歪歪漫画

CROOKSTON, Minn. 鈥� Four traffic signals in rural northwest Minnesota cities are up for removal through urban reconstruction projects being conducted by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The four being discussed at the same time is happenstance, said a MnDOT staff member.

TJ Melcher, public engagement coordinator for MnDOT District 2, said some might see the effort and think the agency is undertaking a coordinated project to remove signals. However, that鈥檚 not the case, he said.

鈥淲e definitely are not doing that,鈥� he said. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 not the goal.鈥�

The signals being considered for removal are in Crookston, Fosston and Roseau. were flagged in Crookston, both on Second Street. Fosston鈥檚 only traffic signal, located on Johnson Avenue, is also up for removal, as is a signal on Highway 11 in Roseau.

All three cities are taking part in urban reconstruction projects that include work on their sidewalks and thus have had their traffic signals in the project areas examined to see if they must be replaced or removed, Melcher said.

There are two reasons a signal is evaluated: When they are part of bigger projects, or when the signal is near the end of its 30-year life, he said. Both Crookston and Fosston are in Highway 2 corridor projects, while Roseau is in a Highway 11 project.

The process of inspecting the signals for removal involves an intersection control evaluation. MnDOT looks to see if there is enough traffic through the intersection to warrant having a signal. If not, the signal is considered for removal.

There also is a financial aspect to removing the signals. Urban reconstruction projects can be expensive, Melcher said, as well as maintaining traffic signals. Upkeep can cost as much as $10,000 a year, he said.

鈥淲hen you extrapolate that, or you put that cost on the system 鈥� so all across the district and all across the state 鈥� it鈥檚 a huge number that goes into just upkeep,鈥� Melcher said.

Rather than rural areas with less traffic being the cause for unwarranted signals, Melcher said it's more a matter of the evolution of traffic engineering, while also trying to be more mindful of where MnDOT is making investments and spending dollars.

Some residents have concerns. For example, residents in Fosston attended a to discuss the possible removal of the city鈥檚 only traffic signal. The question-and-answer segment of the meeting lasted more than two hours. The chief concern was safety, and if the removal of the signal would make that stretch of Highway 2 unsafe.

鈥淲e think of a traffic signal as safety,鈥� Melcher said. 鈥淭raffic experts understand that traffic signals are not safety devices. Oftentimes, you鈥檒l see an increase in crashes when you put a traffic signal in.鈥�

It was beneficial to MnDOT to hear from residents, Melcher said, as it gave the agency more qualitative data than the quantitative data it had already collected about the signal. Melcher said he understands resident concerns and how it can feel like an outside agency is not being mindful of what the community values.

Melcher has noticed similar conversations, especially in outstate Minnesota, regarding some of the newer traffic solutions like roundabouts, J-turns, reduced-conflict intersections and diverging diamond intersections. People don鈥檛 have experience with them, which can lead to pushback when they are implemented, he said.

Something he wants residents to know in northwest Minnesota is that MnDOT members are also residents driving on the roads. For instance, Melcher lives in Bemidji, he said, but he also drives through areas like Fosston and East Grand Forks and other communities.

鈥淚 live, I work, I play in all of these same areas,鈥� he said. 鈥淲e all live up here. It鈥檚 not just folks down in the metro area that are trying to apply these decisions across outstate Minnesota.鈥�