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.
94 A P P E N D I X B : A G E N C Y S U R V E Y Agency Survey Introduction This appendix describes the findings from a national survey of multimodal access management needs and practices. The purpose of the survey was to identify multimodal access management interactions and to guide the research team and panel in selecting interactions to evaluate in greater detail. A range of information regarding access management interactions was gathered via the survey from practitioners and researchers from various agencies, institutions, and modal backgrounds. Key information gathered included: ï· Access management treatments used by agencies and their observed or documented effects on the safety and operational performance of non-auto travel modes; ï· Agency observations and stakeholder issues regarding interactions between access management treatments and modal users, including information on completed or ongoing research projects; ï· Methods of analysis and measures of effectiveness currently in use to evaluate the impact of access management treatments on the safety and/or operation of non-auto modes; ï· Agency needs and priorities for information that describes the multimodal effects of implementing a given access management technique; and ï· Candidate case study locations for detailed analysis. This appendix consists of two sections. The first section describes the survey instrument. The second section provides a detailed compilation of the survey findings. Chapter 2 provides a description of the methods used to develop the survey and to select the survey subjects. Survey Instrument The following text represents a reproduction of the survey instrument. The survey consisted of three sections. The section titles are: Introduction, Guidance, and Survey Questions. __________________________________________________________________________________ Introduction Selecting the appropriate access management treatments for a given roadway corridor requires an understanding of the multimodal effects of those treatments. Kittelson and Associates, AECOM and the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) at the University of South Florida are conducting a national study for the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP Project 03-120) to assess interactions of roadway access management treatments or techniques with the safety and operational performance of various travel modes (e.g., pedestrian, bicycle, bus transit, and truck). An objective of the research is to identify and develop analysis methods and tools to evaluate those
95 interactions between access management treatments and modal performance that have not been adequately evaluated. The purpose of this survey is to obtain practitioner perspectives as to the possible effects of access management treatments (or combinations of treatments) on various travel modes, evaluation methods and measures of effectiveness used to examine and monitor those effects, and any ongoing analysis needs and priorities in this regard. The team is particularly interested in examining access management treatments as they relate to interactions of vehicles with pedestrians, bicyclists, bus transit and trucks, as well as general effects on non-auto users. We are also seeking candidate locations for further analysis. Participation in the survey is completely voluntary and no compensation is offered. Survey results will be made available to all participants interested and may be published; however, published results will not include your name. Your privacy and project records will be kept confidential to the extent of the law. Authorized research personnel and other individuals acting on behalf of the research team may inspect the records from this survey. Completing the survey indicates a willingness to participate in this research. If you have questions, please contact [name, email address, and phone number of project team member]. Guidance Please answer the survey questions to the best of your abilities and complete the survey by March 1, 2016. Completing the Survey â The survey contains 15 questions and should take about 15â20 minutes to complete. It will be available online from February 1 to March 1, 2016. Progression through the survey will be tracked by a bar at the bottom of the screen indicating percent complete. Required Responses â All items with an asterisk require a response. Moving Within the Survey â You will be able to move back and forth within the survey. Please use the âbackâ and ânextâ buttons within the survey itself. Use of the browser âbackâ and âforwardâ arrows will result in lost responses. Saving the Survey â You can save and return to the survey at any time prior to the close of the survey by using the button at the topmost portion of the page (âSave and continue survey laterâ). The survey will automatically save any responses you have made. When you get to the last page of the survey, do not click âSubmitâ until you are completely finished with the survey. Once you click the âSubmitâ button on the last page, you will be unable to change your responses. Forwarding the Survey â If you determine that another person within your agency has the information necessary for completing a portion of the survey, please save the survey as described above and forward the survey link to that individual. The survey link will be emailed from National Multimodal Access Management Survey (national multimodal access management email@example.com); you may want to add this address to your whitelist. Survey Questions Q1. State represented (choose state from dropdown list). Q2. Please provide the name of your agency/organization, city, and its function. Q3. Which of the following access management treatments is your agency or organization using to improve transportation system performance? 1. Install non-traversable medians 2. Manage the location, spacing and design of median openings 3. Manage spacing of traffic signals 4. Manage location and spacing of unsignalized access 5. Consolidate driveways
96 6. Manage the spacing of signalized and unsignalized access on crossroads in the vicinity of freeway interchanges 7. Install continuous two-way left-turn lane on undivided highway (non-road diet scenarios) 8. Install or modify left-turn lanes 9. Install right-turn lanes 10. Control driveway design elements 11. Provide adequate sight distance at access points 12. Manage the location and placement of parking 13. Install roundabout 14. Install service or frontage roads 15. Improve supporting network 16. Other Q4. Please indicate any adverse safety or operational impacts on non-auto travel modes of the treatments you selected in Q3. Q5. Briefly describe the adverse impacts noted above and whether the impacts you have identified are anecdotal or have been documented through research or analysis and how we might obtain any documented findings. Q6. Please note any methods or strategies that have been used by your agency or organization to mitigate the adverse impacts of access management treatments on non-auto modes. Q7. Please indicate any positive safety or operational impacts on non-auto travel modes of the treatments you selected in Q3. Q8. Briefly describe the positive impacts noted above and whether these impacts are anecdotal or have been documented through research or analysis and how we might obtain any documented findings. Q9. Indicate any measures of effectiveness your agency or organization has used to evaluate the safety or operational effects of access management treatments on non-auto modes. Q10. Have plan or project stakeholders identified any issues with regard to the interaction of access management treatments your agency or organization has used in roadway projects with the safety or operation of non-auto modes? Q11. Provide us with some idea of your analysis needs and priorities relative to the research topic. a. What are the top three access management treatments or techniques you think need additional analysis with regard to their interaction with the safety and/or operational performance of non- auto modes? b. Please explain the specific safety and/or operational interactions with non-auto modes of interest to the analysis. Q12. Do you have a project that may be a good case study for analysis of interactions between established roadway access management treatments and multimodal users? Q13. If you are aware of any completed or ongoing research relative to this study topic, please identify the study below and note how it can be obtained. Q14. Please provide any additional information you feel may be useful to this research, such as methods or policies to align access management and multimodal objectives. Q15. The project research team may contact the following individual(s) for interviews (identify contact name, email address, and telephone number). Survey Findings
97 Survey Distribution A total of 381 individuals responded to the survey, with the majority identifying as consultants (27.3%), state transportation agency staff (27.0%), and university transportation researchers (21.5%), as illustrated in Figure 1. Local governments accounted for 10% of respondents, MPO staff accounted for 6%, and a small number of federal agencies, non-profit organizations, and non-U.S. transportation agency respondents rounded out the total. Not all respondents answered each question. Thus, the number and distribution of respondents varies by question. Figure 1. Distribution of respondents. Respondents were presented with a list of traditional access management treatments and queried as to which of the treatments their agency or organization uses to improve transportation system performance. In the case of state transportation agencies, local governments, and consultants that work on roadway plans and projects, this question may be interpreted as planning and implementation of the treatments. MPOs addressed the query relative to access management treatments recommended in plans and supporting documents. Others were advised to respond based upon their observations, experience, or research in relation to the identified access management treatments. A total of 321 individuals responded to this question. As indicated in Figure 2, treatments used or advanced by a majority of these respondents were: ï· Manage the location, spacing and design of median openings (64.5%); ï· Install or modify left-turn lanes (63.9%); ï· Install roundabouts (62%); ï· Manage location and spacing of unsignalized access (62%); ï· Provide adequate sight distance at access points (61.7%); ï· Install non-traversable medians (61.7%); ï· Install right-turn lanes (58.9%); ï· Manage spacing of traffic signals (57.9%); ï· Consolidate driveways (56.7%); and ï· Control driveway design elements (53.3%).
98 24.0% 32.7% 42.7% 43.9% 48.6% 49.2% 53.3% 56.7% 57.9% 58.9% 61.7% 61.7% 62.0% 62.0% 63.9% 64.5% Other InstallÂ serviceÂ orÂ frontageÂ roads InstallÂ continuousÂ twoâwayÂ leftâturnÂ laneÂ onÂ undividedÂ highway (nonâroadÂ dietÂ scenarios) ImproveÂ supportingÂ network ManageÂ theÂ spacingÂ ofÂ signalizedÂ andÂ unsignalizedÂ accessÂ on crossroadsÂ inÂ theÂ vicinityÂ ofÂ freewayÂ interchanges ManageÂ theÂ locationÂ andÂ placementÂ ofÂ parking ControlÂ drivewayÂ designÂ elements ConsolidateÂ driveways ManageÂ spacingÂ ofÂ trafficÂ signals InstallÂ rightâturnÂ lanes InstallÂ nontraversableÂ medians ProvideÂ adequateÂ sightÂ distanceÂ atÂ accessÂ points ManageÂ locationÂ andÂ spacingÂ ofÂ unsignalizedÂ access InstallÂ roundabout InstallÂ orÂ modifyÂ leftâturnÂ lanes ManageÂ theÂ location,Â spacingÂ andÂ designÂ ofÂ medianÂ openings Figure 2. Access management treatments implemented. Approximately 50% of respondents indicated that they manage the location and placement of parking on major roadways, and the spacing of signalized and unsignalized access on crossroads in the vicinity of freeway interchanges. Nearly 44% indicated that they improve supporting networks along major routes, and about 43% said that they install continuous two-way left-turn lanes on undivided highways. The least-used technique, noted by about 33% of respondents, was the installation of a frontage road or service road behind corridor properties. Respondents were provided an opportunity to identify other access management treatments in use that were not listed. Other treatments noted by individual respondents were: ï· Adding traffic separators and pedestrian refuges; ï· Adding pedestrian refuge islands, properly placing protected pedestrian crossings, installing sidewalks across driveways; ï· Implementing a diverging diamond interchange (DDI) and a restricted crossing U-turn (RCUT) intersection; ï· Controlling bus stop locations and coordinating pedestrian crossings with signals and destinations; ï· Creating additional street connectivity; and ï· Prohibiting future curb cuts on some arterials through adoption of an access management plan.
99 Impacts of Access Management Treatments A series of exploratory queries asked respondents to note any adverse or positive safety or operational impacts on non-auto modes of the access management treatments they had implemented. Respondents were further asked to describe the nature of the impacts and whether the impacts were anecdotal or documented. The typical response was that impacts were observed or anecdotal, rather than documented. Adverse Impacts In general, responses regarding adverse impacts of access management treatments were quite low. Therefore, for a sense of relative trends, the responses were grouped by those treatments identified by at least 15% of respondents or more as having an adverse impact on non-auto modes by mode. Table 63 and Table 64 illustrate those treatments identified as adversely impacting the safety or operations of non-auto modes. Table 63. Treatments identified by 15% or more of respondents as adversely impacting safety of non-auto modes. Treatment Pedestrian Bicycle Manage spacing of traffic signals 34 21 Install continuous two-way left-turn lane on undivided highway (non-road diet scenarios) 35 27 Install or modify left-turn lanes 29 0 Install right-turn lanes 47 44 Install roundabout 29 21 Total respondents: 139 Table 64. Treatments identified by 15% or more of respondents as adversely impacting operation of non-auto modes. Treatment Pedestrian Bicycle Truck Install non-traversable medians 21 0 35 Manage the location, spacing and design of median openings 0 0 28 Manage spacing of traffic signals 32 0 0 Install right-turn lanes 24 24 0 Install roundabout 0 0 21 Total respondents: 143 Few, if any, respondents identified the access management treatments as having an adverse safety impact on bus or truck modes. However, some did note that tradeoffs occur, such as when as long-radii or wide driveways needed to accommodate trucks or buses can adversely impact pedestrian safety, whereas tighter driveways can restrict truck or bus operations. As shown in Table 63, treatments more likely to be noted by respondents as having a potential to adversely impact pedestrian or cyclist safety tended to have the potential to increase crossing distances and/or exposure to turning or through traffic. Respondents also noted the broader relationships between access management, roadway design, and modal safety and operations.
100 One respondent summarized the pedestrian safety issues associated with access management as follows: âThe primary triggers for negative safety impacts involve multiple-threat scenarios, too many opposing lanes to cross, oncoming vehicle speeds, limited sight distance and time of day/limited light and pedestrians wearing dark closing exercising midblock and diagonal crossings. Uncontrolled street and access placement along multilane corridors with center left turns lanes introduces multiple-threat scenarios that can shadow other approaching vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle traffic.â Another respondent summarized the safety and operational issues associated with access management and pedestrians in the following way: â(1) In general, are you having an impact on how far pedestrians have to go to get to a safe crossing? Are you having an impact on the crossing distance? On the number of conflicts during the crossing? The speed of turning cars? What is the impact on waiting time? Is the safe thing you want pedestrians to do the same thing as the convenient thing that pedestrians will actually do? (2) What impact are you having on pedestrians walking parallel to the street on the sidewalk? How difficult is it to cross driveways? Are driveways designed to give pedestrians priority, or are they more like streets? (3) What impact are you having on pedestrian access to destinations along the road? Do changes in vehicle access to the road impact pedestrian access opportunities? (4) How do the answers to the above questions change if you are dealing with someone in a wheelchair? Who is blind? A child? Elderly? Carrying an armload of groceries? (5) Are you giving bicyclists an attractive place to ride, or are they going to end up on the sidewalks and be a problem for pedestrians?â The potential for adverse operational impacts noted in Table 64 tended to relate to design issues, such as whether a median was of appropriate width to facilitate pedestrian midblock crossings, or whether a median or roundabout was designed to support truck turning trajectories. The potential to increase crossing distances and or exposure to turning or through traffic was also at issue with pedestrian and bicycle operations. Some specific responses as to the nature of the adverse safety and/or operational impacts noted by respondents are presented below. Some comments related to more than one treatment and are therefore repeated as appropriate. In addition, some comments related to both pedestrians and cyclists and therefore are combined. 1. Install non-traversable medians a. Pedestrians: Median widths could possibly be insufficient for refuge. b. Trucks: Raised medians can cause issues with turning radii for trucks, especially if the roadway width is narrow. Trucks must consider their route on corridors with fewer left- turn opportunities. 2. Manage the location, spacing and design of median openings a. Trucks: Trucks must consider their route on corridors with fewer left-turn opportunities. 3. Manage spacing of traffic signals a. Pedestrians and Bicyclists: The farther the signal spacing, the more difficult it will be for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross the road. In general, they will cross wherever they think they can whether it is really safe or not. Midblock crossings can help mitigate that. Long distances between signals require pedestrians to walk further to a crossing location.
101 Some pedestrians choose to cross midblock to save time. Block spacing may be longer than deemed convenient. 4. Install continuous two-way left-turn lane on undivided highway (non-road diet scenarios) a. Pedestrians and Bicyclists: Anytime a roadway is widened without a median refuge, it has the potential to hurt the operations and safety of pedestrians and cyclists. This is because it now takes longer for a pedestrian or cyclist to cross the street and they are exposed to more potential conflicts. A TWLTL (continuous two-way left-turn lane) can be even more problematic if the crossing is within a TWLTL because that center lane will have conflict points in both directions of traffic at the same time. 5. Install or modify left-turn lanes a. Pedestrians: The widening of the roadway creates longer crossings for pedestrians and cyclists. For pedestrian operations, adding turn lanes at intersections can increase crossing distances for pedestrians. 6. Install right-turn lanes a. Pedestrians and Bicyclists: Adding turn lanes at intersections can increase crossing distances for pedestrians. Reduced attention of drivers to pedestrians particularly when the intersection is channelized can create safety issues. Widening of the roadway exposes pedestrians and bicyclists longer at crossings and it takes longer to get across. Second, installing right-turn lanes can potentially create an unwanted conflict with bicycles either at the beginning of the right-turn lane or at the intersection. (If at the intersection, more conflicts usually for a bicycle to continue through when a right-turn lane is developed. Thereâs also the issue for buses, particularly if there are near side bus stops that are in the right-turn lane. This creates safety issues as well as potential weaving issues for the bus to get back into the through lane.) 7. Install roundabout a. Pedestrians and Bicyclists: There is a legitimate question regarding pedestrian and bicycle safety at multilane roundabouts. Bicyclists often have issues getting into the left lanes at roundabouts. Pedestrians can have sight distance and accessibility issues at crossings due to vehicles creating sight distance problems. Roundabouts are not a positive influence for pedestrians as there is not a good way to allow crossings at intersections or through the roundabout without queuing traffic. b. Trucks: There is still a legitimate question regarding how well roundabouts are serving trucks. This is a particularly big issue with super load trucks that canât fit around the roundabout. A few locations that I am aware of have had some concerns with off-tracking and misunderstanding of the paved apron area of the roundabout. By and large roundabouts have improved overall safety and operations at many locations. 8. Control driveway design elements a. Trucks and Buses: Reduced radius or width can make turning more difficult or impossible (for buses as well as trucks). Tighter radii at driveways can reduce the efficiency at which trucks turn into a driveway. If driveways are consolidated too much, trucks have a difficult time getting in and out. Iâve seen this issue also at convenient stores with small parcels. If the driveway is big enough to accommodate the operations of trucks, it can hurt pedestrians and bicyclists crossing this driveway. Conversely, if the driveway is built small enough for safer pedestrian and bike crossings, it could hurt the ability of trucks to enter or exit the driveway. A few respondents noted that almost all the treatments have the potential to improve vehicular and modal safety and operations; however, failure to effectively plan for and integrate modal users into the design and operation of roadways is a continuing issue. Another issue noted by respondents is that
102 constraints due to existing conditions can result in less-than-optimal results or designs in relation to both auto and non-auto modes. The potential for some types of interchanges (e.g., cloverleaf) and alternative intersection designs to make pedestrian and bicycle crossings exceedingly difficult was also mentioned. Similarly, service or frontage roads were identified as posing safety or operational constraints for bicycles and pedestrians where they connect with adjacent roadways. Mitigation Strategies Respondents were asked to note any methods or strategies used by their agency or organization to mitigate the adverse impacts of access management treatments on non-auto modes. Several noted the use of midblock crossing treatments where intersections are widely spaced. For example, comments relative to midblock crossings included the following: ï· Revised criteria for midblock pedestrian crosswalks in FDOT Traffic Engineering Manual, Section 3.8. ï· Designing features such as medians that are wide enough to provide effective refuge areas and then carefully locating and designing those crossings. ï· Updated criteria for increased frequency of midblock and non-signal-controlled crossings for pedestrians with accessible median pass through. ï· NCDOT Pedestrian Crossing Guidance document and flowchart, and NCDOT report on accommodating bicycles and pedestrians through super streets. ï· Utilization of rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) at heavily used non-signalized intersections. In addition, a handful of comments were provided specific to mitigating adverse impacts of roundabouts: ï· Participate in project scoping/preliminary design review to discourage over design of roundabouts (i.e., 2 lanes only on some approaches) and include use of hybrid roundabouts. ï· Designing roundabouts with adequate geometrics and features (such as paved aprons for transit buses and larger trucks) and advance pedestrian islands and crossings. ï· Roundabout committee review of proposed roundabout locations and preliminary designs to ensure appropriate design vehicles are utilized. Additional strategies noted by respondents to mitigate any adverse impacts of access management treatments on non-auto modes are noted below by theme. Pedestrians/Bicyclists ï· Offering shorter signalized intersection spacing criteria for dense multimodal activity centers as an optional design standard (at locality option). ï· Ensure that raised-curb medians are wide enough to accommodate a pedestrian or bicyclist in the event that they become trapped in the center of the road. ï· NYSDOT has standards for continuing sidewalk through driveway openings that must comply with ADA. ï· As part of access management applications, bicycle lanes, including pavement coloring, can be installed to improve safety and operations. Similarly, improved sidewalk, curb ramps, and other pedestrian facilities can improve this mode.
103 ï· Installing pedestrian and bicycle refuges in locations where there are curbed medians. ï· We have most recently installed a raised median in a college town, but admittedly do not handle enough urban sections to have a large influence on non-motorized modes of transport. ï· Roadway striping, road diets, add paved shoulder, add sidewalk or trail, shared lane marking ï· Relatively aggressive in providing safe, on-road, bike facilities, striping and signage. ï· Fairly aggressive sidewalk program and beyond-adherence to the needs of the elderly and infirm, school linkages, etc. ï· Sidewalks and/or shared use paths along roads, with green belts to separate from traffic/snow storage, enhanced crosswalk treatments, rectangular rapid flashing beacons in particular have been successful, improved pedestrian signals with countdown timers, road diets with continuous two-way left-turn lanes and shoulders. Trucks ï· Intersection and driveway modifications should be designed to accommodate the design vehicle for the facility â such as a bus, fire engine, or truck. The adequacy of the design can be confirmed using vehicle turning templates. ï· Trucks are frequently addressed in items such as median widths. ï· Weâre exploring access management and shipping/truck opportunities. Bus Transit ï· Installation of dedicated bus lanes on highways that function as intercity streets. Other Comments ï· Make sure that you are thinking about all modes of traffic for any project. Some strategies I use: o Anytime I am widening a roadway for any reason (turn lanes, center lanes, capacity increase), I consider putting in a raised median in strategic midblock and intersection locations for pedestrians and bikes to cross. o I generally disregard random advice on signal spacing since in general I think a lot of the criteria is bogus both operational and safety wise. Instead I look for functional independence between two signalized intersections. If the intersections happen to be functionally dependent, this isnât necessarily a fatal flaw. Instead, I try to see if I can play with the geometry and traffic elements to create better operations and safety. o I use innovative geometric design elements as part of my access management strategy. Superstreets that prohibit through and left outs at side streets are an access management tool that is being implemented on public roads, not just at driveways and similar access points. Median U-turns, continuous flow intersections, jug handles, quadrant roadways, and others all help with access management, but at the same time can be helpful in many ways in the safety and operations of non-auto modes. o When possible, I try to manipulate the demand side of the equation. This can include (a) parking managementâstrategically placing parking in locations that optimizes where I want pedestrians to be. (b) non-signalized intersection improvements near signalized intersectionsâI try to even out the traffic distribution when possible near a signalized intersection that may be overloaded. (c) Building entrance locationâplacing building entrances that are easier to access and/or safer for pedestrians to get to.
104 ï· Including modal users and vehicles/services in the justification, planning and design of the treatment (and also having developments integrate those modes as part of their impacts and improvements). ï· We try to keep things safe, simple and convenient. Avoiding complexity is important. ï· Separating and reducing conflicts between all users. ï· Recognizing the difference between a strategy or treatment that is perceived as unpopular or less convenient as opposed to one that may in fact not be effective. Base more determinations on evidence data. Positive Impacts Several respondents noted that, in general, all of the access management treatments would tend to improve safety and operations for non-auto modes (see Table 65 and Table 66). Improvements to safety were primarily attributed to the reduction of traffic conflicts, as well as attention to sight distance and parking location and placement. Limiting conflict points was also identified as improving the operating environment for all modes, although this statement encapsulated the sentiments of more than one respondent: âEach treatment can be positive and in the same vein negativeâit depends on the context and design.â Table 65. Treatments identified by 15% or more of respondents as positively impacting safety of non-auto modes. Treatment Pedestrian Bicycle Bus Truck Install non-traversable medians 71 54 47 43 Manage the location, spacing and design of median openings 57 55 45 42 Manage spacing of traffic signals 38 33 32 30 Manage location and spacing of unsignalized access 58 57 47 43 Consolidate driveways 64 62 42 37 Manage the spacing of signalized and unsignalized access on crossroads in the vicinity of freeway interchanges 32 32 33 37 Install continuous two-way left-turn lane on undivided highway (non-road diet scenarios) 22 26 Install or modify left-turn lanes 24 25 51 54 Install right-turn lanes 41 42 Control driveway design elements 52 49 42 40 Provide adequate sight distance at access points 69 71 61 59 Manage the location and placement of parking 53 51 40 30 Install roundabout 41 41 48 46 Install service or frontage roads 21 22 26 Improve supporting network 45 42 37 30 Total respondents: 144
105 Table 66. Treatments identified by 15% or more of respondents as positively impacting operation of non-auto modes. Treatment Pedestrian Bicycle Bus Truck Install non-traversable medians 51 40 40 36 Manage the location, spacing and design of median openings 34 33 38 38 Manage spacing of traffic signals 30 31 51 49 Manage location and spacing of unsignalized access 40 42 42 40 Consolidate driveways 41 40 39 32 Manage the spacing of signalized and unsignalized access on crossroads in the vicinity of freeway interchanges 23 25 36 40 Install continuous two-way left-turn lane on undivided highway (non-road diet scenarios) 24 28 Install or modify left-turn lanes 23 25 60 63 Install right-turn lanes 51 54 Control driveway design elements 42 40 32 31 Provide adequate sight distance at access points 45 47 46 46 Manage the location and placement of parking 34 34 31 26 Install roundabout 29 33 45 41 Install service or frontage roads 23 28 Improve supporting network 39 39 34 27 Total respondents: 143 Specific comments are listed below, organized by treatment type. Medians ï· Raised medians tend to slow traffic a bit, increasing safety for all modes and can be given a narrow cut for pedestrian or bike crossings, which we have done. ï· Although previously, I mentioned the non-traversable medians as having an adverse impact on bicycles and pedestrians, in some cases, they may have a positive impact by reducing the number of conflict points at any given driveway (just right in and right out vs. right left in + right left out). Controlling design elements and providing adequate sight distance, as well as managing the location and spacing of driveways can improve safety and operations for most users, although larger vehicles may have more difficulty navigating smaller driveway openings. Roundabouts Roundabouts were widely identified for their safety benefits due to fewer conflicts, slower speeds, and potential to reduce right-angle collisions. One respondent stated: âRoundabouts are often installed as part of local area traffic management traffic calming, which makes local streets safer for non-motorized modes.â
106 Consolidating Driveways ï· The positive impact for bikes of consolidating driveways is the ability to create cycle tracks or enhanced bike lanes. ï· Managing how travelers interact throughout the roadway network is beneficial for everyone. Consolidating wide open access driveways can greatly enhance pedestrian travel along a corridor. Physically restricting parking adjacent to intersections can greatly enhance pedestrian visibility, and typically shorten crossing distances. ï· Consolidated driveways narrow the conflict zone for all modes, but especially for pedestrians. Continuous Two-Way Left-Turn Lanes ï· Continuous two-way left-turn lanes help separate traffic, but also increase street width so this benefit can be offset by increased speeds. Turn Lanes ï· Installation of left- or right-turn lanes increases capacity for bus and truck modes. Frontage/Service Roads ï· Addition of frontage roads to high-speed, high-volume thoroughfares offer safer and more comfortable space for pedestrians and bicyclists, provided that speeds are managed and sufficient space is developed for those modes (shoulders, bike lanes, sidewalks, etc.) Bus Transit Generally ï· Exclusive bus rapid transit (BRT) lanes provide a substantial setback from general travel lanes (where BRT lanes are next to curb). The BRT lane has less traffic than general travel lanes resulting in less traffic adjacent to pedestrian pathways. Buses operating in the lanes have fewer points for conflict with other vehicles, especially where lanes are barrier separated. They also are not affected by traffic flows. ï· Driveway consolidation, median installation, intersection modifications, and roadway widening may worsen operational conditions for buses and trucks depending on traffic volumes, but the effect would be similar to the effect on autos. Measures of Effectiveness Figure 3 summarizes responses relative to measures of effectiveness used to evaluate the safety or operational effects of access management treatments on non-auto modes. Other measures of effectiveness noted include: ï· Connectivity index ï· Field observation ï· The state of California is introducing a new approach to level of service that we expect to be more beneficial for pedestrian safety as it does not encourage expanding the roadway to achieve greater speeds ï· Caltrans is in the process of developing MOEs for access management considerations.
107 ï· Volume-to-capacity ratio ï· Traffic operations complaints Total responses: 156 Figure 3. Measures of effectiveness for evaluating the effects of access management treatments on non-auto modes. Stakeholder Issues Respondents were also asked whether plan or project stakeholders had identified any issues with regard to the interaction of access management treatments used by the agency or organization in roadway projects with the safety or operation of non-auto modes. Of the 163 people that responded to this question, 40% indicated âyesâ and 60% indicated âno.â Those indicating âyesâ shared the following comments as to issues raised by stakeholders relative to access management treatments, with the majority relating positive as well as negative issues associated with the interaction of access management treatments and walking or cycling. Specific comments related to stakeholder issues are provided below.
108 Walking/Bicycling Generally ï· During draft long-range-planning public discussions, various participants expressed a preference for walking and biking along roadways where driveways/traffic conflicts are managed. ï· The benefit of extending the sidewalk across the driveway entrance (at-grade) to maintain pedestrian right-of-way, and traffic calming vehicular turning movements at residential and minor commercial driveways. Major driveways are treated like 4-way intersections. ï· The public has complained about the distance between safe crossings, and the difficulty in getting anything done to add additional crossing points even when there are obvious desire lines to destinations, such as schools, senior housing, bus stops, etc. ï· Also the difficulty in crossing wide intersections, difficulty in crossing freeway ramps designed for high-speed traffic, and difficulty in crossing right-turn lanes designed like freeway ramps. ï· On my current projects, neighborhood stakeholders have generally desired more walkable and bikeable environments. But, businesses have tended to oppose any changes that would affect automobile or truck circulation, even in the absence of any demonstrable adverse impact. (Business owners tend to be very fearful of change and risk averse). To the extent that access management treatments assist pedestrian and bicycle safety and mobility, they have generally been well-received by the neighborhoods; but not by the businesses (with some exceptions). Transit users almost never make their voices heard. Their perspective is represented (imperfectly) by the transit agency staff and some planners. Most of the engineers tend not to think about transit user needs. ï· Roads where the travel lanes use up most of the right-of-way leave the sidewalk squeezed next to the curb with no buffer from traffic such that sidewalks serve as the official snow storage area for snow plows. ï· Big concerns from motorists with delay, and from pedestrians and cyclists with safety. ï· At-grade crossings for pedestrians on multilane roadways near-expressway-type 45 mph+ facilities (especially five-lane TWLTLs). ï· Bicycle accommodations on super/synchronized street corridors. ï· Distances between pedestrian crossings on managed corridors. ï· Significant concerns with multiple-threat scenarios on four- and five-lane undivided cross sections. ï· Significant concerns with pedestrian trespassers possibly avoiding busy roads and instead walking along rail track corridors. ï· Pedestrians need more frequent opportunities to cross roadways than what is traditional for motor vehicle crossing options. Need more designs for pedestrian refuges, traffic separators. ï· Traffic signal spacing and pedestrian operations. ï· Desire for pedestrian crossings, roadway striping, road diets, addition of paved shoulders, sidewalks, trails and shared land markings. Driveway Consolidation ï· How difficult non-motorized safe access is without driveway consolidation. ï· When closing up open frontages there are often difficult discussions on business impacts versus pedestrian safety.
109 Right-Turn Lanes ï· Right-turn lanes and the related increase in crossing distance for pedestrians; right-turn lanes and conflicts with bike lane treatments; right-turn lanes and possible increase in right-turn-on-red conflicts with pedestrians. Non-Traversable Medians ï· Raised medians are opposed by a furniture store that doesnât have many options for loading/unloading near the front door. The median takes up a lane that they use right now for loading. ï· Everyone likes to turn left when and where they want to. ï· Some frequently voiced concerns with perception of U-turns being a less safe maneuver â despite evidence indicating otherwise. ï· Neighborhood concerns about medians including light rail limiting pedestrian crossings (currently utilize TWLTL as refuge). This is an unusual circumstance however, and access management is generally seen as a benefit for cyclists and pedestrians, as long as the treatment is permeable to these modes. Freeway interchange areas are a problem where they do not include bike/pedestrian permeability. Bus Transit ï· For transit passengers the time savings with fewer stops becomes something of a washâfewer stops but longer queues. Roundabouts ï· Still reluctance of communities to acknowledge and accept modern roundabouts again â even in light of extensive evidence supporting effectiveness operationally and especially safety wise. Continuous Two-Way Left-Turn Lanes ï· Two-way left-turn lanes informally used as through lanes. Administrative Issues ï· We do not have a formal policy on access management; therefore, we sometimes receive push- back from developers when trying to implement access management best practices. Analysis Priorities The top access management treatments or techniques identified as needing additional analysis with regard to their interaction with the safety and/or operational performance of non-auto modes across all respondents were (N = 178): (1) Manage spacing of traffic signals (25%); (2) Install non-traversable medians (24%); and (3) Manage the location and spacing of unsignalized access (24%) and install roundabout (24%). Total responses are shown in Figure 4.
110 Figure 4. Access management treatments needing additional analysis relative to non-auto modes. The responses were stratified by state transportation agency, consultant, and university respondents, as shown in Table 67, Table 68, and Table 69. This stratification is intended to provide additional insight on the differences in analysis priorities across groups. Given the small number of responses received from other groups, such as MPOs, local governments, and Federal Highway Administration, these results were not further stratified, but are included in the total responses shown in Figure 4. Table 67. State transportation agency multimodal access management analysis priorities. Treatment Percentage Install non-traversable medians 30% Manage the location, spacing and design of median openings 25% Manage location and spacing of unsignalized access 25% Manage spacing of traffic signals 23% Install roundabout 23% Total responses: 60
111 Table 68. Consultant multimodal access management analysis priorities. Treatment Percentage Install non-traversable medians 46% Install roundabout 44% Manage the location, spacing and design of median openings 40% Manage spacing of traffic signals 40% Manage location and spacing of unsignalized access 40% Total responses: 50 Table 69. University multimodal access management analysis priorities. Treatment Percentage Consolidate driveways 42% Manage location and spacing of unsignalized access 38% Install non-traversable medians 35% Manage the location, spacing and design of median openings 35% Install continuous two-way left-turn lane on undivided highway (non-road diet scenarios) 31% Manage the location and placement of parking 31% Install roundabout 31% Total responses: 26 The stratification of respondents revealed slightly different analysis priorities by respondent type. State transportation agency respondents tended to agree with the overall analysis priorities of all respondents, but ranked analysis of the multimodal interactions of non-traversable medians and median openings higher than signal spacing and roundabouts. University researchers prioritized analysis needs related to unsignalized access and driveway consolidation over median issues and also identified parking and roundabouts as areas in need of further analysis. Consultants ranked roundabouts higher than other respondents with regard to analysis of multimodal interactions, but otherwise generally followed the overall trend. Several comments were provided relative to analysis needs. These are provided below. Signal Spacing ï· With respect to traffic signal spacing, especially on suburban arterials, lack of reasonably spaced protected pedestrian crossings is a big issue. Pedestrian non-compliance with correct use of protected (i.e., signalized) crossings is often cited as the cause of pedestrian-vehicle crashes (with results on one corridor between Albany and Schenectady being notorious for pedestrian fatalities â 5 in 2015 alone). This corridor is a major transit route and many bus stop pairs lack convenient (reasonable walking distance) [access] to signalized crossings. ï· To encourage non-motorized and motorized modal compliance with traffic signals, optimal spacing of these signals improves compliance and user behavior. The same is true for the spacing and design of unsignalized access. ï· Roadway agencies often oppose treatments that improve system connectivity and redundancy, such as new local street connections or new signals, because they add conflict points or interrupt traffic flow along an arterial.
112 ï· Often, pedestrians need to cross streets, but a signal is not warranted because it is too close to an adjacent signal, but too far to reasonably expect a pedestrian to detour. Right-Turn Lanes ï· Right-turn lanes and vehicle approach speeds often conflict with pedestrian crossings, especially combined with right-turn-on-red on suburban arterials. ï· Safety impacts of right-turn lanes (especially channelized) and roundabouts on bikes and pedestrians. ï· Does installing [a] right-turn lane increase right-turn-on-red/pedestrian crash rates? What associated treatments are best (curb radius, diverter island and location of pedestrian crossing, etc.)? Non-Traversable Medians ï· With medians, we need to show that businesses are not harmed by blocking of left turns into their driveway. Customers are willing to make [a] U-turn and come back to their site. ï· Since non-traversable medians (and corner islands) are operationally similar to raised splitter islands at roundabouts, their safety benefits are very significant compared to virtually no safety benefits for flush or at-grade/textured refuge areas (see 2002 FHWA sponsored study of 2,000 intersections by Charles Zegeer from UNC/Chapel Hill). ï· If non-traversable medians are installed, slight gaps should be allowed for bicycles to have cross street access for a complete network and to reduce vehicle volumes on side streets Parking ï· Safety impacts of urban parking placement on all modes. ï· How does parking interact with other modes such as buses? ï· Car dooring seems under researched, or is not being addressed in practice. Median Openings ï· Median openings â how to accommodate larger vehicles. Also, will pedestrians try to cross road at median opening? Are HAWK signals beneficial? Columbia recently installed median barrier and HAWK signal on a busy campus street to limit people crossing street freely at any location midblock. Roundabouts ï· Roundabouts â how do they affect pedestrians? Roundabout impacts on bicycle operation and safety, pedestrian delay, and similar issues. ï· Roundabouts and safety of pedestrians and cyclists on the outer ring of the roundabout â conflict points Consolidate Driveways ï· Consolidate driveways: is the critical factor the number of conflict points (between vehicle and pedestrian) or is it the number of possible vehicle/pedestrian interactions?
113 Left-Turn Lanes ï· The permissive and protected left-turning arrow phase timing may need to be adjusted for different road classifications. This may result in no one standard timing fitting all left-turn signals. Unsignalized Access Spacing ï· Access impacts on pedestrians and cyclists seem to have limited research. What are the maximum numbers of access points on different types of road before pedestrian/cyclist safety is significantly impacted? Supporting Network ï· Our department focuses, naturally, on the state highway system; but I feel that awareness of and improvements to the secondary systems can improve operations on the main highways. We lack an MPO in our Region which has the ability to look at all systems, so our department is solely looking at solutions on the state system, for which we may not have good solutions if there are issues with the development of the secondary highway network. Other ï· Generally, if you are talking about access management you are talking about major arterials, with lots of lanes and lots of traffic. They have lots of issues, but I believe the most critical is, how can you get pedestrians across in a safe and convenient way? Will drivers yield? Will pedestrians perceive what you want them to do as convenient, or perceive that it provides sufficient safety and comfort that they will do what you want despite the inconvenience? ï· Pedestrians are simultaneously told to go to the corner and use the crosswalk for their own safety, and that crosswalks cannot be installed because they do nothing to improve safety. How do pedestrians and cyclists cross the street if there is not a traffic signal everywhere they want to cross? ï· When it comes to cross a four-lane two-way signalized intersection, pedestrian always feel the left-turning vehicles speeding and no confidence to cross the road at a regular pedestrian walking speed of 1.0 meter per second. ï· Most crashes occur at intersections however I am not sure any of the methods mentioned are best for every scenario. More research on when to use what type of treatment. ï· We would be most interested in non-motorized interactions, as opposed to bus or trucks. ï· Would like to see results of better cyclist markings in teaching cyclists safer cyclingâusing green paint to identify conflict zones, best places to wait, and making motorists aware of potential for cyclists.