Pedestrian Safety and Infrastructure Improvements

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5771
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Pedestrian Safety and Infrastructure Improvements

Postby MNdible » July 16th, 2020, 9:02 am

Hey, speaking of actual pedestrian infrastructure, does anybody know if the UofM has decided to replace the "Big M" pedestrian suspension bridge that they took down a couple of years back?

Anondson
IDS Center
Posts: 4276
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was

Re: Pedestrian Safety and Infrastructure Improvements

Postby Anondson » July 21st, 2020, 7:08 pm

St. Louis Park has scheduled improvement along Belt Line Blvd and streets north of County 25 that connect to the future SWLRT station at Belt Line.

https://www.stlouispark.org/government/ ... provements

There is a survey about the Ottawa and Lynn options. It looks like in both cases there will be parking removed and sidewalks or trails installed.

Here is the survey!

http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/5693799/B ... ts-Project

SurlyLHT
Foshay Tower
Posts: 932
Joined: February 21st, 2017, 3:50 pm

Re: Pedestrian Safety and Infrastructure Improvements

Postby SurlyLHT » July 23rd, 2020, 12:30 pm

Bicycle Advisory Committee passed this resolution last night. Which seems to be against item 4.1 in the previously passed Vision Zero by the City Council?

https://www.ourstreetsmpls.org/bicycle_ ... _AYlhbKgCI

DanPatchToget
Foshay Tower
Posts: 851
Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Re: Pedestrian Safety and Infrastructure Improvements

Postby DanPatchToget » July 23rd, 2020, 4:20 pm

How to accomplish zero deaths:
A. enforce traffic laws
B. redesign streets to be safer
C. better road safety education
D. all of the above

I suggest D since there's no single option that's perfect and will solve all road safety issues.

SurlyLHT
Foshay Tower
Posts: 932
Joined: February 21st, 2017, 3:50 pm

Re: Pedestrian Safety and Infrastructure Improvements

Postby SurlyLHT » July 24th, 2020, 8:32 am

I agree, the answer is D. Which I think it what the Vision Zero plan calls for. I was jogging on a parkway a few days ago and stopped at a red light. It turned green and I took another sip of my water and took off. As I was crossing a parked car took off and ran the light, slowing slightly to avoid me and kept going. The only way to stop something like that is enforcement.

DanPatchToget
Foshay Tower
Posts: 851
Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Re: Pedestrian Safety and Infrastructure Improvements

Postby DanPatchToget » August 2nd, 2020, 4:07 pm

I forgot how much of a clusterf*** the Dakota Rail Trail crossing at Shoreline Drive in Mound is. It's kind of a free-for-all where people just cross where ever and it can be a game of frogger with 5 lanes to deal with. I would think (and hope) that a designated crossing with rapid flash beacons would be a big improvement, though I would prefer a regular traffic signal.

DanPatchToget
Foshay Tower
Posts: 851
Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Re: Pedestrian Safety and Infrastructure Improvements

Postby DanPatchToget » November 1st, 2020, 4:22 pm

The new pedestrian bridge over the BNSF tracks in St. Louis Park is under construction. Opening is planned for Fall 2021.

Mdcastle
Foshay Tower
Posts: 868
Joined: March 23rd, 2013, 8:28 am
Location: Bloomington, MN

Re: Pedestrian Safety and Infrastructure Improvements

Postby Mdcastle » January 5th, 2021, 7:02 pm

http://www.startribune.com/mndot-accele ... 504723082/

Apparently a two year process is considered sped up.

Just make the traffic signals permanent and then study a grade-separated pedestrian crossing. I stand by my stance that a solid red light is better than flashing yellow, no matter how fast they're flashing.
And this project was put on hold this spring where it remains. Early on a pedestrian grade separation was rejected due in part to capital costs, but more so due to fears it wouldn't actually solve the problem because pedestrians would continue to cross the highway there because it would be shorter. MnDOT came up with a design that would narrow the road to one through lane in each direction with a narrower median, and four single lane roundabouts in order to slow down traffic and make the road look more like a city street instead of a rural expressway. St. Francis likes the unwarranted traffic signal and signaled to MnDOT that they would refuse to grant consent to a project with roundabouts. MnDOT won't (*generally) allow unwarranted traffic signals on trunk highway even if the local agency will pay 100% of the cost, which is rapidly approaching a half a million with things like intelligent controllers and accessible ped buttons. Per the memorandum of understanding, the unwarranted temporary signal will stay "until permanent improvements happen" so with no improvements the city gets to keep it indefinitely.

This is similar to Lake Elmo, where at a signal went in that was warranted but against long term planning for MN 36. It was supposed to be temporary until an overpass with no interchange could be built, but by refusing to consent to the follow-up plan for building an overpass the agencies got to keep the temporary signal, where there's already been a fatal crash due to having a signal instead of a grade separation. The latest TAB grants, if approved in their present form, grant $10 million towards a full interchange here which is acceptable to all parties.

* There's two recent ones on the former US 63 in Rochester, and US 12 in Litchfield. In both cases these were dense downtown areas where a roundabout wouldn't fit and the local agency paid for it. In Litchfield in order to pay for it they had to use a less elaborate ped scale ornamental lantern to stay within what they could afford, a simple acorn instead of multiple globe fixtures.
Image

SurlyLHT
Foshay Tower
Posts: 932
Joined: February 21st, 2017, 3:50 pm

Re: Pedestrian Safety and Infrastructure Improvements

Postby SurlyLHT » January 6th, 2021, 11:09 am

I graduated from St Francis High School. A bit of context. (Added a map, the intersection is circled in red.)

1st Bridge Street the main drag through town had two stoplights removed on either side of the High School replaced with roundabouts. I think people are tired of them. Driving through town feels like a merri-go-round. (Circled in blue)

2nd Highway 47 is two lanes both north and south of St Francis. I don't understand the current configuration. You literally come out of a dangerously curvy section of 47 into St Francis where it turns into a 4 lane highway and then turns into a straight as an arrow rural two-laner. (See yellow highlight)

3rd. St Francis has been talking since God created Man about extending Bridge St through the Middle School to 47...might be part of why they want a light. (Self evident in map)

I've attached a screen shot highlighting different locales.
Capture.PNG
http://www.startribune.com/mndot-accele ... 504723082/

Apparently a two year process is considered sped up.

Just make the traffic signals permanent and then study a grade-separated pedestrian crossing. I stand by my stance that a solid red light is better than flashing yellow, no matter how fast they're flashing.
And this project was put on hold this spring where it remains. Early on a pedestrian grade separation was rejected due in part to capital costs, but more so due to fears it wouldn't actually solve the problem because pedestrians would continue to cross the highway there because it would be shorter. MnDOT came up with a design that would narrow the road to one through lane in each direction with a narrower median, and four single lane roundabouts in order to slow down traffic and make the road look more like a city street instead of a rural expressway. St. Francis likes the unwarranted traffic signal and signaled to MnDOT that they would refuse to grant consent to a project with roundabouts. MnDOT won't (*generally) allow unwarranted traffic signals on trunk highway even if the local agency will pay 100% of the cost, which is rapidly approaching a half a million with things like intelligent controllers and accessible ped buttons. Per the memorandum of understanding, the unwarranted temporary signal will stay "until permanent improvements happen" so with no improvements the city gets to keep it indefinitely.

This is similar to Lake Elmo, where at a signal went in that was warranted but against long term planning for MN 36. It was supposed to be temporary until an overpass with no interchange could be built, but by refusing to consent to the follow-up plan for building an overpass the agencies got to keep the temporary signal, where there's already been a fatal crash due to having a signal instead of a grade separation. The latest TAB grants, if approved in their present form, grant $10 million towards a full interchange here which is acceptable to all parties.

* There's two recent ones on the former US 63 in Rochester, and US 12 in Litchfield. In both cases these were dense downtown areas where a roundabout wouldn't fit and the local agency paid for it. In Litchfield in order to pay for it they had to use a less elaborate ped scale ornamental lantern to stay within what they could afford, a simple acorn instead of multiple globe fixtures.
Image
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests