MemoDUM
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MEMORAN
June 18, 2010
TO: City Council
FROM: Carl J. Weber, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: East Milwaukee Street – Wright Road to Highway 14
Traffic Safety Improvements
Summary
The City has been planning improvements to the E. Milwaukee St. corridor for several
years. Issues studied have included improving safety of the greenbelt recreation trail
crossing between Wright Rd. and Shannon Drive and the intersection of E. Milwaukee
St. with Wuthering Hills Drive. The City Council last reviewed the issues on 6/23/08. At
that meeting the Council approved installing a roundabout at the Wuthering Hills Dr.
intersection and a tunnel beneath the street at the recreation trail crossing.
Since the June 2008 Council meeting, the roundabout project has advanced with the
City signing a grant agreement with the State of Wisconsin to fund 90% of the $439,050
estimated cost of the intersection improvement. However, the tunnel project has not
advanced due to concerns by the City Council and the current City Manager regarding
project estimate increases and the cost effectiveness of the proposal. In the absence of
a Public Works Director, the City Manager wanted the new director to review the
proposal once a new director was hired.
Former Janesville Public Works Director Jack Messer prepared a memo to former City
Manager Steven Sheiffer regarding the E. Milwaukee Street Corridor Safety
Improvements dated 6/16/08 in preparation for the Council meeting of 6/23/08. In that
memo, Mr. Messer addressed three related topics and made recommendations on
each. The recommendations were to:
1. Construct a grade separation or a roadway narrowing at the recreation trail
crossing;
2. Construct a roundabout at the Wuthering Hills intersection;
3. Modify the roadway from four lanes to three.
A review of the minutes of the 6/23/08 Council meeting indicates that topic 3 was not
discussed nor acted upon. Topic 3 could provide significant safety benefits for the
corridor. In addition, there are now available to Janesville two new pedestrian crossing
traffic control technologies which were not available when this issue was originally
studied. For this reason, it is recommended that the City Council revisit the recreation
crossing issue before proceeding to construction.
Study Session.doc
J:\Agenda Review\Approved Agenda Items\2010\6-24-2010\Milwaukee Street
Recommendation
Following review by the Council, the Public Works Department recommends that the
City:
1. Modify the current four lane alignment on E. Milwaukee St. from Wright Rd. to
Highway 14 to include two drive lanes, two bike lanes and a center two way left
turn lane (TWLTL).
2. Improve the current at-grade trail crossing between Wright Rd. and Shannon Dr.
to include a raised median refuge island in the middle of E. Milwaukee St. and a
pedestrian actuated rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) system.
City Manager Recommendation
The City Manager concurs with the Public Works Director’s recommendation.
Background
E. Milwaukee Street is an east-west arterial that provides a direct route from east to
west through the middle of Janesville. Traffic in this area is primarily commuter oriented
traffic serving drivers from the east of the City as well as a number of City subdivisions
on the east side. The corridor primarily runs through residential developments. There
is a node of commercial development approximately near the intersection of E.
Milwaukee and Wright Road.
E. Milwaukee is a 4-lane urban section 52 feet wide (f-f). The street was improved to its
current configuration in 1986. The bike trail is a part of the Ice Age Trail/Springbrook
Trail system. This bike trail section was improved in 2000. The bike trail crosses E.
Milwaukee at-grade, at a mid-block location.
Concerns about the safety of this crossing have been expressed in the past. There
have been a variety of activities undertaken to examine and address the safety of the
location, as the list bellow illustrates.
?
Mid-block pavement cross-walk markings placed (2000).
?
Mid-block pedestrian actuated signals placed (2000).
?
Mid-block pedestrian signage placed (2000) & upgraded (2001).
?
Adding warning info/signs on trail at crossings (2001).
?
Engineering analysis of roadway widening (2003).
?
Reduced speed limit from 35 – 30 mph (2001).
?
In-street yield to pedestrian signs (2005).
In 2006 the City Council approved borrowing $160,000 to provide a pedestrian grade
separation (tunnel configuration) at this location. There is currently a balance of
$117,737 in this fund. City staff undertook an engineering analysis and structure type
Study Session.doc
J:\Agenda Review\Approved Agenda Items\2010\6-24-2010\Milwaukee Street
study in order to determine the scope and construction estimate for the project. The
initial study indicated a project cost of $395,000. City staff reported this and requested
the Council approve an application for grant of Safe Routes to School (SRTS). This
grant was appropriated in the 2007-09 Wisconsin biennial budget in the amount of
$235,000, covering the shortfall between previously borrowed funding and project
estimate. Staff received permission from the Council in January of 2008 to proceed
with activities associated with the project. This involved undertaking final engineering
design. The final engineering design process performed by the consultant provided an
estimate to city staff in May 2007 of $625,000. This estimate was refined to $590,000
in 2008. In addition, the construction of a tunnel would require the rerouting of a
watermain at an additional estimated cost of $80,000. The 2010 adjusted total cost
including the watermain relay and additional costs to modify the plans to meet DOT
required program standards is now $720,000. This does not include costs of relocating
private utilities including a gas main and multiple telephone lines including a major fiber
optic package.
Traffic Data and Site Conditions
Traffic counts were taken in October 2007 for a study of the intersection of E.
Milwaukee and Wuthering Hills. These counts are applicable and provide reasonable
data for the conditions at the pedestrian crossing. E. Milwaukee Street is an arterial
th
roadway carrying 8,000 vehicles per day. The 85 percentile speed through the area is
40 mph. The speed range indicates about 42% of the vehicles traveling in excess of 35
mph with the highest speed recorded in excess of 61 mph.
The pedestrian crossing is located in a low point with good visibility for drivers on E.
Milwaukee. There are sidewalks on both sides of the street. There may be periods
where glare from the sun could be a problem for eastbound drivers, but this is most
likely during periods of light trail use.
The crosswalk has multiple and adequate signage to alert drivers of the mid-block
crossing. There is a pedestrian-actuated beacon that when activated will produce a
yellow-flashing warning to drivers and remain activated based on a set time clearance
interval.
The trail is located within a greenbelt drainage way. The majority of the trail is located
well below the grade of the street. The trail rises approximately 5’ on the north
approach and 13’ on the south approach. This steep grade results in the possibility of
trail users not being seen by drivers on E. Milwaukee until they reach the crossing
point.
Study Session.doc
J:\Agenda Review\Approved Agenda Items\2010\6-24-2010\Milwaukee Street
City staff has reviewed the reported accidents at this
location since initial trail construction in 2000. There
have been 2 vehicle-vehicle rear end crashes, and
no vehicle-pedestrian incidents at this location.
There have been various reports of near-misses
between pedestrians and vehicles; primarily from
cars stopped in the inside or outside lane, yielding to
pedestrian(s), while a second car utilizes the
adjacent lane, without being able to see the
pedestrian in the crosswalk, as illustrated by Figure
2 at right.
Alternatives Identification
:
The purpose of any project is to develop alternatives
to solve a problem. It is important to identify the
problems first and then develop solutions targeted to
solving those specific issues. The primary problems
at this location identified by staff include:
Figure 1
?
Overall speed of vehicular traffic on E.
Milwaukee
?
Lack of expectation of a mid-block crossing point by drivers
?
One lane of vehicles will yield while the vehicles in the adjoining lane do not
?
When one vehicle is stopped, the resulting poor sightlines make it difficult for
vehicles traveling in the same direction to see pedestrians in the crosswalk
?
Expectation of “protection” for trail users afforded by actuated crossing beacon and
signage.
?
Lack of expectation by trail users of a busy crossing point
?
Multi-lane bi-directional crossing action required by trail users
?
Trail users are hidden to drivers until they’ve reached crossing point
Based on the above list of primary problems, four alternatives were identified for
analysis. The four alternatives are as follows:
1. Do Nothing Alternative – This alternative maintains the current situation and
provides a baseline for comparison purposes.
2. Grade Separation Alternative – This alternative provides a discussion of the
project that has been developed to date.
3. Widening Alternative – This option provides for a widening of the current
roadway maintaining the current lane configuration but providing a pedestrian
refuge at the mid-point.
4. HAWK Signal alternative – This option retains the current cross section but
replaces the current beacons with a new system called HAWK (High Intensity
Activated Crosswalk) which provides for a full stop (red light) system.
5. Center Refuge w/ RRFB and Lane Reductions Alternative – This alternative
provides a pedestrian refuge at the midpoint by eliminating two lanes devoted to
Study Session.doc
J:\Agenda Review\Approved Agenda Items\2010\6-24-2010\Milwaukee Street
vehicular traffic on the street. The current incandescent beacon signals are
replaced with a new LED technology call Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
(RRFB) signals. The current four lane alignment on E. Milwaukee St. would be
realigned to a three lane alignment with a single travel lane in each direction,
bike lanes and a center two way turn lane (TWTL). The lane realignment would
be completed from Wright Rd to Highway 14.
Each of these will be discussed in more detail in the analysis section of this
memorandum.
Alternatives Analysis
:
Alternative 1, Do Nothing (no capital cost)
This alternative does not address many of the basic problems or concerns present at
this crossing point. The mid-block crossing presents an unexpected activity by
competing users (drivers and trail users) with significantly differing goals.
The typical driver on this section of street is generally on “auto-pilot.” There are no cues
suggesting danger may present itself and that speeds should be reduced. The traffic
data supports that speed is significant for the arterial.
The typical trail user is in a recreation mode. The conditions don’t suggest they will be
encountering an extremely busy crossing point.
The trail is primarily recreational in nature. Most of the trail activity occurs in favorable
weather. Trail crossing activity likely does not occur at a regular time of the day. The
vast majority of drivers encounter a crossing activity very sporadically. Because of the
required crossing time of the beacon there may be frequent instances of the beacon
warning light flashing but no trail users present.
Engineering staff has heard some members of the general public recommend that trail
users be required to cross at the E. Milwaukee/Wright Road intersection. Engineering
staff believes this to be an ineffective approach to solving a long-term issue. To force a
crossing will require fencing between the sidewalk and road, on both sides of the street.
This presents several negatives impacts and detracts from the trail’s intended function.
These conditions set up significant concerns about the use of signage and beacons
(passive controls) to warn drivers of crossing activities. This option presents the
greatest risk to drivers and trail users.
Alternative 2, Grade Separation ($720,000)
This alternative requires the greatest capital investment for the City and would cause
significant expenses for private utilities as well. The grade separation would be
Study Session.doc
J:\Agenda Review\Approved Agenda Items\2010\6-24-2010\Milwaukee Street
accomplished through the construction of an 8.5’ x 14’ tunnel crossing E. Milwaukee
Street. The trail would be realigned so that no crossing of E. Milwaukee would be
necessary. Appropriate accommodations will be made to insure normal stormwater
flows do not run through the tunnel.
This alternative resolves all of the problems identified. The SRTS grant was specified
for this project and reduces the cost to the City of Janesville by $235,000. The total
amount required to fund this project would be $485,000. This option presents the least
risk to drivers and trail users.
An overpass has been suggested. However, the contours, in combination with ADA
regulations make this unfeasible.
This alternative would require three to four months to complete during which time E.
Milwaukee St would be restricted to one lane in each direction.
Alternative 3, Widening Alternative ($165,000)
This alternative requires a lesser amount of capital investment than the grade
separation. The primary purpose of this alternative is to allow pedestrians to deal with
only one direction of traffic at a time. It is unlikely this configuration will have significant
effect in reducing the speed of traffic. This alternative will not prevent differing yielding
actions by drivers to pedestrians, but trail users would have an easier time dealing with
one direction of vehicular traffic at a time. Staff recommends maintaining various
warning devices surrounding the crossing point. Much of the discussion contained
about the warning devices in the Do Nothing Alternative apply to this alternative as well.
This alternative forces the roadway wider at the crossing point, thus encroaching on the
available space for the trail users. This will lessen drivers’ ability to see trail users prior
to their arrival in the crosswalk.
Some of the identified problems are solved but the issues of speed and visibility are not.
This alternative does help to signal to drivers of a change and does create a safer
pedestrian crossing.
This alternative presents a safer alternative to the Do Nothing but less than the Grade
Separation. The SRTS funding will not be available for this alternative.
With staging, this alternative could be completed while maintaining through traffic on E.
Milwaukee St during construction.
)
Alternative 4, HAWK Signal ($140,000
To increase pedestrian safety at school crossing locations, the City of Tucson, AZ
developed a traffic signal called the HAWK (High-intensity Activated crossWalk) and
began field installation in 2004. The HAWK uses traditional traffic and pedestrian signal
Study Session.doc
J:\Agenda Review\Approved Agenda Items\2010\6-24-2010\Milwaukee Street
heads but in a different configuration. It includes a sign instructing motorists to “stop on
red” and an overhead “pedestrians crossing” sign. There is also a sign informing
pedestrians on how to cross the street safely. The configuration is shown below.
(From Safe Routes to School Guide)
This technology has now been adopted by the MUTCD and is available to Janesville.
The advantage of this alternative is that the traffic would be directed to a complete halt.
The disadvantage is that the signal configuration is not like either normal signals, or
beacons. As such, there may me difficulty for Wisconsin drivers to adapt to their use.
The design guidance for HAWK’s recommends that they be considered when the
pedestrian crossings during the peak hour exceed 100. Recent trail user counts for the
Spring Brook Trail were well less than ½ that amount. Therefore, this crossing is not a
typical application of this technology.
This alternative could be completed while maintaining through traffic on E. Milwaukee St
during construction.
Center Refuge w/ RRFB and Lane Reductions)
Alternative 5, ($99,500
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) is a technology for which Janesville just
received federal approval for use this spring. It is a technology, developed on the east
Study Session.doc
J:\Agenda Review\Approved Agenda Items\2010\6-24-2010\Milwaukee Street
coast and Florida, which has significantly improve the visibility of beacons and resulted
in much higher compliance rates from drivers. Tests of this system found drivers
yielding 80 to 97% of the time compared to conventional beacons which had a yielding
rate of about 20%. The Federal Highway Administration has evaluated the tests
installations and reported the following:
The Office of Transportation Operations has reviewed the available data and
considers the RRFB to be highly successful 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
concerns. 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 concerns,
such as pedestrian and school crosswalks across uncontrolled approaches, as
tested in the experimentation.
The RRFB’s would be installed to mark a crossing which would include a raised curb
center island which would provide a refuge for pedestrians in the middle of the road.
When this treatment is combined with a three lane realignment of E. Milwaukee St, it
creates an environment where pedestrians only need to look for traffic coming from a
Study Session.doc
J:\Agenda Review\Approved Agenda Items\2010\6-24-2010\Milwaukee Street
single direction and a single lane at a time. When a pedestrian observes that an
approaching vehicle has come to a complete stop, he/she need not be concerned that
another vehicle could pass the stopped vehicle.
The three lane alignment would complement the scheduled roundabout at Wuthering
Hills Dr. No lane merging would be required within the Wright Rd. to Highway 14
corridor. This would reduce the possibility of side swipe crashes. This alternative could
be completed while maintaining through traffic on E. Milwaukee St during construction.
When considering this alternative it is important to determine that sufficient capacity is
afforded to vehicles on the arterial. Figure 5 is a table that provides a generalized
calculation of the capacity of a street corridor. A two-lane section in this area would
accommodate up to approximately 15,000 vpd at acceptable levels of service. This
calculation is valid for E. Milwaukee. With an average daily traffic (ADT) of 8,000 vpd, a
two-lane facility will provide levels of service in the B-C range. This is very good level of
operation in an urban setting. It appears a narrowing of the street should not negatively
impact traffic operation in a significant way. The City has a very good example of how
this alignment would function. Wright Rd north of E. Milwaukee St has the same number
of travel lanes while carrying similar traffic. Wright Rd. functions very well with this
alignment.
The following table summarizes the cost of the alternatives:
Alternative Comparisons
Alternative Total Cost Net Cost*
1. Do Nothing $0 $0
2. Grade Separation $720,000 $485,000
3. Widening $165,000 $165,000
4. HAWK Signals $140,000 $140,000
5. RRFB w/ Center Refuge and Lane Reductions $99,500 $99,500
* Net cost factors in the $235,000 SRTS grant from the State of Wisconsin.
Discussion of Grant
:
The grant being referenced for the grade separation alternative is an earmark included
in the State of Wisconsin biennial budget passed by the legislature and signed by the
Governor. The budget language was specific to the location and type of crossing. Any
modification of the language must be accomplished through legislative action. The City
has until 1/13/2012 to utilize the funding but can request an extension.
It does not appear likely that the funding will be available for a different project at this
location, or a different project at a different location without significant work through the
Wisconsin Legislature. The amount of the grant is $235,000.
Study Session.doc
J:\Agenda Review\Approved Agenda Items\2010\6-24-2010\Milwaukee Street
Study Session.doc
J:\Agenda Review\Approved Agenda Items\2010\6-24-2010\Milwaukee Street
Study Session.doc
J:\Agenda Review\Approved Agenda Items\2010\6-24-2010\Milwaukee Street
Study Session.doc
J:\Agenda Review\Approved Agenda Items\2010\6-24-2010\Milwaukee Street
MADISON
ADT 12000
-
SCHROEDER ROAD
Study Session.doc
J:\Agenda Review\Approved Agenda Items\2010\6-24-2010\Milwaukee Street