Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Crosswalks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff propose data‑driven crosswalk policy: 1,500‑vehicle threshold, pedestrian volume criteria and 300‑foot spacing
Summary
The Transportation Commission reviewed a draft crosswalk policy that sets vehicle and pedestrian thresholds, a 300‑foot minimum spacing for new marked crosswalks and a treatment matrix guiding when to add signs, RRFBs, signals or grade separation.
At the June 10 Transportation Commission work session, town staff presented a substantial draft policy for evaluating and installing marked crosswalks, with a focus on uncontrolled crossings.
Thomas (staff) said the policy is intended to make crosswalk decisions data driven and consistent. He urged commissioners to focus on two core tools: "the main 2 things are this flowchart and the treatment matrix," he said, noting the rest of the presentation provides definitions and background that support those tools.
Key policy elements proposed by staff:
- Vehicle volume threshold: A location is considered for a marked crosswalk only if the roadway carries more than 1,500 vehicles per day (both directions); lower‑volume residential streets are generally excluded. - Pedestrian/multimodal volume thresholds: Minimum multimodal counts that would warrant a crosswalk are 20 pedestrians in any single peak hour, or 15 pedestrians per hour for any two hours, or 10 pedestrians per hour for any three hours per day. Counts should be conducted during fair weather months, and young, elderly and disabled pedestrians count double toward thresholds. - School crossings: A school crossing is defined as a location with 10 or more student pedestrians per hour or where a crossing guard is established by police. - Spacing and visibility: New marked crosswalks should normally be at least 300 feet from the nearest marked or controlled crossing; that minimum can be reduced in central business districts or when pedestrian volumes are more than twice the threshold and installation will not compromise safety. Marked crosswalks must meet stopping‑sight‑distance requirements (AASHTO) before installation. - Treatment matrix: Staff proposed a matrix mapping roadway configuration (number of lanes), ADT and speed to a recommended minimum treatment set. Treatments range from A (unmarked crossing with signs) through F (grade separation). Examples of higher levels include rectangular rapid‑flashing beacons (RRFBs), pedestrian hybrid beacons or full traffic signals when warranted. - Supplemental geometric options: Where feasible, staff recommended curb extensions, pedestrian refuge islands, lane reductions (road diets) and raised crosswalks to improve safety and reduce crossing distance. - Removal and prioritization: During resurfacing or reconstruction, staff will reevaluate crosswalks; if a crosswalk scores below 50% of the warrant threshold it may be removed after outreach. Prioritization of new installations will consider crash history, crossing activity and construction cost.
Thomas gave local examples to help commissioners visualize ADT bands: he said some local collectors carried roughly 5,000 ADT, some signalized intersections were just over 11,000, and several major thoroughfares were over 15,000. He told commissioners the draft is more stringent than some of the town’s existing practice but will yield a clearer standard for where markings are most beneficial. "If it falls in these categories, it qualifies," a commissioner said in response; staff noted implementation will be gradual and likely tied to maintenance cycles and specific requests.
No formal vote was taken: the item was a work session request for feedback and staff will return the draft for formal consideration after edits requested by the commission.
