Comments by wayne
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on July 31 at 7:07 p.m.
I wouldn't say that the lighting at freeway interchanges is "useless." It's in place to assist drivers in safely entering and exiting the freeway. The increased lighting (over and above the headlights of vehicles) allows drivers better visibility at night when navigating an area where they are transitioning from high-speed traffic on the freeway to lower speeds on the local system, and vice-versa.
Mn/DOT has also found that increased lighting at rural intersections and rail crossings has reduced crashes and made those intersections safer.
Posted on April 8 at 9:29 p.m.
Sorry - I was out of town and wasn't able to check the comments. Anyway, just a quick follow-up. . . I've done the "pocket" thing at the end of my driveway, and it's worked pretty well. Not perfect, but it's better than dealing with the large pile of compacted snow that I used to see. Granted, this is in our alley so maybe that makes a difference - I'm not sure.
Posted on April 7 at 1:18 p.m.
toad3,
Give this a shot next time:
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/d4/newsrels/0...
Hopefully "next time" won't be until November or so!
Posted on December 19 at 5:16 p.m.
Here's a good web site to check out if you'd like more info on modern roundabouts:
http://www.wcroads.org/news/articles/rou...
It's from the Washtenaw County Road Commission in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The web page linked above is specifically about the safety aspects of modern roundabouts, but if you look at the links to the right on that page, there's a great wealth of information about roundabouts.
The page I linked above has info on pedestrian access and reduction in crash rates/severity. About mid-way down the page, there's a good photo showing how the crosswalks in a properly designed roundabout are situated.
Also, some of the safety numbers that jumped out at me the first time I saw them (a few years ago) can be found on the page. . . these numbers are from a 2002 Maryland DOT study of 15 single-lane roundabouts (which is what is proposed for Fergus). Quoting from the page linked above:
"At locations where roundabouts had been installed, there was a 60 percent decrease in the total crash rate and a 100 percent decrease in fatal crash rates.
There was an 82 percent reduction in the injury crash rate and a 27 percent reduction in property damage only crash rates."
It should be noted that there is a difference between a modern roundabout and a traffic circle or rotary. Instead of getting into all the details here, I'll provide another link, this one from Alaska:
Posted on July 25 at 8:58 p.m.
Laurie came through our neighborhood near Adams Elementary this evening. She was immediately mobbed with kids (including ours!) and was there for at least 15-20 minutes helping everyone that came. Very good prices - I don't think I saw anything over $1. It sure was fun to see the kids enjoying this summertime tradition that so many of us remember when we were growing up!
Thank you Laurie! :)
Posted on May 22 at 3:20 p.m.
A couple of thoughts on this letter. . .
1) "Progress" and "population growth" are not necessarily the same thing. I can envision a community that would be considered progressive, but has slow or stagnant population growth. I can also envision (and know of a few) cities that are growing rapidly that one would hesitate to call progressive communities.
2) My understanding of the population growth of Fergus Falls is that the State Hospital population has always been counted in the total population of the city. As such, while the population of the State Hospital has declined from a peak of around 2000 patients, the city has grown over that same time period by about 2000 persons. These numbers off-set each other and make it look like the city isn't growing at all.
Not that a population increase of 2000 persons over that same time period would be considered "explosive" growth. . . but it's better than two persons per year :)
Posted on May 21 at 1:45 p.m.
Here's a friendly suggestion to Mr. Churchill and anyone else who would like to slow down but is concerned about driving "only" 55 on the freeway. . . don't drive on the freeway! :) I would be willing to bet that there's not a corner of our Great State that one cannot reach on a two lane highway - where the speed limit is already 55 (for the most part). One driving at that speed might still be driving slower than most traffic, but at least you wouldn't have the same concerns about having 70+ mph traffic to contend with (at least not as much, hopefully!).
An additional benefit is that you get to see things on the "backroads" that you wouldn't otherwise see when traveling on the Interstate. I will occasionally take the "scenic route" when traveling. It's a nice change of pace.
Posted on March 3 at 3:34 p.m.
There will be a signal installed at Tower Rd/Lincoln Ave in 2009 or 2010 when the new Tower Rd Bridge is constructed.
As for the Pebble Lake Rd/210 intersection, Mn/DOT has studied it, and it doesn't currently meet warrants for a signal (at least a couple of years ago it didn't). That may not be the case today with ACS and ISD544 relocating to that area. I wouldn't be surprised if another signal study isn't already in the works, or maybe planned for the near future (but that's just speculation).
Posted on February 1 at 10:17 a.m.
Looks great - very nicely done!
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on August 1 at 4:12 p.m.
Nope, not an engineer, but I do know a little about the topic. I would agree that the average interchange is pretty safe for those of us that regularly travel and/or live in this area. But for someone unfamiliar with the area, or someone who can't see as well as the rest of us (elderly drivers, for example), the additional lighting provides an extra little bit of help in navigating an interchange.
As for the point of money. . . interchange lighting - for the benefit it provides - is relatively inexpensive. You couldn't pave much roadway for the same cost as lighting one interchange. And even if you included lighting at every interchange in the district, you'd *maybe* get a couple of miles of pavement for the same cost. If the additional lighting saves a life, it's well worth the cost. (And it's kind-of a moot point anyway, since the lighting is already in place - removing the lighting would just be that much more expensive)
I do agree that the timing could have been a little better considering WE Fest, but I also know that to a certain extent, Mn/DOT has to do the work when the contractors are available to do it. Unfortunate timing, but that's the way it goes.
On Interstate 94 pavement marking project begins Aug. 7