Safety & Aesthetics in Urban Roadway Design

Interdisciplinary Group Meeting

March 11, 2002

 

Attendees:  Elizabeth Robbins – WSDOT, Mark Maurer – WSDOT, Kathy Wolf – UW, Jim Ellison - Pierce County, Lynn Price - City of Bremerton, Paul Harker – FHWA, Dick Albin – WSDOT, Mike Johnson - City of Seattle, Shane DeWald - City of Seattle, Troy Cowan – WSDOT, Chris Mudgett – CRAB, Jim Seitz – AWC, Al King – WSDOT, Nancy Boyd – WSDOT, Mike Dornfeld – WSDOT, Maiya Andrews - City of Des Moines, Jim Morrow - City of Tukwila, Sally Anderson – WSDOT, Dave McCormick – WSDOT, Ted Focke – WSDOT, Rocky Piro – PSRC, Larry Hinson – WSDOT, Andrea Billingsley (Tech. Writer) - WSDOT

 

Nancy Boyd welcomed everyone to the meeting and gave a review of where this group is in its process.  This is the 3rd meeting for this group.  She then went through the agenda for everyone. 

 

Aesthetic Roadside Treatment Brochures:  Mark Maurer gave an update on the first brochure and explained the changes that have occurred with it.  He handed out copies of it and explained that he was planning to address the comments/concerns that he has received in an e-mail soon.  He says that the brochure will be available on the web very soon.  The next step is to create a brochure for Barrier Treatments. The original thought was that there would be a series of Urban Design Alternative brochures, this being the first.  There was a question about dimensions on the brochure.  Mark explained why some dimensions are included and why some were removed.  There is an asterisk where dimensions are included that refer to the Design Manual.  Mark explained that he is trying to have as many features in the examples as possible.  Questions about Clear Zone were postponed until Dick Albin’s discussion on Clear Zone.  Mike Johnson explained that in meetings that he has attended with managers the feedback (on the Design Manual supplement) has not been good.  Their perception is that the supplement will significantly increase the cost of the project and with budget restraints it will create problems.  Nancy asked if the issue was actually a jurisdictional or legal one.  There was a conversation about a judges ruling on pole placement and the decision that if the poles need to be moved, the cost of moving the pole would be the responsibility of the agency moving it, if the utility company agrees to move it. 

 

Clear Zone Task Group:  Dick Albin passed out the Design Manual Supplement of the Design Clear Zone in Low-Speed, Urban Environments.  He went through the major points of the supplement and explained that it is out for statewide review at the moment.  He also briefly described the contents of Chapter 330, which is referred to in the supplement.  Al King explained that they are not only looking at the impacts on state highways, but on local streets as well.  This is trying to implement changes in AASHTO, not just WSDOT changes.  This is for 35 mph or less areas, what about 35 or above?  Will all objects have to be deviated?  Dick explained that this isn’t changing anything for 35 and above.  The only thing being changed is the 2’ from face of curb.  Nancy asked if there were any suggestions on how to have better communications with the cities, which is proving to be a problem.  Mike Johnson suggested that there needs to be a more concerted effort to get the information out in the cities and get feedback back to this group faster.  This major issue for 35 mph or less is that for each project there will have to be an analysis done, which would create an increase in the workload.  Shane DeWald asked if it is necessary to make changes to the Design Manual.  Dick says that he thinks that it is necessary to clarify the changes that have been made by AASHTO.  The way that the AASHTO Guidelines read allow for interpretation, and the problem that WSDOT is trying to prevent is having 3 different interpretations of the same thing, by clarifying the changes.  Jim Morrow’s problem with this change is that he feels this does not protect the pedestrians.  He wants to create a “walkable community” and this doesn’t do that.  It does not put an object between the road and the pedestrian on the sidewalk.  This is not the perception that Dick was intending.  How do we change the perception?  This takes us back to the issue of communication.  It is important to get the information out there and get the feedback back quickly to discuss.  What is the pedestrian accident reality?  Mostly those stepping out with a right turn vehicle, and jaywalkers.  The flexibility in the AASHTO Guidelines in Urban Areas – does it give more flexibility then this document is giving?  Does it refer to their chart?  Dick says that is does refer to their chart.  The 35 mph or less came from research done by the WSDOT Design Office when they were deciding to make these changes.  AASHTO’s chart refers to 40 mph or less.  The difference between the two charts is that AASHTO is based on functioning speed and WSDOT ‘s is based on posted speed.  As far as comments back to Dick, he would like to know if you don’t like it, then specifically explain how to change it.  After the comments come back to Dick, a decision should be made on whether communication efforts should be broadened when there is a discussion about the feedback.  It was suggested that groups that will be concerned with the consequences should be included in the feedback process.  The task group will meet with the feedback and then this group would like to see the results. 

 

In-Service Evaluation:  An update from Dave McCormick.  They have received 2 applications for an In-service Evaluation (SeaTac and Federal Way).  Everything has been real positive.  The U of W has been retained to do the evaluation.  The evaluator will be Jennifer [Knee].  If anyone is interested in the information that will be in the evaluation, just contact Dave and he would be happy to pass it on to you. 

 

Jurisdictional Roles:  Al King gave an update.  First he talked about a letter that was sent out around FHWA.  A copy was given to WSDOT because of the potential impacts. 

There will be an internal policy clarifying jurisdictional roles developed by April.  This policy will state how the agency stands and it will be one that it will support.  This policy will be brought before this group, and at that time there will be a discussion about exceptions.  This project has been accelerated by the executives because of the feedback that has been received from the cities.

 

Urban Roadside Funding Issues Group:  Local Program, Program Management, State Design Office and NW Region are all involved in this group.  The issue arose after inconsistency in funding of roadside elements in different projects within Northwest Region.  This group wants to develop standard WSDOT funding levels for roadside elements.  Right now they are collecting data and trying to decide what the parameters will be.  The next step will be to outline the elements in a matrix, which will then be sent out for an internal and external review.  After that they will decide what kind of process that this would need to go through to get the information out within DOT. 

 

Urban Arterial Design Manual Revisions:  There is a process occurring to identify items that could be part of the ’02-’03 Design Manual revision package that deal with Urban Arterials.  Nancy thought that it would be good to have a Technical Advisory Group for this process.  Nancy ran through the list of topics and what she wanted from this exercise was to get any feedback from this group if any of these topics created “red flags”.  She also wanted any additional topics, and feedback from the group on their top 5 priorities from this list: 

 

Tech. Advisory Group – Volunteers were Paul Harker, Mike Johnson, Troy Cowan, Mark Maurer, Shane DeWald, with Nancy, Larry Hinson, Ted Focke, and Dave Olson. 

 

Urban Tree White Paper:  Mark Maurer passed out a briefing paper.  It has been through some revisions, and is shorter then what was passed out before.  It basically goes through what it takes to plant urban trees and the process that your need to go through.  It was written primarily for engineers who do not necessarily understand what it takes to plant trees in the urban areas.  This paper will be going out on the web.  Mark feels that this is an evolving paper that will change over time as new information is received.  There was conversation about any reference to safety in the paper.  This paper is not intended to state whether or not a tree will be a safety issue.  Some would just like to eliminate the word “hazard”.  Mark will work on rephrasing that paragraph. 

There was a conversation on doing a study that would identify safety standards.

 

Safety, Aesthetics and Community Partnership Workshop:  Nancy handed out the information on this for everyone.  She urges everyone to attend. 

 

Tree & Safety Research Proposal:  Kathy Wolfe from the U of W Center for Urban Horticulture was in attendance to talk about a research proposal.  She has done a lot of research on trees in urban environments.  She discussed with the group some of the research that has been done on the impact of nature in cities and some of the different research that she has been a part of.  She passed out the information on the research proposal that she is going to submit. 

 

Wrap-up:  The next meeting will be in June.  Nancy reviewed the action items.  Meeting adjourned at 3:05pm.