My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2013-01-22_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2013
>
2013-01-22_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/28/2013 12:30:12 PM
Creation date
2/28/2013 12:30:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
1/22/2013
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
warranty information on the product; upcoming presentation by Arizona State <br /> University to the Roseville City Council and others interested in the best value <br /> procurement process used for awarding contracts versus standard low bid or <br /> alternative bidding processes; and hydrologic dredging planned in the summer of <br /> 2013 for Villa Park sediment removal and restoration of wetland depth. <br /> 5. Traffic Signal/Intersection Discussion <br /> Ms. Bloom introduced Professional Traffic Operations Engineer Mr. Mike Spack <br /> with Spack Consulting to provide the Commission with background on traffic <br /> signals, timing practices for MnDOT and Ramsey County, and pedestrian options. <br /> Ms. Bloom noted that Mr. Spack assisted the City on signal design for the <br /> Northeast Suburban pathway corridor, and updated intersection signal options for <br /> bicycles and pedestrians. Ms. Bloom noted that the most recent PWETC <br /> discussions were related to "free rights" near the TH36/Fairview Avenue Ramp <br /> signals. <br /> Mr. Spack reviewed theory, priorities, and best practices used for pedestrian <br /> crossing design, along with implications related to those designs, including legal <br /> requirements and/or considerations. Among those issues, Mr. Spack identified <br /> legal, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements and concerns, best <br /> practices, and the importance of safety for both vehicles as well as pedestrians. <br /> Mr. Spack reviewed specifics, using the Rosedale area as an example, addressing <br /> signal cycles and timings depending on crossing width and state law (3.5 feet per <br /> second for pedestrian crossing); cycles with and without walk signals to avoid <br /> vehicle back-ups and optimizing the system; obsolescence of the push button <br /> walk systems of the past; costs of hardware infrastructure; and options for <br /> bicycles to choose to be on the roadway and treated like a vehicle or as a <br /> pedestrian on sidewalks. Mr. Spack noted that pedestrians are legally obligated, <br /> in accordance with state law, to obey signal indications at intersections. <br /> However, Mr. Spack noted recent legislation that vehicles had to yield and give <br /> the right-of-way to pedestrians when they were crossing at an intersection on a <br /> roadway, independent of whether or not there is a painted crosswalk at an <br /> intersection. Mr. Spack addressed various phenomena from studies done in the <br /> late 1990's and 2000's related to traffic signals on busy roadways and the <br /> frequency of pedestrians getting hit in painted crosswalks being three (3)times <br /> higher than without a painted crosswalk; and indications that behavior between a <br /> motorist and pedestrian were the overall factor, not the presence of a crosswalk. <br /> Mr. Spack advised that if there was no obvious or major destination, some <br /> intersections may not have crossings; with the industry rationales being that it was <br /> better to have pedestrians congregate at major crossings where possible. <br /> Mr. Spack reviewed the basics of signal timing;jurisdictional issues and <br /> approvals; rationale for placement of crosswalks and/or lack thereof at Fairview <br /> Avenue and Highway 36. <br /> Page 3 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.