Hwy 2 – Cass Lake Corridor Study

Just generally speaking, a roundabout could be built to accommodate any size vehicle. In this instance, Hwy 2 is a designated Superload corridor, which means it’s a truck route for oversize/overweight vehicles. So no matter which alternative is selected, it would be designed to accommodate larger vehicles as well, even windmill blades.

Regarding windmill blades and roundabouts in our district… one of the routes they currently take to northern North Dakota or Canada, goes through Hwy 59 in Thief River Falls. Which has 3 roundabouts in a row that they go through. So, a roundabout option would not prevent logging trucks nor windmill blades from using Hwy 2.

We don’t currently have cost comparisons for these options. As referenced in one of the other answers on this page, at this point this is just a vision study, to narrow down the variety of options. In the next steps of the study, the project team will evaluate all of the feedback and see how we best apply them. This could mean that as we narrow the alternatives, they might like different than what we see here. It really just depends on the feedback and technical review of the corridor study.

 And really, this effort is more focused on how to improve safety and mobility for all users, and less on worrying about green space. We’re looking at different design options to meet the goals of the study and seeking your help with feedback on the options. We will keep you informed all along the process, and keep the public involved in the future steps as well.

We appreciate your input and ideas.

Thank you for input. In one of the other questions we help explain some of the other ways to improve pedestrian crossing safety. In regards to pedestrian bridges themselves, there are some drawbacks to think about as well. Although they do separate motorists and pedestrians, they are expensive. Which means it's cost prohibitive to build them at multiple locations. Simply viewing google earth, you can see that there are a lot of area's along this corridor that people are currently crossing. If there isn't a bridge located in a place that's convenient, then pedestrians won't use it as intended. So that's a challenge for this particular corridor, in that there are more crossing locations, than we could build bridges.

Another challenge can be the amount of time it takes to cross. By law, the bridge has to be ADA accessible which means that it can also be used by wheelchair users. That requires a long entry/exit ramp so its not too steep (they have to maintain a maximum 5% grade and provide landing surfaces). This adds additional time and distance, about 14 times as much, for pedestrians crossing the highway. If we were to apply it to an example, if it were to originally take 30 seconds to cross the highway directly, it might now take someone 7 minutes to cross via the bridge. This can also act as a barrier and limits the value of the pedestrian bridge when there isn't just a single crossing location.

Traffic safety and engineering concepts can sometimes be counter-intuitive and there are a few items to note here. By their nature shorter crossing distances are safer for pedestrians because it lessens their exposure to traffic. At its most basic level, crossing two lanes of traffic is safer than crossing four.

Its natural to feel that reducing lanes would cause more traffic jams and crashes, but that’s not always the case. If that were the likely outcome, it wouldn’t even be a consideration from an engineering standpoint. As part of the study, we do an in-depth analysis of the traffic history and patterns, and measure what’s called level of service. Which essentially looks at how much delay something would cause for drivers. They can use this data to create traffic models and better compare whether something is or is not feasible.

Another concept when thinking of safety for pedestrians crossing a four-lane highway, is driver blind spots. To help explain this, we’ll just use the terms fast lane and slow lane to help visualize driving in one set of lanes (even though both lanes may be traveling about the same speed, it’s just easier to differentiate sides for this written example).

Picture yourself driving in the slow lane, and a pedestrian approaches the road to cross. If they chose to step out in front of you, your faced with a decision. To either stop or keep driving, but say there’s a driver behind you in the fast lane. The issue is that, that driver may not even realize a pedestrian is there, because your vehicle created a blind spot that they can’t see through. If you choose to stop, and the pedestrian crosses, it creates a very dangerous situation… because that other driver wasn’t even aware there was a reason to stop. That blind spot, is an everyday challenge of getting pedestrians safely across a four lane highway.

Another item we can look at here is traffic speeds. It might seem natural to say “just reduce the speed limit and that will make it better.” Although we agree that getting motorists to drive slower would also increase safety, simply changing the speed limit signs don’t yield that result. You have to change the environment, through what’s called traffic calming, in order to better change driver behavior. Reducing from four lanes would just be another tool to help result in vehicles driving slower through town.

Right now, the current layout is a barrier to mobility and safety for non-motorists trying to cross the highway. This study is helping us to look at different ways to approach making improvements to the Hwy 2 corridor in Cass Lake. To answer the question- how can we best serve motorists and non-motorists, connect residents and businesses, and increase the vibrancy of this important community?

That’s kind of a long way to answer your question, but that’s what can be challenging with these study’s. There often aren’t just quick easy answers. Traffic engineers spend years studying the science behind crashes and how to better improve safety and mobility. So, to try and answer your question, these would be a few of the reasons that these options are under evaluation.

Several plans and studies have identified Hwy 2 as a barrier for people walking and biking in Cass Lake, and have recommended improvements:

• City of Cass Lake Comprehensive Plan (2014)
• Cass Lake-Bena Safe Routes to School Plan (2015)
• MnDOT Pedestrian and Bicycle Scoping Recommendations Report (2020)

 This current effort isn’t so much a proposal, as much as it is research. At some point the highway will need to be resurfaced/reconstructed, so this is just looking into the future by asking the question of when it does come due for construction, what do we do?

 As it stands now, this is an unfunded project and there is no assigned construction year, so there’s no plan we’re looking to implement… just the understanding that the community of Cass Lake and the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe have expressed a concern for the safety and mobility for people walking and biking, so we are trying to find what a new vision for Hwy 2 in Cass Lake should look like.

 We'll use this study to determine the recommended option and then pursue funding. The process may take several years and will involve additional public outreach along with formal consent from the City of Cass Lake and the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe.