Laserfiche WebLink
Agencies considering use of a marked crosswalk as a means to address <br />pedestrian safety should also consider a package of improvements that <br />include the following proven, effective strategies: supplemental signs, aance <br />yield lines and signing, overhead lighting, curb extensions, and/or medi <br />islands. In -pavement lights are another potential strategy, however they <br />have ongoing maintenance issues due the climate and snow plow damage. <br />Another strategy is raised crosswalks, where the crosswalk is higher than the <br />roadway, to encourage driver's to slow down. These, however, are not allowed <br />by statute on state aid roadways. Where traffic and pedestrian conditions <br />dictate, pedestrian crossings may also warrant a pedestrian hybrid beacon or a <br />rectangular rapid flashing beacon. <br />SOURCES <br />PP,",r-T1Cr 4t ",n.�:",r� <br />ST PRACTICE <br />At all signalized intersections where an engineering study finds the <br />presence of pedestrian activity, crosswalks should be considered <br />because of the benefits, which include making it clear to vehicles where <br />they should stop and delineating a path for pedestrians. Crosswalks at <br />uncontrolled intersections should be limited and include other features, <br />such as medians and curb extensions, when possible. / <br />Best Practices for Traffic (ontrolat Regional Troil (rossings. 2011. (ollaboraIive Effort of Twin Glres Buda rvdTrail Managing Agencies. July 26. <br />Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2005. SafetyEffects of Marked Versus Unmarked Gosswalks at Uncontrollediocations Final Report and Recommended Guidelines. FHWA, FHWA-HRT-04-100. September. <br />Minnesota Department of Transportation MetroTraffic Engineering. 2005.6urdonce for lnstallobon of Pedestrian (toss walks on Minnesota State Highways. October. <br />Minnesota Local Road Research Board. 2006. BirydeandPedestrion Toolbox. Report 200602. <br />Minnesota local Road Research Board. 2009a.Evaluating Activeand Passive Crosswalk Warningsat Unsignafaed Intersections and Mid-81ockSites., Minnesota local Road Research Board, Report 200903TS. <br />Minnesota Local Road Research Board. 2009b. Warning fffxacyolActive Versus Passive Warnings forUnsrgnahzed Intersection andMO-81ock Pedestrian (rosswalks, Minnesota Local Road Research Board, Report 200903. <br />Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. 2010a.Assocration 8erween Roadway Intersection Characteristics and Pedestrian (rash Riskin Alameda County, (allfornw. Transportation Research Board of the National Academes, <br />ISSN 0361-1981, Volume 2198. <br />Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 2010b. Safety Effectiveness ofteoding Pedestrian Intervals Evaluated by Before -After Study, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, ISSN 0361-1981, volume 2198. <br />Oty of Northfield Transportation Plan. 2008. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update. <br />V!�, <br />MINNESOTA'S BEST PRACTICES FOR PEDESTRIANBICYCL€ SAFETY SEPTEMBER 2013 <br />