Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbouttecp_121703TR.,rFIC ENGINEERING COMMIT . ~E UKIAH CIVIC CENTER Conference Room No. 4 (behind City Council Chambers) 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah. California 95482 WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2003 3:00 P.M. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: Cotroneo, Harris, Lohse, Martin, Pilant, Seanor, Walker, and Chairman Kageyama II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 16, 2003 III. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The Traffic Engineering Committee welcomes input from the audience. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than 10 minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on non-agenda items. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS: IV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS a. Discussion and possible action regarding crosswalks. VI. COMMITTEE MEMBER REPORTS VIII. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS a. Update on Segway demonstration. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Please call Katrina Ballard at 463-6203 if you are unable to attend the mee The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. Minutes TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMITTEE September 16, 2003 Members Present Ben Kageyama, Chairman Dave Lohse Jim Looney Dan Walker Mike Harris Rick Seanor Doug Pilant Others Present Jane Kardas Betty Green Michelle Leoni Staff Present Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary Members Absent Kevin Cotroneo The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kageyama at 3:00 p.m. in Conference Room No. 3, Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: -June 17, 2003 and July 15, 2003 ON A MOTION by Member Mike Harris, seconded by Member Doug Pilant, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the Members present to approve the June 17, 2003 notes, as submitted. Member Jim Looney recommended the following change to the July 15, 2003 minutes: Page 5, Paragraph 7, reads, "Member Looney stated the course of planning implementation for appropriate traffic calming features/structures requires going through the grant funding process, stating such a project is also time consuming in terms of conducting studies and design development," be amended to read, "Member Looney stated the course of planning implementation for appropriate traffic calming features/structures is time consuming in terms of conducting studies and design development." ON A MOTION by Member Mike Harris, seconded by Member Looney, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the Members present to approve the July 15, 2003 minutes, as amended. ABSTAIN: Doug Pilant IIf. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS No one from the audience came forward. Traffic Engineering Committee September 16, 2003 Page 1 DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS: IV. OLD BUSINESS a. Discussion and possible action regarding request for ordinance banning Segway from sidewalks. Member Rick Seanor reported at the April 15, 2003 Traffic Engineering Committee (TEC) meeting there was extended discussion concerning issues related to Segway, whereby additional research was requested for consideration by the Committee at a later date. He drew attention to a series of reference materials in the staff report that include the TEC minutes from the April 15, 2003 meeting, an article from the Ukiah Daily Journal dated April 17, 2003, an a-mail with a copy of an article addressing the issue from the Los Angeles Times dated July 6, 2003, and a copy of Resolution 2002-03 of the Mayor's Disability Council from the City and County of San Francisco, banning the use of Segway on San Francisco sidewalks. Additional reference materials provided were articles from the Internet representing the pros and cons on Segway use. Staff noted that Segway purchase and use is more prevalent in large metropolitan cities than in smaller communities. Staff recommended the Committee further discuss the Segway issue and determine whether to recommend the City Council adopt an Ordinance Banning Segway from City Sidewalks. Mr. Seanor discussed the potential use of Segway on City sidewalks with City Engineer Diana Steele, and commented it may be sometime before a Segway is seen in Ukiah, and if so, they would more than likely be limited in number. It may be beneficial to provide a demonstration on the operation of a Segway. He inquired whether the Committee would be amenable to deferring a decision on the matter until it becomes an issue. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 3:05 p.m. Jane Kardas, 810 Maple Avenue, Ukiah, Chair of the Advocacy Committee for the California Council for the Blind, reported she provided testimony at the April 15 meeting supporting a ban on Segway in this community, noting the use is potentially hazardous to pedestrians walking on public sidewalks. Sidewalks would not be the appropriate place for Segway use, especially when sidewalks are shared by the visually impaired and by persons having other types of disabilities, since Segway speeds can reach approximately 12 m.p.h. Betty Green, 1240 N. Pine Street, Ukiah, thanked the Committee for their concerted efforts in researching and evaluating Segway use on public sidewalks, even though the matter may be premature. Traffic Engineering Committee September 16, 2003 Page 2 Member Mike Harris reiterated that his position on Segway use remains the same as stated at the April 15 2003 meeting, whereupon he favors the concept of evaluating and acting on the matter before it becomes an issue. In his opinion, public sidewalks are not the appropriate place for Segway use, especially when the City's sidewalks may not wide enough to appropriately accommodate pedestrians. Member Dan Walker commented City sidewalks would not be an appropriate place for Segway use in terms of the speed capacities and the potential for safety hazards. He briefly commented on the speed capability of a Segway in conjunction with the potential problems that could occur with use on sidewalks. Chairman Kageyama referred to an Internet website that provided an excerpt from the Segway use point of view relative to public safety concerns. In short, the article demonstrated that Segway use is safer and helps reduce the impacts caused from the operation of a vehicle, especially in residential areas. The article noted that the Segway user must exercise good judgment and act responsibly. The article advised that while the Segway does not have a brake system, it does feature a system that allows a person to stop the Segway in a safe and controlled manner. Jane Kardas commented on the aforementioned article, and stated such factors as weight and stopping distance would affect the actual ability for a Segway to stop safely and abruptly. Member Dan Walker did not support the State legislature's ruling on the use of Segway that essentially leaves local jurisdictions with the responsibility of having to decide whether such a mode of transportation should be allowed on its public sidewalks. He advised that bicycles are required to have a brake system, which will "lock-up" the wheel and produce a skid of the tire. The California Vehicle Code governs the use of vehicles, but there is no law governing the use of Segway on city sidewalks. It was noted that bicycles are prohibited on sidewalks. State law allows local jurisdictions to adopt an ordinance to enforce the law; however, law enforcement officials do not typically cite people, especially younger children, for riding on the sidewalk unless a person is observed as operating the bicycle recklessly. Member Dave Lohse supported the concept of allowing Segway use in bicycle lanes. One favorable aspect for allowing Segway use is that it provides an alternative means of transportation other than the operation of a vehicle. He commented that the condition and size of some sidewalks in the community may not be able to adequately support Segway use or pedestrians. Member Dan Walker stated it would be illegal to allow Segway users to share the bicycle lane, as the State ruling provides that Segway use is subject to Traffic Engineering Committee September 16, 2003 Page 3 pedestrian regulations, and pedestrians are not permitted to walk in bicycle lanes. Member Dave Lohse replied that the solution would essentially be an "outright ban" on Segway use. Member Dan Walker stated the primary issue regarding Segway use on sidewalks is that enforcement of the associated rules and regulations governing pedestrians lies with the local police departments. Chairman Kageyama inquired whether a Segway user could be cited for reckless operation. Member Dan Walker replied negatively, noting a Segway is not considered a vehicle that is subject to the rules of the California Vehicle Code, so a police officer could not cite a person for reckless driving because such users are viewed as pedestrians according to State law. Conversely, pedestrians are legally not supposed to walk in the bike lane. There is no code that regulates "reckless walking." From a law enforcement perspective, reckless operation of a Segway, where a pedestrian is injured, would be construed as a civil matter and not as a crime. A brief discussion followed regarding the issue of whether negligent/reckless operation of a Segway would be viewed and/or determined by local law enforcement as misconduct and endangering to pedestrians, noting such conduct would be difficult to enforce or prosecute. It was noted the State legislature decision concerning Segway use has made it difficult for local jurisdictions to make a determination whether to outright ban, limit, or allow the use. Sidewalks differ in size according to their age and condition. Michele Leoni, 1250 Boonville Road, Ukiah, commented the State should have taken better assessments of community sidewalks in terms size and condition prior to ruling Segway use as pedestrian-oriented. Member Dave Lohse commented Segway is a visible, stand-up operation and, in his opinion, should share use with bicycles in the bike lanes. The public safety issue is of primary concern at this point. He would be inclined to favor allowing the use in cases where someone had a special need. Member Jim Looney commented lobbyists representing influential corporations were more than likely responsible for getting the State to pass the bill allowing Segway use on sidewalks. The Ukiah City Council would be responsible for making the final determination whether the use would be allowed or banned in this community. Traffic Engineering Committee September 16, 2003 Page 4 A brief discussion followed regarding the potential problem associated with deferring the matter, and allowing time for a retail establishment to open a store for Segway sales. The better approach may be to focus on the matter and make a recommendation to the City Council before it becomes an issue. On the other hand, it may be too premature to formulate an ordinance before the matter even exists. It may be an acceptable time to recommend a ban on Segway use, allowing for a clause that would permit the matter to be revisited when more information or evidence is available as to whether Segway use is known to be problematic. There was a general discussion concerning skateboards and electric and/or battery-powered vehicle use, the related problems, and measures taken to restrict/control the uses. Chairman Kageyama stated he did not see the potential Segway use as being a problem for this community, noting it may be premature to make a decision. The Internet articles demonstrated that the use has not been a problem for other jurisdictions. Member Jim Looney recommended banning Segway use on sidewalks with the exception of obtaining a special permit or ADA plaque. Member Dan Walker viewed the matter as being potentially problematic in terms of law enforcement compliance. Member Mike Harris stated the information available on Segway use may not be applicable to Ukiah, as sidewalks dimensions and conditions vary in communities. The articles favoring the use do not specifically state that Segway users were actually operating on sidewalks. He did not feel allowing Segway users to operate on City sidewalks was appropriate in terms of safety and potential endangerment and/or injuries to pedestrians, including the Segway user. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 3:24 p.m. ON A MOTION by Member Harris, seconded by Member Walker, it was carried by the following roll call vote of the members present to recommend to the Ukiah City Council that the Segway should be banned from use on City sidewalks. Staff will request direction from the City Council as to whether an ordinance banning the use of Segways on sidewalks should be prepared and returned to Council for introduction and adoption. AYES: Members Harris, Lohse, Looney, Seanor, and Walker NOES: Member Pilant and Chairman Kageyama Traffic Engineering Committee September 16, 2003 Page 5 It was noted that the above-referenced recommendation would be presented to the City Council on November 5, 2003. b. Discussion and possible action regarding changes to curbside parking at 605 North State Street -Michelle Leoni, Mountanos Properties. Member Rick Seanor reported at the June 17, 2003 meeting, staff presented a request from Michelle Leoni, Mountanos Properties, 605 North State Street to consider restricting parking along the property frontage. Ms. Leoni recommended that a section of red curb be extended south from the business driveway approximately eight feet. Additionally, she requested the remaining curbside parking accommodations along the North State Street frontage of Mountanos Properties be designated 24 minute parking by green curb painting and signage. She cited problems associated with large trucks often parking along this curb frontage, creating a site visibility problem for drivers leaving the Mountanos Properties parking lot. Public Works Superintendent Jim Looney informed the TEC that he would paint the standard length red curb at the transitions from the sidewalk to the driveway servicing Mountanos Properties. TEC directed staff to contact Larry DeKnoblough relevant to enforcement of time-limited parking at the subject location. Mr. DeKnoblough indicated that enforcement at this location would be unlikely. According to Parking Enforcement Officer Dot Gialdini, the subject location is outside the boundary of the parking district jurisdiction and that regular enforcement would be unlikely because of the requirements for enforcing parking restrictions within the parking district. Member Rick Seanor suggested the TEC review and consider the aforementioned issues, stating staff recommends against establishing a 24- minute parking zone at this location, since parking enforcement would not occur on a regular basis. The existing posted signs allow for parking between the hours of 8 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. for a maximum of two-hours. A vehicle is allowed to park in this zone with no restrictions between the hours of 5:00 p.m, to 8:00 a.m. Michelle Leoni stated the parking problems did not exist when Mountanos Properties originally purchased the property. She stated parking problems pertain mainly to large trucks frequently parking at the posted two-hour parking zone, creating a visibility problem for persons exiting the parking lot. She stated there are times when the trucks park for longer than the posted parking two-hour limit, noting it was her understanding that the area is located outside the boundary of the parking district and parking enforcement would not occur on a regular basis. She noted the implementation of a 24-minute parking zone may be beneficial by acting as a deterrent as opposed to trying to enforce the currenttwo-hour parking restriction in the 8 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. parking zone. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 3:44 p.m. Traffic Engineering Committee September 16, 2003 Page 6 Member Dave Lohse inquired regarding the reason for trucks being parked regularly in this area. Ms. Leoni responded there could be a variety of reasons for the length of time the large trucks are parking in the area. It was noted that two businesses share the street frontage for parking at the subject location. Ms. Leoni advised that the adjacent business does not have a parking lot, so customers and delivery trucks utilize the State Street frontage for parking. Member Jim Looney stated it was possible to allow for two spaces, one of which would be for limited parking. Trucks would be unable to park in these spaces. It was noted another approach would be to extend the red curb to the south and still have room for two parking spaces. Member Jim Looney acknowledged the above-referenced proposal and stated it was possible to extend the red curb from the Mountanos driveway entrance to the south, allowing for two, 24-foot parking spaces for regular size vehicles. He stated one of the parking spaces could be painted green indicating a 24-minute parking zone, which would prevent trucks from parking in these spaces. Ms. Leoni inquired whether there was a height limitation restriction for vehicles parking on City streets. Member Dan Walker stated an Ordinance was adopted by the City Council that addresses height restrictions for vehicles. He indicated that enforcement of the height limitation may resolve the problem of trucks parking in the area. A discussion followed regarding whether a sign could be posted in this regard. There was also discussion concerning the problems associated with enforcement of the 24-minute parking zone for this area. Ms. Leoni did not favor the concept of having to contact law enforcement for parking violators. Chairman Kageyama inquired whether the trucks would be less of a problem if the red curb were extended on the south side of the driveway. Ms. Leoni replied extending the red curb may make a difference, noting, however, the subject area presents a problem due to large trucks parking along their frontage. An extended red curb would provide better sight distance for drivers departing the Mountanos parking lot. She supported the concept of Traffic Engineering Committee September 16, 2003 Page 7 providing for an extended red zone. A 24-minute parking zone would be beneficial. She did not favor requesting City law enforcement to specifically monitor this area for parking violations. Chairman Kageyama inquired whether the public may be unaware of the two hour time limit restrictions along the State Street frontage in the subject area. A brief discussion followed regarding whether the parking signs were posted in appropriate areas, allowing them to be evident to the public. It was noted that passing motorists may not be paying close attention to the posted signs concerning parking restrictions. Member Jim Looney stated the height ordinance is relatively new so the public may be unaware of the regulation. On the other hand, when a person sees a painted green curb, it becomes obvious that there is a parking time limit. Member Dan Walker supported the concept of extending the red curb to the south and providing for two parking spaces, one of which would allow for 24- minute parking. He stated the matter could be revisited if it were not workable. Ms. Leoni was amenable to the above-referenced proposal. Member Jim Looney proposed painting the red curb from the driveway entrance south to a distance that would allow for two parking spaces, making the northern- most space at the Mountanos business a green curb. The remaining parking space would be left open. He stated it would be difficult for a truck to fit into a 24- foot space. Member Mike Harris inquired whether a truck is allowed to go across two marked parking spaces. Member Jim Looney replied it was his understanding that a truck could not cross over another parking space, especially if the space were a 24-minute parking zone. Member Mike Harris inquired whether a truck is allowed to go across two 24- foot regular parking spaces. It was noted that a truck is legally allowed to occupy two regularly marked parking spaces. Additionally, a truck is legally allowed to occupy one regularly marked parking space and one parking space painted green at the curb, provided the truck is parked no longer than 24-minutes. There will be no on street parking space markers (T's) implemented for this matter. It was noted the above-referenced proposal can later be reviewed should it not be a workable solution. Traffic Engineering Committee September 16, 2003 Page 6 Member Jim Looney stated the height problem would be difficult to address and/or resolve. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 4:13 p.m. ON A MOTION by Member Jim Looney, seconded by Member Lohse, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the members present to recommend to the Ukiah City Council to extend the red curb from the driveway 18 feet south, to provide two 24-foot parking spaces with the northern space being marked green indicating a 24-minute parking zone with the remaining space left unmarked along the frontage of 605 South State Street, as outlined in the staff report, and as discussed above. V. NEW BUSINESS a. Discussion and possible action regarding request from MTA to establish new bus stops on Gobbi Street at South Oak Street. Member Doug Pilant reported in June 2003, MTA proposed to the TEC requesting approval to locate bus stops at the intersection of Gobbi Street and Oak Street. One of the bus stops was proposed to be located to the west of the Gobbi Street and Oak Street intersection. The property owner on the corner of this intersection was contacted and it became very clear that the proposed bus stop at this location was not a viable solution. MTA discussed a{ternative solutions by proposing two bus stops located to the east of the Gobbi Street and Oak Street intersection. There are currently no designated bus stops on Gobbi Street between State and Dora Streets. MTA Transit Vehicle Operators have indicated that there is a large demand for passengers to board and deboard transit vehicles along Gobbi Street. It has been determined that most of the passengers either live in the area or desire to shop at Rite Aid or other local businesses. He referred to Attachment A in the staff report that maps MTA's proposal for the establishment of two bus stops at the intersection of Oak and Gobbi Streets. Stop No. 1 would be 50 feet west of the Rite Aide parking lot entrance and Stop No. 2 would be 50 feet east of the Gobbi and Oak Street intersection. The proposed locations will utilize curbs that are already designated as "no parking zones." The proposed locations will also ensure that residents living in the area and the other bus riders would have a safe and convenient access to the MTA transit vehicles. Member Doug Pilant indicated the smaller transit buses would be utilizing the stops that would be in compliance with the 50-foot recommendation by the TEC, noting the smaller buses only need 40 feet. The MTA drivers prefer to have at least 50 feet to easily be able to pull back into traffic. Traffic Engineering Committee September 16, 2003 Page 9 It was noted the rear end of the bus would be a few feet past the driveway for Stop No. 1. One benefit to this location is the stop is located on the far side of the driveway, which is considered a safety factor. A brief discussion followed regarding Stop No. 2, addressing whether there were potential problems in terms of safety and other associated factors with the proposed location. Member Jim Looney inquired whether it would be more appropriate if the bus stops were located farther away from the Gobbi and Oak Streets intersection or the driveway entrance to Rite Aid. Member Doug Pilant replied changing the location would not be necessary, as the proposed locations are designated as "no parking zones." Member Mike Harris inquired whether there was sufficient room for passing vehicles to go around a bus after it has stopped to pick up passengers at the two locations. It was noted there would be sufficient room for passing vehicles to go around the buses at the two locations. ON A MOTION by Member Mike Harris, seconded by Member Rick Seanor, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the members present to authorize the establishment of two new bus stops on the north and south sides of Gobbi Street between Oak and State Streets as specifically depicted on Attachment A of the staff report, and as approved through infield observation by the City Public Works Superintendent. VI. COMMITTEE MEMBER REPORTS There was no discussion concerning this agenda item. VII. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS a. Review of automated speed limit display signs b. Review of flexible crosswalk signs Member Rick Seanor presented brochures of the aforementioned signs to the Committee. A brief discussion followed regarding the benefits, as well as the cost of implementing the various types of signs. He encouraged the Committee to review the information and welcomed comments and/or questions from the members. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:39 p.m. Traffic Engineering Committee September 16, 2003 Page 10 Ben K yam hairman Traffic Engineering Committee Page 11 .L r ~ --, Cathy lawadly, cording Secretary September 16, 2003 CITY OF UKIAH MEMORANDUM DATE: December 4, 2003 TO: Traffic Engineering Committee (TEC) FROM: Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works ~tJ~ SUBJECT: Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Crosswalks Agenda Item 5a. REQUEST: Staff received a request from Public Works Superintendent Jim Looney regarding suggestions for enhancing the visibility of crosswalks. Members of the public have also previously requested crosswalk improvements. In particular, Jim is suggesting that diagonally hatched striping be installed in all crosswalks on State Street north of Low Gap Road and south of Gobbi Street. Also, Jim identified three locations where crosswalks are recommended for removal. These locations are at "T" intersections. Currently there are two crosswalks across State Street at each of the three locations. Jim has suggested removing the north crosswalk at each location. Please note Attachment "A", for a copy of the information related to this request. Additionally, Jim suggested installing reflective pavement markers parallel to and in advance of each crosswalk line. At locations where there are school crosswalks, it is proposed that yellow reflective pavement markers be installed. At locations of standard crosswalks, clear reflective pavement markers would be installed. Please note Attachment "B", for a copy of the information related to this request. Diana Steele, Director of Public Works/City Engineer, has requested recommendations from the TEC on the installation of flexible crosswalk signs. At the September 16, 2003 TEC meeting, literature was presented for the TEC's review. Attachment "C" is a copy of selected pages regarding the flexible crosswalk signs. Lastly, TEC Chairman Ben Kageyama provided a copy of a study on "Advance Yield Markings" for crosswalks. Due to the length of the report Staff has provided only copies of selected pages, Attachment "D". DISCUSSION: For the TEC's reference, I have attached a copy, Attachment "E", of the adopted Guidelines, Installation, and Signage of Diagonally Hatched Crosswalks. These Guidelines were approved at the March 19, 2002 TEC meeting. The locations identified for diagonally hatched crosswalks fit the approved guidelines. With the exception of the section of State Street between Norton Street and Gobbi Street which is posted for 25 mph, the remainder of State Street has a speed zone posted for a minimum of 30 mph. Page 2 Discussion and Possible Aclion Regarding Crosswalks December 4, 2003 Staff supports the request to remove duplicate crosswalks as identified by Jim Looney. This would provide a single, focused crossing location for pedestrians. The proposal to install reflective pavement markers parallel to and in advance of each crosswalk line would appear to provide better visibility of the crosswalks at night time and other times of low visibility. However, staff suggests that the reflective pavement markers not be installed in the areas where bicycles typically travel on the street. The pavement markers could potentially present a hazard to bicyclists. The flexible crosswalk signs may be a way to attract additional attention to crosswalk locations. According to the literature, the width of the sign is 12-inches. The centerline of State Street is a Caltrans Detail 22, a combination of traffic striping and reflective pavement markers. The total width of the centerline striping is 11-inches and the outside dimension of the pavement markers is 23-inches. Please refer to Attachment "F". There appears to be adequate room to post a flexible crosswalk sign on the centerline stripe. However, motorists initially may initially shy away from the flexible crosswalk sign out of fear of hitting the sign. The Advance Yield Markings might be a solution for the TEC to consider. However, staff anticipates that there will be a long learning curve for drivers since this is a new type of street marking and drivers are educated to stop at the crosswalk line or stop bar. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is submitting this report for review and discussion by the Traffic Engineering Committee (TEC). The following are suggested actions that the TEC may want to consider 1. Provide recommendation to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer on the locations for installation of diagonally hatched crosswalks on State Street. 2. Provide recommendation to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer on the locations for removal of crosswalks. 3. Provide recommendation to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer on the installation of reflective pavement markers to identify crosswalks. 4. Provide recommendation to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer on the installation of flexible crosswalk signs. 5. Provide recommendation to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer on the installation of "Advance Yield Markings" for crosswalks. enc. cc: file ArTac~mEN r "A " Consider for Hi-visibility Crosswalks -State Street uncontrolled 3-way intersections Location Xwalk Count Proposed Count Comments Magnolia 1 1 no ADA east Evans 2 remove north xwalk 1 curb inlet NW remove no no no no This was my first proposal. After trying to visualize this concept and consider the driving publics perception, they may not understand that we are only adding chevrons on midblock and 3-way intersections. They may question why the 4-way intersections, such as State at Church and Smith, do not have chevrons. After giving this more thought, I believe it would be safer for the pedestrians and more understandable to drivers, to apply chevrons to all crosswalks away from the downtown core, where drivers may be less likely to expect pedestrians. Apply chevrons to all crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections on State Street north of Low Gap Road and south of Gobbi Street. What's your thought? Jim T /•/~~/-~ /•~ /T Page 1 of 1 Diana Steele ~ ~ I ~f~ ~~ ~ f{,~~ r ~ ~„ From: Jim Looney, Public Works Superintendant [jiml@cityofukiah.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 2:46 PM To: Diana Steele Subject: Crosswalks I have a thought in response to the interest that has come up about crosswalks. We could place two-way, reflective clear/white pavement markers on the outer edge of the crosswalk line. We would place two in line with the center double lines, one in the center of lane #1 between the wheel path, one in line with #1 and #2 lane line, one in the center between the wheel path of lane #2, one at the outer edge of lane #2. Make Since? This would be 20 markers per crosswalk. I estimate 720 markers for State St. alone.$$$$ But less costly than any lighting system. We would use yellow at any school croswalks. What do you think? Jim I f -1- -{ I -}- ~ ..~ ._. - ± - - - - ~i.-`~ r ~ ` iGH ~~ ,~ ~~~ .~~" . '29'' i I / b' O/A /r17 Y'IL' 3: ~~~_. {c;Y ,: ;, {,;'',, ~.: rITTi~cNmFN T ~~ ~ „ PACE E 1 By delineating youy° crossz~~alk with Impact RecoveYy Systems Pedestrian Signs, yore can redazce the risk of injury, death and property damage. Impact Recovery Systems manufactures the most cost effective flexible traffic control products on the market today. Our products combine high impact plastics and energy absorbing mechanics, resulting in the industries first truly flexible delineation system. The heart of the system is a unique reactive spring with the strength to support a pedestrian crosswalk sign. This reactive unit gives upon impact and is designed to reorient the panel towards traffic. The Impact Recovery Pedestrian Cross Walk Sign Distributed By: Available with fixed #101 or portable base #103 (as shown) for maximum flexibility in mounting installa- tions. Fully tested crashworthy design improves life of sign and minimizes debris in the event of an accident. Non skid environmentally friendly recycled portable rubber base insures that device stays in proper location. Standard signs are manufactured with high intensity re- flective sheeting. Custom signs available upon request. I m~.,ui Rcn ncn ~~.inn. Ins 3lG AA ~rsq,hincy I'~~ R~~~ 120 tiara An~~~n~~i, I~cci~'h]C 'In "40.1-1 ~',i~ ~ln -i-4 nJ-Ift ~e~a~a.imwdil R~ucc n'rum PCWS-000612-6 Impact Recovery Systems - 1?" ~ 48" Yield to Pedestrian Sign Specific°`~ns < ~ ,, p 2 12" x 48" Yield to Pedestrian Sign Specifications 12"x I S" white High Intesiry Sheeting with red yield logo and blade pedesMan logo. Orange plastic post and panel. Overall hdght of unit is ~8" and Is double sided. Product can be used with dther #101 Portable Base or # 101 Fixed Base #103 PORTABLE BASE (P) #101 FI%ED BASE (F) UR.4WING NOT TO SCALE Page 1 of 1 Yost and panel are constructed of flexible polyethylene plastic that is resistant to ultraviolet light, ozone and hydrocarbons. llouble paneled unit has a reactive spring assembly tested at 200 Ib. tension with stainless steel cable. Recommended for pedestrian crosswalks. PRODUCTS ~ SPECS ~ INSTALLATION ~ COMPANY INFO ~ LINKS ~ QUOTE REQUEST ~ HOME PAGE http://www.impactrecovery.com/specs_yieldtoped.htm 2/13/2003 ArrACHmEN7 "D'" PAGE 1 Advance Yield Markings Reduce Motor Vehicle/Pedestrian Conflicts at Multilane Crosswalks with an Uncontrolled Approach by Ron Van Houten Mount Saint Vincent University J.E. Louis Malenfant Center for Education and Research in Safety Dave McCusker Halifax Regional Municipality ~\ ~ • I Abstract P.2 Motorists yielding to a pedestrians at the crosswalk line can screen the view of the pedestrian crossing in front of them. This places the pedestrian at risk from vehicles approaching in adjacent lanes of travel. The purpose of this experiment was to evalu- ate the effects of advance yield markings and a symbol sign prompting motorists to yield to pedestrians at the markings on pedestrian safety at multilane crosswalks with pedestrianactivated yellow flashing beacons. Motorist and pedestrian behaviors mea- sured throughout the experiment included the occurrence of motor vehicle/pedestrian conflicts that included evasive action; the distance motorists stopped before the cross- walk when yielding to pedestrians; and the percentage of motorists yielding to pedestri- ans. The introduction of the markings and sign 10 m before the crosswalk increased the distance in advance of the crosswalk that motorists yielded to pedestrians and markedly reduced the percentage of motor vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. Placing mark- ings 15 m and 25 m in advance of the crosswalk produced similar benefits, demonstrat- ing that treatment effects can be produced over a wide range of values. 2 "D" P.3 Introduction Crosswalks on streets with multilane uncontrolled approaches are often associated with a type of high energy pedestrian crash termed a multiple threat crash (Snyder, 1972). A major factor contributing to this kind of crash is vehicles that stop for the pedestrian too close to the crosswalk, screening the view of motorists approaching in the pedestrians next lane of travel. Although buses and trucks have traditionally been vehicles that pro- duce complete screening, the popularity of sport utility vehicles and minivans has increased the percentage of vehicles on the road that can completely screen the view of pedestrians crossing the street. Children and persons of short stature can be completely screened by relatively small passenger vehicles. Prior research (Van Houten,1988; Van Houten &Malenfant, 1992) has demonstrated that advance stop lines used in conjunction with signs directing motorists to yield at an advance stop line produce a marked reduction in motors vehicle/pedestrian conflicts at multilane crosswalks with an uncontrolled approach. These results have been documented at crosswalks with and without yellow flashing beacons. Van Houten and Malenfant (1992) also demonstrated that the markings and sign together were more effective than the sign alone. The underlying principle behind advance stop lines is that they increase the safety of pedestrians by reducing the screening effect of vehicles yielding to pedestrians. One problem that can limit the application of this solution is that the reluctance to use stop lines in what is a 'yield' rather than 'stop' situation. Another problem is the use of a text rather than symbol sign to support the markings. The purpose of this experiment is to address both of these problems by evaluating the use of yield markings along with a symbol sign. 3 \~~ n ~-1 Figure 1. Wyse Road and Sportsplex site. HTT!{CHd1ENT "~" b. Discussion reaarding hatch marks painted within crosswalks for high visibility. Reco_ mmen_d standards and policy. DRAFT Guidelines, Installation, and Signage of Diagonally Hatched Crosswalks GUIDELINES Diagonally hatched crosswalk markings may be installed considered for use at the following locations: 1) Arterial streets and high volume collectors with three or more lanes and speeds of 30 mph and greater 2) At higher volume pedestrian crossings 3) At school crossings 4) At mid block and unsignalized crossings 5) At non-stop controlled crossings meeting the above criteria Diagonally hatched crosswalk installations shall be considered at locations near rctrC~;,Cnt "~`~';,e:,n special needs facilities and where requested by citizens. The City of Ukiah Traffic Engineering Committee shall review and approve recommend to the City Ennineer all future diagonally hatched crosswalks, which do not clearly fit the listed criteria prior to their installation. INSTALLATION Crosswalks shall be enhanced by installing zebra stripes diagonally at 60 degrees to the crosswalk bars .The striping shall bean alternating pattern of twefieet of equal width and spacing depending ing tktreagheut on the length of the crosswalk. If used, thermoplastic shall be applied in accordance with Caltrans Standard Specifications SeEtienS4. SIGNAGE Either fluorescent yellow green pedestrian school crossing (W66) or schsel yellow pedestrian crossing signs (W54) shall be installed at all respective locations where diagonally hatched crosswalks are installed. Please reference the attached Caltrans sign policies. ON A MOTION by Member Harris, seconded by Member Looney, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the members present, that the Traffic Engineering Committee approve the draft Guidelines, Installation, and Signage of Diagonally Hatched Crosswalks as amended. Member Steele reported Staff has received letters of "Thank You" and Member Looney received .: ~ appreciation plaque from Redwood Academy Charter School for the new Fluorescent yellow green school crossing signs. COMMITTEE MEMBER REPORTS Member Harris advised he is the Recycling Coordinator, and requested should Staff or any TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMITTEE MARCH 19, 2002 Page 4 of 5 / ~ a ~1 '~ ~~ z N ~~ AN AgOp s ~ a STS' ~ r< ~~~~,~~ ~ n Q u. .. .n a.: ,.a oo: a 0 1 ~°' 2~ ,oe ,- ~ oo ~~-~ ,iu~ ~ e o ~ oo a P %sJ `~~ ~,.- '° ~ o' ~ ~ o° `fir ~,„ tp~) -:, ~-,"~ ©e t ~ ~ of o ~ oo Q~ZW~, te`> p e ~ ° 1 - ~ o ° ~ ° pO '4p~ ~ /~ ~ ~~ i~a© ~t©© ~ ~' oo ~ti u ~ 11'a i' 1~0 ° 1 t~ e~t ;'V~e w o0 o Wt7z i i ~ ~ ~ i © tail ~ 100 ~ ~1~~~ ~ oo ~~~ ~= o ~ t e el `tefl ~ N m o ~ ~ 1 © ~ ofl ~ may' ~= o y~ ~ 1~ ~ y o o ~ ~ - © ? n ~ ~ ~ ~ ,fir ~. Z a f~;. ,{U ~m a ~~+ QI~, wI i ImO o, 1~ ~,~~e1 Yfle~ a ~ y 1 f1 ` ~ V1~ d[ O ~ ~ `~ ~~ rl 111 ® ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i n ~ u ~~ ~ p e ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ a wo ° W Z '~ l 1 © ~ ~ Z ' ~ ~n 1 ~- m o 7 .o a o 6 a A ,z, Q w O. Z ~ < ~ o a ~ ~ t1R }~ 0 r v~ x Z a a J ~ ~i~ 1 ~~~ i ~,~ .- l~ l m l~ a 0 1 r z i ~ `z ~ w z~ w ~ U N Ct~ a ",~ ~i"~o ~~~ o I,~ `1 i~j of J " e o ~~~ ~~ m }~y wt s ~ ~ .t , to la m~ t~ V ~~m t~ Q„o 1~ ~ y t 0 0 „a ~~i ~~ ,1 j14o t~ ,o t ~"to C1 m ~ di+` u o Jo ~c ,rv a G~ o 1RR ~ o `i ~ ~ 1 o ~ is o 11 ~ ~~ ~`~~~ 'a ~~ ~~1v o ° o ``~ rvo. 11 I~ ''+o. ~ szro pzi ~ i a i 1~ ''°°~ w a 'OI~O~O'Y~ ~ 00{/~~~ b yY 111111 '~~\¶1\,111''1 , 5LC0 • ~ ~ i~ Wa o` 4 W c ~ O tUe t o. o p ..~ 1 t~ t m n ~ ~~ 6 a ' ~ a y ~ ~ W t o 1 0 0 to mop, a yo ~'~~©~ ~o ~4 U~ ~ ~ w z °o'©~ ~ ~ 6F~ 8 ` o ma $ ` o~~ ~ 0 E n rv ~. Z w~ , =i~a~~ Info Provided by Segway Segway Legislation - 40 States Plus District of Columbia ATTACHMENT ~, 1 « - ` ~„ . ~ ALKS & n PATHWAYS . ~~~~ ATE t`A Alabama Chapter 342 of 2003 Yes Alaska Chapter 142 SLA 2002 Yes Arizona Chapter 7 of 2002 Yes California Chapter 979 of 2002 Yes (see attached document) Distr. Columbia Chapter A14-497 Yes Delaware Volume Chapter 73:346 Yes Florida Chapter 2002-20 (sections 67 & 68) Yes Key West 1 Georgia Act 56 of 2003 Yes Hawaii 2003 Public Act 180 Yes Iowa See enrolled 2002 Senate Bill 2192 (section 17&30) Yes Idaho Chapter 160 of 2002 Laws Yes Boise 2 Illinois Public Act 92-0868 Yes Indiana Public Law 143 of 2002 Yes Kansas See KSA 8-1491 Yes Maryland Chapter 546 of 2002 Yes Maine PL 2002 Chapter 687 Yes Michigan Chapter 494 of the Public Acts of 2002 Yes Minnesota Chapter 285 of 2002 Laws Yes Mississippi Chapter 485 of 2003 Yes Missouri Enrolled 2002 House Bill 1270 (sections 307.205 to 307.211) Yes North Carolina Chapter SL 2002-98 Yes Nebraska Slip Law LB 1105 2002 (sections 436 - 465) Yes New Hampshire Chapter 004 of the 2002 Laws Yes New Jersey P.L.2003 Chapter 88 Yes New Mexico Chapter 38 of the 2002 Acts Yes Nevada Chapter 218 of the Acts of 2003 Yes Ohio enrolled 2002 Senate Bill 321 Yes Oklahoma enrolled 2002 Senate Bill 1473 Yes Tulsa 3 Oregon See Chapter 341 of the 2003 Laws Yes Pennsylvania Act Number 105 of 2002 Yes State College 4 Rhode Island Public Law 397 of 2002 Yes South Carolina Chapter 269 of 2002 Yes South Dakota Chapter 161 of 2002 Yes Tennessee Public Law 734 of 2002 Yes Texas Chapter 1318 of 2003 Yes Utah 2002 Session Law Chapter 165 Yes Virginia Chapter 254 of 2002 Yes Vermont Act Number 0091 of 2002 Yes Washington Chapter 247 of 2002 Laws Yes Wisconsin 2001 Wisconsin Act 90 Yes West Virginia Cha ter 322 of 2002 Yes Info Provided by Segway ATTACHMENT P, 2 1 Allows Segway HT use on all sidewalks and bikepaths except those located in the Historic District. Within Historic District, Segway HTs may be operated by government and public safety officials. 2 Segway HTs may not be operated on the Boise "Greenbelt" 3 City of Tulsa passed a "Segway Ordinance' which basically codifies Oklahoma State Law, allowing Segway HTs on ALL sidewalks 4 Allows Segway HT use on all sidewalks except those in the "Downtown Business District" where they must be operated in the roadway Info Provided by Segway ATTACHMENT _ P. 3 California Communities Which Have Contacted Segway and How They Currently Regulate Use of the Segway HT 3 ~=~C©MMtINtT!(n~a,~ _ ~ N~~ ~ ~ z - ~~ ~ ~"" ~' ~ ~ ~°~ ,AI.1.OW ~N Ak.L. z~ SIDEWALKS zT s ~` '. _; ~##E$TRICT FROM W ~~g~~~EHTAlA1% ~ ~SIDEWI~iKS~ hRESTii1CT ~ ~ y`~#~~~,~~ SIDk'tyllAC'KS' ~#3ESTftICTED ~~RE, ; ~~I~Ii~1t11~11T11", Belmont X Berkeley X Beverly Hills X 1 Capitola X Cathedral City X Cupertino X Davis X EI Cajon X Emeryville X Foster City X Healdsburg X 2 Indian Wells X Indio X Irvine X Lakewood X La Mirada X 3 La Quinta X Los Angeles X 4 Los Gatos X Mountain View X Oakland X Palm Desert X 5 Palm Springs X Pasadena X 6 Rancho Mirage X Sacramento X 7 Sacramento County X 8 San Carlos X San Diego X 9 San Diego County X San Francisco X 10 San Mateo X Santa Clara County X Ukiah X Whittier X 396 Remaining California Communities X f The City of Beverly Hills is currently working on a 25-year Transportation Plan. They have informed Segway that they would like to include the Segway HT within this plan. 2 Allows use of the Segway HT on all sidewalks except those within the "Business/Downtown District". In this location, the Segway HT may be operated in bike lanes/paths. 3 The City of La Mirada does not allow the Segway HT on public sidewalks. However, the Segway HT may be operated in any bike lane or pathway. 4 The City of Los Angeles, under the direction of Mayor Jim Hahn, has established a Special Task Force to investigate the use of the Segway HT and how it may be integrated within the city's transportation system. Currently the Segway HT is allowed on all sidewalks within Los Angeles. 5 The City of Palm Desert recently voted to allow Segway HTs on most public sidewalks. Info Provided by Segway ATTACHMENT P.q 6 The Pasadena City Council recently passed an ordinance that allows the Chief of Police, at his discretion, to regulate time, place and manner of the use of the Segway HT within the City of Pasadena. To date, the Chief of Police has placed no restrictions. 7 The City of Sacramento Transportation Department will recommend to the City Council that the use of the Segway HT be allowed on all sidewalks except within the K Street Pedestrian Mall. This recommendation is expected during the Fall of 2003. 8 The Counly of Sacramento Transportation Department will recommend to the Sacramento Board of Supervisors that the Segway HT be allowed on all county sidewalks and that the Department continue to monitor use. This recommendation is expected during the Fall of 2003. 9 The City of San Diego has established a Special Committee to investigate the use of the Segway HT within the City of San Diego. A recommendation is expected in October 2003. Currently the Segway HT is allowed on all sidewalks within San Diego. 10 The City of San Francisco does not allow the Segway HT on any public sidewalks. However, the Segway HT may be operated in any bike lane or pathway. IIHS-HLDI ~ State laws regardin egway SEGWAY (ELECTRONIC PERSONAL ASSISTIVE MOBILITY DEVICES) Page 1 of 4 A new method of personal transportation was recently introduced by Segway, LLC. Popularly known as the "Segway, these new electronic personal assistive mobility devices (EPAMDS) are electrically propelled two-wheeled devices designed to transport one person. They have a maximum speed of less than 20 mph. Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia have passed laws pertaining to the use of EPAMDS. • Thirty-three have laws specifically allowing EPAMDS on public streets (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin). • Two states (Iowa and Vermont) have specifically prohibited EPAMDS from riding on streets. • Four states (Connecticut, Idaho, Nevada, and South Dakota) and the District of Columbia only allow EPAMDS on sidewalks and/or bicycle paths. Only eleven states (Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia) and the District of Columbia have minimum age requirements for operators. Further, only nine states (Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Virginia) require helmets and only one (New Jersey) at all ages. In fourteen states (Arizona, California, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia) EPAMDS must follow the rules pertaining to pedestrians while on roads and sidewalks. For example, in some states a pedestrian, when on the road, is required to travel on the left side of the road facing traffic. However, on roads and sidewalks pedestrians, not EPAMDS, always have the right of way. Two state (New Jersey and Texas) require EPAMD operators to follow the rules pertaining to bicycles while on roads and sidewalks. Currently, no states require the operator of an EMPAD to be licensed. EPAMDS are exempted from registration requirements. In Virginia a jurisdiction by ordinance may require that an EPAMD be registered with the local government. Because EPAMDS are not yet on the market they have not been classified as either a motor vehicle or a consumer product. Currently, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued a preliminary opinion letter that states EPAMDS should be considered "consumer products" and therefore not regulated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. When EPAMDS are formally marketed the product designation may change. Permitted on sidewalks/bicycle Permitted on Helmets Pedestrian State paths roads required Minimum age laws apply Alabama sidewalks and ye5t -- -- -- bicycle paths (eff. 09/01/03) (eff. 09/01/03) Alaska sidewalks and yes no -- -- bicycle paths Arizona sidewalks yes, if no no 16 yes sidewalk available Arkansas - -- -- -- -- California sidewalks and Yesi no -- yes bicycle pathsl Colorado -- -- -- -- -- Connecticut sidewalksz noJ no 16 -- Delaware sidewalks and yes, on highways younger than 16 -- -- bicycle paths with speed limits up to 30 mph4 District of Columbia sidewalks -- no 16 -- Florida sidewalks and yes, on streets younger than 16 -- -- with speed limits hHn•//un.nu iihc nrn lc.nfnh, in MnlM.~1r~ L...,n lr.+......... M... wnlnw inn IIHS-HLDI ~ State laws regardin ,egway Page 2 of 4 bicycle paths1 up to 25 mph) Georgia sidewalks yes, on streets younger than 16 16 on highways yes with speed limits up to 35 mph Permitted on sidewalks/bicycle Permitted on Helmets Pedestrian State paths roads required Minimum age laws apply Hawaii -- -- -- -- -- Idaho sidewalks -- no -- yes Illinois sidewalks) yes no -- yes Indiana bicycle paths yes no -- -- Iowa sidewalks and no no 16 -- bicycle paths Kansas sidewalks yes no -- yes Kentucky -- -- -- -- -- Louisiana -- -- -- -- -~ Maine sidewalks and yes, on streets no -- -- bicycle paths) with speed limits up to 35 mph if no sidewalk or bicycle path available) Maryland sidewalks yes, on streets younger than 16 -- -- with speed limits up to 30 mph if no sidewalk available) Permitted on sidewalks/bicycle Permitted on Helmets Pedestrian State paths roads required Minimum age laws apply Massachusetts - -- -- -- - Michigan sidewalks yes, on streets no -- -- with speed limits up to 25 mph) Minnesota sidewalks and yes, on streets no yes bicycle paths with speed limits up to 35 mphb if no sidewalk available Mississippi sidewalks and yes, on any no -- -- bicycle paths streets where bicycles are permitted Missouri sidewalks and yes, on streets no 16~ yes bicycle paths with speed limits up to 45 mph1. Montana -- -- -- -- -- Nebraska sidewalks and yes, except no -- -- bicycle paths3 freeways and the interstate highway system3 Nevada sidewalks and -- no -- yes bicycle paths New Hampshire sidewalks yes no -- -- New Jersey sidewalks and yes) yes 16~ -- bicycle paths Permitted on sidewalks/bicycle Permitted on Helmets Pedestrian hTTn•lh~n~nu iiL~c nrn /c~fchr fon4c lcM~n lou,n lcnrnuov hlw. 1n/OA /rl0 IIHS-HLDI ~ State laws regard; Segway Page 3 of 4 State paths roads required Minimum age laws apply New Mexico sidewalks and yes no -- yes bicycle paths New York -- - -- -- -- North Carolina sidewalks and yes, on streets no -- yes bicycle pathsl with speed limits up to 25 mph) North Dakota -- -- -- -- -- Ohio sidewalks, unless yes, on streets younger than 18 lye -- marked for the with speed limits exclusive use of up to 55 mph) pedestrians and bicycle pathsl Oklahoma sidewalks and yes, on no -- -- bicycle paths municipal streets9 Oregon -- -- -- -- -- Pennsylvania sidewalks, unless yes, but not on a younger than 12 -- -- prohibited by local freeway jurisdiction Rhode Island sidewalks and yes, unless no 16 -- bicycle paths highway prohibits bicycles South Carolina sidewalks yes, if no no -- -- sidewalk available Permitted on sidewalks/bicycle Permitted on Helmets Pedestrian State paths roads required Minimum age laws apply South Dakota sidewalks) -- no -- yes Tennessee sidewalks and yes no -- -- bicycle paths Texas sidewalks and yes, on streets -- -- -- bicycle paths with speed limits up to 30 mph and if no sidewalk available Utah sidewalks yes, on streets younger than 18 1610 -- with speed limits up to 35 mph and less than 4 lanes Vermont sidewalks and no no 16 yes bicycle paths Virginia sidewalks, unless yes, on streets younger than 15 l4u -- prohibited by local with speed limits if by local jurisdiction up to 25 mph ordinance and if no sidewalk available Washington sidewalks and yes, but not no -- -- bicycle pathsl controlled highwaysi2 West Virginia sidewalks yes no -- yes Wisconsin sidewalks, unless yes, however the no -- no prohibited by local department or jurisdiction13 the locality may prohibit them by rule on certain streets or on streets with speed limits over 26 mph Wyoming __ __ __ __ __ i /~ //1 A Inn IIHS-HLDI ~ State laws regardin, egway Page 4 of 4 1EPAMD use may be restricted by local ordinance. San Francisco has banned the use of EPAMDS on all sidewalks in the city and county as well as in public transit stations and vehicles. Municipalities in Alabama may prohibit EPAMDS on roads where the speed limit is greater than 26 mph. 20n1y a person with a disability who was been issued a disability placard may use an EPAMD on a sidewalk or highway. 3EPAMDs are only allowed on highways to cross; EPAMDS may not be ridden along highways. 4EPAMDS are only allowed on highways with a speed limit of more than 30 mph to cross. SEPAMDS may be required by local ordinance to use bicycle Daths located adjacent to a roadway. If a rider is less than 16 years of age and not accompanied by an adult, the must use a bikepath if located adjacent to a roadway. 6LOCal jurisdictions may allow EPAMDS on roads with speed limits higher than 35 mph. Persons younger 16 years of age may operate and EPMAD if the person has a mobility related disability. aPersons 14 through 15 may only operate an EPAMD if under the supervision of a person 18 years old or older who is responsible for the immediate care of the operator. SEPAMDS may be prohibited by municipality from operating on streets with higher than 25mph 10A person under 16 may operated an EPAMD if accompanied by the person's parent or guardian. 11Persons younger than 14 may operate an EPAMD if under the supervision of a person 18 years old or older. 1zEPAMDS can locally be restricted to streets with speed limits up to 25mph. 13EPAMDS cannot be operated on trails in state parks or forests unless specifically allowed by posted sign. ©1996-2003, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute ~ Copyright antl Us_e of Images Notice Last modified: 12-Sep-2003 tiµ~.//........, BL... ..... /....i..1., t....~..1..1..1.. 1....... 1............. M..+ ir1 lOA//t0 Howstuffworks "How Segways /rk" Page 1 of ~ I '"' ' bet a FREE Nokia 3595 pua~~ ~t nPJ on~ ~ it i) *! 11 i t w hawslf'fvvarks wtoStuff Electronics5tuff ScienceStuff HomeStuff EntertainmentStuff HealthStuff MoneyStuff 1 Main > Travel > Transportation Click here to go back to the normal view! How Segways Work by Tom Harris As most everyone predicted, the mysterious IT project (aka Ginger) turned out to be a compact transportation machine, with room for one standing rider. At first glance, this device (called the SegwayTM Human Transporter) doesn't seem all that remarkable -- it looks like ahigh-tech scooter. But people who have tried it out claim that it is much, much more -- a completely different way to get around. Dean Kamen, the machine's inventor, has especially high hopes for the Segway. In an interview with Time Magazine, he claimed that his machine "will be to the car what the car was to the horse and buggy." In this edition of HowStuffWorks, we'll find out what sets the Segway apart from earlier vehicles, and we'll see why its inventor Dean Kamen thinks it will change the world. While it may not live up to the year of hype preceding its release, the Segway is mast definitely an amazing machine. Balancing Act When Dean Kamen unveiled the Segway on ABC's Good Morning photo courtesy Segway, LLC America, he described the machine as "the world's first self-balancing human transporter." When you look at the machine in motion, you get an idea of what he's talking about. Unlike a car, the Segway only has two wheels -- it looks something like an ordinary hand truck -- yet it manages to stay upright by itself. I.Hn.//..n•,.•, tin....~.i„FF.,...I.n ....... 1..:....... L.~... 1...:..a.. L.l.. •n/n•/nn Howstuffworks "How Segways xk" ~'°~' 1 :_ i Segways come in a range of sizes (and prices). To move forward or backward on the Segway, the rider just leans slightly forvvard or backward. To turn left or right, the rider turns the right handlebar forward or backward. This balancing act is the most amazing thing about the Segway, and it is the key to its operation. To understand how this system works, it helps to consider Kamen's model for the device --the human body. If you stand up and lean forward, so that you are out of balance, you probably won't fall on your face. Your brain knows you are out of balance, because fluid in your inner ear shifts, so it triggers you to put your leg forward and stop the fall. If you keep leaning forward, your brain will keep putting your legs forward to keep you upright. Instead of falling, you walk forward, one step at a time. The Segway does pretty much the same thing, except it has wheels instead of legs, a motor instead of muscles, a collection of microprocessors instead of a brain and a set of sophisticated tlf sensors instead of an inner-ear balancing system. Like your brain, the Segway knows when you are leaning forward. To maintain balance, it turns the wheels at just the right speed, so you move forward. In the next section, we'll take a closer look at the components that make this possible. The Components At its most basic, the Segway is a combination of a series of sensors, a control system and a motor system. In this section, we'll look at each of these elements. Page 2 of ~ LM...I/..~.~..1~~.....~..[1.....~1... ....~/...:.~ L1.... 1.. ~:.. ~...l..l~ inlnnll~n Howstuffworks "How Segways irk" Page 3 of . ... ~~ 'Photo courtesy Segway, LL '•` "` ~"~~ The Segway consists of four major erements: the wheel and motor assembly, the sensor system, the circuit board brain and the operator control system. The primary sensor system is an assembly of gyroscopes. A basic gyroscope is a spinning wheel inside a stable frame. A spinning object resists changes to its axis of rotation, because an applied force moves along with the object itself. If you push on a point at the top of a spinning wheel, for example, that point moves around to the front of the wheel while it is still feeling the force you applied. As the point of farce keeps moving, it ends up applying force on opposite ends of the wheel --the force balances itself out. (See How Gyroscopes Work to learn more). Because of its resistance to outside force, a gyroscope wheel will maintain its position in space (relative to the ground), even if you tilt it. But the gyroscope's frame will move freely in space. By measuring the position of the gyroscope's spinning wheel relative to the frame, a precise sensor can tell the pitch of an object (how much it is tilting away from an upright position) as well as its pitch rate (how quickly it is tilting). A conventional gyroscope would be cumbersome and difficult to maintain in this sort of vehicle, so the Segway gets the same effect with a different sort of mechanism. Segways use a special solid-state angular rate sensor constructed using silicon. This sort of gyroscope determines an object's rotation using the Coriolis effect on a very small scale. Simply put, the Coriolis effect is the apparent turning of an object moving in relation to another rotating object. For example, an airplane traveling in a straight line appears to turn because the Earth is rotating underneath it. A typical solid-state silicon gyroscope consists of a tiny silicon plate mounted on a support frame. The silicon particles are moved by an electrostatic current applied across the plate. The particles move in a particular way, which causes the plate to vibrate in a predictable manner. But when the plate Is rotated around its axis (that is, when the Segway rotates in that particular plane), the particles suddenly shift in relation to the plate. This alters the vibration, and the change is in proportion to the degree of rotation. The gyroscope system measures the change in vibration, and passes this information on to the computer. In this way, the computer can figure out when the Segway is rotating along particular axes. (Check out this site for more information on solid-state silicon gyroscopes). The Segway HT has five gyroscopic sensors, though it only needs three to detect forward and backward pitch as well as leaning to the left or right (termed "roll"). The extra sensors add redundancy, to make the vehicle more reliable. Additionally, the Segway has two tilt sensors filled with electrolyte fluid. Like your inner ear, this system figures out its own position relative to the ground based on the tilt Howstuffworks "How Segways \ ;k" Page 4 ofd of the fluid surface. All of the tilt information is passed on to the "brain" of the vehicle, two electronic controller circuit boards comprising a cluster of microprocessors. The Segway has a total of 10 onboard microprocessors, which boast, in total, about three times the power of a typical PC. Normally, both boards work together, but if one board breaks down, the other will take over all functions so that the system can notify the rider of a failure and shut down gracefully. The Segway requires this much brain power because it needs to make extremely precise adjustments to keep from falling over. In normal operation, the controller boards check the position sensors about 100 times per second. The microprocessors run an advanced piece of software that monitors all of the stability information and adjusts the speed of several electric motors accordingly. The electric motors, which are powered by a pair of rechargeable nickel metal hydride (NIMH) batteries, can turn each of the wheels independently at variable speeds. When the vehicle leans forward, the motors spin both wheels forward to keep from tilting over. When the vehicle leans backward, the motors spin both wheels backward. When the rider operates the handlebar control to turn left or right, the motors spin one wheel faster than the other, or spin the wheels in opposite directions, so that the vehicle rotates. This is certainly an amazing machine, but is it really as important as the Internet, as some have claimed? In the next section, we'll see what sort of impact this machine might have on the modern world. Will it Change the World? So far, the Segway hasn't made a whole lot of progress changing the world. But it is still very young technology, relatively speaking. Kamen admits that the Segway can never completely replace the car, because it doesn't have near the same capabilities. It only goes about 12 miles per hour (20 kph), and it has to be hooked up to household electrical current for about six hours to store up enough juice fora 15-mile (24-km) journey. Obviously, this sort of machine wouldn't do you much good on across-country road trip. But Kamen does believe the Segway is a superior option for getting around a city. Cars take up a lot of room, so as soon as you have a bunch of people driving in a constrained area (like a city street), you get heavy traffic jams. It's also a hassle to park cars, and they are very expensive to maintain. ; ,II in all, a car is not an optimal machine for short trips in a crowded area. LM.... ll.. L......a. .lL..._d... ~~~1..: L~~I~..6~<~L1~ ~I~/n•/nn FlG. tt FiQ i3 Photo courtesy U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Howstuffworks "How Segways' rk" Page 5 of ~ Several alternative Segway designs from one of Dean Kamen's patent applications The Segway is only slightly larger than a person, so it does not cause as much congestion as a car. As a sidewalk vehicle, it lets commuters zip through crowds, skipping the roadways completely. Just like scooters and bicycles, the vehicles will be involved in a good number of pedestrian accidents year to year. But the Segways supporters say it's only about as dangerous as walking, since the vehicle moves at relatively slow speeds. If the vehicle is as successful as Kamen hopes, cities will construct special Segway paths. Many critics suggest this is highly unlikely, noting that there just isn't room in more crowded cities for a new form of transportation. While it won't get people to their destinations at top speeds, the Segway will probably zip by slow- moving, bumper-to-bumper traffic. Once they get to their destination, riders can carry their Segways inside with them without worrying about parking. And there's no need to stop by the gas station, as the vehicle runs on ordinary household electricity. Segways are also good machines for getting around crowded warehouses, where tight corridors make it difficult to use bulkier vehicles. People may find them useful for getting around large pedestrian areas, such as airports or amusements parks. There is really no limit to how people might use the vehicle. The Segway can fit in most places you might walk, but it will get you there faster, and you won't exert much energy. The question is: Are enough people willing to shell out $5,000 for the new machine, or will most of us keep using our feet, cars and bicycles to get around? Kamen believes more and more people will want the machine, after the gei familiar with it and see what it is capable of. To this end, he initially targeted government agencies and large corporations, not the consumer market. Three groups in Atlanta, GA, including the Atlanta Police Department, were the first to try out the Segway on city streets. For detailed specifications on the Segway, check out the next page. For information on the development of the Segway and the story of its creator, check out the links on the Lots More Information page. Segway Specs . Top speed: 12.5 miles per hour (20 kph). This is about three times typical walking speed. Weight: 80 Ibs (36 kg) Width: The Segways footprint (how much space it covers on the ground) is 19 by 25 inches (48 by 63.5 cm). This makes the Segway about the same width as an average size person, so it doesn't take up much space on the street. The platform is 8 inches (20 cm) off the ground. • Weight capacity: 250 pound (110 kg) person with 75 pounds (34 kg) of cargo. . Range: About 17 miles (28 km) on even ground, with a single charge. Taking uneven terrain into account, Segways designers estimate the vehicle has a range of 11 miles (17 km) on a single charge. Driver interface: The Segway has a small LCD screen that tells the driver how much battery power is left and how well the vehicle is functioning. The screen displays a cartoon face, which expresses the general condition of the vehicle. Howstuffworks "How Segways ork" Page 6 of ~ Motors: Each of the Segway's wheels is driven by a 2-horsepower electric motor that produce no emissions. Transmission: The two-stage transmission, built by Segway and Axicon Technologies, has a -... compact 4:1 gear ratio. It uses a helical gear assembly that significantly reduces noise. The Segway team configured the two meshes in the gear box (the points where gears connect) to make sound exactly two octaves apart. This means the sounds are in harmony, so the gear box make a more musical noise. The gears are also designed to have noninteger gear ratios, meaning the gear teeth mesh at different points from revolution to revolution. This minimizes wear and tear to extend the life of the gear box. . Computer: The Segway's brain is made up of two circuit boards, housed in the vehicle's chassis. The circuit boards, which boast a total of 10 microprocessors, normally work together, but each can function independently in the event of a computer problem. If one breaks, the other ci~c_~'r board will slow the vehicle down gradually to avoid an accident. • Power: The Segway is powered by two rechargeable batteries. Segways come with either nickel cadmium (NiCd) or nickel metal hydride (NIMH) batteries. The batteries are constantly monitored by a circuit board, which communicates any performance problems to the central brain. The batteries can be recharged with household AC current. Dean Kamen estimates a Segway would cost somewhere around 5 cents a day in electricity bills. . Sensors: The Segway uses five gyroscopes and a collection of other tilt sensors to keep itself upright. Only three gyroscopes are needed -- the extra sensors are included as a safety precaution. The Segway has an additional weight sensor built into its platform to tell the computer when a rider has stepped on. • Brakes: The Segway doesn't have a braking system. To stop, the rider stands upright without leaning forward or backward, and the vehicle maintains its position. • Turning radius: Since it only has two wheels, the Segway can rotate around a single axis (the wheels turn in opposite directions). This gives the Segway a turning radius of zero. • Wheels: The Segway wheel consists of a forged steel wheel hub with aglass-reinforced thermoplastic rim. Each wheel is secured to the drive shaft with a single nut. The tires are made of a silica compound, which provides good traction even on wet surfaces. LI~u./l.. .. 1- ..LL 1 _l '. _L 1. _'._ _l, Howstuffworks "How Segways /rk" Page 7 of ~- Security: The Segway uses an electronic key system. The key, which looks something like a car lighter, stores a 128-bit encrypted digital code. The vehicle won't start unless the key is plugged into its port. The key can also store settings for vehicle operation. Segways include one key for "beginner mode," where the vehicle has a lower maximum speed, and one key for "experienced mode." Segway plans to offer programmable keys down the road, which well let users store particular operation settings. . Chassis: The Segways sensitive electronic equipment is housed in a sturdy die-cast aluminum chassis. According to Segway, the chassis can withstand 7 tons of force. Control shaft: The aluminum shaft that holds up the Segways handlebars can be adjusted to different heights. Riders can attach clips to the shaft to carry bags or other cargo. lots More Infiormation! Related HowStuffWorks Articles • How Gyroscopes Work . How Motors Work __ How Batteries Work . How Car Engines Work How Patents Work . How Microprocessors Work • How Hoverboards Wfll Work __ __ .. __ . How Personal Jetpacks Will Work More Great Links . Segway Chat . Segway News • Segway Users Group . State laws regarding Segway --- . Segway Official Site Patent #6,302,230: Personal mobility vehicles and methods • The Segway: How will it affect the pedestrian? WIRED; 'Ginger': Think Arid It Will Do . Ginger-Chafcom . The IT Question • DEKA Research and Development Corporation -- -- _. . A Conversation with Dean Kamen . TIME.com: llnside the Segway • This is IT? - Slashdot.org forum on the Segway • ABC News: Will'IT' Eliminate Exercise? . ABC News: Making Space for'IT' MSNBC: A revolutionary newwheelchair -about Kamen's Independence 3000 News CNN.COm: San Francisco bans Segway - 1/03 • Press Release: Amazon.com to Sell First Segway Human Transporters - 11102 • CNN.com: Segway to debut on streets of Atlanta - 5/02 • News.Com: Segwayauctions close with 6-figure bids - 3/02 • TIME.com: Reinventing the Wheel - 12/01 . ABC News: 'IT' Gets Around - 12/01 • CNN.com: Scooter'Ginger` like 'a pair of magic sneakers' - 12(01 BBCi: 'IT' is finally unveiled - 12/01 hHn~/h.n.nu I+n...nlnffi.....l.n nr.... /.......n. 1.4... /......~.. F.1.. wn/nw/nn