HomeMy WebLinkAboutASRBAC20231127 5.3BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
5.3
TO: Bicycle Advisory Commission November 27, 2023
SUBJECT: Review and Comment on 2024-25 Transportation Development Act (TDA)
Article 3 Grant Application - Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
Crosswalk Improvements
BACKGROUND
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission ("MTC") is soliciting applications for Fiscal
Year 2024/25 Transportation Development Act ("TDA") Article 3 funds for pedestrian and
bicycle projects. TDA is a state grant program administered by MTC that provides annual
funding for pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements. Contra Costa County Public
Works Department acts on MTC's behalf to review and prioritize applications so that one
consolidated county -wide application for local agency funding can be submitted for MTC's
consideration.
For last year's 2023-24 Cycle, approximately $1,150,000 was available for Contra Costa
County jurisdictions. For the new cycle, MTC has not yet released the estimated funding
targets and amount expected to be available for Contra Costa County. In previous cycles,
the Town has received funding awards for the following projects:
2021-22 TDA Cycle: Diablo Road Bicycle Improvements - $82,500 (completed)
2022-23 TDA Cycle: Diablo Road Trail Crossing Improvements - $150,000 (in
design)
2023-24 TDA Cycle: Camino Tassajara/Sycamore Valley Bicycle Detection
Indicators (in design - combined with Smart Signals project) - $80,000
For the 2024-25 Cycle, only one project per jurisdiction will be considered. Final
applications must be submitted to the County no later than January 25, 2024. The County's
TDA Subcommittee will then prioritize the projects, obtain Mayors' Conference and Board
of Supervisors' approval of the prioritized list, and then submit the approved project list to
MTC in June 2024.
DISCUSSION
The proposed Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Improvements Project consists of the
installation of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) warning systems at three (3)
uncontrolled, mid -block crosswalk locations (Attachment A):
■ Hartford Road at Iron Horse Trail Crossing
■ West Prospect Avenue at Iron Horse Trail Crossing
■ Railroad Avenue at Love Lane
The crosswalk locations identified for this project represent the final two Iron Horse Trail
crossing locations in need of funding for RRFB systems (Hartford Road and West Prospect
Avenue). The third project location (Railroad Avenue at Love Lane) is a high -use
crosswalk in the Downtown area located adjacent to San Ramon Valley High School and
the Danville Square Shopping Center. The two subject Iron Horse Trail crossing locations
have been identified for RRFB systems in the FY 2023-24 Five-year Capital Improvement
Program and the Townwide Bicycle Master Plan. There are currently 15 RRFB systems
installed throughout the Town including four (4) at Iron Horse Trail crossing locations.
There are two (2) Iron Horse Trail locations that have received funding for RRFB systems
and are in the design phase.
The RRFB system is an effective safety enhancement that provides advanced warning
messaging to road users of the presence of pedestrians and bicyclists in crosswalks
(Attachment B). As with other RRFB systems installed at Iron Horse Trail crossings in
Danville, this project will include flashing LED crosswalk warning signage, both passive
activation and push button activation, and roadway pavement markings.
The amount of the TDA grant request is $110,000 with a total project cost of $129,356
(Attachment C).
Pending review, comment, and support by the Bicycle Advisory Commission the grant
application would be forwarded to the Town Council for consideration of approval of
submission at a regularly scheduled Town Council meeting in January 2024 to meet the
program submission deadline of January 25, 2024.
RECOMMENDATION
Review and Comment on the on 2024-25 Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3
Grant Application for the Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Crosswalk
Improvements.
Prepared by:
Andrew Dillard
Transportation Manager
Attachments: A - Project Location Exhibits
B - FHWA's RRFB Informational Sheet
C - 2024-25 MTC TDA Article 3 Grant Application
11 /20/2023
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Crosswalk Improvements
1:82,230
0 0.5 1 2 mi
0 0.75 1.5 3 km
Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, USGS,
METI/NASA, NGA, EPA, USDA
LEGEND:
PROPOSED
a PROPOSED SIGN
O RRFB LOCATION #1
TYPE 1B INSTALLATION WITH SOLAR
O RRFB LOCATION #2
TYPE 1B INSTALL WITH SOLAR
GRAPHIC SCALE
20 0 10 20 40
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 40 fG
HARTFORD RD - IRON HORSE TRAIL
r
■
1
--JIL
•
LEGEND:
PROPOSED
PROPOSED SIGN
O RRFB LOCATION #1
TYPE 1B INSTALL W/ SOLAR
O RRFB LOCATION #2
MOUNTED ON EXISTING STREET LIGHT
-Zak JIM
GRAPHIC SCALE
20 0 10 20 40
( IN FEET )
I inch = 40 ft
RAILROAD AVE - LOVE LN
LEGEND:
PROPOSED
a PROPOSED SIGN
O RRFB LOCATION #1
TYPE 1B INSTALLATION WITH SOLAR
O RRFB LOCATION #2
TYPE 1B INSTALL WITH SOLAR
dio
z
tic � a
• r 1�
1p
GRAPHIC SCALE
20 0 10 20 40
( M FEET )
1 inch = 40 ft.
W PROSPECT AVE - IRON HORSE TRAIL
Rectangular Rapid -
Flashing Beacon
(RRFB)
W-11-2, W16-7P
HE
RE
ER� •
b TO
RRFBs are pedestrian -actuated conspicuity enhancements
used in combination with a pedestrian, school, or trail
crossing warning sign to improve safety at uncontrolled,
marked crosswalks. The device includes two rectangular -
shaped yellow indications, each with an LED -array -based
light source, that flash with high frequency when activated.
The RRFB is a treatment option at many types of established
pedestrian crossings. Research indicates RRFBs can result
in motorist yielding rates as high as 98 percent at marked
crosswalks. However, yielding rates as low as 19 percent
have also been noted. Compliance rates varied most per
the city location, posted speed limit, crossing distance,
and whether the road was one- or two-way. RRFBs are
particularly effective at multilane crossings with speed limits
less than 40 mph. Consider the Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
(PHB) instead for roadways with higher speeds. FHWA's
Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled
Crossing Locations (HSA-17-072) provides specific
conditions where practitioners should strongly consider the
PHB instead of the RRFB.
SAFE TRANSPORTATION
FOR EVERY PEDESTRIAN
COUNTERMEASURE TECH SHEET
I
Roads for a Safer Future &LE,
US. Departm�enr of Transportation mrm�,oaewav� Wr 'does.., DCFederal Hi hwa Administration
CONSIDERATIONS
FHWA has issued interim approval for the
use of the RRFB (IA-21). State and local
agencies must request and receive
permission to use this interim approval
before they can use the RRFB. IA-21 does
not provide guidance or criteria based on
number of lanes, speed, or traffic volumes.
RRFBs are placed on both ends of a
crosswalk. If the crosswalk contains a
pedestrian refuge island or other type of
median, an RRFB should be placed to the
right of the crosswalk and on the median
(instead of the left side of the crosswalk).
References
RRFBs typically draw power from standalone
solar panel units, but may also be wired to
a traditional power source. IA-21 provides
conditions for the use of accessible pedestrian
features with the RRFB assembly. When RRFBs
are not in common use in a community,
consider conducting an outreach effort to
educate the public and law enforcement
officers on their purpose and use.
COST
The cost associated with RRFB installation
ranges from $4,500 to $52,000 each, with
the average cost estimated at $22,250.
These costs include the complete system
installation with labor and materials.
MUTCD section 213.12 In -Street and Overhead Pedestrian Crossing Signs (R1-6, R1-6a, R1-9, and R1-9a)
Fitzpatrick, K., M. Brewer, R Avelar, and T. Lindheimer. "Will You Stop for Me? Roadway Design and Traffic Control Device Influences on Drivers Yielding to Pedestrians in a
Crosswalk with a Rectangular Rapid -Flashing Beacon." Report No TTI-CTS-0010. Texas A&M Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas. June 2016. https://stotic.tti.famu.
eduAti famu.edu/documents/TTI-CTS-001 O.pdf
Federal Highway Administration. (2018). MUTCD — Interim Approval for Optional Use of Pedestrian -Actuated Rectangular Rapid -Flashing Beacons at Uncontrolled Marked
Crosswalks (IA-21). U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.
Federal Highway Administration. (2013). "Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon" in PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System. Available http://www.
pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=54
Bushell, M., Poole, B , Zegeer, C., & Rodriguez, D. (2013), Costs for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Infrastructure Improvements: A Resource for Researchers, Engineers, Planners, and
the General Public. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Transportation Development Act Article 3 Funds
Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects
Instructions for the Use of the Model Governing Body Resolution by Claimants
(A model resolution follows these instructions)
The model resolution contains four parts:
1. Abstract of the purpose of the resolution (optional)
2. Body of the Resolution
3. Attachment A to the Resolution — Required Findings
4. Attachment B to the Resolution — MTC Application Form
All TDA Article 3 claimants should use this model resolution since it includes proper wording for findings to be
made by the claimant.
One resolution may be used for requesting allocations for multiple projects.
A claimant may reformat the resolution for administrative purposes, but any wording changes should be
approved by MTC in advance.
Attachment A, the "Findings," must be included as part of the resolution. If you have questions about revising
any of the text in the resolution or in Attachment A, or altering any of the findings, please contact MTC for prior
approval.
For attachment B — local Congestion Management agency or county -approved forms may be used in lieu of
MTC's standard format if basic identifying information about the project and the project sponsor is included. A
separate "Project Application" form must be used for each project. If the claim covers multiple projects, the
multiple claim forms still constitute only one Attachment B. In other words, Attachment B can be one to "n"
number of claim forms, and the total number of pages of Attachment B is the total number of pages of all of the
claim forms (including any accompanying pages).
Where you see , insert — in black type — the number you assign to the resolution.
Where you see , insert — in upper and lower case black type — the official name of
the city or county (e.g., "the City of Oakland," "the County of Solano").
Where you see , insert — in upper and lower case black type — the name of the county
from which the claim is being submitted (e.g., "Napa County").
MTC, November 2022 TDA Article 3 Model Resolution Page 1
Resolution No. xx-2024
Abstract [Optional]
This resolution approves the request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission by the Town of Danville,
for an allocation of Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Project funding for fiscal
year 2024-25.
November 2022 TDA Article 3 Model Resolution Page 2
Resolution No. xx-2024
Re: Request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the allocation of fiscal year 2024-25
Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicvcle Droiect fundine
WHEREAS, Article 3 of the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section
99200 et seq., authorizes the submission of claims to a regional transportation planning agency for the funding of
projects exclusively for the benefit and/or use of pedestrians and bicyclists; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), as the regional transportation planning
agency for the San Francisco Bay region, has adopted MTC Resolution No. 4108, Revised, entitled "Transportation
Development Act, Article 3, Pedestrian/Bicycle Projects," which delineates procedures and criteria for submission
of requests for the allocation of "TDA Article 3" funding; and
WHEREAS, MTC Resolution No. 4108, Revised requires that requests for the allocation of TDA Article 3
funding be submitted as part of a single, countywide coordinated claim from each county in the San Francisco
Bay region; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Danville, desires to submit a request to MTC for the allocation of TDA Article 3
funds to support the projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, which are for the exclusive benefit
and/or use of pedestrians and/or bicyclists; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Town of Danville, declares it is eligible to request an allocation of TDA Article 3 funds
pursuant to Section 99234 of the Public Utilities Code, and furthermore, be it
RESOLVED, that there is no pending or threatened litigation that might adversely affect the project or
projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, or that might impair the ability of the Town of Danville, to
carry out the project; and furthermore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Town of Danville, attests to the accuracy of and approves the statements in
Attachment A to this resolution; and furthermore, be it
RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution and its attachments, and any accompanying supporting
materials shall be forwarded to the congestion management agency, countywide transportation planning agency,
or county association of governments, as the case may be, of Contra Costa County for submission to MTC as part
of the countywide coordinated TDA Article 3 claim.
The Town of Danville adopted this resolution on January 16, 2024 (TBD).
AYES:
NAYS
Certified to by (signature):
Robert Storer, Mayor
November 2022 TDA Article 3 Model Resolution Page 3
Resolution No. XX-2024
Attachment A
Re: Reauest to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of Fiscal Year 2024-25
Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Protect Funding
Findings
Page 1 of 1
1. That the Town of Danville, is not legally impeded from submitting a request to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission for the allocation of Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds, nor is
the Town of Danville, legally impeded from undertaking the project(s) described in "Attachment B" of this
resolution.
2. That the Town of Danville, has committed adequate staffing resources to complete the project(s) described
in Attachment B.
3. A review of the project(s) described in Attachment B has resulted in the consideration of all pertinent
matters, including those related to environmental and right-of-way permits and clearances, attendant to the
successful completion of the project(s).
4. Issues attendant to securing environmental and right-of-way permits and clearances for the projects
described in Attachment B have been reviewed and will be concluded in a manner and on a schedule that will
not jeopardize the deadline for the use of the TDA funds being requested.
5. That the project(s) described in Attachment B comply with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.).
6. That as portrayed in the budgetary description(s) of the project(s) in Attachment B, the sources of funding
other than TDA are assured and adequate for completion of the project(s).
7. That the project(s) described in Attachment B are for capital construction and/or final design and engineering
or quick build project; and/or for the maintenance of a Class I bikeway which is closed to motorized traffic
and/or Class IV separated bikeway; and/or for the purposes of restriping Class 11 bicycle lanes; and/or for the
development or support of a bicycle safety education program; and/or for the development of a
comprehensive bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities plan, and an allocation of TDA Article 3 funding for such a
plan has not been received by the Town of Danville, within the prior five fiscal years.
8. That the project(s) described in Attachment B which are bicycle projects have been included in a detailed
bicycle circulation element included in an adopted general plan or included in an adopted comprehensive
bikeway plan (such as outlined in Section 2377 of the California Bikeways Act, Streets and Highways Code
section 2370 et sec .) or responds to an immediate community need, such as a quick -build project.
9. That any project described in Attachment B bicycle project meets the mandatory minimum safety design
criteria published in the California Highway Design Manual or is in a National Association of City and
Transportation Officials (NACTO) guidance or similar best practices document.
10. That the project(s) described in Attachment B will be completed in the allocated time (fiscal year of allocation
plus two additional fiscal years).
11. That the Town of Danville, agrees to maintain, or provide for the maintenance of, the project(s) and facilities
described in Attachment B, for the benefit of and use by the public.
November 2022 TDA Article 3 Model Resolution Page 4
Resolution No. xx-2024
page 1 of 4
Attachment R
TDA Article 3 Project Application Form
1. Agency
Town of Danville
2. Primary Contact
Andrew Dillard, Transportation Manager
3. Mailing Address
500 La Gonda Way, Danville CA 94526
4. Email Address
adillard@danville.ca.gov
5. Phone Number
925 314-3384
6. Secondary Contact (in
the event primary is
not available)
Edwin Martinez, Traffic Engineering Associate
7. Mailing address (if
different) N/A❑X
8. Email Address
emartinez@danville.ca.gov
9. Phone Number
925 314-3381
10. Send allocation
instructions to (if
different from above):
11. Project Title
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Crosswalk Improvements
12. Amount requested
$110,000.00
13. Fiscal Year of
Claim
2024-25
14. Description of Overall Project:
The Rectangular Rapid Rashing Beacon Crosswalk Improvements consists of the design and construction
(procurement and installation) of Rectangular Rapid Rashing Beacon (" RRM') Systems at three (3) eAsting
midblock crosswalk locations in the Town of Danville. Proposed RRFB system components consist of
rectangular rapid flashing beacons, LED enhanced W11-2 and R1-1 signs, crosswalk illumination units, ADA
compliant pedestrian push buttons, passive activation detector units, solar power packages (panels, batteries,
controllers), Type 1 B poles, required conduits and conductors, W16-7p and R1-5 signs, and pavement
markings.
The project locations are identified as follows:
■ Hartford Road at Iron Horse Trail
■ Vest Prospect Avenue at Iron Horse Trail
■ Rai I road Avenue at Love Lane
RRFB systems are pedestrian and bicyclist actuated traffic control devices that are used to supplement and
enhance marked crosswalks at uncontrolled (unsignalized) intersections and midblock locations. RRFB
systems are cost-effective options to in -ground lighted crosswalk systems and can be powered via AC or solar
per.
(continued)
November 2022 TDA Article 3 Model Resolution Page 5
(continued)
To date the Town of Danville has installed RRFB Systems at 15 locations in configurations similar to the
subject project application. For the subject application, two of the proposed RRFB System locations are
located along the Iron Hose Regional Reginal Trail (IHT) comdor within Danville. The IHT is a vital 32-mile
non -motorized recreational and oomrrtAe facility that spans between the cities of Concord and Pleasanton.
Specifically in Danville, there are ten (10) IHT crossing locations along the 5-mile corridor segment. Within
the vicinity of the Downtawn Danville area and subject project locations, the IHT can see between 2,000-
3,000 pedestrians and bicycles per day during peak seasons. Currently, there are two (2) locations along the
IHT that are signalized, four (4) locations with RRFB systems, and two (2) locations that have RRFB systems
planned and that are in the design phase. The two locations identified for the subject grant application would
provide RRFB systems or signals along all IHT crossings within Danville.
Further, the proposed locations at West Prospect Avenue and Railroad Avenue are located directly within the
core Downtown area and adjacent to transit and area public schools including San Ramon Valley High School
and Montair Elementary School.
15. Project Scope Proposed for Funding: (Project level environmental, preliminary planning, and ROW
are ineligible uses of TDA funds.)
The project scope consists of the Design (PS&E) and Construction (procurement and installation of
equipment) of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Systems at the following three (3) midblock crossing
locations in the Town of Danville:
■ Hartford Road at Iron Horse Trail
■ West Prospect Avenue at Iron Horse Trail
■ Rai I road Avenue at Love Lane
The project scope and phase requested for funding consists of the Construction phase.
16. Project Location: A map of the project location is attached or a link to a online map of the project
location is provided below:
See Attachment B
Project Relation to Regional Policies (for information only)
17. Is the project in an Equity Priority Community? Yes El No0
18. Is this project in a Priority Development Area or a Transit -Oriented Community? Yes No0
November 2022 TDA Article 3 Model Resolution Page 6
19. Project Budget and Schedule
Project Phase
TDA 3
Other Funds
Total Cost
Estimated Completion (month/year)
Bke/Ped Plan
-
-
-
ENV
-
-
PA&ED
-
-
PS&E
-
$15,000
$15,000
December 2024
ROW
-
-
CON
110,000
$4,356
$114,356
Total Cost
$129,356
June 2025
Project Eligibility
A. Has the project been reviewed by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee? Yes No❑
If "YES," identify the date and provide a copy or link to the agenda.
If "NO," provide an explanation).
B. Has the project been approved by the claimant's governing body? Yes No❑
If "NO," provide expected date: 1/16/2024 (TBD)
C. Has this project previously received TDA Article 3 funding? Yes❑ No❑X
(If "YES," provide an explanation on a separate page)
D. For "bikeways," does the project meet Caltrans minimum safety design criteria Yes No❑
pursuant to Chapter 1000 of the California Highway Design Manual?
E. 1. Is the project categorically exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CCR Section 15301(c), Yes No❑
Existing Facility?
2. If "NO" above, is the project is exempt from CEQA for another reason? Yes❑
No❑
Cite the basis for the exemption. N/A❑
If the project is not exempt, please check "NO," and provide environmental
documentation, as appropriate.
F. Estimated Completion Date of project (month and year):
June 2025
G. Have provisions been made by the claimant to maintain the project or facility, or has Yes❑ No❑X
the claimant arranged for such maintenance by another agency? (If an agency other
than the Claimant is to maintain the facility, please identify below and provide the agreement.
November 2022 TDA Article 3 Model Resolution Page 7
H. Is a Complete Streets Checklist required for this project?
Yes❑ No❑X
If the amount requested is over $250,000 or if the total project phase or construction
phase is over $250,000, a Complete Streets checklist is likely required. Please attach
the Complete Streets checklist or record of review, as applicable. More information
and the form may be found here: https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/complete-streets
November 2022 TDA Article 3 Model Resolution Page 8