HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-25-21 Board of Public Works Meeting Part2CITY OF IT CA
108 East Green Street, Suite 202 Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER
Telephone: 607/274-6530 Fax: 607/274-6587
To: Board of Public Works
From: Tim Logue, City Transportation Engineer
Date: January 20, 2012
Re: Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Improvements at the Intersections of
Hector/West State/MLK Jr./Floral/Elm streets
Please find a number of materials related to this project, including: a plan, a letter
from David Nutter, and an engineering study of an all-way stop control (which is
not proposed in the plan). The plan as included does not reflect a few changes
that I am proposing at this point, but I can describe them to you at your meeting
on the 251h. I am not recommending all-way stop control.
At this point, this project is ready to be bid in February. However, based on
feedback from a neighborhood meeting in December and the enclosed memo
from Mr. Nutter, I want to make sure the Board of Public Works is comfortable
with the project as I am proposing it so that any concerns can be addressed
before it is time to award the contract for construction.
If you have any questions or concerns that you would like to talk with my about
before the meeting, you can reach me at timl o@ci!yofithaca. grg or at 274-6535.
'An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification."
N
To: City of Ithaca Board of Public Works, Transportation
Engineers, First Ward Councilpersons, Mayor
Re: Elm- Floral- Hector -State intersection project
From: David Nutter, member of Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory
Council, 20 -year West Hill resident, parent, professional
local driver, and pedestrian commuter through intersection
Date: November 29, 2011
On November 21 at a West Hill Neighborhood Association
meeting at LACS Tim Logue presented a plan to change the
intersections of Elm Street, Floral Avenue, Hector Street,
and State Street with a quarter million dollar state grant.
I support many aspects of the plan as presented: retaining
the current intersect -ion configuration, adding crosswalks,
making crosswalks more visible, including mid- crossing
refuges, creating a level landing at the base of the
sidewalk on Elm, and replacing the substandard sidewalk on
the west side of Floral between Elm and Hector connecting
to crosswalks and to the stairs to Chestnut Hill
Apartments.
I also hope some changes will be made. I believe there are
easy ways to greatly improve it, and gain more benefit for
taxpayers' money. In fact, I believe the plan will be
largely ineffective at protecting pedestrians or changing
drivers' behavior and attitudes without these changes.
The plan as presented does not address the fact that many
drivers are allowed to barrel through without yielding.
This causes other drivers to make hurried, distracted
turns. These situations endanger crossing pedestrians.
The plan does not address too -short sightlines. Without
changes to the plan; pedestrians -will continue to resort to
Jay-walking, while bike riders resort to sidewalks.
Despite the law that drivers must yield to pedestrians in
crosswalks, Ithaca's drivers typically do not yield unless
first stopped by a traffic light or stop sign, so the
crosswalks will not protect pedestrians nearly as much as
they could. If the City is serious about pedestrian safety
in these intersections, there should be all -way stop signs.
A fundamental goal is to change drivers' attitudes. Will
this place be viewed as part of a residential neighborhood
where pedestrians have the right to cross the street, or
will it remain part of a bypass on downtown's outskirts,
where drivers don't even have to pause on a long trip?
Below I have prepared:
A. Summary of recommendations
B. How all -way stops will benefit these intersections
C. How and why the crosswalks should be further improved
D. Bicycling issues which the plan should address
Plus, for those who seek detailed analyses, I include
thorough examinations of two aspects:
E. Conflicts at crosswalks not yet addressed by the plan, a
pedestrian- oriented analysis
F. Traffic conflicts not yet addressed by the plan, a
traffic - oriented analysis
A. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES
1. The crosswalk on Elm should be better marked.
2. The crosswalk at the end of Floral must be included.
3. The crosswalk on Hector should align with the west side
of Floral.
4. Mid - crossing refuges should be wider and protected by
islands.
S. Both T- intersections should have all -way stops, adding
stops for Hector, the through -lane and the left -turn lane
of State, and on Floral both north and south of Elm.
6. A bikeway climbing Hector should be included.
7. Conversion of the bridge to 3 lanes plus bikeways should
be examined.
B. HOW ALL -WAY STOPS SOLVE PROBLEMS
All -way stops would have many benefits for both the Floral -
Hector -State intersection and the Elm - Floral intersection.
Each of the two T- intersections would have an all -way stop.
This will add five stop signs and stop lines:
Eastbound on Hector at Floral
Westbound on State at Floral in the through lane
Westbound on State at Floral in the left -turn lane
Northbound on Floral at Elm, south of the crosswalk
Southbound on Floral at Elm
Note that all -way stop signs could be included on a post
within the Hector- State- Floral intersection for extra
traffic - calming and visibility.
All -way stops create compact, safe intersections. They
bring everyone into view and stopped before proceeding, so
the existing short sightlines will no longer be a problem.
Everyone takes their turn, so it's fair, and there will be
less resentment. There is no waiting anxiously for gaps
while blocking other travelers, and no rushing through
gaps. Everyone will have a safe turn promptly, and
everyone knows it.
All -way stops will end the hurried, distracted driving
through these intersections which makes them so dangerous
to pedestrians. Pedestrians will have a chance to see and
be seen before crossing. Drivers who are already stopped
are FAR more likely to respect pedestrians' right to cross.
All -way stops will shorten the queue on Floral, because
turning opportunities onto Hector and State will be
frequent. There will be no need for separate left -turn and
right -turn lanes on Floral, so the intersection can be more
comfortably compact instead of chaotic and crowded.
All -way stops will ensure that Elm traffic has a chance to
turn. Although southbound Floral traffic must stop at Elm,
it will move on within seconds, clearing a spot for the
next vehicle to move south from Hector or State when its
turn arises. Because stops are brief, the stop at Elm will
not cause delays for turns from Hector or State.
With an all -way stop, Hector's drivers will be shown that
this is an important pedestrian crossing place in a
neighborhood, not just part of a State Highway or, for
turning traffic, an Ithaca Bypass. Hector traffic will
also have to slow down farther up the hill because there
may be a queue. This general traffic - calming benefit on
Hector should enable safer crossings at Sunrise, where a
marked crosswalk has also been requested.
With an all -way stop, State's drivers will realize that
they have not left Ithaca just because they are west of
Route 13. These are residential streets where pedestrians
cross. Yet the change is fair, and State's drivers will
get a prompt opportunity to proceed, even if they are
turning left.
C. REQUESTED CROSSWALK IMPROVEMENTS:
1. Crossing of Floral at Elm
a. The mid- crossing refuge should be widened so pedestrians
can more comfortably pause to ensure there is no conflict
with crossing the other lane. Widening the refuge is more
important if all -way stops are not added to stop
conflicting traffic. Widening the refuge would move the
west curb west slightly, as the lanes should not be
narrowed.
b. The mid - crossing refuge should be protected by raised
islands to the north and south, not merely with painted
gores. Islands may be less expensive than the raised
crosswalk, and raising the crosswalk to merely slow traffic
would not be necessary if there were an all -way stop to
actually stop traffic.
2. Crossing of Elm
The plan as presented shows two narrow lines from curb to
curb. Zebra stripes, a series of large white bars, each
parallel to traffic flow, are more visible to motorists and
pedestrians, and they last longer.
3. Crossing at the base of Hector
a. The pedestrian refuge should be protected by raised
islands to the east and west rather than just the gore of
paint.
b. The crossing of Hector should be moved east, closer to
the Floral intersection to align with the west side of
Floral. There are several reasons for this requested
change:
i. The refuge can be wider, so pedestrians may pause
to ensure it is safe to cross the other lane of traffic.
ii. There could be longer sightlines between
pedestrians and traffic descending Hector. A 15' pine
between the Hector sidewalk and the walkway to the crossing
of Cliff St may have to be pruned or removed, but
pedestrian safety is a worthy cause.
iii. The crosswalk would be farther into the flatter
area, making stopping easier, and there would be more total
stopping distance for traffic on Hector in order to yield
to a pedestrian in the crosswalk.
iv. Pedestrians would be closer to left - turning
drivers from Floral onto Hector, facilitating being seen
and establishing communication. Pedestrians start crossing
during a gap in Hector traffic and State Traffic, just when
vehicles start turning from Floral, so this visibility is
essential. Even with an all -way stop, this is important.
v. A crosswalk more aligned with the west side of
Floral will be more attractive to pedestrians traveling
northeast- southwest, i.e. between the north side of State
and either Elm or the trail to Chestnut Hill. This is
important because the plan has no.provision for a safer
crossing of State farther east. If pedestrians must add
distance by looping northwest to the crosswalk (in the plan
as presented), they are apt to continue jay- walking
somewhere on the bridge or to the east, a habit this plan
is trying to change. Note that moving this crosswalk east
will not add distance or inconvenience to pedestrians
traveling north -south or northwest - southeast, i.e. crossing
between destinations on the south side of the intersections
and either the Hector sidewalk or the walkway to Cliff St
and Park Rd.
vi. If stop lines are added to the intersection of
Hector, State and Floral, those stop lines should be behind
the crosswalk. There are many reasons for an all -way stop.
Even if stop lines are not included in this project, it
does not make sense to create curb cuts and a crosswalk
further west which will have to be replaced when the
intersection is signalized in the future.
vii. The intersection will be more compact, with a
pedestrian - friendly, urban neighborhood feel.
viii. An existing streetlight illuminates the crossing
aligned with the west side of Floral. An additional light
on the north side of that pole would be even better. The
crossing in the plan as presented is in a shadowed area.
4. Crossing of the end of Floral
The crosswalk at the mouth of Floral between Hector and
State should be recognized, marked well, and built
properly, with ramps and a refuge. There are several
reasons:
i. This crosswalk already legally exists: According to
NYS V &T law, a crosswalk exists between two adjacent
corners of an unsignalized intersection where there are
sidewalks, even if the crosswalk is not marked. Legally,
pedestrians have the right of way when crossing, and
motorists should yield. The City should make this
crosswalk safe.
ii. Pedestrians will use this crossing, because it
eliminates a detour south across Elm for pedestrians
traveling northwest - southeast between the south side of
State and either Hector's sidewalk or the walkway for Cliff
Street and Park Road. The project does not include a safe
crossing of State farther east. This crosswalk also
eliminates a detour south across Elm for pedestrians
traveling east -west between the south side of State and the
path to Chestnut Hill Apartments.
iii. One element already exists: When the bridge was
refurbished in the mid- 1990s, before there was any sidewalk
on the west side of the intersection, NYSDOT included a
ramp for this crosswalk on the east corner of the mouth of
Floral, acknowledging and anticipating the need for this
crosswalk.
iv. Another element is already planned: The proposed
island will serve - intentionally, according to Tim Logue's
writing - as a mid - crossing pedestrian refuge. As such,
the island should be in two sections with the crossing in
between. Even if the island were not intended as a refuge,
it will be used as such, so it should be designed as such.
This will also give a more obvious and acceptable purpose
to the island, rather than simply being an annoyance to
drivers.
v. Adding a ramp on the corner at the west end of the
crosswalk is required by the ADA. Now is the time to make
this crossing complete and compliant when the western
sidewalk is being brought up to standards, and new curbs
are being installed.
vi. Currently motorists tend not to yield to
pedestrians here, despite being legally required. Marking
this crosswalk will help correct motorists' noncompliance.
With all -way stops, conflicts from motorists turning fast
from Hector or State would be eliminated, and respect for
legally crossing pedestrians here would be more assured.
vii. Crosswalks at intersections should be well- marked
and obvious to drivers in order to change their perception
of the function of the intersection. This crosswalk will
help show that the City is serious about changing the way
motorists treat pedestrians in this area.
D. BICYCLE PROVISIONS SHOULD BE INCLUDED
A dismaying omission in the plan as presented is the lack
of any provision whatsoever to improve conditions for legal
bicycling. Tim Logue had told the BPAC that the goals for
the project were flexible enough to include bicycle
provisions, and indeed he and Kent Johnson discussed a
number of bicycle - friendly options with the BPAC which were
in draft plans, but evidently they have all been dropped.
Problems for bicycists include:
1. Many riders are intimidated by the speed of motor
traffic, especially when required to merge left on State
before turning left onto Floral. All -way stops would slow
down traffic on State and make it less intimidating, while
also ensuring that riders have a chance to go through the
intersection without conflict and without waiting for a
long time while exposed in the intersection or holding up
traffic.
2. Many riders are reluctant to hold up traffic while
climbing Hector, whose narrowest part (24' for about 1201)
is within the project limits where there is a guardrail on
the north side. There the curb is 5' to 6.5' from the
sidewalk, so there is room for the street to be widened.
From the top of that guardrail to Fall View Terrace, Hector
is about 28' wide, which could be striped with a climbing
bike lane, or could at least be stencilled as a wide shared
lane going uphill. Above Fall View Terrace to the City
line, Hector widens to over 321, which is plenty wide
enough for a climbing bike lane. The Ithaca Bicycle Plan,
which was adopted in 1998 as part of the Long Range Plan,
calls for such climbing bicycle facilities along Hector
Street, and it calls for bicycle provisions on State within
the project limits. A climbing bike lane could also serve
pedestrians above #601, just below Vinegar Hill, where the
sidewalks ends. This project should help make those bike
facilities, either by widening Hector °s short bottleneck
enough to make a climbing bike lane or stencilled shared
uphill lane, or by marking the bottleneck with sharrows.
If every project omits bike facilities because they would
only be within the project limits instead of being a
complete bikeway, then the City never makes any progress
toward accommodating bicycles.
3. Many riders try to avoid the above problems by riding
illegally on the sidewalks, where they conflict with
pedestrians, especially on the bridge, where there is no
room for either party to move aside. Therefore addressing
bicycle issues also helps pedestrians. Some riders try to
avoid traffic conflicts by riding the wrong way on the
street, creating a hazard to legal riders as well as to
themselves. An issue to be explored is whether 4 traffic
lanes are needed on the bridge. Do there need to be 2
eastbound lanes? Do there need to be 2 westbound lanes?
Can there be just 3 traffic lanes on the bridge? Would a
center lane which switches halfway between being eastbound
and westbound be useful? If there were 3 traffic lanes,
the bridge could be re- striped to include bike lanes on
either side or a 2 -way bike trail on the south side similar
to plans for the extra lane on the NYS -96 bridge. on-
street room for bikes helps get riders off sidewalks and
out of pedestrians, way.
E. CROSSWALK CONFLICTS REMAIN IN THE PLAN AS PRESENTED
In the plan as presented, all crosswalks conflict with
moving vehicles, whose distracted drivers may not see or
respect pedestrians. The current situation would remain:
Most drivers are not required by a stop sign to stop and
look. Turning drivers are distracted by looking for gaps
in oncoming traffic, so they are likely to drive suddenly
across crosswalks, either not seeing or not respecting
pedestrians. Sightlines are too short for the speed
traffic crosses the intersections. Pedestrians have
difficulty knowing when it is safe to cross. These basic
pedestrian safety problems are not yet addressed by the
plan. All -way stops would address these issues. Below are
analyses of each of twelve conflicts with traffic which
pedestrians will still face at crosswalks unless the plan
is modified:
1. Crossing Floral at Elm, pedestrians cannot see traffic
turning south onto Floral from State because of the bridge
railing, adjacent shrubs, and queued northbound traffic at
the mouth of Floral. These southbound drivers either sail
through their left turn, or they are distracted by rushing
through a gap in Hector traffic. The new island in the
mouth of Floral will add another distraction. Then they
are concentrating on traffic which may turn out of Elm.
Yet these southbound drivers are not required to stop and
look before traveling through the Floral crosswalk at Elm,
which is why pedestrians must try to check for traffic so
far in advance. This traffic includes drivers leaving
downtown who foresee no more stops on their trip, and
drivers who will rejoin NYS- 13/34/96 having just avoided 12
traffic lights on the strip. Their mindset must be
changed.
2. Crossing Floral at Elm, pedestrians will have trouble
seeing traffic turning south onto Floral from Hector
because of proposed shrubs and "welcome" signage and, from
the east side, as now, because of queued northbound traffic
at the mouth of Floral. Similar to the turning drivers
from State, above, these drivers will be distracted by the
new island and by potential conflicts with turning Elm
traffic, but will not be required to stop and look before
traveling through this crosswalk. Additionally, the
drivers from Hector will not have even paused before
turning onto Floral. These drivers have never stopped
since getting onto NYS -79, perhaps miles outside the City,
and they may view these intersections as part of an Ithaca
bypass rather than part of a neighborhood.
3. Crossing Floral at Elm, pedestrians confront northbound
traffic which is distracted by potential left- turning Elm
traffic. Meanwhile this northbound Floral traffic will
have no stop sign to accompany the crosswalk.
4. Crossing Elm, pedestrians face the same sightline issues
and rushed, distracted driver issues from motorists turning
south from State as outlined above for the crossing of
Floral at Elm. Additionally, drivers turning left from
State do not have time to put on their right -turn signals
before turning onto Elm and driving-through the crosswalk.
Having them stop at Elm to take their turn will give them
time and a reason to use their signal.
5. Crossing Elm, pedestrians face problems from Hector
traffic similar to those from traffic from State, and
similar to problems as outlined above for Hector traffic
versus pedestrians crossing Floral at Elm - blocked
sightlines, distracted fast drivers, and unreliable turn
signalling. All -way stops are the solution.
6. Crossing Elm, pedestrians conflict with left- turnng
traffic from Floral which is not required to stop, and
whose drivers are distracted by southbound traffic which
also has no stop and is hard to see in advance because
sightlines are blocked by shrubs, railings, and other
traffic. Having everyone stop, look around, and take their
turn will make this crossing much safer.
7. Crossing Hector, pedestrians face fast traffic from
Hector which neither slows nor stops, often without
adequate gaps. These drivers have not stopped since they
got on NYS -79, and may still be in a country highway frame
of mind, figuring they won't have to stop until forced to
by a queue at NYS -89 or NYS - 13/34/96. At times Hector
traffic is a long series of vehicles only with gaps which
are appropriate as following distance at high speed, but
which are too small for a pedestrian to use to cross
safely, especially a slow pedestrian, such as an elderly or
handicapped person, or a parent with a stroller or small
children. Without assured safe gaps, pedestrians are apt
to take risks. Drivers are unlikely to stop for a
pedestrian because Ithaca's car culture does not yet
acknowledge pedestrians' right of way, and currently the
traffic behind them is unprepared to stop. With an all -way
stop, for which all drivers will be prepared and slowed in
advance, all kinds of pedestrians will have a prompt, yet
flexibly long, opportunity to cross.
8. Crossing Hector, pedestrians face fast traffic from
State. Outbound drivers currently consider the last
impediment to the open road to be the intersection of
State, Seneca, Brindley, and the exit from Pete's gas,
grocery, and liquor store. All the way across the bridge
they have been accelerating to climb the hill, not
considering even looking for, let alone yielding to
pedestrians. If drivers are to respect the intersection of
Floral as part of a City neighborhood, and allow
pedestrians to cross the street, outbound traffic must be
stopped again before leaving town.
9. Crossing Hector, pedestrians face sudden left- turning
traffic from Floral. In the plan as presented, as
pedestrians take advantage of a large enough gap in Hector
traffic and State traffic to cross Hector, so do left -
turning drivers out of Floral. As the gaps close, these
pedestrians and left - turning drivers will be distracted by
and caught between through traffic on Hector and on State,
neither of which stops. This formula for disaster can be
averted with an all -way stop, so no one is in a such a
fearful rush as to sacrifice being careful or considerate.
10. Crossing the mouth of Floral at Hector and State,
pedestrians face right - turning Hector traffic.which does
not stop. With an all -way stop and a properly marked
crosswalk, these drivers are far more apt to respect
pedestrians and change their view of the intersection.
Nothing blocks sightlines.
11. Crossing the mouth of Floral at Hector and State,
pedestrians encounter left - turning State traffic which only
stops for Hector traffic (which may block the view of
pedestrians), then rushes through a gap. Drivers turning
left from State are looking up and to the right at Hector's
traffic, not looking left for pedestrians. With an all -way
stop, State traffic will not be distracted or rushing, and
drivers and pedestrians will have a clear view of each
other, with drivers watching the intersection instead of
distant gaps in traffic, so pedestrians can cross safely.
12. Crossing the mouth of Floral at Hector and State,
pedestrians encounter right- turning Floral traffic, which
is supposed to stop, but currently concentrates solely on
Hector traffic, and, when there is a gap, may not look
right or actually stop. If a driver is already waiting to
turn left from Floral, right- turning drivers may pull up
alongside, blocking sightlines with pedestrians. With an
all -way stop, drivers will be less distracted and
competitive, there will be no need for separate lines of
left- and right- turning vehicles from Floral, and drivers
are more apt to see and respect pedestrians.
F. TRAFFIC CONFLICTS REMAIN IN THE PLAN AS PRESENTED
None of the current traffic conflicts is solved. Although
Tim Logue presented the plan as a pedestrian plan, not a
traffic plan, these conflicts distract drivers from seeing
and respecting pedestrians, so they need to be addressed if
the plan is to be effective for pedestrians. The points in
this section have been made from the pedestrians' view
above, but they show how complex and disfunctional these
intersections are. No wonder pedestrians are intimidated
here. Yet the eleven issues below can all be addressed by
the same all -way stops which serve crossing pedestrians.
1. Hector through - traffic is fast, does not stop, and often
has inadequate gaps for cross traffic. Gaps in Hector
traffic are hard to judge because they may be closing if
later traffic is faster. Hector traffic has not had to
stop since it got onto NYS 79, possibly miles away in the
countryside, and its drivers do not plan to stop until
forced to do so by traffic lights at NYS 89 or NYS 13/34/96
or by a queue of cars blocking the way. Having no
obligation to stop sooner, drivers down Hector are apt to
view the intersection at Floral as someone else's problem,
not as part of a neighborhood with important crossing
points for local residents.
2. Hector right - turning traffic onto Floral does not stop,
and because there is no conflicting traffic to which it
must yield, it may not even signal. It slows down only as
much as necessary to make the turn. These drivers are apt
to view the intersection as "NYS -79 to NYS -13A, a bypass
around Ithaca." rather than as "Hector Street and Floral
Avenue, two residential streets where pedestrians must
cross in an Ithaca neighborhood."
3. State through - traffic is fast, does not stop, and cannot
be seen well from the south to judge gaps, because
sightlines are blocked by bridge railings, vegetation, and
left - turning State traffic. Since they have no stop, the
intersection of Floral is of no consequence to these
drivers. It is already "out -of- town," not viewed as part
of a neighborhood where residents have the right of way
when they cross the street.
4. State left - turning traffic onto Floral awaits a gap in
Hector traffic, then rushes through. Left - turning drivers
who arrive during a gap in Hector traffic only slow down
enough to make the turn, and cannot be seen in advance from
Floral or Elm because of bridge railings and vegetation.
Vehicles waiting to turn left may also be hidden because
there is no stop line, and where traffic waits varies.
Drivers may also try to time their arrival to coincide with
a gap in Hector traffic so as to make a fast turn without
stopping. In each case turning drivers' attention is up
and to the right at gaps in descending Hector traffic, not
to the left at Floral or pedestrians. The proposed island
in the mouth of Floral, by requiring a wider turn, will
necessitate longer gaps in Hector traffic for left- turning
State traffic, which must make a more precise and awkward
maneuver, while it will further distract the left - turning
drivers, especially if they hit the island.
5. Floral right - turning traffic onto State must await a gap
in Hector traffic, then rush through.
5. Floral left - turning traffic onto Hector must await
simultaneous gaps in hard -to -judge Hector through- traffic,
hard -to -see State through- traffic, and left - turning State
traffic (which competes for the same gaps in Hector
through - traffic), then rush through.
7. Floral left - turning traffic onto Hector, because it
typically waits longer than right- turning traffic, either
creates a longer queue on Floral's single northbound lane,
or it blocks sightlines for right- turning Floral traffic
which tries to slip past on the right although there is no
separate lane. The width of the mouth of northbound Floral
will be lessened and restricted by the proposed island.
8. Queues on Floral often block the intersection of Elm,
obstruct sightlines between pedestrians crossing Floral at
Elm and traffic from the north, or block the crosswalk
across Floral on the south side of Elm.
9. Floral left - turning traffic onto Elm has sightlines to
State left- turning traffic onto Floral blocked by bridge
railings and vegetation, and typically also by a queue of
Floral traffic waiting to turn onto State or Hector.
Floral left- turning traffic onto Elm may have sightlines to
Hector right- turning traffic onto Floral blocked by new
shrubs and a "welcome" sign. Southbound Floral traffic
from both of these sources will not stop before turning
onto Floral nor when it reaches Elm, this traffic will be
distracted by the new island, and it will not have time to
signal its intentions at Elm.
10. Elm left - turning traffic onto Floral must either await
a gap in northbound Floral traffic, or be lucky enough to
be granted a gap by a driver already in the northbound
Floral queue. Meanwhile the left - turning Elm traffic must
get simultaneous gaps in left - turning State traffic, which
can't reliably be seen in advance, and right- turning Hector
traffic, which will be harder to see behind the proposed
new shrubs and "welcome" sign. Neither southbound traffic
stream will stop or yield or likely take time to signal
their intentions at Elm.
11. Elm right- turning traffic has all of the problems from
southbound Floral traffic from Hector and from State listed
above for Elm left- turning traffic. Elm right - turning
vehicles with a large turning radius may also need a gap in
northbound Floral traffic in order to make the very sharp
turn.
An Engineering Study of All -Way Stop Signs at the Intersections of
Hector /W. State /W. MLK Jr. /Floral /Elm Streets
Tim Logue, City Transportation Engineer
January 20, 2012
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2009) provides guidance,
support and options for multi-way stop sign applications in Section 2B.07.
Language from the MUTCD is given below in bold with my comments about this
intersection shown as "TL."
Support:
01 Multi -way stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if
certain traffic conditions exist. Safety concerns associated with multi -way
stops include pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users expecting other road
users to stop. Multi -way stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the
intersecting roads is approximately equal.
TL Traffic volumes are not approximately equal on the intersecting roads.
Hector Street carries about 8,000 vehicles per day (vpd). The West State Street
bridge over the Flood Control Channel carries about 15,000 vpd. Floral Avenue
carries about 5,000 vpd and Elm Street carries about 2,000 vpd. Daily pedestrian
volumes are not known explicitly, though my sense is that far more people are
walking up Elm and Hector Streets than down Floral Avenue. One count showed
just over 30 people walking in a two hour period in the morning. I would expect
that this would extrapolate to something on the order of 200 people / day. Nearly
all pedestrians are funneled onto the West State Street bridge.
02 The restrictions on the use of STOP signs described in Section 2B.04 also
apply to multi -way stop applications.
TL: Related selections from this section are on page 6 of this study.
Guidance:
03 The decision to install multi -way stop control should be based on an
engineering study.
TL: This study is addressing this decision.
04 The following criteria should be considered in the engineering study for a
multi -way STOP sign installation:
Page 1 of 6
A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multi -way stop is an interim
measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are
being made for the installation of the traffic control signal.
TL: Does not apply. No arrangements are being made to install a traffic signal.
B. Five or more reported crashes in a 12 -month period that are susceptible to
correction by a multi -way stop installation. Such crashes include right -turn
and left -turn collisions as well as right -angle collisions.
TL: In the past 12 months, there were 5 reported crashes. None of them
(possibly one) is susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop sign. Collision 1: a
driver slid on ice coming down Elm St and rear ended another vehicle. Collision
2: a driver didri t fully stop coming down Elm 5t due to worn brakes and
sideswiped a vehicle turning to head up Elm St. Collision 3: a driver was waiting
to make the left from W. State onto Floral Ave when a vehicle intending to
continue straight from W. State to Hector St rear -ended him. Though stop signs
tend to increase rear end collisions, an argument could be made that if this was a
stop controlled intersection, the driver may have been more prepared to stop and
would have avoided the collision; however, this collision seems more related to
driver error than to traffic control. Collision 4: A motorist driving while
intoxicated came down Hector St and crashed into the bridge railing on the
southwest corner of the bridge. Collision 5: a driver was waiting to make the left
from W. State onto Floral Ave when a fire truck in emergency mode came up
behind him. He tried to make a quick left and clipped the front corner of the
vehicle on Floral Ave.
Based on a review of a seven year history (1999 to 2005), five crashes in a year
seems typical.
An all -way stop control is not justified based on this criterion.
C. Minimum volumes:
1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street
approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour
for any 8 hours of an average day, and
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) by hour of day between lam and 7pm
Page 2 of 6
Hector SB
W State NB
Total
7 am
153
222
375
8 am
356
331
687
9 am
511
365
876
10 am
393
360
753
Page 2 of 6
11 am
270
436
706
12 pm
245
492
737
1 pm
232
523
755
2 pm.
232
598
830
3 pm
252
813
1065
4 pm
272
914
1186
5 pm
286
970
1256
6 pm
285
601
886
7 pm
243
442
685
The intersection meets this part of the warrant.
2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the
intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches)
averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay
to minor - street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the
highest hour; but
3. If the 85th - percentile approach speed of the major - street traffic exceeds
40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the values
provided in Items 1 and 2.
TL: The 851h- percentile approach speed for Hector Street near this location is
33mph, so the analysis that follows is based on #2, not #3.
ADT by hour
Page 3 of 6
Floral NB
Elm NB
97% of Total*
7 am
241
158
387
8 am
236
97
323
9 am
196
75
263
10 am
140
78
211
11 am
143
66
203
12 pm
140
65
199
1 EM
182
79
253
2 pm
143
78
214
3 pm
153
84
230
4 pm
156
93
242
5 pm
140
76
210
6 pm
107
72
174
7 pm
77
52
125
Page 3 of 6
* For this analysis it was assumed that 3% of traffic from Elm Street turns right
onto Floral Ave and that 3% of traffic from Floral Ave turns left onto Elm Street,
so these vehicles would not reach the intersection with Hector/ Floral and have
been removed from the analysis. Three percent is probably overstating it a bit, so
this number is being used conservatively.
Based on modeling, the average delay for the Floral Avenue approach is 5.3
seconds in the morning peak hour. This is slightly more than the average delay
in the PM peak hour, which is 5.1 seconds.
The intersection meets the volume part of the warrant, but it does not meet the
delay part of this warrant.
4. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1, and C.2 are
all satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded
from this condition.
Option:
05 Other criteria that may be considered in an engineering study include:
1. The need to control left -turn conflicts;
2. The need to control vehicle /pedestrian conflicts near locations that
generate high pedestrian volumes;
3. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic
and is not able to negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is
also required to stop; and
4. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets
of similar design and operating characteristics where multi -way stop control
would improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection.
TL: 1) There is not really much need to control left -turn conflicts. We do not have
a bad history of left -turn crashes at this location. 2) The only location that might
be considered a high pedestrian volume currently is the crosswalk across Floral
Ave, which is being enhanced in the current plan with a raised crosswalk. 3) The
only location where sight lines are poor are for Floral Avenue traffic stopping at
the stop sign, due to the railing on the bridge over the Flood Control Channel.
For right turning traffic, which makes up more than 95% of the traffic, this is not
an issue. For left turning traffic, it is an issue if the driver remains at the stop bar;
however, the vast majority of motorists pull ahead a bit to see down the street
and make a judgment as to when to turn. This sight obstruction has not led to a
strong history of collisions. 4) This intersection is not an intersection of two
residential neighborhood collectors.
Page 4 of 6
In reviewing the warrant criteria for all -way stop control in the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices, I am led to the conclusion that I would not
recommend all -way stop sign traffic control for the intersection of Hector /West
State /West MLK Jr /Floral Ave. Two other factors that are not included in the
MUTCD analysis are the delay to motorists on Rt 79 compared to the number of
pedestrians trying to walk across Route 79 in this location. Modeling and
simulation of an all -way stop shows that motorists coming down Hector Street
would meet the back of the queue of vehicles waiting to proceed through the
stop sign in the morning peak hour somewhere above the intersection of Hopper
Place and that it would add an additional three minutes of delay for motorists
coming down the hill. This does not seem commensurate with the very small
number of pedestrians trying to cross Rt 79 in this location. Secondly, all -way
stop control may not provide any safety improvement and may actually make
the intersection less safe. First, I would expect an increase in rear -end collisions
for vehicles coming down Hector Street. Second, with two lanes approaching the
intersection from the east (from West State Street), a single stop sign would not
command enough attention from motorists. In order to adequately sign this
approach, I would suggest that pavement markings of the word "STOP" be
added and that an overhead flashing beacon be used to compliment the stop
signs. Additionally, any pedestrian trying to cross the eastern leg of the
intersection would be faced with crossing four lanes of traffic, including two
busy lanes on the northern half of the roadway; I think there is a potential for
someone walking northbound to be seen by a motorist waiting to make a left, but
a motorist waiting to proceed straight may not see someone walking across the
roadway.
Page 5 of 6
Related selections from Section 213.04
Guidance:
02 Engineering judgment should be used to establish intersection control. The
following factors should be considered:
A. Vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic volumes on all approaches;
B. Number and angle of approaches;
C. Approach speeds;
D. Sight distance available on each approach; and
E. Reported crash experience.
03 YIELD or STOP signs should be used at an intersection if one or more of
the following conditions exist:
A. An intersection of a less important road with a main road where
application of the normal right -of -way rule would not be expected to
provide reasonable compliance with the law;
B. A street entering a designated through highway or street; and /or
C. An unsignalized intersection in a signalized area.
05 YIELD or STOP signs should not be used for speed control.
07 Once the decision has been made to control an intersection, the decision
regarding the appropriate roadway to control should be based on engineering
judgment. In most cases, the roadway carrying the lowest volume of traffic
should be controlled.
08 A YIELD or STOP sign should not be installed on the higher volume
roadway unless justified by an engineering study.
..
09 The following are considerations that might influence the decision
regarding the appropriate roadway upon which to install a YIELD or STOP
sign where two roadways with relatively equal volumes and/or
characteristics intersect:
A. Controlling the direction that conflicts the most with established
pedestrian crossing activity or school walking routes;
B. Controlling the direction that has obscured vision, dips, or bumps that
already require drivers to use lower operating speeds; and
C. Controlling the direction that has the best sight distance from a
controlled position to observe conflicting traffic.
Page 6 of 6
♦ r
\ 24" WHITE STOP LINE T
- Sir 1a .. �— ...__ r- \ ITEM 688.01 (TYP.)
. F2� \ -110
q \
_ RAISED -
-,,.,_ CROSSWALK
,I Floral a17e -_�;. ♦ \- ` `\
MR
SEA
i7.1E4it7
IS
MPH
100'
TYPE S CROSSWALK
ITEM 688.01
WHITE SPEED BUMP SYMBOL,
SEE DETAIL ON DWG. NO. ND -1
ITEM 688.01 (TYPJ
)Ilrlt��.
L — — —
`�/ 1
J\ i
IV
IA
EAST —
__
79 791 STOP
F-To--1 TO rr Y�pp_
�. $9 STATEsti HE] EAST
0
i
4" YELLOW FULL BARRIER LINE
ITEM 685.12
24" WHITE STOP LINE
ITEM 688.01 (TYPJ
SIGN
12" YELLOW HATCH LINE - -J
6)
TYPE B. ITEM 685.12 (TYPJ
4' YELLOW FULL BARRIER LINE
n n u
ITEM 685.12 (TYPJ
SIGN TO REMAIN
EXISTING SIGN
�o
NEW SIGN
100'
TYPE S CROSSWALK
ITEM 688.01
WHITE SPEED BUMP SYMBOL,
SEE DETAIL ON DWG. NO. ND -1
ITEM 688.01 (TYPJ
)Ilrlt��.
L — — —
`�/ 1
J\ i
IV
IA
EAST —
__
79 791 STOP
F-To--1 TO rr Y�pp_
�. $9 STATEsti HE] EAST
0
i
4" YELLOW FULL BARRIER LINE
ITEM 685.12
24" WHITE STOP LINE
ITEM 688.01 (TYPJ
SIGN
LEGEND:
6)
NEW SIGN LOCATION
RELOCATE SIGN
OREMOVAL
LOCATION
SIGN TO REMAIN
EXISTING SIGN
NEW SIGN
6
os
"V
w .-
ED
F Z_
w Y
w Tr
or
U �
Z
w
z w
0}—M >
Q
Z > 2
a
M Z K O
m� w
�w� ¢ i
traBoa z 1
T¢n = rn
MWECT ND.
SCALE (FT) 081013
aunty �
0 5 10 25 Spm -1
SHEET )8