Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

moderndukes t1_jawm6g8 wrote

I know this is about fixing the light timing for MLK, but with any mention of that road I feel obligated to say that it needs major road dieting and traffic calming. It’s in my top 3 roads that need a redesign along with I-83 and North Ave.

11

scoutsadie t1_jaxab3r wrote

what's road dieting?

1

moderndukes t1_jaxezyt wrote

Reducing the width of a road, either by reducing lane width or the number of lanes.

MLK’s current design psychologically signals to drivers that it’s okay to speed on it due to the lane width, number of lanes (3-5 in some stretches), limited uses loading onto it, and the large right-of-way and setback of uses on adjoining streets (there are some stretches where a zone about the width of the road separates MLK from buildings near it). Some of those things are good for an arterial road and its flow and safety (like loading of uses), but the execution here leaves something to be desired - especially since it was built gashing a hole and severing neighborhoods like 83 and 40 do. This is all doubled by the 395 exit simply becoming the lanes of MLK rather than meeting at an intersection, meaning traffic flows seamlessly from the interstate and if it doesn’t encounter a red-light at Washington Blvd might continue at highway speeds.

It is an easy candidate for protected bike lanes and/or a tram system, and in-fill development - all of which will reduce speeds and accidents. Studies on road dieting have shown a 19-43% reduction in accidents.

17

needleinacamelseye t1_jb0ueth wrote

There was a study done a few years ago to narrow the width of the lanes on MLK so that the median could be widened and so that a proper bike path could be added alongside. I have no idea what happened to this proposal, but it seems like it might be a good first step.

In an ideal world, we'd take out most of MLK and re-build the street grid so that the west side wasn't as isolated from downtown, but that's a pipe dream until we get a much better public transit system.

4

[deleted] t1_jaypfq0 wrote

[deleted]

0

moderndukes t1_jb1tcc5 wrote

I’m going to presume you aren’t just a bad faith NIMBY from the county and engage. A study and plan already exists and is widely desired by the surrounding neighborhoods (signed letters at the end of the PDF).

2