Pedestrian Safety and Infrastructure Improvements

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5989
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: 4645
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
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1262
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
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1645
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
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1262
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
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1645
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
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1645
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
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1209
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
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1262
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

DanPatchToget
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1645
Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Re: Pedestrian Safety and Infrastructure Improvements

Postby DanPatchToget » April 3rd, 2021, 3:27 am

https://www.startribune.com/woodbury-re ... 600041523/

Is it really necessary to hire a consultant when the obvious answer is force traffic to slow down? The roundabout seems like the best solution, though teens (and adults too) will make stupid and risky choices no matter how you design a road. There's a traffic circle near me that my friend used to go through as fast as he could (I think he went as fast as 40 mph), and on a different road there's two sharp turns that another friend would go as fast as he could around it (once he got his car on two wheels, and this was with a sedan). Obviously they're not like that anymore, but my point is not only does the design need to change but also better educating of teens who are beginning to drive and may think they're invincible.

DanPatchToget
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1645
Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Re: Pedestrian Safety and Infrastructure Improvements

Postby DanPatchToget » April 27th, 2021, 9:19 pm

I'm disappointed but not surprised that traffic planners think it's fine to have sidewalks that literally don't go anywhere, which is the case at the Highway 55 & I-494 interchange in Plymouth where a woman in a wheelchair was fatally struck by a semi on Monday. Not that I'm saying connected sidewalks would've prevented this tragic death (though depending on the circumstances it may have) and made this interchange much more safer for pedestrians and bikers, but I don't see the logic with installing crosswalks and walk signals when you're forced to either walk along the highway (for wheelchair users this is the only option) or walk in the ditch to actually go anywhere beyond this interchange.

https://www.startribune.com/id-released ... 600050710/

Tcmetro
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1767
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 8:02 pm
Location: Chicago (ex-Minneapolitan)

Re: Pedestrian Safety and Infrastructure Improvements

Postby Tcmetro » April 27th, 2021, 9:40 pm

That's very unfortunate.

Minnesota is generally pretty good in terms of suburban pedestrian facilities, but overall it's still pretty bad.

At least they provided a crosswalk and sidewalk over 494. People would still make the trip even if it didn't exist. The problem is that all the important things cluster on the highways, and all the highways are awful for non motorized traffic. Additionally, the freeways are pinch points which funnel people across, so the lack of any pedestrian infrastructure at 55/494 is a huge issue. I wonder if there's anyway to levy a lawsuit against the state for failing to accommodate different modes of transportation as well as failing to provide a reasonable alternative route.

DanPatchToget
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1645
Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Re: Pedestrian Safety and Infrastructure Improvements

Postby DanPatchToget » April 27th, 2021, 11:04 pm

There might be a few spots where the right-of-way is tight, but you would think a trail paralleling Highway 55 could easily be built and thread all the disjointed sidewalks and crosswalks together. Obviously it wouldn't be the most pleasant place to bike or walk, but it's still a massive improvement over the status quo. The trail along the north side of Highway 101 in Shakopee has been a blessing, and without it I would never have tried biking from my home in Bloomington to Downtown Shakopee and other places in that area. Pretty much my only complaint with it is the lack of a fence or barrier in case a driver loses control.

Mdcastle
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1209
Joined: March 23rd, 2013, 8:28 am
Location: Bloomington, MN

Re: Pedestrian Safety and Infrastructure Improvements

Postby Mdcastle » April 28th, 2021, 5:58 am

The reason you see those curb ramps to nowhere is that in the early 2010s there was a settlement between MnDOT and disability rights groups where MnDOT would make all signals on trunk highways ADA compliant in 10 years. This got stretched out to the 2030s when the last of the pre-ADA signals will be at the end of their life, but they're still actively working to this goal. All new signals are ADA compliant, combined with retrofits if there's a mill and overlay or something going on, combined with some standalone projects. Once MnDOT builds or retrofits a signals with ped landings with truncated domes, audible-tactile push button stations, and countdown timers, that signal is ADA compliant, notwithstanding the fact that the ramps don't actually go anywhere, so they check off the boxes and it's on to the next signal.

With the current way of funding things there's not really any money in the standard MnDOT budget for anything other than routine maintenance, any kind of safety improvement projects like a MUP need to come from TAB grants, usually championed by the counties. MnDOT is also probably paying lip service to the 2007 study that recommended a short "sort of" freeway section for 55 just west of the interchange.

DanPatchToget
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1645
Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Re: Pedestrian Safety and Infrastructure Improvements

Postby DanPatchToget » June 13th, 2021, 7:10 pm

The under construction bridge by Peter Hobart Elementary School in St. Louis Park now spans across the BNSF tracks.

twinkess
Target Field
Posts: 543
Joined: November 26th, 2012, 10:46 am

Re: Pedestrian Safety and Infrastructure Improvements

Postby twinkess » September 24th, 2021, 6:14 pm

Excellent video "Why City Design is Important (and Why I Hate Houston)" regarding city planning and its hostility towards pedestrians and non-automotive traffic.

https://youtu.be/uxykI30fS54

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6368
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Pedestrian Safety and Infrastructure Improvements

Postby twincitizen » September 28th, 2021, 3:02 pm

The YouTube algorithm has been serving that video to me for weeks. Might finally watch it now

DanPatchToget
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1645
Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Re: Pedestrian Safety and Infrastructure Improvements

Postby DanPatchToget » October 14th, 2021, 5:13 pm

Is there an official date yet of when the new Dakota-Edgewood pedestrian bridge over the BNSF tracks in St. Louis Park will open?

DanPatchToget
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1645
Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Re: Pedestrian Safety and Infrastructure Improvements

Postby DanPatchToget » November 8th, 2021, 4:53 pm

Does anyone have an estimate of much it costs to build a box culvert for a trail under a narrow road or train tracks? Google hasn't given me a clear answer.

DanPatchToget
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1645
Joined: March 30th, 2016, 1:26 pm

Re: Pedestrian Safety and Infrastructure Improvements

Postby DanPatchToget » March 28th, 2022, 5:19 pm

A pedestrian crossing with HAWK signals was built on American Boulevard where the future American & Chicago Station will be on the D Line. Not sure if the signals on both sides of the street turn on when a pedestrian is crossing or if it's just one side. Considering how wide the street is (2 lanes eastbound, 3 lanes westbound) and the wide refuge island I would think the latter.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8598776 ... authuser=0


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 45 guests