HomeMy WebLinkAboutSouthwest PKWY Midblock CrossingPROJECT:
FUND(S):
PROJECT
MANAGER:
PROJECT
CLIENT:
Southwest Parkway Midblock Crossing PROJECT#: TBD
TBD PROJECT
BUDGET: $60, 178
FUNDING
TBD SOURCES: Unfunded
PRIORITY: 55
Public Works
Planning and Development Services
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project is to improve safety and connectivity for bicyclists and pedestrians close to the Woodlands apartments private drive and the
trail connection crossing. It was also identified in the South Knoll Area Neighborhood Plan.
PROJECT SCOPE
This will include a center raised refuge island, markings, and rapid flashing beacons.
FISCAL YEAR
Prior Years
2010-11
2011 -12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
PROJECT TOT AL $
Personnel (Salaries/Benefits)
Supplies
Maintenance
Professional Services
Purchased Services
Capital Outlay
TOTAL
PROJECT ESTIMATE:
Design:
Land Acquisition:
Construction:
StaffTime:
PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR
Land Enoineerino Construction Misc
-$ -$ -$
ESTIMATED OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
$
First Fiscal Year
One Time Costs
$7,369
$0
$49,125
$3,684
Total Project Estimate $60,178
Proiect Total
$
Estimated Annual
Recurring Cost
-
------
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total
1 refuge island SF 400 $15 $ 6,000 )~{0-))1 2 rapid flashing beacons EA Yi 6-$10,000 ####### ###
3 remove curb LF 20 \ $15 $ 300
4 Signage / i!) ( ~ 4 11 ~ _ EA -1. 4-$150 $ 300
5 Curb Ramps
, EA 2 I $1,200 $ 2,400
6 cross walk striping LF 330 $10 $ 3,300
7 Traffic Control and Mobilization MONTH 1 $7,000 $ 7,000
<U 'Ppte ~. • J.. <!.. 1/J ( C<. c, t,JL,
I
Subtotal $39,300
Subtotal $39,300
Contingency 25% $9,825
Total $49,125
US. Department Memorandum
of lrcnsportation
Federal Highway
Administration
Correction issued 3/21/2018
Subject: INFORMATION: MUTCD -Interim Approval
for Optional Use of Pedestrian-Actuated
Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons at
Uncontrolled Marked Crosswalks (IA-21)
From: Martin C. Knopp ~~ j
Associate Administrator for Operations
To: Federal Lands Highway Division Directors
Division Administrators
:1
Date: MAR 2 0 2018
In Reply Refer To:
HOT0-1
Purpose: The purpose of this memorandum is to issue an Interim Approval for
the optional use of Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons (RRFB) as pedestrian-
actuated conspicuity enhancements for pedestrian and school crossing warning
signs under certain limited conditions. Interim Approval allows interim use,
pending official rulemaking, of a new traffic control device, a revision to the
applicatio.n or manner of use of an existing traffic control device, or a provision
not specifically described in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for
Streets and Highways (MUTCD). State and local agencies must request and
receive permission to us~ this new Interim Approval, designated IA-21 , from the
Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) in accordance with the provisions of
Section lA.10 of the MUTCD before they can use the RRFB, even if prior
approval had been given for Interim Approval 11 (IA-11 ), now terminated. The
issuance of this new Interim Approval does not reinstate IA-11 either in whole
or in part.
Background: The Florida Department of Transportation has requested that the
FHW A issue an Interim Approval to allow the use of RRFBs as
pedestrian-actuated conspicuity enhancements to supplement standard
pedestrian and school crossing warning signs at uncontrolled marked
crosswalks. The RRFB does not meet the current standards for flashing warning
beacons as contained in the 2009 edition of the MUTCD, Chapter 4L, which
requires a warning beacon to be circular in shape and either 8 or 12 inches in
diameter, to flash at a rate of approximately once per second, and to be located
no less than 12 inches outside the nearest edge of the warning sign it
supplements. The RRFB uses rectangular-shaped high-intensity light-emitting-
diode (LED)-based indications, flashes rapidly in a combination wig-wag and
simultaneous flash pattern, and may be mounted immediately adjacent to the
crossing sign.
3/21/2018
Research on the RRFB: The City of St. Petersburg, Florida, experimented with the
RRFB at 18 pedestrian crosswalks across uncontrolled approaches and submitted its
final report in 2008. In addition to "before" data, the city collected "after" data at
intervals for one year at all 18 sites and for two years at the first two implemented sites.
For the first two sites, the city collected data for overhead and ground-mounted
pedestrian crossing signs supplemented with standard circular yellow flashing warning
beacons, for comparison purposes, before the RRFBs were installed. The data showed
higher motorist yielding rates at crosswalks where the RRFBs had been installed in
comparison to lower rates for standard warning beacons. The higher yielding rates were
sustained even after two years of operation, and no identifiable negative effects were
found. The St. Petersburg data also showed that drivers exhibit yielding behavior much
farther in advance of crosswalks with RRFBs than with standard circular yellow
flashing warning beacons.
In addition to the St. Petersburg locations, experimentation with RRFBs was also
conducted at other uncontrolled marked crosswalks in Florida and other States. Data
from locations other than St. Petersburg was limited, but did show results similar to
those found in St. Petersburg.
The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) conducted a Federally funded research project1
that developed and tested a new flash pattern for the RRFB that was shown to be at least
as effective as the flash pattern that was initially tested in St. Petersburg, Florida, and
that showed that mounting the RRFB unit above the sign was at least as effective as
mounting the RRFB unit below the sign. In this project, the results were generally
favorable, however there was a wide range of yielding rates, with some as low as 19
percent. This broad range indicates that there might be certain factors or characteristics
of locations at which the RRFB might not be effective.
A separate project2 conducted by TTI exarnirted data from multiple projects to
determine various factors that influenced driver yielding rates at RRFB locations. In
this project, the researchers found that intersection configuration, presence of a median
refuge, crossing distance, approach to the crossing, and one-way vs. two-way traffic
significantly affected the rate of driver yielding. Additional factors including posted
speed limit, mounting of the beacons (overhead or roadside), and the type of crossing
and sign-Pedestrian (Wl 1-2) or School (S 1-1) sign compared with the Trail Crossing
(Wl 1-15) sign-were also significant.
1 Fitzpatrick, K., R. Avelar, M. Pratt, M. Brewer, J. Robertson, T. Lindheirner, and J. Miles. Evaluation of
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons and Rapid Flashing Beacons. Report No. FHWA-HRT-16-040, pp. 88-106. Texas
Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas. July 2016.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/ 16040/index.cfm
2
2 Fitzpatrick, K., M. Brewer, R. Avelar, and T. Lindheirner. Will You Stop for Me? Roadway Design and Traffic
Control Device Influences on Drivers Yielding to Pedestrians in a Crosswalk with a Rectangular Rapid-Flashing
Beacon. Report No. TTI-CTS-00 10. Texas A&M Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas. June 2016.
1sttps.//n n n .:81 n a.elot.go ;/pablications/tcscm clt'safct2/I 68u48/inetcx.chn
https:// static.tti.tamu.edu/tti. tam u.edu/ documents/TTI-CTS-001 O.pdf
Correction issued this page 3/21/2018
FHW A Evaluation of Results: The Office of Transportation Operations reviewed the
available data in 2008 and considered the RRFB to be highly successful for the
applications tested (uncontrolled marked crosswalks). The RRFB offers significant
potential safety and cost benefits because it achieves high rates of compliance at a low
relative cost in comparison to other more restrictive devices that provide comparable
results, such as full midblock signalization or pedestrian hybrid beacons.
The FHW A granted interim approval status to the RRFB on July 16, 2008, and
designated that action as Interim Approval 11 (IA-11 ).
The FHW A was later informed that the concept of the RRFB had been patented by a
private company. Because patented traffic control devices are not allowed to be
included in the MUTCD, are not allowed to be given interim approval status, and are
not allowed to be a part of an official experiment, the FHW A terminated Interim
·Approval 11 on December 21, 2017.
The FHW A has confirmed that the patents on the RRFB device that was the subject of
Interim Approval 11 have been expressly abandoned and the concept of the RRFB is
now in the public domain. Because of this action, the RRFB is once again eligible for
interim approval status and the FHW A is issuing this new Interim Approval for the
RRFB.
Interim Approval 11 (IA-11) remains terminated. Agencies that previously had been
approved to use RRFBs under IA-11 are not covered by this new Interim Approval to
install new RRFBs. If agencies that had approval under IA-11 wish to continue to
install new RRFBs, then they must submit a new request to the FHW A and agree to
comply with the terms and conditions ofIA-21.
This Interim Approval does not create a new mandate compelling installation of
RRFBs, but will allow agencies to install this traffic control device, pending official
MUTCD rulemaking, to provide a degree of enhanced pedestrian safety at uncontrolled
marked crosswalks.
Conditions of Interim Approval: The FHW A will grant Interim Approval for the
optional use of the RRFB as a pedestrian-actuated conspicuity enhancement to
supplement standard pedestrian crossing or school crossing signs at uncontrolled
marked crosswalks to any jurisdiction that submits a written request to the Office of
Transportation Operations. A State may request Interim Approval for all jurisdictions
in that State. Jurisdictions using RRFBs under this Interim Approval must agree to the
following:
• Comply with the Technical Conditions detailed in this memorandum;
Maintain an inventory list of all locations at which the RRFB is installed; and
• Comply with all the conditions as listed in Paragraph 18 of Section lA.10 of the
MUTCD.
3
4
In addition, any agency that receives this approval must acknowledge agreement with the
following:
That an agency will furnish its list of locations where implemented if requested
byFHWA;
That FHW A has the right to rescind this Interim Approval at any time; and
That issuance of this Interim Approval does not guarantee that the provisions,
either in whole or part, will be adopted into the MUTCD.
· 1. General Conditions:
a. Each RRFB unit shall consist of two rapidly flashed rectangular-shaped yellow
indications with an LED-array-based light source, and shall be designed, located,
and operated in accordance with the detailed requirements specified below.
b. The use ofRRFBs is optional. However, if an agency opts to use an RRFB
under this Interim Approval, the following design and operational requirements
shall apply, and shall take precedence over any conflicting provisions of the
MUTCD for the approach on which RRFBs are used:
2. Allowable Uses:
a. An RRFB shall only be installed to function as a pedestrian-actuated conspicuity
enhancement.
b. An RRFB shall only be used to supplement a post-mounted Wl 1-2 (Pedestrian),
Sl-1 (School), or Wl 1-15 (Trail) crossing warning sign with a diagonal
downward arrow (Wl 6-7P) plaque, or an overhead-mounted Wl 1-2, S 1-1, or
Wl 1-15 crossing warning sign, located at or immediately adjacent to an
uncontrolled marked crosswalk.
c. Except for crosswalks across the approach to or egress from a roundabout, an
RRFB shall not be used for crosswalks across approaches controlled by YIELD
signs, STOP signs, traffic control signals, or pedestrian hybrid beacons.
d. In the event sight distance approaching the crosswalk at which RRFBs are used
is less than deemed necessary by the engineer, an additional RRFB may be
installed on that approach in advance of the crosswalk, as a pedestrian-actuated
conspicuity enhancement to supplement a Wl 1-2 (Pedestrian), S 1-1 (School), or
Wl 1-15 (Trail) crossing warning sign with an AHEAD (W16-9P) or distance
(W16-2P or W16-2aP) plaque. If an additional RRFB is installed on the
approach in advance of the crosswalk, it shall be supplemental to and not a
replacement for the RRFBs at the crosswalk itself.
3. Sign/Beacon Assembly Locations:
a. For any approach on which RRFBs are used to supplement post-mounted signs,
at least two Wl 1-2, S 1-1, or Wl 1-15 crossing warning signs (each with an
RRFB unit and a Wl 6-7P plaque) shall be installed at the crosswalk, one on the
right-hand side of the roadway and one on the left-hand side of the roadway. On
a divided highway, the left-hand side assembly should be installed on the
median, if practical, rather than on the far left-hand side of the highway.
b. An RRFB unit shall not be installed independent of the crossing warning signs
for the approach that the RRFB faces. If the RRFB unit is supplementing a post-
mounted sign, the RRFB unit shall be installed on the same support as the
associated Wl 1-2, Sl-1, or Wl 1-15 crossing warning sign and plaque. If the
RRFB unit is supplementing an overhead-mounted sign, the RRFB unit shall be
mounted directly below the bottom of the sign.
4. Beacon Dimensions and Placement in the Sign Assembly:
a. Each RRFB shall consist of two rectangular-shaped yellow indications, each
with an LED-array-based light source. The size of each RRFB indication shall
be at least 5 inches wide by at least 2 inches high.
b. The two RRFB indications for each RRFB unit shall be aligned horizontally,
with the longer dimension horizontal and with a minimum space between the
two indications of at least 7 inches, measured from the nearest edge of one
indication to the nearest edge of the other indication.
c. The outside edges of the RRFB indications, including any housings, shall not
project beyond the outside edges of the Wl 1-2, Sl-1, or Wl 1-15 sign that it
supplements.
d. As a specific exception to Paragraph 5 of Section 41.01 of the 2009 MUTCD,
the RRFB unit associated with a post-mounted sign and plaque may be located
between and immediately adjacent to the bottom of the crossing warning sign
and the top of the supplemental downward diagonal arrow plaque (or, in the case
of a supplemental advance sign, the AHEAD or distance plaque) or within 12
inches above the crossing warning sign, rather than the recommended minimum
of 12 inches above or below the sign assembly. (See the example photo that is
shown below.)
5. Beacon Flashing Requirements:
a. When actuated, the two yellow indications in each RRFB unit shall flash in a
rapidly flashing sequence.
5
b. As a specific exception to the requirements for the flash rate of beacons provided
in Paragraph 3 of Section 41.01, RRFBs shall use a much faster flash rate and
shall provide 75 flashing sequences per minute. Except as provided in Condition
5fbelow, during each 800-rnillisecond flashing sequence, the left and right
RRFB indications shall operate using the following sequence:
3/21/2018 I
The RRFB indication on the left-hand side shall be illuminated for
approximately 50 milliseconds.
Both RRFB indications shall be dark for approximately 50 milliseconds.
The RRFB indication on the right-hand side shall be illuminated for
approximately 50 milliseconds.
Both RRFB indications shall be dark for approximately 50 milliseconds.
The RRFB indication on the left-hand side shall be illuminated for
approximately 50 milliseconds.
Both RRFB indications shall be dark for approximately 50 milliseconds.
The RRFB indication on the right-hand side shall be illuminated for
approximately 50 milliseconds.
Both RRFB indications shall be dark for approximately 50 milliseconds.
Both RRFB indications shall be illuminated for approximately 50
milliseconds.
Both RRFB indications shall be dark for approximately 50 milliseconds.
Both RRFB indications
The R:RFB indication on the tigltt hand side shall be illuminated for
approximately 50 milliseconds.
Both RRFB indications shall be dark for approximately 250 milliseconds.
c. The flash rate of each individual RRFB indication, as applied over the full
flashing sequence, shall not be between 5 and 30 flashes per second to avoid
frequencies that might cause seizures.
d. The light intensity of the yellow indications during daytime conditions shall
meet the minimum specifications for Class 1 yellow peak luminous intensity in
the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J595 (Directional Flashing
Optical Warning Devices for Authorized Emergency, Maintenance, and Service
Vehicles) dated January 2005.
e. To minimize excessive glare during nighttime conditions, an automatic signal
dimming device should be used to reduce the brilliance of the RRFB indications
during nighttime conditions.
f. Existing RRFB units that use the flashing sequence that was specified in the
Interim Approval 11 memorandum and a subsequent interpretation (the RRFB
indication on the left-hand side emits two slow pulses of light after which the
RRFB indication on the right-hand side emits four rapid pulses of light followed
by one long pulse of light) should be reprogrammed to the flash pattern specified
above in Condition Sb as part of a systematic upgrading process, such as when
the units are serviced or when the existing signs are replaced.
Correction issued this page 3/21/2018
6
6. Beacon Operation:
a. The RRFB shall be normally dark, shall initiate operation only upon pedestrian
actuation, and shall cease operation at a predetermined time after the pedestrian
actuation or, with passive detection, after the pedestrian clears the crosswalk.
b. All RRFB units associated with a given crosswalk (including those with an
advance crossing sign, if used) shall, when actuated, simultaneously commence
operation of their rapid-flashing indications and shall cease operation
simultaneously.
c. If pedestrian pushbutton detectors (rather than passive detection) are used to
actuate the RRFB indications, a PUSH BUTTON TO TURN ON WARNING
LIGHTS (Rl0-25) sign shall be installed explaining the purpose and use of the
pedestrian pushbutton detector.
d. The duration of a predetermined period of operation of the RRFBs following
each actuation should be based on the procedures provided in Section 4E.06 of
the 2009 MUTCD for the timing of pedestrian clearance times for pedestrian
signals.
e. The predetermined flash period shall be immediately initiated each and every
time that a pedestrian is detected either through passive detection or as a result
of a pedestrian pressing a pushbutton detector, including when pedestrians are
detected while the RRFBs are already flashing and when pedestrians are
detected immediately after the RRFBs have ceased flashing.
f. A small pilot light may be installed integral to the RRFB or pedestrian
pushbutton detector to give confirmation that the RRFB is in operation.
7. Accessible Pedestrian Features:
a. If a speech pushbutton information message is used in conjunction with an
RRFB, a locator tone shall be provided.
b. If a speech pushbutton information message is used in conjunction with an
RRFB, the audible information device shall not use vibrotactile indications or
percussive indications.
c. If a speech pushbutton information message is used in conjunction with an
RRFB, the message should say, "Yellow lights are flashing." The message
should be spoken twice.
Any questions concerning this Interim Approval should be directed to Mr. Duane
Thomas at duane.thomas@dot.gov.
7
Figure 1. Example of an RRFB dark (left) and illuminated during the flash period
(center and right) mounted with Wl 1-2 sign and W16-7P plaque at an uncontrolled
marked crosswalk.
Figure 2. View of pilot light to pedestrian at shared-use path crossing with median
refuge. Enlargement of pilot light at right.
8
cc:
Associate Administrators
Chief Counsel
Chief Financial Officer
Directors of Field Services
Director of Technical Services
Figure 3. Example of pedestrian
pushbutton and Rl 0-25 sign with pilot
light for pedestrian actuation.
9
Venessa Garza
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Dillard, Madeline K. < mdillard@tamu.edu >
Wednesday, March 04, 2015 2:19 PM
Venessa Garza
Matus, Mark; Tippy, Justin C; Dillard, Madeline K.; Lange, Peter W.; Steedly, Ronald E.;
Williams, Doug; Hoffmann, Debbie
Subject: FW: Bus Shelter Location for Copper Creek Condos Development
image003Jpg; A TTOOOOl.htm; BusShelterLocation.pdf; A TT00002.htm;
MidblockCrossi ng_SouthwestParkway.pdf; A TT00003.htm
Attachments:
Venessa,
This shouldn't be a problem. What kind of time frame are you looking at for this change?
Madeline
Madeline Dillard I Assistant Director for Transit
Transportation Services I Texas A&M University
1250 TAMU I College Station, TX 77843
Tel. 979.847.8817 I Fax. 979.862.4817
http://transport.tamu.edu I Moving Forward For You
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Steedly, Ronald E." <rsteedly@tamu.edu>
To: "Lange, Peter W." <plange@tamu.edu>, "Hoffmann, Debbie" <dhoffmann@tamu.edu>,
"Williams, Doug" <dg-williams@tamu.edu>, "Dillard, Madeline K."<mdillard@tamu.edu>
Subject: FW: Bus Shelter Location for Copper Creek Condos Development
Ron Steedly '88, M Ed, CAPP, LCI #3710 I Alternative Transportation Manager
Transportation Services I Texas A&M University
1250 TAMU I College Station, TX 77843
Tel. 979.847.2453 I Fax. 979.845.8685
http://transport.tamu.edu<http://transport.tamu.edu/> I Moving Forward For You
From: Venessa Garza [mailto:vgarza@cstx.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 4:12 PM
To: Steedly, Ronald E.
Subject: Bus Shelter Location for Copper Creek Condos Development
1
Hey Ron,
As mentioned on Friday, the developer of Copper Creek Condos is proposing to build a bus
shelter for the bus stop that exists on Southwest Parkway.
Staff would like to propose moving the bus stop further east in coordination with a future trail
crossing and to create a safer crossing for students to get to the bus stop with a midblock crossing
on Southwest Parkway. The midblock crossing isn't funded yet but is a high priority. Joe Guerra
(previous Transportation Planning Coordinator) spoke with someone in your department a while
ago to get approval but he's no longer with the City and I'm not sure who he spoke with.
Whoever he spoke with was ok with the it but I wanted to double check since some time has
passed. The location of the proposed bus shelter will need to move anyway due to its current
location being in an easement.
I've attached a schematic of the proposed location for the bus shelter and what's planned for the
midblock crossing.
Please let me know who I need to speak with to move forward and give feedback to the
developer.
Thanks so much!!
Venessa Garza, AI CP
Greenways Program Manager
Planning and Development Services Department
Mailing Address: P.O. BOX 9960, College Station, Texas 77842
Physical Address: 1101 Texas Avenue
Office 979-764-3674 j Fax 979-764-3496
[City of College Station Logo ]<http://www.cstx.gov/>
City of College Station
Home of Texas A&M University ®
2
f t!NkJ Pm \ee ~ 737,~2'q
@~ j l'l~ /li/V\1 f-
! ... i/ 'I
I ---I
-\
' I _.
~ / "-
f1
{'v~~ -nS (7'{l?L<; ~ -
/a w