Loading...
11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install GuidelinesCITY OF BOULDER TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: November 18, 2024 AGENDA TITLE: Briefing and feedback regarding the Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines Update PRESENTERS: Valerie Watson, Interim Director of Transportation and Mobility Stephen Rijo, Transportation Planning Manager Devin Joslin, Principal Traffic Engineer Lesley Mace, Senior Civil Engineering Project Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2024 Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guideline Update project aims to align Boulder’s pedestrian safety practices with the city’s values of safety, equity, and resilience, as outlined in key guiding documents such as the Transportation Master Plan (TMP), Vision Zero Action Plan, Sustainability, Equity, and Resilience Framework, and Citywide Strategic Plan. This document responds to community concerns and questions regarding the guidelines, addressing how they prioritize pedestrian safety, adapt to real-world road user behaviors, and incorporate the latest standards and best practices for road safety. This approach underscores the city's ongoing work to advance TMP and Vision Zero Action Plan goals, meet the needs of all road users, especially those who are most vulnerable, while maintaining an accessible and connected multimodal transportation network. BACKGROUND The City of Boulder's Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines outline a comprehensive framework to improve pedestrian safety and mobility. The guidelines, originally established in 1996 and last updated in 2011, align with national standards from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the recently updated Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and best practices from peer agencies. These updates aim to enhance transparency and consistency in the processes used to evaluate and determine the appropriate type of pedestrian crossing treatments across the city. The 2024 update emphasizes improvements through a citywide methodology and reflects Boulder’s commitment to pedestrian safety as part of its Vision Zero Action Plan. Key enhancements in the 2024 update include adjustments to the thresholds for implementing advanced crossing treatments like Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs), also referred to as a High- Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) signal, and Pedestrian Signals. Of note, there are instances within this memo and the 2024 guidelines where HAWKs and pedestrian signals are 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 1 of 32 collectively referred to as crossings that provide a red indication, meaning that approaching vehicle traffic is required to come to a complete stop at the crossing. The guidelines consider factors such as pedestrian volumes, vehicle speeds, roadway volumes, and lane configurations to determine appropriate treatments at crossing locations. Treatment options range from marked crosswalks with static signage to more complex installations such as Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs), HAWKs, and Pedestrian Signals depending on the factors listed above. The guidelines also prioritize streetlighting, and ADA-compliant curb ramps to ensure safe, accessible, and efficient crossing facilities for all users. Boulder’s Vision Zero commitment includes regular evaluation and updates to guidelines, consideration of community feedback, and compliance with state and federal standards to meet its goals for enhanced pedestrian safety and to facilitate multimodal travel within the city. PUBLIC FEEDBACK The City of Boulder has made significant strides in pedestrian safety through systematic updates to the Pedestrian Plan, integrated within the TMP and supported by the Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PAC). The PAC, established in 2018 to ensure community participation, played a pivotal role in guiding updates by bringing in diverse perspectives and feedback on pedestrian needs to the creation of the 2019 Boulder Pedestrian Plan. Their contributions were essential in shaping Boulder’s commitment to creating safe, accessible, and inclusive pedestrian infrastructure, with past updates focused on assessing current conditions, defining clear goals, and establishing actionable strategies to drive improvements. Building on this foundation, the 2024 Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines introduce enhanced crossing treatments, explicitly prioritize pedestrian safety over vehicle level of service, and target high-risk areas across Boulder. This update reflects extensive public feedback from a community group and supports Boulder’s Vision Zero objectives and TMP goals, reinforcing the city's dedication to a safe, accessible, and connected multimodal transportation network. The community engagement process for this update spanned three phases to incorporate a range of insights from a community and agency representative working group: 1. Winter–Spring 2024: Collected feedback on prior crossing experiences from community members and reviewed information from the Pedestrian Advisory Committee past efforts. 2. Fall 2024: Presented the guideline update to a community and agency representative working group and gathered feedback. 3. Fall 2024: Presentation to the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) to review community group input and seek TAB feedback to finalize updates. This inclusive, phased approach ensures that the guidelines reflect the community's priorities and continue to advance pedestrian safety across Boulder. HIGHLIGHTS OF THE UPDATE AND KEY CONSIDERATIONS 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 2 of 32 The updates to the pedestrian crossing guidelines represent a forward-thinking approach. While in some cases the new guidelines may result in a more enhanced crossing treatment type being recommended at an existing crossing location, they are not designed to react to every such situation identified across the current transportation system immediately. The guidelines do establish a clear framework for ongoing improvements and outline a clear process for evaluating requests for new crossings that result from either community member concerns, crash data, or from continuing work to enhance the system, such as through the Core Arterial Network initiative. Thus, this update provides staff with an outline and guidance to better prioritize and address pedestrian safety across the city. The goal is to integrate these guidelines into a subsequent pedestrian crossing treatment focused action plan, allowing staff to identify, prioritize, and gradually implement these enhanced treatments as part of a comprehensive, long-term strategy that assesses both existing and potential new crossing locations. By taking this proactive step, it ensures that future upgrades will be based on the most current standards and best practices, while being mindful of budget constraints and the need for systematic, thoughtful improvements over time. It will also allow for a concerted approach to seeking future external funding opportunities and provide a roadmap for prioritized implementation. Discussed below are some highlights of the new approaches infused within this guidelines update and key topic areas staff considered. Key Destinations: • The update now includes key destinations that can be exempted from meeting minimum pedestrian crossing volume thresholds including locations where the crossing being evaluated: connects both ends of a multi-use path, is a crosstown bikeway or Greenstreet that crosses a multi-lane collector or arterial, or is contiguous with a transit stop or public school. 300’ Spacing: • When block lengths are longer than 300 feet, locations are in an urban context, or when providing access to a key destination, controlled crossings can now be permitted at a minimum of 200-foot spacing, provided that the resultant pedestrian crossing does not cross any auxiliary lanes or is not in an intersection influence area. Posted vs Operating Speed: • The crossing treatment selection matrix continues to use posted speed as the speed for determining the crossing treatment type. This method aligns with the city’s long-term goal of consistently setting speed limits using a context-sensitive methodology, transforming corridors, and expanding automated enforcement to facilitate slower speeds and better compliance with posted speed limits. Regardless of posted or operating speed, 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 3 of 32 the updated crossing treatment selection matrix now recommends a higher level of crossing treatment across many more cases, particularly those that involve a multiple threat. MUTCD Warrants: • The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 11th Edition, December 2023 (MUTCD) contains warrants for both pedestrian signals and HAWKs. However, the 2024 guidelines do not rely solely on these warrants to determine whether the city will install a crossing treatment that provides a red indication. The warrants are a guide to help practitioners decide between the two treatment types. As written, the guidelines, use a combination of factors within the crossing treatment selection flowchart and matrix to determine cases where a red indication is appropriate. In these cases, the red indication will be considered for installation regardless of how the vehicular and pedestrian volumes plot on the MUTCD warrants since the guidelines create allowances for exceptions to the MUTCD’s minimum volume thresholds to install either a pedestrian signal or a HAWK. The 2024 guidelines allow for a more nuanced assessment beyond that contained in the MUTCD. Crash History: • Review of crash history is now considered in the pedestrian crossing treatment flowchart. If a location does not meet the required pedestrian volume demand or qualify for an exemption as a key destination, then the crash history can be reviewed to determine whether there have been 3 or more crashes in a 5-year period that would be correctable through the installation of a pedestrian crossing treatment. Raised Crossings: • Following FHWA guidance, raised crosswalks may be installed on 2-lane or 3-lane roads with speed limits of 30 mph or less and annual average daily traffic below about 9,000. Section 3.6 in the 2024 guidelines now provides more detail about the applicability of raised crosswalks. Multiple Threat Crashes: • A multiple threat crash is a type of pedestrian crash that occurs on a roadway with two or more lanes in the same direction when a vehicle in one of these lanes yields but the other does not. The updated crossing treatment selection matrix now recommends crossings with the potential for multiple threat crashes have either an RRFB or a red indication, except in a few cases on 3-lane roadways with a striped median and speeds of 30 mph or less. 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 4 of 32 Signal Coordination: • A tradeoff of installing a red indication, which is required to display a steady yellow clearance interval prior to the red indication, is that a pedestrian using the crossing may be required to wait longer than compared to crossing with static signs or an RRFB. The clearance interval is required for vehicular traffic to safely and completely stop in advance of the crossing. The decision whether to coordinate the red indication or not with adjacent traffic signals along the corridor depends on factors that can now be evaluated on a site-by-site basis and seeks to strike a balance between safety and mobility. The forthcoming update to the signal timing practices is the place where details related to coordination of pedestrian crossings with red indications will be addressed. Some key factors to consider include: transit frequency, proximity of pedestrian crossing to adjacent signals, pedestrian crossing volume, and crossing distance. Sight Distance: • The 2024 guidelines now clarify that the required sight distance necessary at a potential crossing location corresponds to the stopping sight distance required at the posted speed limit as detailed in the AASHTO Green Book. The guidelines further clarify the various mitigations to consider if the stopping sight distance cannot be met at a location, including trimming vegetation or installing traffic calming to slow speeds. However, there may be instances where the roadway horizontal or vertical curvature may be too great to overcome feasibly, in which case another nearby crossing location should be considered. High Risk Network Considerations: • The guidelines have been updated to address the Vision Zero Action Plan’s High Risk Network (HRN) by incorporating the key risk factors associated with the HRN in the decision-making structure of the guidelines. Factors that staff now consider while selecting crossing treatment types are if a multi-use path is present, daily vehicle traffic, vehicle speeds, land uses present, and the presence of signalized and unsignalized intersections. All these factors are referenced in the decision flow of the 2024 guidelines, and influential to how staff will apply these guidelines to remedy the HRN risk factors that influence crossing safety. Framework and Objectives: • The 2024 guidelines, grounded in recent research and federal standards, aim to create a safer, more predictable, and user-friendly pedestrian network that prioritizes the protection of all road users. 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 5 of 32 Alignment with Vision Zero Goals: • The 2024 guidelines align with Vision Zero’s Safe System approach by implementing data-driven treatments that are proven safety countermeasures to reduce the occurrence of pedestrian and bicyclist crossing related crashes citywide. This includes using crash data and contextual factors to select appropriate treatments, helping prevent crashes before they occur, which is a central tenet of Vision Zero’s proactive mitigation goals. Crossing Treatment Types: • The 2024 guidelines now streamline treatments into three main types, whereas the 2011 guidelines provided six types with more emphasis on signage and physical adjustments. The three main types are: static signs, RRFBs, and red indication (either HAWK or pedestrian signal, depending on evaluated conditions). Evaluation Procedures: • The 2024 guidelines introduce a new matrix with updated, data-driven thresholds for crossing treatment determination, that are in alignment with the MUTCD. It is anticipated that this latest version of the MUTCD will be adopted for use in Colorado by early 2026. Treatment Selection: • The 2024 guidelines now recommend lowering the thresholds for more enhanced crossing treatment types, such as pedestrian signals, HAWKs, and RRFBs, that enhance pedestrian safety by addressing multiple-threat risks and improving driver yielding compliance. CONCLUSION The guidelines help staff to consistently evaluate either the need for new pedestrian crossings or modifications to existing crossings. The city is committed to enhancing safety for people walking, biking, and using micromobility devices by implementing consistent and effective crossing treatments throughout the transportation system. Ensuring safe and efficient crossings is essential for meeting the city’s transportation and strategic goals. This commitment involves providing a uniform approach to crossing treatments that are thoughtfully designed to match the specific needs of each corridor. To achieve this, variations in crossing treatment types may be considered based on engineering judgment per the Principal Traffic Engineer based on historical data, ensuring that each solution is tailored to the unique characteristics of the influence area. When applying engineering judgment, documentation must be provided to explain the variance. By maintaining this continuity and flexibility, the city aims to foster a safer, more predictable environment for pedestrians and drivers alike. The updates and 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 6 of 32 increased level of crossing treatments recommended represent a major safety benefit that will be implemented as resources allow and bolstered by the upcoming prioritization and action planning effort to follow these 2024 guidelines. BOARD ACTION REQUESTED Staff is seeking TAB feedback regarding the updated Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines. NEXT STEPS • Finalize 2024 guidelines based on TAB feedback • Initiate work on pedestrian crossing treatment focused action plan that will seek to identify gaps in crossing treatments across the transportation system and develop a prioritization methodology for seeking funding to implement new or enhance existing crossings as part of a comprehensive, long-term strategy. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 7 of 32 Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 8 of 32 For More Information, please contact: City of Boulder – Transportation Division P.O. Box 791 Boulder, Colorado 80306 (303) 441-3266 Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 9 of 32 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 3 1.0 DEFINITIONS ....................................................................................................... 4 2.0 CROSSING LOCATION EVALUATION PROCEDURES AND CONSIDERATIONS 10 2.1 Evaluation Steps ............................................................................................. 10 2.2 Additional Evaluation Considerations .............................................................. 12 2.2.1 Geometric Considerations and Improvements ......................................... 12 2.2.2 Types of Crossing Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations ........................ 13 2.2.3 Minimum Vehicle Volume for Treatments ................................................ 14 2.2.4 Pedestrian Median Refuge and Minimum Median Refuge Width ............. 14 2.2.5 Distance to Nearest Marked or Protected Crossing ................................. 14 2.2.6 Selecting Between a Pedestrian Traffic Signal, HAWK Beacon, or RRFBs 15 2.2.7 Signal Progression and Traffic Operational Considerations ..................... 16 2.2.8 Unmarked Pedestrian Crossing Facilitation ............................................. 16 3.0 SUPPLEMENTAL POLICIES ............................................................................. 20 3.1 Avoiding Overuse of Crossing Treatments...................................................... 20 3.2 Multi-Use Path and GreenStreet Crossings .................................................... 20 3.3 Textured and Colored Pavement Treatments ................................................. 20 3.4 Accessible Crosswalks ................................................................................... 20 3.5 Raised Crossings at Right-Turn Bypass Islands ............................................. 21 3.6 Raised Crosswalks ......................................................................................... 21 3.7 Accommodation of Bicyclists ........................................................................... 21 3.8 Removal of Treatments ................................................................................... 21 4.0 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 23 Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 10 of 32 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 1 – Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Flowchart .................................................................6 Table 1 – Criteria for Crossing Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations ........................................7 Crossing Location Evaluation Worksheet ..................................................................................16 Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 11 of 32 Executive Summary Ensuring safe and efficient crossings for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other micromobility users is essential for meeting the City of Boulder’s transportation and strategic goals. These initiatives are key to enhancing mobility, reducing traffic congestion, and supporting sustainable transportation, thereby fostering a more connected and accessible community. The Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines serves to evaluate potential or proposed unmarked crossings and mid-block crossing locations for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other micromobility users. The guide can also be applied to existing marked crossing locations when a street is undergoing maintenance or construction or adjacent land use is being redeveloped. The user guide has a technical purpose, but also furthers multimodal transportation options and safety goals. This document provides guidance for the City of Boulder to apply a consistent and transparent approach for determining the appropriate crossing facility type based on street characteristics and adjacent land uses. It also creates a consistent experience for people walking, biking, and driving, in order to increase the intuitiveness and thus compliance of the transportation network. This document should be applied to determine crossing locations and types both reactively and proactively. Reactively, these Guidelines can be used in response to a community member request or a correctable crash pattern. Proactively, these Guidelines can be used as a part of a corridor project, to inform the Capital Improvement Program, or as a part of a retrofit. This document revises Boulder’s approach to pedestrian and bicyclist crossings, superseding the 2011 Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines with a new framework based on the latest research, federal standards, and Vision Zero objectives. The updated guidelines are shaped by recent studies and data, including a detailed crash analysis of current pedestrian and bicyclist crossings in Boulder. All elements of this document are subject to engineering judgment. Any element not specifically allowed by this document requires an exception documented by the Principal Traffic Engineer. This analysis has led to the development of new criteria and procedures for evaluating the need for crossing treatments. The updated framework includes: •Pedestrian Crossing Criteria and Procedures: A detailed "flowchart" approach to assess the need for crossing treatments based on user volumes, user types, vehicular volumes, nearby destinations, crash history, and roadway geometry. •Applicable Crossing Treatments: A catalog of specific pedestrian crossing treatments that correspond to various crossing scenarios, reflecting recent advancements and federal standards. •Vision Zero Action Plan Initiatives: The Vision Zero Action Plan has identified seven common crash types that the City is actively working to reduce and enhance safety for: o Red light running crashes o Left-turn crashes o Right-turn slip-lane crashes o Right-turn on red crashes Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 12 of 32 o Right-turn crashes o Multi-use path crossing crashes o Pedestrian crashes while crossing the street The updated guidelines specifically focus on addressing the last two crash types: multi-use path crossing crashes and pedestrian crashes while crossing the street. This pedestrian crossing update has taken these patterns into consideration when developing the latest guidelines, aiming to enhance safety and reduce incidents associated with these crash types. The City of Boulder has implemented various pedestrian crossing demonstration devices at over 40 locations, including enhanced crosswalk signage, pedestrian-actuated flashing signals, and raised crossings at right-turn bypass islands. These measures have led to significant improvements in driver compliance and pedestrian crossing safety. The updated federal guidance and local data have been integrated into the revised guidelines to ensure alignment with best practices and the latest safety standards. In summary, the updated Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines are designed to provide a consistent and informed approach to evaluating and implementing crossing treatments. As funding for pedestrian improvements must be balanced with other transportation system needs, these guidelines ensure that crossing treatments are prioritized and allocated effectively based on resources, safety, and operational needs. 1.0 DEFINITIONS This section includes the definitions of some of the common technical terms used in this document. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) The amount of vehicular traffic that crosses an imaginary line across a roadway in a 24-hour period. ADT information typically includes both directions of vehicle travel (if on a two-way street). ADT is correlated with pedestrian delay when crossing a street. Controlled Pedestrian Crossing A pedestrian crossing where motorists are required to stop by either a stop sign, beacon or traffic signal. This does not include a RRFB. Crosswalk Lighting Street lighting applied at a pedestrian crossing to help approaching motorists see a crossing pedestrian. Crosswalk lighting is at a “vehicular scale” like roadside street lighting rather than a “pedestrian scale” that is often used along a sidewalk. Curb Extensions A roadway edge treatment where a curbline is bulged out toward the middle of the roadway to narrow the width of the street. Curb extensions are sometimes called “neckdowns” and are often used at the location of a pedestrian crosswalk to minimize the distance and time that a crossing pedestrian must be in the roadway. Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 13 of 32 Differential Vehicle Queuing See also Vehicle Queue. A condition on a roadway with two or more travel lanes in a single direction where the line of stopped traffic in one travel lane is significantly longer than the line of stopped traffic in the adjacent travel lane. Differential vehicle queuing across a pedestrian crosswalk can cause a significant safety concern as it increases the potential for “multiple threat” pedestrian crashes. Gap in Traffic A gap in traffic is the space between vehicles approaching the pedestrian crossing. Gaps are typically measured in seconds, not distance, as it is the length of the gap in time in which a pedestrian must be able to cross. A directional gap is the gap between vehicles approaching in a single direction. A directional gap can be measured between vehicles in a single lane, or between vehicles approaching in the same direction but in different lanes on a multi-lane approach. If there is no median refuge at the crossing, a pedestrian will need to find an acceptable gap in traffic approaching from two directions at once. This is much more challenging than finding a gap in each approach direction separately. GreenStreet A low-traffic street prioritized for making walking and biking comfortable for people of all ages and abilities. High-intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) Beacon A HAWK beacon is a type of crossing treatment used to both warn and control traffic at a pedestrian crossing. It is actuated by a pedestrian push button and uses a combination of circular yellow and red traffic signal displays to first warn motorists of a pedestrian that is about to cross the street, then require the motorist to stop for the pedestrian crossing, and then release the motorist to proceed once the pedestrian has cleared the crossing. When the red beacons are active, either in a steady red or flashing red condition, motorists must stop at the crosswalk. The red beacons begin to flash coinciding with the Flashing Don’t Walk indication being displayed to the person using the crossing. Vehicles must stop and remain stopped on a steady red indication and must stop and proceed only when the crossing is clear, and it is safe to do so during the flashing red indication. The Beacon is a hybrid between a pedestrian traffic signal and a stop sign. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices refers to a HAWK beacon as a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon. Lane A portion of the roadway surface designated for motor vehicle travel, typically in a single direction, that is delineated by pavement marking stripes. Types of lanes include: “through lanes” for travel along the length of the roadway, often through intersections; “turn lanes” which are typically on intersection approaches and provide space for left or right turning motorists; “bike lanes” which are designated for bicycle travel, are narrower than vehicle lanes, and are usually located along the outside edges of the roadway. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) The MUTCD defines the standards used by road managers nationwide to install and maintain traffic control devices on all streets, highways, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and site roadways open to public travel. The MUTCD is published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Marked Crosswalk Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 14 of 32 A pedestrian crossing that is delineated by white crosswalk pavement markings. Marked crosswalks typically also are accompanied by a variety of traffic signs. Marked crosswalks would require curb ramps if there is curb and gutter in an area. Median Refuge An area in the middle of a roadway where a crossing pedestrian can take shelter from approaching traffic in either direction. In the context of these guidelines, the median refuge must include a raised or quick-build median at least six feet wide (see Section 2.2.4 for a description of types of median refuges). A median refuge allows a pedestrian to cross each direction of approaching traffic in a separate step. By using the refuge, the pedestrian must only find an acceptable gap in traffic for one approach direction at a time. Micromobility Any small, low-speed, human- or electric-powered transportation device, including bicycles, scooters, electric-assist bicycles, electric scooters (e-scooters), and other small, lightweight, wheeled conveyances. Can be privately owned or shared. Minimum Pedestrian Volume Threshold The minimum amount of pedestrian crossing traffic (typically in a one-hour period) that must be present to “warrant” the installation of a pedestrian crossing treatment. Motorist Compliance Data Observations made and recorded at a pedestrian crossing where it is determined if the approaching motorist complied with their legal requirement to yield to a crossing pedestrian who is in or about to enter the crosswalk. Multiple Threat Crashes A type of pedestrian crash that occurs on a roadway with two or more lanes in the same direction. A motorist who stops for a crossing pedestrian can obscure the view of the pedestrian from another motorist approaching in the adjacent travel lane. If the second motorist does not slow down, it creates the potential for a crossing pedestrian to step out in front of a high speed approach vehicle. Multi-Use Path Crossing A location where a sidewalk designated as a multi-use path intersects a roadway at-grade, and the path extends on both sides of the roadway. Neckdowns See Curb Extensions. Pedestrian Any person traveling by foot or a mobility device. Pedestrian Traffic Signal A conventional traffic signal with circular red, yellow, and green displays for motorists and Walk/Don’t Walk signals for pedestrians that is applied at a pedestrian crossing. Pedestrian signals are actuated through the use of a pedestrian/bicycle push button or innovative detection. A pedestrian signal would be applied in a mid-block location since it would be considered a normal intersection related traffic signal if it were to be applied at an intersection. Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 15 of 32 PROWAG is guidance from the Access Board under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) that addresses access to sidewalks and streets, crosswalks, curb ramps, pedestrian signals, on-street parking, and other components of public right-of-way. PROWAG also provides guidance for shared use paths, which are designed primarily for use by bicyclists and pedestrians for transportation and recreation purposes. Raised Median An area in the middle of a roadway, commonly separating vehicles traveling in opposite directions, that is surrounded by curb and gutter and is physically raised above the surrounding pavement where vehicles travel. Raised medians often contain landscaped areas. See also Median Refuge. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) RRFBs are small rectangular yellow flashing lights that are deployed with pedestrian crossing warning signs. They are typically actuated by a pedestrian push button and flash for a predetermined amount of time, to allow a pedestrian to cross the roadway, before going dark. RRFBs are warning devices and do not themselves create a legal requirement for a vehicle to stop when they are flashing. School Crossing A School Crossing is defined as a crossing location where ten or more student pedestrians per school bell time hour are crossing. Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing An established pedestrian crossing that does not include a traffic signal, a HAWK beacon, or a stop sign that requires motor vehicles to stop before entering the crosswalk. For example, Boulder’s crosswalks with signs are considered “uncontrolled”. Vehicle Queue A line of stopped vehicles in a single travel lane, commonly caused by traffic control at an intersection. Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 16 of 32 Figure 1: Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Flowchart Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 17 of 32 Table 1: Criteria for Crossing Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations ≤ 30 mph 35 mph 40 mph ≥ 45 mph ≤ 30 mph 35 mph 40 mph ≥ 45 mph ≤ 30 mph 35 mph 40 mph ≥ 45 mph ≤ 30 mph 35 mph 40 mph ≥ 45 mph 2 1 A1 B1 B1 B1 A1 B1 B1 C A1 B1 B1 C B1 B1 B1 C 2 Lanes (two way street with no median)2 0 A1 B1 B1 B1 A1 B1 B1 C A1 B1 C C B1 B1 C C 1 or 2 0 or 1 A2 B2 B2 B2 A2 B2 C C A2 C C C B2 C C C 3 0 or 1 A2 B1 C C A2 B1 C C A2 C C C B1 C C C 4 2 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 2 or 3 2 B2 B2 C C B2 C C C B2 C C C C C C C 5 2 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 3 to 6 4 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Notes: * Quick-build medians can be considered a refuge if they feature markings and vertical devices (e.g., delineator posts). Similarly, a 6-foot wide raised median next to a left turn lane can only be considered a refuge for pedestrians if the left turning volume is less than 20 vehicles per hour (meaning that in most cases the left turn lane is not occupied while the pedestrian is crossing). ** A multiple threat lane is defined as a through lane where it is possible for a pedestrian to step out from in front of a stopped vehicle in the adjacent travel lane (either through or turn lane). Treatment Descriptions: A1 Install marked crosswalk with enhanced road-side signs. A2 Install marked crosswalk with enhanced road-side and in-roadway (bollard mounted) signs. B1 B2 C Install marked crosswalk with enhanced road-side and median signs and RRFBs. Specific Guidance : Install marked crosswalk with "State Law - Yield to Pedestrian" signs WITH pedestrian activated RRFBs mounted on the side of the roadway and on median mounted signs; use standard (W11-2) advance pedestrian warning signs; use S1-1 signs for School Crossing locations. Do not install marked crosswalk at uncontrolled crossing. Install HAWK beacon, pedestrian traffic signal, or grade-separated crossing. Specific Guidance : Install HAWK beacon, pedestrian traffic signal, or grade-separated crossing; application of these treatments will consider corridor signal progression, existing grades, physical constraints, and other engineering factors. 6 Lanes (two way street with or without median) Specific Guidance : Install marked crosswalk with "State Law - Yield to Pedestrian" signs mounted on the side of the roadway with standard (W11-2) advance pedestrian warning signs; use S1-1 signs for School Crossing locations. Specific Guidance : Install marked crosswalk with "State Law - Yield to Pedestrian" signs mounted on the side of the roadway and on in-roadway bollards; use standard (W11-2) advance pedestrian warning signs; use S1-1 signs for School Crossing locations. Install marked crosswalk with enhanced road-side signs and RRFBs. Specific Guidance : Install marked crosswalk with "State Law - Yield to Pedestrian" signs mounted on the side of the roadway WITH pedestrian activated RRFBs mounted on the side of the roadway; use standard (W11-2) advance pedestrian warning signs; use S1-1 signs for School Crossing locations. 2 Lanes (one way street) 3 Lanes w/Raised Median 3 Lanes w/Striped Median 4 Lanes (two way street with no median) 5 Lanes w/Raised Median 5 Lanes w/Striped Median Roadway Configuration # of lanes crossed to reach a refuge(*) # of multiple threat lanes(**) per crossing Roadway ADT and Speed Limit 1,500-9,000 vpd 9,000-12,000 vpd 12,000-15,000 vpd > 15,000 vpd Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 18 of 32 2.0 CROSSING LOCATION EVALUATION PROCEDURES AND CONSIDERATIONS 2.1 Evaluation Steps Evaluation of an individual crossing location for potential crossing treatments in the City of Boulder should include the following four basic steps: Step 1: Identification and Description of Crossing Location Step 2: Physical Data Collection Step 3: Traffic Data Collection and Operational Observations Step 4: Apply Data to Figure 1 and Table 1 to Determine Appropriate Treatments The Crossing Location Evaluation Worksheet is included in this guidebook which will guide staff through these steps. A detailed discussion of each of these procedures is provided in the following text. Step 1: Identification and Description of Crossing Location a) Identify the pedestrian crossing location including the major street and specific location of the crossing (i.e., cross-street, street address, intersecting path or trail, etc.). b) Determine if the crossing location connects both ends of a multi-use path, is the location where a cross-town bikeway/GreenStreet crosses a multi-lane collector or arterial, or is contiguous with a transit stop or public school. If it does, the minimum pedestrian volume requirements are not required to be met to apply the treatments prescribed in Table 1. c) Note the posted speed along the major street at the crossing location. Step 2: Physical Data Collection a) Identify the existing traffic control and any existing crossing treatments (signs, markings, or physical treatments), street lighting, and curb ramps. b) Determine the existing roadway configuration including the number and type of lanes and the presence of painted or raised medians at the crossing location. c) Identify the nearest marked or protected crossing and measure the distance to this crossing. d) Measure the stopping sight distance (SSD) on all vehicular approaches to the crossing. Note opportunities for vegetation trimming to address sight distance. e) Determine if the location has appropriate availability of street lighting or an opportunity to add lighting with the project. Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 19 of 32 f) Determine if the location has curb ramp, types, widths, and frequency of use. Note if there is an opportunity to add a curb ramp with the project. Step 3: Traffic Data Collection and Operational Observations a) Gather or collect pedestrian and bicyclist crossing volumes during the peak hours of use. This will typically involve AM, midday, and PM peak hours. Locations near schools may only require two hours of data collection (AM and PM peak hours corresponding to school opening and closing times). All pedestrian and bicyclist volumes should include and differentiate between pedestrians and bicyclists and should note separately the number of young, elderly, and/or disabled pedestrians in which the young, elderly, and disabled pedestrians should count as two times (2x) towards the pedestrian volume. For locations where school crossing traffic is anticipated, the volume of student pedestrians or bicyclists (school age pedestrians/bicyclists on their way to/from school) should also be separately noted. Whenever possible, pedestrian and bicycle volumes should be collected during warm- weather months and during fair weather conditions to represent peak crossing activity. If school traffic is a factor, the counts should be scheduled on school days when classes are in session. Given the potential fluctuation in pedestrian/bicyclist traffic from day to day, it may be considered to collect up to three days of data (use additional Crossing Location Evaluation Worksheets as needed) to determine if an enhanced pedestrian crossing treatment is warranted. b) Gather or collect hourly and average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for automobile traffic along the major and minor roadway at the crossing location, ideally while school is in session. A one-day sample should be adequate, with hourly volumes collected during the same hour as the pedestrian/bicyclist crossing volumes. c) Due to the potential for vehicular traffic queues to impact safety at the crossings, the presence of queues extending from downstream signals or intersections back into the crossing location should be observed, as well as any "differential" queuing that may occur on a lane-to-lane basis. While collecting automobile traffic data, the formation of vehicle queues from adjacent intersections should be noted. If one or both directional queues reaches back to the crossing location, the number of times per hour that it reaches the crossing location should be noted, and the maximum queue length should also be recorded. If there is more than one through lane in each direction, it should be noted if the queues reaching back to the crossing are approximately the same length in each lane or are there significant differences in the length of the queues in each lane. If the queues are routinely of different lengths as they extend beyond the crossing location, notes should be made as to the potential cause of the differential queuing. d) Collect crash data from the most recent 5 years of available data. Determine if there is a history of at least 3 bicycle- or pedestrian-involved crashes within the influence area of the location. Crashes should be a crash type correctable by an enhanced crossing. The area of influence is defined as within 150 feet of a proposed crossing location. Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 20 of 32 Step 4: Apply Data to Figure 1 and Table 1 to Determine if a Pedestrian Crossing Treatment is Warranted a) Using the available data, utilize Figure 1 – Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Flowchart to determine if a pedestrian crossing treatment is warranted. Step 5: If a Pedestrian Crossing is Warranted, Determine the Appropriate Treatments a) Using Table 1 – Criteria for Crossing Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations, determine appropriate treatment(s) for signalized, stop-controlled, or uncontrolled locations. Also consider and incorporate the information in Section 2.2 as appropriate. 2.2 Additional Evaluation Considerations The following information should be considered by the user of these guidelines when determining the appropriate pedestrian crossing treatment: 2.2.1 Geometric Considerations and Improvements Wherever possible, geometric improvements to the roadway should be considered to increase the safety and comfort of crossing locations. The goal of these geometric improvements is to make changes to the roadway that reduce the type of device needed to provide a safe pedestrian crossing. Geometric improvements should be considered at all locations where feasible, especially when crossings are part of a corridor level improvement project. Corridor scale improvements provide the best opportunity to make geometric improvements that increase crossing safety and comfort such as, reduced speeds, fewer travel lanes, shortened crossing distances, increased median refuge width, tighter turning radii and improved visibility, all of which improve crossing safety. A median refuge island should be considered at locations where feasible. Add curb extensions where feasible if on-street parking exists and storm drainage can be accommodated. Changes to turning radii and physical protection should be considered at intersection crossings where feasible. These guidelines encourage users to be creative in their pairing of geometric improvements and enhanced crossings wherever possible. The City should consider opportunities for vegetation trimming to improve sight lines. If a roadway’s vertical or horizontal geometry is creating sight distance obstructions, traffic calming measures or other geometric improvements should be evaluated to reduce speeds sufficiently to meet stopping sight distance requirements. If sight distance obstructions cannot be feasibly overcome with these measures, other crossing locations should be considered. When paired with improved crossing treatments, geometric improvements create a safer, more comfortable crossing than if only one type of improvement was provided. This can effectively reduce the type of devices recommended in Table 1, and provide an improved crossing experience for a lower level of crossing treatment. The final crossing treatment is the sum of its parts and combining geometric improvements with enhanced crossings where feasible adds up to an overall improved treatment. Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 21 of 32 2.2.2 Types of Crossing Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations Table 1 identifies three primary types of uncontrolled crossing treatments for consideration depending on the physical roadway conditions, speed limit, and vehicle volume at the potential crossing location, etc. The crossing types are as follows: Crossing Type A: • Marked crosswalk • “State Law – Yield to Pedestrians” signs mounted on the side of the roadway at the crossing, with diagonal down arrow placards (W16-7P) • Standard advance pedestrian warning signs (W11-2) mounted in advance of the crossing • If the location is a school crossing then standard S1-1 signs should be used in place of “State Law – Yield to Pedestrians” signs • If the location is a multi-use path or cross-town bikeway crossing, W11-15 signs (including a bicycle and pedestrian) can be used in place of “State Law – Yield to Pedestrians” signs • If the location has a raised or striped median, an In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign (R1- 6) (bollard mounted) should be considered Crossing Type B: • Marked crosswalk • “State Law – Yield to Pedestrians” signs mounted on the side of the roadway with diagonal down arrow placards (W16-7P) • Pedestrian actuated Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) mounted roadside • Standard advance pedestrian warning signs (W11-2) mounted in advance of the crossing • If the location is a multi-use path or cross-town bikeway crossing, W11-15 signs (including a bicycle and pedestrian) can be used in place of “State Law – Yield to Pedestrians” signs • On four-lane streets (two approach lanes in a single direction) with a raised or striped median, median mounted should be considered. Standard on-median signs (W11-2) should also be considered • On four-lane streets (two approach lanes in a single direction), install advance yield lines and “Yield Here to Pedestrians” (R1-5) signs • If the location is a school crossing, then standard S1-1 signs should be used in place of “State Law – Yield to Pedestrians” signs Crossing Type C: • Crossing is not suitable for an uncontrolled marked crosswalk • Consider pedestrian traffic signal, HAWK beacon or grade-separated pedestrian crossing • Must consider corridor signal progression, grades, physical constraints, and other engineering factors In Table 1 there are two columns that list: • # of lanes crossed to reach a refuge • # of “multiple threat” lanes per crossing This information does not directly play in to the use of Table 1, but they do provide important context for the user as they help distinguish the crossing types and support the difference in recommended crossing treatments. These topics are discussed in more detail below. Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 22 of 32 2.2.3 Minimum Vehicle Volume for Treatments Recognizing the limited availability of resources to implement crossing treatments within the City, crossing treatments should generally not be installed at locations where the ADT is lower than 1,500 vehicles. ADT is correlated with pedestrian delay when crossing a street, as the higher the vehicle volume, the longer it will take for people crossing a street to find a gap in vehicle traffic. At an ADT of 1,500 vehicles, according to Pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) from the Highway Capacity Manual 2010, pedestrians have LOS A which indicates little to no delay finding a gap to cross the street. Treatments for roadways with greater than 1,500 vehicles per day will be installed based on the criteria in Figure 1 and Table 1. 2.2.4 Pedestrian Median Refuge and Minimum Median Refuge Width A pedestrian refuge median is a useful tool in increasing the safety and efficiency of a pedestrian crossing, and the presence of a median refuge will influence the type of pedestrian crossing treatment that can be considered (see Table 1). In this context a pedestrian refuge median is defined as a location in the middle of a pedestrian crossing where a pedestrian can take refuge, thereby separating their crossing into two steps, across each direction of approaching traffic separately. Separating the crossing into two directional crossings greatly increases the number of acceptable gaps for pedestrians to safely cross a roadway. A pedestrian refuge can be some type of raised median or quick-build approach as described below: • A quick-build median can be considered a pedestrian refuge if it features both markings and vertical devices such as delineator posts. A full-build median refuge island is preferred when feasible. • A raised median nose at an intersection can only be considered a pedestrian refuge for the adjacent crosswalk if the median is at least 6 feet wide and the left turn volume is less than 20 vehicles per hour. This low left turn volume means that during most pedestrian crossings there will not be a vehicle in the left turn lane and the pedestrian will be “shadowed” by the width of the median and the adjacent turn lane as they cross the street. • A raised median at a mid-block pedestrian crossing can only be considered as a refuge if it is at least 6 feet wide and includes curb ramps or a walkway at grade through the median. A median of this width will allow over two feet on each side for splash protection; it will store a group of pedestrians; and it will accommodate the storage of a bicycle without it overhanging into the traffic lanes. For multi-use path crossing locations, a 10-foot median refuge width is desirable to better accommodate bicycles with child trailers, recumbent bicycles, and tandem bicycles. 2.2.5 Distance to Nearest Marked or Protected Crossing The Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Flowchart in Figure 1 includes consideration of spacing criteria for an uncontrolled crossing to the nearest marked or protected crossing. When block lengths are longer than 300 feet, locations are in an urban context, or when providing access to a key destination, controlled crossings can be permitted at a minimum of 200-foot spacing provided that the resultant pedestrian crossing does not cross any auxiliary lanes or is not in an intersection influence area. Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 23 of 32 2.2.6 Selecting Between a Pedestrian Traffic Signal, HAWK Beacon, or RRFBs Pedestrian traffic signals and HAWK beacons provide a red indication that requires vehicles to stop for pedestrians. RRFBs provide flashing yellow warnings and do not require vehicles to stop for pedestrians. Pedestrian traffic signals are considered for application at high volume pedestrian crossings on roads that have high vehicle volumes and speeds, with multiple threats. Pedestrian traffic signals are mid-block as a traffic signal at an intersection is a full traffic signal. Table 1 differentiates clearly between locations requiring either a RRFB or a pedestrian signal/HAWK; however, Table 1 does not differentiate between a signal/HAWK. These guidelines create allowances for exceptions to the MUTCD’s minimum volume thresholds to install a pedestrian signal/HAWK. However, the MUTCD’s warranting procedures can be useful for selecting either a pedestrian signal or a HAWK. One key criterion in this decision includes the volume of pedestrians and if the pedestrian volume is so high that separation in time from vehicles is necessary for overall efficiency; higher-volume crossings tend to be more suitable for pedestrian signals. Another criterion is the pedestrian signal or HAWK’s operation and the delay it creates for pedestrians. A forthcoming action from these guidelines is to create a traffic operations policy for the coordination and timing of pedestrian signals and HAWKs. In general, pedestrians expect lower delay to cross at HAWKs. Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 24 of 32 Decision-Making Factors When deciding between these options, the MUTCD and local guidelines stress the need to evaluate several factors: • Automobile, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Volumes: Higher volumes generally justify more restrictive traffic control measures. • Vehicular Speeds: Higher speeds may necessitate more prominent warning or control devices. • Crossing Distances: Longer crossing distances might require more robust pedestrian control measures. • Presence of Medians: Medians can provide refuge for pedestrians and impact the type of control needed. • Impact on Signal Progression: Consideration of how new signals or beacons will affect overall traffic signal timing and flow. • Proximity to Signalized Intersections: The effect on nearby signalized intersections and overall traffic flow should be evaluated. • Vehicle Queue Formation: Potential for vehicle queues to impact the effectiveness of pedestrian controls. • Adjacent Land Use: Certain land uses generate higher pedestrian demand or higher demand from vulnerable users. In conclusion, the selection of a pedestrian control device should be guided by a combination of MUTCD guidelines, local influence area conditions, roadway geometry, and the direction provided in these guidelines. 2.2.7 Signal Progression and Traffic Operational Considerations The installation of RRFBs, HAWK beacons or pedestrian traffic signals can all have an impact on the automobile traffic operation in a corridor. The automobile and pedestrian crossing volumes, the spacing to the adjacent signalized intersections, the type of pedestrian population (college students, elementary students, elderly, a mix, etc.) should all be considered when selecting the crossing treatment type and how it will be operated. Where practical, HAWK beacons and pedestrian traffic signals should consider innovative detection of people walking and biking to reduce delay. Detection should ensure it is capturing users walking across, not along, the street. The City of Boulder should develop a traffic operations policy on signal progression and traffic operational considerations for HAWKS and pedestrian signals. Both HAWKs and pedestrian signals will have an all-red indication. Consideration will be for the tradeoff between safety and delay, for people driving, using transit, biking, and walking. This future policy should include guidance on considerations for proximity to adjacent signals, traffic volumes, pedestrian/bicyclist volumes, and how to balance delay for all modes. 2.2.8 Unmarked Pedestrian Crossing Facilitation In certain locations, pedestrians cross roadways despite the absence of nearby amenities or land uses such as multi-use paths, GreenStreets, cross-town bikeways, transit stops or schools, and the pedestrian volume falls below the thresholds specified in Figure 1 for the installation of marked Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 25 of 32 and signed treatments outlined in Table 1. Such measures might involve the installation of curb ramps and/or a raised median refuge, recognizing the existing pedestrian traffic without actively encouraging or attracting additional users to the crossing. It is essential to comply with the Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG), which mandate the inclusion of pedestrian ramps at all intersections to ensure accessibility. However, the installation of these ramps alone does not render the intersection unsafe in the absence of additional signage or markings. These treatments serve to acknowledge and accommodate ongoing pedestrian or bicycle activity, enhancing safety for users already navigating the crossing. They are intended to improve accessibility and safety without promoting or attracting additional pedestrian traffic. Ignoring the crossing altogether is not considered a viable option. Such treatments will be considered only if the location is situated more than 300 feet from the nearest signed and marked pedestrian crossing, whether controlled or uncontrolled, and if there is minimal potential to redirect pedestrians to a more formal crossing location. Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 26 of 32 Crossing Location Evaluation Worksheet YES NO Posted Speed Limit mph Existing traffic control:Stop Sign Traffic Signal Uncontrolled Existing Crossing Treaments (if any): Nearby Pedestrian Generators (school, transit stop, commercial, etc.) Roadway Configuration:2-Lane 5-Lane w/ Striped Median 3-Lane w/ Striped Median 5-Lane w/ Raised Median 3-Lane w/ Raised Median 6 Lane 4 Lane Other: Crossing Distance by Direction ft total ft to median ft to median (if applicable & note direction)(if applicable & note direction) Nearest Marked or Protected Pedestrian Crossing:ft (For uncontrolled location only) Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) =ft ft YES NO Is there street lighting and curb ramps?YES NO YES NO Major Street Vehicular Volume Daily:ADT =veh/day Hourly:veh/hr Vehicle Flow Rate (vehicles/second):veh/sec TOTAL PEDS (Actual) (Include All Bicyclists in Total Sum) TOTAL PEDS (Adjusted for 2x Y/E/D) //// //// # of Young Peds/ Bicyclists # of Elderly Peds # of Disabled Peds # of Non-Y/E/D Peds/Bicyclists Major Street Vehicular Volume (Hourly): # of Transit Boardings (if applicable): AM Mid-Day PM Other to to to to /// STEP 3a - TRAFFIC DATA STEP 1 - LOCATION DESCRIPTION Major Street:Crossing Location: STEP 2 - PHYSICAL DATA Distance to: / Pedestrian Crossing Volumes / Bicycle Crossing Volumes: Time: Date/Day of Week: Does it connects both ends of a multi-use path, is the location where a cross-town bikeway/GreenStreet crosses a collector or arterial, or is it contiguous with a transit stop or public school? Does stopping sight distance meet AASHTO requirements? If NO, are improvements to SSD feasible? Has there been a history of at least 3 bicycle- or pedestrian-involved crashes within the influence area (150') of the location? Crashes should be a crash type that could be mitigated by an enhanced crossing. Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 27 of 32 Crossing Location Evaluation Worksheet (continued) Nearest Intersection (Direction #1):Cross Street Name: Located ft to the N S E W of crossing YES NO ft Y N Y N Y N Y N Nearest Intersection (Direction #2):Cross Street Name: Located ft to the N S E W of crossing YES NO ft Y N Y N Y N Y N STEP 4 - APPLY DATA TO FIGURE 1 and TABLE 1 Recommended Treatment(s): If multiple lanes per direction, are queue lengths approximately equal? If NO (above), which lane is longer (inside, outside, middle) and by how much (feet)? Other How many times per hour did the downstream vehicle queue back up into pedestrian crossing? Signalized?Distance from Crossing: AM Mid-Day PM If NO (above),which lane is longer (inside, outside, middle) and by how much (feet)? How many times per hour did the downstream vehicle queue back up into pedestrian crossing? If multiple lanes per direction, are queue lengths approximately equal? STEP 3b - OPERATIONAL OBSERVATIONS Signalized?Distance from Crossing: OtherPMMid-DayAM Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 28 of 32 3.0 SUPPLEMENTAL POLICIES This section contains discussion of supplemental policies to guide the installation of crossing treatments in the City of Boulder. 3.1 Avoiding Overuse of Crossing Treatments The FHWA recommends that overuse of crosswalk markings should be avoided to maximize their effectiveness. Crosswalks and sign treatments should be used discriminately within the City of Boulder so that the effectiveness of these treatments is not deteriorated by overuse. Although these treatments may be effective at individual locations, overuse of these treatments city-wide may lead to a decrease in their value as drivers become desensitized to them. Criteria related to minimum pedestrian volumes, key destinations, and crash history have been established in this document with this in mind. Additional key destination types may be considered where the destination is frequently accessed by walking and where there is a defined path of travel to that destination. 3.2 Multi-Use Path and GreenStreet Crossings When designing a crosswalk on an existing or proposed multiuse path, GreenStreet or cross-town bikeway several key features are essential to ensure safety and usability for all users. First, the crosswalk should be clearly marked with high-visibility, reflective paint or textured materials to make it stand out against the surrounding path. Incorporating raised or textured elements can also help alert pedestrians and bicyclists to the crosswalk’s presence. Adequate signage, including both advance warning signs and those directly at the crossing, should be installed to notify users of the crosswalk ahead. Per the MUTCD, the combined bicyclist/pedestrian sign (W11-15) (see Figure 9B-3) may be used where both bicyclists and pedestrians might be crossing the roadway. A TRAIL X-ING (W11-15P) supplemental plaque (see Figure 9B-3) may be mounted below the W11-15 sign. Therefore, W11-15 can be used instead of W11-2 at multi-use path crossings and crossings of GreenStreets or cross-town bikeways. Additionally, the crosswalk should be well-lit to enhance visibility during low-light conditions. Consideration for accessibility is crucial, so ensure that the crosswalk includes ramps with proper gradients and tactile paving for visually impaired users. Finally, providing adequate sightlines and clear sight distances, free from obstructions like vegetation or signage, helps ensure that all users can see and react to each other in time. 3.3 Textured and Colored Pavement Treatments Textured, brick, and/or colored pavement treatments should typically not be used in lieu of a marked crosswalk. When such treatments are used, they are often aesthetic and not considered traffic control devices. Retroreflective pavement markings are required at any location serving as a marked crosswalk. Exceptions are granted for signalized intersection crossings, right-turn bypass (raised) crossings, and for multi-use path crossings at driveways and unsignalized intersections where the City has developed other treatments designed to call attention to the crossings. 3.4 Accessible Crosswalks Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 29 of 32 The City of Boulder is committed to ensuring that all new crosswalks comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to enhance mobility for all users. For new crosswalk installations on curbed roadways, curb ramps will be equipped with detectable warning surfaces. Additionally, the City plans to retrofit existing non-ADA compliant curb ramps with these surfaces as part of its ongoing sidewalk maintenance program. However, due to site constraints, it may sometimes be impractical to achieve full compliance with ADA standards. In such cases, when full compliance is deemed technically infeasible based on engineering judgment, improvements should still be made to the maximum extent practicable to ensure accessibility. The City shall comply with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards to ensure curb ramps and crossings have appropriate design requirements. 3.5 Raised Crossings at Right-Turn Bypass Islands Raised pedestrian crossings at right-turn bypass islands meet the goals of these guidelines by improving visibility for pedestrians, improving accessibility, and helping to mitigate the speed of right-turning vehicle traffic. As a part of a Safe Streets and Roads for All grant, the city will be evaluating the safety of right-turn bypass islands compared to other right-turn treatments to make further citywide decisions regarding right-turn configuration. 3.6 Raised Crosswalks FHWA defines raised crosswalks as “ramped speed tables spanning the entire width of the roadway.” Raised crosswalks could be considered at locations denoted as marking/signs only (Treatment A) per Table 1. The FHWA recommends that raised crosswalks be installed on 2-lane or 3-lane roads with speed limits of 30 mph or less and annual average daily traffic below about 9,000. Raised crossings should generally be avoided on truck routes, emergency routes, and arterial streets. Consideration for raised crosswalks should be determined in collaboration with emergency services. The Design and Construction Standards Section 2-50 define the design details of raised crosswalks. 3.7 Accommodation of Bicyclists In locations where crossings serve a high volume of people biking, design accommodations for bicyclists should be considered. As stated in Section 2.2.2, if the location is a multi-use path, GreenStreet, or cross-town bikeway crossing, W11-15 (including a bicycle and pedestrian) can be used in place of State Law – Yield to Pedestrians signs. Additionally, in locations with high volumes of people biking, treatments should consider bicycle push buttons, larger refuge islands, and detection for bicyclists. As stated by NACTO, “push buttons should be located so bicyclists can activate the signal without dismounting. Push buttons should have a supplemental sign facing the bicyclist’s approach to increase visibility.” 3.8 Removal of Treatments Conditions that contribute to the need for a crosswalk or crossing treatments may change over time, and an existing crosswalk or treatment may no longer be needed. When a roadway surface is to be impacted by reconstruction or resurfacing, a review of any uncontrolled crosswalks should be performed to determine their use and need. If the use of a crosswalk is less than half of that which would be required for it to be warranted based on the criteria established in these guidelines for a new installation, the crosswalk should not be replaced when the construction or resurfacing is done and any other treatments will be removed. In such cases, residents and property owners Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 30 of 32 within 1,000 feet of walking distance to the crosswalk in question will be notified via mail. In addition, notices will be visibly posted for 30 days prior at the crossing location to inform the public of the intent to remove them. City contact information will be provided in these mailings and notices. Should concerns arise from the public as a result of that mailing or from the notification sign at the crosswalk, staff may then begin a more substantial public process with concerned parties. Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 31 of 32 4.0 CONCLUSION The City of Boulder is committed to enhancing safety for people walking, biking, and using micromobility devices by implementing consistent and effective crossing treatments throughout the City. The City strives to create a seamless pedestrian experience that aligns with driver expectations, ensuring the highest level of safety for all road users. Ensuring safe and efficient crossings for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other micromobility users is essential for meeting the City of Boulder’s transportation and strategic goals. These initiatives are key to enhancing mobility, reducing traffic congestion, and supporting sustainable transportation, thereby fostering a more connected and accessible community. This commitment involves providing a uniform approach to crossing treatments that are thoughtfully designed to match the specific needs of each corridor. To achieve this, variations in crossing treatment types may be considered based on engineering judgment per the City Traffic Engineer based on historical data, ensuring that each solution is tailored to the unique characteristics of the influence area. When applying engineering judgment, documentation must be provided to explain the variance. By maintaining this continuity and flexibility, the City aims to foster a safer, more predictable environment for pedestrians and drivers alike. The Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines is a forward-thinking document that serves to evaluate potential or proposed unmarked crossings and mid-block crossing locations for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other micromobility users. The guide can also be applied to existing marked crossing locations when a street is undergoing maintenance or construction or adjacent land use is being redeveloped. The user guide has a technical purpose, but also furthers multimodal transportation options and safety goals. Attachment A - Draft Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Guidelines, November 2024 11.18.24 TAB Agenda 5 Ped Crossing Treatment Install Guidelines Page 32 of 32