5.02 Design Considerations

(Updated 12/3/2020)

Existing non-motorized activity should be evaluated during the scoping and planning phases to plan for pedestrian and bicyclist needs during construction. This information will be used in the development of the TMP. Additional information regarding the project development process is provided in Section 1.02 Process.

Non-motorized response to signing, pavement markings, and other traffic control devices is often different from vehicular responses. Pedestrians and bicycles are more likely to follow their desired path and ignore long alternate routes. The physical space available for mitigating pedestrian impacts is often limited.

Mitigation should occur within the proposed right-of-way (ROW). If that cannot be accomplished, early notification to obtain additional ROW or to assess alternatives is critical to the schedule and budget of the project. If the closure meets standards and no viable alternatives exist, closing a non-motorized route may be an acceptable alternative.

Per the MMUTCD section 6G.05 “where pedestrian routes are closed, alternate pedestrian routes shall be provided.” The level of detail required for the alternate route should be based on guidance given in this section and can range from something as complex as providing a licensed transportation shuttle, to something as simple as providing advance warning as in the MMUTCD Typical Application - 28.

A. Site Review

The site review should include an assessment of the existing pedestrian facilities for impacts relative to the project. ROW impacts should be documented during the site review. Pedestrian and bicyclist volumes are frequently low and not readily obtained. Indications that these activities do occur within the work zone include:

  • Existing sidewalk, trail, or pathway
  • Observed pedestrian activity
  • Evidence of pedestrian activity (i.e. worn paths along the roadway)
  • Area traffic generators (i.e. commercial or institutional land uses near residential areas and transit stops).
  • Dedicated bike lanes/bike route


The site review should assess the nature and scope of activities, potential safety, and capacity concerns along with alternative routes where appropriate.

In addition, non-motorized traffic generators should be documented and reviewed. Generators that may require additional attention are schools, shopping centers, and local street side businesses. ADA considerations must also be evaluated for every project. In certain locations, an engineering study of the non-motorized traffic may be required to determine the impact the project will have on the local population. It is important to note any ROW impacts found either during the scoping process or the preliminary review.

B. Data Collection

The required analysis to be conducted and the data collection necessary will vary depending on the type of project and location. In low volume areas, a site review may be sufficient to assess the relative number of pedestrians and the pattern of their movements. In urban, suburban, and rural areas with tourist activity, it may be necessary to collect more detailed pedestrian and bicycle count data including:

  • Classification counts
  • Speed survey
  • Origin-destination information
  • Intersection control &and signal timing
  • Adjacent land uses


Pedestrian data may be available from a number of existing sources:


Past traffic signal optimization projects may provide the majority of information if the intersection is signalized. This data is typically limited to peak hours.

If existing data is not available, field counts are preferred. If trip generation rates are available, they may be used to estimate the pedestrian activity through the work zone. Typical pedestrian and bicycle traffic generators include:

  • Residential housing
  • Shopping centers
  • Churches
  • Shelters / rescue missions
  • Schools
  • Universities / Colleges
  • Daycare centers
  • Senior centers
  • Retirement communities
  • Community centers
  • Stadiums / Arena
  • Parks and beaches
  • Dedicated bicycle routes
  • Central business districts
  • Transit/school bus routes
  • Sporting, Special Event and concert venues

C. Feasibility Analysis

A formal mobility analysis is not required, a feasibility analysis should be conducted if there are more than 10 pedestrians per hour in the peak hours. The surrounding pedestrian traffic generators should be reviewed as pedestrian peak hours may not coincide with vehicular peak hours. In some areas, pedestrian peak volumes may occur on the weekends.

The feasibility analysis should consider pedestrian delay due to additional travel time along an alternate route. Review the additional distance pedestrians have to cover as a part of the detour or diversion. In rare cases, with extreme pedestrian volumes, congestion induced pedestrian delays should also be considered.

D. Non-Motorized Design Guidance

Non-motorized work zone design strategies are summarized below.

Table 5-1: Non-Motorized Work Zone Guidance: Facilities

  • Pedestrians should be physically separated from the work zone and vehicles through the use of barriers and longitudinal channelizing devices.
  • Pedestrian routes should be maintained free of any obstruction and hazards, such as holes, debris, mud, construction equipment, stored materials, etc.
  • Temporary lighting is not required, but should be considered for temporary walkways if the existing route is lighted.
  • Hazards (ditches, trenches, excavations, etc.) near or adjacent to walkways must be clearly delineated and protected with appropriate channelizing devices
  • A covered pedestrian walkways may be required under, or adjacent to, elevated work activities including bridges and retaining walls.
  • The minimum dimensions of a covered walkway for use by both pedestrians and bicycles should be be 7 feet high by 4 feet wide, with a 32-38-inch handrail and a slip resistant walk surface.
  • Where construction activities involve sidewalks on both sides of the street, efforts should be made to stage the work so that both sidewalks are not out of service at the same time.
  • Audible devices should be considered in urban areas where an existing device is provided, or in areas known to e frequented by individuals with visual impairments.
  • Existing devices should be re-programed or de-activated at locations where a facility is closed or detoured.
  • Audible devices should be proposed at temporary or detoured crosswalks if existing devices were provided at the closed crossing.
  • Coordination between the owner agencies of the existing audible devices is important to determine who will make the required modifications.
  • Temporary pedestrian accommodations must be as accessible as the existing pedestrian facilities.

Table 5-2: Non-Motorized Work Zone Guidance: Detours

  • Advance notice of closures to allow pedestrians to avoid the construction site entirely.
  • Detour routes should provide the most direct and safest route to minimize travel time and distance.</liv>
  • A detour route, alternate pathway, or travel assistance is required to maintain pedestrian traffic if sidewalks on both sides of the roadway are closed.
  • Signing should provide clear indications for each route where detours overlap.
  • Provide advance signing at intersections rather than mid-block locations.

Categories

Retrieved from "https://mdotwikiqa.state.mi.us/aashtoware/index.php?title=Work_Zone_-_5.02_Design_Considerations&oldid=288"
Retrieved from "https://mdotwikiqa.state.mi.us/aashtoware/index.php?title=Work_Zone_-_5.02_Design_Considerations&oldid=288"