Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-04-30 PACKET 02.A.Cottage Grove h ere Pride and P Meet TO: Public Safety, Health and Welfare Commission Public Works Commission FROM: Jennifer Levitt, City Engineer DATE: April 25, 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. BO ILTON 8L M B N K V Consulting Engineers & Surveyors 12224 Nicollet Avenue • Burnsville, MN 55337 Phone (952) 890 -0509 • Fax (952) 890 -8065 www.bolton- menk.com SUMMARY 70 1h Street South (CSAH 22) and Idsen Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Analysis 1 NC® The intersection of 70 th 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 warrants 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 °i 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. HACOTr\N15105177 \Memo Information \Current VersionsTedesu mn Crossing Memo Summary 030913.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity employer J m� 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 treatments. 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 options would be funded by the City, while the long -term options would most likely include a cooperative approach to funding. Other options that could be further explored include: 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` Street 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: Recommended Short -Term Option 1 includes Pavement Striping refuge islands and installing Pedestrian Crossing advance warning signs. Including the Idsen Avenue sidewalk, this option is conservatively estimated at $15,900 in construction costs. Recommended Short -Term Option 2 includes the improvements listed in Option 1 plus the addition of Pedestrian Crossing warning signs at the location of the crossing. This option is conservatively estimated at $17,600 in construction costs. Recommended Short -Tema 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. HAC0TT\NI5105177\Memo Information \Current Vcrsions\Pedestrian Crossing Memo Summary 030913.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Mark is an equal opportunity employer. 'N8 Lone -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. Recommended Long -Tern Option I includes a Pedestrian Underpass located east of the Idsen Avenue and 70 Street intersection. Construction costs associated with a pedestrian underpass at this location are estimated between $500,000 and $1,000,000. Recommender) Long -Tern Option 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 necessary to direct pedestrians to the location of the beacon. H: \C077\NI5105177 \Memo Information \Current VersionsWedestrian Crossing Memo summary 030913.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity employer. Improvement Options Summary Short Term Options Advanced Warning Install advance $500 to $600 "Pedestrian Crossing" warning signs for an Signs (See Figure unmarked crosswalk 2) Pavement Striping Install striped right $200 to $300 turn refuge islands at the intersection (See Figure 3) Enhanced street- Install corner bump- lighting could also be considered Mid Term Options Turn Lane Improvements Install channelized right turn lanes $55,000 to $65,000 �- (See Figure 4) Significant snow- plowing and maint. ' —J concerns Bump -Outs (2 Install corner bump- $4,100 to $4,900 I Corners) outs or curb (See Figure SA) extensions Maintenance, ° concerns lA.: Bump -Outs (4 Install corner bump- $8,200 to $9,800 1 Corners) outs or curb (See Figure 513) extensions ' F7 J I X91 Center Median Install center $440,000 to $530,000 I tt i median y+�i (See Figure 6) r -- "Pedestrian Crossing" Warning Signs (See Figure 7) Pedestrian Activated Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (See Figure 8) Relocate the Pedestrian Crossing (See Figure 9) Hybrid Activated crossWall( 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 cross WaIK (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 only: $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 O mfrs , Grade Separation (Underpass) (See Figure 11) Grade Separation (Overpass) (See Figure 12) Construct an underpass Construct an overpass Long Term Options Center Median Grade Separation Construct center median along a widened roadway The underpass and overpass options can be implemented with a four -lane roadway Overhead Warning Signs Install overhead pedestrian actuated RRFBs with pedestrian crossing warning signs and geometric improvements $830,000 to $1,000,000 $1,200,000 to $1,800,000 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 I i � ua a BOLT ©N & MINK, iNC. Consulting Engineers & Surveyors " / 1 12224 Nicollet Avenue • Burnsville, MN 55337 Phone (952) 890 -0509 • Fax (952) 890.8065 www.bolton- menk.com MEMORANDUM Date: March 8, 2013 To: City of Cottage Grove and Washington County From: Kevin Kielb, P.E. Chris Chromy, P.E., PTOE Bryan Nemeth, P.E., PTOE Subject: County Highway 22 and Idsen Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Analysis Cottage Grove, MN Pedestrians are legitimate users of the transportation system and should be able to use the system safely. This includes not only providing pedestrian facilities where appropriate but also ensuring 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 improvements can be implemented quickly at low cost, 2. Mid -term options would take more time and work 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'" Street South (CSAH 22) and Idsen Avenue is adjacent to Highlands Park. Highlands Park is home to recreational amenities including a baseball field, soccer fields, tennis courts, basketball courts, ice skating rink, open space grasslands, and a splash pad. All of these uses will bring traffic to Highlands Park year - round. Access to Highlands Park is either by vehicle, by bike /walk access from 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:\ COTTIN 151 051 77\ 3_Preliminary_DesignW_prelinnnary design\Report\Pedestian Crossing Memo 030613.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity employer aw N e a The intersection of Idsen Avenue with 70 Street South (CSAH 22) is an unsignalized intersection with two -way stop control on Idsen Avenue and thm no -stop condition on CSAH 22. The traffic volume on 70 Street South (CSAH 22) is approximately 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 intersection currently meets or will meet in the future any warrants 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 from 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. The average gap length was 4 -5 seconds in the 2 -hour PM peak time period. HA COTfIN15105177 \7_Preliminary_Design\A_ preliminary design \ReportTedeslriau Crossing Memo 030613.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity employer. INTERSECTION CONTROL Total Gaps - 2 Hour Period 625 125 a m `v 25 a E 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 per second and the default pedestrian start-up and end clearance time is 3 seconds. The walking speed is consistent with the MnM11TCD 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 crossing distance from the NE comer of the intersection to the SE corner of the intersection is 56 feet. Applying the average walking 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 pedestrian 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 serve pedestrians during the PM peak period. Over a 2 -hour period, the data indicates that there is an adequate gap every 7 minutes to cross 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 start -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 likelihood of pedestrian risk - taking to cross. HA C0111N15105177\ 3 _Prelinwrary— Desigu\A_preliminary designWeportWedestrian Crossing Memo 030613.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Munk is an equal opportunity employer. 2 -3 4 -5 6 -7 8 -9 10 -11 12 -13 14 -15 16 -17 18 -19 20-2122-23 24 -25 26 -27 28 -29 >29 V -0 , +nay.. SIGHT DISTANCE ANALYSIS 70t 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. This 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 intersection 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 for a vehicle is 465' based on AASHTO assumptions for reaction and braking distance. • The crossing distance from the NE corner of the intersection to the SE corner of the intersection is 56 feet. At 3.5 feet per second (walking speed as defined in the MnMUTCD), the time to walk 56 feetis 16 seconds. For vehicles traveling at 50 mph this equates to a pedestrian sight distance need of 1,175' to feel comfortable crossing (16 sec *50mph *1.47fps /mph). The top of the hill is approximately at station 20 +50, 1,200' east of the crossing location. With the distances for clear sight lines and the top of the hill within 2 %, there may be some sight line issues due to the hill, but a survey would be needed to determine with certainty. • A review of the sight lines from the crossing location indicates that the view is unobstructed by trees or signs. C�I�PF3D /INUGRP 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 unmarked. A marked crosswalk would not alter any of the rules of right -of -way from 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 motorists that will stop or yield to pedestrians. This results in a situation where the marked crosswalk may 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 crosswalks (Safety Effects of Marked Vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Executive Summary and Recommended Guidelines). This study was a comprehensive effort that looked at 1,000 crosswalks that were marked versus 1,000 crosswalks that were unmarked to identify where crosswalks should be marked based on the effect of roadway types, traffic volumes, and traffic speeds to safety. For 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. Marked pedestrian crosswalks may be used to delineate preferred pedestrian paths at locations with all -way stop signs or signals, at non - signalized street crossing locations in designated school zones, where engineering judgment dictates the need based on traffic volume, pedestrian exposure, speed limit, and roadway geometry. H: \COTr\NI 5l0517713_Pmliminary_Design\A preliminary design \Report\Pedestrian Crossing Memo 030613.doe DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity employer. p J ON SM F 2 9 � � 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 (2 lanes in each direction) where a vehicle in one lane stops for a crossing pedestrian, 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 roadways with shoulders or right turn lanes, but to less of an extent. In this case a vehicle stopped in the through lane may either be turning left or stopping for a pedestrian. A vehicle following behind may use the shoulder or right turn lane to unlawfully/ illegally bypass the stopped vehicle, potentially causing a pedestrian crash as the pedestrian thinks that traffic has stopped for them, but only the through lane has stopped and a vehicle is illegally bypassing the stopped vehicle on the right. OPTIONS ANALYSIS We have prepared options for consideration by the City of Cottage Grove and Washington County. Some of these options may be combined, while others may be implemented and /or reviewed after implementation of other options. The options require acceptance by both the City and the County and are intended to be a starting point for further discussion between the agencies. The city would need to construct a sidewalk along Idsen Avenue to the south before any at -grade crossing treatments 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 Administration (FHWA). For the purposes of this study, support by this document will henceforward be referred to as the "FHWA Ped Guide ". Short Term Options: Advanced Warning "Pedestrian Crossing" Signs —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 MnMUTCD states that the typical placement of warning signs should be at least: o 250' from the crossing at 50 mph The MnMUTCD states that the distances within the MnMUTCD are for guidance purposes 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 grade of the hill on the east leg, the typical placement may be adjusted to account for the longer stopping sight distance, if acceptable to the roadway jurisdictional authority. Adjusting for a 5% grade results in the following value for placement on the east leg. o 285' from crossing location at 50 mph The MnMUTCD has guidance that these signs should only be used at locations where the road user's sight distance is restricted or the crossing condition, activity, or entering traffic would be unexpected. The pedestrian crossing at this location has adequate clear sight fines. A pedestrian H: \COTRN15105177 \3_Preliminary Design\A preliminary designkRepon\Pedestrian Crossing Memo 030613.doe DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Mark is an equal opportunity employer. m ON 6 �2 mx ' crossing of the highway at this location may be unexpected since the closest marked pedestrian crossings are 0.9 miles east and 0.4 miles west (all -way stop intersections at Jamaica and at Hinton) and there are no houses on the north side of the highway from Jamaica Avenue to Ideal Avenue. These signs have been proven to be ineffective at reducing crashes at uncontrolled intersections with marked crosswalks based on "Minnesota's Best Practices for Traffic Sign Maintenance/Management Handbook ". The same handbook found no evidence for special warning signs such as "Children at Play" to reduce travel speed or improve safety. The effectiveness of advance warning signs on pedestrian safety at unmarked crosswalks has not been studied, but based on the above information they likely would not increase the safety of the crossing. o No substantial improvement over existing conditions This option is shown on Figure 2 and would cost approximately $500 to $600. Pavement Striping - Striping the right turn gore areas allows for the appearance of a shorter 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 right -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 purpose 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 pedestrian crossing distance, thus increasing usable gaps and reducing delay o Provides higher pedestrian visibility from the right turn lane o May deter illegal right -side passing This option is shown on Figure 3 and would cost approximately $200. Mid -Term Options: • Turn Lane Improvements - Channelized right turn lanes reduce pedestrian crossing distance and separate right turning traffic from 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 drivers to see left approaching pedestrians easier. These can be more challenging for visually impaired pedestrians to know where to cross. • Decreases pedestrian crossing distance, thus increasing usable gaps and reducing delay • Provides higher pedestrian visibility from the right turn lane • Decrease in illegal right side passing • Potential maintenance issue during winter months with snow plows H:\ COT 11M510517713_Pmliminary_Design4A preliminary designWeport\Pedestrian Crossing Memo 030613.doe DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton &Menk is on equal opporluniy employer. J O m This option is shown on Figure 4 and would cost approximately $55,000 to $65,000, • Bump-Outs - Corner bump -outs or curb extensions reduce pedestrian crossing distance. While this reduces crossing distance, there are maintenance and vehicle safety concerns 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 configured on the other two corners with the removal of the right turn lanes. The FHWA Fed Guide states that curb extensions improve the safety of pedestrians and motorists, increase visibility and reduce speed of tinning 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 illegal right side passing • Potential maintenance issue during winter months with snow plows • Elimination of right -turn lanes in Figure 5B could cause operation/safety issues This option is shown on Figure 5 and would cost approximately $4,100 to $4,900. The four- corner bump -oat option is shown in Figure 5B and would cost approximately $8,200 to $9,800. • Center Median - A center median allows pedestrians to cross in two stages with a center refuge. They allow' pedestrians to deal with only one direction of traffic at a time. While this reduces crossing distance, there are 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 reducing conflicts, reducing vehicle speeds approaching the island, calling greater attention to the existence of a pedestrian crossing, and reducing exposure time for pedestrians. Gaps are increased because pedestrians only have to cross one direction of traffic at a time. Looking 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 every 31 seconds eastbound. Applying this change to the Level of Service Calculation indicates that the crossings would have a combined pedestrian 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 cross. o Decreases pedestrian crossing distance, thus increasing usable gaps and reducing delay o Provides higher pedestrian visibility o Increases usable gaps This option is shown on Figure 6 and would cost approximately $440,000 to $530,000. H.X C01T1N1510517713 _Preliminary_Design\A_preliminary design\ReportTedestrian Crossing Memo 030613.doe DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity employer. () ON & 2!Z • "Pedestrian Crossing" Warning Signs - Crossing location "pedestrian crossing" warning signs with geometric improvements to reduce the left turn bypasses using the right turn lane. As stated above with the advanced warning pedestrian crossing signs, these signs have been proven to be ineffective at reducing crashes at uncontrolled intersections with marked crosswalks based on "Minnesota's Best Practices for Traffic Sign Maintenance/Management Handbook". The same handbook found no evidence for special warning signs such as "Children 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 crossing warning signs at the crossing location. Based on the above information, pedestrian crossing warning signs at the crosswalk may provide minimal reductions in speed but may also provide no improvement. The presence of the warning 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 pedestrians failing to yield to motorists. These locations had pedestrian crossing warning signs. While state statute states that vehicles shall stop for pedestrians in crosswalks or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk, it also states that no pedestrian shall suddenly leave the curb and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield. o Potential speed reduction o Potential crash increase This option is shown on Figure 7 and would cost approximately $1,400 to $1,700. Pedestrian Activated Rectangular 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 from 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 tam lane when a vehicle is slowing down in the through lane in the presence of a pedestrian by indicating that they are slowing down for a pedestrian and not just to turn left, which would be similar to a multilane approach situation. o Provides a stronger visual cue when a pedestrian is present 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 This option is shown on Figure & and would cost approximately $12,000 to $15,000. • Relocate the Pedestrian Crossing - Move the pedestrian crossing to the west to station 2 +70. This would require the acquisition of a portion of one property. Initial review of the adjacent HACOYAN 15105177t3_Preliminary_DesignW_ preliminary designWepoa\Pedestrim Crossing Memo 030613.dm DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportuniy employer. J 94`;✓�rfi s properties seems to indicate that there may be an opportunity to extend a trail from the south to CH 22 west of the intersection (approx. station 5 +80). The trail would then be brought west along CH 22 until the crossing is separated from 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 through lane since the crossing is not at an intersection. The potential negative effect of moving the crossing is the increase in walking distance and the decision 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 Increases pedestrian visibility o Potential of the crossing not being used This option is shown on Figure 9 and would cost approximately $110,000 to $130,000. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon - Install a pedestrian hybrid beacon system, also known as HAWK, with pedestrian crossing warning signs and geometric improvements to reduce the left turn bypasses using the right turn. This would require the acquisition of a portion of one property. While pedestrian hybrid beacons have been installed in locations throughout the country, they are • new type of traffic signal that has been shown to have sometimes spotty compliance rates due to • lack of driver understanding. These should not be installed adjacent to intersections and are more appropriate at mid -block crossing locations, such as at station 2 +70. The FHWA publication "Safety Effectiveness of the HAWK Pedestrian Crossing 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 hybrid beacon system is shown on Figure 10 and would cost approximately $200,000 to $240,000. • Grade Separation - Both grade separation options would move the majority 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 HA COTAN151a5177� ,'_PreGminary_DesigAA preliminary desigOReportWedestrian Crossing Memo 03e613.doe DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity employer. O FON 6 y6 y o Analysis of the elevation of the roadway and adjacent properties indicates that an underpass could be reasonably located to the east of the intersection. The underpass location will be dependent on the property that can be acquired. Extend a trail north from Imperial Avenue South. This would likely require the acquisition of one property. Trail entrance 5' 8" below existing ground at station 11 +50 or 4'8" below existing ground at station 12 +00. The trail extension north from Imperial Avenue could occur at a grade less than 2% to meet the elevation needs. This option is shown on Figure 11 and would cost $830,000 to $1,000,000. An overpass could 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 from the south to CH 22 west of the intersection. The overpass could be located directly from the new trail extension at station 5 +70 or adjacent to the west side of Idsen at station 7 +60. This option is shown on Figure 12 and would cost $1,200,000 to $1,800,000. Long -Term Options: • Center Median - With a wider roadway due to more lanes, a center median could be installed to reduce pedestrian crossing distance. A center median along a four -lane highway also provides numerous other advantages including a glace 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 F'HWA 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 greater attention to the existence of a pedestrian crossing, and reducing exposure time for pedestrians. Gaps are increased because pedestrians 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 with this option would be dependent on future roadway needs and would most likely include cost sharing between Cottage Grove and Washington County. 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 future roadway widening improvements. Both grade separation options would move the majority 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 NCBRP Report 562 "Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings ". o Potential of the crossing not being used HACOTI11N 15105177k3_ Prelintinary _DesignkA_preliminary design\ReportTedestrian Crossing Memo 030613,doe DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Balton & Monk is an equal opportunity employer. ��N 6 J m x o Removes pedestrian /vehicle conflicts The additional costs are approximately $830,000 to $1,000,000for an underpass and $1,300,000 to $1,900,000 for a bridge. Overhead Warning Signs - Install overhead pedestrian actuated RRFBs with pedestrian crossing warning signs. 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. These may also reduce the bypasses using the right turn lane when a vehicle is slowing down in the through lane in the presence of a pedestrian by indicating that they are slowing down for a pedestrian and not just to turn left, which would be similar to a multilane approach situation. The overhead mounting 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 Increases usable gaps o Reduces the probability for pedestrian risk taking, especially when combined with a staged crossing Casts associated with this improvement are approximately $60,000 to $75,000. All costs and concept designs are approximate and further work is needed to finalize design, locations, and costs. FUNDING SOURCES AND OPTIONS Based upon our understanding, any of the short -term and mid -term options would be funded by the City, while the long -term options would most likely include a cooperative approach to funding. Other options that could be further explored include: 1. Washington County Safety Improvement funding 2. MnDOT HSIP funding 3. MnDOT Transportation Enhancement funding H: \CO'11 1415105177\33_ rcUiinary_Design\A_pmliminary design \RepoutTedeslrian Crossing Memo 030613.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity employer. 1 �- 1� ?n fit o .QNWN L:• + .P N Z W 1 0 N � Jt^ ��. Y ryr.. W U Wo � Z O o w a N Ih { I 4 � 0 rAW Y M YL iN : F , S • fir: 9. RNJ M A l FaY:li 1. `� • Ic C ll V16� i' - I , I IP — Y I F { 1 41 1 �I I I. 'ate . 40 ' ? L '7 < > , 'PEDESTRIAN CROSSING" ADVANCED WARNING SIGN INSTALL WITH OPTIONS: LEGEND - CHANNELIZED RIGHT TURN LANES - CORNER BUMP -OUTS WARNING SIGN © LOCATION - CENTER MEDIAN IT I 250 _.._..... t < I , • 1 i k , 0 50 100 1_�� �t f ..�. Y: - `• ''� #� +� 's,{ ". -�. 'Iti a �•: i). '' � 1 SCALE i!, P 4 :S 1. _t�,T 2: ADVANCED WARNING "PEDESTRIAN CROSSING" SIGN (SHORT TERM) "�� FIGURE COTTAGE GROVE IDSEN AVENUE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PROJECT o � 7 F ml Vtp 0 Ln U) > _-j I t m 0 m c M w z 0 T X m 3 m c m X M > < rn z ;4 z M C: � m - u m 9: m I in C) --I LA -4 V) m z K C) — m (A 0 m c M w r PF C) m 0 T X m 3 m c m X M I000ee° oas- �oror. "n�. 3is.zon 3ss,m "n m\ cornmsosrzz \mov,g„�sa\ IOSn>.•ra��a s,an° fi" e v w ` 7 • `` { { P titil � I G � 8j° ... 5 Tdy "R iy�+ ��� � � t _j � • ' A i � ti `s -k'f '� • v�� `� _ 5 1 0 IF j z p i .r� a �� F ' s r. ry ,� -�� 4.r• ^ � • �, „f +et Y 1 t rrnl i '! . r a►.' '. T it �o °.' � 1 a � -... I♦ it , 00 o' O �m 0 O c m �5 Ail h A ♦ `s i I F" MS N � 1 � k0. Y j$ :t r A M; Ar 5 cr, � 1 �J fly 4'l:';XLF "PEDESTRIAN CROSSING" WARNING SIGN INSTALL WITH OPTIONS: I FGFNn • CHANNELIZED RIGHT TURN LANES WARNING SIGN - CORNER BUMP -OUTS O LOCATION • CENTER MEDIAN RICO P100 I 1. �I f r vl ' I o ss so t ® j i SCALE EEE1 FIGURE 71 PEDESTRIAN CROSSING WARNING SIGNS (MID -TERM) �� .' COTTAGE GROVE IDSEN AVENUE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PROJECT n l�J "PEDESTRIAN CROSSING" WARNING SIGN WITH RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASH BEACONS (RRFB) INSTALL WITH OPTIONS: LEGEND • CHANNELIZED RIGHT TURN LANES WARNING SIGN • CORNER RUMP.OUTS LOCATION • CENTER MEDIAN Alf, �. j u'dh 22 (7 St) lr ; R ' 0 25 so SCUE FEET ® 1 FIGURE 8: RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASH BEACONS OPTION (MID -TERM) \i COTTAGE GROVE IDSEN AVENUE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PROJECT 0 I 0 0 � IA 0 o o In y m v A b MM o a r �- i n.' > 4 O H �� m c� c m O M I !! d fV rri ;K r k' v — s m vl - . m z , r (1) L7 0 Z jzL IL Ip I wl/ ,7 � fl i LEGEND PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON n' T 1. II� �• i� V'vY< I M IR 6. i LEGEND PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON n' T 1. II� �• i� V'vY< I M IR t FIGURE 10: HYBRID ACTIVATED CROSSWALK OPTION (MID -TERM) COTTAGE GROVE IDSEN AVENUE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PROJECT "PEDESTRIAN CROSSING" WARNING SIGN WITH PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON - 1 i 1. t FIGURE 10: HYBRID ACTIVATED CROSSWALK OPTION (MID -TERM) COTTAGE GROVE IDSEN AVENUE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PROJECT "PEDESTRIAN CROSSING" WARNING SIGN WITH PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON LEGEND — — FUTURE CONSTRUCTION — — DESIGN CONCEPT 1 DESIGN CONCEPT 2 - MID -TERM CROSSING OPTION u SSS 1� ;..POTENTIAL row I. ._- ...... "UNDERPASS POTENTIAL ` (STA.12 +001 UNDERPASS (STA. 11 +50) {y J Fj i ,y 1 I r i If lI v V,17� 10 50. 100 I I ♦ d �• Fir 11, ryf, SCALE FEET n I FIGURE 11: GRADE SEPARATION OPTION — UNDERPASS (MID —TERM) u1 I COTTAGE GROVE IDSEN AVENUE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PROJECT PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS ! L' i 0WQ o =N . L O ,_• t � n I� } �" 2 N 1_i_..:; r- z 1 N W z IL F 0 O � K L) - lot Y u z O_ }` 01 i .,A�• -.. Q n O ... 41 G ; 6 F 3 t H � u v F 6 W r. 0 O r ° . ; r�A z a F 6 (D O O7 i N N a a4i !, CL 0 i U W .�.. W M 1_ W 7 4 zz r o I ! L' i 0WQ o =N . L O ,_• t � n I� N. W NO f � W a i w 4 LL y } �" 2 N 1_i_..:; r- z 1 N W z IL F 0 O W K L) U u z O_ }` z i .,A�• -.. Q n O ... 41 G C 3 V t � u v F 6 W 1 0 O ° a a 6 (D N N a 0 CL 0 U W o zz I H Z 1 th W I-- � i o a z w O. Z � � � a a a z w w N Ln W 8 r Q W o O N. W NO f � W a i w 4 LL y } �" •+ N 1_i_..:; r- z k: a:.: W z W z IL F O O W U L) U z z O_ }` S i .,A�• -.. V1 n O ... 41 G C 3 V t I