Mailbag: Those ‘crazy’ lights on 394, and a truck in need of editing
Posted on May 16th, 2007 – 6:10 AMBy Roadguy
Roadguy is behind on his correspondence, so let’s look at a little something from Elizabeth:
I have a question that’s been driving (ha ha) me crazy. There are yellow lights along the carpool lane on 394 that blink randomly. Sometimes when there’s a car in the lane, sometimes when it’s empty. What the heck are they doing?
Thanks for saving my sanity,
Elizabeth
This question arrived some time ago, and it kept getting lost in Roadguy’s cluttered inbox, so he sincerely hopes that Elizabeth’s sanity was not actually dependent on a prompt answer. When Roadguy did finally forward the question to those in the know, he got a very thorough e-mail from Kevin at MnDOT.
Mr. Roadguy,
…I believe the lights your questioner is seeing are part of the enforcement equipment on the MnPASS lane. As you know, people who use the MnPASS lane on I-394 who are driving by themselves during its hours of operation must pay a toll. To do this they must sign up to use the system and have a transponder. This is a small low-power radio device that interacts with antennas mounted above the lane.
The antennae are mounted on bridges or sign gantries along the corridor. On the other side of the bridge or gantry from where the antenna is mounted is a yellow beacon. It is square in shape, with a light in the middle.
Ever helpful, Kevin sent along a photo (which Roadguy has cropped down to blog size):
… When an active transponder passes under the antenna, the light that is mounted on the opposite side of the bridge or gantry flashes several times….
The lights are used by the law enforcement that patrols the lane…. The officer watches to see if the light flashes when a car passes underneath. If the light flashes, it means a valid transponder is in the vehicle. If the light does not flash, the officer will check to see if there are two or more people in the vehicle. If there are, it is a valid carpool and is allowed to use the lane for free.
If there is no flashing light, and there is only one person in the car, then that driver is illegally using the MnPASS lane and is subject to being stopped and ticketed. The ticket is $142.
The lights flash almost immediately upon transponder interaction, so if the antenna is mounted on a bridge, the car may not make it all the way past the bridge before the light is done. However, if there are a couple cars together, one in front of the other, it might appear that the light is flashing as the front car passes when the second car is actually triggering the flasher.
So there you have it, Elizabeth. Hope that helps keep you out of a padded room.
Our other piece of mail today comes from loyal reader 406er, who has blessed us in the past with photos of some seriously awful parking jobs (here and here). But he has other interests:
I read your blog because I like transportation. I also like to nitpick about punctuation and grammar:
I’m visualizing apostrophe imperfection.
Heh — proper punctuation is almost as rare as proper turn signal use, and almost as distracting to the well-intentioned driver.
Roadguy wouldn’t want his readers to fret too much about their own punctuation, of course. So even if you don’t know the basic pluralization rules of your native language, keep those e-mails and comments coming.
46 Responses to "Mailbag: Those ‘crazy’ lights on 394, and a truck in need of editing"
There was a time when the plural of an abbreviated word was okay with ’s. It is no longer the standard, but maybe the sign was written 30 years ago?
The question about the lights on 394 makes me realize how fast time goes. When 394 was adding that lane several years ago, you had to be under a rock to not hear all of the conversation revolving around it, including enforcement using the lights above the lane, price tags on the fines for crossing double white lines, etc. The idea that people aren’t sure anymore what the lights are for remind me that times does go by quickly.
I won’t nitpick anymore about grammar, except to say that there has never been a time when the plural of an abbreviated word had an ’s on it. The only time you use apostrophes are in a contraction (like don’t), as a possessive (Jake’s coat), or in the very rare instance to form the plural of a number, letter, or sign used as a word (I got two B+’s and three A-’s last semester).
But I digress. In relation to those lights on 394, it appears that a one-person vehicle can use the HOV lanes against the rush (obviously this wouldn’t be the case east of Hwy 100). Here’s what I mean: going eastbound, the HOV lane signs say something like: “MNPass and carpools only 6 AM- 9 PM.” Which I assume means you can use the HOV lane without MNPass or being a carpool at any other time.
That apostrophe catastrophe is also a typographic sin. It might be the way the font was designed, but without that knowledge, one would consider it to be an inch mark, not a proper quote mark. I’m also sorry to nitpick but it is my job! 
Why is the apostrophy wrong — I would think it is doing the same job as the apostrophy in can’t or don’t - it takes place of the letters that are missing in a contraction..The contraction here is professionals to pro’s. Or did am I missing something….
MOI -
A contraction is when you put two words together, not when you shorten one word - that’s an abbreviation. Plus, “pro” is a word in its own right, the plural of which is “pros”, according to Merriam Webster:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=pro
It could be that the name of the company leaves out “Moving Company” - i.e. it is actually a moving company belonging to the Apartment Pro … kind of like you see all over the place with restaurants. You know, “Eat At Joe’s” or what have you.
Or it just could be that many people in the world believe that an apostrophe means “here comes an S!” You see this all the time–especially in grocery stores.
Not the Elizabeth from the article.
I would agree with you Ben that my support of argument was off.
How about this one - an abbreivation like this example - government is gov’t - so an abbreivation for professionals is pro’s
Ben, in addition, your link goes to the word pros (as in opposite cons) not the plural meaning of professional - I could not find anywhere in websters that pros stands for professionals (although I did find that pro is an abbreviation for professional)
Furthermore - isn’t ‘cannot’ one word not two…
MOI -
Good catch on the “pros” thing. I wonder why they would consider “pro” okay for professional, but not “pros” for professionals.
As for gov’t, good point. If we stick with M-W, it isn’t correct, as they don’t include it at all. But it clearly is used that way commonly.
Cannot is a special case, as it is two words that are compressed into one already. Can’t further compresses it.
In any case, a further look at M-W defines Contraction as “a shortening of a word, syllable, or word group by omission of a sound or letter”, so I guess you are correct. Point yielded.
woo hoo - now… if I can just get everyone to … 1)realize lane changing when there are dashed lines ot a single white line is ok and legal; 2) allow for merging at the merge point and don’t line up miles before in a single lane; and 3) the second amendment stands for an individual right not a collective right…and I will be a truly happy camper.
1) Is fine with me, as long as you don’t do anything dangerous. I agree with 3), but I also think that it allows for significant regulation (i.e. licensing, ballistics tracking, background checks, etc.)
2) Just doesn’t sit right with me. Not because it doesn’t make a certain amount of sense - because it flies in the face of the driving culture in Minnesota. Given that we don’t like to allow people to merge as a rule, shouldn’t we take that into consideration?
Also, given that you’re supposed to merge early when traffic is moving, and wait to merge if it’s backed up, you end up with an ugly transition at moment traffic backs up.
You can use the HOV without an MNPass or another person whenever it says FREE on the sign or outside of the times listed.
When they started the program, it was great. I had an MNPass and it was enforced 24×7. So, I had 394 WESTbound all to myself while everyone else crammed into the two lanes on the right, and it only cost me $0.25 a day. They have since made the WESTbound lane FREE during morning rush hour and added that extra lane on the right–but again, I am talking about almost 3 years ago already.
As far as the plural thing, I found a link on plural acronyms using ’s (i.e. as in CD’s or DVD’s), but I can’t find the corresponding link to plural words. I will post it if I have time to find it.
Ben
Ah the Merge Myth - hopefully we can debunk it here. (BTW - do not agree that just because minnesotans do it - we should take it into consideration. In other words - just because they do it - doesn’t make it right)
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/newsrels/04/08/31merge.html
http://wcco.com/traffic/local_story_310162835.html
Read the two links and let me know what you think.
As for 1) - everything we do on the road should not be dangerous.
As for 2) reasonable restriction and regulation is fine (just like restrictions on free speech - can’t yell fire in a crowded theater kind of thing)
How does this board work - why are my comments awaiting moderation?
Maybe because I put in a link to antoher site?
Lets try it while breaking apart the links –
AH - the merge myth.
Please read the following two posts to help clear up the Minnesota Merge myth….(just to point out a flaw in your logic - just because minnesotans do it or is part of their driving culture, does not make the practive right)
http://www. dot. state. mn. us/newsrels/04/08/31merge.html
http://www. wcco.
com/traffic/local_story_310162835.html
Let me know what you think after you read them.
oh as for 1) excellent caviet - I would agree with that in anything we do on the road.
as for 2) ok with restrictions and regulation (as long as it does not burden the right) - along the same lines as with free speech (can’t yell fire in a crowded theater thing)
I still have a hard time with it. You’re right that just because the culture does it doesn’t make it right - look at slow people in the left lane. But as the second article you listed says, when traffic is moving at normal speeds, you *should* merge early. So what about the time when it starts to slow down and back up? And what makes it slow down and back up in the first place? I’ll give you a hint - it isn’t the people who merged early.
I am sure there is a myriad of reasons
But according to mndot - it is the people who merge early - the commute would go 35% faster had they not merged early.
here is some of mine:
octegerians wearing hats driving big cadilacs or other boat type vehicles.
soccer moms on the phone driving SUVs so big they need a step stool to get in them
teenage punks who race in between cars with their muffler enfanced foreign imports
All contractions and abbreviations are informal writing styles. In that sense, there aren’t the same rules so it doesn’t make a ton of sense to debate whether it’s correct or not. That said, I think it’s incorrect.
If I were to advertise my business as a ‘pro’, I probably would have made a more legible sign anyway.
The story says the queue LENGTHS are decreased 35 percent, not that it works 35% faster. You get a shorter, slower line instead of a longer line. I’d guess it takes about the same time. Capacity is capacity.
I agree with MOI that everyone should adopt the approach of merging at the merge point (exception: exit-only lanes). Still, Ben’s right that it does fly in the face of MN driving culture. “When in Rome…”
Sean, where I work, our copyeditors officially spell CDs and DVDs as shown, with no apostrophe. So typographically, we set it without any punctuation. I’m not sure if the company decided this or if it’s actually a general rule.
Often I see companies mess up punctuation and letterforms… particularly with the word iPod. I saw one ad with a capital i, and I just about lost it! 
It’s really a bad reflection on your company or advertisers if you can’t even ’spell’ one of the most popular products correctly…
When does a lane become an exit only lane is the problem. Technically because if there are dash lines or a single white lanes seperating the lanes, it is not an exit only lane yet because one could legally merge from the lane to another.
I suppose you could call it a lane that will become an exit only lane.
I need to start reading a different blog. Between phone calls I’m reading Wikipedia’s explaination of Apostrophe.
Pro’s is Green Grocer English…whatever that is.
Correcy- the way they’re striped is not illegal, but just because it’s legal, doesn’t mean it’s not a problem.
They’re marked well in advance, and I would propose different lane striping since it’s not a lane drop (as in a zipper merge).
For example, 1-mile between exits with an exit-only lane, the first 1/4 mile would be merge-in only, the second 1/4 would be in-or-out and the last 1/2 mile would be exit-merge only.
I think the prime example is SB 35W around 46th St in Minneapolis. Traffic is severely impacted because of a few drivers’ “legal” cut-ins to heavy traffic at the last second. They block traffic exiting the freeway, and don’t improve the queue on the mainline.
Funny - that exit and the crosstown 62 east to 35w north were the two exits that came to mind.
The crosstown has double whites for a long time before the actual split of the lanes.
Whereas the 46th has dash until almost up to the actual split of the lanes.
I think that if the engineers at mndot had wanted no one to cross back into the ‘mainline’ of 35w then they would have put double lines further away from the actual lane split point.
Since they didn’t I would assume that they meant for the drivers to continue to use the lane.
Actually I would argue that allowing for the merging later does improve the whole queue for the cars. I know it doesn’t appear to imprve it for you becaues you are in the lane that has to allow for those ‘drivers’ to merge. But one has to consider the whole aggregate freeway.
The longer there are four lanes for use instead of three lanes - the more capacity there is in the freeway.
If they cut it down to three lanes, for example like you gave 1/2 before the exit - the freeway capacity would be cut by 25% 1/2 mile earlier. Surely you can see that that would be bad.
The goal is to maximize freeway capacity. The way that is achieved is the most lanes for the most miles.
Perhaps “Apartment Pros” is a parent company (**GOD** I hate that phrase) which owns an entity called “The Gentle Movers”, thus a possessive is appropriate? I am stretching for an explanation, I realize :).
And why would I have to visualize that they do a good job, shouldn’t I be able to see it with my actual eyes?
Marketplace, a lane is an exit-only lane when there is a sign that says it is exit only. Once you see a sign that says exit only, you should get out of that lane unless you plan on exiting. If there is a lot of traffic and you choose to use this lane up until the last few feet where it exits, you are being very rude. For one, when you eventually do have to merge into the “normal” lanes, you’ll slow down or stop all the drivers that are trying to legitimately exit (usually me), which contributes to traffic. Are you doing anything illegal? Maybe not. But you’re being a dink, and everybody knows it.
Now, I agree with you when it comes to road construction or general merging where a lane ends. People often merge way too early when it comes to road construction. MNDOT has repeatedly issued statements saying that you should stay in your lane UNTIL the merge point. Minnesotans seem to ignore this advice. And if everyone stayed in their lane until the merge point, there wouldn’t be any people getting upset because you cut in front of them. It would all work fine.
MOI, I totally disagree with the idea that the merging when you are supposed to, when it is signed, NOT at the last moment like the selfish goons want to believe, there is no way in the world that the early mergers are the ones slowing down the traffic. It is, and only because, of the people waiting until the last moment causing the continuing lane to slow down. I sure would like to look through those rosey glasses some of you fools use that think waiting to the end would speed it up. Just look for example, that due to the last minute mergers, the continuing lane is usually no more than creep and crawl, but once the merging is done, traffic breezes through the restriction at 30 to 40+ mph. Just because MnDot and the State Patrol says they recommend it doesn’t mean it’s right. The State Patrol has a history of funny interpretations, like every car on the freeway has to stop behind any squad car on the shoulder with it’s red lights flashing, if that isn’t rediculous, what is. And that interpretation came from the chief of the State Patrol back in the 70’s. Never had much faith in them since.
I heard a while back that at least 3 states actually passed laws against the last minute mergers, unfortunately with all the crap out there on the net, couldn’t find any reference to them. I do know about 3 or 4 years ago, Minnesota experimented with this wait till the end, then altername crap, all we ended up with was every lane was backed up to heck.
Joe - or should I say dink caller — sometimes those signs are two miles from the exit — are you saying you want to reduce the capacity from the freeway that much!!! Wow
And if that was the case then mndot would have said it to be so and not allow to merge from that line. Time to shift ones thinking to the experts. AGain - the experts are mndot - if they didn’t want someone to merge they would have made it illegal!!!
By the way ” Are you doing anything illegal? Maybe not.” ITS NOT ILLEGAL - no if, ands, buts or MAYBEs about it — its legal.
Jon - if your hypothesis about breezing through the restriction after everyone merges was true - then the lanes not being affected by the merging would be already breezing. BUT they are not. THerefore your hyupothesis doesn’t work out and is incorrect. It is not the mergers but the reduced capacity of the freeway. capacity is capacity.
MOI, if you can’t understand that something is legal and wrong to do, I don’t know how to respond. Example : alcoholism.
John, I shared your opinion about this for a while, but after listening to MNDOT, I now disagree when it comes to general merging (lane ending for whatever reason, NOT exit only lane). Imagine if a lane was ending in 1 mile. Right now, 95% of the people merge early and 5% of the people annoy the rest of the drivers by rushing ahead in the ending lane. Now, imagine if no one merged over until when the lane ended, and both lanes took turns at the merge point. Wouldn’t traffic flow smoother if this happened? MNDOT thinks it does.
John-
Sorry but you are simply wrong. It can be proven conclusively that the fastest traffic solution is to use all lane capacity, and then alternate at the merge point. The reason you can’t find references to the “3 or 4 states” that legislate this is because that is almost certainly a myth.
MnDot has waffled on this issue, but not because they don’t believe it is the best solution. They have concluded that the lane vigilantes (those who block out at the end), and engrained cultural prediliction outweigh the benefits. This is a polite way of saying “using both lanes to the merge point would work if Minnesota drivers weren’t such morons.”
It you do a detailed search of the MnDOT site, you’ll find all the conclusions.
Thank you for answering the blinking light question. I am not originally from Minnesota (I’m a proud corn-fed Iowan!) and that light has been one of my main things to wonder about the origin of since moving here.
On a side note, I’m nitpicky about grammar, spelling, AND bad parking (amongst many, many other things). I feel like I fit right in here.
Now, can anyone tell me what the light boxes over the entrance to the Lowry Hill Tunnel mean? Sometimes they are lit up to look like an “X” and sometimes they are a green arrow. I assume they are meant to indicate something traffic-related (traffic flow, perhaps?), but they are not lit up frequently enough for me to think I am correct. I’ve also seen these light boxes over 35W, near the 66th Ave exit and the 494 interchange. I don’t think I have ever seen those lit up, though.
Joe - first calling people dinks and then comparing them to acholohics.
These people are only following what is legal and what the experts have said to do!
Interesting point… I just looked through the MN Drivers’ Manual and I can’t find anything telling people how they are supposed to merge. (However, online I found merging instructions for Australia, New Zealand and Japan.)
Since it’s obvious that people in MN (and many other places) don’t know the proper way to merge, maybe that should be included in the manual. They provide instructions and graphics on how to parallel park, so it’s not unreasonable for them to include “how to merge” also.
Also, on the MnDot website there was a copy of the results of a study they did on people’s perception of when they are supposed to merge and their feelings toward people who did it differently from them. It was an interesting read. (Look under Merge-Dynamic Late Merge System. On that page is a report called MnDot Merge Pattern Study.)
I grew up in Indiana and drove in Indianapolis, Chicago, Detroit, Columbus, St. Louis, Louisville, etc. growing up and I’ve always seen drivers using all lanes and then merging at the last minute. I don’t have any science behind this, but I’ve always felt it was a good use of the capacity and I can’t imagine not using every lane on the Dan Ryan in Chicago, because it merges in 2 miles…
Joe said:
“…something is legal and wrong to do, I don’t know how to respond. Example : alcoholism.”
I think what Joe was trying to say is that there are a lot of things that are legal but still very dangerous or wrong to do. Another example is smoking or drinking heavily while pregnant - it’s perfectly legal to do, but studies have shown that it’s detrimental to the fetus. So, many would argue that while it’s legal, it’s wrong.
Heather - thank you for your clarification - I was just trying to deflect an obvious name calling with a non-sequiter.
But as your searching found and other poeples’ posts - Joe’s argument that it is wrong is…in a word…wrong.
MOI, welcome to my twit filter.
Hrrrumphh! I read all of the comments and nobody seems to have caught MOI’s misuse of “myriad”. Tsk, tsk.
Any body that want’s to just believe everything that MnDot believes, because they are the supposed Pros, or ‘experts’, may want to look in to a special bridge that might be for sale. I can assure you the final report that MnDOT published after the Ramp Meter Study, had very little to do with actual experience or the preliminary report issued by the group performing the study. The Northstar reports have been challenged every way from Sunday by various groups, and MnDOT has even been forced to revise those reports at least once. Just because someone at MnDOT publishes ‘a report’ doesn’t mean it is the actual truth, just like people that post here. As far as my so called hypothesis, the MnDOT report has more hypothesis then my statements do. Just look at Hwy 10 northbound through Coon Rapids, from the 610 split up to the railroad tracks where it finally is down to two lanes, it is stop and creep, at least the times I’ve been on in, but once the mereging is done, it is breezing along at least 30 mph. I never said, or least never meant ‘unrestricted’ meaning 70+ mph, I know congested traffic will slow down, but from experience, not hypothesis, congestion SLOWS traffic down, it DOES NOT stop it. Late merging forcing other drivers to stop is what stops traffic. Other sites where there is construction and you lose 2 lanes down to one, it is stop and creep right to the end point, but the single lane through the traffic, as long as the construction stays out of the lane, moves right along at 30+.
as far as ‘using the lane for capacity’, well then if that is the justification for using the lane to the end, then capacity or congestion is justification for using all lanes period, so don’t you dare try to shake a finger at me when I’m driving 65 mph in the left lane of 694, because the freeway is congested, or nearing it and we HAVE TO USE ALL THE LANES.
And how many different definitions of ‘MERGE’ do you people need to make up? Just to make it easier for you to justify your own bad driving practices! I would say that if your definition of MERGE is to go right up to the end, and then the traffic in the continuing lane is obligated to let you in, then that applies to all merges, including pure lane changes, and drivers in the Entrance lane trying to get in to the traffic lane, after all, the entrance lane ends too, just like the lane drops.
I have never seen such a large group of piss poor drivers trying to lay the blame of their own poor driving habits on the innocents, just like alchoholics.
I originally came to this blog because I thought it would be an interesting place to see what is being discussed in the transportation community. Just about all I’ve seen though is a huge bunch of self rightous bums that only want to make up their own definitions and blame the ones obeying the law for their own infractions.
I would also say that if MnDOT is going through the expense of posting a whole bunch of LANE ENDS MERGE RIGHT signs, but doesn’t really mean it, what does that say for all the other signs they put up. Maybe thats the reason that so many drivers blow right through YIELD signs, well, the state really doesn’t mean it.
john
Nice rant but you destry your crediblity by continuely saying things like “blame the ones obeying the law for their own infractions.” when you have already conceded that they are not breaking any laws.
Art
Maybe no one caught it because there was nothing to catch. Difinition of “myriad” is “a very great or indefinitely great number of persons or things”
My sentences was “I am sure there is a myriad of reasons”
substituting definition for the word and we get - wait for it - the same thing.
I am sure there is a “infinetely great number” of reasons.
No misuse here.
when did I concede they weren’t breaking any laws. When I am doing 60 to 65 mph in the left lane on 694 and they curse me because I’m not letting them go 85, who’s breaking the law?
There are so many posts on this blog just using the left lane driver issue, where the complaint is the driver going too slow in the left lane. Well I’ve never seen that, but have repeatedly seen people in the left lane going between 60 and 70 in a posted 60 mph zone, and drivers zooming by them cursing the ’slowpokes’ because they wanted to do 80, it isn’t the ones in the left lane breaking the law, but the speed demons zooming by. And then they come up with this rediculous 85% rule saying that if traffic is going 80, then every one should go 80 even though it’s 20 mph over the limit.
