My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Public Works Committee - 07/15/2014
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Public Works Committee
>
2010 - 2019
>
2014
>
Agenda - Public Works Committee - 07/15/2014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2025 10:39:37 AM
Creation date
7/16/2014 9:10:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Public Works Committee
Document Date
07/15/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
FH A Safety Guidance <br />Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance in the <br />Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled <br />Locations should be determined based on the traffic volume, speed, and <br />roadway type. The study indicates the types of treatments recommended <br />for installing marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations. <br />Research indicates that there is a statistically significant difference in the <br />safety between a marked and unmarked crossing when traffic volume <br />is over 15,000, or over 12,00() without a median, under most speeds, as <br />shown in the table below. <br />(to000) <br />1,37 "11. <br />Lt <br />hto FteRso3MoctscrtN Roitiod Modtzn No Rased Iff"Aan Roiso0 Mt 03 F0004,31400t0o <br />124 AM' 12‘0°040000001T t• 10000 AV 5. 10.030 Aar .P.1$000A0T <br />3 to Lams 3 to Storm 3 %at! Lows 3 to 0 Poott0 3 to 01000 <br />(310 $OO !PM Saes) (41r $441) (47 001o6) (in s4b,$) <br />croswa* two <br />ent. tmirAcl <br />014 <br />of Crossing <br />This research provides the basis for the guidance in Table 1 on page 18. <br />Guidelines provided in the table include intersections and midblock loca- <br />tions with no traffic signals or stop signs on the approach to the crossing. <br />Crosswalks should not be installed at locations that could present an <br />increased safety risk to pedestrians —such as where there is poor sight <br />distance, complex or confusing designs, a substantial volume of heavy <br />trucks, or other dangers —without first providing adequate design features <br />and/or traffic control devices. Adding crosswalks alone will not make <br />crossings safer, nor will they necessarily result in more vehicles stopping <br />for pedestrians. <br />Whether or not marked crosswalks are installed, it is important to con- <br />sider other pedestrian facility enhancements (e.g., raised median, traffic <br />signal, roadway narrowing, enhanced overhead lighting, traffic -calming <br />measures, curb extensions, etc.) as needed to improve the safety of the <br />crossing. <br />Guidelines outlined in the table are general recommendations; good <br />engineering judgment should be used in individual cases when deciding <br />where to install crosswalks. <br />Sources: <br />C. V. Zeeger, J. R. Stewart, H. H. Huang, P. A. Lagerwey, J. Feaganes and B. Campbell, "Safety Effects of <br />Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks a Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report and Recommended Guide <br />lines," Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, September 2005. <br />K. Fitzpatrick, S. Turner, M. Brewer; P. Carlson, B. Ullman, N. Trout, E. S. Park and J. Whitcare, "Improving <br />Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings," Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, <br />Washington, DC, 2006. <br />71 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.