HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-04-30; City Council; 21198; Approving Improvements Safety Beach Access PN 6322CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL 8
AB# 21.198 APPROVING IMPROVEMENTS TO ENHANCE
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SAFETY AND BEACH
ACCESS ACROSS CARLSBAD BOULEVARD
PROJECT NO. 6322
DEPT. DIRECTOR
MTG. 4/30/2013
APPROVING IMPROVEMENTS TO ENHANCE
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SAFETY AND BEACH
ACCESS ACROSS CARLSBAD BOULEVARD
PROJECT NO. 6322
CITY ATTY.
DEPT. TRAN
APPROVING IMPROVEMENTS TO ENHANCE
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SAFETY AND BEACH
ACCESS ACROSS CARLSBAD BOULEVARD
PROJECT NO. 6322
CITY MGR. ^
01^
RECOMMENDED AaiON:
Adopt Resolution No. 2013-088 approving improvements to enhance pedestrian crossing safety and
beach access across Carlsbad Boulevard. This will allow the Public Works Director to install pedestrian-
activated Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) at his discretion, in the center median and on the
right hand side of the roadway, to meet the standard installation requirements of the interim approval
forthe use of RRFB in California granted by the Federal Highway Administration.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On April 10, 2012, the City Council approved improvements to enhance pedestrian crossing safety across
Carlsbad Boulevard between Carlsbad Village Drive and Tamarack Avenue. These improvements included
raised medians, high visibility crosswalks and pedestrian-activated Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons on
Carlsbad Boulevard at Oak Avenue, Sycamore Avenue, Maple Avenue, Cherry Avenue and Hemlock
Avenue. These intersection locations were chosen to evenly space raised pedestrian medians at every
other uncontrolled crosswalk location so that no pedestrian had to walk more than one block to utilize
these enhanced crosswalks. Based on concerns regarding possible sign clutter and the potential
brightness of the RRFB system, the Resolution was amended to restrict the RRFB installation to the center
median only.
The interim approval for the use of RRFB in California, as granted by the Federal Highway Administration
(IA-11-83-RRFB California Statewide), requires two RRFB installations for each approach, with one being
installed on the right hand side of the roadway and the other being installed in the median, on a divided
highway.
The median and crosswalk improvements on Carlsbad Boulevard have been completed. Based on staff
observations and feedback from the public, pedestrian access across Carlsbad Boulevard has been greatly
enhanced by the completed improvements. However, due to the roadway curvature and vertical grades
of Carlsbad Boulevard at Oak Avenue, staff recommends installing the RRFB system at this location to
enhance visibility of this crosswalk. Staff could use this location to evaluate whether additional RRFB
systems would be appropriate at the other enhanced crosswalk locations on Carlsbad Boulevard. Staff is
recommending approval of the attached resolution to reflect the FHWA installation requirements of the
RRFB (two RRFB installations for each approach).
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Bryan Jones 760-602-2431 bryan.jones@carlsbadca.gov
FOR CLERK USE.
COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED K CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC •
DENIED CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN •
CONTINUED • RETURNED TO STAFF •
WITHDRAWN • OTHER - SEE MINUTES •
AMENDED • REPORT RECEIVED •
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT:
Installing a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon system at the intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard and Oak
Avenue would include four (4) RRFB locations and three (3) pedestrian push button locations. Cost is
estimated at $12,000. Sufficient funds are currently available in the Pedestrian Crossing along Carlsbad
Boulevard and Carlsbad Village Drive project (Project No. 6322).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section
15301(c) - minor alteration of existing facilities including streets, sidewalks, gutters, and similar facilities
involving negligible or no expansion.
EXHIBITS:
1. Resolution No. 2013-088 approving improvements to enhance pedestrian crossing safety and
beach access across Carlsbad Boulevard.
2. Location Map.
3. Project Map.
4. FHWA Interim Approval IA-ll-83-RRFB-California Statewide letter dated Aug. 10, 2011.
5. FHWA Interim Approval Memorandum IA-11.
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2013-088
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENTS TO ENHANCE
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SAFETY AND BEACH ACCESS ACROSS
4 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD PROJECT NO. 6322
5
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad has determined that complete and
6
^ livable streets are consistent with the goals of Envision Carlsbad; and
WHEREAS, improved pedestrian safety and access to the coast is a high priority; and
9 WHEREAS, there are five uncontrolled marked pedestrian crossings with raised medians
10 on Carlsbad Boulevard between Carlsbad Village Drive and Tamarack Avenue that would
benefit from the consideration of implementing pedestrian-activated Rectangular Rapid
12
Flashing Beacons; and
13
WHEREAS, there are sufficient funds available in C.I.P. Project No. 6322.
14
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad,
16 California, as follows that:
17
1. The above recitations are true and correct.
18
19
20
2j approach).
22 3. One pedestrian-activated RRFB system will be installed at Carlsbad Boulevard
and Oak Avenue and an evaluation of this location shall be used to determine if 24
25
26
27
28
The pedestrian-activated Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons are hereby approved
to be considered for installation per FHWA standards (two RRFB beacons per
additional RRFB systems should be considered at the other enhanced crosswalk
locations with raised medians on Carlsbad Boulevard.
3
1
2
3
4
//
5
6 //
7 //
8 //
9
// //
10
//
11
12 //
13 //
14 //
15 //
16
//
17
//
18
19 //
20 //
21 //
22 //
23
//
24
//
25
26 //
27
28
4. The Public Works Director shall have the authority to determine if additional
RRFB systems should be considered at the other enhanced crosswalk locations
with raised medians on Carlsbad Boulevard.
4
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 30^^ day of April, 2013, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
Council Members Hall, Packard, Wood, Blackburn and Douglas.
None.
ABSENT: None.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
i:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MATT HALL, Mayor
ATTEST:
BARBARAxEiMGL^SON y Clerk
LOCATION MAP
PACIFIC
OCEAN
NOT TO SCALE
VICINITY
MAP
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT NAME
RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACONS AT CROSSWALKS
WITH RAISED MEDIANS ON CARLSBAD BOULEARD
PROJECT
NUMBER
6322
EXHIBIT
PLOTTED BY: SCOTT EVANS PLOT DATE:4/17/13 PATH:D:\TRANSP0RTAT10N DEPARTklBiT\TRAmC\BRYAN J0NES\6322.DWG
CI/8A 6«p-clDi(< uojjDooT ajyy PDqsMDo/LUix/aVOOtnv/uojSiAia aijoJi/uouD^jodsuDJi/:o
UJ
O
O
CL
bJ
O
Ld
< o o
_J
m
LJ_ on on
Q UJ
{/) o
Q_ O
on
CL
z o
I— < o o
<
Q LLI
If) Ld
LiJ
a.
Q LJ O
Z < X
z
UJ o z
p
X
UJ
(7) o
<
<
X
o z
I-(/)
X
UJ
^ <1 •
X CO
X
u
m a
CO _1
Q:
z o
CO z o
i
O O
m
O z
X
9
Q.
OL
O UJ CC on Q.
1
us. Department AUG 1 0 2011 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590
Federal Highway
Administration
In Reply Refer To: HOTO-1
Mr. Wayne Henley
Chief
Office of Signs, Markings, & Extemal
Support
Califomia Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 942873
Sacramento, CA 94273-0001
Dear Mr. Henley:
Thank you for your letter of August 5 requesting approval to use Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacons (RRFB) on a blanket basis at uncontrolled pedestrian and school crosswalk locations
statewide in Califomia, including State highways and all local jurisdictions' roadways. Your
request is made under the provisions of Section 1 A. 10 of the 2009 edition of the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and our Interim Approval memorandum IA-11
dated July 16, 2008.
Your request is approved, subject to the terms and conditions of the referenced Interim Approval
memorandum and to your agreement to comply with Item D.l. of Paragraph 18 of Section 1 A.IO
of the MUTCD. This approval is granted on a blanket basis for all locations in Califomia at
which the Califomia Department of Transportation and local highway agencies install RRFBs
under the technical conditions contained in IA-11. Please develop and periodically update a list
of all locations where RRFB are installed in California. Local jurisdictions that install RRFB
under this Interim Approval should inform your office of such installations so you can maintain a
comprehensive list of locations. Your specific approval has been numbered "IA-11-83 - RRFB -
Califomia Statewide." Please reference this number in any future correspondence.
Thank you for your interest in improving pedestrian safety. If we can be of further assistance on
this matter, please feel fi-ee to contact Mr. Scott Wainwright of our MUTCD Team by e-mail at
scott.wainwright(%dotgov or by telephone at 202-366-0857.
y yours,
R, Kehrli
Director, Office of Transportation
Operations
£xh/bd- 5'
USDepartrnent of Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
Memorandum
Sent via Electronic Mail
Subject: INFORMATION: MUTCD - Interim Approval for Date: July 16, 2008
Optional Use of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (IA-11)
From: Anthony T. Furst /s/ Anthony T. Furst Reply to
Acting Associate Administrator ^^^^ jjOTO-l
for Operations
To: Associate Administrators
Chief Counsel
Acting Chief Financial Officer
Directors of Field Services
Federal Lands Highway Division Engineers
Resource Center Director
Division Administrators
Purpose: The purpose of this memorandum is to issue an Interim Approval for the optional use of
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) as waming beacons under certain limited conditions.
Interim Approval allows interim use, pending official mlemaking, of a new traffic control device, a
revision to the application or manner of use of an existing traffic control device, or a provision not
specifically described in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
Background: The Florida Department of Transportation, in conjunction with the city of
St. Petersburg, has requested that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issue an Interim
Approval to allow the use of RRFBs as waming beacons to supplement standard pedestrian crossing
and school crossing waming signs at crossings across uncontrolled approaches. The RRFB does
not meet the current standards for flashing waming beacons as contained in the 2003 edition of the
MUTCD, Chapter 4K which requires a waming beacon to be round 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 waming sign it supplements. The RRFB uses
rectangular-shaped high-intensity LED-based indications, flashes rapidly in a wig-wag "flickering"
flash pattern, and is mounted immediately between the crossing sign and the sign's supplemental
arrow plaque.
A MEmCAN WWm Wm mtlm. m ^KF
ECONOMY
Research on the RRFB: The city of St. Petersburg has completed experimentation with the RRFB
at 18 pedestrian crosswalks across uncontrolled approaches and has submitted their final report. In
addition to "before" data, the city collected "after" data at intervals for 1 year at all sites and for
2 years at the first 2 implemented sites. For the first 2 sites, the city collected data for overhead and
ground-mounted pedestrian crossing signs supplemented with standard round yellow flashing
beacons, for comparison purposes, before the RRFBs were installed. The data show very high rates
of motorist "yield to pedestrians" compliance, mostly in the high 80s to close to 100 percent, in
comparison to far lower rates (in the 15 to 20 percent range) for standard beacons. The very high
yielding rates are sustained even after 2 years in operation, and no identifiable negative effects have
been found. The RRFB's very high compliance rates are previously unheard of for any device other
than a full traffic signal and a "HAWK" hybrid signal, both of which stop traffic with steady red
signal indications. The St. Petersburg data also shows that drivers exhibit yielding behavior much
further in advance of the crosswalk with RRFB than with standard round yellow flashing beacons.
These data clearly document very successful and impressive positive experience with the RRFBs at
crosswalks in that city.
In addition to the St. Petersburg locations, experimentation is underway at 3 sites in Miami-Dade
County, FL, 4 sites in Largo, FL, and 2 sites in Las Cmces, NM, and RRFBs are being installed
at 3 sites in northem fllinois. Additionally, the District of Columbia has installed RRFBs at one
crosswalk and plans to request experimentation with RRFB at several sites. Data from locations
other than St. Petersburg is limited but does show results very similar to those found in
St. Petersburg. A study of 2 RRFB locations in Miami-Dade County, FL, reported in a TRB paper,
found that evasive conflicts between drivers and pedestrians and the percentage of pedestrians
trapped in the center of an undivided road because of a non-yielding driver in the second half of the
roadway were both significantly reduced to negligible levels. Data so far from the one RRFB site in
DC shows driver yielding compliance rates increased from 26 percent to 74 percent after 30 days in
operation and advance yielding distances also increased comparable to the St. Petersburg results.
FHWA Evaluation of Results: The Office of Transportation Operations has reviewed the
available data and considers the RRFB to be highly successfiil for the applications tested
(uncontrolled crosswalks). The RRFB offers significant potential safety and cost benefits, because
it achieves very high rates of compliance at a very low relative cost in comparison to other more
restrictive devices that provide comparable results, such as full midblock signalization. The
components of RRFB are not proprietary and can be assembled by any jurisdiction with off-the-
shelf hardware. The FHWA believes that the RRFB has a low risk of safety or operational
concems. However, because proliferation of RRFBs in the roadway environment to the point that
they become ubiquitous could decrease their effectiveness, use of RRFBs should be limited to
locations with the most critical safety concems, such as pedestrian and school crosswalks across
uncontrolled approaches, as tested in the experimentation.
iv
At a recent meeting of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the Signals
Technical Committee voted to endorse the fiiture inclusion of the RRFB for uncontrolled
crosswalks into the MUTCD and recommended that FHWA issue an Interim Approval for RRFB.
The FHWA believes this indicates a consensus in the practitioner community in support of optional
use of RRFB. This Interim Approval does not create a new mandate compelling installation of
RRFB but will allow agencies to install this type of flashing beacon, pending official MUTCD
mlemaking, to provide a degree of enhanced pedestrian safety at uncontrolled crosswalks that has
been previously unattainable without costly and delay-producing full traffic signalization.
Conditions of Interim Approval: The FHWA will grant Interim Approval for the optional use of
the RRFB as a waming beacon to supplement standard pedestrian crossing or school crossing signs
at crosswalks across uncontrolled approaches 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 RRFB under this Interim Approval must agree to comply with the
technical conditions detailed below, to maintain an inventory list of all locations where the devices
are placed, and to comply with Item F at the bottom of Page lA-6 of the 2003 MUTCD,
Section lA.lO which requires:
"An agreement to restore the site(s) of the Interim Approval to a condition that complies
with the provisions in this Manual within 3 months following the issuance of a Final Rule on
this traffic control device. This agreement must also provide that the agency sponsoring the
Interim Approval will terminate use of the device or application installed under the Interim
Approval at any time that it determines significant safety concems are directly or indirectly
attributable to the device or application. The FHWA's Office of Transportation Operations
has the right to terminate the interim approval at any time if there is an indication of safety
concems."
1. General Conditions:
a. An RRFB shall consist of two rapidly and ahemately flashed rectangular yellow
indications having LED-array based pulsing light sources, and shall be designed, located,
and operated in accordance with the detailed requirements specified below.
b. The use of RRFBs 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 Waming Beacon (see 2003 MUTCD
Section 4K.03).
b. An RRFB shall only be used to supplement a W11 -2 (Pedestrian) or S1 -1 (School)
crossing waming sign with a diagonal downward arrow (W16-7p) plaque, located at or
immediately adjacent to a marked crosswalk.
c. An RRFB shall not be used for crosswalks across approaches controlled by YIELD
signs, STOP signs, or traffic control signals. This prohibition is not applicable to a
crosswalk across the approach to and/or egress from a roundabout.
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 Waming Beacon to supplement a Wl 1-2
(Pedestrian) or S1-1 (School) crossing waming sign with an AHEAD: (W16-9p) plaque.
This additional RRFB shall be supplemental to and not a replacement for RRFBs at the
crosswalk itself.
3. Sign/Beacon Assembly Locations:
a. For any approach on which RRFBs are used, two Wl 1 -2 or S1 -1 crossing waming signs
(each with RRFB and W16-7p 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 side of the highway.
b. An RRFB shall not be installed independent of the crossing signs for the approach the
RRFB faces. The RRFB shall be installed on the same support as the associated Wl 1-2
(Pedestrian) or S1-1 (School) crossing waming sign and plaque.
4. Beacon Dimensions and Placement in Sign Assembly:
a. Each RRFB shall consist of two rectangular-shaped yellow indications, each with an
LED-array based light source. Each RRFB indication shall be a minimum of approximately
5 inches wide by approximately 2 inches high.
b. The two RRFB indications shall be aligned horizontally, with the longer dimension
horizontal and with a minimum space between the two indications of approximately seven
inches (7 in), measured from inside edge of one indication to inside 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 or S1-1 sign.
d. As a specific exception to 2003 MUTCD Section 4K.01 guidance, the RRFB shall be
located between the bottom of the crossing waming sign and the top of the supplemental
downward diagonal arrow plaque (or, in the case of a supplemental advance sign, the
AHEAD plaque), rather than 12 inches above or below the sign assembly. (See attached
example photo.)
5. Beacon Flashing Requirements:
a. When activated, the two yellow indications in each RRFB shall flash in a rapidly
ahemating "wig-wag" flashing sequence (left light on, then right light on).
b. As a specific exception to 2003 MUTCD Section 4K.01 requirements for the flash rate
of beacons, RRFBs shall use a much faster flash rate. Each of the two yellow indications of
an RRFB shall have 70 to 80 periods of flashing per minute and shall have alternating but
approximately equal periods of rapid pulsing light emissions and dark operation. During
each of its 70 to 80 flashing periods per minute, one of the yellow indications shall emit two
rapid pulses of light and the other yellow indication shall emit three rapid pulses of light.
c. The flash rate of each individual yellow indication, as applied over the fiill on-off
sequence of a flashing period of the indication, 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 shall meet the minimum specifications of
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standard J595 (Directional Flashing Optical
Waming Devices for Authorized Emergency, Maintenance, and Service Vehicles) dated
January 2005.
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 RRFBs associated with a given crosswalk (including those with an advance crossing
sign, if used) shall, when activated, simultaneously commence operation of their alternating
rapid flashing indications and shall cease operation simultaneously.
c If pedestrian pushbuttons (rather than passive detection) are used to actuate the RRFBs,
a pedestrian instmction sign with the legend PUSH BUTTON TO TURN ON WARNING
LIGHTS should be mounted adjacent to or integral with each pedestrian pushbutton.
d. The duration of a predetermined period of operation of the RRFBs following each
actuation should be based on the MUTCD procedures for timing of pedestrian clearance
times for pedestrian signals.
e. A small light directed at and visible to pedestrians in the crosswalk may be installed
integral to the RRFB or push button to give confirmation that the RRFB is in operation.
7. Other:
a. Except as otherwise provided above, all other provisions of the MUTCD applicable to
Waming Beacons shall apply to RRFBs.
Any questions conceming this Interim Approval should be directed to Mr. Scott Wainwright at
scott.wainwright(fl)dot.gov or by telephone at 202-366-0857.
Example of RRFB with Wl 1-2 sign and W16-7p plaque at crosswalk
- across uncontrolled approach. [Photo courtesy of City of
St. Petersburg, Florida]
FHWA:HOTO-l:SWainwright:ds:60857:7-2-08
cc: HOTO-1 HOTO-l(HKalla/SWainwright/BFriedman)
Mr. Roger Wentz, ATSSA Mr. Jim Baron, ATSSA
SafetyField
E84-401 Chron E84-401 Reader
DF(LA-11 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon)
M:\MUTCD\INTERIM APPR0VALS\IA-11 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon\
IA-11 - RRFB Interim Approval Policy Memo.doc
15