Supporting Material to NCHRP Report 674 (2011)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

APPENDIX D: Details on Site Selection This Appendix contains details on the selection of treatment sites in NCHRP 3- 78a: 37

Appendix D: Details on Site Selection Site Selection Criteria In this task, the research team will evaluate the potential sites identified in Phase I and select those that are deemed suitable for further field investigation of the proposed treatments. Criteria for site selection include: • Feasibility of implementing one or more of the desired treatments at a given site within NCHRP project schedule; • Level of federal, state, and local support and cost-sharing in implementing the proposed treatments; • Sufficient vehicle and pedestrian demand to enable a meaningful evaluation of the treatment impact on the system performance; • Proximity of the sites to the data collection team; • Proximity of the sites to one another; • Availability of adequate numbers of potential research participants who are blind or visually impaired in reasonable proximity to the sites identified for data collection tasks; and • Adequate representation of the various geometric conditions to be considered. Site Selection Short-Listing The research team used three methods to identify candidate sites. First, we broadcast a request pertaining to interested participants at the 2006 TRB conference and on the Kansas State/TRB sponsored roundabout list serve. The message posted on the list serve read: ------------------------------------------ The National Academies of Science has an ongoing research project (NCHRP 3-78) titled "Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities". The objective of this research is to recommend a range of geometric designs, traffic control devices, and other treatments that will make pedestrian crossings at roundabouts and channelized turn lanes more useable by pedestrians with vision impairment. These recommendations should be suitable for inclusion in transportation- industry practice and policies, including the AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets and the FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Exploration of the proper balance among the needs of passenger cars, trucks, pedestrians (including pedestrians with vision impairments), and bicycles is central to achieving the objectives of the research. We are soliciting your help in identifying potential treatment sites. We are looking for sites where single lane and multilane roundabouts or channelized turn lanes exist, or where they are planned to be constructed in the next year or two. We are especially 38

Appendix D: Details on Site Selection interested in sites that may be considering some form of signalization that will permit its possible use now or in the future. Potential treatments include: Signing Pavement markings Signals (pedestrian actuated, APS, HAWK) Alternate crosswalk locations Raised crosswalks Other geometric treatments We plan on collecting data at the sites in 2006 or 2007. Thank you for your consideration. If you are interested, please contact me via email or at the address/phone number shown below. ------------------------------------------ The end of this Appendix contains aerial and site photographs taken at the sites identified in the responses to the broadcast request. In our second method of site identification we contacted agencies and practicing engineers active in the planning, design, and construction of roundabouts. We recognize that roundabouts are not the entire focus of the study, but we were confident that we could easily identify sites for the channelized turn lane located within close proximity to the roundabout sites. Conversations with agency officials confirmed this. The following is a list of agencies/professionals we contacted: • Maryland State Highway Administration - Tom Hicks/Mike Niederhauser • Kansas DOT - David Church/Cheryl Lambrecht • Washington State DOT - Brian Walsh • New York State DOT - Howard McCulloch (panel member) • North Carolina DOT - Jim Dunlop (panel member) • California DOT - Rebecca Mowry/Jerry Champa (3-65 panel member) • Florida DOT - Beatriz Caicedo-Maddison (3-65 panel chair,) • City of Clearwater, FL - Ken Sides • City of Kennewick, WA - Peter Beaudry, • City of Modesto, CA - Firoz Vohra, (active local roundabout program) • City of Bend, OR - Robin Lewis, (active local roundabout program) • City of Portland, OR - Bill Kloos, (active participants in APS and other research projects) • City of Tucson, AZ - Richard Nassi • City of Golden, CO • Town of Vail, CO • MTJ Engineering - Mark Johnson 39

Appendix D: Details on Site Selection • Roundabouts, USA - Bill Baranowski • Ourston Roundabout Engineering - Leif Ourston/Mark Lenters/Phil Weber • Alternate Street Design - Michael Wallwork We had follow-up meetings and/or telephone conversations with the Maryland State Highway Administration, Washington State Department of Transportation, New York State Department of Transportation, and Ourston Roundabout Engineering. The third method for site selection consisted of reviewing sites studied under NCHRP 3- 72: Lane Widths, Channelized Right Turns, and Right-Turn Deceleration Lanes in Urban and Suburban Areas, and NCHRP 3-65: Applying Roundabouts in the United States. Table 1, shown on the next page, represents an initial site short-listing compared against the site selection criteria discussed on page one. The sites in the Mid-Atlantic region are generally rated higher based on their proximity to the research team and each respective Department of Transportation’s willingness to participate in and/or contribute to the experiment. However, the sites that already have the more expensive treatments (namely signals) should also receive serious consideration. 40

Appendix D: Details on Site Selection Table 1 – Sites and Site Selection Criteria Site Implementation Feasibility Local Support Vehicle/ Pedestrian Demand Proximity to Data Collection Team Proximity to One Another Availability of Research Participants Adequate Geometric Conditions Total Double Lane Roundabouts 1. Towson, MD 2 3 3 2 3 3 1 17 2. Mt. Rainier, MD 2 3 2 2 3 3 1 16 3. Annapolis MD (Alternate Site) 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 18 4. Winston-Salem, NC 2 3 3 2 3 1 2 16 5. Orem, UT 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 13 6. WA 16 NB/Borgen Boulevard 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 11 7. Golden, CO (Preferred Site) 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 18 Key : 1 = Poor 2 = Average 3 = Good 41

Appendix D: Details on Site Selection Table 1 (Continued) – Sites and Site Selection Criteria Single Lane Roundabouts Site Implementation Feasibility Local Support Vehicle/ Pedestrian Demand Proximity to Data Collection Team Proximity to One Another Availability of Research Participants Adequate Geometric Conditions Total 1. Brunswick, MD 3 3 2 3 3 1 2 17 2. New Haven, NY 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 12 3. Voorheesville, NY 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 16 4. Pullen/Stimson, Raleigh, NC (Alternate Site) 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 20 5. UNC Charlotte, NC (Preferred Site) 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 20 6. Alpine, UT 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 11 7. Salt Lake City, UT 2 1 2 1 1 3 2 12 8. 51st Ave/Borgen Boulevard, Gig Harbor, WA 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 13 9. WA 16 SB/Borgen Blvd, Gig Harbor, WA 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 11 Signalized Roundabouts 1. Gatineau, Quebec 3 1 2 2 1 2 3 14 Key : 1 = Poor 2 = Average 3 = Good 42

Appendix D: Details on Site Selection Table 1 (Continued) – Sites and Site Selection Criteria Site Implementation Feasibility Local Support Vehicle/ Pedestrian Demand Proximity to Data Collection Team Proximity to One Another Availability of Research Participants Adequate Geometric Conditions Total Channelized Turn Lanes 1. Loch Raven/Joppa Road, Towson, MD 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 15 2. Dulaney Valley/ Fairmount Avenue, Towson MD 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 15 3. Padonia Road/York Rd, Timonium MD 2 3 1 3 2 2 2 15 4. Sabino Canyon Road/Cloud Rd, Tucson, AZ 3 3 1 1 3 3 2 16 5. Sabino Canyon Road/Klob Road, Tucson, AZ 2 3 2 1 3 3 2 16 6. Martin Way/Sleater Kinney Rd, Lacey WA 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 12 7. Martin Way/College Street, Lacey, WA 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 12 8. Grant Road/ Campbell, Tucson, AZ (Alternate Site) 3 3 2 1 3 33 3 18 9. Providence Rd/ Pineville–Matthew Rd, Charlotte, NC (Preferred Site) 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 18 Key : 1 = Poor 2 = Average 3 = Good 43

Appendix D: Details on Site Selection Final Site Selection Our recommended site selection is outlined below. Further descriptions of the sites and treatments installed at each site are found in Appendix E. Single Lane Roundabout 1. UNC Charlotte – Charlotte, NCPullen Stimson – Raleigh, NC The UNC Charlotte roundabout is the preferred site for a few reasons. First, the site is close to many of the team members. Second, the team has a great working relationship with engineers the Charlotte DOT, all who are very willing to help purchase and install treatments. Third, the site is in the vicinity of the CTL site in Charlotte. Although is intimately familiar with the Pullen Stinson site, which is even more convenient to team members at ITRE, the team has done many studies at this site in the past. In addition, the pedestrian traffic from the University is so high that drivers can be extremely cautious around crosswalks. However, the site should still be considered a very good alternate site since we would have permission to study and test treatments, not to mention the fact that the NC State team has already modeled this site in VISSIM, which will help to reduce the modeling costs in subsequent phases. Double Lane Roundabout 1. Golden, CO 2. Spa road/Taylor Avenue, Annapolis, MD The Golden, CO site is the preferred site because of the range of geometric conditions and the local support for the research effort. Conversations with the City of Golden’s representative, Don Hartman, indicated that there is relatively strong community support for roundabouts, and the City is willing to test any of the treatments identified by the research team. The double-lane roundabout located in Annapolis, MD is the alternate site identified by the team. It is located in an area with a relatively high level of pedestrian activity. Current construction immediately adjacent to the roundabout prevents any testing of treatments at the pedestrian crosswalks; however, the site could be used once the construction activities are completed. SHA would likely be interested in exploring a range of alternatives short of signalization. Channelized Turn Lanes 1. Providence Road/Pineville-Matthews Road – Charlotte, NC 2. Grant Road/Campbell Ave – Tucson, AZ 44

Appendix D: Details on Site Selection The Charlotte, NC site is the preferred candidate for study of channelized turn lanes (CTLs) for multiple reasons. First, the site has CTLs on each of the four legs of the intersection. The geometric conditions are fairly good here, with minor skew angles between the two intersecting roadways. The choice between which two CTLs to use will take into account this skew angle. Second, the site has high volumes of traffic with two heavily traveled intersecting roadways. Third, the site is very close to many of the research team members and is located near the desirable single lane roundabout. Last, the support from local engineering staff to purchase and install treatments is already in place, saving time and money for the project. No APS signals are installed at this time; however, the city has agreed to install those along with any other treatments we deem appropriate. The alternate site is located in Tucson, AZ. This location is considered advantageous because Tucson has experience using HAWK signals for pedestrian mid-block crossings; therefore, drivers are familiar with their operation. A HAWK signal is one of the treatments that the research team would like to test at channelized turn lanes; however, it is not entirely necessary since it will be tested at the dual lane roundabout. Based on conversations with Richard Nassi, the City of Tucson’s representative, the Grant Road/Campbell Avenue intersection would be preferable if Tucson was chosen as the location for CTL treatment testing. 45

Appendix D: Details on Site Selection Site Pictures Double Lane Roundabouts Figure 8. Towson Roundabout Figure 9. US 1/34th Street, Mt. Rainier, MD 46

Appendix D: Details on Site Selection Figure 10. Spa Road/Taylor Avenue, Annapolis, MD Figure 11. Spa Road/Taylor Avenue, Annapolis, MD 47

Appendix D: Details on Site Selection Figure 12. Winston-Salem, NC Figure 13. Winston-Salem, NC 48

Appendix D: Details on Site Selection Figure 14. Winston-Salem, NC Figure 15. Winston-Salem, NC 49

Appendix D: Details on Site Selection Figure 16. Utah Valley State College, Orem, UT Figure 17. Utah Valley State College, Orem, UT (zoomed out view) 50

Appendix D: Details on Site Selection Figure 18. WA 16 Northbound/Borgen Boulevard, Gig Harbor, WA Figure 19. Golden, CO 51

Appendix D: Details on Site Selection Single Lane Roundabouts Figure 20. MD 17/B Street, Brunswick, MD Figure 21. Ferry Road/Tyndall Road, New Haven, NY (Long Island) 52

Appendix D: Details on Site Selection Figure 22. Maple Road/State Farm Road, Voorheesville, NY Figure 23. Pullen/Stinson, Raleigh, NC 53

Appendix D: Details on Site Selection Figure 24. N. Davidson/9th Street, UNC Charlotte, NC Figure 25. Main Street, Alpine, UT 54

Appendix D: Details on Site Selection Figure 26. South Campus Drive/Center Campus Drive, Salt Lake City, UT Figure 27. 51st Avenue NW/Borgen Boulevard, Gig Harbor, WA 55

Appendix D: Details on Site Selection Figure 28. WA 16 Southbound/Borgen Boulevard, Gig Harbor, WA 56

Appendix D: Details on Site Selection Signalized Roundabouts Figure 29. Gatineau, Quebec Figure 30. Gatineau, Quebec 57

Appendix D: Details on Site Selection Channelized Turn Lanes Figure 31.Loch Raven Boulevard/Joppa Road, Towson, MD Figure 32. Loch Raven Boulevard/Joppa Road, Towson, MD 58

Appendix D: Details on Site Selection Figure 33. Dulaney Valley Road/Fairmount Avenue, Towson, MD Figure 34. Dulaney Valley Road/Fairmount Avenue, Towson, MD 59

Appendix D: Details on Site Selection Figure 35. Dulaney Valley Road/Fairmount Avenue, Towson, MD Figure 36. Padonia Road/York Road, Timonium, MD 60

Appendix D: Details on Site Selection Figure 37. Padonia Road/York Road, Timonium, MD Figure 38. Padonia Road/York Road, Timonium, MD 61

Appendix D: Details on Site Selection Figure 39. Sabino Canyon Road/Cloud Road, Tucson, AZ Figure 40. Sabino Canyon Road/Klob Road, Tucson, AZ 62

Appendix D: Details on Site Selection Figure 41. Martin Way/Sleater Kinney Road, Lacey, WA Figure 42. Martin Way/College Street, Lacey, WA 63

Appendix D: Details on Site Selection Figure 43. Grant Road/Campbell, Tucson, AZ Figure 44. Grant Road/Campbell, Tucson, AZ 64

Appendix D: Details on Site Selection Figure 45. Grant Road/Campbell, Tucson, AZ 65