Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1931RESOLUTION NO. _\_0{...:;____J_'!J\ __ A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, adopting a policy for addressing installation and maintenance of crosswalk markings throughout the City of Kent. RECITALS A.The purpose of this Resolution is to establish a methodology for determining where crosswalk markings are installed and how they are to be maintained within the City of Kent. B.Crosswalks are features of a multimodal transportation network that provide locations for pedestrians to cross roadways. Crosswalks exist at all intersections, whether marked or unmarked, unless signs are posted to prohibit crossing. At non-intersection locations, pavement markings are necessary to establish the crosswalk. Marked crosswalks are considered traffic control devices and are subject to the guidance in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The MUTCD is approved by the Federal Highway Administration as the National Standard for such devices. The MUTCD is adopted as the statewide standard for traffic control devices, through Chapter 468-95 of the Washington Administrative Code, as mandated by RCW 47.36.030. 1 Crosswalk Policy -Resolution C.Crosswalks can be marked or unmarked. RCW 46.04.160 defines a crosswalk as "the portion of the roadway between the intersection area and a prolongation or connection of the farthest sidewalk line or in the event there are no sidewalks then between the intersection area and a line ten feet therefrom, except as modified by a marked crosswalk." D.RCW 47.04.010(16) defines a marked crosswalk as "any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface thereof." E.Pursuant to RCW 46.61.235(1), drivers must stop for pedestrians in a crosswalk regardless of whether it is marked or unmarked. F.According to the Federal Highway Administration, despite numerous studies, there has been no conclusive evidence to show that either marked or unmarked crosswalks are safer in locations that are not controlled by a signal or stop sign. 1 Marked crosswalks are appropriate at some locations but other treatments (such as post-mounted pedestrian warning signs, flashing lights, supplemental pavement markings) are also necessary when used at other locations. G.According to the Federal Highway Administration, "crosswalks should not be installed at locations that could present an increased safety risk to pedestrians, such as where there is poor sight distance, complex or confusing designs, a substantial volume of heavy trucks, or other dangers, without first providing adequate design features and/or traffic control devices." 1 Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations, Final Report and Recommended Guidelines. FHWA Publication Number: HRT-04-100. September 2005. 2 Crosswalk Policy -Resolution H.Based on the guidelines established herein, staff w.ill compile a prioritized list of candidate locations for enhanced crossing treatments. I.The Downtown Subarea Action Plan emphasizes the value of the Downtown Area as a comfortable, friendly place for people to meet and enjoy themselves. To encourage a pedestrian-friendly environment, crosswalks at intersections in the Downtown Area are considered separately from crosswalks at intersections outside the Downtown Area. J.This Resolution provides standard guidelines consistent with state law to be considered and applied as requests for crosswalk modification are received by city staff. 2 K.The Kent City Council's Public Works Committee reviewed the text and policy amendments at its regularly-scheduled meeting on June 20, 2016, and recommended approval to the full City Council. The Public Works Committee also received an information-only presentation on April 4, 2016. Staff presented the policy recommendations to City Council at Council Workshop on April 5, 2016. Additionally, staff reached out to eight Neighborhood Councils and conducted five focus groups to gather public input. L.On July 19, 2016, the Kent City Council held a public hearing to consider the matter. At the close of the public hearing, the City Council voted to recommend approval of adopting a policy for addressing installation and maintenance of crosswalk markings throughout the City of Kent. 2 For information regarding proposed locations impacted by this Resolution, see Attachment 1. 3 Crosswalk Policy -Resolution NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION SECTION 1. -Signal-Controlled Locations. Crosswalks should be marked at signal-controlled intersections unless the Traffic Engineer determines a crosswalk is not appropriate for traffic flow. In that case, a "no pedestrian crossing" sign will be installed. SECTION 2. -Stop-Sign Controlled Locations. At locations controlled by stop or yield signs, crosswalk markings should not be installed unless at least one of the following is true: A.The Traffic Engineer determines a marked crosswalk is needed to direct pedestrians to the proper crossing path due to traffic flow or safety concerns. B.The stop-sign controlled location is within the Downtown Area. Kent has designated the Downtown Area as key to economic vitality of the City. Pedestrian access to this area is especially important to encourage commerce. Stop-sign controlled locations in the Downtown Area, as defined by Council, should be marked, with the exception of intersection� that currently have single-family residential character, unless those locations qualify under other �ections of this policy. The stop-sign controlled location is on a school walking route pursuant to WAC 392.-141-340. In such case, refer to section 5. SECTION 3. -Uncontrolled Locations. Uncontrolled locations are pedestrian crossings not controlled by a traffic signal, stop sign or yield sign. This includes uncontrolled intersection locations as well as midblock locations. The following table will be consulted for uncontrolled locations. 4 Crosswalk Policy -Resolution Recommendations for installing marked crosswalks and other needed pedestrian improvements at uncontrolled locations.* Two lanes Three lanes Multilane (four or more lanes) with raised median Multilane (four or more lanes) without raised median C C C C p C p p N C p p C p N p p N N p p N p N N p p N N N N -�-�----,-��--··F_N N N N N *These are general recommendations; good engineering judgment should be used in individual cases for deciding where to install marked crosswalks. •• Where the speed limit exceeds 40 mi/h, marked crosswalks alone should not be used at uncontrolled locations. C = Candidate sites for marked crosswalks. P = Possible increase in pedestrian crash risk may occur if crosswalks are added with9ut other pedestrian facility enhancements such as post-mounted pedestrian warning signs, flashing lights, supplemental pavement markings. N = Marked crosswalks alone are insufficient, since pedestrian crash risk may be increased by providing marked crosswalks without other pedestrian facility enhancements such as post-mounted pedestrian warning signs, flashing lights, supplemental pavement markings. Source: This table was adapted from table 11 in the Federal Highway Administration's publication Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations, Final Report and Recommended Guidelines. FHWA Publication Number: HRT-04-100. September 2005. In uncontrolled locations categorized as "C," the Traffic Engineer will determine whether the location is appropriate for a marked crosswalk. The Traffic Engineer will also determine whether the peak hourly pedestrian volume is at least 20 pedestrians per hour (or 15 or more elderly or children pedestrians). The pedestrian volume requirement shall be waived if the uncontrolled location is at an intersection within the Downtown Area with the exception of intersections that currently have single-family 5 Crosswalk Policy -Resolution residential character, unless those locations qualify under other sections of this policy. In uncontrolled locations categorized as "P", an engineering study will be performed. The study, in accordance with the Manual on Urban Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), should consider: a.Number of lanes, b.The presence of a median, c.The distance from adjacent signalized intersections, d.The pedestrian volumes and delays, e.The average daily traffic, f.The posted or statutory speed limit or 85th-percentile speed, g.Geometry of location, h. Possible consolidation of multiple crossing points, i.The availability of street lighting, and j.Other appropriate factors. Additional factors that may be considered include land use, pedestrian facilities nearby, and potential traffic-calming items such as post-mounted pedestrian warning signs, flashing lights, or supplemental pavement markings. Upon conclusion of the study, the Traffic Engineer shall determine the need for a marked crosswalk in the uncontrolled location and document the decision and the reasoning. Locations categorized as "N" shall not be marked without the appropriate traffic-calming items, to be determined by the Traffic Engineer. These items may include post-mounted pedestrian warning signs, flashing lights, supplemental pavement markings, or other devices. 6 Crosswalk Policy -Resolution SECTION 4. -Designated School Crossing Locations. Pursuant to RCW 46.61.440, designated school crossing locations have a maximum speed limit of twenty miles per hour. Designated school crossings may be established in locations where the school district commits to providing a school crossing guard. When requested by the school district's transportation director, the Traffic Engineer will evaluate potential new designated school crossing locations with the Kent Police Department. In accordance with the MUTCD, designated school crossing locations shall include: a.Advance Crossing Assembly and School Speed Limit Assembly, posted in advance of the marked crosswalk, b.Marked crosswalk with School Crossing Assembly, and c.Signs to mark the end of the school speed zone, posted at least 300 feet after the marked crosswalk. The Traffic Engineer will work with the school district's transportation director in cases where designated school crossin� locations are no longer staffed by a school crossing guard. When necessary, school crossing signs and associated markings will be removed. SECTION 5. -Locations on Walking Routes to School. The Traffic Engineer shall follow the MUTCD's guidance on crosswalk markings, such that crosswalks should be marked at all intersections on established r·outes to school where there is a substantial conflict between motorists, bicyclists, and student movements; where students are encouraged to cross between intersections; where students would not otherwise recognize the proper 7 Crosswalk Policy -Resolution place to cross; or where motorists or bicyclists might not expect students to cross. For purposes of this Resolution, established routes to school will be determined by school walk routes, pursuant to WAC 392-141-340. Areas of substantial conflict will be determined by the Traffic Engineer. Factors that may contribute to substantial conflict include vehicle volume, pedestrian volume, sight.distance, vehicle speed limit, and presence of sidewalks. The Traffic Engineer will work with the school district's transportation director when school walking routes change. The crosswalk marking will be removed if it is not justified under Section 5 of this policy. SECTION 6. -Severabilitv. If any one or more section, subsection, or sentence of this resolution is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this resolution and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 7. ·-· Corrections by City Clerk. Upon approval of the city attorney, the city clerk is authorized to make necessary corrections to this resolution, including the correction of clerical errors; resolution, section, or subsection numbering; or references to other local, state, or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations. SECTION 8. -Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of th� City of Kent, Washington, this /&-1,A day of l,,,.B.l!.A.¥1-==--, 2016. 8 Crosswalk Policy -Resolution RRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this �-day of ="""',!'.I-""""'...::__, 2016. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. --'--'-=-=--passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, V""'""--,4--'=-l 2016. P:\Clvll\ResoluUon\Crosswalk Pollcy.docx SUE HANSON, INTERIM CITY CLERK 9 Crosswalk Policy -R�solution ATTACHMENT 1 location Add Remove Crosswalk Crosswalk Type Markinas Markinas 1 19 1 Total 61 47 Recommended Changes Signal-Controlled Locations Major Street Minor Street leg s Stop-or Yield-Sign Controlled Locations Table 3. Marked Crosswalks at Stop-and Yield-Sign Controlled Locations Proposed for Removal Major Street Minor Street leg 80th Pl S (S 192nd Street) 84th Ave S E 80th Pl S (S 192nd Street) 84th Ave S w S 182nd St 72nd Ave S w S 184th St East Valley Hwy (84th Ave S) S 187th St East Valley Hwy (84th Ave S) S 196th St 66th Ave S N S 196th St 81st Ave S s S 216th St 64th Ave S w S 216th St 64th Ave S S 216th St 68th Ave S (West Valley Hiqhwav) S 216th St 68th Ave S (West Valley Highway) S 216th St 72nd Ave S w S 220th St 68th Ave S (West Valley E Hiqhway) S 224th St 68th Ave S (West Valley E Hiqhwav) SE 260th St 101st Ave SE s SE 260th St Driveway West of 104th s Ave SE SE 260th St Top Foods Driveway s Southeast 248th St 116th Ave SE N Southeast 248th St 116th Ave SE E Southeast 248th St 116th Ave SE s Veterans Dr (S 228th St) 54th Ave SW N Veterans Dr (S 228th St) Riverview Blvd S Enter/Exit s Ramp Veterans Dr (S 228th St) Riverview Blvd S Exit Ramp N -· Private Rd (Driveway Veterans Dr (S 228th St) between Russell Rd and 54th Ave SW) Veterans Dr (S 228th St) Riverview Blvd S E Veterans Dr (S 228th St) Riverview Blvd S w Veterans Dr (S 228th St) Russell Rd N With input from Economic and Community Development staff, Public Works staff recommends that all stop-controlled and yield-controlled locations in the Downtown Area, as designated by City Council, be marked as funding becomes available. This would require adding 32 crosswalk markings. The following table lists these locations. Table 4. Stop-Sign and Yield-Sign Controlled Locations Within the Downtown Area Proposed for Marking Major Street Minor Street Leg E George St Central Ave N E E George St State Ave N E E George St State Ave N w E George St Woodford Ave N w E Saar St Central Ave S w E Willis St Bridges Ave S s E Willis St Railroad Ave S N E Willis St Railroad Ave S s N Lincoln Ave W Harrison St E W Temperance St 1st Ave N w Titus St Kennebeck Ave S w Titus St State Ave S N W Harrison Washington Ave N (68th Ave E S) W Harrison St 6th Ave N E W James St 1st Ave N N W Meeker St S 6th Ave N W Meeker St S 6th Ave s W Meeker St Madison Ave N W Meeker St Thompson Ave N N W Saar St 2nd Ave S E W Saar St 2nd Ave S W Smith St 64th Ave S E W Smith St 6th Ave N s W Smith St Madison Ave s W Smith St Washington Ave N (68th Ave E S) W Smith St Washington Ave N (68th Ave S) W Willis St 1st Ave S N W Willis St 1st Ave S s Ward St N Kennebeck Ave Washington Ave N (68th Ave W Sam St E S) W Harrison St Madison Ave E W Harrison St Madison Ave Uncontrolled Locations Public Works staff reviewed all marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations within the City ( crosswalks within walking routes to school were evaluated separately). In all, 19 marked crosswalks are candidates for removal. These locations may be considered for enhanced treatment in the future, such as post-mounted pedestrian warning signs, flashing lights, supplemental pavement markings. The following table lists these locations. Table 5. Marked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations Proposed for Removal Major Street Minor Street Leg 39th Pl S Riverview Blvd S N S 216th St 64th Ave S s S 216th St 64th Ave S N S 217th St Riverview Blvd S N S 219th PI/S 218th Pl Riverview Blvd S s SE 260th St 101st Ave SE w Veterans Dr (S 228th St) 54th Ave SW w Veterans Dr (S 228th St) Riverview Blvd S Entrance N Ramp Veterans Dr (S 228th St) Riverview Blvd S w S 244th St Military Rd S N S 248th St Military Rd S N S 221st Pl Riverview Blvd S s Lincoln Ave* 2nd from North Midblock Lincoln Ave* 3rd from North Midblock Lincoln Ave* 4th from North Midblock E Titus St* Central Ave S N Willis St* 2nd Ave w Willis St* 2nd Ave E Willis St* 3rd Ave E *Indicates location within the Downtown Area. Staff also reviewed all uncontrolled intersection locations within the Downtown Area with input from Economic and Community Developmeht staff. There are currently 28 uncontrolled locations within the Downtown Area that are recommended for marking. The following table lists these locatiorls. Table 6. Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations within the Downtown Area Proposed for Marking Major Street Minor Street Leg 1st Ave N Cole Street w W Cloudy St 1st Ave N w W Cloudy St 5th Ave N E W Cloudy St 5th Ave N $ E George St E George St E George St E George St W Gowe St W Meeker St E Meeker St W Meeker St W Meeker St W Saar St W Saar St W Saar St W Saar St W Saar St W Saar St W Saar St E Saar St E Saar St E Saar St W Temperance St W Harrison St W Harrison St Ward St Ward St State Ave N State Ave N Woodford Ave N Woodford Ave N 5th Ave S 6th Ave N N Kennebeck Ave Madison Ave Madison Ave 1st Ave S 1st Ave S 1st Ave S 2nd Ave S 2nd Ave S 5th Ave S 5th Ave S Railroad Ave S Railroad Ave S Railroad Ave S 1st Ave N Madison Ave Madison Ave N Kennebeck Ave N Kennebeck Ave Designated School Crossing Locations N s N s E E s E N s N s E N E N s s N s N s Staff reviewed existing designated school crossing locations and identified three that no longer have a school-provided crossing guard, and one where staff recommends adding a guard. Staff will work with the school district to Table 7. Crosswalks Recommended for Further Discussion with School Districts Major Street.: Minor Street Leg South James Street 64th Avenue South s South James Street 64th Avenue South South 236th Street Lakeside Boulevard East N Southeast 192nd Street 120th Avenue Southeast Established Routes to School Public Works staff reviewed all of the marked crosswalks within established walking routes to schools. Twelve marked crosswalks would be candidates for removal under the proposed guidelines, but staff recommends that nine of these locations be maintained under a grandfather clause because they are stop-controlled and therefore within safety guidelines. The following table lists the nine locations proposed to be maintained. Table 8. Crosswalks within Established Walking Routes to Schools Proposed to be Maintained under Grandfather Clause Major Street Minor Street Leg SE 232nd St 110th Pl SE SE 232nd St 112th Ave SE s SE 232nd St 114th Ave SE N S 236th Pl 64th Ave S E S 238th Pl 64th Ave S E SE 260th St 140th Ave SE S 261st St 42nd Ave S S 262nd St 42nd Ave S S 262nd St 42nd Ave S The following marked crosswalk in an uncontrolled location within an established walking route to school is a candidate for removal. In making this recommendation, staff consulted with the Federal Way School District and the District concurred. Table 9. Marked Crosswalk within Established Walking Routes to Schools Proposed for Removal Major Street Minor Street Leg School South 248th Sunnycrest Street 42nd Avenue South s Elementary The following uncontrolled locations within established walking routes to school would not be marked under the proposed guidelines; hoV'{ever, they may have sufficient pedestrian volume to warrant marking. Accordingly, staff recommends pedestrian studies be conducted for these locations. Table 10. Crosswalks within Walking Routes to Schools Proposed for Pedestrian Study Major Street Minor Street Leg School South 232nd Lakeside Blvd East s Neeley- Place O'Brien S 240th Neely-Street/Jamet Lakeside Blvd East Street O'Bi'ien Prioritized List for Enhanced Treatments The City will develop and maintain a prioritized list of potential locations for enhanced pedestrian treatments, such as flashing lights, raised crosswalks, or advanced paving markings. These features and crosswalks will be installed as funding becomes available. Input from residents and businesses will be considered in prioritizing those locations i Factors to consider may include nearby land use such as parks or multifamily housing, pedestrian volume, history of pedestrian-vehicle collisions, and other factors. The Traffic Engineer will make a final determination pursuant to the proposed guidelines.