1.0 BACKGROUND. January 6, 2006 Proj #

Transcription

1 January 6, 2006 Proj # Mr. Eugene Wat Director of Engineering City of Port Moody 100 Newport Drive Box 36 Port Moody, BC V3H 3E1 Dear Mr. Wat: RE: ALDERSIDE ROAD & IOCO ROAD PEDESTRIAN CROSSING STUDY: As requested, Bunt & Associates (Bunt) has examined the pedestrian crossing conditions at the intersection of Alderside Road & Ioco Road in relation to the proposed Pleasantside residential development. Subsequent to Bunt & Associates Traffic Considerations Letter dated October 7, 2004, the proposed development has been considerably reduced in size. The newly proposed development will consist of 7-8 single family detached residential homes. The following letter report examines pedestrian crossing conditions at the intersection of Alderside Road & Ioco Road. As the proposed development use follows the correct land-use zoning, a full traffic impact study has not been conducted at this time. Also, as the proposed development is small in size, trips generated by the development are insignificant and have been ignored for the purposes of this analysis. This analysis is based solely on existing conditions exclusive of the development. 1.0 BACKGROUND The intersection of Alderside Road & Ioco Road currently serves as an access to a community beach/park and to the Old Orchard Community Hall. The park/beach is quite heavily used during the summer months and far quieter during the winter months. The Old Orchard Community Hall is typically rented out for public events and also houses a long-term day care tenant (Play Pals Day Care). Currently, Alderside Road serves as a parallel route to Ioco Road and then curves to intersect with Ioco Road. Alderside Road provides access to many residential homes, the park/beach, and the community Hall. Currently, Ioco Road is a designated arterial route which serves to provide regional connectivity between Belcarra, Anmore, Port Moody, and the many collector streets in between. 1 Bunt & Associates Engineering Ltd.

2 Alderside Road & Ioco Road Pedestrian Crossing Study January 6, 2006 The City has received many comments from residents in the area, some of which wish for less delay, others of which wish for increased safety. The key issues identified by residents in the vicinity of the intersection are: Poor sight lines at Jacobs Road & Ioco Road. Pedestrian safety with respect to crossing Ioco Road. High 85 th percentile observed vehicle speeds. The desire for less delay which conflicts with the above concerns. Site aesthetics and noise. This study examined the impacts of any recommended pedestrian crossing systems on the above noted concerns. 2.0 TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS At the time of the previous study (July 2001), Bunt had conducted traffic surveys during the AM, PM, and Saturday peak periods. Also, on November 24, 2005, Bunt conducted a subsequent a traffic survey to assess the change in traffic patterns over time. The most recent survey was conducted from 07:00 hours to 19:00 hours, and included pedestrian counts and vehicle class separation (refer to Appendix A). Our data indicates that operationally, there are no capacity or delay related concerns at this intersection at this time. 3.0 PEDESTRIAN CROSSING WARRANT ANALYSIS To assess the feasibility of installing pedestrian crossing measures at the intersection of Alderside Road & Ioco Road, the methodology and rationale provided in the Ministry of Transportation s (MoT) Pedestrian Crossing Control Manual for British Columbia was used. This rationale examines volumetric warrants, safety considerations, and other factors as well. Traffic data collected was factored to represent the peak summer condition when many recreational trips both vehicular and pedestrian are observed in the area. The adjustment factors were developed based on historical trends provided by the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) and survey data. As the treatment of cyclists is not specified, they were included in the pedestrian volumes due to the significant difference in operating speed between cars and bicycles. Please refer to Appendix A for detailed data and calculations. Based solely on volumes, the results show that a signed & marked crosswalk is fully warranted at this point in time. The pedestrian requirement for a special crosswalk was also met, but the vehicular volume requirement was not. Please note that in accordance with the BC Pedestrian Crossing Manual, both the pedestrian volumes and the traffic volumes must meet warrant criteria to justify the installation of a pedestrian crossing measure based on volumetric considerations. However, due to the fact that the vehicular volume was quite close to the requirement, a sensitivity analysis was conducted. 2 Bunt & Associates Engineering Ltd.

3 Alderside Road & Ioco Road Pedestrian Crossing Study January 6, PEDESTRIAN CROSSING WARRANT SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS The sensitivity of the warrant analysis was tested against possible variations in both pedestrian volumes and traffic volumes. The findings are illustrated in Figures 1 & 2. In addition, based on the observed growth rates calculated from Bunt s 2001 & 2005 traffic counts which were confirmed against GVRD data, the time at which a given pedestrian crossing measure meets warrant criteria was projected. A negative value for years until warranted implies that the particular pedestrian crossing measure is warranted at present. Please note again that in accordance with the BC Pedestrian Crossing Manual, both the pedestrian volumes and the traffic volumes must meet warrant criteria to justify the installation of a pedestrian crossing measure based solely on volumetric considerations. As shown in Figures 1 & 2, vehicular traffic is the controlling variable as pedestrian volumes already warrant a special crosswalk, and may soon warrant a full pedestrian signal depending on growth and potential fluctuations. As previously stated, a signed & marked crosswalk is fully warranted at this time. In addition, the sensitivity analysis shows that even with large reductions in both traffic and pedestrians, this device is still warranted. With respect to a special crosswalk, it is projected that traffic volumes will meet the warrant criteria in approximately 1.3 years, assuming growth trends continue as they have in the past. Also, as the sensitivity graph shows, with just a 5% fluctuation in volume (which is conceivable as this area serves a large volume of recreational traffic); a special crosswalk may be warranted in less than a year s time. A full pedestrian signal will not be warranted for another 4+ years based on volumetric considerations The warrant criteria under the BC Pedestrian Crossing Manual also advise to take into account not only the above stated volumetric considerations, but safety considerations as well. 5.0 SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS The Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) has several desired guidelines in terms of geometric sight distance. These guideline requirements include stopping sight distance (SSD), crossing sight distance (CSD), and decision sight distance (DSD). SSD is defined as the distance which generally allows drivers to bring their vehicle to a stop. CSD is defined as the sight distance for a crossing manoeuvre based on the time it takes for the stopped vehicle to clear the intersection and the distance that a vehicle would travel along the major roadway at its design speed in that amount of time. DSD provides designers with values for appropriate sight distance at critical 3 Bunt & Associates Engineering Ltd.

4 Figure 1: Pedestrian Volume Sensitivity Analysis Not Warranted 0.0 Years Until Warranted Warranted Signed & Marked Special Crossing Pedestrian Signal Pedestrian Volumes (EAU's)

5 Figure 2: Traffic Volume Sensitivity Analysis Years Until Warranted Not Warranted Warranted Signed & Marked Special Crossing Pedestrian Signal % -10.0% -7.5% -5.0% -2.5% 0.0% 2.5% 5.0% 7.5% 10.0% 12.5% % Fluctuation in Traffic Volume

6 Alderside Road & Ioco Road Pedestrian Crossing Study January 6, 2006 locations, such as intersections where several sources of information compete, where the intersection is on or beyond a crest of vertical curve, or, where there is substantial horizontal curvature on the approach to the intersection area. For roads posted at 50 kph, Table 1 summarizes the TAC guideline requirements. Table 1: TAC Design Guideline Summary TAC Design Guideline Distance Reference Minimum SSD 65 m Section CSD for Turning Movements from Stop 83 m Section Minimum DSD 133 m Section Desirable DSD 195 m Section As mentioned in our previous study (in 2001), there are fairly significant concerns regarding safety within the vicinity of Alderside Road & Ioco Road. Approximately 100 metres to the west lies the intersection of Jacob Road & Ioco Road. This intersection has poor sight distance and has been subject to safety reviews in the past. Currently, a Hidden Intersection warning sign has been placed in advance of this intersection, and some geometric improvements have been made. In 2002, the centerline of Jacob Road was shifted to the west to reduce the skew intersection angle, and increase the SSD from 50 metres to approximately 70 metres. Table 2 table summarizes the existing sight distances for both the Alderside Road intersection and the Jacobs Road intersection. Table 2: Sight Distance Summary Intersection To the East To the West Alderside Road & Ioco Road 145 m 90 m Jacobs Road & Ioco Road 70 m 200 m As shown in Tables 1 & 2, the intersection of Jacobs Road & Ioco Road passes the bare minimum requirement of 65 metres SSD. However, it falls short of the desired CSD and DSD requirements. The existing right-of-way precludes any possibility of attaining sufficient CSD/DSD. The expropriation of all or part of the property located at 641 Jacob Road would be necessary to mitigate this issue. However, in 2002, the City indicated that this action would not be feasible. At the request of the City, the vertical curves on both approaches of both intersections were also examined. The vertical gradient in this area was not found to be large enough to affect sight lines. The sight distance on the approaches of either intersection from either direction was found to vary between metres. The worst SSD was found to be at the intersections themselves (i.e. the values shown in Table 2). Given the marginal sight distance at the intersection of Jacobs Road & Ioco Road, the implementation of gap-producing traffic measures would be somewhat beneficial to safety at this location. If geometric improvements are not planned for this intersection in the near-term, the implementation of other 4 Bunt & Associates Engineering Ltd.

7 Alderside Road & Ioco Road Pedestrian Crossing Study January 6, 2006 short-term improvements are recommended (e.g. pedestrian crossing devices). As such marginal sight distances on an arterial road pose a safety risk to the users of this intersection, and a liability to the City, several options are available to help address this problem such as: Curve flattening i.e. road re-alignment. Expropriation of land to build a retaining wall to increase visibility. Banning southbound to eastbound left turns from Jacobs Road Closing Jacobs Road completely. However, the analysis of these options is beyond the scope of this study and it is recommended that a full safety review be conducted for the intersection of Jacobs Road & Ioco Road. It is noted that a previous network study was conducted, but the report s recommendation to close Jacob Road and route traffic to Alderside Road did not move forward. 6.0 ALTERNATIVE PEDESTRIAN TREATMENTS The City had also specifically requested the examination of in-pavement flashing crosswalk illumination systems. In 2004, a review of pedestrian crossing treatments was initiated by a joint partnership of CITE, ITE, ICBC, TAC, TOMSC, and various municipalities throughout Canada. This particular crossing measure was discussed during the course of this study. Generally, implementation of this device had received positive feedback in the United States, but negative feedback throughout Canada. The main difficulties that many Canadian agencies reported are as follows: A lack of visibility due to snow/leaf/debris coverage The negative impacts of the devices with respect to snow plowing Physical release/failure of the device due to frost heaving High maintenance costs No statistically significant improvement over special crosswalks. As a specific example in the Lower Mainland, the City of Burnaby had installed in-crosswalk flashers on Dover Street between Royal Oak Avenue and Nelson Avenue. Due to maintenance issues and poor visibility due to a slight vertical curve, the City of Burnaby subsequently removed the in-crosswalk flashers in favour of overhead mounted special crosswalk systems which provided better overall visibility and lower maintenance costs. The City of Vancouver also had similar experience with their test location at Alma Street and 4 th Avenue. Under most applications, special crosswalks tend to be a more practical, less costly measure to implement as they provided equal results in performance. With optional components such has overhead flashers, side mounted flashers, 5 Bunt & Associates Engineering Ltd.

8 Alderside Road & Ioco Road Pedestrian Crossing Study January 6, 2006 overhead lit pedestrian crossing signage, and overhead crosswalk lighting, special crosswalks are generally preferred over in-crosswalk lighting devices. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS Taking into consideration the safety and volume aspects of the intersection, it is clear that at a minimum, a marked & signed crosswalk is warranted at this location. Given the poor sight lines available, a special crosswalk is recommended over a marked & signed crosswalk even though the vehicular traffic volumes do not meet the volumetric warrant criteria at this time. The growth rates indicate that a special crosswalk will be warranted in less than 2 years time. The key benefits of a special crosswalk would be: Increased pedestrian visibility/driver awareness which is highly beneficial given the winding road geometry of Ioco Road. The introduction of some gaps to assist vehicles exiting Jacobs Road at Ioco Road (though a more permanent solution is recommended at this location). A modest speed reduction through vehicles yielding to pedestrians and a general awareness of a special crosswalk in this area. Maintains Ioco Road capacity as the light will only stop vehicles when pedestrians are present. In light of future network connectivity plans and further safety considerations, the City may wish to pursue a full pedestrian signal. The growth rates observed indicate that a full pedestrian signal will be warranted in less than 5 years time. The key benefits of a full pedestrian signal would be: The implementation of crosswalks on both the east and west legs of the intersection, rather than just at a single location. Increased introduction of gaps/platooning to an otherwise randomly distributed traffic stream; which would help in the short-term with the SSD issue at the intersection of Jacobs Road & Ioco Road. Increased reduction of speeds through this area as vehicles will be legally obligated to stop at a red light when activated by pedestrians. General reduction in speed through an awareness of a pedestrian signal in this vicinity. Maintains Ioco Road capacity as the light will only stop vehicles when pedestrians are present. Regardless of which pedestrian crossing device is installed, improved illumination of the area is recommended. The Pedestrian Crossing Control Manual for British Columbia identifies recommended application and installation practices. Please refer to Figures 2.5 and 2.6 in the Appendix for the Manual s recommended application and installation. Also, in addition to 6 Bunt & Associates Engineering Ltd.

9 Alderside Road & Ioco Road Pedestrian Crossing Study January 6, 2006 any pedestrian crossing devices implemented at the intersection of Alderside Road & Ioco Road, action to further improve the geometric deficiencies at Jacobs Road is still recommended. * * * * * I trust that this information will be of assistance to you. Please call should you have any questions or require additional information. Yours truly, Bunt & Associates Ron Wong, EIT 7 Bunt & Associates Engineering Ltd.

10 Alderside Road & Ioco Road Pedestrian Crossing Study January 6, 2006 APPENDIX A: Supporting Data 8 Bunt & Associates Engineering Ltd.

11

12

13 Pleasantside Development - Pedestrian Crossing Study Pedestrian Warrant Analysis (Using Bunt & Associates Traffic Count Data) Year Traffic Volume (vph) Pedestrian Volume (EAU's) Time of Year Traffic Volume as a % of the Peak Month Pedestrian Volume as a % of the Peak Month Factored Peak Traffic Volumes Factored Peak Pedestrian Volumes Growth Rates Based on GVRD Data: Traffic Growth Rate: 5.92% Pedestrian Growth Rate: 7.19% July Nov 95% 70%* Growth Rates Based on Bunt Estimates: 100% 85%* Traffic Growth Rate: 6.48% Pedestrian Growth Rate: 7.00% Time until traffic warrants a Signed & Marked Crosswalk: years Time until pedestrians warrant a Signed & Marked Crosswalk: years Time until traffic warrants a Special Crosswalk: 1.28 years Time until pedestrians warrant a Special Crosswalk: years Time until traffic warrants a Pedestrian Signal: 4.18 years Time until pedestrians warrant a Pedestrian Signal: 2.68 years NOTES: - *As 2005 November montly adjustment data was not available, an estimate was made based on 2004 data and the observed profiles. - Traffic data was taken from Bedwell Bay Road; Ped data was correlated from White Pine Beach/Picnic Area data;

14 Pleasantside Development - Pedestrian Crossing Study Traffic Count Data Count Date: Thursday, November 24, 2005 Location: Alderside Rd & Ioco Rd Count Period: 07:00 to 19:00 Peak Hour: 16:15 to 17:15 Unbanked Data (Cars, Light Trucks) Time North Leg East Leg South Leg West Leg All Legs RT TH LT Ped RT TH LT Ped RT TH LT Ped RT TH LT Ped ΣPed ΣVeh Peak Hour :00-07: :15-07: :30-07: :45-08: :00-08: :15-08: :30-08: :45-09: :00-09: :15-09: :30-09: :45-10: :00-10: :15-10: :30-10: :45-11: :00-11: :15-11: :30-11: :45-12: :00-12: :15-12: :30-12: :45-13: :00-13: :15-13: :30-13: :45-14: :00-14: :15-14: :30-14: :45-15: :00-15: :15-15: :30-15: :45-16: :00-16: :15-16: :30-16: :45-17: :00-17: :15-17: :30-17: :45-18: :00-18: :15-18: :30-18: :45-19:

15 Pleasantside Development - Pedestrian Crossing Study Traffic Count Data Count Date: Thursday, November 24, 2005 Location: Alderside Rd & Ioco Rd Count Period: 07:00 to 19:00 Peak Hour: 16:15 to 17:15 Bank 1 (Cyclists) Time North Leg East Leg South Leg West Leg All Legs RT TH LT Ped RT TH LT Ped RT TH LT Ped RT TH LT Ped ΣPed ΣVeh Peak Hour :00-07: :15-07: :30-07: :45-08: :00-08: :15-08: :30-08: :45-09: :00-09: :15-09: :30-09: :45-10: :00-10: :15-10: :30-10: :45-11: :00-11: :15-11: :30-11: :45-12: :00-12: :15-12: :30-12: :45-13: :00-13: :15-13: :30-13: :45-14: :00-14: :15-14: :30-14: :45-15: :00-15: :15-15: :30-15: :45-16: :00-16: :15-16: :30-16: :45-17: :00-17: :15-17: :30-17: :45-18: :00-18: :15-18: :30-18: :45-19:

16 Pleasantside Development - Pedestrian Crossing Study Traffic Count Data Count Date: Thursday, November 24, 2005 Location: Alderside Rd & Ioco Rd Count Period: 07:00 to 19:00 Peak Hour: 16:15 to 17:15 Bank 2 (Heavy Trucks) Time North Leg East Leg South Leg West Leg All Legs RT TH LT Ped RT TH LT Ped RT TH LT Ped RT TH LT Ped ΣPed ΣVeh Peak Hour :00-07: :15-07: :30-07: :45-08: :00-08: :15-08: :30-08: :45-09: :00-09: :15-09: :30-09: :45-10: :00-10: :15-10: :30-10: :45-11: :00-11: :15-11: :30-11: :45-12: :00-12: :15-12: :30-12: :45-13: :00-13: :15-13: :30-13: :45-14: :00-14: :15-14: :30-14: :45-15: :00-15: :15-15: :30-15: :45-16: :00-16: :15-16: :30-16: :45-17: :00-17: :15-17: :30-17: :45-18: :00-18: :15-18: :30-18: :45-19:

17 GVRD Data - Gross Vehicle Counts - Belcarra Regional Park Location January February March April May June July August September October November December 2001 Bedwell Bay 28,325 27,745 32,632 37,653 47,159 47,772 55,021 58,840 41,728 34,215 31,940 30,690 White Pine 1,287 1,409 1,622 2,613 11,509 12,591 29,498 22,562 8,632 4,278 1,870 1,129 Picnic Area 1,236 1,310 1,769 2,534 7,319 8,161 9,847 8,672 5,433 3,200 2,340 2, Bedwell Bay 26,438 29,137 30,607 37,024 38,870 61,324 79,346 61,529 32,965 34,899 28,402 28,189 White Pine 2,332 3,447 5,925 5,612 5,004 22,757 31,688 25,511 6,558 3,123 2,593 1,970 Picnic Area 1,961 2,617 3,425 5,041 5,926 9,596 10,779 9,995 6,068 3,598 2,865 1, Bedwell Bay 28,901 27,285 32,214 35,552 44,141 65,269 66,533 63,037 40,091 30,097 25,766 26,908 White Pine 2,484 2,756 2,893 5,089 8,092 24,989 39,347 24,237 9,256 3,228 2,349 1,798 Picnic Area 2,329 2,729 2,765 4,517 7,740 6,726 11,140 9,483 5,030 2,804 2,817 1, Bedwell Bay 27,273 29,607 33,131 41,743 43,396 69,408 72,610 61,377 34,499 34,393 31,519 31,505 White Pine 1,775 2,675 3,662 9,026 7,302 28,740 24,166 21,850 4,873 3,332 2,375 2,449 Picnic Area 1,654 2,933 3,390 5,966 6,889 8,442 8,856 8,727 4,765 3,304 2,375 1, Bedwell Bay 26,908 28,199 32,665 38,400 39,930 42,021 74,047 73,803 40,000 31,099 n/a n/a White Pine 1,938 3,084 4,190 7,423 10,214 8,041 30,793 31,489 9,500 2,889 n/a n/a Picnic Area 2,344 3,128 3,295 4,266 5,870 6,395 10,443 9,343 5,000 2,650 n/a n/a GVRD Data - Monthly Variation Trends: % of Peak Month 2001 Traffic 48% 47% 55% 64% 80% 81% 94% 100% 71% 58% 54% 52% Pedestrians 6% 7% 9% 13% 48% 53% 100% 79% 36% 19% 11% 9% 2002 Traffic 33% 37% 39% 47% 49% 77% 100% 78% 42% 44% 36% 36% Pedestrians 10% 14% 22% 25% 26% 76% 100% 84% 30% 16% 13% 9% 2003 Traffic 43% 41% 48% 53% 66% 98% 100% 95% 60% 45% 39% 40% Pedestrians 10% 11% 11% 19% 31% 63% 100% 67% 28% 12% 10% 7% 2004 Traffic 38% 41% 46% 57% 60% 96% 100% 85% 48% 47% 43% 43% Pedestrians 9% 15% 19% 40% 38% 100% 89% 82% 26% 18% 13% 12% 2005 Traffic 36% 38% 44% 52% 54% 57% 100% 100% 54% 42% n/a n/a Pedestrians 10% 15% 18% 28% 39% 35% 100% 99% 35% 13% n/a n/a NOTES: - Bedwell Bay data serves as a surrogate for traffic patterns/trends along Ioco Road. - White Pine Beach & the Picnic Area serve as surrogates for pedestrian patterns/trends in the area. - *estimates used