Road Geek Topics

[JMS9]

This showed up in my Facebook news feed today (EarthPorn). It's Liberty Bridge in Budapest, Hungary. Between this, bike bridges, animal overpasses for safe crossings.....where is the infrastructure creativity around here? Europe seems ahead of the curve. Or, setting their own.

[twincitizen]

I could probably start a new thread about City Code / Code Enforcement stuff, and perhaps I will, but until then, discuss:

According to Minneapolis ordinances, cars parked parallel along curbs shall be parked no less than 4 feet apart. (Who knew?)

In what is probably the most unenforced law of all time, no car may park within 20 feet of a crosswalk at an intersection.

This should be obvious, but since people are terrible, it is illegal to repair one's car in the public street, unless it is an "emergency". It is also illegal to display a "for sale" sign on a public street.

Here's one about commercial trucks and oversize vehicles banned from parking in residentially zoned areas: https://library.municode.com/HTML/11490 ... COVECOPAVE

As I type this, some grubby individuals are repairing their car (actually not, they have since left it with the hood open and a bunch of tools in the street) right outside my 2nd floor balcony.

In general, most of you will find this whole section fascinating: https://library.municode.com/HTML/11490 ... l#TOPTITLE

[David Greene]

In what is probably the most unenforced law of all time, no car may park within 20 feet of a crosswalk at an intersection.

Actually that is sometimes enforced quite heavily in the Wedge. My wife got tagged a couple of years ago and I've seen other tickets on cars from time to time. If I see people parking too close to a corner I always walk up and warn them. I'm not dickish about it, I just say we've been hit with a ticket before. Most people appreciate the warning and drive on to somewhere else.

[mulad]

The MnROAD research facility on I-94 by Albertville is turning 20 years old this year, and they're having an open house on August 6th from 10 am to 2 pm.

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/research/acc ... _PRINT.pdf

[Mdcastle]

In the "Oops" department, The Mn/DOT bridge office is worried that the foundations for the 100 and 120 foot tower lights aren't deep enough. (Mn/DOT has about 400 towers). So they're going to redesign them and inspect every existing tower and indicate "future action may be needed". Also, they are going to drop the use of precast foundations for standard davit pole lights. These were sometimes used in rural locations were it was difficult to get cement trucks to the site, but there's been issues with the soil not being compacted properly around them.

[maxbaby]

What's the difference? Those tower lights are horrible. Half the lights are burnt out anyway and the ones that are on are so dim they're useless. This metro area has the worst freeway lighting system that I have ever seen. So many segments don't even have any lighting at all. Several years ago MNDOT even took all of the lighting off of the overhead signs. Try to read them when it's dark out and there is frost or dew on them. You can't even read them. Great idea to save money MNDOT!

[Suburban Outcast]

I've never really liked the tower lights much, I prefer the typical davit lights more. When it comes to lighting on the signs, they could install LEDs now pretty easily I bet.

Another pet peeve of mine when it comes to lights in general in the metro, is how the streetlights or even stoplights can be so how random at times in design and style. It's fine having cities or counties pick their own color choices and design rather than the classic yellow and silver with a green base, but at least make them more consistent within the region. What I like about Minneapolis and Saint Paul they keep using the same colors and design for their lights (with some updates every few years or so). I wish suburban Ramsey County would just stick with one color, instead of random changes between normal, green, and apparently black ones like on Rice (near 36) and White Bear Ave near Maplewood Mall now.

[MinnMonkey]

What's the difference? Those tower lights are horrible. Half the lights are burnt out anyway and the ones that are on are so dim they're useless. This metro area has the worst freeway lighting system that I have ever seen. So many segments don't even have any lighting at all. Several years ago MNDOT even took all of the lighting off of the overhead signs. Try to read them when it's dark out and there is frost or dew on them. You can't even read them. Great idea to save money MNDOT!

Have you been on I-94 between Minneapolis and St. Paul recently? I think the new LED streetlights are great, especially in the rain. I do agree some areas are horrible though.

I did write MNDot several years back regarding the highway signs not being lit up anymore, and the response I received was that the material they use reflects the light back at the same angle it hits the sign, so lighting them from any other direction except from headlights would not work well.

[Mdcastle]

The real reason is that Mn/DOT didn't think it was worthwhile to maintain lighting on the new reflective signs- many other states are phasing out sign lighting too. The white mercury vapor lights were inefficient and ballasts are now illegal to manufacture, while the newer metal halide lights were half the lifespan. I've asked if they'd reconsider with LEDS, at least for a few hours during peak travel periods, but they don't seem interested.

Minnesota is among the better lit states I've been to. Ever drive outside the cities in Wisconsin or Virginia?

Overall I like tower lights. Right now there's no "drop-in" replacing LED luminare for them though. I've reported lights out in the past to Mn/DOT. It seems their threshold for fixing it is if an entire tower is burnt out, or several davit lights in a row. The really dim bulbs I've seen are at US 169 south of the ferry bridge; I've thought of bringing it to their attention.

As for colors, all the agencies have decided that new traffic signal heads will be black polycarbonate. As for poles some local agencies decided all black or green was better looking than green, yellow, silver, but now that paint is optional on the new galvanized poles you'll see fewer painted ones of any color in agencies that follow Mn/DOT standards (most of them besides Minneapolis and St. Paul).

[Suburban Outcast]

Yeah I don't mind the new galvanized ones (given on many of the lights the paint deteriorates quickly anyways), if agencies they do pick a color pattern - I just hope they finally get more consistent with the light pole coloring. It's definitely not the most important thing a road agency shouldn't be working on (it should be getting rid of cloverleaf intersections instead of rebuilding them in my opinion), but at the same time it's still stupid to mix galvanized ones, with the classic coloring on the next intersection, and then with a colored one on the next. Like near my area, Roseville and communities along Hwy 96 should stick with green(or greenish-blue), Little Canada and Maplewood should stick with black for remodeled or new poles given the new poles along Rice St/36 and White Bear Ave/694 are anyways.

[maxbaby]

I too have emailed MNDOT about A LOT of outages......over and over and OVER again! They very rarely get taken care of. Busy doing other things I guess. I agree the tower poled lights are pretty useless.

[Mdcastle]

I learned that it's a tossup whether you get any kind of action, or even a reply, from emailing the main Mn/DOT address about stuff. Once they forwarded it to the metro electrical maintenance engineer, who suggested I email her directly with issues in the future. (I don't know if it's proper to list it here, but it's Google-able). Every couple of months I'll report an issue and I'll get a reply and it will either get fixed or an explanation if it can't be right away.

[Anondson]

We can add this to our arsenal of options when trying to reduce motorized traffic on our roadways.

Remove the center line reduces auto speeds about 5 mph.

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/08/15/r ... n-streets/

Based on before and after repaving of various London streets. I used to wish for certain streets to get a center line, like W44th in Edina, but I've changed my mind. The lack of a line actively does change behavior to drive slower, I've felt it driving W 44th. Maybe we could build an index of streets we should remove center lines on.

[mister.shoes]

#1 Minnehaha Parkway

[mattaudio]

46th Street from Lyndale to Kings Hwy just got the shoulder lanes with advisory bike lanes, no center stripe. Similar to 54th Street last year. It works great, even if they can't figure it out in Edina.

[David Greene]

26th and 28th streets.

Oh, it's mostly that way already east of Blaisdell...

[mattaudio]

26th and 28th Streets wouldn't have a center lane until they are changed to two-way traffic....

[PhilmerPhil]

38th Street would be a great place for the advisory bike lane treatment!

[froggie]

Of note, the MUTCD requires a centerline if average daily traffic volumes are 6,000 or higher, or if there are 3 or more lanes of traffic. And recommends it if volumes are 4,000 or higher.

The requirement rules out trying this on most of 26th (Lyndale to Minnehaha), 28th (east of Lyndale), 38th (roughly Grand to Minnehaha) and 46th (Lyndale to Bloomington).

Examples of streets they COULD try this on: 50th east of Lake Nokomis, 54th between Portland and the lake, Chicago Ave south of the creek, 24th west of 35W, 31st Ave S, 42nd Ave N west of Fremont.

[Anondson]

Good to know there is a standard/regulation that demands it, but maybe the requirement needs some questioning and justifying.