Contacts - Maintenance Issues
Contacts - Operations/Safety Issues
Parking on Street
Traffic Impact Studies
When are we going to get some bikeways in our neighborhood?
Bikeways have raised a lot of interest in the past few years. Some cities have built separate off-road bike paths. Many more have painted bike lanes on streets. Others have installed green "Bike Route" signs without the special lanes.
The cost of both building and maintaining bikeways can be a deterrent to many city bike programs. Initial cost can range from a few dollars to paint a lane to a small fortune to build a separate path including special bridges where needed.
Before plunging into a bikeway program, your city or county should look at the total problem of bicycle operation and safety. Bike lanes and signs alone cannot solve the problem of bicycle accidents; in some places they have increased the problem by giving riders a false sense of security.
An overall bicycle safety program should include: enforcement of traffic laws; bike safety training in the schools at an early age; follow-up training every year in the schools; and involvement of the parents of minor children who violate traffic laws or exhibit dangerous riding habits. The overwhelming cause of bicycle accidents is violation of the RULES OF THE ROAD.
If these recommendations seem to be oriented toward the younger set, there is good reason. Over 70 percent of cyclists involved in accidents were violating a traffic law; over 60 percent were age 17 or under. It only makes good sense to emphasize the children in training programs, since they are the principal users of bicycles.
The bike program for your community should include three principal points:
1. Education in safe riding
2. Enforcement of rules of the road
3. Development of well-engineered bike lanes and bike paths
This will involve the active participation of:
1. The schools
2. The police or sheriff
3. The traffic engineers; and you, the citizen
Back to the top
Why aren't there "Children at Play" signs posted on streets?
An often heard neighborhood request concerns the posting of generalized warning signs with "SLOW-CHILDREN AT PLAY" or other similar messages. Parental concern for the safety of children in the street near home, and a misplaced but widespread public faith in traffic signs to provide protection often prompt these requests.
Although some other states have posted such signs widely in residential areas, no factual evidence has been presented to document their success in reducing pedestrian accidents, operating speeds or legal liability. Studies have shown that many types of signs attempting to warn of normal conditions in residential areas have failed to achieve the desired safety benefits. If signs encourage parents and children to believe they have an added degree of protection, which the signs do not and cannot provide, a great disservice results.
Because of these serious considerations, Minnesota law does not recognize, and Federal Standards discourage, use of "Children at Play" signs. Specific warnings for schools, playgrounds, parks and other recreational facilities are available for use where clearly justified.
Children should not be encouraged to play within the street travel ways. The sign has long been rejected since it is a direct and open suggestion that this behavior is acceptable.
Back to the top
When is a crosswalk unsafe?
A number of years back, the City of San Diego published some startling results of a very extensive study of the relative safety of marked and unmarked crosswalks. San Diego looked at 400 intersections for five years (without signals or four-way stops) that had a marked crosswalk on one side and an unmarked crosswalk on the other. About two and one half times as many pedestrians used the marked crosswalk, but about six times as many accidents were reported in the marked crosswalks! Long Beach studied pedestrian safety for three years (1972 through 1974) and found eight times as many reported pedestrian accidents at intersections with marked crosswalks than at those without. One explanation of this apparent contradiction of common sense is the false security pedestrians feel at the marked crosswalk. Two painted lines do not provide protection against an oncoming vehicle and the real burden of safety has to be on the pedestrian to be alert and cautious while crossing any street. A pedestrian can stop in less than three feet, while a vehicle traveling at 25 mph will require 60 feet and at 35 mph approximately 100 feet.
Pedestrian crosswalk marking is a method of encouraging pedestrians to use a particular crossing. Such marked crossings may not be as safe as an unmarked crossing at the same location. Therefore, crosswalks should be marked only where necessary for the guidance and control of pedestrians, to direct them to the safest potential routes.
Back to the top
Why shouldn't we have speed bumps to slow down the hot rodders?
The control of speeding in residential neighborhoods, while maintaining acceptably safe street and roadway conditions, is a widespread concern which requires persistent law enforcement effort. The inability of posted speed limit signs to curb the intentional violator, leads to frequent demands for installation of "speed bumps" in public streets and alleys. However, actual tests of various experimental designs have demonstrated the physical inability of a speed bump to control all types of light weight and heavyweight vehicles successfully. In fact, a soft sprung sedan is encouraged to increase speed for a better ride, while some vehicles may lose control.
The courts have held public agencies liable for personal injuries resulting from faulty designs. Increased hazard to the unwary; challenges to the daredevils; disruption of the movement of both emergency and service vehicles; and undesirable increase in noise, have caused speed bumps to be officially rejected as a standard traffic control device on public streets and alleys.
Back to the top
When will lower speed limits be posted on my street?
A common belief is that posting a speed limit will influence drivers to drive at that speed. The facts indicate otherwise.
Research conducted in many parts of this country over a span of several decades has shown that drivers are influenced more by the appearance of the highway itself and the prevailing traffic conditions than by the posted speed limit.
Minnesota's Basic Speed Law requires that:
"No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. In every event speed shall be so restricted as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care."
In Minnesota, the maximum speed limit in an urban district is 30 miles per hour unless otherwise posted. An urban district is defined as the territory contiguous to and including any street which is built up with structures devoted to business, industry, or dwelling houses situated at intervals of less than 100 feet for a distance of a quarter of a mile or more. Outside urban districts, the maximum speed limit for any passenger vehicle is currently 55 miles per hour. These speeds are not always posted but all Minnesota motorists are required to know these basic 30 and 55 mile per hour speed laws. Note that freeways and expressways may be posted between 60 and 70 mph depending upon conditions.
Under Minnesota law, intermediate speed limits (except school speed limits) between 30 and 55 miles per hour may be established on any road, including county highways and city streets, only by the State Commissioner of Transportation. The commissioner must establish the speed limit upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation. This investigation includes an analysis of roadway conditions, accident records, and the prevailing speed of prudent drivers. If speed limit signs are posted for a lower limit than is needed to safely meet these conditions, many drivers will simply ignore the signs. At the same time, other drivers will stay within the posted limits. This generally increases the conflicts between faster and slower drivers, reduces the gaps in traffic through which crossings could be made safely and increases the difficulty for pedestrians to judge the speed of approaching vehicles. Studies have shown that where uniformity of speed is not maintained, accidents generally increase.
Back to the top
Why doesn't the city put in more stop signs?
A stop sign is one of our most valuable and effective control devices when used at the right place and under the right conditions. It is intended to help drivers and pedestrians at an intersection decide who has the right-of-way.
Some common misuse of stop signs is to arbitrarily interrupt through traffic, either by causing it to stop, or by causing such an inconvenience as to force the traffic to use other routes. Where stop signs are installed as "nuisances" or "speed breakers," there is a high incidence of intentional violation. In those locations where vehicles do stop, the speed reduction is effective only in the immediate vicinity of the stop sign, and frequently speeds are actually higher between intersections. For these reasons, it should not be used as a speed control device.
A school crossing may look dangerous for children to use, causing parents to demand a stop sign to halt traffic. Now a vehicle which had been a problem for 3 seconds while approaching and passing the intersection becomes a problem for a much longer period. A situation of indecision is created as to when to cross as a pedestrian or when to start as a motorist. Normal gaps in traffic through which crossings could be made safely no longer exist. An intersection which previously was not busy now looks like a major intersection. It really isn't - it just looks like it. It doesn't even look safer and it usually isn't.
Most drivers are reasonable and prudent with no intention of maliciously violating traffic regulations; however, when an unreasonable restriction is imposed, it may result in flagrant violations. In such cases, the stop sign can create a false sense of security in a pedestrian and an attitude of contempt in a motorist. These two attitudes can and often do conflict with tragic results.
Back to the top
Does something tragic have to happen before a traffic signal is installed?
Traffic signals don't always prevent accidents. They are not always an asset to traffic control. In some instances, total accidents and severe injuries increased after signals were installed. Usually, in such instances, right angle collisions were reduced by the traffic signals, but the total number of collisions, especially the rear-end type, increased.
There are times when the installation of signals results in an increase in pedestrian accidents. Many pedestrians feel secure with a painted crosswalk and a red light between them and an approaching vehicle. The motorist, on the other hand, is not always so quick to recognize these "barriers."
When can a traffic signal be an asset instead of a liability to safety? In order to answer this, traffic engineers have to ask and answer a series of questions:
- Are there so many cars on both streets that signal controls are necessary to clear up the confusion or relieve the congestion?
- Is the traffic on the main street so heavy that drivers on the side street will try to cross when it is unsafe?
- Are there so many pedestrians trying to cross a busy main street that confusing, congested or hazardous conditions result?
- Are there so many school children trying to cross the street at the same time that they need special controls for their protection? If so, is a traffic signal the best solution?
- Are signals at this location going to help drivers maintain a uniform pace along the route without stopping unnecessarily?
- Does the collision history indicate that signal controls will reduce the probability of collisions?
- Do two arterials intersect at this location and will a signal help improve the flow of traffic?
- Is there a combination of the above conditions which indicates that a signal will be an improvement rather than a detriment?
To aid them in answering these questions, engineers compare the existing conditions against nationally accepted minimum guidelines. These guidelines (often called "warrants") were established from many observations at intersections throughout the country by experienced traffic engineers. Where the guidelines were met, the signals generally were operating effectively with good public compliance. Where the guidelines were not met, public compliance was reduced, and additional hazards resulted.
A traffic signal that decreased accidents and improves the flow of traffic is an asset to any community. On the other hand, an ill-advised or poorly designed signal can be a source of danger and annoyance to all who use the intersection; pedestrians, cyclists and drivers alike.
Back to the top
Traffic Issues Contact Information:
Jeff Holstein, P.E., P.T.O.E.
City Traffic Engineer
Send e-mail: jeff.holstein@brooklynpark.org
Phone Number: 763-493-8102
Contact Engineering:
Mailing Address:
5200 85th Ave N
Brooklyn Park, MN 55443
Phone: 763-493-8100
Email Engineering
