(MIDBLOCK)
A midblock marked crosswalk may be installed if it meets the requirements of Section B, and
all of the following:
• The length of the block between intersections is greater than 200 m, and
• There is reasonable demand by pedestrians, as demonstrated by an engineering survey,
to cross within a concentrated area that is 90m or greater from the nearest signal or stop
sign controlled intersection, and;
• There is a high pedestrian volume generator nearby.
The City Traffic Engineer may authorize the installation of a marked crosswalk(s) that does
not satisfy all of the criteria in this section if it is deemed that, based on analysis,
"111lllll lllpll
SECTION: TRAFFIC
PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS PAGE 3 OF 4
SUMMARY - CONTINUED
other unique circumstances warrant the installation of the marked crosswalk. (see
Section B for examples)
D. REINSTALLATION OF MARKED CROSSWALKS COVERED BY ROADWAY
SURFACING
The reinstallation of marked crosswalks shall be evaluated as part of all roadway surface
treatment projects that cover up pavement markings (slurry seal, chip seal, and overlay). All
marked crosswalks that do not meet the criteria in this Policy (where applicable as
determined by the City Traffic Engineer) should be removed unless there are unique
circumstances.
E. MARKED CROSSWALK REMOVAL
Subject to the completion of an engineering study, existing crosswalk markings may be
removed if one or more of the requirements of Section B or C is not met.
F. HIGH - VISIBILITY CROSSWALKS
High- visibility ladder type crosswalks should be marked at uncontrolled marked crosswalks
or where it is determined by the Traffic Engineer that their use will benefit marked crosswalk
effectiveness at crosswalks controlled by traffic signals or stop signs.
G. MARKED CROSSWALKS AT TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATIONS
Marked crosswalks should be installed at all designated crosswalks at intersections controlled
by traffic signals. These crosswalk markings should be .3m (12 ") white or yellow markings and
spaced a minimum of 3.1m (10') apart.
Crosswalks shall not be marked at locations where pedestrian crossings are prohibited for safety
or operational reasons. In these instances, the Traffic Engineer shall erect appropriate signage
prohibiting the crossing and instructing pedestrians to the appropriate crossing locations.
H. PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS, PUSH BUTTONS AND INFORMATIVE SIGNS AT
SIGNALIZED LOCATIONS
Pedestrian signals, push buttons and crossing information signs should be installed at all traffic
signal locations within the City to assist pedestrians in crossing the street. Pedestrian signals
should be LED displayed and of the "international" symbol type for "walk/don't walk' displays.
Pedestrian push buttons should be ADA accessible and should be supplied for each crossing at
the signalized location.
If ili I; VIII I�
SECTION: TRAFFIC
PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS I I PAGE 4 OF 4
I. SCHOOL CROSSWALKS
School crosswalks are to be established by th
e Traffic Engineer at appropriate crossing locations on the City - approved "Suggested Route
to School" map. Warrants and locations of the school crosswalks shall be based on
recommended guidelines as contained in the Caltrans, "Traffic Manual ", and the "Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices" (MUTCD).
J. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES FOR CROSSWALKS
Traffic control devices for crosswalks should be installed per the MUTCD, the California
Vehicle Code and the "Traffic Manual ". Where discrepancies exist for the proper installation
of advanced traffic control devices, it shall be the Traffic Engineer's determination on
appropriate sign and warning combinations on a case -by -case basis.
K. IN- GROUND PAVEMENT LIGHTING FOR CROSSWALKS
In- ground (or in- pavement) crosswalk lighting incorporates the use of lights that are
imbedded in the pavement, similar to lights used in the runways of airports. Their use has
been proven effective in certain locations particularly for multi -lane arterials that have
limited visibility of pedestrians. However, their use should be limited to only those where in-
ground pavement lighting will promote visibility of pedestrians more effectively than other
warning devices that have proven ineffective in advising motorists of crosswalk occupation.
In- ground pavement lighting may be considered at uncontrolled locations if the following
requirements are met:
• The pedestrian volume is 100 or more per hour for a period of any four hours of the day,
or; there are 100 groupings of two or more pedestrians for a continuous 2 -hour period
twice a day, and;
• The pedestrian volume after dark is 75 or more for any one hour or: 25 or more for a
period of any four hours during the night time, and;
• The roadway conducts 10,000 ADT or more, and:
• The 85"' percentile approach speed is 35 MPH or less, and;
• The roadway has two or more vehicular travel lanes in one direction but not more than
four through lanes in both directions, and;
• The crosswalk is not controlled by a traffic signal, stop or yield sign.
The Traffic Engineer shall establish specifications for the installation of in- ground pavement
lighting in accordance with State and City standards. The specifications should consider the
following: Automatic Activation (passive detection), adjustable light orientation and levels of
illumination, accompaniment of appropriate advance warning signage that could include the
use of "smart" signs alerting motorists of pedestrian activity, and ability to be easily
maintained.
C-
0
O U
aQ)
o 0,
V) -�
J �
1
l
O U
U �
L
H
J
Y
S
c-
C)
N
O
LE
J
tn � N N
3 m
O
Q+
Ne
Lj Lo
®
C3
y N
r 1_
r
^,
V
Q
S
c-
C)
LE
Ne
il
r 1_
r
^,
V
Q
elm •In T
. ..... __. ........ .... ..._.... -- _
m�
MOB i I • N Wz�
N
Lo lz
3
IVVIIVV 1 � K
i O
M t0
3 3 C
j
i
I
�I inQ�
=acc —
cz
,Ni,o
M
m
i
H
WSJ �
WW
ISU
J
i C. ZO , O
Cie O r O
O O
ZI co «j vii
SS WY WY W ~w
Q ac�i y N c 3 coo
W = N 4 N
� I QQF
WS dM m6.) I Q'iW
M rzc
W O �
W eV M I O V en
� W
m 2 -15
I
I
i
c
.0
t
O ()
O �
J �
D �
tJ) �
W
O U
U �
U
O
O
t �
U
E
� A
o �
t/
S
�s
3
L 6
N U
� G
� O
O }
U U
O
o
0 L
V
ME
v
3
N
C
O
n an
3 3
Z
0
S U
m
VI<OJ
>a°
v
x6�
<z
NO
z0�
lem
# iV
Q
c
O
a
i
Q
LD
N
N
Cc
O �]
Q
b {D
3 3 �
C
Vi
WN ~f
W
J0
OyO•
a=O
U'
3W<
=U' ZF- pp
¢W
Q
�3d I
1
co
�IO�S
JIW
I'
m'
z
I Q
0
2 -16
N
W
C
Q
Q O
Z
O=O
r W
�NZ
Hm
NFJ
Z_ O
W Wx
wCj
M!O-N
c
O
O (}j
a(D
�u
O .a,
C.
'a CD
V
I.f- W
O U
U �
tai
fi?
U
T�
3 �
O
p
-F-
SRB
_ E
N
� p v
$ 3 �
= r
x
0
FL
n
3 $
3
V (ry
xm
U W
it
m
i
0
>�o
�uIs
C2
Z W
_ � m
d Q
W ' ' O p
� O
O =3P
1qqyy �
S. CnCA32-i
is tn = W ' 13 < H
YO 'k 1%M 0:
51 W
Q\ = C y =-x Qed
CD 31 aat=W
= L.J C6 pp �
IS
Ub
W�C6 syoW OC
OmO O FfiatK O
?ItIZI W Eo<
O V W � O m LLI
�C3, oMcs
W /V
waa
i
o� o°yI
Z o0 O <_
0 �!p Mi Wm
W�
Q < S:? N �
La
us= A. N W
V �s°1g >o
wi
CL
s
0a OO
W N
Y
Z
o y0 o -C
W N� V�
lei
s
° E N
W
H
o �
Z
°jW
0
2
p
m
N Z
'
rd
G
Mfg NG AGENDA 2-,
DAM L'L`�OiTEM #®
From: <WBCC809 @aol.com>
To: <sstendah@ci.san- luis - obispo.ca.us>
• Date: 1/14/00 3:11 PM
Subject: item 2, public hearings, 1/18/00 council meeting
Councilmembers, City of SLO:
I wanted to share with you an idea I had. I have been meaning to call
Engineering and share it with them, then saw the item on the Agenda, maybe
this is my opportunity.
I've lived on Bougainvillea (near Tank Farm & Broad) for 3 years. The
problem is the non - visibility of the crosswalks at Tank Farm & Poinsettia,
which kids from our side of the tract must cross (Tank Farm, upon which
people drive too fast) go get to French Park, and kids from the other side of
the tract must cross to get to the Marigold Center. I have seen many kids,
and even adults, nearly hit at the intersection.
The crosswalks are made of the nice looking colored concrete with the brick
paver type texture on them. However, especially at dusk and at night they
just blend right in to the roadway. Finally, I recently noticed that they
are not striped. They need broad white stripes on all sides so drivers know
they are there. Yes, there is a Ped Xing sign right before you get to them
but that in itself is not effective.
I feel that my idea, broad white stripes around all the crosswalks all the
way around the intersection, would make it somewhat safer, would be cheap to
implement, and maybe save a life. Even on a citywide basis, it would be an
• inexpensive way to improve the visibility of all of the like- designed
crosswalks.
Thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Johnstone
phone: 541 -2820
email: carolynj@thegrid.net
844 Bougainvillea St., SLO 93401
CC: <carolynj @ thegrid. net>
19 COUNCIL
O CDD DIR
MtAO
O FIN DIR
EMCAO
O PRE CHIEF
E7 MRNEY
EYPW DIR
M16LERKIOR10
0 POLICE CHF
0 t GMT TEAM
O REC DIR
Lg' Rt5u�l�
0UTILDIR
19 T1
0 PERS DIR
1 A N 1 4 2000
SLO CITY COUNCIL