CTCDC Agenda December 6, 2016 Page 1 of 69 CALIFORNIA ... · 12/6/2016 · CTCDC Agenda December 6, 2016 Page 1 of 69 . CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES COMMITTEE (CTCDC) AGENDA

CTCDC Agenda December 6, 2016 Page 1 of 69

CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES COMMITTEE (CTCDC) AGENDA December 6, 2016 Meeting (9:00 A.M. to end)

LEGISLATIVE OFFICE BUILDING 1020 N St, Room 100

Sacramento, CA 95814

The Meeting is open and public/local agencies are invited to attend. For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Vijay Talada at (916) 653-1816, or email [email protected]. Electronic copies of this meeting Agenda and minutes of the previous meetings are available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/engineering/ctcdc/index.htm. Organization Items 1. Introduction

2. Membership

3. Approval of Minutes of the September 1, 2016 Meeting

4. Public Comments At this time, members of the public may comment on any item not appearing on the agenda. Matters presented under this item cannot be discussed or acted upon by the Committee at this time. For items appearing on the agenda, the public is invited to make comments at the time the item is considered by the Committee. Any person addressing the Committee will be limited to a maximum of five (5) minutes so that all interested parties have an opportunity to speak. When addressing the Committee, for the record please state your name, address, and business or organization you are representing.

5. Items under Experimentation 12-18 Request to experiment with Red Colored Transit-only Lanes (SFMTA)

SFMTA- Present Draft Evaluation report on Red Colored Transit-Only lanes

Agenda Items 6. Public Hearing

Prior to adopting rules and regulations prescribing uniform standards and specifications for all official traffic control devices placed pursuant to Section 21400 of the California Vehicle Code, the Department of Transportation is required to consult with local agencies and hold public hearings.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/engineering/ctcdc/index.htm


Consent Items (minor discussion with vote expected)

Agenda Item Description Submitted by: Lead Pages

16-27 Electric Vehicle Charging Station (EVCS) Signs and Markings Updates per 2016 California Building Code (CBC), Chapter 11B

Caltrans Tong 9-18

16-28 Change in CA MUTCD to reflect 6 inch edge line striping option

Caltrans Tong 19-24

16-29 Proposal to clarify “prevailing speed” in CA MUTCD Section 2C.06

Caltrans Tong 25-27

15-28 Draft Letter to the Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing from CTCDC

Caltrans Bahadori 28-33

Information Items (New items that may be voted on or brought back as an Action Item in a future meeting)

Agenda Item Description Submitted by: Lead Page

16-30 Proposed edits to CA MUTCD for Class IV Bikeway

Caltrans Tong 34-40

16-31 IA 17: Interim Approval for Optional Use of Three-Section Flashing Yellow Arrow Signal Faces

Caltrans Tong 41-44

16-32 IA 18: Interim Approval for Optional Use of Intersection Bicycle Box Caltrans Tong 45-49

Action Items (Continuing discussion from prior meetings with vote expected) Agenda Item Description Submitted by: Lead Page

15-15 Striping a space for bicycle use at locations with right-turn-only lanes

Caltrans Tong 50-55

16-11 Proposed Changes for the Shared Lane markings

Caltrans Tong 56-59

7. Request for Experimentation


16-24 Request to experiment with a new modified regulatory sign in the City of Laguna Beach

Caltrans Steven Sowers

60-63

16-33 Request to Experiment with non-standard striping at Express lanes

RCTC David Thomas

64-68


8. Discussion Items


16-34 CTCDC procedures on handling public requests on approved experiments.

CTCDC Committee Member

Sallaberry 69

9. Tabled Items

Agenda Item Description Submitted by: Lead

16-21 Proposal to modify SW 50 (CA) sign to create new “Senior” plaque

10. Next Meeting March 2, 2017 City of Palm Desert

11. Adjourn


5. Items under Experimentation Some reports are available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/engineering/ctcdc/status.htm

11-13 Experiment with a Sign “RECKLESS DRIVING PROHIBITED” (Winter) Status 9/23/2016: Experiment is complete and Final Report has been submitted. Experiment Results to be discussed at the March, 2017 CTCDC meeting http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/ctcdc/docs/Final-Report-Reckless-Driving-Signs.pdf Arnel G. Dulay, P.E., T.E. Head, Traffic Investigations II Section Traffic and Lighting Division (626) 300-4748; Dulay, Arnel [[email protected]]

11-19 Experiment with 2nd advance California Welcome Center Destination Sign (Tong) Status 10/3/2016: Experiment ongoing No Update at this time.

The experiment is ongoing and there is nothing new to share. Thank you, Laura Laura Newell Communications & Event Marketing Manager El Dorado Hills Chamber of Commerce (916) 933-1335 ext. 2# [email protected] eldoradohillschamber.org

12-9 Request to Experiment with Yellow LED Border on Pedestrian Signal (Tong)

Status: 11/9/16 – Additional locations are being pursued to install this device and collect additional data. Division of Research Innovation and System Information (DRISI) will make a formal request to the CTCDC and FHWA regarding expansion of the experiment. It is anticipated that this request to add more locations will be presented at the March 2017 CTCDC meeting.

The complete report is posted on the following website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/engineering/ctcdc/reports.htm

Rob Stinger, P.E. Chief - Traffic Engineering & Operations Caltrans District 2 530-225-3229 Nathan Loebs Transportation Engineer Electrical P.E. Division of Research Innovation and System Information 916-657-4722


http://eldoradohillschamber.org/

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/engineering/ctcdc/reports.htm


12-18 Request to experiment with Red Colored Transit-only Lanes (SFMTA) (Walter)

Status: SFMTA will present the draft evaluation report 12-19 Request to Experiment with Highlighted Shared Lane Markings (LA City) (Bahadori) Status: No new update. 12-21 Request to Experiment with In-Roadway Warning Lights (IRWL) System that would

supplement existing traffic signals along the Metro Gold Line (LA Metro) (Winter) Status: 7-28-15: Here is some background and current status information on the “In-Roadway

Warning Lights” (IRWLs).

8(09)-8(E)-Red In-Roadway Lights at LRT Grade Crossings-Los Angeles, CA (Reference# HOTO-1) The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), in cooperation with the City of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles, has received permission from the FHWA to conduct a demonstration of an In-Roadway Warning Light (IRWL) system that would supplement existing traffic signal indications at (10) intersections along the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension and (2) intersections along the Metro Blue Line. This non-standard traffic control system, which is composed of a series of LED lights embedded in the roadway is designed to increase the awareness of the street running light rail trains among motorists approaching the intersection. The IRWLs are intended to supplement (not substitute) the circular red signal indications being shown to the cross-street traffic and the red left turn arrow signal indications being shown to the traffic in the left-turn lanes on the roadway that is parallel to and on both sides of the LRT tracks. The added lights enhance warning indications for motorists when trains approach the intersections, deterring them from making illegal left turns and increasing compliance with red traffic signal indications. The system uses red in-roadway lights that steadily illuminate when LRT traffic is approaching or occupying the crossing. Installation of the IRWLs at the (12) grade crossings is now complete and the two-year monitoring period began on May 1, 2015. Progress reports will be submitted to the FHWA every 6 months and will include data collected at the trial and control locations. The approved Evaluation Plan analyzes traffic violations observed by photo enforcement and in-field observation. Collected data will be summarized and compared to data collected prior to the IRWL installation. A final report will be developed once the monitoring period is complete on April 30, 2017.

For more information, please contact Lia Yim, [email protected]

13-01 Request to Experiment with Green & Shared Roadway Bicycle Markings – Proposed by the City of Oakland (Patterson)

Status 9/30/2016: No new update



Jason Patton, PhD Bicycle & Pedestrian Program Manager Transportation Planning & Funding Division Department of Engineering & Construction City of Oakland | Public Works Agency | APWA Accredited Agency 250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 4344 | Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 238-7049 | (510) 238-7415 Fax [email protected]

13-02 Request to Experiment with Bike Boxes and Wide Bike Strip Stripe (Walter)

-Proposed by the City of Davis Status: (11/8/2016) City of Davis is in the process of drafting the final report Roxanne Namazi Senior Civil Engineer City of Davis Public Works 1717 Fifth Street Davis, CA 95616 (530) 757-5675 [email protected]

13-07 Request to Experiment with Bike Boxes (Greenwood) -Proposed by National City

Status: (11/10/2016) The experimentation is on-going. Data was collected and it is being reviewed/summarized. Leo Espelet, PE, TE [email protected] Kimley-Horn | 401 B Street, Suite 600, San Diego, CA www.kimley-horn.com

15-12 Evaluation of Traffic Calming in Treatments in Princeton, CA (Sallaberry)

Status: (5/26/16) 03-45-COL-Princeton Experimental Striping We have no new data to share. However, we are currently working with Caltrans to see if we can revise the geometry of the optical bars/chevrons to a much longer length, and using wider striping. The hope is the outer locations will have reduced speeds similar to the central area of town (re: previous update letter.) We don’t have definitive plans yet, but I’ll forward anything we come to agreement on before installation. Let me know if we would need to bring this to the Committee before making changes to the original layout. Status: (11/8/16) 03-45-COL-Princeton Experimental Striping We have completed our first modification of the chevron striping for the project in Princeton. We are currently waiting on updated vehicle speed data from Caltrans. Once that data is available, we will prepare a summary memorandum and provide that to the CTCDC.

Scott M. Lanphier, PE, CFM Director of Public Works+ 1215 Market Street



http://www.kimley-horn.com/


Colusa, CA 95932 530-458-0466 (p) 530-458-2035 (f) [email protected] www.countyofcolusa.org

15-25 Bike Boxes on State Route 131, Tiburon Blvd in the Town of Tiburon (Bryan Jones)

Status: 11/4/16 The project is under construction and will be completed in winter 2016. Observation data was collected for peak hour intersection operations by the Town’s consultant Parisi Transportation Consulting, prior to construction. After construction is complete the consultant will collect after data, provide progress reports every 6 months for the duration of the experiment for one year and will provide a copy of the final results within three months following the completion of the experiment. Sergio Ruiz Pedestrian & Bicycle Coordinator / Branch Chief Caltrans District 4 Tel: 510.622.5773

16-07 Request to experiment with modified signage and pavement markings requiring vehicles to stop behind light rail vehicles stopped to board or alight passengers (Mike Sallaberry) Status Date-10/20/2016 San Francisco plans to install the experimental loading zone markings at the five identified locations in February 2017. The original implementation timeline was delayed to allow for additional public outreach. The design of the experiment has been revised to incorporate the input of the CTCDC, including replacing the hashed markings on the ground with text. Pre-experiment baseline data collection is underway for driver compliance with the requirement to stop next to loading trains where there is no loading platform and will be completed before implementation

16-17 Request to experiment with bike boxes in the City of Cupertino (Mike Sallaberry) Status Date-10/5/2016 We have nothing to report at this meeting. Based on our RTE application, we will be collecting data 6 months after our project was approved, which would be sometime in February 2017. Thanks, David Stillman City of Cupertino

16-23 Request to experiment with Green backed sharrow in Goleta, CA (Bryan Jones)


http://www.countyofcolusa.org/


Status Date-10/4/2016 The experiment is ongoing and there is nothing new to share. The City is currently beginning the before condition observations and plan to install the experimental green-backed sharrows in the next several months. Thank you, Teresa Teresa Lopes, PE Senior Project Manager City of Goleta P (805) 961-7563 F (805) 685-2635 [email protected]

16-25 Request to experiment with through lane bicycle box, City of South Pasadena (Mike

Sallaberry)

Date-11/10/2016 City of South Pasadena Status is in the process of collecting the “Before” Data

Sam Zneimer, City of South Pasadena [email protected]



Item 16-27 Electric Vehicle Charging Station (EVCS) Signs and Markings Updates per 2016 California Building Code (CBC), Chapter 11B

6. Public Hearing

Consent Items (New items that are voted on with minimal discussion)


Recommendation: The following updates to the CA MUTCD, Revision 2 are requested for Electric Vehicle Charging Station (EVCS) signs and pavement markings, to be consistent with recent statutory changes made in the 2016 California Building Code, Chapter 11B:

A. Adopt proposed policy language edits, to include use of the International Symbol of Accessibility for the Handicapped (D9-6) sign with, or, without the VAN ACCESSIBLE (R7-8b) plaque, and supplemental pavement marking, as applicable, per Chapter 11B criteria, for EVCSs for public and common use.

B. Delete the 6-inch high font pavement marking option: “ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING ONLY,” as shown in Figure 3B-108(CA) (Sheet 2 of 2) and standardize the twelve-inch stencil font and legend: “EV CHARGING ONLY” as the standard surface marking detail specification.

Agency Marking Request/Sponsor: Duper Tong, Caltrans Committee Member Background: The California Division of the State Architect (DSA) updated its CBC Advisory Manual and the Expanded Table of Contents to include the provisions adopted by the California Building Standards Commission for the 2016 CBC triennial code adoption cycle on January 19th, 2016. The 2016 CBC is published on July 1, 2016, and becomes effective on January 1, 2017. The advisory manual includes the provisions adopted by DSA for access compliance, pertinent advisories developed by DSA and advisories from the US Department of Justice from the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. (reference: http://www.dgs.ca.gov/dsa/Programs/progAccess/accessmanual.aspx ) Details related to EVCS in this 1/19/2016 CBC update need to be amended in the CA MUTCD to be consistent with recent updates to the California Building Code 11B, specifically, Section 11B-228.3, including Table 11B-228.3.2.1; and Section 11B-812 (including 11B-812.1 through 11B-812.10.4, including FIGURE 11B-812.9 “SURFACE MARKING”), also, per Table 11B-228.3.2.1 “ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS FOR PUBLIC USE AND COMMON USE” (these updated sections, table and figure are attached). If used, signs and pavement markings shall meet the following policy language standards, and technical specifications: Section 2B.46 Parking, Standing, and Stopping Signs (R7 and R8 Series) Standard: 88 Identification signs and surface markings shall be placed for Van Accessible, Standard Accessible and Ambulatory electric vehicle charging stations, as required by Chapter 11B of the California Building Code. The International Symbol of Accessibility for the Handicapped (D9-6) sign in combination with the VAN ACCESSIBLE (R7-8b) subplaque shall be placed at Van Accessible electric vehicle charging stations, or, the D9-6 sign shall be placed at standard accessible electric vehicle charging stations (see CBC 11B-812.8; and, Section 3B.20 for surface markings).

http://www.dgs.ca.gov/dsa/Programs/progAccess/accessmanual.aspx



Signs:

* Subject to Interim Approval by FHWA, Issued 4/01/2011 “Alternate Electric Vehicle Charging General Service Symbol Sign” (IA-13). This has a California sign designation because it was adopted per Caltrans Traffic Operations Policy Directive #13-01, issued March 14, 2013, and is not included in CA MUTCD, except by reference in Table 1A-101(CA) Status of Interim Approvals Issued by FHWA in California. The standard word message version is in the CA MUTCD.

G66-21 (CA)

G66-21B (CA)*

These General Service signs guide road users to EV Charging Stations. No policy language currently exists for placement at the point of service. The word message sign was first developed as a General Service sign in California in the 1990’s. The symbol sign was introduced by FHWA in 2011, and is subject to Interim Approval IA-13. The FHWA has authorized all jurisdictions within California to utilize the symbol sign subject to the terms and conditions of IA-13.

The International Symbol of Accessibility for the Handicapped (D9-6) is proposed for this agenda item, since it meets the minimum requirements of CBC Chapter 11B and, it is not intended for posting at a parking space, and, will pertain to electric vehicle charging stations. There is no mention of “PARKING ONLY” nor “MINIMUM FINE $250” as is shown on the R99(CA), R99B(CA), or R99C(CA) signs used in California for accessible parking spaces. The minimum size per FHWA sign specification is 18” x 18”, however, smaller size panels are permitted “within Terminal Areas” which is interpreted as at point of service. Twelve inch square versions are commonly in use.

The VAN ACCESSIBLE (R7-8b) plaque in combination with the D9-6 sign will help identify a Van Accessible electric vehicle charging station.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/policy/13-01.pdf

http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/policy/13-01.pdf



Section 3B.20 Pavement Word, Symbol, and Arrow Markings Option: 38 Electric vehicle charging stations in off-street locations may be marked with white, twelve-inch high EV CHARGING ONLY, or ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING ONLY pavement markings (See Figure 3B-108(CA)) to supplement Electric Vehicle Charging Station signs in Ssections 2B.46 and 2I.03. Standard: 39 Each electric vehicle charging station designated for Van Accessible, Standard Accessible and Ambulatory electric vehicle charging stations shall be marked with a white, twelve-inch high EV CHARGING ONLY pavement marking (See Figure 3B-108(CA) to supplement signs, per CBC, Chapter 11B, Section 812.9, and Figure 11B-812.9). California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Figure 3B-108(CA), delete “(Sheet 1 of 2)” on Page 766, and delete entire page of Sheet 2 of 2 (attached, with annotations), Page 767. California Building Code, Chapter 11B background, attached, includes: Page 535, 597, 612-614 of 2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, CHAPTER 11B – ACCESSIBILITY TO PUBLIC BUILDINGS, PUBLIC ACCOMODATIONS, and COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND PUBLIC HOUSING
















Item 16-28 Proposal to change figures and text in Chapter 3 to reflect CTCDC item 16-14


Recommendation:

Change the figure and text shown below in the CA-MUTCD

Agency Making Request/Sponsor: Caltrans/ Duper Tong, voting member

Background:

As per Item 16-14 “Proposal to Use 6-inch Edge Lines” which was discussed in the June, 2016 CTCDC meeting, the committee had allowed Caltrans to use 6 inch edge line as state standard. The below proposal is being made to remove the potential conflict between state standard and CA MUTCD.

It is proposed to delete Section 3B.01 Paragraph 19 and Section 3B-06 Paragraph 08 and modify Figures 3A-105, 3A-106 and 3A-110(Sheet 1 and Sheet 2).

Note: Red text is newly proposed text. Struck-out blue text is to be deleted from the CA MUTCD. Proposal:

Change the following text and Figure in the CA MUTCD, Chapter 3B:

Section 3B.01 Yellow Center Line Pavement Markings and Warrants Standard:

14 Centerline patterns shall be selected from those shown in Figures 3A-101(CA) and 3A-104(CA). 15 Raised retroreflective pavement markers shall be used to supplement the centerline markings on State

highways, except in snow areas. Support:

16 On horizontal curves with radii less than 3280 feet and without street lighting, Detail 22 instead of Detail 21 can be helpful in improving the delineation for centerline markings as it includes retroreflective raised pavement markers. Detail 22 can be applied in advance of the approach to the curve per Table 2C-4 and continued throughout the length of the curve.

17 Refer to CVC 21460 for Double Lines. 18 Refer to CVC 21460.5 for Two-Way Left-Turn Lanes.

Standard: 19 A left edge line shall consist of a solid 4 inch wide yellow line, yellow reflective pavement markers or a

combination of line and markers as shown in Figure 3A-105(CA). Option:

20 Two normal solid yellow lines may be used as a left edge line on a divided roadway for more emphasis when motorists tend to use the shoulder for a through lane or where encroachments onto the shoulder occasionally occur. Support:

21 Left edge line patterns for median islands are shown in Figure 3A-107(CA). Standard:

22 When a passing lane is provided, a two-direction no passing marking (see Figure 3A-104(CA)) shall be used when the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) exceeds 3,000. See Figure 3B-106(CA). Option:

23 Passing in both directions may be provided by alternating the direction of the middle lane at about 1 mile intervals.



24 A one-direction no passing marking (see Figure 3A-103(CA)) with one or more YIELD TO UPHILL TRAFFIC (R55(CA)) signs may be used when the ADT is 3,000 or less.

Section 3B.06 Edge Line Pavement Markings Standard: 01 If used, edge line pavement markings shall delineate the right or left edges of a roadway. 02 Except for dotted edge line extensions (see Section 3B.08), edge line markings shall not be continued through intersections or major driveways. 03 If used on the roadways of divided highways or one-way streets, or on any ramp in the direction of travel, left edge line pavement markings shall consist of a normal solid yellow line to delineate the left-hand edge of a roadway or to indicate driving or passing restrictions left of these markings. 04 If used, right edge line pavement markings shall consist of a normal solid white line to delineate the right-hand edge of the roadway. Guidance: 05 Edge line markings should not be broken for minor driveways. Support: 06 Edge line markings have unique value as visual references to guide road users during adverse weather and visibility conditions. Option: 07 Wide solid edge line markings may be used for greater emphasis. Standard: 08 A right edge line shall consist of a solid 4 inch wide white line. Guidance: 09 The edge line should be placed 2 inch in from the edge of traveled way, approximately 12 feet from the lane line or centerline on highway mainlines, ramps, and connectors. See Figure 3A-106(CA). 10 Generally, the solid edge line should be dropped at the beginning of intersection flares. Option: 11 In heavy fog areas, or locations where additional guidance would be beneficial, a dotted 4 inch wide white right edge line may be continued across an intersection. Support: 12 Edge line is not used at turnouts. See Figure 3B-107(CA). Standard: 13 Exit and entrance ramps, including freeway connectors, shall be marked with a yellow edge line supplemented with yellow reflective pavement markers on the left and a white edge line on the right. See Figure 3A-105(CA).










Item 16-29 Prevailing speed in CA MUTCD Section 2C.06


Recommendation:

Include the text shown below in the CA-MUTCD


Background:

Practitioners are using Table 2C.05 to determine the signage required at curves. Table 2C.05 refers to Section 2C.06 for the type of speed to be used in calculating the speed differential

In Section 2C.06- Horizontal Alignment warning signs, it is stated that “….horizontal alignment warning signs shall be used in accordance with Table 2C-5 based on the speed differential between the roadway’s posted or statutory speed limit or 85th-percentile speed, whichever is higher, or the prevailing speed on the approach to the curve, and the horizontal curve’s advisory speed.” California Vehicle Code 627 indicates that prevailing speeds are determined by “traffic engineering measurements” The 85th percentile speeds are not available for a significant amount of curves on the roadway system and it is very resource extensive to collect the 85th percentile speeds at every curve. For a system of curves on the roadway, using statutory speed to determine speed differential for Table 2C-5, will yield an unrealistically high speed differential and may lead to the installation of excessive and unwarranted amount of signs. Engineers would like to use the “prevailing speed” and there is a need for the clarification of “Prevailing Speed” on the approach to a curve in Section 2C.06. It is proposed that engineers be allowed to use the Approach speed (Estimated and Observed) which is used in Figure 2C.101 (CA) in lieu of the prevailing speed.





It is proposed to make changes to the California MUTCD to reflect that Approach speed (Estimated and Observed) may be used in lieu of prevailing speed.

Proposal: Add the following text in the CA MUTCD, Section 2C.06:

Section 2C.06 Horizontal Alignment Warning Signs Support: 01 A variety of horizontal alignment warning signs (see Figure 2C-1), pavement markings (see Chapter 3B), and delineation (see Chapter 3F) can be used to advise motorists of a change in the roadway alignment. Uniform application of these traffic control devices with respect to the amount of change in the roadway alignment conveys a consistent message establishing driver expectancy and promoting effective roadway operations. The design and application of horizontal alignment warning signs to meet those requirements are addressed in Sections 2C.06 through 2C.15. Standard: 02 In advance of horizontal curves on freeways, on expressways, and on roadways with more than 1,000 AADT that are functionally classified as arterials or collectors, horizontal alignment warning signs shall be used in accordance with Table 2C-5 based on the speed differential between the roadway’s posted or statutory speed limit or 85th-percentile speed, whichever is higher, or the prevailing speed on the approach to the curve, and the horizontal curve’s advisory speed. Option: 03 Horizontal Alignment Warning signs may also be used on other roadways or on arterial and collector roadways with less than 1,000 AADT based on engineering judgment.

04 Approach speed (Estimated and Observed) may be used in lieu of prevailing speed.


Item 15-28 Draft Letter to the Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing from CTCDC


Agency Making Request/Sponsor: Caltrans/ Hamid Bahadori

Background

Senate Bill 632 proposed legislation that raised engineering issues that were beyond the expertise of the Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing. The CTCDC has been requested to review and examine these issues and report back in 2016. A CTCDC sub-committee was formed to examine these issues and in June 30, 2016, the recommendations of the subcommittee were approved by the CTCDC members. In the September 1, 2016 CTCDC meeting, Committee Members had requested a status report on the letter to the Senate Transportation Committee replying to their request for a CTCDC recommendation for school zones. The Draft Letter is being provided to the CTCDC members for their review and comments.












Item 16-30 Proposed edits to CA MUTCD for Class IV Bikeway

Information Items (New items that may be voted on or brought back as an Action Item in a future meeting) Item 16-30 Proposed edits to CA MUTCD for Class IV Bikeway Recommendation: Recommendation to include the text shown below in the CA MUTCD.

Agency Making Request/Sponsor: Caltrans/ Duper Tong, voting member Background:

Design Information Bulletin 89 was published by the California Department of Transportation to provide design criteria for separated bikeways. These bikeways are categorized as Class IV Bikeways. There is a need for providing the definition of Class IV Bikeways (i.e., separated bikeways), in addition to traffic control devices appropriate to separated bikeways. The following changes are being proposed, which provide fundamental Standards, Options, Guidance and Support for separated bikeways. This proposal signifies the first step in ensuring that the CA MUTCD provides sufficient information related to separated bikeway traffic control devices. The intent is that additions will be made to CA MUTCD Part 9 to provide comprehensive guidance and support on separated bikeways. This proposal aims to be consistent with DIB 89.

Note: Red text is newly proposed text. Struck-out blue text is to be deleted from the CA MUTCD. Proposal:

Change the following text in the CA MUTCD, Chapter 1A:

Section 1A.13 Definitions of Headings, Words, and Phrases in this Manual 31b. Class I Bikeway (such as a Bike Path or a Shared-Use Path) – Provides a completely separated right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflows by motorists minimized. Refer California Streets and Highways Code Section 890.4. Refer to Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual Index 1003.1 for design criteria. 31c. Class II Bikeway (such as a Bike Lane) – Provides a restricted right-of-way designated for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and crossflows by pedestrians and motorists permitted. Refer to California Streets and Highways Code Section 890.4. Refer to Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual Index 1003.2 for design criteria. 31d. Class III Bikeway (such as a Bike Route) – provide a right-of-way designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians or motorists. Refer to California Streets and Highways Code Section 890.4. Refer to Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual Index 1003.3 for design criteria. 31e. Class IV Bikeway (such as cycle tracks or separated bikeways) – provide a right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to a roadway and which are separated from vehicular traffic. Refer to California Streets and Highways Code Section 890.4. Refer to Caltrans’ Design Information Bulletin Number 89 for design criteria. 31e f. Contraflow Bicycle Lane – A contraflow bicycle lane is an area of the roadway designated to allow for the lawful use by bicyclists to travel in the opposite direction from vehicular traffic on a roadway that allows vehicular traffic to travel in only one direction.



Section 9A.02 Scope Support:

01 Part 9 covers signs, pavement markings, and highway traffic signals specifically related to bicycle operation on both roadways and shared-use paths. Guidance:

02 Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 should be reviewed for general provisions, signs, pavement markings, and signals. 02a Bicycle facilities should be planned and designed in the context of a bicycle network.

Standard: 03 The absence of a marked bicycle lane or any of the other traffic control devices discussed in this

Chapter on a particular roadway shall not be construed to mean that bicyclists are not permitted to travel on that roadway.

Section 9A.04 Maintenance

Guidance: 01 All signs, signals, and markings, including those on bicycle facilities, should be properly maintained to

command respect from both the motorist and the bicyclist. When installing signs and markings on bicycle facilities, an agency should be designated to maintain these devices.

02 Separated bikeways should be accessible to street maintenance equipment (e.g., street sweeping, snow removal).

Section 9A.05 Relation to Other Documents

Support: 01 “The Uniform Vehicle Code and Model Traffic Ordinance” published by the National Committee on

Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances and California Vehicle Code (see Section 1A.11) has provisions for bicycles and is the basis for the traffic control devices included in this Manual.

01a Refer to California Streets and Highway Code Section 890.4 for definition of “Bikeways”. 02 Informational documents used during the development of the signing and marking recommendations in

Part 9 include the following: A. “Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities,” which is available from the American Association of

State Highway and Transportation Officials (see Page i for the address); and B. State and local government design guides; C. “Highway Design Manual” (Caltrans).; D. “Complete Intersections: A Guide to Reconstructing Intersections and Interchanges for Bicyclists and Pedestrians"

(Caltrans) .; E. “Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide,” which is available from the Federal Highway Administration (see

Page i for the address); and F. NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide and Urban Street Design Guide (see Page i for the addresses).

03 Other publications that relate to the application of traffic control devices in general are listed in Section 1A.11.

Section 9A.06 Placement Authority

J. Section 890.4 – Definitions of Class I, II, and III, and IV bikeways.



Section 9B.04 Bike Lane Signs and Plaques (R3-17, R3-17aP, R3-17bP)

Standard:

03 The Bike Lane (R81(CA)) sign shall be placed at the beginning of each designated Bike Lane and along each Bike Lane at all major changes in direction. The R81(CA) sign shall be used to regulate bicycle and motor vehicle traffic, in accordance with CVC Sections 21207, 21207.5, 21208, 21209 and 21717.

Guidance: 04 The R81(CA) sign should be placed at every arterial street and at 1/2 mile intervals of each designated Bike lane or designed separated bikeway.

Option: 05 The BEGIN (R81A(CA)) and END (R81B(CA)) signs may be used below the R81(CA) sign to mark the beginning or end of a bike lane or separated bikeway. 05a The R81(CA) sign with alternate text “CYCLE TRACK” may be placed at the beginning of each designated separated bikeway and along each separated bikeway at all major changes in direction.

Support: 06 The R81(CA), R81A(CA) and R81B(CA) signs are shown in Figure 9B-2(CA).

Section 9B.12 Shared-Use Path Restriction Sign (R9-7) Option:

01 The Shared-Use Path Restriction (R9-7) sign (see Figure 9B-2) may be installed to supplement a solid white pavement marking line (see Section 9C.03) on facilities that are to be shared by pedestrians and bicyclists in order to provide a separate designated pavement area for each mode of travel. The symbols may be switched as appropriate.

01a The Shared-Use Path Restriction (R9-7) sign may be used for locations with sidewalk level separated bikeways to further communicate the appropriate use of each space. The symbols may be switched as appropriate.

Guidance: 02 If two-way operation is permitted on the facility for pedestrians and/or bicyclists, the designated pavement

area that is provided for each two-way mode of travel should be wide enough to accommodate both directions of travel for that mode.

Section 9C.102 (CA) Class IV Bikeways

Support 01 Refer FHWA “Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide” for detailed information on each of these

considerations. Guidance:

02 The process of planning for separated bikeways should consider safety effects for existing and potential users, design flexibility, roadway capacity effects, loading and unloading, accessibility, parking, stakeholder support, and social equity.

03 On streets with operating speeds above 25 mph and volumes above 6,000 vehicles per day, or where conflicts with motor vehicles are common, separated bikeways (or a shared use path) should be considered.

04 Separated bikeways may be designed for one-way or two-way operation and may be constructed at street level, sidewalk level or at an intermediate level between the street and the sidewalk.



Standard: 05 Vertical separation and longitudinal pavement markings (i.e. buffer) shall be used to define separated

bikeways. Support:

06 Vertical elements in the buffer area are critical to separated bikeway design. Forms of vertical separation include, but are not limited to, grade separation, flexible delineator posts, inflexible physical barriers, landscaping or on-street parking. See Figure 9C.107 (CA). See DIB 89 for more information. Standard:

07 Where separated bikeways are of sufficient width to designate two-way travel, a solid yellow line shall be used to separate the two directions of travel where passing is not permitted, and a broken yellow line shall be used where passing is permitted (see Figure 9C-107(CA)). See Section 9C.03 for marking patterns.

Option 08 A through separated bikeway may be positioned to the right of a right turn only lane or to the left of a left turn only

lane, if bicycle traffic is controlled by bicycle signal. See Section 4D.104 for optional use of Bicycle Signal Faces. Standard:

09 The Bike Symbol pavement markings (Figure 9C-3 Option A) shall be placed on the far side of each intersection. Option:

10 The DO NOT ENTER (R5-1) sign with the supplemental EXCEPT Bicycle plaque (R118(CA)) may be used on two-way separated bikeways to reduce the likelihood of accidental entrance by motor vehicles.

Buffer Standard:

11 A buffer area between the separated bikeway and general-purpose lane and parking lane (if present) shall be delineated.

12 The buffer area shall be delineated by normal white longitudinal pavement markings. See Section 9C.04 “Buffered Bicycle Lanes” for buffer striping details. Support: 13 The buffer area width includes the width of the parallel white lines. 14 See DIB 89 for Buffer area width requirements.

Unobstructed passage

Standard 15 If vehicle parking or loading zones are provided on a roadway alongside a separated bikeway, then

unobstructed access to accessible parking spaces and loading zones shall be maintained.



Proposed Figures






Item 16-31 IA 17: Interim Approval for Optional Use of Three-Section Flashing Yellow Arrow Signal Faces


Recommendation:

Request CTCDC to review and provide recommendation on IA 17

Agency Making Request/Sponsor: Caltrans/ Duper Tong, voting member Interim Approval for Optional Use of Three-Section Flashing Yellow Arrow Signal Faces was issued by FHWA in August 12, 2014. This Interim Approval is pending CTCDC recommendation. The below flowchart shows the process for the use of Traffic Control Devices in California which have Interim Approval by FHWA.








Item 16-32 IA 18: Interim Approval for Optional Use of an Intersection Bicycle Box


Recommendation:

Request CTCDC to review and provide recommendation on IA 18

Agency Making Request/Sponsor: Caltrans/ Duper Tong, voting member Interim Approval for Optional Use of an Intersection Bicycle Box was issued by FHWA in October 12, 2016. This Interim Approval is pending CTCDC recommendation. The below flowchart shows the process for the use of Traffic Control Devices in California which have Interim Approval by FHWA.










Item 16-11 Proposed Changes for the Shared Lane Markings Section 9C.07

Action Items Item 15-15 Striping a space for bicycle use at locations with right-turn-only lanes

Recommendation:

Request to make a recommendation to include the figures and text shown below in the CA MUTCD.


Background:

As per the Highway Design Manual (HDM), Section 403.6:

“Locations with right-turn-only lanes should provide a minimum 4-foot width for bicycle use between the right-turn and through lane when bikes are permitted, except where posted speed is greater than 40 mph, the minimum width should be 6 feet.”

Caltrans implemented this advisory standard which applies even if there is no bike lane (Class II) present. However, this same provision in the CA MUTCD is written in the context of applying only when there is a bike lane (Class II). It is recommended that the CA MUTCD allow as an optional provision, the space for bike use between the right-turn lane and the through lane when no bike lane facility exists. Four foot width continues to be the stated bike use width, except when the posted speed is greater than 40 MPH, the minimum width should be 6 feet.

Varying striping is recommended depending on the speed: where the posted speed is greater than 40 miles per hour (mph) and for the case when the speed is less than 40 mph. When the posted speed is greater than 40mph, it is recommended that a buffer be added to the bicycle lane.



Proposal:



Add the following in the CA MUTCD, Chapter 9C.04:

Section 9C.04 Markings for Bicycle Lanes Bicycle Lane Treatment at Right Turn Only Lanes Guidance:

26 A dashed line across the right-turn-only lane should not be used on extremely long lanes, or where there are double right-turn-only lanes. For these types of intersections, all striping should be dropped to permit judgment by the bicyclists to prevail. Option:

27 A Bicycle Crossing (W11-1) sign may be used to warn road users of the potential for bicyclists crossing their path. See Section 9B.18.

28 When a bike lane approaches an intersection or ramp intersection that intersects the local facility at or close to 90° (typical of a compact or spread diamond configuration), then Figures 9C-4, 9C-4(CA) and 9C-5 may be the appropriate method of getting bike lanes through the interchange. Guidance:

29 However, when a bike lane approaches one or more ramp intersections that intersect the local facility at various angles other than 90° (typically high-speed, skewed ramps), Figure 9C-103(CA) should be used.

29a Locations with right-turn-only lanes where Class II bicycle facilities do not exist on the approach, but bicycles are permitted, a minimum 4-foot wide space for bicycle use should be provided between the right-turn and through lane. Where posted speeds are 40 miles per hour or greater, the minimum width for this space for bicycle use should be 6 feet or greater.

29b Where posted speeds are 40 miles per hour or greater, the space for bicycle use should include a buffer area to create separation from the through lane.

Support: 29c Refer to Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual, Section 403.6.

Option: 29d Local agencies may use this configuration on their roadways if deemed appropriate by the engineer.

Standard: 29e If used, the space for bicycle use shall be delineated by Detail 39 on the right of the through lane

and Detail 38A on the left of the right-turn-only lane. Support:

29f Refer to Figure 9C-4(CA) for details on striping and Figure 9C-104 (CA) for details on buffer area striping.

Proposed Figures









Item 16-11 Proposed Changes for the Shared Lane Markings Section 9C.07 Recommendation: Request the committee to recommend to include in the CA MUTCD, amendments to Section 9C.07 Shared Lane Markings

Agency Making Request/Sponsor: Rachel Carpenter, Caltrans, Chief, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Branch, Bryan Jones, Mike Sallaberry Active Transportation voting members

Note: Red text is newly proposed text. Struck-out blue text is to be deleted from the CA MUTCD.

Background This item was developed based on the NCUTCD proposal (16B-BIK-01) and the below text has been quoted from the proposal. The Shared Lane Marking was introduced in the 2009 Manual. Since then, the marking has been installed on many roadways throughout the United States and many cities within the State of California. Current Guidance recommends the marking be placed at least 11 feet from the face of curb or pavement edge on roadways with on-street parallel parking and 4 feet from face of curb or pavement edge on roadways without parking. As noted in Chapter 14 of the ITE Traffic Control Devices Handbook, 2nd Edition, the 11 feet was determined from an experimental study in San Francisco consisting of vehicle width and open door extent (9.5 feet), space from the curb or pavement edge (1 foot), clearance between bicycle handlebar (0.5 feet) and distance to center of bicycle (1 foot). Since 2009, experience has shown that:

• There is not enough guidance provided for uniform implementation of the Shared Lane Marking.

• Some implementation practices result in increased maintenance of Shared Lane Markings. • The combination of vehicle width and door extent, space from the curb or edge of

pavement to the parked vehicle, and shy distance to a bicycle in many cases totals more than 11 feet.

• At typical bicyclist speeds, the clearance distance of 0.5 feet from bicycle handlebar to open car door may be too close to avoid startling the bicyclist, resulting in an unintentional evasive maneuver or swerve to avoid an open car door.

• The California Vehicle Code notes that bicyclists in a narrow lane may legally occupy the

full lane to discourage unsafe close passing by motor vehicles, or to avoid hazardous conditions along the lane edge or when traveling at the same speed as other vehicles in that lane. Also, the 2009 Manual introduced an Option to use the Bicycle May Use Full Lane sign (R4-11) in addition to or instead of the Shared Lane Marking. If the Shared Lane Marking is used with the R4-11, the recommended offsets of 11 feet and 4 feet could place the marking at the right edge of a narrow lane. This placement at the edge of the travel lane conflicts with the intended meaning of using the full lane as conveyed by the R4-11 sign.



The NCUTCD will vote by November 18, 2016 on some of the recommendations below. FHWA may or may not take the recommendation and incorporate into the National MUTCD. However, since the Shared Lane Marking has been used extensively in California and there is an identified need for more clarification and guidance of its uniform use, the following recommended changes to the CA MUTCD are presented.

Proposal: Section 9C.07 Shared Lane Marking

Option: 01 The Shared Lane Marking shown in Figure 9C-9 may be used to: A. Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in a shared lane with on-street parallel parking in order

to reduce the chance of a bicyclist’s impacting the open door of a parked vehicle, B. Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in lanes that are too narrow for a motor vehicle and a

bicycle to travel side by side within the same traffic lane, C. Alert road users of the lateral location bicyclists are likely to occupy within the traveled way, D. Encourage safe passing of bicyclists by motorists, and E. Reduce the incidence of wrong-way bicycling. F. Shared Lane Markings may be used within a traffic circle or roundabout intersection. G. Shared Lane Markings may be used to navigate a residential street network that is identified as a Class III

bicycle facility. Guidance:

02 Except as provided in Paragraph 02a, tThe Shared Lane Marking should not be placed on roadways that have a speed limit above 35 mph. Option:

02a The Shared Lane Marking may be placed on roadways that have a speed limit above 35 mph, where there is bicycle travel and there is no marked bicycle lane and the right-hand traffic lane is too narrow to allow motor vehicles to safely pass bicyclists. Standard:

03 Shared Lane Markings shall not be used on shoulders or in designated bicycle lanes. Lateral Positioning Guidance: 04 If used in a shared lane with on-street parallel parking, Shared Lane Markings should be placed so that the centers of the markings are at least 11 12 feet from the face of the curb or edge line, or from the edge of the pavement where there is no curb or edge line. 05 If used on a street without on-street parallel parking that has an outside travel lane that is less than 14 feet wide, the centers of the Shared Lane Marking should be centered in the travel lane or at least 4 feet from the face of the curb or edge line, or from the edge of the pavement where there is no curb or edge line.

Support: 05b Where parallel parking is present, the effective lane width for determining whether passing within the lane is

to be facilitated is the physical lane width minus 10 feet, representing the width of the parked vehicle and the door opening zone between the vehicle and the bicyclist.



05c When a shared lane is sufficiently wide that motor vehicles can pass bicyclists within the lane with adequate clearance, the purpose of the Shared Lane Marking is to indicate a bicyclist line of travel that facilitates passing while avoiding edge hazards such as debris and the gutter joint. When a shared lane is not wide enough to enable passing with adequate clearance, the purpose of the marking is to indicate a bicyclist line of travel that deters passing.

05d Refer Table 9C-1(CA) for placement of Shared Lane Markings based on parking and effective lane width.

Spacing Guidance:

06 If used, the Shared Lane Marking should be placed immediately after an intersection and spaced at intervals not greater than 250 feet thereafter.

06a Closer spacing between Shared Lane Markings should be considered approaching, traversing, and departing intersections, where there is higher potential for conflicts between motorists and bicyclists. See Figure 9C-108(CA).

06b Closer spacing between Shared Lane Markings should be considered where there are sight distance constraints, for example, approaching the crest of a vertical curve.

06c Closer spacing between Shared Lane Markings should be considered to guide bicyclists through conflict areas that require turning, such as an angled railroad or streetcar track crossing.

Option:

07 Section 9B.06 describes a Bicycles May Use Full Lane sign that may be used in addition to or instead of the Shared Lane Marking to inform road users that bicyclists might occupy the travel lane. 07b If the Bicycles May Use Full Lane sign (R4-11) is used as an addition to Shared Lane Marking, the marking may be placed so that the centers of the markings are in the approximate center of the travel lane.

Proposed table

Table 9C-1(CA). Placement of Shared Lane Markings based on parking and effective lane width

No Parking Parallel Parking

Lane Width (W) < 14’ ≥ 14’ < 24’ ≥ 24’

Effective Lane Width W W W-10 W-10

Center of Shared Lane Marking Centered in lane

Minimum 4’ from curb or

edge

Centered in the effective lane, i.e.

between the lane line or centerline and 10’

from curb or edge

Minimum 12’ from curb or

edge



Proposed Figure


Item 16-24 Request to experiment with a new modified regulatory sign in the City of Laguna Beach

7. Request for Experimentation


Recommendation: Grant approval to experiment with a new modified regulatory sign in the City of

Laguna Beach Requesting Agencies/Sponsor: Caltrans District 12/Duper Tong, Voting Member

Background This is to modify a previous request for consideration by the California Traffic Control Device Committee (CTCDC) to approve an experimental regulatory sign to convey a safety and operational improvement message to motorists. Our experimental sign proposal is shown as attachment Exhibit A. Notably, FHWA is likely to propose this sign as a standard or option for pedestrian hybrid beacons at the next notice of rulemaking. It contains no symbol thereby making it subject to CTCDC approval only (no FHWA approval required) and it is not found in the 2014 CA MUTCD. The purpose of these signs is to improve safety, driver compliance and enhance traffic operations by reducing delay while pedestrians are present at a High intensity Activated crossWalK (HAWK) pedestrian beacon signal (aka, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon) on heavily congested State Route 133, Laguna Canyon Road (PM 1.5), in Laguna Beach, California. 1. PROBLEM STATEMENT

Caltrans (District 12) in Orange County received several complaints from the public claiming motorists are confused by the alternating flashing red lights’ sequence at the mid-block HAWK pedestrian hybrid beacon. The HAWK was installed in mid-October 2014 at the Laguna College of Arts and Design (LCAD) on Laguna Canyon Road. The crosswalk is mostly used by students and administrators to reach campus facilities across the street. There had been a pedestrian fatal accident at this heavy traffic location some months before the HAWK signal installation. The HAWK is an incremental safety improvement to the crosswalk.

Field observations indicate some drivers may be confused by the flashing red sequence. Some drivers stop for the entire cycle and wait until the signal is no longer illuminated before proceeding. This behavior is accompanied by blaring of horns and unnecessary traffic queuing in both directions. We observed one driver pull out and bypass the queue using the center two way left turn lane – an extremely high risk behavior.



2. PROPOSED SOLUTION

District Operations would like to install two special signs, one in each direction on the mast arm to inform the motorist(s) to stop and proceed when clear on flashing red signals. Below is the proposed experimental sign.



3. OBJECTIVE

The objective of this proposal is to determine the effectiveness of the proposed sign message on driver compliance. If the sign message is successful in delay mitigation at the HAWK signal, additional HAWK installations are likely to use it. Anecdotal reports say the HAWK reduced everyday traffic collisions and near misses by 90%. Assuming this is true, the HAWK safety benefits are superb. If these signs convey the message effectively, the HAWK would improve traffic throughput and reduce delay. If a reasonable trial period shows positive results, Caltrans and possibly FHWA could adopt this message as a standard or optional sign for use with pedestrian hybrid beacons.

4. PROPOSED EXPERIMENTAL PERIOD SCHEDULE

• Pre-Installation Evaluation……….. 3 month observation period • Installation…………………………upon approval • Experimental Period……………… 6 months after installation • Evaluation of Results……………... 3 months after trial period

Thank you for your consideration of this request. District 12 is looking forward to a positive response from the CTCDC. Should you have further questions or comments, please call me at (949) 724-2774 or (949) 697-7783 mobile. Sincerely, Steven Sowers, PE, PMP Caltrans District 12 Branch Chief Operations Southwest Attachments:

EXHIBIT A (with size and dimensions)



EXHIBIT A


Item 16-33 Proposal for experimental use of non-standard striping detail at express lanes


Recommendation: Grant approval to experiment with a non-standard striping detail: (1) Non-standard striping detail – 4” white skip stripe next to 4” white solid stripe (2) New striping detail – 4” double white solid stripe

Requesting Agencies/Sponsor: Riverside County Transportation Commission/Duper Tong, Voting Member

The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) requests approval to conduct an experiment using modified Express Lane striping as a non-standard/new traffic control device to determine its effectiveness in improving operations and safety in the ingress and egress areas of an express lane system. BACKGROUND The 91 Express Lanes (“Express Lanes”) consists of a 10-mile long priced managed lane facility located in the median of State Route 91 in Orange County, California. The lanes currently begin at the junction of State Routes 91 and 55 and terminate at the Orange/Riverside county line. This facility has been in operation since 1995. RCTC is working to extend the lanes another eight miles to the junction of State Route 91 and Interstate 15. This extension is expected to open to traffic in the spring of 2017. As part of the extension project, an intermediate egress from and ingress to the Express Lanes will be constructed at the county line. RCTC requests approval to conduct an experiment to install a non-standard and new striping detail at the intermediate egress supplemented by appropriate signage at the transition zone (ingress/egress) location to enhance the effectiveness in improving operations and safety for motorists entering/exiting the area where the Express Lanes and the general purpose lanes converge. The experimental striping details would only be used at the intermediate access locations. PROBLEM STATEMENT The ingress and egress location is 1.5 miles long in the eastbound direction and 1.25 miles long in the westbound direction. It contains three segments. The first segment is the 0.5 mile egress segment. Following the egress segment is a 0.5 mile chevron striped buffer segment. This would be followed by the ingress segment.



RCTC anticipates non-Express Lane traffic from the general purpose lanes attempting to enter the egress segment during heavy congestion periods and continue downstream to the ingress segment to re-enter the general purpose lanes, thereby queue jumping, which would impact toll traffic entering/exiting the Express Lanes. Additional safety concerns with vehicles entering the egress segment occur if a motorist attempts to use the egress segment as an entrance to the Express Lanes. Vehicles entering the egress lane would merge from the general purpose lane into the egress lane then merge over once again into the Express Lane. Merging into higher speed Express Lane traffic within the egress section creates added safety concerns. Per the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (“SWITRS”) data, total collisions for 2012, 2013, 2014 for July through December at Green River Road is shown below:

Westbound direction: • 62 collisions – 7/01/2014 - 12/31/2014 • 25 collisions – 7/01/2013 - 12/31/2013 • 39 collisions – 7/01/2012 - 12/31/2012

Eastbound direction: • 64 collisions – 7/01/2014 - 12/31/2014 • 49 collisions – 7/01/2013 - 12/31/2013 • 40 collisions – 7/01/2012 - 12/31/2012

The SWITRS data collected indicates the majority of the collisions within the project limits were cited for unsafe speed with the resulting collision type classified as “Rear End”. The combination of unsafe speed, unnecessary weaving, queue jumping, as well as confusion to motorist, especially non-local residents or frequent commuters, may increase rear end collisions in the area. PROPOSED SOLUTION The proposed ingress/egress transition area contains three segments (Figure 1). The first segment is the 3,920 feet egress section bounded on the right by the non-standard striping detail – 4-inch white skip stripe next to 4-inch white solid stripe. The egress section is bounded on the left by the new striping detail – 4-inch double white solid stripe. Following the egress segment is a 0.5 mile buffer segment comprised of 8-inch double white solid striping and chevron markings. This is followed by a 0.5 mile ingress opening section that will transition to a 1,600 feet ingress lane drop bounded on the left by the new striping detail – 4-inch double white solid stripe. The proposed egress segment followed by the buffer segment will not only deter vehicles from utilizing these segments to queue jump, but will also avoid further confusion for motorist that may enter the egress segment envisioning they would be able to access the Express Lanes since they would encounter the buffer segment. This would improve operations in this egress segment as well as help prevent unnecessary weaving and turbulence. In addition, safety benefits may include a reduction in collisions in the area especially rear end as well provide clearer path/delineation to motorists.



The experimental striping details further enhance the egress only condition by signifying that an allowable movement across this stripe can only be in the egress direction. The 4-inch double white stripe along the left side further enhances this egress movement into the general purpose lanes. Based on discussions with Captain Kevin Porter of the California Highway Patrol (“CHP”) Inland Division and his conversations with his staff, CHP believes that the experimental striping is enforceable. Furthermore, CHP has requested the black on white “ILLEGAL TO CROSS DOUBLE WHITE LINES” sign to further emphasize this movement is illegal. OBJECTIVE The objective of the test will be to determine the effectiveness of the experimental striping supplemented by appropriate signage within the egress segment in improving operations and safety for motorist exiting and entering the Express Lanes. The signing and striping concept plan is included as Figure 1. WORK PLAN The intermediate access zone striping will be installed as an integral part of the SR-91 CIP Express Lanes that are currently under construction. Intermediate access zone striping at proposed access locations will be installed with these treatments designed specifically for the locations under consideration. Effectiveness and acceptance will be measured in accordance with the time period and evaluation procedures shown below. EXPERIMENT SCHEDULE

• Pre-Installation Evaluation - N/A • Installation - February 2017 • Experimental Period - February 2017 – May 2017 • Evaluation of Results - July 2017

EVALUATION PROCEDURES RCTC requests that the CTCDC approve the preliminary evaluation plan outlined below. Other criteria and procedures may evolve during the evaluation period. These additional ways of evaluating the use of the buffer area striping and any changes in procedures added to the assessment criteria will be discussed in the scheduled reports submitted to the project sponsor and the CTCDC. 1) Installation Documentation – to be prepared by RCTC personnel. 2) Maintenance Recording – to be performed throughout the life of the experimentation period. A

separate maintenance log sheet will be created for each site. Periodic inspections will be performed and logged by RCTC personnel or contractors.

3) Observations will be conducted to determine the effectiveness of the operation. Video and photographs may be used to help document the operation and for reporting to Caltrans, and other interested public agencies. Measures of effectiveness and acceptance before, during and after the testing period may include, but are not limited to, the following actions:



• Compare the total number of accidents to the average accident rates; • Evaluate vehicular conflicts in the weave zone; • Evaluate driver behaviors in the weave area; • Compare travel or operating speeds in the ingress/egress areas; and • Compare the number vehicles complying or in violation of the express lane intermediate access area.

RCTC will work with Caltrans and CHP to help assess acceptance and effectiveness. RCTC will only conduct the after studies at the ingress/egress locations and will compare statewide accident rates at similar express lane locations. Thank you for your consideration of this request. RCTC is looking forward to working with the CTCDC to improve the 91 Project to the extent possible. Please feel free to contact me at (951) 280-6311 if you have any further questions or comments. Sincerely,

David K. Thomas Toll Project Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission cc. M. Blomquist (RCTC) Enclosure




8. Discussion Items

Item 16-34 CTCDC procedures on handling public requests on approved experiments. Lead: Mike Sallaberry

Discussion on CTCDC procedure for addressing public requests/comments regarding ongoing experiments. Should they be routed to the requesting agency or forwarded to the committee as a whole when the item is discussed.

9. Tabled Items

16-21 Proposal to modify SW 50 (CA) sign to create new “Senior” plaque

10. Next Meeting

March 2, 2017 City of Palm Desert

11. Adjourn