Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0568.000~ . " ~ -'~ .. ,-,' ~ "--""'~' November 15, 1990 HONoRABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California Attention: Policy and Procedures committee Jlidt9WD Neighborhood Trillic stydy-Evaluation of Hocy¢r Park NeigbborhqQ1 Association Recommendations Heabers of the Council: REPORT IN SF IEF The purpose of this report is to respond to Council fS direction o.f one year ago to evalua.te five recommendations of the Hoover PaTk Neighborhood Association (HPNA) reqardinq the completed Midtown Neighborhood Traffic Study and to refer that discussion to the Policy and Procedures Committee~ The five HPNA recommendations are summari~ed below: L Move one existing road bUlCp and add two new road bumps on Cowper street. 2. Improve the visibility of the road bW!l.ps by modifying the striping or adding reflectors. 3. Change the height and cross sect,ion of the bumps to make them more like those in Menlo Park . • ~ Improve pedestrian visibility on Middlefield Road by adding a pedestrian-activated flashing yellow light to the pedestrian crossing siqns~ 5. Add planters in place of the bulbouts that the consultant had originally recommended. HPNA' s letter also discusses two common objectie-.,s to the road bu.ps (emergency services re~ponse time, and noise). It concludes that the above recommendations will help reduce noise, and that the e-.erqency services have continued to provide excellent service despite the presence of the bumps~ CIIR:568:0 • \, ':' , .< statt recolUlends that (a) no action be taken on recommendations one.. three, and five; dnd (1:) the night time visibil ity of the Xidtown bumps be improved by the addition of reflective pave~ent tape or thermoplastic (r~commendation two}. Recommendation tour, improveme~t of Middlefield Road pedestrian crossings r is the subject of a separate staff report. BAC!(GRQ(JNp The five recoMmendations we:re contained in an October 23, 1989 letter (AttacluMnt 1) which HPNA presented to c~uncil at its lIhl'e:tinq of November 6, 1989, when council was considerinq permanent approval of the Midtown road bumps. At t..'lat meeting, Council directed staff to respond to the recommendations at the same time staff was to return to council vith a discussion of the possible further application ot road bump3. COWPER STRBIT BmfPS--CHPNA RECQ}QfENQATIOll ONE) Recommendation one is to move one existing road bump and add two ne\i road bUmps on Cowper street. The purpose of 1Dovinq one of the existing bumps would be to slov traffic on cowper Street approaching or departin9 froln the traffic light at the intersection of Oregon Expressway and CO'Wper street. The purpose of addinq two new bumps on cowper street would be to reduce the spacing between axisting bumps in crder to reduce speeding between bumps4 Moving the existing bwnp closer to Or~l'I, Expressway would not be acceptable, because a bump should be no closer than 200 feet to a .ajar signalized intersection. This di5tance is necessary in order to insure that th-e bump does not detract from a driver's attention t.o the judgements needed in the Vicinity of a major intersection. Also, the first bump in the series should be preceded by a warning sign l~ted at least 200 feet away. The sign should not be in the immediate viCinity of tne interse~tion, because a driver probably will have his cr her attention focused on traffic ROvements at the intersection. The addition of t~o ne~ bumps vould be unacceptable because 500 feet is the most appropriate distar~e between bumps or between a bWllp and a stop sign. The 500-toot spacing maintains a maximum 85th percentile speed of 30 mpb between bumps, the speed that staff believes is the approprlate design speed for a road bump installation. Recent speed .easure~ents on Cowper indicate that the soo-toot spacing bas c':>J"'.sistently produced this desired maxiJII\UIII speed for the two years that the bumps have been installed (ref~r to Attachment 2). Rance, staff does not recoQmend any changes in the mlaber or spacing of road bumps on Cowper Street. CI!R:566:0 11/15/90 Page 2 • • ( ~ IIMt [~ two i. to lapr-o-ve the visibility of the bumps by aodl tyl~ tl\e atr Jplnq Or' addlnq retlectorli1. The ~UlllPS are now pelnte4 in & ·Jadd.r-~tter" [parallel lonqitudinal stripes), ~s ,tudi .. .nov t~t this pattern is the .ost noticeable to drivers. This pett:.ra should b4 reta inec:J. The Midtown bumps do not have ~flectiv. a&rk.r.. Stat: does not recommend that raised r-etlet;:tlve u.rk.rs be used in the roadway (except along the centerlIne) beeeu~ they are very jarring to bicyclists and could ce~ •• 10.. of centrol; they are noisy when driven over; and they coaoe 100" after repeated poundinc; by tires. Instead, staff r~nd. that visibllity be i.proved by replacing eXistinq painted st.ripe. end legends 'With reflective pavement tape or t.heraoplastic and reflective aarkers place<1 on aach bump on the roadvay centerline. Tape and thermoplastic retain their whiteness and reflective"' ••• 1\\lch lonq4!.r than paint, and th-e. centerline markers will add additional night time visibility. This is the lI1arklnq standard vbich staf"f Is recommending for any future bumps in Palo Alto. The CQst to retrofit the eight Midtown bI..L"Ups is ;:.pproxh~at.ely $4ISOO and can be funded from the original 'Midto'"m Road Bump Capital Improvement Project No. 13828. ~ AND QQNFIGYRATTON OF BUMpS--fHPMA BECQMMENDATION THR~E) Recommendation three is to have higher bumps with a different cr-oss section, making them more like those in Menlo Park. Staffls specifications for the design and constru-ction of the Midtown bumps were a duplicate of those of Menlo Park. These are also the specifications contained in a study by the California Traffic Control Devi~s Committee (an advisory committee to caltrans) and are those of the City of Thousand Oaks, two agenCies that have done extensive research on road bumps~ However, even with the same specifications, differences in the final results can arise, depending on factors such as care and attention of the contractor to the guidelines. variations in materials and eq'.lipmer:t. and strictness of tinal inspection. Staff measured the height of all the ro~d bumps in Menlo Park and Pale Alto.. The average. height of all of Me.nlo, Park.'s bumps, except 1893 oak, is the same as that of Palo Alto's (3.2 inches). (The ~ ~t 1893 Oak Avenue in Menlo Park is atypical in that it is 4~7 inches ~igh in one direction# and has been lowered after construction in the other direction: hence, this bump was not included in the averaqe.) However, none of H6nl~ Park's bumps is less than three inches high while three of Palo Alto's are leas than three inches. The height required in the construction specifications is three inches, with a tolerance of ±~25 inch. The height of the bump a~ 642 Marion is 2.8 inches~ eastbound: that of 2480 Cowper is 2.8 inche~, southbound; and that of 2593 cowper is 2 .. 6 inches, northbound.. The heights; in ~he otller travel directions CMR:568:0 11/15/30 Page 3 • :-, I 1 of these humps end in both travel directions ot the other Palo Alto bumps ranqe f~om 3.1 to 3.7 inches. Public Works advises that asphalt should not be added to the oumps in auounts less than about one inch because of the risk of creating future maintenance problems trom unravelling of the new layer. Furthermore, the asphalt ~ould have to be added not just to the top of the bump, but also across the entire bump trom the leading edqe to the trailing edge~ Thus, the original shape and length of the bwap could not be maintained, alterinq in an llllknown or,:ay the impact of the bUlJlp on traffic. In order to correct the height of any bump, therefore,. it would have to be removed and a nel,,:' one constructed. Staf.! does not recommend any changes because (a) speed measurements indicate that all the Midtown bumps are producing tbe maximum 35th percentile speeds between them that ara expecteu with three-inch bumps spaced as the Midtown bu~ps are: and (b) it .. ould cost approxi.ately $3000 to l"emOVe and replace a bump ror the purpose of increasinq its height by one-fourth to one-half inch. The 12-inch taper ot the Midtown bumps at the edge of the gutter is the same as that specified for Menlo Park's bumps. This taper is the miniDum needed to avoid an abrupt change in height at the edge o~ the gutter which, if encountered by a driver or-a bicycle rider., could cause dang~rous steering problems. Staff believes that no chanqes are needed in the cross section of the bumps. PEDESTRIAN VISIBILITY ON xlpoLErIEID ROAP-(BrMA RECOMl1ENDATIQN lQ!!IU Recommendation four is to improve Middlefield Road.. This is the subject and. a separate staff report which will date. pedestrian visibility on of a s.eparate detailed study reach the Council at a later pvmEBS INSTEAP OF BULBOQTS--(HPNA RECQKMENDAtION FIVE) Recommendation five is to create bulbouts with small individ"-la.l planters. The April 1987 final report for the Midtown Neighbo't""hood Traffic Study., prepared by OKS Associates., recommended that bulbouts be installed in conjunction with textured cross~alks at five -qateway· locations as identified in Fiqures 6-11 and 6-12 of the report (Attachment 3). At that time., stafr concluded that bulbouts and textured crosswalks would be a good addition to the neighborhood because tbey would help create a sense of identity and increased motorist awareness of the residantial araa. However, staff recommended against their installation because ot their hiqb cost ~~ their limited ability to produce conclusive imp~ovements in traffic flow and safety (CMR 400:7., 8/13/87, page 16). Properly-constructed bulbouts., providing the type of landscapinq, irrigation, drainage., and street sweeping provisions of the first CMR:S68:C 11/15/90 Page 4 • \ " " o permanent Ev~rqreen Park street closures would cost approximately $75,000 t~ $100,000 per intersection. Bulbouts modeled after the most re~ently-installed street closures 1n Evergreen Park and other locations, which are smaller ar~ do not include irriqation, drainaqe, or street sweeping provisions, would cost about $30,000 to $40,000 per intersection. These costs do not include textured crosswalks. Conceptual Plan and Cost Esti~ate 'rhi!. planters envisioned in the HPNA recommendation would be similar to those Which existed along the centerline of a portion of ,Nelson Drive, until recently. Figure 1 is a sketch of how planters might be used to :fora the shape of a bllibout at a typical Midtown neiqhborhood intersection. The hulbout 1!'l of the appr-oximate di.e.nsions recollllJended in the OKS report. A series of :;:It least seven planters outlining the shape of the bulbout is desirable, rather than two or-three planters placed in the center of an outline delineated solely with a pavement stripe. This is because the purpose of bulbouts is to present the approacbing driver with an actual narrowing of the roadway# creating the sense of a portal, thereby cCI.usinq the driver to reduce speed and feel that. he or she ia entering a special area. The estiaated cost for bulbouts as shown in Figure 1 ranges from about $4000 ~o $5000 per intersection (the cost tor a DT­ interstllet,ion would be a:bollt the same). This includes 7-9 planters per eorner# with plantings, to outline the shape of the bulbout_ a white stripe to define the perimeter of the bulbout and to guide traffic; and two 5mall reflector signs per corner, also to quide traffic. The total cost for the five gateway intersections ~ould thus range from about $20,000 to $25#000. Maintenance contrary to HPNAts recommendation, the planters and the adjacent 5treet areas M require maintenance. Maintenance # in fact# is staff's primary concern. The Greenmeado'W Neiqhborhood Association had a contract with the city to maintain the planters on Nelson Drive. The Parks Division had qiven the Greenm~adow Association $1000 per year for it to hire a gardener tc maintain the plantings. Public Works moved the planters back into place if they were .eved by· persons or vehicles, provided anchoring for the planters to prevent easy movement# and repaired damaqed plant~rs. However, a ~e~ months ago, after about 15 years of maintaining the planters, th~ Association re.t;Uested that the planters be removed because Association members were no longer interested in ~aintaining the •• Instead, they wanted something more ·permanent-(i.e., presumably maintenance-free). staff had originally installed the planters as a temporary measure to k~ep drivers from cutting corners. CMR:568:0 • 11/15/90 Page 5 • ,", , ... , j .. .. ---~ ---"t- \ o· oj ./ o o Public Works &~ the Parks Division are no longer in a position to provide any type or .ainten4nce~ manual street Bweepinq, or funds ~or the maintenance of planters~ HPNA would have to be responsible, at its cost, tor the mainte.nance and wa.tering of planters and plantings, keeping planters in established locations, replacing stolen or damaged planter-5, and street cleaning between planters. A contract between HPNA and the City for such aaintenance 'Would be possible, but tbe City Attorney's office believes it would be hard to enforce and ~iqht e~se the City to additional liability over which the City ",,'ould have little. or no control. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that HPNA members would desire to continue the maintenance for the life of the planters .. Because ot the cost, and the issues of maintenance and liability discussed above, versus the uncertain benefits on traffic flow and safety produced by the planters. staff believes that plaJ'lters should not be installed .. QVIRQN1WITAL ASSES$MEtiT The staff' recommendations in this report are for administrative acti~ that are categnrically exespt from the California Environaental Quality Act. If, however, the council desired to consider favorably any other HPNA recommendations, '&taff would recmmend that the COuncil direct staff to prepare an environmental assessment of sucb recommendations for future Council action .. RECOKMpfDAT'ION staff recomaends that: (a) no action be taken on recollU:!.endations one, three and five of the Hoover Park Neighborhood Association letter of October 23. 1989; (b} reflective pavement tape or ther.oplastic and. centerline reflective mar~ers be installed to replace existing painted 5tripes and legends at all the Midtown bumps, at an approxiaate funded cost of $4500 (recommendation two): and (C) improved visibility for pedestrians on Middlefi~ld Road (recollDlendation four) be considered and resolved in conjunction 'With a separate report that specifically addresses this issue. CHR:568:0 11/15/90 Page 6 ". .,:-' Respectfully submitt~d, C~~ ~Nltd J:' JUwk~ CAllL STOFFEL Transportation Engineer ,~ Attachments: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director or Planning and Community Environment {it October 23, 198'9 letter fcom. Hcover Park Neighborhood Association to City Council (6 pages). (2) Midtown Road BuDps--Existing Speed Data (3) Bulbout recommendation fro. Midtown Neighborhood Traffic study (2 peg-es). Related Staff Reports: CMR.:400:7, August 13, 1987, -MidtoW'n Neighborhood Tr~ftic Study· CMR:47l:9, october 121 1989, -Midtown Road BUmp Demonstration Project--Fin&l EValuation Report- ee: Midtown Merchants' Association {Bajis Katwan) HOOVer Park Neighborhood Association (steve Long) Midtown West Association (Robert Debs) west sayshore Residents l Association (MaUreen MOravick) P&lo Alto Bicycle Advisory committee CKil:568:0 11/15/90 Page 7 Neigti:)or hood Associat ion '101 I.~ Ii" !;: , ,', i': r:-, < ~ j 'J , ... ~ I <. I If\I -Ii; HONORABLE CnY COUNOL October 23. 1989 Palo Alto. California cm'::E or THf Cn--...-I,i:,~, 'J,;,~ TIle members of !he Hoover Park Neighbo!-hood Assodation (HPNA) , have compleled In independent license pla,e traffic sludy to .: measure chanses in through-Iraffic and in IOLaI ,olumes resulting ,0 from Ibe instaUation of road bumps in our neigbborbood. .' Additionally. a traffIC questionnaire was circulated ._",ong M,dlown neighbors 10 assess Iheir opinions on retention of the bumps. and on Iheir Doise impact. The resulls of our study and the survey were previously .ubmined uuder separale cover. Our findings indicate grealer Irafflc reductions and .peed reductions Ihan those measured by the City, but are basically in agreement with the Cily Ibal bumps reduce traffIC 'tolumes and speed, Our survey II so indicaies a 69% majority preference among the respondents fOT retaining or increasing the number of bumps. TIIere is a consensus among HPNA members tIlat tbe speed bumps are only • partial solution for eDsuring residential and pedestrian safety in the MidtGWD area. When Ihe traffIC control improvemenlS were approved over a year ago as a result of the Midtown Traffic Study. only some of the c"anges recommended by the Iraffie consultant were approved. The trame consuftanl lestifled in city council meelings tIlat the recommendalions should be implemented as a complete package in order for them to b.> effeclive. City .taff. however. recommended implemenling only a few parts of the package. As a result. the road bumps have bad lome of the desired effecl. but not as much as desired. The tramc consultant was right. A. with aoy traffIC coouo! device, road humps can be used eilher effeclively to get good r.sults. or used improperly to ,.t mediocre resullS. Half Ihe solulion~b:t> half the problem. 0- Accordingly, we recommend the foU"",ing: I) Move one road bump on Cowper StrOOl and add Iwo addilional bumps on Cowper. One of Ihes~ additional bumps should be installed closer to the Or~gon traffic light while lbe otber should be placed between t~e two Colorado intersections (see attached figure). The nrS! new ro.d bump OD Cowper Street closest to Oregon Expressway will solve a problem that currently exists in Ihis area. Vehicles entering Cowper at the Oregon inlersection are travelling very fast due to the higber speeds on Oregon or to cross Oregon before the traffic light changes. Traffic speeds at the firsl road bump are veri' high. We believe that the much slower speeds necessary in I residential district warrant a close pair of road bumps to act as a 'buffer .one' between two different road systems. This new road bump helps reduce L~e 'speed up to m.~e the green light' oyndrome. The Anion Coon opening 10 Cowper would also be safer. C'llrren~y, the Anton Coun opening on Cowper al tbe high-speed Or.gon inlersection is very baurdo.5. The single existing road bump on Cowper between Muinn Avenue and Colorado Avenue bas too mucb distance between otber road bumps and slop sisn.. Previously published road bump teslS sbow that road bumps placed more than 200·300 feet apart cause .peeding up between road bumps. This mak .. sense. If perceived r",ad impediments are (ar enough away for • :lriver, the driver will speed up. Movin, thi~ road bump and adding another roughly equidistant apart (a. per attached figore) will reduce the speeding up syndrome. and redu~e road noise. This new road bump will also prevent an unhalanced !raffle flow siluation. w. reel that 100 many vehicles traveling DOrIIl on Cowper would turn left at Colorado Avenue to avoid .. road bumps 10 get to Oregon. Although the MidtOWil Road Blimp city siaff report of October 12, 1989 sbows on page 1 that the speeds 0<1 this section of Cowper bave been reduced from 32 to 29 MPH ... e ,uspect that vehicles turning from Colorado A venae are included which would hide the flct Ihat CO.J>C' through-traffIC ,peeds up through tbis area. NO! surprisingly, some residents in this area reel that .ehicles haven't -. • o slowed down at all. 2) The visibitity of the bumps should be improved to reduce potential liability. This could be done by painting the bumps solid white or by using reflective 4 loch squares. Slreet signs of any siu or shape apparently bave little effecl on increasing the vhibility of road bumps. On the first day th'l the road bumps were built. the signs bad already bee. installed, but the streel paint was not added until the next day. Local residents who expected the road bumps and kne", they were being installed were nonetheless surprised when dri¥ing over Ibe road bump< for the first Lime because they didnl see rhe rn. 3} The size and configuration of Ihe Midtown road bumps appear 10 be milder than those tested in Menlo Park. The bumps also raper off towards the sidewalk, but ,bould't. This encourages some traffic to pass Ihe bumps at higher than posted speeds, and 100 elMe to the sidewalks. The laleral cyon·section is also apparently not correct. The simple experience of driving over tbe Men!o Park and the Midtown road bump; shows that the Midtown Toad bumps are nOl built tbe same. Properly built road bumps are increasingly less comfonable as car speed incuases, but this is nOl true in Midtown. We recommend that road bumps be re-configured to the correct, higber profile. 4) Impro\'e pedestrian visibility 011 Middlefield by adding a pedestrian·activated yellow f1ashin, light 10 the pedestrion crossing signs. The warninll light would flash ror a specified period or time and Slop aUlomatiatlly. A person on fOOl or bike is simply nOl noticed by drivers watching other vehicles. Also add the texlured crosswalks IS specified in the traffic consultants original recommendation. Crossing Middlefield is by rar the most dangerous pedeSlrian/bike activit)' in our lleighborbood. S) Add planters in place of the bulbouts til at are in the consuhant', original recommendaliDn.. Bulbouls are basically large (12-15 reel in diameter) and protrude into the street to "onstrict traffIC lanes. PI.nler. are small, cbeap, and already exist in several places in Palo Alto. A concrete planler Cabout 3 reel wide by 3 reet J • '. ", ,,/ ~ lall) is fiUed wilh din and drooght resistant plants, They r~uire no mainltcanct. Objeclions or II! tbe variou, objections 10 Ihe road bumps. two are worlh discussing --emergency services respon .. time and the noise. Emergency vehlck response lime is delayed by road bumps. According 10 city fire offICials. emergency vehicles trnel an eSlimated 35 MPH on local '!!""Is bul must reduce speed to 15 MPH over road bumps. If you assume SO Ceel for slowing down before a road bump and SO feet for speeding up after a road bump, the difference of 20 MPH in pea" speed ca!culale. 10 about a 6.8 second delay al eacb road bump. Since every bome can be reached by going over no more than 2 road bumps. the maximum delay seems 10 be about 14 seconds. Decisions affecting emergency vehicle response ti"", are basically value judgements. While we appreciate the concerns of our emergency services staff. their excelleD I service recOid indicates that Ihey will find the best way to cope witb what they view as an impediment. Noise bas been Ihe most signWcan! neighborhood complaint (based on our neighbocllood questionnaire publisbed October 14. 1989). The true reason ror the percehed increase ill lloise is the occasioDa! sharp bang thaI accurs wheD loose equipment bounces in the back of lrucks. However. the loul amounl of overall tral'f'lC noise created is less due 10 the reduced .peeds and volume or vehicles. The nature of traffle noise is now different in IlIsl the sharp bang is more noticeable than a fairly conslant roar. o~< recommendations listed above will help eliminate some of Ihe banging noise by reducing molorists incent;'e 10 drive over the road bump. raster than they should. Because of the inadequate height aDd spacing of the curren! road bumps. 100 many vebicles lind that tbe road bumps are nOi uncomfortable enough to warranl a slower speed. . . • • o r. summary, the lest prosram bas conciusively ,hown that Ihe bumps are effulive in achieving Itamc and speed reduclio",. However, Iheir effectivene .. should be improved through supplement.lion .... itb Ibe »beve modificalion •. The HPNA Sl101>81y recommends ,b., road bumps be relained and expanded in the MidlOwft arel, and Ibar tbey be implemented in olher neighborhoods with simil., problems. The HPNA Steering Comrnillee 5 .. :--"~ ,- cowpe~tr~et , c.urrent CyfgQ!\ E o(pi'ess.",,,t' --t AnlQ"n (1 ., 295 tnt • t=-t 11arl.()f'I Aile l 480 feEt J 8u!':"'\) t (<310raCo Ave 51 FeoH .. St. t CO~o(boa ... t.~ 4JO Feet StOP ¢ '00 ?OO feet "'--" -.y Antcl'i (t r-cb~\Crz A\ri Co1orMo 'y. CQtcr a12Q "-vo • Cowper Street R~commeoded ore-gor. £IIDrt'!W""'~-l --lS) ::-< i e.;JcO l4-S ::: 7~_ t L:':.f',!,1;,) ~ f "r 5)r'1"p i 39'1''' :3:.;1110 1 $to ! T '" ,':op 450 ~H~ MIDTOWN ROAD BUMP DEMONSTRATION PROJECT COMPARISON OF 85TH PERCENTILE SPEEDS ---"!' ............ _-...... -...... "'--••••• -............................................ . 85TH PERCENTILE SPEEDS (MPH, AVG BOTH DIRECTIONS)** DISTANCE """-"""""_ .....•....• _ ..•.•..........•... ,. ~OCATlOH 8ETWEEN Expected·· 'I' Before Hld After 15 mos BUMPS based on Bumps Demo Demo After (feet) bump 5/88 1/09 6/89 Demo spaclng* 9/90 ........ ---.. ---... _-.. , ......... --.......... _--..... -.... --......... _-....... . Marion 380 27 I 29 26 26 27 bet"".n bumps Colorado 350 l7 I 32 26 28 27 between blimps 2500 blk Cowper 500 29 31 30 29 30 between bumps 2600 blk Cowper SOO 29 32 30 29 29 between bump and stop slgn 2900 blk Cowper I 230***1 261 31 I 27 27 26 between bumps I , .... _--......... _---... __ ... _---........ _----......... ---.... --... ---....... . ·Source: California Traffi~ Control Devices Committee, ~Subcommittee Repott on Pave~e"t Undulat1ons\ pp. la, IS. Expected speed depends on bump spacing. ·*Measurements of speeds. may fluctuatE! up to approximately + or - 3 mph, So change~ of less than 3 Mph should not be consldered to b. partlcularly meanlngful or to be caused conclusIvely by the road bumps. ***In January 1990, thls ,pa~lng was reduced to 230 feet from the previous 270 feet. @ ~ > () J: !: m Z -i N o , !'{~ '" .. ' ,'. ' • , / , - DKS Associates' 0 ,..., ATTACHMENT 3'-' • Standard Handicap Raised Planters with Trees and Low Flowering Shrubs I'''--L Curb Bulb Outs and Textured Crosswalk 12'-17' X 3-3 1/2" Road Bump . --- -.. ,' Figure 6-11 BULB OUT & TEXTURED CROSSWALK . ''; OKS Associates 10 I a at·'·111 ... 1 .... ~ ., ....... . ... ~ ...... ,. fhZ'." ." ...... 1llA1"1 A. Cowper &. Marian ~ N, ...... ""' .. •• .. 1« ... _t .. & ~.~. It:::W"~I'1 I\. 00'11.000 ".1,11 , .. , ..... II"""~ ... ~ ......... ~ , ...... ~.I ... ' ......... " ....... , B. Cowper" Colorado (Waet) ••• hque ... I, .~I ..... -" -.' ;; U'UqI~I""" .. -.... C. Cowper" Colorado CE D. Cowper" EI Dorado E. Colorl\<lQ .. Byron Figure 6-.12 NEIGHBORHOOD BUla OUT ANO /. I .. ~ '/ _,. _c' • ,.