Questions

Do we have to follow the Uniform Manual of Traffic Control Devices?

Did the decision to not replace the stop lights consider the needs of seniors and people with disabilities?

How are the requirements for a stop light, a four way stop sign, and a crosswalk with signs different?

Has narrowing the traffic lane to 11 feet calmed traffic?

Public Process

The Bancroft Reconstruction Project was an effort to involve the Old West End neighborhood in the project to reconstruct Bancroft from Monroe to Ashland.  The project was based on a number of design principles, including:

• Reduce the speed of traffic (especially eastbound);
• Improve “walkability” by providing safe and unique pedestrian friendly sidewalks and crosswalks;

The minutes and other documents from the public process are available at a city website.

Public Meetings

8/8/13 Public Meeting

 (some public comments at the meeting)

 Other Users (Pedestrians, Bicycles, Bus Stops):

• Pedestrian & vehicle crossing at Robinwood difficult

• Access across Bancroft at all “wood” streets

• Bike facility should be considered

• More than shared use signs (Bancroft too dangerous for cyclists)

• No safe cycle access (to & from) the West from Old West End

• Pedestrians crossing at Glenwood a problem

• Bikes becoming an issue (greater use in neighborhood and city wide)

• Bike & pedestrian crossing of Bancroft difficult unless signal there (Robinwood & Glenwood)

• Bus stop pads for pedestrians (better stops) – trash receptacles?

• Consider porous sidewalks

• Convert parking to bike lanes

Traffic, Signing:

• Traffic calming needed (raised crosswalks)

• Need left-turn lane at Ashland (East to North)

• Left-turn lane (Eastbound to North) Is too short at Collingwood

• Glenwood crossing difficult (Northbound)

• Pavement is so bad – can’t Streets, Bridges & Harbor do something in next 2 years?

• Routing to Art Museum (way finding)

• ODOT plans for I-75 & Bancroft [divided keep/remove]

• Consider a boulevard pavement

• Accident assessments

• Routing to get on I-75 from Old West End (signal at Lawrence has been removed)

• Traffic warrants and signal timing

• Should project limits move to west?

• 4-way stop at Robinwood 

9/26/13

No discussion of crossing Bancroft, except for reasserting the design principle that walkability is a criteria

11/20/13

General Suggestions:

1. Consider left turn on Bancroft between Monroe and Rosewood.

2. Numerous speeding, westbound on Bancroft (buses, Fire, Police, ambulances, trucks. [Comments #3-9 refer to elements of the next design phase - detailed design]

3. More details on gateway features and plantings.

4. Plant mature trees.

5. Public should have input on tree selection.

6. Thanks for working together on this.

7. Consider no signal at Bancroft and Parkwood.

8. Will lights remain at Parkwood and Scottwood?

9. Will bus stop at Scottwood remain?

Design Review Team

The following are the excerpts from the minutes of meetings of the Design Review Team that discuss crossing Bancroft.

8/28/13

1. Staff explained an elevated walkway and/or intersection

9/11/13

(No discussion about crossing Bancroft, except the following sentence from the Information Gathering Notes)

7. Scottwood/Parkwood not warranted, so no federal funding can be used and no upgrading of signals is possible

10/9/13

One issue came up to be reviewed with traffic engineering is need for designated crosswalks (brick?) with no signal? Between Glenwood and Collingwood (at Parkwood, Scottwood, Robinwood?)

10/16/13

D) City confirmed that all intersections for the project can have designated crosswalks at intersections with or without a signal. There seems to be a preference for stamped bricks similar to those around Huntington Arena in the downtown.

10/30/13

(No discussion about crossing Bancroft, except that Walkability is listed as a criteria to measure alternative proposals, such a roundabout.)

11/13/13

It was also agreed that there are still many detail items to discuss. There was much discussion of intersection treatments with varying perspectives on the safety and effectiveness of traffic lights, four way stops or just marked crossings for both pedestrians and vehicles. Traffic lights are not “warranted” under the eight criteria listed in Ohio Revised Code but are “grandfathered” at Scottwood and Parkwood and can be maintained but only at 100% City cost – no federal participation). Dennis said that conduit will be placed underground regardless so we have options in the future. Also, there was a “negative offset” of the turn lanes at Collingwood (they don’t line up directly across from each other) that Stephanie will attempt to straighten out if it can be done with minimal impact to the general agreed upon arrangement and dimensions. Tree location and species remain a concern as well as use of recycled materials at corners or crossings. All of these elements will be decided during detail design and are not addressed at this stage in plan development.

1/22/14

The next agenda item was to begin discussions on some of the items deferred from last meeting. Gary Stookey discussed the intersections and other traffic control items. He said that staff is working on a safety study for the corridor where they will analyze traffic crashes and investigate possible safety countermeasures to address safety concerns. They will develop information on average traffic conditions and pedestrian demand and recommend how to deal with crosswalks, signals, turn lanes and lane alignments. The study is expected to confirm the effectiveness of narrowing the travel lanes with bump outs and bike lanes to slow speeds and may suggest additional intersection improvements (signal back plates, etc.). There was discussion of different materials for crosswalks and warning signs. Staff noted that the City has had bad experiences with trying to place brick in crosswalks in the street where vehicle weight shifts their location and elevation creating holes and rough riding surface. Jack suggested looking at rough granite to delineate the crosswalks but it was noted there are drawbacks to this approach especially the tire noise and its impact on nearby residences. We could look at other materials in the crosswalks as visual cues for the crosswalk as has been done in the UT area. Gary expects the study to be done in five to six weeks so we can review its recommendations at the next DRT meeting.

3/19/14

Gary Stookey then discussed the safety study completed by the City’s Transportation Division. Last fall they completed a speed study, reviewed crash history and looked at countermeasures to address traffic safety issues. They found that speeds were “right at 35 pretty much.” Crashes were only high at Collingwood and they believe that design changes to calm traffic and installing and aligning left turn lanes on both sides of Collingwood will be effective at the intersection. They reviewed with ODOT realigning the east bound ramp into the intersection at Glenwood and it will work and improve safety at the intersection. 2 Currently pedestrians are crossing throughout this area, not just at intersections so they must feel there are sufficient gaps in vehicle traffic to cross the street. During the time frame they documented there were only 15-18 pedestrians crossing at Scottwood and not many students. Signals at Parkwood and Scottwood do not meet Ohio Revised Code “warrants” or standard levels of traffic that must be observed to justify installation of a signal but the other signals do meet warrants (at Collingwood, Monroe and Ashland). Tammi noted that traffic was higher on Bancroft than Collingwood. That is true for the main direction but there also needs to be a certain level of traffic on the side streets and Parkwood and Scottwood don’t have much traffic (especially with the diverter on Scottwood one block to the north). A four way stop at Scottwood was discussed but it was pointed out that traffic controls that aren’t warranted have two major negative repercussions: they generate accidents, and they increase traffic violations as people disobey clearly unwarranted traffic controls (only further adding to accident potential). The study will be presented at next meeting for recommendation.

4/9/14

Next, Dennis Lechlak talked about the safety study that the Division of Transportation is doing. He stated that there was a computer glitch with the program and could not get the final results for everything that was requested as of yet. He went on to review that the current signals did not warrant and talked about the gap analysis for Bancroft. The gap analysis is determined using a 4 foot per second rate of walking, which is very conservative. During the morning peak hour (7:45-9:00 am) and the afternoon peak (3:30-4:15 pm) there were 6 gaps in each 15 minute period. It was also stated that during 4:15-5:15 pm period, there is 8 gaps per 15 minute periods. This led into discussions about crossings and making them pedestrian friendly. Ken Schumaker provided some pictures of different striping options to make the crosswalks more visible as well as the use of pedestrian beacons. It was noted that we have made pedestrian crossings safer with our proposed design layout, but more can still be done. Everyone agreed that additional striping is something that we can come back and make improvements to, if needed, once the project is completed. The DRT group requested traffic counts at Robinwood since it is the only 2-way street in the section between Glenwood and Collingwood. Keeping one light active was also discussed. Dennis will follow up on this topic, even though it is not warranted, but also stated that Transportation would be putting in new conduit for signals, so that they are in place if signals are needed in the future. Tammy asked how a street would warrant a 4 way stop. Dennis explained that a 4-way stop is warranted about the same way as a signal, but used when there is no money for the signal. He also noted that 4 way stops would have equal or close to the same amount of traffic on all 4 legs of the intersection. Based on the traffic counts discussed at the March meeting, a 4 way stop is also not warranted nor recommended.

5/15/14

Gary Stookey filled in for Dennis Lechlak with the City’s Transportation (Traffic Engineering) Division. He believes they are still working out a computer problem with the safety study computer software. He had performed some personal observation and saw no pedestrians crossing Bancroft. Traffic counts do not support traffic signals at any of the intersections between Collingwood and Monroe. Martin expressed that one of the project goals was to improve and increase “walkability” of the neighborhood – couldn’t that drive installation of at least one signal in the stretch from Collingwood to I-75? Sue recalled the discussion from last time that the design changes being made with this project are being made to “calm” traffic and slow down cars to make the street more walkable and bike friendly. Gary agreed with Sue that we can specify a time (6 months perhaps) after project completion and review if there is more traffic or need for signals. The City has agreed to install underground conduit that can be used in the future should a signal be warranted.

5/29/14

Dennis reported that the safety study was not concluded but will be available for next meeting. Counts for Robinwood/Bancroft were requested. There was a discussion of load limiting Bancroft but as a higher function street this is discouraged. There was discussion that the project may divert traffic from Scottwood to Robinwood. Also, crosswalk treatments were revisited. Dennis said he will revisit the issue of striping across Bancroft but that Transportation Division staff would need to make the call on how that is handled. Striping for crosswalks can also be added later if the need is determined to exist.

6/10/14

Crosswalks were discussed. Division of Transportation expressed very strong opposition to striping every corner crosswalk in the area on safety grounds. They feel strongly that this gives pedestrians a false sense of safety and security in crossing the street and without lights many Toledo motorists don’t yield as they are supposed to for pedestrians in the crosswalks. They did agree to striping for the cross streets if that was desired. After discussion it was felt that if Bancroft couldn’t be striped it would be more in keeping with character of the neighborhood to not have any striping at all (even on side streets) as it is now. It was agreed that if pedestrian traffic increases and it is felt there is a need that this could be assessed in six months after construction to see if needed. Striping does not require destruction of the pavement or other elements and could be added later (as could warning signs, etc.) (A document called the Bancroft Street Safety Study Executive Summary was given to members.)

BancroftStreetSafetyStudyExecutiveSummary.pdf

7/29/14

Stephanie reiterated the team’s decision to not stripe any of the crosswalks that don’t have traffic signals, as Division of Transportation advises against striping across Bancroft at those locations. They are concerned with giving a false sense of safety to pedestrians where there isn’t any positive traffic control to ensure that vehicles stop for the crosswalk. That was agreed to, with the caveat that the neighborhood can call upon Transportation staff to review this after six months of operation of the new project to see if this creates any problems. Lighting conduits will be placed three feet in from the sidewalk toward the street throughout the project area to maintain a consistent pole location. Trees are generally on 30 foot centers and species as specified in the planting plan.

Laws & Regulations about Intersections

Toledo Complete Streets Policy (Chapter 901 of the Toledo Municipal Code)

23 CFR 655.603 requires that any traffic control devices in federally-funded reconstruction projects must conform to the Federal Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices

Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

Ohio Revised Code 4511.09 authorizes the adoption of a State Manual of Traffic Control Devices that correlates with, and as far as possible conforms to, the Federal Manual.

Ohio Revised Code 4511.11 requires that local authorities erect, purchase or manufacture traffic control devices only in conformance with the State Manual.

Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices

Is the OMUTCD a Requirement? Can there be exceptions?

Section 1A.09 Engineering Study and Engineering Judgment
Support:
Definitions of an engineering study and engineering judgment are contained in Section 1A.13.

Standard:
This Manual describes the application of traffic control devices, but shall not be a legal requirement for their installation.

Guidance:
The decision to use a particular device at a particular location should be made on the basis of either an engineering study or the application of engineering judgment. Thus, while this Manual provides Standards, Guidance, and Options for design and application of traffic control devices, this Manual should not be considered a substitute for engineering judgment.
Early in the process of location and design of roads and streets, engineers should coordinate such location and design with the design and placement of the traffic control devices to be used with such roads and streets.
Jurisdictions, or owners of private roads open to public travel, with responsibility for traffic control that do not have engineers on their staffs who are trained and/or experienced in traffic control devices should seek engineering assistance from others, such as the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) , their county, a nearby large city, or a traffic engineering consultant.

Standard:
If site-specific conditions lead agencies to determine that it is impossible or impractical to comply with a particular Standard and that they must deviate from the Standard at that location(s), the reasons for the deviation shall be fully documented.

Support:
As part of the Federal-aid Program, each State is required to have a Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) and to provide technical assistance to local highway agencies. Requisite technical training in the application of the principles of the OMUTCD is available from the State’s Local Technical Assistance Program for needed engineering guidance and assistance.

Section 1A.10 Interpretations, Experimentations, Changes, and Interim Approvals
Standard:
Design, application, and placement of traffic control devices other than those adopted in this Manual shall be prohibited unless the provisions of this Section are followed.
Support:
Continuing advances in technology will produce changes in the highway, vehicle, and road user proficiency; therefore, portions of the system of traffic control devices in this Manual will require updating.
In addition, unique situations often arise for device applications that might require interpretation or clarification of this Manual. It is important to have a procedure for recognizing these developments and for introducing new ideas and modifications into the system.

Standard:
Except as provided in Paragraph 5 , requests for any permission to experiment or interim approval shall be submitted electronically to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Office of Transportation Operations, MUTCD team, at the following e-mail address: MUTCDofficialrequest@dot.gov. A copy of the request shall be sent to the of the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), Office of Traffic Engineering (see page ii for contact information).
Requests for interpretations or changes shall be sent to the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), Office of Traffic Engineering (see page ii for contact information).

Option:
If electronic submission to FHWA is not possible, requests for permission to experiment or interim approval may instead be mailed to the Office of Transportation Operations, HOTP-1, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590.

Support:
Communications to FHWA regarding other MUTCD matters that are not related to official requests will receive quicker attention if they are submitted electronically to the MUTCD Team Leader or to the appropriate individual MUTCD team member. Their e-mail addresses are available through the links contained on the “Who’s Who” page on the MUTCD website at http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/team.htm.

Support:
An interpretation includes a consideration of the application and operation of standard traffic control devices, official meanings of standard traffic control devices, or the variations from standard device designs.

Guidance:
Requests for an interpretation of this Manual should contain the following information:
A. A concise statement of the interpretation being sought;
B. A description of the condition that provoked the need for an interpretation;
C. Any illustration that would be helpful to understand the request; and
D. Any supporting research data that is pertinent to the item to be interpreted.

Support:
Requests to experiment include consideration of field deployment for the purpose of testing or evaluating a new traffic control device, its application or manner of use, or a provision not specifically described in this Manual.
A request for permission to experiment will be considered only when submitted by the public agency or toll facility operator responsible for the operation of the road or street on which the experiment is to take place. For a private road open to public travel, the request will be considered only if it is submitted by the private owner or private official having jurisdiction.

Stop Lights

CHAPTER 4C. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL NEEDS STUDIES
Section 4C.01 Studies and Factors for Justifying Traffic Control Signals

Standard:
An engineering study of traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, and physical characteristics of the location shall be performed to determine whether installation of a traffic control signal is justified at a particular location.
The investigation of the need for a traffic control signal shall include an analysis of factors related to the existing operation and safety at the study location and the potential to improve these conditions, and the applicable factors contained in the following traffic signal warrants:

• Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
• Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
• Warrant 3, Peak Hour
• Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume
• Warrant 5, School Crossing
• Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System
• Warrant 7, Crash Experience
• Warrant 8, Roadway Network
• Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing

The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.

Support:
Sections 8C.09 and 8C.10 contain information regarding the use of traffic control signals instead of gates and/or flashing light signals at highway-rail grade crossings and highway-light rail transit grade crossings, respectively.

Guidance:

• A traffic control signal should not be installed unless one or more of the factors described in this Chapter are met.
• A traffic control signal should not be installed unless an engineering study indicates that installing a traffic control signal will improve the overall safety and/or operation of the intersection.
• A traffic control signal should not be installed if it will seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow.
• The study should consider the effects of the right-turn vehicles from the minor-street approaches.
• Engineering judgment should be used to determine what, if any, portion of the right-turn traffic is subtracted from the minor-street traffic count when evaluating the count against the signal warrants listed in Paragraph 2.
• Engineering judgment should also be used in applying various traffic signal warrants to cases where approaches consist of one lane plus one left-turn or right-turn lane. The site-specific traffic characteristics should dictate whether an approach is considered as one lane or two lanes. For example, for an approach with one lane for through and right-turning traffic plus a left-turn lane, if engineering judgment indicates that it should be considered a one-lane approach because the traffic using the left-turn lane is minor, the total traffic volume approaching the intersection should be applied against the signal warrants as a one-lane approach. The approach should be considered two lanes if approximately half of the traffic on the approach turns left and the left-turn lane is of sufficient length to accommodate all left-turn vehicles.
• Similar engineering judgment and rationale should be applied to a street approach with one through/left-turn lane plus a right-turn lane. In this case, the degree of conflict of minor-street right-turn traffic with traffic on the major street should be considered. Thus, right-turn traffic should not be included in the minor-street volume if the movement enters the major street with minimal conflict. The approach should be evaluated as a one-lane approach with only the traffic volume in the through/left-turn lane considered.
• At a location that is under development or construction and where it is not possible to obtain a traffic count that would represent future traffic conditions, hourly volumes should be estimated as part of an engineering study for comparison with traffic signal warrants. Except for locations where the engineering study uses the satisfaction of Warrant 8 to justify a signal, a traffic control signal installed under projected conditions should have an engineering study done within 1 year of putting the signal into stop-and-go operation to determine if the signal is justified. If not justified, the signal should be taken out of stop-and-go operation or removed.
• For signal warrant analysis, a location with a wide median, even if the median width is greater than 30 feet, should be considered as one intersection.

Option:

• At an intersection with a high volume of left-turn traffic from the major street, the signal warrant analysis may be performed in a manner that considers the higher of the major-street left-turn volumes as the "minor-street" volume and the corresponding single direction of opposing traffic on the major street as the "major-street" volume.
• For signal warrants requiring conditions to be present for a certain number of hours in order to be satisfied, any four sequential 15-minute periods may be considered as 1 hour if the separate 1-hour periods used in the warrant analysis do not overlap each other and both the major-street volume and the minor-street volume are for the same specific one-hour periods.
• For signal warrant analysis, bicyclists may be counted as either vehicles or pedestrians.

Support:
When performing a signal warrant analysis, bicyclists riding in the street with other vehicular traffic are usually counted as vehicles and bicyclists who are clearly using pedestrian facilities are usually counted as pedestrians.

Option:
Engineering study data may include the following:

A. The number of vehicles entering the intersection in each hour from each approach during 12 hours of an average day. It is desirable that the hours selected contain the greatest percentage of the 24-hour traffic volume.
B. Vehicular volumes for each traffic movement from each approach, classified by vehicle type (heavy trucks, passenger cars and light trucks, public-transit vehicles, and, in some locations, bicycles), during each 15-minute period of the 2 hours in the morning and 2 hours in the afternoon during which total traffic entering the intersection is greatest.
C. Pedestrian volume counts on each crosswalk during the same periods as the vehicular counts in Item B and during hours of highest pedestrian volume. Where young, elderly, and/or persons with physical or visual disabilities need special consideration, the pedestrians and their crossing times may be classified by general observation.
D. Information about nearby facilities and activity centers that serve the young, elderly, and/or persons with disabilities, including requests from persons with disabilities for accessible crossing improvements at the location under study. These persons might not be adequately reflected in the pedestrian volume count if the absence of a signal restrains their mobility.
E. The posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the uncontrolled approaches to the location.
F. A condition diagram showing details of the physical layout, including such features as intersection geometrics, channelization, grades, sight-distance restrictions, transit stops and routes, parking conditions, pavement markings, roadway lighting, driveways, nearby railroad crossings, distance to nearest traffic control signals, utility poles and fixtures, and adjacent land use.
G. A collision diagram showing crash experience by type, location, direction of movement, severity, weather, time of day, date, and day of week for at least 1 year.

The following data, which are desirable for a more precise understanding of the operation of the intersection, may be obtained during the periods described in Item B of Paragraph 17:

A. Vehicle-hours of stopped time delay determined separately for each approach.
B. The number and distribution of acceptable gaps in vehicular traffic on the major street for entrance from the minor street.
C. The posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on controlled approaches at a point near to the intersection but unaffected by the control.
D. Pedestrian delay time for at least two 30-minute peak pedestrian delay periods of an average weekday or like periods of a Saturday or Sunday.
E. Queue length on stop-controlled approaches.

Section 4C.05 Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume
Support:
The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant is intended for application where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street.

Standard:
The need for a traffic control signal at an intersection or midblock crossing shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following criteria is met:

A. For each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing the major street (total of all crossings) all fall above the curve in Figure 4C-5; or
B. For 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day, the plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing the major street (total of all crossings) falls above the curve in Figure 4C-7.

Option:
If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 35 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-6 may be used in place of Figure 4C-5 to evaluate Criterion A in Paragraph 2, and Figure 4C-8 may be used in place of Figure 4C-7 to evaluate Criterion B in Paragraph 2.

Standard:
The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest traffic control signal or STOP sign controlling the street that pedestrians desire to cross is less than 300 feet, unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic.
If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, the traffic control signal shall be equipped with pedestrian signal heads complying with the provisions set forth in Chapter 4E.

Guidance:
If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, then:
A. If it is installed at an intersection or major driveway location, the traffic control signal should also control the minor-street or driveway traffic, should be traffic-actuated, and should include pedestrian detection.
B. If it is installed at a non-intersection crossing, the traffic control signal should be installed at least 100 feet from side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP or YIELD signs, and should be pedestrian-actuated. If the traffic control signal is installed at a non-intersection crossing, at least one of the signal faces should be over the traveled way for each approach, parking and other sight obstructions should be prohibited for at least 100 feet in advance of and at least 20 feet beyond the crosswalk or site accommodations should be made through curb extensions or other techniques to provide adequate sight distance, and the installation should include suitable standard signs and pavement markings.
C. Furthermore, if it is installed within a signal system, the traffic control signal should be coordinated.

Option:
The criterion for the pedestrian volume crossing the major street may be reduced as much as 50 percent if the 15th-percentile crossing speed of pedestrians is less than 3.5 feet per second.
A traffic control signal may not be needed at the study location if adjacent coordinated traffic control signals consistently provide gaps of adequate length for pedestrians to cross the street.

Multi-Way Stop Signs

Section 2B.07 Multi-Way Stop Applications
Support:
Multi-way stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain traffic conditions exist. Safety concerns associated with multi-way stops include pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users expecting other road users to stop. Multi-way stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal.
The restrictions on the use of STOP signs described in Section 2B.04 also apply to multi-way stop applications.

Guidance:
The decision to install multi-way stop control should be based on an engineering study. The following criteria should be considered in the engineering study for a multi-way STOP sign installation:
A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multi-way stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal.
B. Five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop installation. Such crashes include right-turn and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions.
C. Minimum volumes:

1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day, and
2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour, but
3. If the 85th-percentile approach speed of the major-street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the minimum volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided in Items 1 and 2.

D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1, and C.2 are all satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition.

Option:
Other criteria that may be considered in an engineering study include:

A. The need to control left-turn conflicts;

B. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes;

C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; and

D. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating characteristics where multi-way stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection.

Crosswalk Markings

Section 3B.18 Crosswalk Markings (page 431)
Support:
Crosswalk markings provide guidance for pedestrians who are crossing roadways by defining and delineating paths on approaches to and within signalized intersections, and on approaches to other intersections where traffic stops.
In conjunction with signs and other measures, crosswalk markings help to alert road users of a designated pedestrian crossing point across roadways at locations that are not controlled by traffic control signals or STOP or YIELD signs.
At non-intersection locations, crosswalk markings legally establish the crosswalk.

Standard:
When crosswalk lines are used, they shall consist of solid white lines that mark the crosswalk. They shall be not less than 6 inches or greater than 24 inches in width.

Guidance:
If transverse lines are used to mark a crosswalk,the gap between the lines should not be less than 6 feet. If diagonal or longitudinal lines are used without transverse lines to mark a crosswalk, the crosswalk should be not less than 6 feet wide.
Crosswalk lines, if used on both sides of the crosswalk, should extend across the full width of pavement or to the edge of the intersecting crosswalk to discourage diagonal walking between crosswalks (see Figures 3B-17 and 3B-19).
At locations controlled by traffic control signals or on approaches controlled by STOP or YIELD signs, crosswalk lines should be installed where engineering judgment indicates they are needed to direct pedestrians to the proper crossing path(s).
Crosswalk lines should not be used indiscriminately. An engineering study should be performed before a marked crosswalk is installed at a location away from a traffic control signal or an approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign. The engineering study should consider the number of lanes, the presence of a median, the distance from adjacent signalized intersections, the pedestrian volumes and delays, the average daily traffic (ADT), the posted or statutory speed limit or 85th-percentile speed, the geometry of the location, the possible consolidation of multiple crossing points, the availability of street lighting, and other appropriate factors.
New marked crosswalks alone, without other measures designed to reduce traffic speeds, shorten crossing distances, enhance driver awareness of the crossing, and/or provide active warning of pedestrian presence, should not be installed across uncontrolled roadways where the speed limit exceeds 40 mph and either:

1. The roadway has four or more lanes of travel without a raised median or pedestrian refuge island and an ADT of 12,000 vehicles per day or greater; or
2. The roadway has four or more lanes of travel with a raised median or pedestrian refuge island and an ADT of 15,000 vehicles per day or greater.

In-Street and Overhead Pedestrian Crossing

Section 2B.12 In-Street and Overhead Pedestrian Crossing Signs (R1-6, R1-9)

Option:
The In-Street Pedestrian Crossing (R1-6) sign (see Figure 2B-2) or the Overhead Pedestrian Crossing (R1-9) sign (see Figure 2B-2) may be used to remind road users of laws regarding right-of-way at an unsignalized pedestrian crosswalk. The legend STATE LAW may be displayed at the top of the R1-6 and R1-9 signs. On the R1-6 sign, the legend YIELD may be used in conjunction with the appropriate YIELD sign symbol.
Highway agencies may develop and apply criteria for determining the applicability of In-Street Pedestrian Crossing signs.

Standard:
If used, the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign shall be placed in the roadway at the crosswalk location on the center line, on a lane line, or on a median island. The In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign shall not be post-mounted on the left-hand or right-hand side of the roadway. If used, the Overhead Pedestrian Crossing sign shall be placed over the roadway at the crosswalk location.
An In-Street or Overhead Pedestrian Crossing sign shall not be placed in advance of the crosswalk to educate road users about the State law prior to reaching the crosswalk, nor shall it be installed as an educational display that is not near any crosswalk.

Guidance:
If an island (see Chapter 3I) is available, the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign, if used, should be placed on the island.

Option:
If a Pedestrian Crossing (W11-2) warning sign is used in combination with an In-Street or an Overhead Pedestrian Crossing sign, the W11-2 sign with a diagonal downward pointing arrow (W16-7P) plaque may be post-mounted on the right-hand side of the roadway at the crosswalk location.

Standard:
The In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign and the Overhead Pedestrian Crossing sign shall not be used at signalized locations.
The In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign shall have a black legend (except for the red YIELD sign symbol) and border on a white background, surrounded by an outer yellow or fluorescent yellow-green background area (see Figure 2B-2). The Overhead Pedestrian Crossing sign shall have a black legend and border on a yellow or fluorescent yellow-green background at the top of the sign and a black legend and border on a white background at the bottom of the sign (see Figure 2B-2).
Unless the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign is placed on a physical island, the sign support shall be designed to bend over and then bounce back to its normal vertical position when struck by a vehicle.

Support:
Provisions of Section 2A.18 concerning mounting height are not applicable for the In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign.

Standard:
The top of an In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign shall be a maximum of 4 feet above the pavement surface. The top of an In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign placed in an island shall be a maximum of 4 feet above the island surface.

Option:
The In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign may be used seasonally to prevent damage in winter because of plowing operations, and may be removed at night if the pedestrian activity at night is minimal.
In-Street Pedestrian Crossing signs, Overhead Pedestrian Crossing signs, and Yield Here To Pedestrians signs may be used together at the same crosswalk.

Ideas for Crossing Bancroft

Creative 3D sidewalks can slow traffic

Other clever ideas for slowing traffic.

Accidents on Bancroft in 2016

From the Toledo Police Department's Online Accident Report Database (updated 5/10/2016)