Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbouttecp_021704TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMITTEE AGENDA UKIAH CIVIC CENTER Conference Room No. 3 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2004 3:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Harris, Lohse, Pilant, Seanor, Turner, Walker, Whitaker, and Chairman Kageyama 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 20, 2004 3. 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. 4. OLD BUSINESS: a. Discussion and possible action regarding MTA bus stop at North Coast Opportunities (NCO), North State Street at Henry Street. (continued from January 20, 2004 meeting) b. Discussion and possible action regarding crosswalks (continued from December 17, 2003 meeting) 5. NEW BUSINESS: a. None. 6. COMMITTEE MEMBER REPORTS: a. Update on City Traffic Circulation Study (verbal report) b. Update on City Parking Study (verbal report) 7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS: 8. ADJOURNMENT Please call Katrina Ballard at 463-6203 if you are unable to attend the meeting. The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. Minutes TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMITTEE January 20, 2004 Members Present Ben Kageyama, Chairman Mike Harris Dave Lohse Jerry Whitaker Rick Seanor Dan Walker Others Present Steve Turner. UUSD Staff Present Members Absent Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary Kevin Cotroneo Doug Pilant The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kageyama at 3:01 p.m. in Conference Room No. 3, Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 17, 2003 Chairman Kageyama recommended language be added to page 3, paragraph 5, to read, "Chairman Kageyama stated that ladder striped crosswalks, having stripes parallel to the direction of traffic, may have better visibility than diagonally striped crosswalks. Chairman Kageyama provided a copy of ladder striped crosswalk details to Member Seanor for review by staff." ON A MOTION by Member Harris, seconded by Member Lohse, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the members present to approve the December 17, 2003 minutes, as amended. III. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS No one from the audience came forward. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS: IV. OLD BUSINESS N/A V. NEW BUSINESS d. Discussion and possible action regarding proposed Class 2 bike lanes on Oak Manor Drive. Traffic Engineering Committee January 20, 2004 Page 1 Member Seanor asked the TEC to review a request to install Class 2 bike lanes on Oak Manor Drive between Perkins Street and Gobbi Street that would connect the recently constructed Class 2 bike lanes on Gobbi Street with a bike lane project proposed for construction on Vichy Springs Road (East Perkins Street). The project is currently advertised for construction by the Mendocino County of Transportation. He referred to Attachment "A" that demonstrates Caltrans standards for implementation of Class 2 bike lanes, noting the measurements were calculated according to the metric system. Attachment "B" demonstrates the proposed bike lane striping on Oak Manor Drive. Member Seanor addressed the project description and issues to be discussed by the TEC, noting Oak Manor Drive is 40 feet wide from curb to curb. Successful installation of a Class 2 bike lane on this street would require that parking be prohibited on one side of the street. Staff recommends that parking be prohibited on the entire length of the west side of Oak Manor Drive where Oak Manor School is located. Oak Manor Park is also located on the west side of Oak Manor Drive, noting the Park has an off-street parking lot. The school does not generate a substantial amount of off-site parking and there is minimal use during the summer months. The east side Oak Manor Drive is entirely residential, therefore staff does not recommend prohibiting parking on this side of the street. Additionally, in order to install the Class 2 bike lanes, the existing centerline would have to be removed and restriped. The necessary signage in conjunction with the bike lanes would also have to be installed. Member Seanor reported the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan recommends the installation of Class 2 bike lanes on Oak Manor Drive between Perkins Street and Gobbi Street. Staff anticipates that the establishment of Class 2 bike lanes on both sides of Oak Manor Drive would also serve to visually narrow the traveled way and hopefully assist with reducing traffic speeds in the area. Should the project be approved, the City will include the striping work in its annual street striping project to be completed in the summer. Member Seanor advised that Steve Turner from the Ukiah Unified School District was present to make comments regarding the project. Mr. Turner generally supports the project, but had some project concerns relative to potential safety and traffic congestion issues. The project, as proposed, would cause the centerline to be moved three feet to the west. Buses exiting Oak Manor School property and turning south onto Oak Manor Drive would likely cross over the center line proposed to accommodate the bike lane project. Also, people picking up children from school sometimes park along one of the bus turnout areas, which may potentially interfere with bike traffic in the proposed southbound bike lane. A general discussion followed regarding the multi-uses and activities that occur at the school, tennis courts, and park in the area, where the elimination of parking on the west side of the street may be a problem. Elimination of parking Traffic Engineering Committee January 20, 2004 Page 2 on the west side of the street could create potential parking problems/impacts for the residents located on the east side of the street. Steve Turner observed the school staff parking accommodations and stated the staff parking and bus pull-out area appear to be contained outside of the proposed bike lane. He stated traffic is not as concentrated in the morning as in the afternoon. He further observed that traffic congestion occurs when classes are dismissed in the afternoon for approximately 20 minutes because parents "queue-up," waiting for their children. With the shift of the centerline to the west, the buses exiting the school and turning south onto Oak Manor Drive would likely crossover the centerline approximately seven feet as opposed to three feet with existing striping. Mr. Turner advised that Oak Manor School anticipates it will have approximately 100 fewer students next school year due to the opening of Grace Hudson School, which could contribute to reduced traffic and parking impacts on the school site and on Oak Manor Drive. The school was originally constructed for fewer children than it presently accommodates. Mr. Turner stated, in support of the project, more people should ride bicycles, the parent pick-up issue is only for a short portion of time when school is in session, the number of students would be reduced next school year, and school administrators are encouraging parents to send their children to the school in the closest vicinity of their homes, which could have an impact on the number of children attending Oak Manor School. A general discussion followed regarding the events that could occur if parking on the west side of the street was eliminated and whether children would likely cross the street to reach their parents picking them up, which would be a safety issue. Also, cars would likely double park or park in the bike lane. Member Lohse stated bicyclists would typically detour around a car parked briefly in the bike lane, which does not guarantee safety. However, the long-term objective would be to resolve the problem of people illegally parking in the bike lane. He favored approval of the project. Member Walker stated the people residing on the east side of the street are accustomed to parking their vehicles in the street and expressed concern that prohibiting parking on the west side of the street may be a problem for the residents in the area, especially when there are activities occurring at the school or park. A general discussion followed regarding the importance of applying good planning techniques when making considerations for connecting bicycle and pedestrian routes in areas where streets are narrow and vehicle parking is impacted. Traffic Engineering Committee January 20, 2004 Page 3 It was noted that people should be encouraged to park their vehicles in their private driveway or garages rather than on the street, freeing the street for visitor parking. Member Walker commented that although the development of a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is beneficial to the community, law enforcement receives complaints from citizens where parking has been eliminated to implement bike lanes. He inquired whether consideration has been given for implementing a bike lane on streets located to the east of the proposed area, extending through the Oak Manor Subdivision. Member Seanor he has not researched potential alternate bike routes in this area, recalling that some of these residential streets may be too narrow. A brief discussion followed regarding the potential for implementing Class 3 bike routes where signs are posted indicating that a bike route exists in the area. Member Lohse inquired whether a Class 3 bike route could be implemented in the vicinity of the school, allowing for a Class 2 on the remainder of the same street. Member Seanor did not support the concept of combining different bike lane designations on the same street. Chairman Kageyama visited the proposed site and recommended restricting the parking on the east side of the street rather than the west side. Parking on the west side of the street is critical to the needs of the school. Member Harris supported the concept of the residents being able to express their comments and potential concerns regarding changing the parking accommodations for implementation of a Class 2 bike lane in the neighborhood. Chairman Kageyama recommended staff look at the east side of the Oak Manor Drive in terms of potentially restricting parking on this side of the street. Member Seanor stated staff would initiate a survey for the purpose of allowing the neighborhood to provide input regarding the installation of Class 2 bike lanes on Oak Manor Drive. A brief discussion followed regarding formulating alternative bike routes in the area for the purpose of connecting the recently constructed Class 2 bike lanes on Gobbi with the proposed Class 2 bike lanes on Perkins Street, even though the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan recommends the installation of Class 2 bike lanes on Oak Manor Drive between Perkins Street and Gobbi Street. Traffic Engineering Committee January 20, 2004 Page 4 It was noted the TEC would further discuss the matter of implementing Class 2 bike lanes on Oak Manor Drive after the survey results has been documented. c. Discussion and possible action regarding letter of support for grant application funding for programmable solar powered speed zone signs. Member Seanor referred to information concerning solar powered speed zone display signs, noting the system (VSC-152OF Gen III) is made of durable material, highly visible, vandal resistant, encompassing anti-glare and safety features, allowing drivers to see the sign within a normal field of view. The display sign would be implemented at public and charter school sites. The intent is to apply for grant funding for the signs, provided the TEC supports the potential need. Member Whitaker stated Mendocino County was instrumental in implementing a speed zone display sign at a school site in Redwood Valley, noting the system, in his opinion, is very effective with alerting drivers of their speed. Member Walker advised that law enforcement could not issue citations for violation of speed because proof of calibration would be required as a matter of compliance with the law. A brief discussion followed regarding the issue of potential vandalism in conjunction with the cost of purchasing and maintaining and whether such a system would be worthwhile. Chairman Kageyama inquired whether certain required criteria are necessary for use. Member Seanor replied he was not aware of any associated criteria in terms of use. He advised the intent is to install the signs primarily at school sites to operate when school is in session. A brief discussion followed regarding the appropriate placement of a sign display. Member Harris suggested that specific sites be identified that would benefit most from the installation and that the letter of support to accompany the grant application reflect this information. He favored the concept that the funding be secured from grant appropriations instead of the City funds. Member Lohse stated he would meet with Member Seanor to craft language concerning a letter of support for the Committee to review. a. Discussion and possible action regarding MTA bus stop at North State Street and Gibson Street. Traffic Engineering Committee January 20, 2004 Page 5 b. Discussion and possible action regarding MTA bus stop at North Coast Opportunities (NCO), North State Street at Henry Street. Chairman Kageyama recommended agenda items "a" and "b" be deferred for later discussion and possible action, as Doug Pilant, Assistant General Manager of MTA, was unable to be present. VI. COMMITTEE MEMBER REPORTS Member Seanor reported that Kevin Cotroneo had submitted his resignation from the TEC. The City Clerk is currently accepting applications for appointment to the TEC. VII. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Member Seanor recommended a letter be drafted thanking Member Looney for his years of service to the Committee. He commented that the Citywide Traffic Study is progressing and a number of workshops will be conducted for the purpose of discussing/identifying key issues, concerns, and proposed possible solutions to problems. The consultants will be working with City staff to assist with existing and future traffic issues. A general discussion followed regarding bringing back the Segway matter to the Committee for further review and input. The Committee further discussed the problems associated with Segway use on sidewalks, noting the State legislature ruled that Segways are classified as pedestrians. As such, Segways are restricted by State law from using bike lanes. The Committee chose not to re- agendized the Segway for further discussion. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:21 p.m. Ben Kageyama, Chairman Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary Traffic Engineering Committee January 20, 2004 Page 6 AGEN~R ZTE//( t~ Q, serving Mendocino County since 19 MEMO Date: December 15, 2003 To: Traffic Engineering Committee Fr: Doug Pilant, Assistant General Manager Re: North State and Gibson Bus Stop Problem The current designated southbound bus stop at the intersection of North State Street and Gibson is causing physical damage to MTA transit vehicles and needs to be relocated. The bus stop is located 25-feet south of the crosswalk. MTA transit vehicle operators are unable to use the bus stop because the bottoms of the doors scrap the curb -especially when the bus has passengers on board. In addition, when the rear tires rub along the curb there is a drain with metal protruding that causes damage to the tires and sometimes results in blow- outs. Further research on this matter has determined that this bus stop should be relocated to a more appropriate location. Proaosed Solution MTA proposes that the North State/Gibson bus stop be moved approximately 358 -feet north of the current location to the Ukiah Community Center (UCC). The proposed bus stop location would be approximately 200 -feet south of the North State/Low Gap intersection, see Attachment A. The proposed location would utilize curbs that are designated as a "no parking" zone. MTA has discussed this matter with the management and staff at the UCC and they have concluded that this stop would better serve their clients. MTA is currently transporting between 50 and 60 people per day between the UCC and Methodist Church. Summary This proposal would ensure that bus riders would have safe and convenient access to and from MTA transit vehicles. Mendocino Transit Authority /t ~ ~ ~7 I "FG. c.v~ Y., ~..v, [. a ~,, GG ~ R~, ?. s m N y S ~ o ~ r° ~ F ~ 4. y -~ 5 ~ T r F ~ ~r ~.. 1~ GEC JC7 L, J ~' X~ ~ ~ C '~ -+ <O 1 k f6 ~/1 .1 rt "Y /3rr~sl~ 5~ c 1 CITY OF UKIAH MEMORANDUM DATE: February 10, 2004 TO: Traffic Engineering Committee (TEC) FROM: Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works Q~' SUBJECT: Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Crosswalks Agenda Item 4b. REQUEST: The TEC discussed various items related to crosswalks at its meeting on December 17, 2003. At that meeting the TEC requested that staff provide more information on the standards and use of: diagonally hatched or ladder style crosswalks, raised pavement markers (RPM) to mark crosswalks, flexible crosswalk signs, and "Advance Yield Markings" for crosswalks. At the December 17, 2003 TEC meeting staff reviewed the proposal to mark all crosswalks on State Street north of Low Gap Road and south of Gobbi Street with diagonally hatched pavement markings. In addition, staff reviewed the installation of raised pavement markers to supplement crosswalk markings. Flexible crosswalk signs and "Advance Yield Markings' for crosswalks were also reviewed. DISCUSSION: For reference, I have attached copies of the following documents: 1. Attachment "A", excerpt from Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition, regarding yield line markings; ladder and diagonally hatched crosswalk markings; and in-street pedestrian crossing signs. 2. Attachment "B", excerpt from Caltrans Traffic Manual regarding crosswalk markings 3. Attachment "C", excerpt from the January 31, 2002 minutes of the California Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC) regarding the use of raised pavement markers to supplement transverse crosswalk markings. 4. Attachment "D", excerpt from Portland Pedestrian Design Guide, June 1998, regarding crosswalk pavement markings. 5. Attachment "E", additional information on crosswalk markings. Please refer to Attachments "A", "B", "D", and "E" for information on crosswalk markings. Both the MUTCD and the Caltrans Traffic Manual permit either diagonally hatched or ladder-style crosswalks. If the TEC requests to utilize the ladder style crosswalk then appropriate changes should be made to the existing crosswalk policy which designates diagonally hatched markings at specified locations. Page 2 Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Crosswalks February 10, 2004 The proposal to install raised pavement markers to complement crosswalk markings may provide better visibility of the crosswalks at night and other times of low visibility. However, staff recommends against installing raised pavement markers in the areas where bicycles typically travel on the street. The pavement markers may present a hazard to bicyclists. The CTCDC has approved the use of raised pavement markers to supplement transverse crosswalk markings. Please refer to Attachment "C". Flexible crosswalk signs may direct 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. There is adequate room to post a flexible crosswalk sign on the centerline stripe. However, motorists may shy away from the flexible crosswalk sign out of fear of hitting the sign. The MUTCD has established standards for use of "in-street pedestrian crossing signs". To date, the Caltrans Traffic Manual has not identified a standard for this type of sign. "Advance Yield Markings" might be a solution for the TEC to consider. The MUTCD has established standards for Advance Yield Markings. To date, the Caltrans Traffic Manual has not identified a standard for this type of marking. However, staff anticipates that there will be a long learning curve for drivers since this is a unique type of pavement marking. 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 specially marked crosswalks on State Street. 2. Provide recommendation to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer on an update to the City's diagonally hatched crosswalk policy. 3. Provide recommendation to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer on the installation of raised 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 ~TrAc HmENT A ,. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways 11.5. Department oI Twwpotlallon Federal Highway Administration i~~r~rw ^ ~_ aanr nCr uvr uro tyro Institute o/Transportation Engineers ?0(13 lidition Page i _-The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is approved by the Federal Highway Administrator as the National Standard in accordance with Title 23 U.S. Code, Sections 109(d), 114(a), 217, 315, and 402(a), 23 CPR 655, and 49 CFR 1.48(6)(8), 1.48(6)(33), and 1.48(c)(2). Addresses for Publications Referenced iu the MUTCD Amcrican Association of Stats Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249 Washington, DC 20001 www.transportation.org Amcrican Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) 8201 Corporate Dt'ive, Suite 1125 Landover, MD 20785-2230 www.arema.org Federal Highway Administration Report Center Facsimile number: 301.577.1421 reporLCenterC thwa.dotgov Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) 120 Wall Street, Floor 17 New Yorl<, NY 10005 www.iesna.org Institute of Makers of Explosives 1120 19th Street, NW, Suite 310 Washington, DC 20036-3605 www.ime.org Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 1099 14th Street, NW, Suite 300 West Washington, DC 20005-3438 www.ite.org International Organization for Standards c/o Mr. Gerard Kuso Austrian Standards ]nstihrte Hcincsn'abe 38 Postfach 130 A-1o21 Wien, Austria www.iso.ch ISEA -The Safety Equipment Association 1901 North Moore Street, Suite 808 Arlington, VA 22209 wwwsafetyequ ipmenC.org National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances (NCUTLO) 107 South West Street, Snite 110 Alexandria, VA 22314 www.ncntlo.org Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) U.S. Deparnnent of Labor 200 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20210 www.osha.gov Nnvcmber 21103 Puge ii Transportation Research Board (TRB) The National Academies 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20418 www.nas.edu/Lrb U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (The U.S. Access Board) 1331 F Street, NW, Suite L000 Washington, DC 2000411ll www. access-hoard.gov Aclcnowledements 2003 Edition The Federal Highway Adminisu'ation gratefully acknowledges the valuable assistance that it received from [he National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and its over 200 voluntary members in the development of dais Manual. November 2003 2003 8ditiun Page 3B-25 Option: The side of a raised pavement marker that is visible to traffic proceeding in the wrong direction may be red. Standard: If raised pavement markers are used to substitute for broken line markings, a group of three to five markers equally spaced at a distance no greater than N/8 (see Section 3B.11) shall be used. If N is other than 12 m (40 ft), the markers shall be equally spaced over the line segment length (at 1/2 points fur 3 markers, at 1/3 points for 4 markers, and at 1/4 points For 5 markers). At least one retroreFlective or intenrally illmninated marker per group shall be used or a retroreflective or internally illuminated marker shall be installed midway in each gap between successive groups of nonretroreflective markers. When raised pavement markers substitute for solid lane line markings, the markers shall be equally spaced at no greater than N/4, with retroreflective or internally illuminated units at a spacing no greater than N/2. Guidance: Raised pavement markers should not substitute for right edge line markings. Standard: When raised pavement markers substitute for dotted lines, they shall be spaced at no greater than N/4, with not less, than one raised pavement marker per dotted line. At least one raised marker every N shall be retroretlective or internally illuminated. Option: When substituting for wide lines, raised pavement markers may be placed laterally adjacent to each other to simulate the width of the line. Section 3B15 'IYansverse Markines Standard: `IYausverse markings, which include shoulder markings, word and symbol markings, stop lines, yield Iiucs, crosswalk lines, speed measurement markings, speed hump markings, parking space markings, and others, shall be white unless otherwise specified herein. Guidance: [3ecause of the low approach angle at which pavement markings are viewed, transverse lines should be pro~,~ortioned to provide visibility equal to that of longitudinal lines. Standard: Pavement marking letters, numerals, and symbols shall be installed in accordance with the Pavement Markings chapter of the "Standard Highway Signs" book (see Section lA.ll). Section 3B.16 Stop and Yield Lines Standard: If used, stop lines shall consist of solid white lines extending across approach lanes to indicate the point at which the stop is intended or regnired to be made. _i. [f used, yield lines (see Figure 3B-14) shall consist of a row of solid white isosceles triangles pointing ~1-- toward approaching vehicles extending across approach lanes to indicate the point at which the yield is intended or required to be made. Guidance: Stop lines should be 300 to 600 nun (12 to 24 in) wide. Stop lines should be used to indicate the point behind which vehicles are required to stop, in compliance with a STOP (RI-1) sign, traffic control signal, or some other traffic control device, except YIELD signs. The individual triangles comprising the yield line should have a base of 300 to 600 nun (12 to 24 in) wide and a height equal to LS times the base. The space between the triangles should be 75 to 300 mm (3 to l2 in). Option: Yield lines may be used to indicate the point behind which vehicles are required to yield in compliance with a YIELD (RL-2) sign or a Yield Here to Pedestrians (RI-5 oc RI-Sa) sign. Novemher 2003 Sect. 3 V. i 3 ~0 36.16 Pagc 3B-26 Figure 3B-14. Examples of Yield Line Layouts base 300 mm (72 in) height 450 mm (18Tin) I (a) Minimum Dimensions base 600 mm (24 in) I h-eight 900 mm (36Tin) I (b) Maximum Dimensions Notes: Triangle height is equal to 1.5 times the base dimension. Yield lines may be smaller than suggested when installed on much narrower, slow-speed facilities such as shared-use paths. (~rLl Nance: 2003 Edition If used, stop and yield lines should be placed a minimum of 1.2 m (4 ft) in advance of [he nearest crosswalk line at controlled intersections, except for yield lines at roundabout intersections as provided for in Section 3B.24 and at midblock crosswalks. In the absence of a marked crosswalk, the stop line or yield line should be placed at the desired stopping or yielding point, but should be placed no more than 9 m (30 ft) nor less than 1.2 m (4 ft) from the nearest edge of the intersecting traveled way. Stop lines should be placed to allow sufficient sight distance to all other approaches to an intersection. [f used at an unsignalized midblock crosswalk, yield lines should be placed adjacent to the Yield Here to Pedestrians sign located 6.1 to 15 m (20 to 50 ft) in advance of the nearest crosswalk line, and parking should be prohibited in the area between the yield line and the crosswalk (see Figure 3B-15). Stop lines at midblock signalized locations should be placed at least 12 m (40 ft) in advance of the nearest signal indication (see Section 4D.15). Support: Drivers who yield too close to crosswalks on multi-lane approaches place pedestrians at risk by blocking other drivels' views of pedestrians. Scut_ 78.16 November 2003 20(13 Edition Page 3B-27 Figure 38-15. Examples of Vield Lines of Unsignalized Midblock Crosswalks (.1 to 15 j J~~ Legend 20 to 50 it ~ y Direction of travel a) Two-way roadway b) One-way roadway ~yl'~ ~~ F ~~~a~~~ a Section 3B.17 Crosswalk Markings Support: Crosswalk markings provide guidance for pedestrians who are crossing roadways by defining and delineating paths on approaches to and within signalized intersections, and on approaches to other intersections where traffic stops. Crosswalk markings also serve to alert road users of a pedestrian crossing point across roadways not controlled by highway traffic signals or STOP signs. At nonintersection locations, crosswalk markings legally establish the crosswalk. Standard: When crosswalk lines are used, they shall consist of solid white lines that mark the crosswalk. They shal- be not less than 150 mm (6 in) nor greater than 600 mm (24 in) in width. Guidance: If transverse ]fines are used to mark a crosswalk, the gap between the lines should not be less than 1.8 m (6 ft). If diagonal or longitudinal lines are used without transverse lines to mark a crosswalk, the crosswalk should be not less than 1.8 m (6 ft) wide. Novcmbcr 20(13 Sect 38.17 -- - Ir ~~:~ F 6.1 to 15m - f (20 to 50 ft) Nigc 36-28 2003 Edition Crosswalk lines, if used on both sides of the crosswalk, should extend across the full width of pavement or [o the edge of the intersecting crosswalk to discourage diagonal walking between crosswalks (see Figures 3B-IS tool 3 6- 16). Crosswalks should he marked at all intersections where there is substantial conflict between vehicular and pedestrian movements. Marked crosswalks also should be provided at other appropriate points of pedestrian concentration, such as at loading islands, midblock pedestrian crossings, or where pedestrians could not otherwise recognize the proper place to cross. Crosswalk lines should not be used indiscriminately. An engineering study should be performed before they are insltdled at locations away from highway traffic signals or STOP signs. Because nonintersection pedestrian crossings are generally unexpected by the road user, warning signs (see Section 2C.41) should be installed and adequate visibility should be provided by parking prohibitions. Support Section 3B. I6 contains information regarding placement of stop line marings near crosswalk markings. -~- For added visibility, the area of the crosswalk may be marked with white diagonal lines at a 45-degree angle ~-- to the line of the crosswalk or with white longitudinal lines parallel to traffic flow as shown in Figure 3B-16. When diagonal or longitudinal lines are used to mark a crosswalk, the h~ansverse crosswalk lines may be omitted. This type of marking may be used at locations where substantial numbers of pedestrians cross without o any other traffic conu'ol device, at locations where physical conditions are such that added visibility of the crosswalk is desired, or at places where a pedestrian crosswalk might not be expected. ~o Guidance: If used, the diagonal or longitudinal lines should be 300 to 600 mm (12 to ?A in) wide and spaced 300 to 1500 nun (12 to 60 in) apart The marking design should avoid the wheel paths, and the spacing should not exceed 2.5 times the line width. When an exclusive pedestrian phase That permits diagonal crossing is provided at a traffic control signal, a marking as shown in Figure 3B-17 may be used for the crosswalk. Section 38.18 Parking Snace Markings Support Marking of parking space boundaries encourages more orderly and efficient use of parking spaces where parking turnover is substantial. Parking space markings tend to prevent encroachment into fire hydrant zones, bus stops, loading zones, approaches to intersections, curb ramps, and clearance spaces for islands and other zones where parking is restricted. Examples of parking space markings are shown in Figure 3B-18. StandartL• Parking space markings shall he white. Option: Blue lines may supplement white parking space markings of each parking space designated for use only by persons with disabilities. Support: Additional parking space markings for the purpose of designating spaces for use only by persons with disabilities are discussed in Section 38.19 and illustrated in Figure 3B-19. Section 38.19 Pavement Word and S~ bol Markings Support: Word and symbol markings on the pavement are used for the purpose of guiding, warning, or regulating traffic. Symbol messages are preferable to word messages. Examples of standard word and arrow pavement markings are shown in Figm'es 3B-20 and 3B-21. Standard: Word and symbol markings shall be white, except as otherwise noted in this Section. Guidance: Letters and numerals should be 1.8 m (6 ft) or more in height. Sccl. 38.17 l0 3n.19 Novc~nber 2003 2003 Edition Figure 3B-16. Examples of Crosswalk Markings -~-- Figure 36-17, Example of Crosswalk Markings for Exclusive Pedestrian Phase That Permits Diagonal Crossing Page 3B-29 November 2003 Sec[. 36.19 Page 2B-10 2003 Edition Except at roundabout intersections, where there is a marked crosswalk at the intersection, the YIELD sign should be installed in advance of the crosswalk line nearest to the approaching traffic. At a roundabout intersection, to prevent circulating vehicles from yielding unnecessarily, the face of the YIELD sign should not be visible from the circulatory roadway. Option: At wide-throat intersections or where two or more approach lanes of traffic exist on the signed approach, observance of the yield control may be improved by the installation of an additional YIELD sign on the left side of the road and/or the use of a yield line. At channelized intersections, the additional YIELD sign may be effectively placed on a channelizing island. Section 2B.11 Yield Here To Pedestrians Signs (Rl-5, Rl-5a) Standard: It' yield lines are used in advance of an unsignalized marked midblock crosswalk, Yield Here To Pedestrians (Rl-5 or Rl-Sa) signs (see Figure 2B-2) shall be placed 6.1 to 15 m (20 to 50 ft) in advance of the nearest crosswalk line (see Section 3B.16 and Figure 3B-IS). _ ~~,.~~n - vwv-- 2B.12 In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs (Rl-6, Rl-6a) ~~ Option: ~ The In-Sweet Pedestrian Crossing (R1-6 or RI-6a) sign (see Figure 2B-2) may be used to remind road users of laws regarding right of way at an unsignalized pedestrian crossing. The legend STATE LAW may be shown at the top of the sign if applicable. The legends STOP FOR or YIELD TO may be used in conjunction with the appropriate symbol. Guidance: If an island (see Chapter 3G) is available, the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign, if used, should be placed on the island. Standard: The In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign shall not be used at signalized locations. The STOP FOR -egend shall only be used in States where the State law specifically requires that a driver must stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk. If used, the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign shall have a black legend (except for the red STOP or YIELD sign symbols) and border on either a white and/or fluorescent yellow-green background. If the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign is placed in the roadway, the sign support shall comply with the breakaway requirements of the latest edition of AASHTO's "Specification for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals" (see Page i). Support: The Provisions of Section 2A.18 concerning mounting height are not applicable for the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign. Option: The In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign may be used seasonably to prevent damage in winter because of plowing operations, and may be removed at night if the pedestrian activity at night is minimal. , Standard: After an engineering study has been made in accordance with established traffic engineering practices, the Speed Limit (R2-1) sign (see Figure 2B-1) shall display the limit established by law, ordinance, regulation, or as adopted by the authorized agency. The speed limits shown shall be in multiples of 10 km/h or 5 mph. Guidance: At least once every 5 years, States and local agencies should reevaluate non-statutory speed limits on segments of their roadways that have undergone a significant change in roadway characteristics or surt'ounding land use since the last review. [Yo snore than three speed limits should be displayed on any one Speed Limit sign or assembly. When a speed limit is to be posted, it should be within LO km/h or 5 mph of the 85th-percentile speed of free-flowing traffic. Sect 2B.10 to 26.13 November 2003 2003 Edition Figure 26-2. Unsignalized Pedestrian Crosswalk Signs STATE LAW YIELD HERE • f Tp YIELD HER TO PEDESTRIANS TO WITHIN CROSSWALK Page 2B-11 STATE LAW 1' FOR WITHIN CROSSWALK R1-5 Rt-5a R1-6 R1-6a Option: Other factors that may be considered when establishing speed limits are the following: A. Road characteristics, shoulder condition, grade, alignment, and sight distance; B. The pace speed; C. Roadside development and environment; D. Parking practices and pedestrian activity; and E. Reported crash experience for at least a 12-month period. Two types of Speed Limit signs may be used: one to designate passenger car speeds, including any nighttime information or minimum speed limit that might apply; and the other to show any special speed limits for trucks and other vehicles. A changeable message sign that changes the speed limit for traffic and ambient conditions may be installed provided that the appropriate speed limit is shown at the proper times. A changeable message sign that displays to approaching drivers the speed at which they are traveling may be installed in conjunction with a Speed Limit sign. Guidance: If a changeable message sign displaying approach speeds is installed, the legend YOUR SPEED XX km/h (MPH) or such similar legend should be shown. The color of the changeable message legend should be a yellow legend on a black background or the reverse of these colors. Support: Advisory Speed signs are discussed in Sections 2C.36 and 2C.46 and Temporary Traffic Control Zone Speed signs are discussed in Part 6. Section 28.14 Truck Speed Limit Sign (R2-2) Standard: Where a special speed limit applies to trucks or other vehicles, the legend TRUCKS XX or such similar legend shall be shown on the same panel as the Speed Limit sign or on a separate R2-2 sign (see Figure 2B-1) below the standard legend. November 2003 Sect 26.13 l0 28.14 ~}T~"~rCI~~iENT "~ ,, ~a~+l~ 6-10 MARKINGS Traffic Manual 7-0996 ZONES-TWO DIRECTION, and as shown in Figure 6-32, TYPICAL OBSTRUCTION MARKINGS, are generally effective for marking obstmctions such as bridge supports, refuge islands, median islands, and channelization islands. 6-02.11 Limit Lines (Stoplines) Limit lines (CVC 377) are solid white lines, normally 300 to 600 mm (12 to 24 inches) wide, extending across all approach lanes to indicate the point behind which vehicles are required to stop. If a marked crosswalk (Section 6-02.12, CROSSWALKS AND CROSSWALK LINES) is in place, it would normally function as a limit line. For added emphasis, a limit line may be placed 1.22 m or further in advance of and parallel to the nearest crosswalk line. See Chapter 10, Section 10-04.3, CROSSWALK LINES, of this manual. In the absence of a marked crosswalk, the limit line should be placed at the desired stopping point; this point is typically no more than 9.14 m nor less than 1.22 m from the nearest edge of traveled way of the intersecting roadway. If a limit line is used in conjunction with a STOP sign, it should ordinarily be placed in line with the STOP sign. However, if the sign cannot be located exactly where vehicles are expected to stop, the limit line should be placed at the stopping point. The word "STOP", in 2.44 m letters, may be placed on the pavement in advance of the limit line. A limit line shall be placed on paved approaches and a "STOP" pavement mazking should be placed on all but minor approaches to State highways not controlled by signals. Typical limit line markings are shown in Figure 6-33, TYPICAL INTERSECTION MARKINGS. 6-02.12 Crosswalks and Crosswalk Lines The principles and practices described in this section apply to pedestrian crossings, in general, but may apply to other types of crossings, such as equestrian, bicycles, etc. This section does not apply to school crosswalks which aze described more completely in Chapter 10, SCHOOL AREA PEDESTRIAN SAFETY, of this manual. Pedestrian crosswalk markings may be placed at intersections, representing extensions of the sidewalk lines, or on any portion of the roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing (CVC 275). Crosswalk markings serve primarily to guide pedestrians into the proper path. Pedestrian crosswalk markings should not be used indiscriminately. Pedestrian crosswalk markings may be installed where they are advisable to channelize pedestrians into the preferced path at intersections when the intended course is not readily appazent or when in the opinion of the engineer, their presence would minimize pedestrian-auto conflicts. In general, crosswalks should not be marked at intersections unlessthey are intendedto channelize pedestrians. Emphasis is placed on the use of marked crosswalks as a channelization device. The following factors may be considered in determining whether a marked crosswalk should be used: • Vehicular approach speeds from both directions. • Vehicular volume and density. • Vehicular turning movements. • Pedestrian volumes. Traffic Manual MARKINGS 6-11 7.1996 • Roadway width. • Dayandnightvisibilitybybothpedestrians and motorists. • Channelization is desirable to clarify pedestrian routes for sighted or sight impaired pedestrians. • Discouragement of pedestrian use of undesirable routes. • Consistency with markings at adjacent intersections or within the same intersection. Crosswalk markings may be established between intersections (mid-block) in accordance with CVC 21106(a). Warning signs should be installed and adequate visibility provided by appropriate measures such as parking prohibitions. Mid-block pedestrian crossings are generally unexpected by the motorist and should be discouraged unless, in the opinion of the engineer, there is strong justification in favor of such installation. Particular attention should be given to roadways with two or more traffic lanes in one direction as a pedestrian may be hidden from view by a vehicle yielding the right-of-way to a pedestrian. Crosswalk markings, when used, should be solid white lines not less than 300 mm (12 inches) wide, marking both edges of the crosswalk. The lines should extend across the full width of pavement to discourage diagonal walking. A crosswalk should provide at least 1.82 m of clear Diagonal or longitudinal lines may be placed withinthecrosswalkmarkings. Theselinesshould be approximately 300 to 600 mm wide and spaced 300 to 600 mm apart. When diagonal or longitudinal lines are used to mark a crosswalk, the transverse crosswalk lines may be omitted; exceptwhenthefactorthatdeterminedtheneedto mark a crosswalk is the clarification of pedestrian routes for sight-impaved pedestri ans, the transverse crosswalk lines shall be mazked. _ _, ~, help to define pedestrian paths and aze therefore a factor the engineer may consider in deciding whether or not to mark the crosswalk. Where it is desirable to remove a marked crosswalk, the removal may be accomplished by repavingorsurfacetreatment. Amarkedcrosswalk should not be eliminated by allowing it to fade out or be worn away. The worn or faded crosswalk retains its prominent appearance to the pedestrian at the curb, but is less visible to the approaching driver. Signs may be installed at or adjacent to an intersection directing that pedestrians shall not cross in a crosswalk indicated at the intersection in accordance with CVC 21106(b). White PED XING pavement markings maybe placed in each approach lane to a marked crosswalk, except at intersections controlled by traffic signals or STOP or YIELD signs. 6-02.13 Parking Stall Markings Parking stall markings shall be white. The marking of parking stalls on urban streets encourages more orderly and efficient use of parking areas. These markings tend to prevent encroachment on fire hydrant zones, bus stops, loading zones, approaches to corners, clearance spaces for islands and other zones where pazking is prohibited. The placement and maintenance of parking stalls is the responsibility of the local agency. An exception to the above practice may be made when State highway resurfacing projects obliterate existing parking stall lines. ~T~r~~N~ENr „C„ MINUTES CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES COMMITTEE (CTCDC) MEETING January 31, 2002 in the City of San Bernardino The first meeting of the CTCDC in 2002 was held in the Caltrans District 8 building, in San Bernadino, on January 31, 2002. Chairman Jim Larsen opened the meeting at 9:30 a.m. with the introduction of Committee Members and guests. The Chairman thanked Diana Barrich, Deputy District Director, Traffic Operations for hosting the meeting. The following members, alternates, and guests were in attendance: ATTENDANCE ORGANIZATION TELEPHONE Members (Voting) Jim Larsen CA State Association of Counties (559) 733-6291 Chairman County of Tulare John Fisher League of CA Cities (213) 580-1189 Vice Chairman City of Los Angeles Ray Mellen Auto Club of Southern California (714) 885-2301 Devinder Singh Caltrans (916) 654-4715 Ike Iketani CHP (916) 657-7222 Wayne Tanda League of CA Cities (408) 277-4945 City of San Jose Dwight Ku California State Automobile (415) 241-8904 Association, Auto Club Farhad Mansourian CA State Association of Counties (415) 499-6570 County of Marin CTCDC MINUTES January 31, 2002 Page 2 of 16 ALTERNATES ORGANIZATION TELEPHONE Richazd Backus Auto Club of Southern California (714) 885-2326 Mazk Greenwood League of CA Cities (760) 776-6450 City of Palm Desert Jacob Babico CA State Association of Counties (909) 387 8186 San Bernazdino County ATTENDEES ORGANIZATION TELEPHONE Jeremy Vela City of Palm Desert (760) 776-6450 Bill Wald Caltrans HQ-ITS (916) 651-9048 Jerry Williams BlinkerStop/TAPCO (SS9) 627-1995 Johnny Bhullar Caltrans/Traf£ic Ops (916) 654-7312 Amit Kothari City of Oakland (S 10) 238-3469 Michael Harrison LightGuazd System, INC (707) 542-4547 Theresa Gabriel Caltrans HQ-ITS (916) 654-5653 Matt Schmitz FHWA (916) 498-5850 Reh-Lin Chen Ciry of Berkley (S 10) 981-6403 1947 Center St, CA 94704 Lynn Mack Polara Engineering (717)521-0900 Chad Spaltro Pacific Lighting (949) 283-5084 23666 Bartcher Dr, #100 Lake Forest, CA 92630 Conrad Lapinski City of Palmdale (209) 295-2558 Jess R. Munoz LA County, DPW (626) 300-4702 Jack Fleck City of San Francisco (415) 554-2344 Frank Markowitz City of San Francisco (41 S) 252-4696 David Royer University of CC-ITS (661) 255-6556 Neil Jorgenson County of Imperial (760) 482-4462 CTCDC MINUTES January 31, 2002 Page 3 of 16 MINUTES Adoption of September 27, 2001 CTCDC meeting minutes. Motion: Moved by Farhad Mansourian, seconded by John Fisher, to adopt the minutes of the Sacramento meeting, held on September 29, 2001, with the following amendment. AMENDMENT: On page 17, revise the names from, "Fazhad Mansourian and Wayne Tanda stated" to "Farhad Mansourian stated." Motion carved 8-0. MEMBERSHIP Chairman Jim Larsen reminded the Committee that during the September 2001 CTCDC meeting, Ray Mellen announced his retirement from the CTCDC and the Automobile Club of Southern California. However, Ray and the Auto Club reached an agreement which would delay the retirement for an unspecified period of time and the Auto Club requested that Mr. Mellen continue representing the Club as a voting member on the Committee. Gerry Meis and Merry Banks, voting members, did not attend the meeting due to other priorities. Their alternates Devinder Singh and Dwight Ku acted in their place as voting members. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Chairman Jim Lazsen asked for public comments on any item, which was not on the agenda. Jacob Babico, Alternate Committee Member, expressed that recently the Traffic Division of San Bernardino County had a discussion with the law enforcement agency on the establishment of speed zones. Jacob explained that the CHP only considers the radar speed survey to establish a speed zone, while the Traffic Manual considers other factors such as geometric features included in the radar speed survey. Jacob asked the Committee for comments. Jim Lazsen suggested placing the issue on the next CTCDC meeting agenda and requested Jacob to a-mail his concern to the Secretary of the Committee. AGENDA ITEMS (PUBLIC HEARING) - - 00-4 USE OF RAISED PAVEMENT MARKFRS IN A TRANSVERSE PATTERN .f- Chairman Jim Lazsen stated that the use of raised pavement markers (RPMs) in a transverse pattern is a continuous item from the last meeting. He also noted that during the September 2001 meeting, Caltrans promised to address the issues raised by Committee Members Farhad Mansourian and Wayne Tanda. Fazhad advised the Committee members during the last meeting that in Marin County some cities have used retroreflective RPMs at the right edgelines, and that based on their experience, they work very well in foggy conditions and where there is an embankment or steep drop-off next to the traveled way. In addition, during that meeting Wayne pointed out that the proposed text as presented could be used to delineate cross walks with RPMs, in lieu of the paint or thermoplastic strips. (Continued) CTCDC MINUTES January 31, 2002 Page 4 of 16 The Chairman asked Devinder to provide an update on the use of RPMs in a transverse pattern. Devinder pointed out the revised verbiage that was included in the agenda packet. Devinder stated that the following verbiage is proposed to be added as a new third paragraph under the current Section 6-01.3 Materials of the Traffic Manual: Raised pavement markers maybe used to supplement transverse or longitudinal pavement markings, except retroreflectire raised pavement markers should not be used for right edgelines. The use of retroreflective raised pavement markers on the right edgeline may lead the motorist to believe there is another lane to the right of the markers. Raised pavement markers should not he used,for right edgelines unless other available options have been considered, such as raised and inverted profile thermoplastic stripe, ground-in or rolled-in rumble strip. If either retroreflective or non-reflective raised markers are used or: a right edgeline, an engineering study should be conducted documenting the reasons for their use. Devinder stated that the proposed verbiage would not be interpreted to delineate crosswalks with RPMs in lieu of the paint or thermoplastic. The verbiage cleazly says: 'RPMs may be used to supplement transverse markings." The second issue raised by Farhad was also addressed in the last sentence: '7f either retroreflective ornon-reflective raised markers are used on a right edgeline, an engineering study should be conducted documenting the reasons for their use." The revised drafr has addressed both issues raised during the September meeting. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Mike Harrison pointed out that the use of RPMs in transverse pattern is not a good idea because of the visibility under different weather conditions. Mike noted that their product, in-roadway warning lights, is more effective to use in a transverse pattern. Matt Schmitz, FHWA, inquired that the proposed draft does not address the use of RPMs in a rumble strip pattem. Devinder responded that the use of rumble strips is addressed sepazately in the Traffic Manual, Chapter 6. The Chairman asked for other comments from the public, and there were none. The Chairman closed the public hearing and opened the discussion for the Committee members. There was a brief discussion by the Committee members on the revised verbiage. Farhad noted that it might be appropriate to include the verbiage related to the right edgeline under the "Right Edgeline" Section of the Traffic Manual. There was also discussion regarding where to position the RPMs in a transverse pattem at marked crosswalks. Devinder mentioned that the MUTCD 2000, under the Section for In-Roadway Warning Lights (IRWLs), says that IRWLs shall be installed in the azea between the outside edge of the crosswalk line and 3-m (10-foot) from the edge of the crosswalk. Mike Harrison, LightGuazd, informed the Committee that a 10-foot distance was arbitrarily picked by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. John Fisher suggested that as long as it is clearly defined that RPMs aze not to be placed on the crosswalk line, it should be left up to the agencies to make the detemunation on how faz in advance they should be placed. Wayne Tanda suggested making the verbiage clearer on the use of RPMs in a transverse pattem. (Continued) CTCDC MINUTES January 31, 2002 Page 5 of 16 Wayne recommends including: `RPMs shall not be placed either on or within the marked crosswalks." Fazhad Mansourian offered two motions, one to be added under the Section Materials, and to be read as follows: "Raised pavement markers may be used to supplement transverse or longitudinal pavement markings. If either retroreflective or non-reflective raised markers are used on a right edgeline, an engineering study should be conducted documenting the reasons far their use." Farhad further added that the remaining verbiage from the proposed revised draft should be included under Section "Right Edgeline." Wayne Tanda noted that if the mofion proposed by Farhad includes the verbiage, 'RPMs shall not be placed either on or within the marked crosswalks" after the first sentence, then he would support the motion. F had agreed with Wayne's suggestion. Motion: Moved by Farhad Mansourian seconded by Ray Mellen, as follows: "Raised pavement markers may be used to supplement transverse or longitudinal pavement markings. RPMs shall not be placed either on or within the marked crosswalks. If either retroreflective or non-reflective raised markers are used on a right edgeline, an engineering study should be conducted documenting the reasons for their use." Existing pazagraph two of the Section 6-01.3 materials would be modified as follows: ~'~- ~'~~ aAppropriate pavement delineation patterns shall be selected from these r~ . See Figures 6-1 through 6-12. The Chairmanasked for discussion on the motion. John Fisher suggested that if the two alternatives as indicated in the revised draft aze planned to be included under Section "Right Edgeline", then the striping Figures should be revised to include a typical layout of the alternatives. Wayne suggested since the remaining verbiage is proposed to be included under Section, "Right Edgeline", and the Committee does not have a current section in possession, it should be a new agenda item for the Committee's review and discussion. Committee members agreed with Wayne. Motion passed 8-0. Action: The item "Use of RPMs in a Transverse Pattern" was completed. Anew item to be placed on agenda "Right Egdeline" and Caltrans to bring a draft for the Committee's review and discussion. ~-~r~c~m~n~r ~ „ Section C • Guidelines for Crosswalks ~ ~ e Pavement markings for crosswalks Purpose: To indicate to pedestrians the appropriate route across traffic, to facilitate crossing by the visually impaired, and to remind turning drivers of potential conflicts with pedestrians Reference: MUTCD (36-1 B), the Oregon Vehicle Code (ORS 811.550(17)), and Rule OPR-4401 of the BTM Rules and Procedures Manual Where to use: At signalized intersections, all crosswalks should be marked. At unsignalized intersections, crosswalks should be marked when they • help orient pedestrians in finding their woy across a complex intersection, or • help show pedestrians the shortest route across traffic with the least exposure to vehicular traffic and traffic conflicts, or • help position pedestrians where they can best be seen by oncoming traffic. At midblock locations, crosswalks are marked where • there is a demand for crossing, and • there are no nearby marked crosswalks. Guidelines: • Use parallel pavement markings for signalized or stop-controlled crosswalks. A parallel pavement marking consists of two 300 mm (1'-0") wide stripes placed 3 m I10'-0") apart (inside dimension) to delineate the outside edges of the crosswalk, parallel to pedestrian travel. Where there is a compelling reason to narrow the crosswalk, the inside dimension between stripes may be reduced to as narrow as 1.9 m (6'-0"). • Use ladder pavement markings for crosswalks at school crossings, across arterial streets for pedestrian-only signals, at midblock crosswalks, and where the crosswalk crosses a street not controlled by signals or stop signs. A ladder pavement marking consistsof 600 mm (2'-0") wide, 3 m (10'-0") long bars on 1.5 m (5'-0") centers, with the bars placed perpendicular to pedestrian travel. • Where the Sidewalk Corridor is wider than 3.7 m (12 ft) the crosswalks may be wider than the standard width to match the Sidewalk Corridor. • At midblock locations, marked crosswalks are always accompanied by signing to warn drivers of the unexpected crosswalk. • The crosswalk should be located to align as closely as possible with the Through Pedestrian Zone of the Sidewalk Corridor. • Where traffic travel lanes are adjacent to the curb, crosswalks should be set back a minimum of 600 mm (2'-0") from the edge of the travel lane. Table C-2 Crosswalk Toolbox, continued YI Parallel pavement markings Q~Q~~~a Ladder pavement markings Portland Pedestrian Design Guide • June, 1998 RTTACHMENT "E" ~ _ ~- ~ ~ 0 ~ V~ ~_, > .(/) L ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ y. d1 O ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (n d--i f0 C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .O ~ '~ ~1 0 L (p ' ~ (n ~ (/) 0 ~ ~ Q •> U .~ ~ L p ~- ~~~ ~~ L ._ '- ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~/j ~ L- ~ L .~..~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ .L 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Qom ~a.~ _~ ^ I~1~~!! ~v ~u i 3 V L _~ Q L Q ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~ - ~ . ~ ~ O ~ . '~ U L ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ J - - ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ i • O a--i (/~ U ~ .C ~ N ~ ~ L ~ . N Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cc U ~ C C Q - ~ O rl N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cc C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J l0 N L "~ a--~ ~ L ~ ~ _ ~ ~L _ ~L ~ Q ~ ~ a--~ > > ~ (Q ~ ~ N L a--' . ~ ~ ~ ' ~ N ~~ O ~ = U a -+ ~ U ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ (~ ~ U ~ • i 3 = •u O ii L ~ V~ _N >. ~-. ~ O -p ~ ~ ~ U C (0 ~ ~L fl. ~C ~ ~ fa N ~ ~ 3 ~ o ~ a~ .~ -~ c .~ .~ 0 ~ ~ 3 ~ a~ ~ ~ v, o ~ .,~ ~ L ~ ~ >~ > _~ (!~ -~_ ~ •~ v ~> c ~_ L cQ C 0 3 0 L V YI ^O V L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~L pl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~ a~ ~ - c ~ o ~~ ~j ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~1 Q1 /-~ C d1 ~ .Q 0 ~L U n • p1 ~ ~~ ~ (n L ~ V ~ i ~ 1~... ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ U U ~ ~ . a--~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N C (~ ~ Q~ ~ ~~ L U C ~_ (~ V pl .~ Q~ • ~ ~ ~ a--~ ~ ~ C U ~ (/') ~ C O ~_ ~ ~L ~ ~ (Q a~ -~ ~ ~ ra Q ~ (~ ~ L ~ ~CC ~--~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ Q a.., ~ •> ~1 .~ U N a.:, ~ N "a N (a = N C ~ O O L ~ -N L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (p ~ ~ ~ C L L ~1 N ~ ~ Q~ ~ _ L ~~ I ~ .~ ~ ~ .~ ~ Q ~ C C ~ cv O ~ ° 3 ~ ~ ~ ° ~ p -~ ra ~ c G~ ~ ~ cn ~ -v ca GC ~~ .~~o ~ ~, c L I~ C a..+ .~ •~ U L ~ ~ ~A ~ - v ~ O v L Q1 L ~ ~ ~ .~ C = = N V . C N ~ ~ .~ V ~ ~> ~ L ~ • • • • .~ W V 3 V O ~_ ~L N Q~ Q L 0 O U_ ~L N L O Q • C ~ O _ ~cn ~, N cn ~ ~ O L V ~ (n ~ V ~ ~ ._ U '~--~ U ~ . ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ L ~ N •~ ~ ~, L ~ ~ ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ O V ~ ~ ~ .- C .~ O O_ .; Q .~ L ~~ .~ .; 0 O .~ a--~ V 1` O • U fp C' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~, V al ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ca ~ ~L ~ ~ U N N ~ > .~ O V V ~ L " ~--, ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ _ ~ O 3 ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ o ~ ~ U d1 N N ~~ Q ~ (n L `~ 3 L ~- (~ ~ ~ L ~ a--~ ~ N ~ L.7 '~ U ~ ' C ~ p U ~ ~ • • RESOLUTION NO.2004-21 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMITTEE WHEREAS, on January 18, 2004, Kevin Cotroneo submitted his resignation as the "public member" to the Traffic Engineering Committee; and WHEREAS, the "public member" vacancy was duly advertised until the close of applications on January 30, 2004, with submitted applications timely received and submitted to Council for consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ukiah City Council approves the nomination submitted per procedures outlined in Resolution No. 2001-61, and does hereby appoint Stephen Turner to the Traffic Engineering Committee as its "public member". PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of January, 2004, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Rodin, Andersen, Smith, Baldwin, and Mayor Larson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. /~ ABSENT: None. ~ I/ Eric Larson, M"dyor ATTEST: o `L~~I~J Marie Ulvila, Deputy City Clerk City of Ukiah, California Certified To Be A True and Exact Copy C Oete Matie Ulvila. Cily Clerk ~~ ~`~ e~r~ of uk~ati February 17, 2004 Mr. Jim Looney 247 GARDENS AVE UKIAH CA 954&2-5304 RE: Traffic Engineering Committee Dear Jim: We would like to express our appreciation for your many years of service as a member of the City of Ukiah Traffic Engineering Committee. You brought a practical approach to solving problems based on your first hand experience with City traffic issues. Your participation has been invaluable in providing insight and direction to the Committee, and your presence will be greatly missed. Thank you and best wishes on your retirement. Sincerely, ~3 ~i<~~ ~ TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMITTEE cc: file ~~GLILEL:~ 2-~ 2- 300 SEMINARY AVENUE UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 Phone# 707/463-6200 Faze 7071463-6204 Web Address: www.cityofukiah.com