Grand Forks officials seek traffic signal at crash-prone crossing
November 27, 2012 at 4:12 pm in Grand Forks Herald
A two-vehicle accident in Grand Forks that injured three people Nov. 19 may have put the intersection where it occurred on the fast track to receiving traffic signals. Continue Reading
Hi, my name is Charlie. You may remember me from such films as: “I Predicted These Accidents and Suggested a Signal at This Intersection Two Years Ago When You Extended 40th and Continue to Make Noise About it in Nearly Every Traffic Topic that Comes Up,” and “No S#** Sherlock!”
I mean, really? It’s taken this long to figure it out? People who work west of 20th St and live in the SE corner of town LOVE to take 40th across Washington. Maybe it’s because 40th has luxury lanes that are about twice as wide as necessary, perhaps it’s because nobody knows how to drive on 32nd, perhaps it’s because you need a new suspension any time you actually do drive on 32nd. Whatever.
But once again, massively incorrect assumptions and poor traffic planning prevail. Unprotected intersections should be RARE, especially the way they are designed around here with the ability of large vehicles (that most people drive) to block sight lines and the inability for people to use merge lanes and impedance of right-turn flow. GF isn’t rural. Get with the program.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
9
My folks live over there so I go thee quite a bit. Yes it’s true that it was predictible from the get go that there would eventually need to be another light at that intersection. However; when it went in there was still a lot of area in the process of being developed, but most hadn’t even broke ground yet. So if you look at the cost (Damn that’s expensive….Is everything the city does have to have such a huge price tag? They can’t seem to have a thought anymore without a bill for tousands) it’s apparent that they wouldn’t put one in until there’s more traffic on that corner and more accidents (Unfortunately that always seems to be the case almost everywhere).
I’m glad they’re getting something there, but perhaps a little better planning could have had one in there that was permanent without having to have the temp set in there. They could have easily explained it as because of the estimated increased traffic from the work out center that the corner would be needing one in a short amount of time anyway.
One question though. If this is close to $700K then I wonder how many millions of dollars worth of lights we have around this town? Must be quite a lot….
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
0
T-beast I suck at this new math. I was wondering … how many tousands of dollars are there in a gazillion?
Like or Dislike:
1 
5
Sorry, t-beast, you’re wrong on this one. That intersection is and has been used primarily by people living in neighborhoods that have existed for decades. The difference is that instead of just making a left turn onto 40th from southbound Washington, people are now also crossing Washington on 40th from the west. That combination is where most of the danger is coming from, and has been since day one (I’ve done it every day since it’s been open).
To cross, you have to time the through traffic on Washington, which is tough enough because people are going anywhere from 35-55 on that stretch. The complication is that you have a LOT of people heading south and making the left turn onto 40th, so they are decelerating.
Often, you have a crossing solution, but when they start decelerating, it is spoiled until they clear, and now you’re looking a half-mile in both directions to establish a new one. Now there are five people decelerating and turning and four cars lined up behind YOU, plus a person crossing from the other direction (or worse, trying to make a left onto Wash), gotta wait for her to make her move, too. Now a minivan pulls up next to you to make a right turn onto Wash, but they can’t go either because they’re trying to judge the gap (and fully half the southbound cars are starting to peel off to turn from Wash onto 40th, but there are enough going through that you can’t go yet). Now the van is blocking your view of oncoming traffic from the south. Meanwhile, you have six cars behind you. And I’m an assertive driver; plenty of those who try to cross are not, and they make it more complicated.
Trust me, I’ve been through the intersection hundreds of times from nearly every direction and have had two or three close calls. That’s too much, and far more than any other intersection in town. Do we need to pay for more studies, or are the accidents costing enough? Do we need to wait until someone dies? I challenge any of you to do it this week during the commute and see what it’s like.
The light is worth it. Put in the light.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
2
The east side of Washington has been thee for many years but the west has basically been built up (And is still being built at a very quick pace) over the past few years. I’m not sure what it is you found wrong about my statement, but consider this….The extension of 40th has only opened up some two or three years ago so prior to that 40th stopped at Washington. So before that there really wasn’t much problem, but you could already see the pick up of traffic when just turning from Washington on to 40th.
As to the dieing part. I’ve seen that in too many places. Not long ago down on Highway 10 and county road 9 they finally decided there had been enough bad accidents between the traffic going back and forth from Detroit Lakes and those trying to cross to get to the interstate. This was a horrible intersection if you came down on 9 at the wrong time……Why it took so many bad accidents before they finally decided to spend the money is anyones guess, but that seems too often to be the criteria…People have to be mangled and/or dead before they can justify the expense…
Like or Dislike:
12 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
11 
34
Wrong. Try crossing there at 5:15 PM. It’s real-life Frogger. Time the lights, it can be done.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
3
One other reason it has to be there is because of all the new housing on the west side of Washington and the possibility of a new grade school over there. It’s going to be needed for pedistrian (Kids) traffic there. So the flow of faster traffic takes a back seat to the need for safety going across Washington. I know…Nobody likes to wait for a light, but when you come down to it…How many times are we actually in such a big hurry that we can’t put up with a little inconvienience for the sake of safety?
Like or Dislike:
11 
4
Tundrabeast:
I still assert that most of the traffic using the intersection has nothing to do with the new housing to the west of Washington; most of the users are people living east of Washington in the existing neighborhoods. But, as you said in another response, the complication is due to the extension of 40th through to Columbia when that housing went in – 40th is a very convenient substitute for 32nd (don’t get me going again on 32nd, hah!) except for the lack of safe crossing at Washington (and something will eventually need to be done at 40th and Columbia as well).
Choice Fitness will only increase traffic flow and complicate things further. I can’t believe a light wasn’t installed the day they opened 40th across to Columbia – it’s been that dangerous since back then. Then they put in a fitness center with an approach on 40th and STILL no light? FOR SHAME!
My main beef is with the traffic engineers who seem to operate on a purely reactive basis. The lack of foresight in traffic planning in GF is astonishing.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
1
Simple solution: R O U N D A B O U T
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
22
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRGH: Nasty idea….especially for ND with real winters. Imagine just how many times they’d have to run a salt shaker around one of those every winter. They’d have to keep it really ice free or you just know people will hit it too fast and slide right off in the turn. All that extra salt will raise hell with the pavement so you’ll have more repairs every spring. Compard to the reletivly ease of keeping a simple four way salted so people wont slide through (Still do until the salt shaker gets there though) this is just not for places with serious winters I loath roundabouts with my semi and I doubt I’d like them much better in my car.
Like or Dislike:
7 
12
Tundra, I suspect it’s badly designed roundabouts that you loathe.
Take a minute and click on the pdf at: http://www.wcroads.org/Roads/Roundabouts/WhatIs
Then give us your 2c on why (or not in your opinion) the data actually seems to make them a no brainer?
Like or Dislike:
7 
4
First off……Is anyone else having problems with Area Voices coming up with “Page can’t be shown” and have to click several times before it will? This started yesterday.
As for Roundabouts. In low traffic areas like in the pictures shown they’re not too bad. In atreas where it’s mostly locals who will be using them and know where they’re going they’re not too bad. Anywhere that there’s big truck traffic, out of towners, and winters with a lot of ice….I still don’t tink they’re worth the hassle. 65′ of tractor trailer means I’m takeing up both lanes once I enter….Not knowing the area means the exits have to be marked really well because instead of a simple left or right turn you’re in a round that curve in and back out so it can be disorienting to someone not familiar with the area. As for an area that deals with a lot of ice in the winters…Like I said before…A lot more maintaince than simple intersections (I worked on the street department out west so I know a little about snow removal…Although we never did have roundabouts to deal with.
According to someone on here they’re going to experiment with putting one in at 24th ave and 34th st. so. Maybe it will work better by a school in an area where it’s most likely going to be the same locals using it. We’ll see I guess,,,,
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
How about taking all that money and hiring traffic cops; they could staff it 24/7 with $700.000. Jobs, jobs, jobs!
Like or Dislike:
4 
6
Oh ya? How much would you charge to stand out there on the graveyard shift in Jan and Feb to direct traffic? I don’t think the 700K would go as long as you might think…
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
I guess you really wouldn’t need a graveyard shift at any GF intercetion, but still…Any shift…
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
I was sorta kidding…
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
I know, but “Tis the season” and all that. I couldn’t help thinking about directing traffic for the next few month…..Brutal
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
7 
19
Are you having a bad hair day Schurkey?
Like or Dislike:
10 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
19
I’ve drove in places that are full of roundabouts (Australia, Ireland, Boston) and I can’t stand roundabouts. Its bad enough they slipped that 1 in at the airport when nobody was looking.
Honestly I don’t see how they make much sense in grand forks when it comes time to remove snow from them. It seems it would create extra work vs allowing equipment to move in a straight line
Like or Dislike:
11 
6
Im pretty sure 80% hate roundabouts. I rarely go that way out of town anymore due to the stoplights.
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
I posted studies for Schurky showing the benefits of roundabouts but he doesn’t hear. They reduce accidents by 60% saving billions for consumers in car repairs. Any crashes that happen are @ slow speeds so fatalities are also reduced but Shurkey doesn’t understand the issue thinking roundabouts are a communist conspiracy.
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
Boy those communists, they took a stand on everything. How do they feel about stop signs, I wonder?
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
I don’t know about your studies (Realist posted something earlier), but I really wonder if the studies are comparing apples to apples. How many of the roundabouts are in areas with primarily local traffic that knows the areas well? How many are in heavy traffic areas compared to lights at heavy intersections? How many of the studies are done by outside groups with nothing to gain one way or other?
I contend that roundabouts in areas with medium to low local traffic can most likely work fine. Whereas those in heavy traffic areas with a lot of through town traffic will have confused drivers spending more time looking for signs and the correct turn than at the vehicles around them. So when the person ahead of them discovers they’re about to miss their turn and hits the brakes….They soon join forces because the car behind missed what was going on ahead
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
They are not suitable for this region due to snow removal, they are expensive to clear. They are also known for bad traffic backups even in medium traffic. Plus they don’t work for trucks or semi’s, that route see’s it’s fair share of both.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
Charlie, pretty much every intersection on Washington can be problematic at 5:15. You could make the same argument for putting up a signal at 36th, 42nd, 62nd, etc. At some point, it is up to the individual driver to figure out an alternative route if they wish to avoid an intersection at the one busiest time of the day. That particular intersection is very easy to navigate the other 23.5 hours each day.
Like or Dislike:
8 
12
Mike – difference is that 40th has become quite a feeder and it’s a cross street. 36th is a T and less complicated, (I assume you meant) 44th is not a feeder, and 62nd will likely need a light as well, though traffic is nowhere near 40th levels.
Secondly, you proffer that people should find an alternative route. You’re arguing against demand, against human nature. 40th IS the alternative route because 32nd SUCKS (unprotected left-turns in front of the busiest shopping area in town, potholes and uneven streets that will launch a tank, rear-end accidents at 20th, no signal at 17th in front of Hugos, and BAD DRIVERS abound). People use streets because that’s what people do, that’s what the design of our traffic flow dictates. Yet, we’re unwilling to put a light in because money and it might add a few seconds to the commute of folks using Washington. Now the argument is that people just shouldn’t use it. Come on, man.
The demand is there, the danger is there. Build the light.
Like or Dislike:
16 
2
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
32
You’re right, myself. Let’s get rid of the lights at Washington and Demers as well. Hell, get rid of them all! We can live in a survival-of-the-fittest driver’s utopia like India!
I know I have some bootstraps that will get me through intersections safely…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
1
$446,000 from the Federal Government. I know nothing about the need or nonneed for a light at this intersection but my question is why should the taxpayers of the United States fork over $446,000 for a traffic light in Grand Forks, ND or Bad Water, Iowa or Flippin, Arkansas. No wonder we are $16 trillion (and counting) in debt. I say, let the local governments keep most of the taxes paid to the Feds and fund their own programs, My grandkid should not be paying for stuff he will never see. Tax the Rich so the Democrats have more money to spend. The rates they are proposing would take care of a mighty 8 1/2 days of the annual national deficit. Back to my borough.
Like or Dislike:
9 
8
And there it is. Gub’mint money has no place in improving safety, infrastructure, and commerce. Never mind that’s a third of a cent to each taxpayer saved for the improvement of safety, infrastructure, and commerce. Whew! You saved our butts, billn!
Like or Dislike:
9 
7
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
16
Government waste? Hardly. I have no problem with my tax dollars going toward infrastructure and public safety. It helps us all, business and private citizens alike, when there are fewer accidents and when it is easy to get around town. In this case, there are no hidden strings or agendas – it’s a damn traffic light, and it’s needed.
Yet? How many more accidents is it going to take? A death? You willing to put a price tag on that?
I don’t disagree on the condition of the streets, it’s terrible.
Build the light.
Like or Dislike:
12 
1
When will the”Yet” part be viable for you Shurkey? How many proof by accidents will it take before we reach that “Yet” zone?
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
Until a stoplight is put in, Here is the solution… when crossing washington find an alternative route that has a light on it. That is what I do. I never cross the square (washington, demars/gateway, columbia, or 32nd). Unless I am at a stoplight. It is not worth the time effort and increased risk of an accident.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
What’s funny is that I go out of my way to AVOID the lights on those streets, ESPECIALLY Washington, ’cause usually it’s quicker to take opportunity of an opening in traffic.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
If the traffic patterns show a need for a stoplight at that intersecrtion…There is no need to put a temporary light up for the winter. Wait until the spring and than put a permanant solution.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Good old Terry…. He’s obviously never tried to use that intersection more than once yet.
Or on the weekend.
or with snow on the ground.
or with it raining.
or with fog.
or with all of the soccer mom’s Suburbans lined up sticking halfway out so you can’t see oncoming traffic.
Terry, why can you just for once say. “I don’t have enough experience in that area to come to a conclusion, I should probably go and see for myself” instead of just saying NO because they’res $$$ involved.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
1
I would rather spend 700K on fixing the roads. Why does it cost over half a million dollars to install a pole with lights on it? Are we going to the point again where we develop the pen that can write in space and the russians just used a pencil?
Like or Dislike:
6 
7
Exactly……I can understand that there’s probably a lot of expensive electronics involved, but $700K worth? That just seems to be some overly inflated number someone dropped in there. Even the cost for the temp lights seems way over inflated. Why is it that anything the city spends money on always seems to have what looks like the highest bid possible? Then again I don’t know diddly about what all goes into these lights, but 700K seems like the kind of money you’d spend on something that’s par of the space program instead of stop lights……
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Talking about roundabouts…you guys are aware that there will be one put in at 24th Ave S and S 34th St (near Legacy) in 2013.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
That’s good.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
I believe the 700k price tag is a bit high. But I believe a lot of the cost goes towards the equipment, running wire to the intersection, installing a control box, equipment cost and man power to get it done.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
You’re talking installation and they listed that at 70 to 75K on top of this price (Or at least that’s the way it was listed. I know those infra red beams (Or whatever those camera looking units are on top. I assume they’re the same as what opens doors, and make much more sense than the old pressure plates or strips did in this country durning the winter) and the computer located someplace to coordinate the light changing (Especially the emergency mode for EMS vehicles) must be costly, but 700K still seems like a lot of buck for the bang.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Wonder what the cost of a roundabout would be instead of a $700,000 set of lights. In Mn. they even put roundabouts where state highways cross. I know of 2 large ones in the 40 mi. stretch between Chanhassen & Hutchinson on HW 7.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Yes, but in Minnesota they actually get the concept of cleaning the snow off the road before thousands of cars drive on it and create icy ruts–not so much here in GF, ND
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Roundabouts cost.
http://www.alaskaroundabouts.com/mythfact6.html
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
According to http://www.roundaboutsusa.com, “roundabouts have been shown to reduce fatal and injury accidents as much as 76% in the USA, 75% in Australia, and 86% in Great Britain,” attributing the reduction to “slower speeds and reduced number of conflict points.”3 Similarly, “a 2001 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) study of 23 intersections in the United States reported that converting intersections from traffic signals or stop signs to roundabouts reduced injury crashes by 80% and all crashes by 40%.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
If those links are your proof then that’s not real proof. Those links are companies that construct roundabouts so naturally they’re going to have great data supporting heir livelihood. I’d like to see a study by something like the national D.O.T.
The same with Realists links. That was a county link designed to explain to the good tax payers why they thought these were a great idea for them…Another vested interest that starts from a biased viewpoint.
Maybe they’re correct, but unless there’s a study from someplace with nothing to gain…..I won’t buy these as the final word
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
I did post neutral studies about a mth. ago when this issue came up. That wasn’t good enough for schurkey to overcome his belief roundabouts are a communist conspiracy.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
beast, So the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, IIHS, mentioned in the art. isn’t a neutral source? They have a vested interest in reducing costs.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
I just went back and skimmed both links and never saw any mention of such a reference to some unbiased study. All I’ve seen in all the articles by yours and Realists links have been basically sales pitches from those promoting the idea of round abouts.
Here’s something to consider. If you look at the pictures all those articles have of roundabouts you’ll notice that the examples shown are in rural areas with what apears to be light traffic. Not one example of really heavey traffic areas. Is that because they don’t want to show what a cluster flub they can become with heavy traffic? Imagine if they put one in a couple blocks away on 32 nd and Washington. Or how aboutColumbia and Washington with all that out of town trafic? I think in a short span of time it would be clear that it wasn’t a wise idea.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
TB, the insurance institute ref. is right in my above post from 7:28 am today.
There are roundabouts @ busy intersections in Mpls. & suburbs. One is right @ a busy intersection in Richfield right outside a SuperTarget.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
TB, have been Euro style large roundabouts on major thoroughfares in Wash. DC for yrs. 32nd/Wash. or 32nd/Columbia would mean nothing in DC. In fact putting one @ 1-29/32nd wouldn’t be a big deal in DC.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Don’t even get me started on that damn DC. I was there a few months aog on a Saturday where they had construction going on part of the freeway during the day when traffic was at it’s peak….They took six lanes and brought them down to one lane….One damn lane…..One…..Don’t try to tell me they kinow diddly aobut anything concerning traffic…..I would have gladly shoved my 40 ton loaded tractor trailer up the arse of the extreme arse hole with that game plan….
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
As I was scrolling though the comments I saw “Don’t even get me started on that damn DC” and I wondered what did I do now?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Here is the info on the roundabout the city will put in at 24th Ave S and S 34th St in 2013
http://www.wdaz.com/event/article/id/14023/
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
New prague minnesota 2 roundabouts on highway 19 on the west side of town. This highway sees medium traffic with a high volume of truck traffic, and is similar to the intersection in question. No one is ever confused. It has increased traffic efficiency and has decreased traffic accidents.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Oh good, one more light for people to run through the red on.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Here’s the funny part…We’re sitting here arguing about something that isn’t even being considered……Well…At least it’s more interesting than some of the stuff they’ve given us to ponder lately
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Unrelated but interesting. In Sioux Falls , 250,000 metro, they switch many if not all stoplights to a blinking red late at night from one direction & blinking yellow in the other. Does GF do that & if not why not?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Washington (North and south) Gateway, Demers, and 32nd could all do that after 2200…If not I don’t know why not. Actaully maybe from midnight to 0500…I’m thinking late night games and other events whould still have full lights. Other than that they could be set to flash yellow at around 2200 so the long roads can pretty much drive straight through like in the old days before there was so much traffic
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
The alcohal intake is too high in grand forks! Think about all the drunks driving around with flashing yellows and red. Bad combination. You could realisticly only do this between 3 and 430 am.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
If there’s that many drunks driving around then there’s a dire need to spot check (Which generally I don’t approve of, but if there’s an epedemic….) Lights flashing on the through fares or not really isn’t going to matter much to drunks who shouldn’t be there in the first place….
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
No more drunks in GF than in Sioux Falls.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Drive through town at 205 am and you can’t miss them.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0