The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2013-03-20 PACKET 04.N.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # � DATE 3/20/13 • . PREPARED BY: Community Development Jennifer Levitt ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR *****�****�***********�************************* COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Receive report on the 70th Street and Idsen Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Study. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Continue to monitor the pedestrian traffic situation at 70th Street and Idsen Avenue before making any of the improvements outlined in the report. BUDGET IMP�ICATION: $N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION ❑ PLANNING ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ HUMAN SERVICES/RIGHTS ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS DATE $N/A N/A ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE REVIEWED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ APPROVED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ DENIED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � MEMO/LETTER: Memo from Jennifer Levitt dated 3/14/13 ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: � OTHER: 70th Street and Idsen Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Analysis Report ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS --� r l.� ity Administrator Date ************************************************ COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER Cottage Grove � Pride and P�OSperity Meet TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator FROM: Jennifer Levitt, City Engineer DATE: March 14, 2013 RE: 70th Street and Idsen Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Study Background/Discussion The City of Cottage Grove and Washington County partnered to conduct a study of the intersection of 70th Street (CSAH 22) and Idsen Avenue. The study was specifically focused on analyzing pede- strian crossing patterns and reviewing opportunities for safety enhancements. The report analyzes improvements that can be made in the short-term, mid-term, and long-term related to the intersec- tion. The cost of the improvements ranges from $700 to $1.9 million. The study was undertaken to address the growing usage of Highlands Park and the safety concerns that have been expressed by Public Safety. The City's CIP in the past has allocated funds for a Hybrid Activated crossWalK beacon (HAWK) system. As the study demonstrates the HAWK is not recommended for use at a four-legged intersection; they are more appropriate at a mid-block crossing. The Summary of the report outlines various short-term options that could be undertaken. All of the short-term options require the installation of a sidewalk on the east side of Idsen Avenue south of 70th Street. The sidewalk would channelize pedestrians to one central landing area to cross 70th Street. It is important for motorists to be able to identify the location of the crosswalk and know where to look for pedestrians. The installation of the sidewalk would cost approximately $15,000, plus the County would install pedestrian crossing signs and conduct stripped refuge islands on 70th Street. The completion of this study will enable the City and County to utilize MnDOT HSIP funds and the MnDOT Transportation Enhancement fund. Also with the completion of the study the County could rank this intersection for improvement in its Safety Improvement fund. The options that exist at this time are as follows: 1. Receive the report and monitor pedestrian traffic before implementing any short-term options. 2. Receive the report and make preparations to install the sidewalk and have the County do the signing and striping as outlined in short-term Option 1. 3. Receive the report, monitor pedestrian traffic, and seek additional third party funds for a mid- and/or long-range project. Recommendation It is recommended to receive the report and continue to monitor the pedestrian traffic situation at 70th Street and Idsen Avenue before making any of the improvements outlined in the report. �� 0 z m �r `�'.�'� BOI_TON 8�. M� N K, Consulting Engineers & Surveyors 12224 Nicollet Avenue • Burnsville, MN 55337 Phone (952) 890-0509 • Fax (952) 890-8065 www.bolton-menk.com SUMMARY 70 Street South (CSAH 22) and Idsen Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Analysis I NG� The intersection of 70"' Street South (CSAH 22) and Idsen Avenue is adjacent to Highlands Park in Cottage Grove, Minnesota. There are multiple options for providing safe pedestrian access across 70` Street South (CSAH 22). These options can be categorized as short-term, mid-term and long-term based on feasibility and costs. 1. Short-term improvements can be implemented quickly at low cost, 2. Mid-term options may include some paving or grading, and 3. Long-term options consider the roadway being widened to a four-lane divided facility. INTERSECTION CONTROL The intersection of Idsen Avenue with 70` Street South (CSAH 22) is an unsignalized intersection with two-way stop control on Idsen Avenue. It is unlikely that the intersection will meet any wairants for a traffic signal unless the area completely redevelops. There are currently no marked crossings or warning signs at the intersection for pedestrians. PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ANALYSIS A gap study was completed for the intersection. A conservative walking speed of 3.5 feet per second was used for the analysis. During the PM peak hour, there were a total of 17 gaps that were long enough for a pedestrian to cross the roadway without relying on drivers to slow down to allow pedestrians to complete the crossing movement. This equates to an adequate gap every 7 minutes. Based on the analysis, the average delay for a pedestrian at this location is 720 seconds assuming no vehicles yield or brake, or 133 seconds with an 18% motorist yielding rate. Both equate to a Level of Service (LOS) F. A LOS F indicates that there is a high likelihood that pedestrians will take risks when crossing the intersection. SIGHT DISTANCE ANALYSIS 70` Street South (CSAH 22) is currently signed with a speed limit of 50 mph. At the posted speed limit of 50 mph and a 5% downgrade, the stopping sight distance for a vehicle is 465 feet. Based on a conservative walking speed of 3.5 feet per second, a crossing distance of 56 feet and a driver speed of 50 miles per hour, approximately 1,175 ft of site distance is required for a pedestrian to feel safe crossing the intersection. The top of the hill is approximately 1,200' east of the crossing location. A review of the sight lines from the crossing location indicates that the view is unobstructed by trees or signs. Based on our analysis, there is adequate sight distance for vehicles to stop and pedestrians to determine that there is a safe gap to cross at the current crossing location. H:\CO'1'I'\N15105177�Ivlemo Information\Current Versions�Pedestrian Crossing Memo Summary 030913.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETfER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity employer O � O \ Z 41�'T '.�- f n�-.�:�s� CROSSWALK CONSIDERATIONS For roadways with vehicle ADT less than 9,000 and speed limits exceeding 40 mph, crosswalks should not be marked at unsignalized locations unless they are accompanied by other t�eatments. The location of a pedestrian crossing should also consider the likelihood for potential vehicle passing due to a stopped vehicle. OPTIONS ANALYSIS We have prepared options for consideration. Some of these options may be combined, while others may be implemented and/or reviewed after implementation of other options. All costs are approximate and do not include land acquisition that may be required for implementation. The cost estimates listed under each of the options represent construction costs only. Costs associated with land acquisition (if applicable), engineering and administration would be in addition to the costs presented. The ranges are based on actual bids received over the past two years. FUNDING SOURCES AND OPTIONS Based upon our understanding, any of the short-term and mid-term improvements would be a joint funding venture by the City and County. The long-term solutions would most likely require additional funding sources, such as those listed below: 1. Washington County Safety Improvement funding 2. MnDOT HSIP funding 3. MnDOT Transportation Enhancement funding RECOMMENDATiONS Options presented in this analysis were presented to City and County staff. Our recommendations are a culmination of those discussions. In addition to improvements at the crossing location, a sidewalk is recommended along Idsen Avenue between 70` Street and 71 Sri�eet to help focus and channelize pedestrians. Costs for the sidewalk, including pedestrian ramps is estimated at $15,000. Short-Term A lower-cost, short-term solution is desired to allow for implementation during the 2013 construction season. Three options were discussed: Reco�nmended Shor•t-Te»yz Optiora 1 includes Pavement Striping refuge islands and installing Pedestrian Crossing advance waining signs. Including the Idsen Avenue sidewalk, this option is conservatively estimated at $15,900 in construction costs. Recomrne�zded Shor•t-Terni Optiort 2 includes the improvements listed in Option 1 plus the addition of Pedestrian Crossing warmng signs at the location of the crossing. This option is conservatively estimated at $17,600 in construction costs. Recoinmended Shor•t-Ter��ra Option 3 includes the improvements listed in Option 1 plus the addition of Pedestrian Activated Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons and Pedestrian Crossing warning signs at the crossing location. This option is conservatively estimated at $30,900 in construction costs. H:\C01'i1N15105177�ivlemo Information\Current Versions�Pedestrian Crossing Memo Summary 030913.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETfER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunily employer. ON '� O �Z �Q� �•'' x '�av'" Long-Term Solutions for the long term are typically more costly and require planning for capital expenditures. Two long-term options are recommended for further consideration and discussion for this location. Reco»rrnended Long-Te�•m Option 1 includes a Pedestrian Underpass located east of the Idsen Avenue and 70` Street inteisection. Construction costs associated with a pedestrian underpass at this location are estimated between $800,000 and $1,000,000. Recommended Lorzg-Ter•m Opti.ora 2 includes a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon, also known as a Hybrid Activated crossWalk (HAWK) beacon, located west of the intersection. Construction costs associated with a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon are estimated between $200,000 and $240,000, including trail reconfigurations necessaiy to direct pedestrians to the location of the beacon. H:\C01'I'\N15105177UvIemo Information\Cunent Versions�Pedestrian Crossing Memo Summary 030913.doc DESIGNING FOR A BEITER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opporiunity employer. Improvement Options Summary Short Term Options Advanced Warning "Pedestrian Crossing" Signs (See Figure 2) Pavement Striping (See Figure 3) Install advance warning signs for an unmarked crosswalk Install striped right turn refuge islands at the intersection Enhanced street- lighting could also be considered Mid Term Options Turn Lane Improvements (See Figure 4) Install channelized right turn lanes Significant snow- plowing and maint. concerns Bump-Outs (2 Corners) (See Figure 5A) Bump-Outs (4 Corners) $500 to $600 s2oo to s3oo Install corner bump- outs or curb extensions Maintenance concerns Install corner bump- outs or curb extensions (See Figure 5B) Center Median Install a center median (See Figure 6) $55,000 to $65,000 $4,100 to $4,900 $8,200 to $9,800 $440,000 to $530,00 • � � � �,_ ,,' , � °� t -` � �..-�._ -�=J � ,._� _ . ` �s �' hrr�i� `. _ _ ,,_� f � I .. C d ' _ �� ,_ �—__- .,� _� � � .^°--__ � ��? �� I I . � : . .� r�� _� ; �°--___- � —_ _ - ---�i r � � - . ' �";_'.,, ,� I , � �-..� �- _, -- i�'�= ��'�' � -- - � � --- i � I 1 ' '�� '-.� 1 _. -, . F E �,� i ' - ----_ -=' _-_--:- ;, , �____ _ � � _ � �; — I _ ,. _�,: ,; =`y, ��:��1 _t�;� _ o I � � � �s�� , �� +- - ;,�:� ..�:-��.: If�'�� "Pedestrian Crossing" Warning Signs (See Figure 7) Pedestrian Activated Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (See Figure 8) Relocatethe Pedestrian Crossing (See Figure 9) Hybrid Activated crossWalK Beacon (See Figure 10) Install "pedestrian crossing" warning signs at the crossing location with geometric improvements Install pedestal mounted pedestrian activated Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFBs) with pedestrian crossing warning signs and geometric improvements Move the pedestrian crossing to the west to station 2+70 Install a Hybrid Activated crossWalK (HAWK) beacon system with pedestrian crossing warning signs and geometric improvements Warning signs only: $1,400 to $1,700 With Bump-outs: $9,600 to $11,500 With Center Median: $440,000 to $530,000 RRFBs only: $12,000 to $15,000 With Bump-outs: $21,000 to $27,000 With Center Median: $450,000 to $550,000 $110,000 to $130,000 HAWK onty: $200,000 to $240,000 With Relocated crossing: $310,000 to $370,000 With Bump-outs: $210,000 to $250,000 With Center Median: $640,000 to $770,000 With relocated crossing and bump-outs: $320,000 to $380,000 With relocated crossing and median: $750,000 to $900,000 • � � �, � � � �-_ � �. � "�.� ? � — . ...��. .,,. - i ��a� �� .�„�. ` r' { � � y ...��'�' � � i;l ` u s� �- � ��.�� a� h ..,-� ; . _'� ��, � � �x�� f �_1 �:. Grade Separation (Underpass) (See Figure 11) Grade Separation (Overpass) (See Figure 12) Construct an underpass Construct an overpass Long Term Options Center Median Construct a center median along a widened roadway Grade Separation Overhead Warning Signs The underpass and overpass options can be implemented with a four-lane roadway Install overhead pedestrian actuated RRFBs with pedestrian crossing warning signs and geometric improvements Ss3o,000 to S1,000,000 � ��' } � _ --- � `- � -° '� - � � t �� , �y, : '� � �- �, �.� �� `'�'i �r /` � ^ �' $1,200,000 to � �" '�; i . �-.. �_ �. $1,800,000 •^�� _ � �"" I � �� {*��, � ,� � � : z- �.�-.z � ►;I.� � . . E ;� _ .-� � t � _.__ :.�_. _ . . � Costs are dependent on future roadway work Underpass: $830,000 to $1,000,000 Bridge: $1,300,000 to $1,900,000 Overhead RRFBs only: $60,000 to $75,000 With mid-term geometric improvements Median: $500,000 to $610,000 Bump-outs: $68,000 to $85,000 With long-term geometric improvements Median: costs dependent on future roadway work •� �OI�TON $�. M� N K, 1 NC� � , Cansulting Engineers & Surveyors " 12224 NicoiletAvenue • Burnsviile, MN 55337 Phone (952) 890-0509 • Fax (952) 890-8065 www.bolton-menk.com MEMORANDUM Date: March 13, 2013 To: City of Cottage Grove and Washington County From: Kevin Kielb, P.E. CYu•is Clu�omy, P.E., PTOE Biyan Nemeth, P.E., PTOE Subject: County Highway 22 and Idsen Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Analysis Cottage Grove, MN Pedestrians are legitimate users of the h•ansportation system and should be able to use the system safely. This includes not only providing pedestrian facilities where appropr�iate but also ensui•ing that these facilities are safe for pedestrians. There are multiple options for providing safe pedestrian access across 70"' Street South (CSAH 22). These options can be categorized as short-term, mid-term and long-term based on feasibility and costs: 1. Short-term impi•ovements can be implemented quickly at low cost, 2. Mid-term options would take more time and worlc to be implemented and may include some paving or grading, and 3. Long-term options could be implemented when the roadway is widened to a four-lane divided facility. AREA CHARACTERISTICS The intersection of 70'�' Sti•eet South (CSAH 22) and Idsen Avenue is adjacent to Highlands Parlc. Highlands Pa1•k is home to recreational amenities including a baseball field, soccer fields, tennis coucts, basketball courts, ice slcating rinlc, open space grasslands, and a splash pad. All of these uses will bring traffic to Highlands Park year-t•ound. Access to Highlands Park is either by vehicle, by bike/walk access fi•oin the surrounding neighborhoods, or via the Cottage Grove Trailway Corridor. The Trailway Corridor is located on the south side of 70`�` Street South (CSAH 22), and passes through significant residential areas of the City. There are decorative light poles in the SE and NW corners of the intersection. H:\COT"I1N15105177\3_Preliminary_Design�A_preliminary design\Report\Pedestrian Crossing Memo 031313.doc DESIGNING FOR A BE7TER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity em�loyee O� m <:�'.• � � .�- ,,,,, � The intersection of Idsen Avenue with 70` Street South (CSAH 22) is an unsignalized inteisection with h�o-way stop contcol on Idsen Avenue and thi•u no-stop condition on CSAH 22. The teaffic volume on 70 Street South (CSAH 22) is appcoximately 6,300 vehicles per day while the traffic volume on Idsen is likely less than 1,500 vehicles per day based on the surrounding land uses. Based on these traffic volumes, it is unlikely that the inteisection currently meets or will meet in the future any warrants for a traffic signal unless the area completely i•edevelops. Thei•e ac•e cm•i•ently no marlced crossings ot• warning signs at the intersection for pedestrians. PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ANALYSIS A gap study was completed fi�om 5 to 7 PM at the intersection on August 23, 2012. The table below displays the total number of gaps versus the gap length measured. Tlie avei•age gap length was 4-5 seconds in the 2-houi• PM pealc time pei•iod. H:\COTI1N15105177\3 Preliminary_Design�.4�reliminary design�Report�Pedestria�� Crossiug Memo 031313.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETfER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunily employer. INTERSECTION CONTROL .c 8 '�a J m � . . . Total Gaps - 2 Hour Period G25 125 � a � t7 r- � 25 m a � � z Gap Length (seconds) The Highway Capacity Manual states that for the analysis of pedestrians at Two-Way Stop Control (TWSC) intersections, a conservative pedestrian walking speed is 3.5 feet pei• second and the default pedestrian stai�t-up and end clearance time is 3 seconds. The wallcing speed is consistent with the MnMUTCD which states that adequate pedestrian clearance time at a traffic signal should be based upon a pedestrian walking speed of 3.5 feet per second. The ci•ossing distance fi�om the NE cornei• of the intec•section to the SE coi•ner of the intersection is 56 feet. Applying the average wallcing speed indicates that the time to cross the roadway is 16 seconds. Adding the default pedestrian start-up and end clearance time indicates that a pedestt•ian would need 19 seconds to cross the street. The typical gap during the PM peak period at 4-5 seconds and there are a total of 17 gaps at 18 seconds or longer during the peak (1.7% of the total gaps). This indicates that there may not be enough adequate gaps to seive pedesti•ians during the PM peak pei•iod. Over a 2-hour period, the data indicates tliat there is an adequate gap eveiy 7 mimrtes to ci•oss without relying on drivers to brake. According to the Highway Capacity Manual, the crossing is evaluated for its service level using the characteristics of the highway and crossing. The analysis takes into account the number of lanes (2-lane undivided), peak hour flow rate in both directions (729/(729/(4*253)) = 1,012), crossing length (56'), and pedestrian crossing speeds and stai�t-up/end clearance above. The analysis also can take into account potential yielding for some crossing treatments. Based on the analysis, the average delay for a pedestrian at this location is 720 seconds assuming no vehicles yield or brake, or 133 seconds with an 18% motorist yielding rate. Both equate to a Level of Service (LOS) F. A LOS F indicates that there is a high lilcelihood of pedesti•ian risk-taking to cross. H:\CO'I`I�N15105177\3_Preliminaiy_Design�.A_preliminary design\Report\Pedestrian Crossing Memo 031313.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolfon & Menk is an equal opporlunity employer. 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-11 1z-13 14-15 16-17 18-19 ZO-�1 2�-23 24-25 2G-27 28-29 >?9 O� m�� ' � � � �� SIGHT DISTANCE ANA�YSIS 70`�' Street South (CSAH 22) is currently signed with a speed limit of 50 mph. A spot speed study east of the intersection indicated that the 85`�'%ile speed is 50 mph. Tliis indicates that the speed limit is set correctly for the area and the presence of the hill with a 5% grade does not have any effect on the speed of traffic in the area. An analysis of the inteisection and roadway grades leads to the following conclusions for sight distance as shown on Figure 1. • At the posted speed limit of 50 mph and a 5% downgrade, the stopping sight distance fo1• a vehicle is 465' based on AASHTO assumptions for reaction and braking distance. • The crossing distance fi•om the NE corner of tl�e intersection to the SE corner of the inteisection is 56 feet. At 3.5 feet per second (wallcing speed as defined in the MnMUTCD), the time to walk 56 feet is 16 seconds. Foi• vehicles tcaveling at 50 mph this equates to a pedestrian sight distance need of 1,175' to feel comfortable crossing (16 sec*SOmph* 1.47fps/mph). The top of the hill is approximately at station 20+50, 1,200' east of the crossing location. With tl�e distances for clear sight lines and the top of the hiil within 2%, there may be some sight line issues due to the hill, but a survey would be needed to determine with cet•tainty. • A review of the sight lines froril the crossing location indicates that the view is unobstt•ucted by trees or• signs. CROSSWALK CONSIDERATIONS Since a traffic signal is likely not justified at this time, pedestrian access will be either at-grade at an unsignalized intersection or grade-separated. If a pedestrian crossing is at-grade, it is a concern of many jurisdictions if the crosswalk should be marked or unmarlced. A inarked crosswalk would not alter any of the rules of right-of-way fi•om existing conditions, but can provide a pedestrian with an increased perception of safety. Depending on the roadway characteristics, the marked crosswalk will not necessarily increase the number of rnotorists that will stop or yield to pedestrians. This results in a situation where the marked crosswalk uiay actually be less safe than an unmarked crosswalk. A detailed study was completed by the FHWA that looked into the safety effects of marked versus unmarked crosswallcs (Safety Effects of Marked Vs. Unmarked Ci•osswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Executive Summaiy and Recommended Guidelines). This study was a comprehensive effort that loolced at 1,000 crosswalks that wei•e marked versus 1,000 crosswalks that were unmarlced to identify where crosswalks should be marlced based on the effect of roadway Types, traffic volumes, and traffic speeds to safety. Fot� roadways with vehicle ADT less than 9,000 and speed limits exceeding 40 mph it was determined that crosswalks should not be marked at unsignalized locations unless they are accompanied by other treatments such as traffic calming treatments or• other substantial crossing improvement. Marlced pedestrian crosswalks may be used to delineate preferred pedestrian paths at locations with all-way stop signs or signals, at non-signalized street cr�ossing locations in designated school zones, where engineering judgment dictates the need based on traffic volume, pedesh•ian exposure, speed limit, and roadway geometry. H:\COT"I1N15105177\3_Pre(iminary_Design�A�reliminary design\Report\Pedestrian Crossii�g Memo 031313.doc DESIGNINC FOR A BETTER 70MORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opporivnily employer. O ON $ �Z m�� '��- ,_ .�= " The location of a pedestrian crossing should also consider the likelihood for potential vehicle passing due to a stopped vehicle. This is a common concern on a 4-lane roadway (2lanes in each direction) where a vehicle in one lane stops for a ci•ossing pedesh•ian, and a vehicle in the other lane or following behind does not see the pedestrian and goes around the stopped vehicle in the other lane, potentially causing a pedestrian crash as the pedestrian thinks that traffic has stopped for them, but only one lane has stopped. This also occurs on two-lane i•oadways with shouldeis oi• i•ight turn lanes, but to less of an extent. In this case a vehicle stopped in the tlu•ough lane may either be turning left or stopping fot• a pedesn•ian. A vehicle following behind may use the shoulder oi• right turn lane to unlawfully/ illegally bypass the stopped vehicle, potentially causing a pedesti•ian crash as the pedestrian thinlcs that traffic has stopped foi• them, but only the through lane has stopped and a vehicle is illegally bypassing the stopped vehicle on the right. OPTIONS ANALYSIS We have prepai•ed options foi• consideration by the City of Cottage Grove and Washington County. Soine of these options may be combined, while others may be implemented and/or reviewed after implementation of other options. The options i•equir•e acceptance by both the City and the County and are intended to be a starting point for furthei• discussion between the agencies. The city would need to construct a sidewallc along Idsen Avenue to the south before any at-grade crossing tr•eatments are installed. The effectiveness of many of the countermeasures provided below have been studied and published as part of the "Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System" sponsored by the Federal Highway Adniinisti•ation (FHWA). Foi• the purposes of this study, suppoi•t by this document will henceforward be referred to as the "FHWA Ped Guide". Shor•t Term Options: Advanced Warnin� ��Pedesti•ian Ci•ossing" Si�ns —These signs are used to alert road users to locations where there are unexpected entries into the roadway. These would be placed based upon the posted speed limit or prevailing speed to warn drivers in advance that pedestrians may be crossing ahead. The Mi1N1UTCD states that the typical placement of warning signs should be at least: 0 250' from the crossing at 50 mph The MnMUTCD states that the distances within the MnMTJTCD are for guidance pw•poses and should be applied with engineering judgment. The MnMUTCD placement is based on a level roadway stopping sight distance minus a sign legibility distance of 180'. With the gcade of the hill on the east leg, the typical placement may be adjusted to account foi• the longer stopping sight distance, if acceptable to the roadway jut•isdictional authority. Adjusting for a 5% grade results in the following value for placement on the east leg. 0 285' fi•om crossing location at 50 mph The MnN1UTCD has guidance that these signs should only be used at locations where the road user's sight distance is i•estricted or the ci•ossing condition, activity, or entering ti•affic would be unexpected. The pedestrian crossing at this location has adequate clear sight lines. A pedestrian H:\COTI�N15105177\3_Preliminary_Design�.A�reliminary design\Report\Pedestrian Crossing Memo 031313.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETfER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportuniy employer. 0� oN $ ��Z �� •�� a�� - crossing of the l�ighway at this location may be unexpected since the closest marked pedestrian crossings are 0.9 miles east and 0.4 miles west (ail-way stop intersections at Jamaica and at Hinton) and thet•e are no houses on the north side of the highway fi•om Jamaica Avenue to Ideal Avenue. These signs have been pr•oven to be ineffective at reducing crashes at uncontrolled intei•sections with marlced crosswalks based on "Minnesota's Best Practices for Traffic Sign Maintenance/Management Handbook". The same handbook found no evidence for speciai warning signs such as "Children at Play" to reduce travel speed or improve safety. The effectiveness of advance warning signs on pedestrian safety at urunarlced crosswallcs has not been studied, but based on the above information they likely would not increase the safety of the crossing. o No substantial impi•ovement over existing conditions This option is shoivn on Figure 2 and wozrld cost approximately $S00 to $600. Pavement Stripin� - Sti•iping the right turn gore areas allows for the appearance of a shortei• crossing length and a more defined area for turning vehicles. This may decrease the illegal right- side passing by directing all right-lane traffic to turn right. According to the FHWA Ped Guide, well designed 1•ight-turn slip lanes allow pedestrians to cross the right turn lane and wait on the refuge island, allowing for a shorter crossing length. The striped lanes would serve a similar pui•pose but would not include a physical refuge island. The effectiveness of striped right turn refuge islands on pedestrian safety has not been studied. o Decreases pedestr�ian crossing distance, thus increasing usable gaps and reducing delay o Provides higher pedestrian visibility fi•om the i•ight turn lane o May deter illegal right-side passing This option is shotia�n on Figur•e 3 and �vould cost approximately $200. Mid-Term Options: • Turn Lane Improvements - Channelized right turn lanes reduce pedestrian crossing distance and separate right turning traffic fi�om through traffic. These produce a staged crossing for one to two lanes at a time. This also reduces the feasibility of illegal right-side passing by providing a shoulder that is less than a typical lane in width. According to the FHWA Ped Guide, well designed right-turn slip lanes allow pedestrians to cross the right turn lane and wait on the refuge island, allowing for a shorter crossing length. They also allow right turning driveis to see left approaching pedestrians easier. These can be more challenging for visually impaired pedestrians to know where to cross. o Decreases pedestrian crossing distance, thus increasing usable gaps and reducing delay o Provides higher pedestrian visibility fi�om the right turn lane o Decrease in illegal right side passing o Potential maintenance issue during winter months with snow plows H:\COTIlN15105177\3_Preliminary_Design�A�reliminary design\Report�Pedestrian Crossing Memo 031313.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETfER TOMORROW Bolron & Menk is an equal opportuniy employer. . O oN �� 2 ��x �''- r- - �� This option is sholvn on Figur•e 4 and woarld cost approxinzately $55, 000 to $65, 000. Bump-Outs - Corner bump-outs or cur•b extensions reduce pedestj•ian crossing distance. While this reduces crossing distance, there are maintenance and vehicle safety concer•ns with a curb that is closer to the vehicle travel lane at high vehicle speeds. This physically deters the feasibility of illegal right-side passing. The corner bump-out option could also be configut�ed on the other two corners with the removal of the right turn lanes. The FHWA Ped Guide states that curb extensions improve the safety of pedestrians and motorists, increase visibility and reduce speed of turning vehicles, and shorten crossing distance and reduce pedestrian exposure. o Decreases pedestrian crossing distance, thus increasing usable gaps and reducing delay o Provides higher pedestrian visibility for right turning vehicles o Reduces speed for turning vehicles o Decrease in iilegal right side passing o Potential maintenance issue during winter months with snow plows o Elimination of right-turn lanes in Figui•e SB could cause operation/safety issues This option is shown on Figzrre S and would cost approximafely $4,100 to $4, 900. The fow•-corner� bZrmp-out option is slZOwn in Figur�e SB and would cost approxi�nately $8,200 to $9, 800. • Center Median - A center median allows pedestrians to cross in two stages with a centeT• refuge. They allow pedestrians to deal with only one direction of traffic at a time. While this reduces crossing distance, there ace maintenance and vehicle safety concerns with a curb that is not continuous along the roadway at high vehicle speeds. The FHWA Ped Guide states that crossing islands or center median have been demonstrated to significantly decrease the percentage of pedestrian crashes by reducivg conflicts, reducing vehicle speeds approaching the island, calling greater attention to the existence of a pedestrian crossing, and reducing exposure time for pedestcians. Gaps are increased because pedestj•ians oniy have to cross one direction of tt�affic at a time. Loolcing at the gap study for only one direction at a time indicates that there are 196 adequate gaps westbound and 237 adequate gaps eastbound, equating to 25% of gaps westbound and 40% of gaps eastbound as adequate. Over• a 2-hour period, this equates to an adequate gap every 37 seconds westbound and ever•y 31 seconds eastbound. Applying this change to the Level of Seivice Calculation indicates that the crossings would have a combined pedesh�ian delay of 38 seconds or LOS E based on the cumulative of the eastbound and westbound crossing. A LOS F indicates that there is a high likelihood of pedestrian risk- taking to ct�oss. o Decreases pedestrian crossing distance, thus increasing usable gaps and reducing delay o Provides higher pedestrian visibility o Increases usable gaps This option is sl�own on Figzn•e 6 and ��ozrld cost appr•oxi�nately $440,000 to $530,000. H:\CO'1`I\N15105177\3_Preliminary_Design�A�reliminary design\Report�Pedestrian Crossing Memo 031313.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity employer. O� �_(��.-'� �•'- : F. � - �A � • "Pedestrian Crossing" Warning Signs - Crossing location "pedestrian ci•ossing" warning signs with geometric improvements to reduce the left turn bypasses using the i•ight tucn lane. As stated above with the advanced warning pedestrian crossing signs, these signs have been proven to be ineffective at reducing crashes at unconti•olled intersections with mai•ked ci•osswall<s based on "Minnesota's Best Practices for Traffic Sign Maintenance/Management Handbook". The same handboolc found no evidence for special warning signs such as "Childi•en at Play" to reduce travel speed or improve safety. A study on vehicle compliance by North Carolina State University and City of Raleigh DOT found that 5 to 26% of motorists slow or stop for pedestrians under the presence of standard yellow pedestrian ct�ossing warning signs at the crossing location. Based on the above infoi•mation, pedestrian c►•ossing war�ning signs at the crosswalk may provide minimal i•eductions in speed but may also provide no impi•ovement. The presence of the wai•ning signs at the location may actually decrease pedestrian safety with some pedestrians assuming that vehicles will stop for them. The "Safety Effects of Marked Vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations" study found that 34% of pedestrian crashes at unmarked locations were the result of pedesti•ians failing to yield to motoi•ists. These locations had pedestrian crossing wai•ning signs. While state statute states that vehicles shall stop for pedestrians in crosswalks or at an intersection with no marlced crosswalk, it also states that no pedesti•ian shall suddenly leave the curb and walk or run into the path of a vehicle wl�ich is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield. o Potential speed reduction o Potential crash increase Tl�is option is sl7owrz on Figure 7 and ivozrld cost appi•oximately $1,400 to $1,700. Pedestrian Activated Rectangulai• Rapid Flash Beacons - Install pedestal mounted pedestrian activated Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFBs) with pedestrian crossing warning signs and geometric improvements to provide more driver awareness when a pedestrian is actually at the crossing. The TRB Study "Analysis of Effects of Stutter Flash LED Beacons to Increase Yielding to Pedestrians Using Multilane Crossings" found that the mean yielding rate at locations with RRFBs is 81% compared to 18% without RRFB. In the LOS equations fi•om the Highway Capacity Manual, this would be expected to improve the delay to 7 seconds (LOS B). These may also reduce the bypasses using the right turn lane when a vehicle is slowing down in the th►�ough lane in the pt•esence of a pedesti•ian by indicating that they ai•e slowing down foi• a pedestrian and not just to turn left, which would be simila►• to a multilane approach situation. o Pt•ovides a stronget� visual cue when a pedestrian is pi•esent o Reduces pedestrian delay by increasing yielding behavior o Reduces the probability for pedestrian risk taking, especially when combined with a staged crossing o Potential for decreased effectiveness over time, since the devices are relatively new Tlzis option is shotii�n on Figzrre 8 and �a�ozrld cost approximately $12, 000 to $1 S, 000. • Relocate the Pedestrian Cj•ossin� - Move the pedesh�ian ct•ossing to the west to station 2+70. Initial review of the adjacent propei�ties seems to indicate that there may be an opportunity to H:\CO"I`I1N15105177\3 Preliminary_DesignW�reliminary design�Repo�t�Pedestrian Crossing Memo 031313.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity employer. 0� o � & ��2 �� •• � .��,,. - extend a ti•ail fi�om the south to CH 22 west of the intersection (approx. station 5+80). The trail would then be bi•ought west along CH 22 until the cr•ossing is separated fi�om the turn lanes. Moving the crossing reduces the potential number of conflict points since the pedestrian crossing does not cross any turn lanes. This may also reduce potential bypasses on the right when a vehicle is slowing down in the thr•ough lane since the crossing is not at an intersection. The potential negative effect of moving the cr•ossing is the increase in wallcing distance and the decision to cr•oss at the intei•section even though the crossing is located elsewhei•e as stated in NCHRP Repoi•t 562 "Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings". o Increases pedestrian visibility o Potential of the crossing not being used This option is shown on Figure 9 and �votrld cost appr•oximately $I10, 000 to $130,000. Pedestrian Hvbrid Beacon - Install a pedestrian hybrid beacon system, also known as HAWK, with pedestrian crossing warning signs and geometric improvements to reduce the left tu1•n bypasses using the right turn. While pedestrian hybrid beacons have been installed in locations throughout the countiy, they are a new type of tt•affic signal that has been shown to have sotnetimes spotty compliance rates due to a lack of driver understanding. These should not be installed adjacent to intersections and ar•e more appropriate at mid-block crossing locations, such as at station 2+70. The FHWA publication "Safety Effectiveness of the HAWK Pedestrian Ct•ossing Treatment" showed a decrease in pedestrian crashes as compared to not having HAWK but HAWK sites had crash rates that were higher than unsignalized intersections. It should also be noted that the sites where HAWKs were installed had much higher pedestrian crash rates before HAWK installation than the locations without HAWK. o Provides higher driver awareness when a pedestrian is present o Potential increase in vehicle crashes o Reduce pedestrian delay by creating gaps in cross traffic A typical pedestrian Izybrid beacon system is shoia�n on Figur�e 10 and tivoarld cost approximately $200, 000 to �240, 000. • Grade Separation - Both grade separation options would move the majority of pedestrian traffic so that vehicle to pedest�•ian conflicts would be greatly reduced. The potential negative effect of moving the crossing is the increase in walking distance and the temptation to cross at the intersection even though the crossing is located elsewhere as stated in NCHRP Report 562 "Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings". o Potential of the crossing not being used o Removes pedestrian/vehicle conflicts o Analysis of the elevation of the roadway and adjacent properties indicates that an underpass couid be reasonably located to the east of the intersection. The underpass location will be dependent on the property that can be acquired. H:\COTI�N15105177\3 Preliminary_Design�.A�reliminary design�Report�Pedestrian Crossing Memo 031313.doc DESIGNING FOR A BEITER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equa) opportunily employer. O� � ��2 m��n� � • ' - 1 �� Extend a trail north fi•om Imperial Avenue South. This would likely require the acquisition of one properiy. Trail enti•ance 5' 8" below existing ground at station ll+50 or 4'8" below existing ground at station 12+00. The trail extension north fi�om Imperial Avenue could occur at a grade less than 2% to meet the elevation needs. Tlzis option is sho��n on Figur�e 11 and tivould cost $830,000 to $1,000,000. o An ovet•pass couid be reasonably located to the west of the intersection. Initial review of the adjacent properties seems to indicate that there may be an opportunity to extend a trail fi•om the south to CH 22 west of the intersection. The overpass could be located directly fi�om the new trail extension at station 5+70 or adjacent to the west side of Idsen at station 7+60. This option is shol��n on Figu��e 12 and would cost $1,200,000 to $1,800,000. Lon�_Term Options: Center Median - With a wider roadway due to more lanes, a center median could be installed to i•educe pedestrian crossing distance. A centei• median along a foui•-lane highway also pr•ovides numerous other advantages including a place for a left turn lane, allows for the separation of two- way traffic that can pass easily, and it can be implemented over a long distance along a corridor. The FHWA Ped Guide states that crossing islands or center median have been demonstrated to significantly decrease the percentage of pedestrian crashes by reducing conflicts, reducing vehicle speeds approaching the island, calling greatei• attention to the existence of a pedestrian crossing, and i•educing exposure time foi• pedestrians. Gaps are increased because pedesti•ians only have to cross one direction at a time. o Decreases pedestrian crossing distance o Provides higher pedestrian visibility o Increases usable gaps Costs associated tivith this option would be dependent on firtui�e roadla�ay needs and would most likely inclzrde cost sharing behveen Cottage Gr�ove and Washington Coarnty. Grade Separation - The underpass and overpass options previously discussed can be implemented with a four-lane corridor in mind. This includes building a structure that is long enough for fitture roadway widening improvements. Both grade separation options would move the rnajority of pedestrian traffic so that vehicle to pedestrian conflicts would be greatly reduced. The potential negative effect of moving the crossing is the increase in walking distance and the temptation to cross at the intersection even though the crossing is located elsewhere as stated in NCHRP Report 562 "Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings". o Potential of the crossing not being used o Removes pedestrian/vehicle conflicts The additional costs are app�•oxinzately $830, 000 to $1, 000, 000 fof� an underpass and �1, 300, 000 to $1, 900, 000 fo�� a bridge. H:\COTI1N15105177\3_Preliminary_Design�A�reliminary design\Report\Pedestrian Crossing Memo 031313.doc DESIGNING FOR A BEiTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity employer. O� m � x � .•- f s u`� Overhead Warning Si�ns - Install overhead pedestrian actuated RRFBs with pedestrian crossing wai•ning signs. The TRB Study "Analysis of Effects of Stuttel• Flash LED Beacons to Increase Yielding to Pedestrians Using Multilane Crossings" found that the mean yielding rate at locations with RRFBs is 81% compar•ed to 18% without RRFB. These may also reduce the bypasses using the i•ight turn lane when a vehicle is slowing down in the tlu•ough lane in the presence of a pedestrian by indicating that they are slowing down foi• a pedesti•ian and not just to turn left, whicli would be similai• to a multilane approach situation. The overhead inounting provides for even more increased visibility of the RRFBs. Additional geometric improvements are recommended. o Provides higher driver awareness when a pedestrian is present o Inci•eases usable gaps Reduces the probability for pedestrian i•isk taking, especially when comUined with a staged crossing Costs associated tivith tl�is in�pi•oveme��t are approximately $60,000 to $75,000. All costs and concept designs are appi•oYimate and fui•thei• work is needed to finalize design, locations, and costs. FUNDING SOURCES AND OPTIONS Based upon oui• undei•standing, any of the short-tei•m and mid-term options would a joint funding venture by the City and County. The long-term solutions would most likely require additional funding sources, such as those listed below: l. Washington County Safety Improvement funding 2. MnDOT HSIP funding 3. MnDOT Ti•ansportation Enhancement funding H:\COT11N15105177\3 Preliminary_Design�A�reliminary design�Report\Pedestrian Crossing Memo 031313.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETfER TOMORROW 8olton & Menk is an equal opportunity employer. � r :� . � � � ; wE � .i • ; ' �''" �" . ` , ' '1 - i` '` � � '� ` .� ; � - _ � � , '1 � .�. �� ^;, � . . +_. . '"'4�J 1 i ��+ Y' ... , _" . _ '� • �+� __ �. ' .. . � � } ��' : . .' _.�� _� ��J ' � � •i . . ,iL . � � � , ;;5�^' . . . . . 1 . . 1 "� 3�i . . � ' , . ' � � . . - I �' . , � �' �y . . �I��x; . �.� � �� ,. . i q, �r. . . �t, � • .t.'. . .,; k,� M� a• J � ' . ' � � . � . �f�?v.� A 1� �. ry ''MS'� . _ : . �� Y � ' f' - _ -` � u J� A 7 .1 ► � �l'!' h Nf.Y�''�� .—�,' .. �; �,'� '�� .4 � '� .�, ., '�'S' -'�� i. � . � e � . � .. �_ M1�`' e'��' es t�. � . r � � 1:' �'�� j:^� � �.' . . . . ? V L . . �_ �.�/+ .,�' . �•, ' . ,. . � . . _ ��. ��. . rc. �,:� � � � . � _ . � � Y� ° w. . . . . . . . . �� F'�;I . .. _ a -� � ., . ... --'� , . � . SO MPH — � { 1,775'�. DISTANCE FOR l' . . . - - .. . . . � . , . ' . PEDESTRIAN TO ' � � . � � SEE VEHICLE AND — .. ' .. . 465', - � ^ . .. � CROS$ SAFELY . ' ' '�_ _ _. . ... '�" ..._.a. � . � _ . . . _ . . -� ._�'z '-- _..._... ..VEHIGLESTOPPING _.__" "��" ♦ ^ -- . .. ___ . ' _ .. ^. __._. . .. . ... . _ . '$ ...._— ... _._ .. . ._.. ....Jr _. _.,..�-._ ' !� _— � � $iEil4iI�ISTANCE � _.. ...__. . � '_"_ '� �lu__ .., _ . . s —.. .. . ., �._ . ' C6tES'6' �F ��_ -- -- - _ '_ - - = - _ - .. — _ _ ____ _.--- ----_ ° ,. _ __ _.. ___ :_�-- . ... _ . _-___ - y _. _ --. - �..-- _.!� _ _ :......_.� _� .`� �,,..�.... -= -.-- . . J • . , . . .. — _.. -------� __ - -- .... � �, ':� "" i_ »r 3��`.. �l 1 ��, � . ..� ..�+«, •�� o. � _ � _ � `�� I�� ` ^� �� :';�„� � Q+'�. � � -� .- � ' ��'t: ��.'"�$�' a' ` '�'j. !. � �` . . �� - i� ;��' ; �� .�.�, � �, , . , i Y �` .� '�� ^� � 4' � . � �� .� '� � �f � 'I : ,.y� _ . N 'P. ' " .. . ,ti �� Y !� ' � I . �q 3 � � x.;- � .'�iY"."' _'°i`�..Ci, •�-. _ � � ' 1� �^'� �.. TI . �� r. �f t � R �i � .' ' : . � �e�a • �A i 4 ni • � ' i � •�•.•:� � � � _ �' . ti h � ` �'`�' ��„ �:�V. _ ..�, � -.�� . � r �1� :� _�A�� , � ,. 1 — � . .,� � �iiw .�• ;r.�. ��..,._. — � � � - ' - �. ,�k. , �''"''� � r ��.. � r `�' � � � � ,:; � ' �� 1'e. •�.. � ti .. ,�„" � �f� ':� � y''^� •�' -•.� , ..c }�� , :! ��.. {�;_ )'.�'. . �& r:�� '� � . . , . , . - F• : . q °. y ., � -.:-; --: • ''� � ;� ��►� � � �' , . . '�' ' ��f� . .�'` .�' ,� � � ��- - - ' � . : ; 4� � 5�d. �. � , E T' �� . _ l : �, . � , � Q �� 7 � a�: � �� ` ,� � q _r? .. t1 . .'� �j,. .�.� `i_�� "�► � . yr � �' �'�' �t �. ":��♦ . . . ` � C� "� � . � ,i. , �� ,�, � ,.} O .,r �i, 4 �� ` i '• ,� _ ,- �� `��'' � ��"� � ' ;`� ` � �� , r �� ^ � �.�� . :.4,. . i' 7' �, �`, f `, ', �� 7 � i ' �' µ:�`: � �� 1 ' _ {, �v-W � d �'� �' Sa �ti, f '�_ „R'r 7) � rt" . �I. � ^�. 1 ! �, � . �. >;�•�'>�', � � .,; j � o ..� . - ' �� ; � ..,..� .. i � �., .. ' , . ��. . � - - _.;. .. s � i � . . .. � � .,• . . ,_ .. � . . _ X � �af� 7. r � .J . ,,} . k ,,.. .. .. �'� �,. . � ,�{ � �i �{+��.'�..�� _. a � $�� d�':�' �� "" FIGURE 1: SIGHT DISTANCE AND • • ��.. . .. � Y! F. � � k ..T �., � 1. \ , � . � ' �•/��; } ' �-_ � _��_ �. . . � � Ii � _ � � ;� � � � ;r� o so ,00 � PEDESTRIAN CROSSING TIME �� '�� . b ' � , !Y'��i�.. = � . � , 9 _'�s<... ��i. . :[. �!� su�� ,. r � 3 •F �, '.� t � � ��- _ � � � �- � EDES R N �CROSS PROJECT �. �'', . 1' .�,:.f."' �1.:,,. Wt'.1� �� µ-�!� i -�i#' ,' � �" r: `` . _. . ^'' .sP=. ,.� . .�'^"�= � �� . "PEDESTRIAN CROSSING" ADVANCED WARNING SIGN INSTALL WITH OPTIONS: - CHANNELIZED RIGHT TURN LANES - CORNER BUMP-OUTS - CENTER MEDIAN � ' , � � �� . ` i ., ;�` �i * ' j� ♦ _.�� -�� ,� r � - . Y, �� ' '� �� ; 'I � �,, I � r' . 1 i � r . � , � �� LEGEND O WARNING SIGN LOCATION �:,A, i;; _�_E�)=h'�1 2l,�' � il{�" I'l o!' - 285. ( _._—' - , � �— � � _ � . .-. � _ . . - . -., _.- -.. :� :e �. . -- � `� � -- �_==y � • � - �-. __ _- _ e'` .. _ - t . - (�!— ". �� .��:_ _ . .. ( , � �-�-;. - + r - G� �• �. Y3 ,; �� . � ��, y � f :; � ;� � �— *; � { � � � ( + y � Ii �� •�� (^ r � - � � . i +'i�, �.:5, �i . �.� lt�i. ��, �� '� ':i� 1��,fa t '� , ,�, ; _-��"'',� �; �, ��"'� ,, �, � '�'�'� ��°!;n'�_;; � ��;� :r'S3i r;! •. � _ �i �,� �i�`. �4� �� a, � - ; � � .. r= x ' �� E �� ,,, , ��r' ', , _ i � ' .A+rs '� ' ; � ,Iti. ,; '1 , �-:-�" - �a � � ` t_.� �I� � � ;;� , �� " �:• ° �''� i,� ' a �„�` ,� � � �v; r :��" � ;�. , r , `.. 0 ,�_ s 50 100 :i-:. t � ti,.'� �.. #'�� i t � • �, i � 3' � � - _ ��• 4 • ��' � . },' { „ i� - ., y;' ' �t�,: � � ��.' . r . .. i_t. .. � �.r �Y.� . — -_ . . �e._ �_' �.�i . _,)��. v. ' t s� SCALE FEET I_ � -�..'� t • �. s. � � Z a,• �,: f`i�ZJ I 111 • '"� �a � — — ---- --- __ — - � . . — _ -- - — '�� FIGURE 2: ADVANCED WARNING "PEDESTRIAN CROSSING" SIGN (SHORT TERM) '�'�I COTTAGE GROVE IDSEN AVENUE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PROJECT � � —_ ` _ i ��,^ � � L � � � ' . � ..� __ . M . ► # ' 'k� � � -�i'�' :�� E+UU �� +00 .. __.._-- ' -- —i i . ,. . ..'k�X1F,� . . .. .....:..�.�_�..,�.,L�. - IYACiN'fiJVl:.. ._. _ � _ . �.�_. � .. . � - r'g' '"�, !�I �f . . ".. r , ir� ' ,� � �� h Y ! . .��i C. �� `' � , I rF � - . �� `,� i '�!� ,� '" �� ...�_.....'___'y '___"._...._.__.._ 0 25 50 $CALE FEET - ---_ —,�� .. _� a � �� 'i{., - � �i �.. , . , �. . �' � i � - , � p d ;��q i �}� .. i . FIGURE 3: STRIPED RIGHT TURN GORE AREAS cSHORT TERM) COTTAGE GROVE IDSEN AVENUE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PROJECT ( � � ''�� '� .: {I�i� � , ; . . 1 , .. � � ___ __'__ _"_"' "—_ � _.._ _. ^ _�._ .�..�:c7�� I F �� I ' I I � , � �. II' . _ � : . �,,I r' , �I� ih. , � � +�" . � �., , ,,, F �:: �' - t' �_. -- — -_.. , '�'.- '9�� , � �i.� . ,� +N. �',- � O I r M� _ � 1 _,- ,. i , ��' i {i�r�S'l�e� . '.a� – . � � r � �� - x �My � S� ,:� = � „ � -'� �1 �- .. .. , � „� � i � P ;'� ° , , , .�I� . » 'p•;, rjtd',�, � r-t.� •. � "� 1 .'� �l /�� .P�� Y. � � ��v� ,� � 1 . ' �.: E� a 6 �4 - '��i . ^� 'f'. ��'S. ��I�;� : ,..��,,.. . . :� .-`~ � �.1 'Y *� t �� F t.�i , w k r � �'' : � h j � ; , , M fi y - � � � a �� y � y ' {� , ' �,� ^'�. .�c'��ti�. LEGEND.. � 9 �� Y ' l. � � ..�PpK�Y - -� 7 `� • �. ' {�"'. � I � Z 1.n . �.�.� . . � i: . � : �� A ��',�,�__ � �, ,` 4.. SOLID WHITE , ��.,+ , STRIPING � �< - � � ; - �; _ — �-- .__.^_ _._,�.�._._::_w - __ —� __�� ' . --:�— - - -... _M.___. — ��,, � 9�00 tU ___ � . .�.,1�'. , S/W�*?+4:aw�p�a�Ep�lA17��i' _ ' _'_..... ... _ _' ... __ . . - _' i �� . � .� ir '� r W .u�" r � : ,.� .. r' .��. . . �. � • � . .. - ��- 'Itl�... __..... . �. '. N�Yo�ei��i6iR � . . r_ , � . .. . . . . .. . � ... . ' i '. 1'�` � . ��a� . � , ' ., . - . � - � . . : ..+ . . . . , ..: .- ._,.... .. . � •_._ ' ' .-_�. _ .... . , � � „ �... '. _ .._ ... +� � � ' � + j r ; ,,f �� , �� i �" w •�.. � - • � .`` ,�... � 1 ' f .O.Y ��fi.S ' ' 1�'' d ^° y F "7' ��r . ' - I . i . �,, '� —=+ 2*'� �"aa.'d" „ a^+�t�'±t � t � �.:_T'�:°' .. - . � � � �� M 1 ��►#M' � �� ,�`„� . :�� '� ., _'i ' . . _,. .. � .. ' N . �� ' -3 f�� q � !+'' � r 7 � '�,�"; � r 1 ' '"i! P f � . < --,__... _�.L�.� •. _ __ o zs 50 SCM.E F[Et � - ," !"_x"�"'+� : � � i � ' . ' s; s -- ,. ___ �'� � <� t ; 1' � _ � i .,� �',r{�,.. i ', � *.-, ��' �. +�5', .. K -;1� � y /,. 7� 1 _' � , - � , �. � - , _. � � _ . _ _ . ,., ..._ _-, - . .. . �� --�- -- ` �_ _ • __ _._ _ _ . _- -- __._ _ _ _ __ _ _ � _ _ - r - _ _ s � ,...�.<, _ , .. . _ ,•�. , - -��,,� � � �� f . , _ ..�-�-'�'�";,, � ,_ . _ . , ,.� _ ... .. .y r� .ir ' � ` . : r �w ,�',',+�' ' � • . . . . �. . , - � i?�1"� i � , .�, -�. . ( , - ;�e .. , , . -, . , ^M �' _...��" _v "Dltf!'ti Y ! w � 't..� - '�'- � �� f � � '�� _ . ...-� ` " "•�', LEGEND �. .k y, � ' ,� ��T ,� . �....� � �..� � . �� 'j' y�.. 1 ,� .�•'' F ,' ,'.,` CURB & GUTTER ( � y,�: , �, � � �r�' Y� � MEDIAN " ��",`�;, .�:, _ �w . �,� �!�'., , dr ' r y � s ,:'" . CURB & GUTTER I � � . � . � � " M " �w, �s� y �� .'`� � MEDIAN r �� „ . � ! „ ti.. ' ..iM1 , �w v _ .. �` � SIDEWALK - r� . y ,,,i - i . . . . , F •{�` __ � ��' EDGE OF PAVEMENT , � _ � � — "�, ,. .F � � I .. LANE LINE I�.�� pr" FIGURE 4: CHANELIZED RIGHT TURN LANES (MID-T COTTAGE GROVE IDSEN AVENUE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PROJECT ., � -,-, � � _ '� -� Y � � " � � _ �E ° .� µ ` 1 t � �� : '� � F ^� ` , � .,..�,�,:..._.�"_.__" ��. .. �. • „ � -�'� ,, ` � ,, h �- f� , , � �•� � � _ ` �` . "` • ` _ . __ - - _ �� ____ . _ _ __. _ _ : _ ___ _ .... _ � � ,• �� • � .; , � ' � . _ � . � f ' f _ �.;k' , , . N� � � � , . . " �i . • � , .,. .. � . . .. . . '. . , .. .: . _.. . . . �.-,. ... . . S�_:w --�....�.... _ .... .._. �`�"'�'��._,.z'�. � ..'� 'u'a�c'I�brav�T�4.'}�'_,!�',yo . . .. , . � _ __ _.... . . _. __.. _. . '._ �"'__.. �a.:riu....r ..__._., �..._.:.:�b$�R�t$M�"'�' .. . . ' . . _ , .......__ _ . _- ._...� _�._ . _.+-�. ...,. ... .. ... �. . ....._ _ :... . . . ' _ _ ' '. . . _ . _ _ .. _ ._ .... . �_._ . .. '"__ 0 00 A .'IM.r:' �,' +tb o � ' . . _ . , � �„ ,: �.00 e.ao _ v.00 �. i � r s ��'�9 i ��..+�? �i i .__ _ . _ . _. . — .. .. . _ . L." _ .. . ._ , , _ .� Cv35� . _•,' s.,�l�v . ." . . . r �" . .�.�....__ __.. � :. . _... .,_ ...... �... . _, . __'. _ . ._ .,,... .. . t �. . ...,: .,...�. �r��.L� . . '� ' "" ' ._ - . �4 _. . �., . .. . _ .__. . _._____ � r . . . _ _.... _.. . _ -_ ._... . . , � ..........,.,,.�,.._.....---.....,.—.,�.,_-+-. . _._. ,,,,.�+�a. _�.�..�... � —�� . _... . _. ,. ._.,._...- _. .. ._._ .,,��,,...-,,- . _ . : i t �� , . . :r � ...: -!T'�... ... � � . �� - 5 ... '� � . . �� - ' _ . 3 . , ' . y � �i � �� ,� �. • ' W � 1 4 � .. . .e�. .S ..� �-. .. � �� "'�', 'y �. .�SV 'M ' �f �� . .J �+'��t�M�e� t . " .+Ll�f 1� C� j :'�. � . � n'�°',�" �7 • � a�`• �r� ,� -.sw�►.'ytra�i�.s. r�T �'`� _�_?'�c�_,..�..r'x..wr"'a�'Ee,��'' �3'c='� - ,� � -w+�r _ . �--� - - — � — — - .. �� •a:' . �°.'''' ';�',,� r A ,�` � ,; R � _ =__ `'.�n. . . ....ti, ' ` A �"�.> �� '�,1 ` y � �s��-�� '1�� , �, _ � � �� 4, , ' .�. , .. , � . . � �' �, : �� ,...�,��,... ^-14��.��. �� 1 '�,;��( • .t �, +� � , � � _�r�..� , �r� w �� i ��« � � �- t M , �; �,: ��► a �.r;: . � ��c'�"r` :.� - � f�� - k 4 -� r' : LEGEND � `3r-. . . J � Y./° _*� �` , . 1 C �. � �� ' � ` . "�, i �� , ��, - ,�. � � CURB & GUTTER � � • . . ____. . � �'�� + _."... �,.'�' �',' t� ,. �� y � •, 1 W'�� ,J ' � . o � as sc � -�i� , .. 7 � .. '' � SlDEWAtK scuE c[Er - . � - � � ! � EDGE OF PAVEMENT - . w � r. _. .._ _.._. __ _ • . '^� � , _ - �r�q^+w I f• � `� ,� !� ��•. FIGURE 5A: CORNER BUMP-OUTS (MID-TERM) . � � � �, �` �' � COTTAGE GROVE IQSEN AVENUE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PROJECT ' ' �,+� `�.1��- � � �tl .�'. � R '. ,'� � � t ', - - . �, � ° �. _ � ll•; a �' �!� , � , ; �� _ � � ` :� • � 7 � f, _ Y` I + � ,� I� , � ,, -- _,F;. .; . � � .. , •. r __ . +.,�� • _ .. _ , -- — -- - - — � _ — -- — - -. _ _-- , _ _ _ _. �. �� ti... �, x1� * : � �: ' . . • 1 � � M'x �..n .. �Mi �. . ' . : � .. . � . ' i ' � - f ' F � G. � - f . Y�` � � . + � � _ � -� : , . - ` .�. ... . - •�. . . � , � _ _ _� -.� �Wa�`.I�""—...n` n �. : _ _ - e.00 . �_ — ----- - - - - - - , . � !d:; �� - ,� __ _ _._ � „u_� _._ , - e oo . .M+�.rwF+wM-� � . � :., � v.00 .. L__.. � . � �� ''S ��'' --. " � . 1_ 9�Op . .� . ..,.. _'_.. ,,. � .. .. .._ _ . :'__ . .. , 1..,..,. __ ;,_ �. . ;-• i �'`�1 p�"�1'��" � . . ' - ._ . . _ . _ __ ....' � "' ' �..+�,�f""'"""." .. . ... , _ . ... .� �°..:,F .. ' . . _ -"` � � _..,.,.. ,tv , ,. �..- _ ....._ _ . . _. n , . _._- .__._. _. . �_ __..__.._.. . . _ ' . � t` ' _.: ... . .. __...._ - . . _ . �g _ � _... -. - ._ ._ _ .... ._.._ _". . .. .-_-_ . . ,_..-_... __ "_ . ' . '-. - ... . . �..�.. ' .�� ' __ . _. �.... ..-_. ..,.......' __'_.. �. _ .. � : . .�. . ... ,.,� _ � . �,,,. . .. , .. � ' y, . ``"'" , ' ?-�"� � .sG` , u � ' . , 's :, � * t . ... _ � « ,... ..� ,�.... '-'; ,. . . �. . i . . . r � � Jy .+�' f J � '�'�'� '�.. � � . ♦... � ' .. � � � �, �.r C7 'k � , . ��r."C� �� • � . � ., 1,� 1� 'i.. '�W.�; • .,. l�. - w�r � r.,. . . j . . . , .., .. �,. w .. � �^' „!^�'!�w v . . �. .�'..' :°.. �� . h � �.�^+ir ! pr - �^-��—� , , 1. . �ac�1r — — - — - -_ - _ `"- -. . t � ' � [{�, e �{�� Y a � ��,�� 1 ti � � t . �� 7�� +TY+��M�� . A d� • 1 `��• � �� . �r� .f y .,. F i� ' t� �� ' s ',� � r,: � .. "�"' ��;. , � , ��,d� `� � � ,. �� , tt.�, � . ,� . . �� t� ,r� ��±(�?� i , . , ..,;. 2 y .' - � . � �, -�''` 4 � �� „� �r •' ' :ti '� �.. „ �� f�F' _ , �Y._R r "� �.4; LEGEND I . r;.�4..� _� x ..�v.{ �.� , �'� -. - W � ' ` � ' ` '�� ` � � CURB & GUTTER r . ',r' ^ � ,',y; : ��'`` '�' ._��. o - ` n � so � � "�''� ., � SlDEWALK a , '��. ; sc�uE �tc* • I � �� -i ' � ._ r � �'` _-- EDGE OF PAVEMENT `.j W _. . _ _ ___..�.�.,�. _� . ' _� . � I_ ! � �►; '�� . �� i -- � FIGURE 56: CORNER BUMP—OUTS (MID—TERM) `� j� COTTAGE GROVE IDSEN AVENUE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PROJECT . n ., , � , F/� '. �'t ., . �, ..� . `y� ^; .�.. ��f + . � t.., * t'h. �( � �' l ` , �,�� 'AY' f ' ' ,�. � � r: -j . . �+,� k�1t 4 �� 3 , �/ °�'!w'�� i • F-�c � !: '��. f` .^ .� ,'t; -� _ :�' '' ','�' . �!�. ; .. dF ,, � .�. ,��a+: , r,. .•� ;""; . y � �i�' ' • . ��l� ° �� Y` L � �'• �`' � i!�, 'L{` �'� � , 1� '�"� � . � ` 1�' . � �, w � - :� . : �: , � : _. } , ,,_ ' �,; �� , /� �. °, _ "1' ' ;i � � � e ;a i v ,�� !a . qy, it �!: ^' �� —. ��a�� +� � � � 1 � � '�",Y.i✓' • . '��. �=� i. ��', r i � . p:.� . � . . _ __ . �.,�..�. �\r " . � ylr. . `' . � ' . �� ,� . � �r� �' i ' •� �{ � � x r _ F_ , , �� •• � . '�b . . �� '3,�, .�' +�� ; ,: �� . ..w-. '�kl" �;�:� . . 4 ��C."_�:�• . � T. " [.' . I\ ; �� i j' . s _..a "�' • ; ✓ � . �7 � � � , r .� m� ' �� y.� �•! �� .�� \" = '✓ ^ /� ? ��►'a�► �'.:;. " �+' r �-'.L� � �,,,� ` r � . � �f � i � fi . '! � w � � � ' ' '� .. �j }1F Z. .� � R , '�Y _.t�'I �� I �'R�� ` � ( �' i �a�..� �� y� �; ��„� �� ,r�, �l �4b� o � C yA�,y, > � . '�t�'h`� - ' �� , `7dF" � z+.;�M�,. ' � . ' �, �I� ; �t y �!. ��. � ' .+ `,• � h ��. 4 "a` '�; ' .�:�.r � � � 1 ° , =: d , , � ,� . _- o . _W . - _. t U „ _ _ _ _ _ _ �.n�:_ � . . , � *. . . . . . . . : �. _ . .-_�5:. .. _ k _ . _ .. .:� �„ ..y. . � - � . . - ._ .�. .._ - / \ . �� - � - . . . � . . . ---- -- —..�_. .,. C .. �._ �'y�ii..'a ��,. .. .,r:��- . ,., . _ . . � _ . . _ _' � ---- - � ._ - _ - . . .� . . . .. . . . -,. � � - ._ . -- __ _. . . . . . � . y � _A� �.. M1 , w� , . � f . h . �. � � ' � a��tc�r '. �. x� . . r ��,rl�i. � �, . -. -. . _. :: �• `� �~ •� ��-� � � I . I ..n r 1W �`�"�� ' � �� I ':. ��f�� d � � �� . �� ' 7� . ��.t� � � � '� � '�� .. . . :k �' ,� I ... �A1 y �Q ;y �; '� .. - ,�` �..� � _� t� _� f .. 2�i"jy _�'..a„ �. :. , _ . ' J . .. i _ ..•...,...... �� - � � � r � 4 -�;, '� ?t ,r � '�'r °..: , �i.�_. _ �'- ,� � •r � �'�1"� � ��°' - �� s - 'i , � ' :'= r � ' - ''�f �I - � `�� ` � ' y � �,; !� �� d ' '�►` � �;^ . r . ,. . .��, - � �,� ; �� ` �: � ' � �;��l�• 1�� #. l ,i � + s � �+ �. �� . y � , � '^ �' . y t��' � b :.t � . i '�'�' �e .... P�!. - �� f- "y�..� `�{'. • � '-� y � J _ �►9 ^ . _. .. e?� � .. � � . , ,::�� ,., . v 1 '�' p '� �t � i �� ,:� �� r- ,! i �t , • `,�"� �,�C �,�`� -�� ' '�"+� t 1 � �tr� � � � � `� �. �' � � � � w ,�w �t.k' 1 '� � �( ' � - � ��F � � � �.'_ r J �-� �'��'� '.k r � � A � t ��... �� `Y _ . � � , 'K' .. ..� �_�► J �:'z!r:i" ��: r�l� ",� I:�"t � ._ ��i, r �, ' .,yv - �� s �'�' �� 6. �` � ^. �'�,.�, »�l�1�- " � I��-- �--- ;�" _ .. . .�;, , � �,� ,i �i1 1�� :A '3.r "X .'� 1 �1 { ; .'t , t .r %++Y t� . v � ''t } . �g� , �, �� b� � fk "ra `�.�I^'�"�� .� i `��. �"� �' _ � �` !�`--�,�� ''' �� i � ,�,� lp�r-�`'.,j dl. .i! Y'��__�'�.�,-'�1. � a � �, � �� • - �:te4^.,.," ; w ..��':�' y�' ." .=�fuY1 =.rE �� 6y � , '?9q�j �� - �•� A-p �N�" I� 3 y � r � 71 r.� �tiA �°` � � 1� �y,��'. ~'�-• - ��"- `"� }. r �� .' ...-1.. y • �= �'�. � _ � - .� .�� . F � ,�.� � �l,t . ,. '� �9� .\ �F�r _ } ,'j .,'� •r . �'� �-I �Mi.�, - �t+.�- '� , .,u � ,;�r � ;�� _ ` � �'- � . , � - - i• . � . > � � a_.. ." � �:e` , Mt?►' `' ?., r �, •• • - i'� ` t� � � "� . � -� �� : p1 1.�" � �� . `'� .V' , �1 � .1�,�;^.s � � "' � .: 1�,,,�7„� .• I.. � '��+''�� E`� � ,{Y �� I'r� -:., '"�' d dti _��` � .�.`:'Si . ��. �: b � '' � �G' b •.� � -ti u � .�� +t� n v�i. � _ � ..• � �� r - .+ ., �-r 1+ y . t , a a i"�,' � �, �r,;� � � . �:_ :� ° � _ - �p ;. �. � -'� –,. . – � . , , s w — � �"� �, =� �, ,, I ' � y �P� ,� � ,� �� r !� f,�. .# k `''� :,� �� a�:F � 'tiv�', j :R vi� 4+� 1� � _ �`. }, �'; �.� i� � c r �„ �t�; � � � r _ ,''�'lV7�'. �R , .F� � � ,� . . � ' tc!' . 'e� . ,.r.' � , y �� a 4 .' " ' - , . � �t_�'1�! � _ .. �t)�- if %7 , " 1 1 t�'' ,i. �� ; ,�„ . _ • - . � 0 . � � �iF �' � iC' '1�: . . ,ra - ..v� ;L • � � . k� . ''; � �` , : y � .` e ,?� . � . . _ .� _ �N `^ �� .;( �� Y�� L � � .�� S�.�L'I1.i.a� � S .�� •� 'I , � I'�� , I "f ° .. �} - . � �: � - . ,. +ri o • � �r a �"' � . � --� y p'."r' � .r � ��w '�. �'�'' �� r �,''i� �[�. �[ ��" '�"'' "' ��'a .F. ,�� e` '�} , � - .*'� - . '� � CI,�; o� F=�; •. 1 �' �. Z" :' �+ � Y� � � -� . .y,i J 1 �� ..' �IZ � ��,., , .:� �. �K� � ' � - • t , I ri a _ , ~ ' f `" - "��' ^� �"` �? �� LEGEND FIGURE 6: CENTER MEDIAN OPTION � �':. _ _- —�-- . . ,; _ : . �r� ia;, _ _ _ _ "" , ..;,. cues a �urree � M I D T RM ) „ . ,_ _._. �� } � MEDIAN ? ,�, ( . ,. . ..,_.. ,� ._: ... s�.�E iEEi � , - "��;F• � �� Q SIDEWALK COTTAGE GROVE IDSEN AVENUE o ry -. . ' _—�'� �= ^,;,,�" � PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PROJECT • .V,... . . .. . , , � . . "..�txr-.•. . . . . _ � . a � r. � � ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ `� . [NSTALL WITH CPTIOHS: - CHANNELIZED RIGHT TURN LANES - CORNER 6UMP-OUTS - CENTER MEDIAN � t .•� •� _ :�_ , ��, '' . � � ' � i . � . � �' r� r,�.x . "PE�ESTRIAN CROSSING" WARNING SIGN ' �� - :, ' i � �> },'� � _, • ��j �' + , � , LES�NQ � wa�HtNC sYCH �ocartarr �.� �..a. .-_� -_ � pk�`" �:,a�*�; �'.� ' _ 1, -- - -- — - - �'�- � - � � � ' � ! y �71� "�! I � � � t-�1 � i ��oo etoo � 9 00 �' 1 -1 -- - -�--- - - --� � � r,��l '�-' �.f n?t rl� � • n.� � - �� -�- - - - -- -_----- , , � � . .. _ . _� - _-,�r.� � � ., -r :.. .. , . "_Y . . .� . ... . �. _ ...��.-.:- . e - kr. � h . ^� e /� ' \ - . . . .� .. _ . r ' � `, . .1 . t . � - n � °,' �'sS � ��if d f' �`S :I�; ` � � ��:+f':.�t i� __{ r�. r � _ 3�..� 1��.� i�. ., '�^ . 4r�� .r. �u � ; t 1 ' �.__.__d.117Fa�.. ' � ,� p '�. . �4:= �+043' y . - � r r � � �� • .�.�` , I '. � p�� - - � _. _� - . � r (,° � �i 0 25 .y� p' r 4,` ��, '��} i �� i � i . •r '{ � �1 'a,•� �,, 1� ��" �� '� ; �`' i , �l; SC�LE FEEf -1 � {. .�i � ��,�'„ y , _ �.f:. o''� -�� y � -- ,E � '� . y . -•t► ;r% FIGURE 7: PEDESTRIAN CROSSING waRrvirvG SiGNS tMID-TERM) , f � , � C0�'TAG� GRAV� IDS�N AVENU� P�p�S7RIAN CRC7SSING PROJECT ,, �. ' � � "PEDESTRtAN CROSSING" WARNING SIGN WITH RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASH BEACONS (RRFB) [NSTALL WITH OPTIONS: - CHANNELIZED RIGHT TURN LANES - CORNER HUMP-OUTS - CENTER MEDIAN , _ -'�`�~_. _ �-- . y � � • ;�: ;.� � � �._ _ .' , . t � �� ` ` �, . - �.fi, i _�e. _ � �. � _ L�GEND � WARNTNG 5TGN �ocartaH � � f _ J� _ __. _ � � .� �.�` � ` ? : ., . r,�� -- _ _ - � __ � r � i-��!I�� I�`•ilf' , �w s,w „c; v.00 �"' � �� —L- -- _J— _. __..__--____�L� ._.L.'___ '.. i - . . .. .__ ..._ _I'—_ _... _. . . _ _1.._...__� —__—__ '.!e'7Fl�;:�i'�;i( �g)iI�'�I;�ilfi) .��;��. t,3;:_. `°''` � : -- - --- - . `-e � . - �. . ,,.��..... _ � ; _ N, .. � ., ,�,�, , � � � � � - � � .S ��V� •� �7f,..�M.��f '� It� ;� . . t'� "`��-�:�t �r..��y�� j}:..� r�1 ' �.,." �. . l�ij. l.vs.� _ ' � ��`�t!.� '. F�.. �6''^t "�Rt'j'v „�P - 7�•,r} - r' � � �, - � . .� � . �I � s f -r� _ ' _ - _.- � " , ��"_ _ �' s � �� `_' ` `� �, 4 � "!; � , i'• ' �;. I 0 25 so ,t ��• . � ' � �, ,�t � ro I i - - i ♦ �ii scac reer �� F� �.� ��. `!i , i „�' � � ' �i , ,� �- � i� � '�r �, %-` � FIGURE $: RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASH BEACONS OPTION (MID-TERM) ,(`� � COTTAG� GRAV� IpS�N AV�NU� P�A�STRIAN CRQSSING PROJECT - — � `� , ' . _:L' _ � � �` � � _ ' �� ... �` � � j �' . 11 :� � �, 3 � _ � �'. � .._ - . ,: ; . _ ,�, � �, �f _ ' , x . + �' � �� i � � � - • � � �� _ �'�.i�-��, � � � ��. :'' ,; - , _ .. .�- ,� . R `� 4 �� x , . � _. _,. •� .�.�,. .. ... . ..�=y- " � � � "�� ,! , . r � °. � .� � _ �� : .. . ... .. ... .. _ , , � - � . , ., � • 1 • • • �"� � • • • 1 ��. , �'. -_ • " ' ...._. , `. :'y . , . - � .. .. .:�.. . . . . . . . _ � _ __ _ ' _ _ _ '_ _—' .: . _.. . . —_..� —�, .- . . , .._. . ___ ". _. __ r �.� Y . _ � _ y .. � _ �.. ' .. � . I .. .. . ... .. PO'fENTIAL � ; AY-GPtADE CROSSING ' '�:� ' �, , (STA. 2+70) _ T _ .. _. _: . _ ._��.. _.��- ..� - Y.,.:,,• _._ _ . _ _ _. _ .�, IqA _ .,_,�_ _ _ -.___.. . , _ .:. . _ . - . . .. _ . �.. .,�.....�.. .�.T.,,,-• . �i r. �� p � .... . � .. .,' . ' __� .. � —�—._... a.�'� �.�.. . , . a.L�, R �' ,.y.�..�.....��....,,.,.�..,_,_ � --...-- ; �. . � , - -•""--`- - r.: .__ �,.,_.µu,�.,, ..,,,�,w�.,a.�,.��.m_ - _ w ,..� �, _ ..«,,,» Y:. .,,:— _ --- — _._ _. ._ _._..___...,. ,__... _ .._..�.... . - �� , c _ _ ..- --- -- � _ . _ .�..., _ _._ .___,__ -- � , .,, _ _ _ — - -- i �. �. � .... -- � I''�� ` . / `'� � {r�V �� -,.. _ ._-- - -_. . - --- - . 1 ,� � � �� t � . : � � . Rd+ . " . 'r��" st w. � . . . , . „ ,. ..� . •;, - . �_: _ . _ __ .�`} � -- �. _. _ -- — �;... �� _ � _ • � � � __ � Fz �- -- i- • --• p�r� P,�,�v—�•�+�^ � ,. `-, iLF` _ . � i �r,, �a ' N . . , : ,. : . _ � � . _,� S, : . y�45, i ' �'� '- i� . I � ' = ,n _ ' � 1 � �' ' • • 'lS , . � .' 'y. .j� � «w biV 7�tti � � r h , "....J''�' r �-7*.i'� ��. ��+, _� ��f i!' ��'� � , .. . _ . � � y �P' -'!� � � � 7.. , � � , rl ii °� ' � n , �4' - s ` f °�` �'s , ... �� :1�� +� t �,' ��`� ,� . .,.� e4 t�� ili' �. .�� • II i s;- .�,� �.,�. �� a 1 � � i_ � �� _ i � �'� � �'f'�'` ; ��1�� _ . �� ... - . . �1 , �.. II 1 _ ��I' . _ �� , y •, � _ t I �� ' ' . �.. .+ + �z� � `y • y � . �' . 1 I �_ ♦ . .. '!�!F ,�. C'^, .'e: �1{�...��_.��i�..�._.' ..�.I � 4� .c; -...� ,�� ,u.� 1.1' _-- y , .*i�.� ,� �n .,�°� � - � �1 F-i _.'�'� ::___ � l—.-- _. � . .�.� _ ,j� y .� . �= ' : �` �.' '� �'�. k � �f y � }„ . _',• �. �ti1��.4, r � �. � _. �V� ,_— � ,. �� ,. � � .�; .. .� ' _ � � _ __��_� �� _ .. c. '' . �'.� . . _..i .. . _ _ I , . . . _. r. r . ��' _�_� _ _i . _ — .- �. . « 1 _ . - x . �It �• •. . � .� t ... . '�. .� . . .. . .. .M . � . ,. •�'�\ ` Y . . � ` ' . . ,i ,... .__ ♦ 1 � , �� .' — . � rr �� • 4 �� ., i � .. "' � ' yR .� ' � - . � ' � �yS . •: � 7 y J � LEGEND « .._ .. _ _. _..__ . _.._ , ,• �. . ' tl ` J[_ 1�._�f :'. i:.� .., ` �Li" l�ic. _ __ .. _ _..__._ -___ . �.• PROPOSED TRAIL ., 0 5o ioo, � � '-'.-. ��, � ; ..— ,- � .� _ � . � � - MID—TERM sc.�e FEET + .I � �'• � �, �+y. ' �• '�. , . _ �:` � � , r�� ` � CROSS ING OPT I ON -7" ' �-�^ � � ,^ . ,�`� � ` � - , ��: , � '�I --_—. �� J , � �,, � �� ,��-`: — _,��r �� FIGURE 9: MID—BLOCK CROSSING OPTION cMID—TERM) s, �I ,'` � COTTAGE GROVE IDSEN AVENUE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PROJECT . _ _._ ..._ - --- -- �---°� � � �, � _- � LEGEND � PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON � _J: - _ . �_�� __ , • .... .. _-_ �-_ -� —�:��.�� a�. — :��. � -_ __ , _ _, s , ��. . �� i� i r� + i '` �. � , �� ,� �� : . ;� � � ,� � � ;; `�� _ ! , ,�a '. -� � � �- ; � . _ ,, ��. � -_ _;��: _�_m_ _ r � �c��1 0 _e� 3 � �l 1 ��tli !:. � i'� � V ( � . � _ �_�. ��.�� I1 �.`�t,� � �4! . ` ,. �� ' �I . y� , ... � '.7` - ._ . — `; ..ny ��i... r� ''+��.L- i - {� = -� rrt �� . , jf. .,�� '�' �;'. , =�� ;'�\, ��,. _ � G � , ��; ' f i :, , � ; ; w� ,�� ,.,� ��+. , ' � - ,I ; - -' �� 1� �" , -� ,�� ' � ;I +��: ;� � ', ��j ' - � �� ..�� .�I_l - . � . �� 0 � 50 `sl !�, � � �`' �� I �* r 0 � ` � ' lito + y - . ' . �� , .� � � z;- , . � �. � ��,� � ��, �� -�--� -.. � .i\ - a , � - �� i � ` ,�� .5� �'_ scu FEET � '"�'� _�� 1 � r ,, �� :�', ,1 i', � � . r.�.. � � �- � . - _ .� - �-� � �. � �. �. � � � L-- , _ r . , ; � „ � . ,r .-- • .� . � : ,. i �., r . . .�� _ .1 - -- - - - _ - - - --- — - - - -- -- _ --_ - - - _ - _ _ /',� FIGURE 10: HYBRID ACTIVATED CROSSWALK OPTION (MID-TERM) ► � �� ., y.� �. �.�..,�, _. '"�� COTTAGE GROVE IDSEN AVENUE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PROJECT - "-� _ _ k='° � _ � �� ' _ �� ,�aY: -y. . _�. . y."�..,'� _ _ "PEDESTRIAN CROSSING" WARNING SIGN WITH PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON -„�� p�_ _--_��a� I - LEGEND FUTURE CONSTRUCTION DESIGN CONCEPT 1 DESIGN CONCEPT 2 MID-TERM CROSSING OPTION L _ _ __ _ X i � � � a _, �' � I �� ' � ��f �� '';;' � � { ,' il. �� f `i � � 1�' � .; - - - -. . � � - - . � � *_ � �, _ , . /��_!` / �� , POTENTIAL _ . - - _ � ' r.. � . _ - - ` . UNDERPASS _ " � I POTENTIAL (STA. '12+00) I UNDERPASS (S7A. 11 +50) ' . • - . _ _ ► . , . . . �! � . . _ _ _ .. ... . �_ .b '� �� i�.(ti[411�:;I1:'i�f�1'i `_ .��__ ._- :...:_.' d =_ -- = - ��., , _ - °__��-- _ -.x ».:� . _. , - ,-�. .: _. . _ . : .:_._ ��o_ _ _ _ , 4 . . : - ��(- . s 1 �, . .. . ` 6`?l,Fic - �_�� . ''� : � � � r �� Si � f -'� �.. I� ��^ F i l�l� 1� �'�'.' �� .— ..�� aT r 1 4` �i, '� '� ; { 1 , { ` , 4• �`' '' , 'I' �, �' �� r•' ��'• I ��`� � i y � 1 ' �i °' �� ` � ; �1 � � �,h-�rol:u. � � �� E ' ' � � �� i4 � �! � , i� i : t . � � � : , � � '7 V'�l �� , ��°. ��`� i. _ � � ' ` 1 �a, �t �� '. h -.i� ��• t••y ��1 � *, ` �t-0 �! ^� �� . , y' �i � �'�, ;��+ ,, � I '� . � . �-�` , i.t - � . � '� - I ) / r � � �� 4 _• . �+�� J i (1 � , I� ' �.r}, .it� ��"' –�� ` � � �� . • ,�+'� I,, r i �'?� ] �. . f_ � J �•� � � . } . ; � . �. �r,-�it� � �� ^� � S. h 7�_ . -kt `•1 � `+r �' � � _ �; �� ' %� _� • ':� 1 �::� ' s . yA` ' � .,�f�'c ' _ ' �t - - � �.�,.: �„ _ -'� y - ,� � - -rj , �, �+:_ � �; � � - . 'rr�. �� t:., .� � ? . f 7/ii , I �� ; , �� i�� r�t ], i _� . �t: _ ,. �� t � 4 � � � " . '_ .. �� .; � ... � \ h` � . / s , .. }k �. �. �`' �- - -- � - �' � i j�. , � F-- �' " , � ... y ., \ ,� ¢ r, � � i� �s � �i. � k �t � . ��► - � �-�� .. �' � `t :� " r� � �' .�. � _ �, � � , , }, :��+�� '� -�_ ' �' ! �'� r ��.,. � _ , ,.-', � - � �; � 'g\ u� 1� si,' � ��. +� SO 100. . � ` _ �� e 1, . 1 4 , � Y ' � ` '` (. � '� i � C (. � . � i ; � . � �� „�� ,� �� rs�: ' ' � scu.E FEer r ., y }� i i 1'J : � � •' � � ��t� ie�'� � �. t ' '� � �S' . lf � _ _ _ �- FIGURE 11: GRADE SEPARATION OPTION — UNDERPASS (MID—TERM) , COTTAGE GROVE IDSEN AVENUE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PROJECT PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS � �. +.. -� �* , . ,r_ #�� ,�, ,� -� t - i w " '�?�� J ' , a . < ` �' „� � ,,, L . � t • . .� !' ..-. �. �<< . � .. ..". , �, .�,�� .:�� y�t� 1 �� . .. ''� . . ' . �,�I, . ... , . ��'.; '��. � P ..� • �. 1��;� f �� .^� r _ � � �� rr �;� %,�` r x , .��,d �E � � � �'s�4 - p . y � : ' r � _,r ;;' � �µ� � � � yf,�,iu�t'� .� � � � 1, n ��..�, � r • ` , *. � �, .{ , ...� =,'� �t �^ • � � ; 4 A`„ n '1 ,.. � . `�' ,� ,� . , . . _. . +,.�...�-Nr � . w ..�' '` + ._ � . �. `:. ��. . � � ----- -T -- ':." _ r i -. �� ' �� .:: � � _ �';i b°ENTlAL �,_ __ , . - OVERPASS , - � `' ' {STA. 5+7D) � � . . . ., ' � -- - - _: - _ . _ _ :�. _. _ — _ _ , __.. _ L -- __ _ . ;.._ _ _ _ ; -�_ - - — _ _ _ _. , _ __'._ ��.',. r �� , . - ' - - ' � POTEN`fi'IAL • . _ _ _:, _ -'`—.,, _ :__� OVERfrASS . . , _ _ . _ ,' (STIC..7�60) _ i ._ _ _ __ � . , . .: _ . .- — -- _._ _. .. ... � �.J ,., . raeycYA�.'.a^: �_ .. �, __ . �,. r 5 �.�..�".�^ . ��' ,. . �... � . . . . . .. �,„, 4m,-� _. . .. _ � _ " - -- - -.. .... ,.-. . . �. - . . ... � ... _ �__.�, -�+.. . :..M ; �_� v � r._ _._.— --- - - - � - --_ .. , _-'-- . - _ _ . __ . � �..., .�....... . . , �. .� .. �_ _ i-- - ry .:,,,,;� �:. ___.:____ _ .:.____ .. .,,_ _,, :� ,.... . �,:, � :_ .. - _ ... _ ;;.�. w�.�. _ . .._ _. . __ ._. . . . '�',y.,<�_ ._ . �_. . ----- -- .� ' , :. �� , ,� . - n�. - � -� . ��.. _..;. t„_ �....�... ,, _,-. .; . . .. . .._.. __.__ '. . __ , _ _ . .- _—.._- ._.. - . __ �- __. .'�yy, .- , _ . ,_,._ . _ _ . .+ . � . . . . _ .. tir � _ � � . _ .. _._ . • • ,. � '-^� _ _ . i ' . a � �'• ,:t �' y' r'�-. .= i _ S: n. �dy' . � �- . � . __ '., 1 �� ` �� - _ , .' t �f!'11C`N'v�, .. ` �.+ . �*. ' . • h �� . . _ � . r . � ..._ � � �l�" �'a_�..r� �� sr'� _ '�� l " �:-- � ' ,,;. _ �.. . _.F:_ _ �. _ . � ..�� ' � _ � .. ... .. _ _ � : . �. � �� ' . ��. . � ...... . ��,`� . ' '"• -i ' •Q � . '1 r j . . n � � � C . ' , �• > �'�� y""3'I• 7„-� ,� 'I5 . ."' � ,� �-`$ ' R � � � � '' ~++-.•. � • - ,��: � .�;{ �f+' 'P��t. , f�1�1\��,S,�i �I . �•. .. � �h�.' �`'� y,,Ya.� �� . t � �� w�/ i�i. �� ;*1F� '� � � `t: �, �� + A � � 7'.. � . � � I � I ' , , �j. ,�� , ��.. �.� I ` .� �.!' - . � ��'� '� �? �� .p �L:ri ,'' -J:... � . :�r ' �� I I ' i .� I '� t� : .,��h'.; �` � � � •+�! �.�, yi ( � +. - i.t _ ; i :. � ` ` I -- ' � PEDESTRIAN PEDESTRIAN "' �'�i,?! . I;� ��- r � 1�� BRIDGE SWITCHBACK RAMP I -„� , ` _ �„� , _ .r - � � � p t , . . �M' . ' � c� �!�_ • � �� ._ _ �� . �.�, �-'' ,�,- . ��f � t � M � . � :� � . -- .. :� . � �� _ � "� q �- . . . .. . _ ."- � S_ : -i. .. �, . -. - �J, ! � .. _ r ,. . - '�. '� �� n6h�� ve� lL�1 �3r.l�u ..- - ; , .. ., , . •.� ,,:. . ' r � � i _:. � - � . . - .: - „_ .�,,� �.* . ' - .. f � v� �".'� n�@ �u]7IE 4hti-t{}..� _ . __ . _ � k -_, � _` �:-I+. ' _ . ��.3 LEGEND " ~ ��+ '� + � ; ' . "' - . _ - i..� Y �_ .r, � - �� i�^ i!' � 1 F � - _l. � . - � . � __. DESIGN CONCEPT 1 - - `� � _ _ ti__ , '. ��' ��_ r :��;'�" j � ; �/ j '�� , _. j � . � � � � DES IGN CONCEP7 2 o so �oo �� '��,,- _ _�.. _ ` � � 'xg �� ;�1 �i'ar'nf a �� ', � �` � A�1ID-7ERM �SGLLE sEEi �' �? �� t_ `'a' i*- r r;r i1�j� �( � � . - . i � �' _ �' . ' � ±.y - ,'rl __ . ��' .�___,...., _ �..�d� CROSSING OPT IQN °+ t',�- ,, `� OVERPASS PEDESTRIAN CROSSING �J ='-�� FIGURE 12: GRADE SEPARATION OPTION - OVERPASS (MID-tERM) � ( �,I� 1 �� '� COTTAGE GROVE IOSEN AVENUE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PROJECT