CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS TRAFFIC AND PARKING COMMISSION April 5, 2018 TO: Traffic and Parking Commission FROM: Martha Eros, Transportation Planner Christian Vasquez, Transportation Planning Analyst SUBJECT: Complete Streets Plan ATTACHMENT: A. March 12, 2018 Workshop Summary B. April 15, 2018 Earth Day Event Flyer C. Crosswalk Policies Research Summary (Iteris, Inc.) D. Third Street Crosswalk Evaluation (Fehr & Peers) The following report provides a summary of the first Complete Streets Plan workshop held on March 12, 2018, and an introduction to crosswalk guidelines for future development of policies, standards and procedures for the installation, modification and/or removal of crosswalks. Transportation Planning staff and John Lower, the Iteris, Inc. project manager, will lead the discussion at the May/June 2018 Traffic & Parking Commission meeting to facilitate policy recommendations for City Council consideration. The Fehr & Peers analysis for a mid-block crosswalk on Third Street west of Maple Drive is included, and consideration of a mid-block crosswalk is not recommended until after the 325 North Maple Drive building is occupied and a crosswalk policy is developed. Complete Streets Outreach The Traffic and Parking Commission (TPC) hosted the first Complete Streets Plan (Plan) community workshop in March 2018. Aaron Kunz, Deputy Director of Transportation, introduced the Plan, and the Iteris, Inc. project team provided a presentation on complete streets concepts and upcoming outreach events. Approximately 40 community members participated and provided input on potential goals/values for the Plan (Attachment A). The workshop presentation and poster boards can be viewed online at www.beverlyhills.org/completestreets. Staff and the consulting team will continue to solicit input from the community at upcoming engagement events and workshops. The first community engagement event will be held at the Beverly Hills Earth Day on Sunday, March 15, 2018 (Attachment B). The goal of this event is to gather community input on potential corridors throughout the City to evaluate, and encourage community members to complete a Complete Streets survey. The Complete Streets booth will include maps for “pinning” desired corridor proposals, and poster boards and handouts highlighting Complete Streets elements. Staff and the consultant team will be on-site to receive input and respond to questions. Community members can fill out the survey via electronic tablets or paper copies available on-site. The survey can also be filled out online at www.beverlyhills.org/completestreetsSURVEY. The second community workshop is tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, May 30, 2018. This workshop will provide participants an opportunity to weigh on proposed corridors and initial draft recommendations. Proposed elements of the Plan will be shared through interactive stations, exhibits, and comment forms/boards.
Transcript
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
TRAFFIC AND PARKING COMMISSION
April 5, 2018
TO: Traffic and Parking Commission
FROM: Martha Eros, Transportation Planner Christian Vasquez, Transportation Planning Analyst
SUBJECT: Complete Streets Plan
ATTACHMENT: A. March 12, 2018 Workshop Summary B. April 15, 2018 Earth Day Event Flyer C. Crosswalk Policies Research Summary (Iteris, Inc.) D. Third Street Crosswalk Evaluation (Fehr & Peers)
The following report provides a summary of the first Complete Streets Plan workshop held on March 12, 2018, and an introduction to crosswalk guidelines for future development of policies, standards and procedures for the installation, modification and/or removal of crosswalks. Transportation Planning staff and John Lower, the Iteris, Inc. project manager, will lead the discussion at the May/June 2018 Traffic & Parking Commission meeting to facilitate policy recommendations for City Council consideration. The Fehr & Peers analysis for a mid-block crosswalk on Third Street west of Maple Drive is included, and consideration of a mid-block crosswalk is not recommended until after the 325 North Maple Drive building is occupied and a crosswalk policy is developed. Complete Streets Outreach
The Traffic and Parking Commission (TPC) hosted the first Complete Streets Plan (Plan) community workshop in March 2018. Aaron Kunz, Deputy Director of Transportation, introduced the Plan, and the Iteris, Inc. project team provided a presentation on complete streets concepts and upcoming outreach events. Approximately 40 community members participated and provided input on potential goals/values for the Plan (Attachment A). The workshop presentation and poster boards can be viewed online at www.beverlyhills.org/completestreets. Staff and the consulting team will continue to solicit input from the community at upcoming engagement events and workshops. The first community engagement event will be held at the Beverly Hills Earth Day on Sunday, March 15, 2018 (Attachment B). The goal of this event is to gather community input on potential corridors throughout the City to evaluate, and encourage community members to complete a Complete Streets survey. The Complete Streets booth will include maps for “pinning” desired corridor proposals, and poster boards and handouts highlighting Complete Streets elements. Staff and the consultant team will be on-site to receive input and respond to questions. Community members can fill out the survey via electronic tablets or paper copies available on-site. The survey can also be filled out online at www.beverlyhills.org/completestreetsSURVEY. The second community workshop is tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, May 30, 2018. This workshop will provide participants an opportunity to weigh on proposed corridors and initial draft recommendations. Proposed elements of the Plan will be shared through interactive stations, exhibits, and comment forms/boards.
04.05.18 TPC: Complete Streets Plan Page 2
Staff is currently planning other community engagement events, such as a walk audit(s) and pop-up events. Staff will continue to coordinate social media posts at hashtag #BHCompleteStreets; email blasts to city distribution lists (i.e., Commissions, NSMB Reconstruction, Information Technology, Team Beverly Hills, Next Beverly Hills, bicycles); and update the Complete Streets website. Crosswalk Policy
The Complete Streets Plan scope of work includes developing crosswalk policies to guide future crosswalk installations in the City and crosswalk standards. Attached is a summary of federal, state and select municipality crosswalk guidelines prepared by the Iteris team (Attachment C). Staff seeks initial input from the Traffic & Parking Commission on potential crosswalk standards and/or additional topics for further study at a future Traffic & Parking Commission meeting. Third Street Crosswalk Evaluation
Staff received a request from resident, David Gingold, requesting for two mid-block crosswalks along Third Street, west of Maple Drive. Fehr & Peers conducted an evaluation of the requested crosswalks based on data collected during the previous examination of Third Street Parking (Attachment D). Staff and Fehr & Peers do not recommend consideration of mid-block crosswalks until after occupancy of the 325 North Maple Drive building and the development of a crosswalk policy.
Attachment A
COMPLETE STREETS PLAN
SUMMARY: Approximately 40 community members, several Council and Commission members, and City staff from multiple departments attended the first workshop for the Beverly Hills Complete Streets Plan on Monday, March 12, 2018.
BEVERLY HILLS PRESENT/FUTURE: Meeting facilitators asked participants to select a word to describe Beverly Hills streets in the present and in the future. The most common words selected by participants to describe the present suggest an emphasis on cars, such as “congested,” “speeding,” and “traffic.” The most common word selected by participants to describe the future was, “safe.”
VALUES AND GOALS:Values—Safety (25%), Quality of Life (22%), and Traffic (18%) rose to the top as most important for event participants. Goals—Several common themes emerged when participants were asked to prioritize Plan goals:
• Expand bicycle infrastructure• Reduce collisions and employ traffic calming measures• Improve wayfinding / signage• Improve and prioritize pedestrian spaces • Expand transit routes, increase frequency / speed, connect to active transportation• Increase street trees and plantings• Educate all roadway users
Additionally, participants expressed a desire for design recommendations that will promote/maintain the City’s “village” atmosphere; to consider diverse users groups including tourists, visitors, and businesses; and to facilitate the need for coordination with adjacent cities during Plan implementation.
NEXT STEPS: The values and goals for the Plan will reflect feedback received from this event, as well as feedback received from the online survey currently being conducted (www.beverlyhills.org/completestreetsSURVEY). Additional events are planned to gather further public input throughout the development of the Plan, including a walk audit, pop up event at the City’s Earth Day Celebration, and two additional workshops. Visit the project website (www.beverlyhills.org/completestreets) to stay up to date on event dates and details. Updates on this project will also be shared in monthly Traffic and Parking Commission (TPC) meetings. For the latest TPC meeting schedule, please visit: http://www.beverlyhills.org/citygovernment/commissions/trafficandparkingcommission/
WORKSHOP HIGHLIGHTS
27%
23%18%
9%
9%
4%
5%5% Safety
Quality of LifeTra�cTransportationEnvironmentAccess for AllSocial CohesionAesthetics
The City of Beverly Hills Complete Streets Plan is being conducted by Iteris Inc. to provide comprehensive guidance for future mobility needs in the City. Essential to the Complete Streets Plan is a policy with criteria for consideration of marked crosswalk placements throughout the City. This memo presents a review of crosswalk guidelines at the federal, state and selected local agency levels, with the intent to inform development of a City of Beverly Hills crosswalk policy. A summary of the criteria for crosswalk installation, technology enhancement, and crosswalk removal is presented. Upon review of this information by the City, preferred best practices will be identified and a draft policy prepared for consideration.
1. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Guidelines The installation of marked crosswalks requires a comprehensive evaluation of a variety of traffic elements. Collision history, average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, traffic speeds, roadway characteristics, surrounding land uses, and major points of origin/destination must be considered.
Table 1 presents a summary of the FHWA report intended to provide guidance for installing marked crosswalks and other pedestrian crossing facility enhancements. The criteria for crosswalk installation is conditions by roadway ADT, roadway type and speed limit. It should be noted that Table 1 and the footnotes which follow the table quote the FHWA guidelines verbatim.
TABLE 1: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INSTALLING MARKED CROSSWALKS AND OTHER NEEDED PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS AT UNCONTROLLED LOCATIONS1
Roadway Type (Number of Travel Lanes and
Median Type)
Vehicle ADT ≤ 9,000
Vehicle ADT > 9,000 to 12,000
Vehicle ADT > 12,000 to 15,000
Vehicle ADT > 15,000
Speed Limit**
≤ 30 mph
35 mph
40 mph
≤ 30 mph
35 mph
40 mph
≤ 30 mph
35 mph
40 mph
≤ 30 mph
35 mph
40 mph
2 Lanes C C P C C P C C N C P N
3 Lanes C C P C P P P P N P N N
Multilane (4 or more lanes) with raised
median*** C C P C P N P P N N N N
Multilane (4 or more lanes) without
raised median*** C P N P P N N N N N N N
Notes: These guidelines include intersection and midblock locations with no traffic signals or stop signs on the approach to the crossing. They do not apply to school crossings. A two‐way center turn lane is not considered a median. Crosswalks should not be installed at locations that could present an increased safety risk to pedestrians, such as where there is poor sight distance, complex or confusing designs, a substantial volume of heavy trucks, or other dangers, without first providing adequate design features and/or traffic control devices. Adding crosswalks alone will not make crossings safer, nor will they necessarily result in more vehicles stopping for pedestrians. Whether or not marked crosswalks are installed, it is important to consider other pedestrian facility enhancements (e.g., raised median, traffic signal, roadway narrowing, enhanced overhead lighting, traffic‐calming measures, curb extensions), as needed, to improve the safety of the crossing. These are general recommendations; good engineering judgment should be used in individual cases for deciding where to install crosswalks.
** Where the speed limit exceeds 40 mph, marked crosswalks alone should not be used at unsignalized locations.
*** The raised median or crossing island must be at least 4 feet wide and 6 feet long to serve adequately as a refuge area for pedestrians, in accordance with MUTCD and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines.
C = Candidate sites for marked crosswalks. Marked crosswalks must be installed carefully and selectively. Before installing new marked crosswalks, an engineering study is needed to determine whether the location is suitable for a marked crosswalk. For an engineering study, a site review may be sufficient at some locations, while a more in‐depth study of pedestrian volume, vehicle speed, sight distance, vehicle mix, and other factors may be needed at other sites. It is recommended that a minimum utilization of 20 pedestrian crossings per peak hour (or 15 or more elderly and/or child pedestrians) be confirmed at a location before placing a high priority on the installation of a marked crosswalk alone.
P = Possible increase in pedestrian crash risk may occur if crosswalks are added without other pedestrian facility enhancements. These locations should be closely monitored and enhanced with other pedestrian crossing improvements, if necessary, before adding a marked crosswalk.
N = Marked crosswalks alone are insufficient, since pedestrian crash risk may be increased by providing marked crosswalks alone. Consider using other treatments, such as traffic‐calming treatments, traffic signals with pedestrian signals where warranted, or other substantial crossing improvement to improve crossing safety for pedestrians.
As shown in Table 1, crosswalks must be enhanced with additional features if any of the following conditions are met:
1. The speed limit exceeds 40 mph. 2. ADT is greater than 12,000 on roadways with four or more lanes and without a raised median or
crossing island. 3. ADT is greater than 15,000 on roadways with four or more lanes and with a raised median or
crossing island. Furthermore, the FHWA’s 2010 Crosswalk Marking Field Visibility Study2 evaluated the daytime and nighttime visibility of three crosswalk markings: transverse, continental, bar pairs (shown in Figure 1).
Figure 1: Crosswalk Markings3
Bar Pair Markings Continental Markings
Transverse Markings
The study concluded that continental and bar pair markings should be considered “default” for all crosswalks since their detection distance is longer compared to transverse markings. Figure 2 shows continental and bar pair markings have statistically similar sight detection distance at around 450 feet during the day and 350 feet during the night.
Figure 2: Least Square (LS) Mean Detection Distance by Marking Type and Light Level for Study Sites
2. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) follows the FHWA guidelines for the installation of crosswalks. The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) defines marked crosswalks as providing “guidance for pedestrians who are crossing roadways by defining and delineating paths” of travel. Section 3B.184 of the CA MUTCD, included in Appendix A, provides specific guidance on the design, striping and signage for crosswalk markings. In the case of crosswalk removal, the California Vehicle Code (CVC), Section 21950.55 requires a public hearing at least 30 days prior to the scheduled removal of a crosswalk. There should also be a notice of removal posted at the crosswalk location.
3. Local Jurisdictions At the local agency level, cities typically have their own set of guidelines and policies for pedestrian facilities. Iteris reviewed the latest pedestrian and crosswalk policies for the City of West Hollywood, Pasadena and San Diego. The documents reviewed, and summarized in Table 2, include the following:
City of West Hollywood Pedestrian and Bicycle Mobility Plan, adopted in 2017 ‐ provides a set of prioritized strategies and tools to enhance the City’s streets to be more comfortable, safe, and inviting to pedestrians and bicyclists of all ages and abilities. A crosswalk policy is included in Appendix G of the Plan with criteria to be used as guideline for marked crosswalks installation/removal, and to install enhanced crosswalk technology. The document notes that crosswalks are not considered safety devices. Crosswalks are features used to guide pedestrians to optimal locations for crossing, and to inform drivers of locations where they should expect pedestrians to cross.
City of Pasadena Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidance, adopted in 2016 – this document provides a toolbox of pedestrian and vehicular treatments at uncontrolled crossings. The treatments are designated as basic and enhanced. For instance, the recommendation of a crosswalk without additional signage or technology is considered a basic treatment. Criteria for enhanced treatment beyond striping, such as rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFB), is also included in the report.
City of San Diego Marked Crosswalk Criteria at Uncontrolled Locations – this document is Council Policy that provides a set of basic warrants and point warrants for crosswalk installations. The document also includes guidelines for additional treatments to support the crosswalk, and crosswalk
removal. Furthermore, in 2015, the City of San Diego also adopted high visibility continental crosswalks6 as City standard for all future crosswalks. The goal is to eventually implement continental style crosswalks at all crossing throughout the City.
Treatment Criteria West Hollywood7 Pasadena8 San Diego9
Crosswalk Installation
Pedestrian Volume # of pedestrians/hour must meet MUTCD 4C‐5 warrant for any four hour period*
Pedestrian volume ≥ 20 pedestrian/hour during any two hours, not necessarily consecutive.
Pedestrian volume ≥ 10 pedestrian/hour during peak pedestrian hour. Note: children, seniors and disabled persons count as 1.5 pedestrians.
Approach Speed See Table 1
2‐ and 3‐lane roadways** ≤ 30mph and ADT < 12,000 35mph and ADT < 9,000 4‐lane roadway without median ≤ 30mph and ADT < 9,000 4‐lane roadway with median ≤ 35mph and ADT < 9,000
85th percentile approach speed ≤ 40mph Note: doesn’t apply when pedestrian hybrid beacon or pedestrian traffic signal will be installed
Distance to nearest controlled crossing
Distance between proposed crosswalk location and nearest controlled pedestrian crossing > 300 feet
Distance between proposed crosswalk location and nearest controlled pedestrian crossing > 300 feet
Distance between proposed crosswalk location and nearest controlled pedestrian crossing > 250 feet
Visibility N/A Pedestrian can be easily seen from a feasible stopping sight distance
Minimum distance required by speed limit
Illumination N/A N/A Proposed crosswalk location must have existing lighting
Treatment Criteria West Hollywood7 Pasadena8 San Diego9
Accessibility N/A N/A Proposed crosswalk location must have accessibility to disabled persons or have accessibility improvements programmed
Enhanced Crosswalk Technology
Pedestrian Volume 100 pedestrians use crosswalk in a four hour period
N/A N/A
ADT ADT > 10,000 vehicles
2‐lane roadway ADT > 15,000 vehicles and speed > 40mph 3‐lane roadway ADT > 9,000 vehicles and speed > 35mph 4‐lane roadway without median > 30mph and ADT > 9,000 4‐lane roadway with median > 35mph and ADT > 9,000
Consideration of the pedestrian‐related collisions at the crosswalk within a 12 month period in compliance with the MUTCD.
N/A N/A
Crosswalk removal
Pedestrian Volume # of pedestrians/hour < 40 in the highest peak hour
N/A N/A
Distance to nearest controlled crossing
Distance between crosswalk and nearest controlled crosswalk < 300 feet
N/A N/A
Visibility Visibility issues that cannot be corrected
N/A N/A
Pedestrian Related Collisions
If pedestrian accidents increases after installation of crosswalk compared to last three year prior to installation
N/A N/A
Treatment Criteria West Hollywood7 Pasadena8 San Diego9
Other
Crosswalk causes constant intersection gridlock. Must follow CVC Section 21950.5 guidelines for crosswalk removal.
Must follow CVC Section 21950.5 guidelines for crosswalk removal.
Must follow CVC Section 21950.5 guidelines for crosswalk removal.
Note: N/A : criteria not available or not specified in document *See Appendix B for CA MUTCD Pedestrian Warrant Volume **See Appendix C – Pasadena Pedestrian Crossing Treatments, Table 2 and Table 3 ***See Appendix D ‐ San Diego Council Policy, Table 2 for detailed information on crossing treatment
Appendix A ‐ CA MUTCD Crosswalk Markings
California MUTCD 2014 Edition (FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California)
Chapter 3B – Pavement and Curb Markings November 7, 2014 Part 3 – Markings
Page 682
Option: 22 A limit line may be placed in advance of a crosswalk where vehicles are required to stop, in compliance with a STOP
(R1-1) sign, traffic control signal or some other traffic control device. Support:
23 If a marked crosswalk is in place, it would normally function as a limit line. 24 Typical limit line markings are shown in Figure 3B-103(CA).
Standard: 25 The individual triangles comprising the yield line shall have a base of 2 feet wide and a height of 3 feet. The
space between the triangles shall be 1 foot. Support:
26 Figure 3B-16(CA) shows typical yield line layout for streets and highways.
Section 3B.17 Do Not Block Intersection Markings Support:
00 Refer to CVC 22526 for entering intersection, rail crossing or marked crosswalk. Option:
01 Do Not Block Intersection markings may be used to mark the edges of an intersection area that is in close proximity to a signalized intersection, railroad crossing, or other nearby traffic control that might cause vehicles to stop within the intersection and impede other traffic entering the intersection. If authorized by law, Do Not Block Intersection markings with appropriate signs may also be used at other locations. Standard:
02 If used, Do Not Block Intersection markings (see Figure 3B-18 3B-18(CA)) shall consist of one of the following alternatives:
A. Wide solid white lines that outline the intersection area that vehicles must not block; B. Wide solid white lines that outline the intersection area that vehicles must not block and a white word
message such as DO NOT BLOCK or KEEP CLEAR; C. Wide solid white lines that outline the intersection area that vehicles must not block and white cross-
hatching within the intersection area; or D. A white word message, such as DO NOT BLOCK or KEEP CLEAR, within the intersection area that
vehicles must not block. 03 Do Not Block Intersection markings shall be accompanied by one or more DO NOT BLOCK
INTERSECTION (DRIVEWAY) (CROSSING) (R10-7) signs (see Section 2B.53), one or more DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS (R8-8) signs (see Section 8B.09), or one or more similar signs.
Section 3B.18 Crosswalk Markings
Support: 01 Crosswalk markings provide guidance for pedestrians who are crossing roadways by defining and delineating
paths on approaches to and within signalized intersections, and on approaches to other intersections where traffic stops.
02 In conjunction with signs and other measures, crosswalk markings help to alert road users of a designated pedestrian crossing point across roadways at locations that are not controlled by traffic control signals or STOP or YIELD signs.
03 At non-intersection locations, crosswalk markings legally establish the crosswalk. Standard:
04 When crosswalk lines are used, they shall consist of solid white lines that mark the crosswalk. They shall not be less than 6 12 inches or greater than 24 inches in width. Guidance:
05 If transverse lines are used to mark a crosswalk, the gap between the lines should not be less than 6 feet. If diagonal or longitudinal lines are used without transverse lines to mark a crosswalk, the crosswalk should be not less than 6 feet wide.
California MUTCD 2014 Edition (FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California)
Chapter 3B – Pavement and Curb Markings November 7, 2014 Part 3 – Markings
Page 683
06 Crosswalk lines, if used on both sides of the crosswalk, should extend across the full width of pavement or to the edge of the intersecting crosswalk to discourage diagonal walking between crosswalks (see Figures 3B-17 and 3B-19).
07 At locations controlled by traffic control signals or on approaches controlled by STOP or YIELD signs, crosswalk lines should be installed where engineering judgment indicates they are needed to direct pedestrians to the proper crossing path(s).
08 Crosswalk lines should not be used indiscriminately. An engineering study should be performed before a marked crosswalk is installed at a location away from a traffic control signal or an approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign. The engineering study should consider the number of lanes, the presence of a median, the distance from adjacent signalized intersections, the pedestrian volumes and delays, the average daily traffic (ADT), the posted or statutory speed limit or 85th-percentile speed, the geometry of the location, the possible consolidation of multiple crossing points, the availability of street lighting, and other appropriate factors.
09 New marked crosswalks across uncontrolled roadways should include alone, without other measures designed to reduce traffic speeds, shorten crossing distances, enhance driver awareness of the crossing, and/or provide active warning of pedestrian presence, should not be installed across uncontrolled roadways where the speed limit exceeds 40 mph and either:
A. The roadway has four or more lanes of travel without a raised median or pedestrian refuge island and an ADT of 12,000 vehicles per day or greater; or
B. The roadway has four or more lanes of travel with a raised median or pedestrian refuge island and an ADT of 15,000 vehicles per day or greater.
09a If a marked crosswalk exists across an uncontrolled roadway where the speed limit exceeds 40 mph and the roadway has four or more lanes of travel and an ADT of 12,000 vehicles per day or greater, advanced yield lines with associated Yield Here to Pedestrians (R1-5, R1-5a) signs should be placed 20 to 50 ft in advance of the crosswalk, adequate visibility should be provided by parking prohibitions, pedestrian crossing (W11-2) warning signs with diagonal downward pointing arrow (W16-7p) plaques should be installed at the crosswalk, and a high-visibility crosswalk marking pattern should be used (See Figure 3B-17(CA)). Support:
10 Chapter 4F contains information on Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons. Section 4L.03 contains information regarding Warning Beacons to provide active warning of a pedestrian’s presence. Section 4N.02 contains information regarding In-Roadway Warning Lights at crosswalks. Chapter 7D contains information regarding school crossing supervision. Guidance:
11 Because non-intersection pedestrian crossings are generally unexpected by the road user, warning signs (see Section 2C.50) should be installed for all marked crosswalks at non-intersection locations and adequate visibility should be provided by parking prohibitions. Support:
12 Section 3B.16 contains information regarding placement of stop line markings near crosswalk markings. Option:
13 For added visibility, the area of the crosswalk may be marked with white diagonal lines at a 45-degree angle to the line of the crosswalk or with white longitudinal lines parallel to traffic flow as shown in Figure 3B-19.
14 When diagonal or longitudinal lines are used to mark a crosswalk, the transverse crosswalk lines may be omitted Guidance:
14a This type of marking should be used at locations where substantial numbers of pedestrians cross without any other traffic control device, at locations where physical conditions are such that added visibility of the crosswalk is desired, or at places where a pedestrian crosswalk might not be expected.
15 If used, the diagonal or longitudinal lines should be 12 to 24 inches wide and separated by gaps of 12 to 60 inches. The design of the lines and gaps should avoid the wheel paths if possible, and the gap between the lines should not exceed 2.5 times the width of the diagonal or longitudinal lines. Option:
16 When an exclusive pedestrian phase that permits diagonal crossing of an intersection is provided at a traffic control signal, a marking as shown in Figure 3B-20 may be used for the crosswalk.
California MUTCD 2014 Edition (FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California)
Chapter 3B – Pavement and Curb Markings November 7, 2014 Part 3 – Markings
Page 684
Guidance: 17 Crosswalk markings should be located so that the curb ramps are within the extension of the crosswalk
markings. Support:
18 Detectable warning surfaces mark boundaries between pedestrian and vehicular ways where there is no raised curb. Detectable warning surfaces are required by 49 CFR, Part 37 and by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) where curb ramps are constructed at the junction of sidewalks and the roadway, for marked and unmarked crosswalks. Detectable warning surfaces contrast visually with adjacent walking surfaces, either light-on-dark, or dark-on-light. The “Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG)” (see Section 1A.11) contains specifications for design and placement of detectable warning surfaces. Standard:
19 Crosswalk markings near schools shall be yellow as provided in CVC 21368. See Part 7. Option:
20 Pedestrian crosswalk markings may be placed at intersections, representing extensions of the sidewalk lines, or on any portion of the roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing. Refer to CVC 275. Guidance:
21 In general, crosswalks should not be marked at intersections unless they are intended to channelize pedestrians. Emphasis is placed on the use of marked crosswalks as a channelization device.
22 The following factors may be considered in determining whether a marked crosswalk should be used: A. Vehicular approach speeds from both directions. B. Vehicular volume and density. C. Vehicular turning movements. D. Pedestrian volumes. E. Roadway width. F. Day and night visibility by both pedestrians and road users. G. Channelization is desirable to clarify pedestrian routes for sighted or sight impaired pedestrians. H. Discouragement of pedestrian use of undesirable routes. I. Consistency with markings at adjacent intersections or within the same intersection.
Option: 23 Crosswalk markings may be established between intersections (mid-block) in accordance with CVC 21106(a).
Guidance: 24 Mid-block pedestrian crossings are generally unexpected by the motorist and should be discouraged unless, in the
opinion of the engineer, there is strong justification in favor of such installation. Particular attention should be given to roadways with two or more traffic lanes in one direction as a pedestrian may be hidden from view by a vehicle yielding the right-of-way to a pedestrian. Option:
25 When diagonal or longitudinal lines are used to mark a crosswalk, the transverse crosswalk lines may be omitted. Standard:
26 However, when the factor that determined the need to mark a crosswalk is the clarification of pedestrian routes for sight-impaired pedestrians, the transverse crosswalk lines shall be marked. Option:
27 At controlled approaches, limit lines (stop lines) help to define pedestrian paths and are therefore a factor the engineer may consider in deciding whether or not to mark the crosswalk.
28 Where it is desirable to remove a marked crosswalk, the removal may be accomplished by repaving or surface treatment. Guidance:
29 A marked crosswalk should not be eliminated by allowing it to fade out or be worn away. Support:
30 The worn or faded crosswalk retains its prominent appearance to the pedestrian at the curb, but is less visible to the approaching road user. Standard:
31 Notification to the public shall be given at least 30 days prior to the scheduled removal of an existing marked crosswalk. The notice of proposed removal shall inform the public how to provide input related to the scheduled removal and shall be posted at the crosswalk identified for removal. Refer to CVC 21950.5
California MUTCD 2014 Edition (FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California)
Chapter 3B – Pavement and Curb Markings November 7, 2014 Part 3 – Markings
Page 685
Option: 32 Signs may be installed at or adjacent to an intersection directing that pedestrians shall not cross in a crosswalk indicated
at the intersection in accordance with CVC 21106(b). 33 White PED XING pavement markings may be placed in each approach lane to a marked crosswalk, except at
intersections controlled by traffic signals or STOP or YIELD signs.
Section 3B.19 Parking Space Markings Support:
01 Marking of parking space boundaries encourages more orderly and efficient use of parking spaces where parking turnover is substantial. Parking space markings tend to prevent encroachment into fire hydrant zones, bus stops, loading zones, approaches to intersections, curb ramps, and clearance spaces for islands and other zones where parking is restricted. Examples of parking space markings are shown in Figure 3B-21 3B-21(CA). Standard:
02 Parking space markings shall be white. Option:
03 Blue lines may supplement white parking space markings of each parking space designated for use only by persons with disabilities. Support:
04 Additional parking space markings for the purpose of designating spaces for use only by persons with disabilities are discussed in Section 3B.20 and illustrated in Figure 3B-22 3B-22(CA). The design and layout of accessible parking spaces for persons with disabilities is provided in the “Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG)” (see Section 1A.11). Support:
05 Refer to CVC 22500 through 22522 for parking space markings. 06 Refer to Section 2B.39 for Parking Regulations.
Policy on Parking Restrictions Option:
07 Local authorities may, by ordinance, provide for the establishment of parking meter zones and cause streets and highways to be marked with white lines designating parking spaces. Refer to CVC Section 22508. Standard:
08 Where the proposed zones are on State highways, the ordinances shall be approved by Caltrans. 09 Local authorities shall furnish a sketch or map showing the definite location of all parking meter stalls on State
highways before Caltrans approval is given. Support:
10 The District Directors have been delegated the authority to approve such ordinances. 11 The desirable dimensions of parking meter stalls are 8 feet by 24 feet with a minimum length of 20 feet.
Guidance: 12 At all intersections, one stall length on each side measured from the crosswalk or end of curb return should have parking
prohibited. A clearance of 6 feet measured from the curb return should be provided at alleys and driveways. 13 At signalized intersections parking should be prohibited for a minimum of 30 feet on the near side and one stall length on
the far side. See Figure 3B-21(CA). Standard:
14 The departmental approval for the installation of the parking meters shall be covered by an encroachment permit. Option:
15 Local authorities may by ordinance permit angle parking. Refer to CVC 22503. Support:
16 Caltrans does not approve ordinances establishing angle parking on State highways. 17 Diagonal parking stalls are not permitted on State highways.
California MUTCD 2014 Edition (FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California)
Chapter 3B – Pavement and Curb Markings November 7, 2014 Part 3 – Markings
Page 731
California MUTCD 2014 Edition (FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California)
Chapter 3B – Pavement and Curb Markings November 7, 2014 Part 3 – Markings
[a] Marked Crosswalk Alone May be Sufficient (2-lanes) yes yes no yes no no
[a] Marked Crosswalk Alone May be Sufficient (3-lanes)
only ADT
<12,000
only ADT
<9,000 no no no no
Type Category Treatment
Striping Basic Yield Line [b] x x x x x x
Striping Basic High visibility crosswalks (Continental/Ladder Striping) [b] x x x x x x
Signal/signage Basic In-street Pedestrian Signage x x
Signal/signage Basic Roadside Signage [b] x x x x x x
Signal/signage Enhanced Flashing Beacons (Including RRFB) [b,c] x x x x x
Signal/signage Enhanced LED-Enhanced Signage [c] x x x x x
Signal/signage Enhanced Traffic signal, with pedestrian signal, where warranted [c] 3-lane 3-lane
Geometry Enhanced Median, Refugee Island or Split Pedestrian Crossover x x x x x x
Geometry Enhanced Chicane x x
Geometry Enhanced Choker x x x x
Geometry Enhanced Corner Bulb Outs and Curb Extensions x x x x x x
Geometry Enhanced Lane Width Reduction x x x ADT <25,000
Geometry Enhanced Raised Pedestrian Crossing/Speed Table x ADT <25,000
Geometry Enhanced Speed humps x ADT <25,000
Other Basic Removal of Sight Distance Obstructions x x x x x x
[a] FHWA recommendations indicate that under low-volume, low-speed conditions, marking a crosswalk alone may be sufficient for uncontrolled crossings; under higher volume, higher speed conditions, additional
treatments are highly recommended due to potential increases in pedestrian crash rates without any additional treatments.
[b] Treatments may be packaged together. Crossing treatments consisting of a yield line, high visibility crosswalk, roadside signage, and RRFB are a suggested treatment package.
[c] LED-Enhanced Signage, Flashing Beacons, and Traffic Signals provide similar functions. A single enhanced signal/signage treatment should be chosen based on an engineering study.
[d] Treatments are cumulative. For roads with higher volumes and speeds, additional treatments should be considered to enhance comfort and visibility at crossings.
*
*
*
^
+
=
48
Table 3. Treatments Applicable for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossings Across 4-lane Roadways (With and Without Medians)
Colored cells indicate that a corresponding conceptual diagram of these treatments is available in Figure 10*, Figure 11^, Figure 12+, and Figure 13=..
Average Daily Traffic <15,000 [d] 15,000-25,000 [d] >25,000 [d]
Speed Limit
≤30
MPH 35 MPH
40
MPH
≤30
MPH 35 MPH
40
MPH
≤30
MPH 35 MPH
40
MPH
[a] Marked Crosswalk Alone May be
Sufficient (with Median)
only ADT
<12,000
only ADT
<9,000 no no no no no no no
[a] Marked Crosswalk Alone May be
Sufficient (without Median)
only ADT
<9,000 no no no no no no no no
Type Category Treatment
Striping Basic Yield Line [b] x x x x x x x x x
Striping Basic
High visibility crosswalks
(Continental/Ladder Striping) [b] x x x x x x x x x
Signal/signage Basic Roadside Signage [b] x x x x x x x x x
Signal/signage Basic Flashing Beacons (Including RRFB) [b,c] x x x x x x
Signal/signage Enhanced LED-Enhanced Signage [c] x x x x x x x x x
Signal/signage Enhanced Pedestrian hybrid beacon (“HAWK signal”) [c] x x x x x
Signal/signage Enhanced
Traffic signal, with pedestrian signal, where
warranted [c] x x x x
Geometry Basic
Median, Refugee Island or Split Pedestrian
Crossover [b] x x x x x x x x x
Geometry Enhanced Road Diet x x x x x x
Geometry Enhanced Choker x x x x
Geometry Enhanced Corner Bulb Outs and Curb Extensions x x x x x x x x x
Geometry Enhanced Lane Width Reduction x x x
Geometry Enhanced Raised Pedestrian Crossing/Speed Table x x
Geometry Enhanced Speed humps x x
Other Basic Removal of Sight Distance Obstructions x x x x x x x x x
[a] FHWA recommendations indicate that under low-volume, low-speed conditions, marking a crosswalk alone may be sufficient for uncontrolled crossings; under higher volume, higher speed conditions,
additional treatments are highly recommended due to potential increases in pedestrian crash rates without any additional treatments.
[b] Treatments may be packaged together. Crossing treatments consisting of a yield line, high visibility crosswalk, roadside signage, RRFB, and median refuge island are a suggested treatment package.
[c] LED-Enhanced Signage, Flashing Beacons, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, and Traffic Signals provide similar functions. A single enhanced signal/signage treatment should be chosen based on an engineering
study.
[d] Treatments are cumulative. For roads with higher volumes and speeds, additional treatments should be considered to enhance comfort and visibility at crossings.
*
*
*
^
+
=
+
Appendix D ‐ San Diego Council Policy
CURRENT
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL POLICY
CP-200-07Page 7 of 9
2.3.2 Crossing TreatmentsTable 3 presents treatment requirements for the categories shown in Table 2. As new devices or treatments are proven, they may be considered in lieu of these treatments, with the City Engineer’s approval.
Table 3: Crossing Treatments for Uncontrolled Marked Crosswalks if Warrants are MetCategory Crossing Treatments
AThe following is required:
(W11-2) Pedestrian Warning Signage with the corresponding (W16-7P) arrow plaque as shown in CA MUTCD Section 2C.50
B
At least one of the following is required:
(R1-6) State Law – Yield to Pedestrian sign if median is present
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs)
Raised crosswalk or other traffic calming treatments if the City of San Diego’s Traffic Calming Guidelines are met
C
At least two of the following are required:
Radar Speed Feedback Signs Striping changes such as narrower lanes, painted medians, road diets, or other speed reducing
treatments. RRFBs Staggered crosswalks and pedestrian refuge island Horizontal deflection traffic calming treatments1 if the City of San Diego’s Traffic Calming
Guidelines are met
D
A Traffic Signal is required if the CA MUTCD warrants are met and it is recommended by a traffic engineering study. Otherwise at least one of the following is required: Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon if the CA MUTCD warrants are met Horizontal deflection traffic calming treatment1 with RRFBs if the City of San Diego’s Traffic
Calming Guidelines are met
1. Horizontal deflection treatments include, but are not limited to: roundabouts, pedestrian refuge islands, and pedestrian pop-outs.
Table 2: Crossing Treatment Thresholds for Uncontrolled Marked Crosswalksif Warrants are Met
> 52’ A B C1 C D1 D D1. For streets with more than one lane at an approach or posted speed limit 30 mph or greater.2. Crossing distance can be measured to a pedestrian refuge island if one is present.
Attachment D
600 Wilshire Boulevard | Suite 1050 | Los Angeles, CA 90071 | (213) 261-3050
www.fehrandpeers.com
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 19, 2018
To: Aaron Kunz, City of Beverly Hills
From: Rachel Neumann & Sarah Brandenberg
Subject: Third Street Crosswalk Evaluation
LA14-2772
This memorandum summarizes the findings of an evaluation of the need for a mid-block crosswalk
along Third Street west of Maple Drive, in the City of Beverly Hills. The evaluation was conducted
following reports from a community member of frequent pedestrian crossings mid-block from
recently installed on-street parking spaces along the north side of the street heading to the Post
Office and/or post collection boxes located on the south side of the street.
Background
In 2017, the City of Beverly Hills installed on-street metered parking along the north side of Third
Street, west of the intersection with N. Maple Drive. A community member has reported that, since
installation of the parking, there has been an increase in people crossing Third Street mid-block,
rather than utilizing the crosswalk provided at the intersection with N. Maple Drive.
The property located on the south side of Third Street (325 N. Maple Drive) is currently under
construction. This project was approved by planning commission in August 2015, and will include
a new retail facility for the United States Postal Service and a creative office space. Prior to this
project approval, the building was used as a U.S. Post Office. The project is currently under
construction, and the Post Office is open during construction.
Existing Conditions
Third Street runs east-west through the City of Beverly Hills. The subject block, which extends 755
feet between Foothill Road to the west and N. Maple Drive to the east, provides standard marked
pedestrian crossings at each stop-controlled intersection. The block is bifurcated by access
driveways to land uses on both the north and south side of the street about midway between
Foothill Road and N. Maple Drive; the access driveways provide a de facto unmarked pedestrian
crossing location. East of the access driveways, the roadway is 45 feet wide. On-street metered
parking is provided on both sides of the street, including spaces for eight vehicles on the north side
and six vehicles, as well as one disabled parking space, on the south side fronting the Post Office.
On the sidewalk in front of the Post Office are post collection boxes.
The speed limit on Third Street is 25 miles per hour (mph). A speed survey was conducted in May
2017, which revealed a westbound 85th percentile speed of 29 mph and an eastbound 85th
percentile speed of 30 mph.
Aaron Kunz
March 19, 2018
Page 2
Average daily traffic counts collected as part of the 2015 Traffic Study for the 325 N. Maple Drive
project were utilized to estimate traffic volumes on the subject block. The counts indicate that
approximately 6,000 vehicles travel along Third Street between Foothill Road and N. Maple Drive
daily, including approximately 600 vehicles during the morning and afternoon peak hours.
Pedestrian counts were collected on Third Street mid-block, between the access driveways and N.
Maple Drive, from January 22 through January 26, 2018 between 8:45 AM and 5:00 PM. Prior to
9:00 AM when the Post Office opens, very few pedestrians were observed to cross Third Street.
During the hours the Post Office is open, the counts showed pedestrian volumes ranging from 25
crossings per hours to 100 crossings per hour. It should be noted that the total pedestrian crossings
reflect someone walking from an on-street parking space on the north side of the street to the post
office on the south side of the street, and then back to their car on the north side of Third Street.
For example, during the observed peak demand (noon on a Tuesday), 43 people were observed to
cross both northbound and southbound on Third Street, which results in a total pedestrian count
of 86 crossings.
Methodology
In order to evaluate the need for a mid-block crosswalk, roadway characteristics including speed,
width, number of lanes, distance between marked crossings, average daily traffic counts, the recent
pedestrian counts, and other factors were considered against criteria for various protected crossing
treatments, such as installation of a high-visibility crosswalk, in-pavement flashers, and/or overhead
flashing beacons.
Currently, the City does not have an official crosswalk policy. The Scope of Work for the City’s
Complete Streets program, currently underway, includes the development of a crosswalk policy that
will establish criteria to evaluate requests for crosswalks and various protected crosswalk
treatments.
Recommendations
Consider Mid-Block Crosswalk following Construction of 325 N. Maple Drive
Due to the construction occurring at 325 N. Maple Drive, existing conditions on Third Street are
atypical, and a mid-block crosswalk is not recommended for consideration at this time. The Post
Office is the only real destination attracting vehicles to stop and park at this time. Street activity
overall is low, including both vehicle volumes and sidewalk activity. In addition, people are typically
crossing Third Street from the location where they parked their car. Mid-block crossings are most
effective when there are pedestrian flows between two adjacent destinations. Based on the
observed crossings, pedestrians would likely continue to take the most convenient path of travel
between their car on the north side of Third Street and the post office on the south side and not
utilize a mid-block crosswalk. Striping a mid-block crosswalk would also require the construction
of curb ramps on both sides of Third Street. The sidewalk on the north side of Third Street consists
of decorative pavers, which would add to the complexity of the curb ramp construction. The
construction of curb ramps and the crosswalk would also likely require the removal of on-street
parking.
Aaron Kunz
March 19, 2018
Page 3
When construction is completed and the new 325 N. Maple Drive development opens later this
year, conditions are likely to change: vehicle traffic, demand for on-street parking, and sidewalk
activity will likely increase. It is difficult to predict at this time whether increased traffic will deter
people parking on the north side of the street from running across to the south side, or whether
the increased level of pedestrian activity overall will actually increase mid-block crossings. The need
for a marked mid-block crossing, and particularly the appropriate design of one given new
conditions, should be re-evaluated after the 325 N. Maple Drive development is fully operational.
It is anticipated that the crosswalk policies developed as part of the Complete Streets Study will be
completed (or near completion) by this time.
Improve Crosswalk at West Leg of Intersection of Third Street and Maple Drive
In order to incentivize pedestrian crossings at the stop-controlled intersection with Maple Drive, it
is recommended that the existing marked crossing at the intersection be improved from a standard
crossing (double white lines) to a high-visibility continental crossing that will better catch the
attention of people parking along the north side of Third Street and crossing Maple Drive.
![[ Traffic and Parking Management in Bergamo ]](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5681691f550346895de04a85/-traffic-and-parking-management-in-bergamo-.jpg)
