PDF Version, 52KB
You will need the Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the PDF on this page.
From: Rick Perez [Rick.Perez@cityoffederalway.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:26 PM
To: Scott Wainwright (FHWA)
Subject: RRFB Interpretation
Based on the success of our first installation of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons and ongoing concerns with pedestrian safety in another corridor, I am anticipating City Council approval to install 2 new RRFB's, and possibly more. However, the two new locations have issues with near-side bus stops (with 9 buses per hour) that preclude sight distance of right-side signage at the crossing itself, and I am reluctant to install supplemental RRFB's in the median refuge islands because they are relatively narrow (6 and 7 feet, respectively) and have a history (albeit limited, since they've only existed for 3 years) of knockdowns for median-mounted signs.
The Interim Approval suggests advance supplemental RRFB's (conditions 2d), but due to high entering volumes from an intersection immediately upstream in one case, and a relatively tight horizontal curve upstream in the other, I believe a mast arm installation of the RRFB would be a superior solution. However, this would preclude the required use of the W16-7p.
If I want to pursue the mast arm installation, is this e-mail sufficient to apply for an interpretation to allow it? Do I need a more formal submittal? Or does this a require a separate request for experimentation?
Here are links to the locations in question:
I would appreciate your guidance.
Rick Perez, P.E.
City Traffic Engineer
City of Federal Way
33325 8th Ave S
PO Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration