HONEYWELL CROSSWALK 2
June 2, 1983
. To: Ci ty Counc i 1 & Ci ty r~anager
From: City Engineer
Re: Honeywell Crosswalks
On November 4, 1980 the Council authorized the installation of two cross-
walks with overhead flashers on Second Street N.E. in front of Honeywell (600
Second Street N.E.). A third crosswalk was authorized but without overhead
flashers.
.
On February 15, 1983 the Council received a petition from Honeywell to
install two pedestrian actuated traffic control signals on Second Street N.E.
at the east and west end of the Honeywell building. These signals would re-
place the existing flashers. The Council ordered a Police report on safety
conditions relating to the existing crosswalks.
On March 1, 1983 the Council reviewed the Police report and adopted
Resolution No. 83-3057 ordering an Engineers report on certain recommendations
contained in the Police report. This report was to concern itself with the
costs of the portion of the Police recommendations that could be done on public
right-of-way by the City.
On April 5, 1983 the Council reviewed the Engineers report. The report
was again considered at the April 19th Council meeting and the staff was in-
structed to forward a copy of the Police report and costs and request a re-
sponse from Honeywell. The following is the estimated cost summary contained
in the report:
(1) Advance warning signs and flashers
(2) Paint Crosswalk Ahead Message
(3) Additional Crosswalk Flasher
$ 5,980.00
900.00
8,625.00
$15,505.00
Enclosed is a copy of a letter dated May 17, 1983 (together with an inter-
office memo) received from Honeywell requesting the installation of two flashing
amber lights as described in the Police and Engineers report at the estimated
cost of $6,000.00.
RECOMMENDATION FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Since the only property involved in the assessment of costs is the property
owned by the petitioners, the Council could take action to order in the work re-
quested by adopting Resolution No. 83-3083, "A Resolution Ordering In The Instal-
lation of Advance ~larning Signs and Flashers".
Respectfully submitted,
~cr'_-\- ~
John J. Strojan
City Engi neer
\ ~.
Honeywell
.
May 17, 1983
Mr. William P. Craig
Ci ty Manager
Ci ty of Hopkins
1010 South First Street
Hopkins, MN 55343
Dear Mr. Craig:
.
Thank you for the information transmitted in your letter of April 28,
1983. Our response to the "Conclusions" and "Action Recommended"
sections of the Police Department report dated December 6, 1982, and
to the Engineering Departments verbal report at the April 19, 1983
City Council Meeting, follows.
It is our understanding that the installation of traffic control
signals is not recommended for the following reasons:
a) Three signals within a 610 foot distance are too many
for a very busy street(only two signals were requested).
b) The signals would cause traffic-backup at peak hours
to a greater degree than we already have,
c) Honeywell has an excellent pedestrian accident record;
only 1 accident occurred in 2,100,000 crossings
(based on 1500 employees at the plant)
d) Honeywell employees should be further educated regarding
the law and their own responsibility for their personal
sa fety.
We accept the judgement of your staff and the City Council on this
issue, as well as on the speed bumps and reduced speed limit, and
recognize the potential problems and driver injuries that could
result from the installation of the traffic signals.
It is requested that the City of Hopkins proceed, as .soon as feasiltlle,
with the installation of two advance warning flashing amber lights as
described in Sections IV.A.2 and VI.D of the police report. We
believe this recommended action to be a reasonable and very effective
improvement. It is understood that the cost of the installation will
be about $6,000 and would be assessed against Honeywell.
DEFENSE SYSTEMS DIVISION
HONEYWELL INC.. 600 SECOND STREET NE. HOPKINS. MINNESOTA 55343. TELEPHONE 612/542.5133
, ...
Page two (2)
.
We question whether or not the painting of "PED. XING AHEAD" on the
street between the advance warning flashers and the crosswalks would
create too many signs to be observed and divert attention from the
crosswalks themselves.
In response to those items recommended for action by Honeywell, we
will:
a) Provide our employees with written information as described
in Section VI.A of the police report; please see attached
copy of text to be distrlbuted with each paycheck.
b) Erect signs similar to those suggested in Section VI.B.
However, we are searching for some other wording.
c) Defer the installation of flashing amber lights over the
middle crosswalk untll such time as the effectiveness
of the advance warning flashers and pedestrian signs can
be evaluated and a need becomes apparent.
e
Please schedule these items on the Council agenda at your earliest
convenience, and provide notice to us so that our representative
may attend. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Very truly yours,
FIIJd(~
F.J. Williams
Chief Contracts Counsel
FJW/bc
~ noneyweu InteroffIce Correspond nce
Date: May 18, 1983
Subject: PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK SAFETY
.
To: All Hopkins Plant Employees
From:
Organization:
HED'
MS:
Telephone:
P. Laederach
USD/Hopkins - Plant Engineering
MNll
2858
931-6813
.
Plant Engineering has been working with the City of Hopkins to make Second
Street an even safer place to cross since a Honeywell employee was injured
in a crosswalk accident on November 11, 1982. The purpose of this memo is
to bring you up to date on the status of this effort and to remind employees
of their legal and practical responsibilities for their own ~afety.
Honeywell petitioned the City for the installation of pedestrian-actuated
traffic control signals (i.e. standard red-yellow-green-walk-wait signal)
at ~he east and we~t ends of the Hopkins plant. The Police Department
report to the City Council did not recommend approval, primarily because:
a) the signals would aggravate an already existing traffic-backup problem
during peak hours, b) Honeywells' excellent record of only one pedestrian
accident in over 2 million crossings in the last 35 months, and c) many
Honeywell pedestrians have been observed, by the police, violating state
statutes and/or otherwise acting irresponsibly while crossing the street.
It is very unlikely that traffic signals will be installed.
I
It is highly probable that advance warning flashers will be installed
sometime this summer or early fall. Each flasher wou~d consist of a post
with a flashing amber light about 6 feet off the ground and an illuminated
black-on-white sign mounted below with the inscription "CAUTION - 3
PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS AHEAD"; one would be located approximately 300 feet
east of the eastern crosswalk and one 300 feet west of the western cross-
walk.
Other potential solutions were discussed such as speed bumps, reduced
speed limits, pedestrian bridges, four-way stop signs at 2nd Street &
Tyler and at 2nd Street & Jackson, etc. but were rejected as being
unreasonable, or impractical.
The police and city officials strongly emphasized, and we concur with, the
urgent need for pedestrians to comply with the law and to also act respon-
sibly, using common sense, no matter what the law says about who has the
right-of-way. Each of us needs to understand that there are people driving
cat's that shouldn't be driving cars because they are drunk, drugged, senile,
emotionally-di~turbed, uneducated, etc., or just plain irresponsible. No
level of traffic control signals, devices, or signs can protect oneself
from those types of drivers and there is no way of telling whether or not
the next car you're thinking of challenging is being driven by one of them.
81-3388-128Rev 7/82
~ ,
.
.
~
Pedestrian Crosswalk Safety
Page two (2)
Pedestrians should be especially aware of the following two exerpts from
Minnesota Statute 169.21 - Pedestrians:
. ...no pedestrian shall suddenly leave a 'curb or other
place of safety and walk or run into the path of a
vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the
driver to yield.
. Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other
than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked
crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of
way to all vehicles upon the roadway.
Please use the safety measures provided and don't take unnecessary
risks with your life when crossing Second Street N.E.
..
PAL/bc