Hazardous Obstacles on the Sunset MUP

[K'Tesh]

Back in Feb, I was riding on the Hwy 26 MUP between Portland and Beaverton, when I noticed that the Worst Day of the Year Ride's route had been marked along my commute route. However, no effort was made to identify three hazardous street lamp bases that jut into the MUP. It seems that whenever I ride through there, it's inevitable that someone will be walking, or cycling against me, so I need to keep to the right as I'm cruising downhill. It got me thinking...
2000 riders, going past these things 2 or 3 abreast, and we've got an accident waiting to happen.



I brought this to ODOT, but they didn't do anything. I also informed the ride's planners, and they could only temporarily mark the street lamps. Not long afterwards, the markings were taken down, or wore off. So, back in June, I applied some reflective tape to the lampposts, and I tried painting the bases with pavement marking paint (I also superglued some reflectors to it, but they aren't holding up).



The paint faded... (continued in pt 2)

[K'Tesh]

Continued from pt 1

The paint faded...



So, I obtained some self-adhesive, foil backed, reflective lane marking tape...



I used up all that I had (only was able to do two of the three, but I got the worst of them).

Let's see how it holds up. My next idea is to use some of the reflective glass microbeads that I have scooped up over the years, mix it with some AB Urethane casting material and pigment, and pour that over the things if ODOT doesn't do something soon.

Can we get a permanent solution to this installed? Perhaps something like this?



It's a 4" wide thermoplastic stripe that warns cyclists of the hazard ahead.

Replies are welcomed.

Thanks

[q`Tzal]

Any idea how your fixes are being removed?

Who built this path and who is ultimately responsible for its maintenance?
Is this responsible party different from the party responsible for the obstructing light poles themselves?

I find myself wondering if there isn't some bureaucratic turf battle over what is allowed to be done to fix this.

As a geek I've got a current copy of the MUTCD and have full sized and situationally scaled templates of the mandated signage that would be required by law if these light pole bases protruded in to a "real" road. The fixes I have pondered would be scale and speed appropriate for this MUP environment. There area many useful engineering equations in the MUTCD.

I "found" some unused pieces of Corex on roadsides that I intended to use as the sign board. Signs would be similar to Section 2C.64 Object Markers for Obstructions.

I recovered the composite spring loaded spars from some trashed pop-up safety cone "Wet Floor" signs. The idea being that the spring portion would be at the base so when someone came by and hit the sign it would give way.

Looking in the workplace safety catalogs I figured out how to mount the sign bases to concrete such that it would take a hammer and chisel to remove the base. Even tested a way to keep the steel spring flexible but protected from weather and rusting.

I've got this idea about "painting" road markings (per Section 3B.10 Approach Markings for Obstructions) for the obstructions. In this case "painting" would involve abrading a strip of the concrete where I would embed a thin layer of retro reflective beads in white tinted epoxy. If done right the epoxy and reflective material would be embedded in the surface still being visible but allowing traction: like chewing gum.

All this planning is for naught if someone is removing these things.

[K'Tesh]

Originally Posted by q`Tzal

Any idea how your fixes are being removed?

Who built this path and who is ultimately responsible for its maintenance?
Is this responsible party different from the party responsible for the obstructing light poles themselves?


All this planning is for naught if someone is removing these things.

I have no idea who is removing the reflectors, however there is a school nearby, and it's possible that some kids may be "liberating" them.

The paint just simply faded. To get the adhesive of the foil lane markings to stick, I decided to scrub the bases with a wire brush. I don't know how effective this will be, as it is a "temporary" lane marking and I'm out of CA glue to try to seal the edges.

ODOT is the party responsible for the construction and maintenance of the MUP, but for some reason, that I can't figure out, they don't see the risk. I doubt that there's a concerted effort to counter my attempts to improve the visibility on their part.

As to the options posed by you, I'm going to have to investigate, as I'm not entirely familiar with some of them.

[EDIT]

Originally Posted by q`Tzal

I've got this idea about "painting" road markings (per Section 3B.10 Approach Markings for Obstructions) for the obstructions. In this case "painting" would involve abrading a strip of the concrete where I would embed a thin layer of retro reflective beads in white tinted epoxy. If done right the epoxy and reflective material would be embedded in the surface still being visible but allowing traction: like chewing gum.

I have some AB Urethane casting material, and retro-reflective beads, but I'm thinking about marking the base itself (in a Hwy Yellow, but I lack the pigments), not the sidewalk leading up to it. Problem is that this stuff is EXPENSIVE... and I've got other plans for it.

I've sent another one of my shotgun emails to several agencies, members of the press, and injury attorneys. I doubt that this can be now be blown off as easily, now that 15 pairs of eyes (not including forum members) are now focused on the issue. [/EDIT]

[K'Tesh]

Thanks for doing your homework q`Tzal!

I'm going to use this in my next email...

Section 2C.64 Object Markers for Obstructions Within the Roadway
Standard:

01 Obstructions within the roadway shall be marked with a Type 1 or Type 3 object marker. In addition to markers on the face of the obstruction, warning of approach to the obstruction shall be given by appropriate pavement markings (see Section 3B.10).

Option:

02 To provide additional emphasis, a Type 1 or Type 3 object marker may be installed at or near the approach end of a median island.
03 To provide additional emphasis, large surfaces such as bridge piers may be painted with diagonal stripes, 12 inches or greater in width, similar in design to the Type 3 object marker.

Standard:

04 The alternating black and retroreflective yellow stripes (OM3-L, OM3-R) shall be sloped down at an angle of 45 degrees toward the side on which traffic is to pass the obstruction. If traffic can pass to either side of the obstruction, the alternating black and retroreflective yellow stripes (OM3-C) shall form chevrons that point upwards.

Option:

05 Appropriate signs (see Sections 2B.32 and 2C.25) directing traffic to one or both sides of the obstruction may be used instead of the object marker.

Section 2C.65 Object Markers for Obstructions Adjacent to the Roadway
Support:

01 Obstructions not actually within the roadway are sometimes so close to the edge of the road that they need a marker. These include underpass piers, bridge abutments, handrails, ends of traffic barriers, utility poles, and culvert headwalls. In other cases there might not be a physical object involved, but other roadside conditions exist, such as narrow shoulders, drop-offs, gores, small islands, and abrupt changes in the roadway alignment, that might make it undesirable for a road user to leave the roadway, and therefore would create a need for a marker.

Standard:

02 If a Type 2 or Type 3 object marker is used to mark an obstruction adjacent to the roadway, the edge of the object marker that is closest to the road user shall be installed in line with the closest edge of the obstruction.
03 Where Type 3 object markers are applied to the approach ends of guardrail and other roadside appurtances, sheeting without a substrate shall be directly affixed to the approach end of the guardrail in a rectangular shape conforming to the size of the approach end of the guardrail with alternating black and retroreflective yellow stripes sloping downward at a angle of 45 degrees toward the side of the obstruction on which traffic is to pass.
04 Type 1 and Type 4 object markers shall not be used to mark obstructions adjacent to the roadway.

Guidance:

05 Standard warning signs in this Chapter should also be used where applicable.

Section 3B.10 Approach Markings for Obstructions
Standard:

01 Pavement markings shall be used to guide traffic away from fixed obstructions within a paved roadway. Approach markings for bridge supports, refuge islands, median islands, toll plaza islands, and raised channelization islands shall consist of a tapered line or lines extending from the center line or the lane line to a point 1 to 2 feet to the right-hand side, or to both sides, of the approach end of the obstruction (see Figure 3B-15).

Figure 3B-15 Examples of Applications of Markings for Obstructions in the Roadway

Support:

02 See Chapter 3E for additional information on approach markings for toll plaza islands.

Guidance:

03 For roadways having a posted or statutory speed limit of 45 mph or greater, the taper length of the tapered line markings should be computed by the formula L = WS. For roadways where the posted or statutory speed limit is less than 45 mph, the formula L = WS2/60 should be used to compute the taper length.

Support:

04 Under both formulas, L equals the taper length in feet, W equals the width of the offset distance in feet, and S equals the 85th-percentile speed or the posted or statutory speed limit, whichever is higher.

Guidance:

05 The minimum taper length should be 100 feet in urban areas and 200 feet in rural areas.

Support:

06 Examples of approach markings for obstructions in the roadway are shown in Figure 3B-15.

Standard:

07 If traffic is required to pass only to the right of the obstruction, the markings shall consist of a two-direction no-passing zone marking at least twice the length of the diagonal portion as determined by the appropriate taper formula (see Drawing A of Figure 3B-15).

Option:

08 If traffic is required to pass only to the right of the obstruction, yellow diagonal crosshatch markings (see Section 3B.24) may be placed in the flush median area between the no-passing zone markings as shown in Drawings A and B of Figure 3B-15. Other markings, such as yellow delineators, yellow channelizing devices, yellow raised pavement markers, and white crosswalk pavement markings, may also be placed in the flush median area.
Standard:
09 If traffic can pass either to the right or left of the obstruction, the markings shall consist of two channelizing lines diverging from the lane line, one to each side of the obstruction. In advance of the point of divergence, a wide solid white line or normal solid double white line shall be extended in place of the broken lane line for a distance equal to the length of the diverging lines (see Drawing C of Figure 3B-15).

Option:

10 If traffic can pass either to the right or left of the obstruction, additional white chevron crosshatch markings (see Section 3B.24) may be placed in the flush median area between the channelizing lines as shown in Drawing C of Figure 3B-15. Other markings, such as white delineators, white channelizing devices, white raised pavement markers, and white crosswalk markings may also be placed in the flush median area.

[q`Tzal]

Oh wait a few hours
I'll have some cruddy CGI mockups.

[Psyfalcon]

Maybe ODOT is misjudging the downhill speed there if they don't seem to think its an issue. Its not such a big issue if that was the uphill side, but that is a really fast section going westward, and it feels very narrow at those posts if there is any oncoming traffic.

[q`Tzal]

It would look something like this as a minimum:



A whole hog implementation, how I think an equivalent obstruction (~ 3'-4' ) might be handled on TV Hwy, would look something like this:




Of course I think that the DOT responsible should be doing this but it seems that designating anything as an official bikeway comes with the assumption that it needs NO further official enhancement other than pavement.

I'm no engineer but what I've plotted out seems in spec and something ought to be done.

[K'Tesh]

Went out there with more paint (Rust-Oleum Professional Traffic Striping Paint), some reflective film (the yellow stripes), a (found) cat-eye reflector, and some glass microbeads to try to improve the visibility of this trail-side hazard.



Photo was taken with a helmet mounted light source, not a flash (camera's is burned out). Even with the improvements, it's still not demonstrating the hazard to cyclists well enough.

Originally Posted by q`Tzal

Of course I think that the DOT responsible should be doing this but it seems that designating anything as an official bikeway comes with the assumption that it needs NO further official enhancement other than pavement.

I like this version, however, I'd lose the spring loaded markers on the inside corner. IMHO that becomes it's own fast strike hazard. I'd also insure that the diamond shaped sign is mounted high enough that it doesn't create a hazard as well.



In looking over this... I think you missed something, this is a raised obstruction, so the math should be L = (W+1) S. As for the "S" I've been known to approach 40mph on this decent


Oh! You spotted something I missed... That sudden edge on the left. The streets are below the height of the path, and it just drops off, no warning.

Thanks for the images q'Tzal!
K'Tesh

[q`Tzal]

While researching for those images I noticed that I had not read through the entire bicycle section, only pieces.
I am doing so and noticed the equation as well. You failed to take in to account one thing about my draft images: your photos have no scale.
I could not reasonably have made anything other than an approximation.

I was tempted to take my 100' tape measure out to get a propper engineering plot until I remembered that PortlandMaps.org will most likely have all the details plotted out in their maps database.

Also: with all this traffic sign wonkery shouldn't we relocate this line of conversation to an "All about West side" thread?