Sie sind auf Seite 1von 30

City of Dallas Standards and Guidelines for Traffic Control and Safety Treatments at Trail-Road Crossings

Prepared by Max Kalhammer Senior Planner (Bicycle Coordinator) Strategic Planning Division Department of Sustainable Development and Construction and Elizabeth Ramirez, P.E., Steve Cherryholmes, P.E. Transportation Operations Division Department of Public Works and Transportation October 21st, 2009

Purpose for this Standard & Realities of Development

The Purpose of a Trail-Road Crossing Traffic Control and Safety Treatment Standard

Traffic control and safety treatments at each trail-road crossing should be implemented to properly address current or typical trail usage, as well as the roadway traffic configuration and volume. Traffic control and safety treatments for each crossing type should be consistent and recognizable, to the greatest extent possible. A guideline for graduated safety measures can help to improve conditions at each crossing.

Realities of Developing a Standard in Real-Time


Need to create standards (if they are non-existent) in the process of developing solutions to immediate issues sometimes there is no time or opportunity to test the condition of the baseline template, because conditions warrant using a more graduated safety measure need to have a base template that is flexible yet consistent enough to fit the appropriate elements into any crossing type, or with any graduated safety measure

Approval of the standard by the City Council is still pending, in the form of inclusion in the update to the Dallas Bike Plan, or by some other means

Treat the MUTCD/AASHTO Guides as a menu, from which you can combine and add to its content create variations on what standards exist, especially where they currently fall short wait for MUTCD/AASHTO updates before finalizing (if possible), or try to anticipate coming changes and additions submit your customized variations and additions as possible changes for future updates

Push to plan for all that is recommended or required, not just what can be currently afforded Document all signage, pavement markings, and equipment in each scenario to attract the appropriate level of funding and to avoid out of site, out of mind budgeting and spending Implementation of complete solutions are preferred for safety and maintenance 4

Relevant Standards

Sign Placement on Shared-Use Paths

Vertical height and horizontal distances of signage relative to a multi-use pathway are specified in the 2006 Texas MUTCD. The proposed change would allow the inside edge of a sign to be placed one foot closer to the pathway. Specifications for an overhead sign or traffic control device have been added - the minimum height of the signs lower edge and the horizontal distance of the vertical element.
overhead sign or other traffic control device

Not less than 0.6 m (2 ft)

Not less than 2.4 m (8 ft)

Not less than 0.6 m (2 ft)

post-mounted sign or other traffic control device

edge of shared-use path

Not less than 1.2 m (4 ft)

Source: Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2006 Edition, p. 9B-2 FHWA, Notice of Proposed Amendments to MUTCD, January 2008

Minimum Sign Sizes for Bicycle Facilities

Minimum sign sizes for the roadway and shared-use pathways installed on or around bicycle facilities are specified in the 2006 Texas MUTCD.
Source: Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2006 Edition, p. 9B-3

MUTCD Signs Appendix

Some signs found in the Signs Appendix of the 2006 Texas MUTCD are also relevant to trail-road crossing issues.
Source: Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2006 Edition, pp. AT24, AT-30

Examples of Signings and Markings for Shared-Use Paths and Roadways

Relevant signage and pavement markings, and their distances and dimensions, are specified in the 2006 Texas MUTCD and in the 1999 AASHTO Guide.
Source: Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2006 Edition, p. 9B-13 Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, AASHTO, 1999. p. 47

Example of Yield Lines at Un-signalized Midblock Crosswalks

Source: Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2006 Edition, p. 3B-28

10

Example of Roadway Yield Line Layouts

Source: Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2006 Edition, p. 3B-27

The Base Template and Crossing Types

12

Proposed variation on Yield Here to Pedestrianssign at unsignalized mid-block crosswalks

Including a visual cue to the motorist about the presence of bicycles may help to adjust driver behavior. Combining this yield here to ped/bike regulatory sign saves on the cost of having a larger yield sign and a plaque below.

13

Early Mockup of Pavement Markings for Roadways

14

Base Template: Signage and Pavement Markings


Trail 24X24 Roadway

18X18 24X12 30X30

24X24

30X42

18X18 18X18

24X12

30X36

9X18

24X24

Crossing Type

16

17

Crossing Type

18

Crossing Type

19

Crossing Type

20

Crossing Type

21

Graduated Safety Measures

22

Graduated Safety Measures Guideline


This guideline for implementing graduated safety measures is designed to accommodate the future growth of trail user and roadway user interactions.

1. Base Template MUTCD Signage and Pavement Marking Package 2. Roadway Narrowing 3. Overhead Blinking Yellow Flasher 4. 4-Way Lighted Signal 5. Separated Grade Crossing 6. Street Closure

23

Graduated Safety Measure: Roadway Narrowing

24

Graduated Safety Measure: Overhead Blinking Yellow Flasher

25

Graduated Safety Measures: 4-Way Traffic Signal and Roadway Narrowing

26

Near-Term Implementation Plans

27

Graduated Safety Measures: Roadway Narrowing (Striping), Traffic Signal

28

29

Implementation Plan for Standard - Santa Fe Trail

30

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen