Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Midblock Crossing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff seek board endorsement of Midblock Crossing Policy grounded in MUTCD and FHWA guidance
Summary
Public Works proposed a Midblock Crossing Policy establishing a consistent engineering process to evaluate pedestrian mid-block crossings using MUTCD and FHWA thresholds; the board and public discussed accessibility trade-offs and recommended monitoring land-use changes that could change crossing justification.
Los Alamos County Public Works presented a proposed Midblock Crossing Policy that lays out a standardized, engineering-based procedure for evaluating and installing pedestrian mid‑block crossings across county roads, using national guidance from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and Federal Highway Administration studies.
Karen Henderson, the county staff lead, said the policy sets evaluation steps—starting with average daily traffic and pedestrian thresholds—and a menu of countermeasures ranging from pavement markings and signs to raised crosswalks and pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHB, sometimes called a HAWK). Henderson told the Transportation Board the county receives one or two requests every few months and that staff had analyzed high-profile requests such as Sycamore Street at Diamond Drive and crossings along Canyon Road near the aquatic center.
Henderson reported that camera counts at the Sycamore/Diamond location recorded three pedestrians in a 12-hour period; MUTCD guidance uses a 20 pedestrians-per-hour threshold for standard warranting, so staff recommended making no enhancements at that location unless land use or pedestrian generators change. For Canyon Road crossings near the aquatic center and Rose Street, staff found slightly higher pedestrian counts (as many as nine pedestrians in the busiest hour at one crossing) and recommended targeted enhancements at some locations, including pavement markings, signs and refuge island adjustments.
Board members raised accessibility concerns. Member Edwards noted that a crossing that meets numeric thresholds could still be difficult to use for people with vision or mobility impairments and asked how ADA and accessibility considerations are incorporated. Staff and traffic engineers replied that ADA standards apply where crossings exist and that national guidance allows reduced pedestrian-volume thresholds when users include children, the elderly or people with disabilities; in those cases the agency may treat individual pedestrians as weighted counts toward the threshold. The staff said the policy includes steps to account for land use and vulnerable users and that crossings adjacent to schools or known generators could warrant lower numeric thresholds.
Public commenters, including pedestrian advocates, urged the county to consider access to transit stops and to look at crossing options that improve safety for transit users without creating a proliferation of unnecessary devices. Wendy Swanson, a pedestrian advocate, suggested outreach and school-based pedestrian education as part of broader walkability efforts.
Staff asked for Transportation Board feedback and signaled they will bring the policy back for adoption after incorporating input. No formal vote to adopt the policy was taken at the meeting.
