5B Public Hearings 2018 0319 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

212 ~ CiTY OF SAN LEANDRO BiCYCLE & PEDESTRiAN MASTER PLAN PROPOSED SCORING CRITERIA A. Elementary School 5, Middle School 4, High School 3 (max score 5 ); _____Score. B. Travel lanes – 2 score for each through travel lane, 1 score for center turn lanes or median areas, 2 score where bike lanes and/or parking exist (max score value 10); ______Score. C. Posted Speed Limit – 5 score for 35 mph or higher, 4 for 30 mph, 3 for 25 mph, 2 for 20 mph established school zone. The 85th percentile speed data may be used in lieu of posted speed at discretion of the engineer; ________Score. D. ADT – Average Weekday Daily traffic below 10,000 vehicles is 0, 10,000 to 15,000 is 3 and above 15,000 is 5; ________Score. E. Accident History (pedestrian/bike) – one non-motorized accident within crossing location in past 3 years = 5. More than one pedestrian/ bike accident within past 3 years or a single fatality is score of 10 if deter- mined to be clearly located within the crossing limits as determined by the engineer; ________Score. F. Accident History (vehicle) – 2 score for 5 or more rear end collision (or other relatable collision not included in E. above) in past 3 years associated with activity from the crossing as determined by the engineer;_______ Score. G. Traffic Signal or existing marked crosswalk located within 500 feet of subject review location – deduct 5 score. Where traffic signals are within 300 feet of the crossing outside of the downtown district, flashing cross- walk systems will not be considered. Within the downtown district, this criteria may be overridden at the engineer’s discretion;________ Score. H. Crossing is located on a designated arterial – Major is 5, Minor is 3, Collector is 2; Local Street is 0 ; __________ Score. Scoring Criteria and Priorities: Scoring criteria are developed to reflect the relative merit for improvements at a pedestrian crossing. in some cases, dependent on conditions, it may be sufficient to have only pavement markings and signing for one crossing while another crossing merits more extensive resources. The criteria includes influ- ences from schools, vehicle traffic, vehicle speeds, pedestrian activity and other considerations which play a role in the merit for additional improve- ments at a crossing location. A location which satisfies a particular criteria is not justification in itself for alterations and no duty is implied or presumed for the city to provide a marked crosswalk or enhanced crosswalk treatment by use of this guidance. it should be recognized there are limited resources for managing the transportation system for all users accordingly, and priorities for implementing new features or adjusting existing ones must be balanced with the needs citywide and assessed periodically by the City. Staff recommended proposed scoring criteria to facilitate project periodization. in consideration of limited resources, a minimum score of 20 must generally be achieved by the sum of criteria. However, there may be certain limited exceptions to a lower threshold if found by the Engineering &Transportation Department to be in the interest of the overall prioritization process; for instance, coupling a candidate site with another nearby location as part of a CiP project. This minimum score of 20 may be adjusted up or down in the future by staff to reflect changes in resources and priorities. Once this threshold is satisfied, the subject site will be considered as a candidate for improvements together with other locations which also exceed this score threshold. Staff will then evaluate more subjective conditions such as community support, availability of funds relative to cost of improvement, engineering judgment of the site’s safety, crosswalk study findings, or other considerations as deemed appropriate by staff. Appendix E: Crosswalk Practices & Priority Guidance 350