MDOT inundated with negative feedback on Jackson Avenue lane reduction proposal
Cars make their way along four narrow lanes of traffic on Jackson Avenue during the evening rush hour on Wednesday. The city wants to reduce the road to one lane in each direction with center turn lane.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
"The message is being received loud and clear," said Mark Sweeney, manager of MDOT's Brighton Transportation Service Center, who reports receiving dozens of emails in opposition since the Ann Arbor City Council endorsed the lane reduction last week.
The council's resolution, which passed by an 8-2 vote, asks that MDOT consider changing Jackson Avenue from four to three lanes to improve safety and possibly allow for the addition of on-street bicycle lanes when it resurfaces the road next year.
"It's a city request and I know many of the emails from the public were asking us not to abide by the city request," Sweeney said. "It does put us in an awkward position."
City officials say one of the advantages of switching to a three-lane street is the addition of a new center turn lane, which provides for safe deceleration when making left turns.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
Mayor John Hieftje said he doesn't see any reason for the city to change its mind. He's still putting his faith in the city's traffic engineers who are recommending the lane reduction.
"MDOT would automatically recommend this if traffic was under 15,000 vehicles per day and then you really think very hard about it between 15,000 and 20,000," he said. "Well, this is just barely over 15,000, and even the projections in the out years don't get you much past that."
The reason Sweeney received so many emails this past week is in part because of a letter-writing campaign organized by Ann Arbor resident Karl Couyoumjian, who is president of an audio-visual company called TeL Systems on Jackson Road.
Couyoumjian said he lives off Washtenaw Avenue and uses Jackson Avenue to commute to and from his office on Jackson every day.
"It took me sending a mass email out to about 50 or 60 friends just to bring them up to speed on this project," he said. "You would not believe how many responses I got from people who had no idea this was going on and these are people who use this road every day."
Couyoumjian said it seems like the city has tried to keep the issue quiet so it could ram through the changes before the public catches on.
"It's strongly opposed by people who actually have to use that corridor to commute to and from work in the morning," he said. "For the city to say that there are no traffic backups is a joke. All it takes is going out there any weeknight around 5 o'clock. That intersection, which is is four lanes now, is backed up from Maple probably a quarter mile."
He said it's the same in the morning.
"This is truly a no-brainer in the other direction," he said. "(Three lanes) would be a mess. And what do you do when you've got commuter traffic that's behind a bus or a garbage truck?"
The section city officials are interested in converting extends from east of Maple Road to Revena Boulevard, which is where Huron Street splits into Jackson and Dexter avenues.
Homayoon Pirooz, head of the city's project management unit, told council members that 33 people signed the attendance sheet.
From the written comments and emails afterward, 20 members of the public were in favor of the lane conversion and five were opposed, Pirooz said before last week's meeting.
Hieftje said he hasn't seen evidence that switching from four to three lanes is unpopular with Ann Arbor residents. He thinks it will be welcomed by people on Jackson Avenue.
"I've actually heard more people who are positive about it than negative," he said. "But it's been a very small amount of feedback. I've probably heard from five or six people."
Sweeney said the conversion from four to three lanes is an idea that originated with the city. He said MDOT worked with the city on a mailing list for the February meeting.
Jackson Avenue, which turns into Huron Street heading toward downtown Ann Arbor, is an Interstate 94 business loop and thus state jurisdiction.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
Couyoumjian disagrees.
"This public meeting they had was more of a neighborhood meeting," he said. "They didn't go out of their way to get people because they didn't want any dissent."
Sweeney said the resurfacing project now is in the design phase and MDOT is expecting to go out for bids in October so the project can start next year. He noted the lane conversion is supported by both the city and the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study.
Hieftje said it's an idea that's been looked at for a while.
"We were looking at this several years ago and we had computer modeling and they were showing about a minute's change in difference between Maple and down to Main Street, so all the way through," he said of the potential traffic impacts. "And then also at that time, if I recall correctly, they weren't showing offshoot into other streets."
East of Maple Road, Jackson has four narrow traffic lanes that measure about 10 feet wide each. Pirooz said that's narrower than is ideal for safety.
Pirooz said one of the advantages of switching to three-lane street is the addition of a new center turn lane, which provides for safe deceleration when making left turns. He said three-lane streets also eliminate lane weaving and unsafe driving.
Uniform speeds at three-lane streets also have traffic calming effects and research shows going from four to three lanes can reduce crashes and their severity, Pirooz said.
Couyoumjian said he doesn't buy the safety arguments.
"I'm an avid bicyclist and I look for bike lanes and areas to ride," he said. "I ride a lot, and putting bike lanes along Jackson Avenue would be lunacy and dangerous."
MDOT and city officials have said if the three-lane conversion on Jackson doesn't work out for some reason, it's relatively easy to switch back to four lanes by repainting the lines.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's email newsletters.
Comments
julieswhimsies
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 7:31 p.m.
I have always worried about cyclists traveling from dexter to A2 on Dexter-Chelsea Road. We NEED MORE and better bike lanes running east-west. Period.
julieswhimsies
Thu, Apr 19, 2012 : 5:40 a.m.
Mick, I drive up Dex-Chelsea road twice a day (except you can't get to dexter or leave Dexter from that road from now until app. 6 weeks (right) due to construction. When I drive into Chelsea, or out to the barn, if it is a nice day...especially a weekend, I take Parker to Jackson, to avoid the cyclists. I've seen too many near misses where cyclists and/or motorists are at fault. It is worst on Saturdays, because the cyclists ride as if they're in the Tour de France....SOMETIMES in packs.
Mick52
Thu, Apr 19, 2012 : 1:39 a.m.
I bike that section a lot and have for a couple decades. The Dexter Chelsea area is very popular among cyclists and my experience is that drivers are aware of common bike traffic and are very good driving with cyclists.
Alan Goldsmith
Mon, Apr 16, 2012 : 2:16 p.m.
Got a reply from MDOT's Lynne Kirby this morning: "MDOT appreciates and values your input. We also value the Ann Arbor City Council's Resolution and the city's previous documented plans for the conversion. MDOT will continue to discuss this with the city; however, in the meantime, please continue to provide your input to city staff and the city's council members." Translation: We don't give a damn about your little email Leave us alone and talk to the Mayor. We don't want to hear from you or other taxpayers--out mind is made up. See ya chump.
foobar417
Tue, Apr 17, 2012 : 5:54 p.m.
And I received and identical email in response to my letter of support. Translation: For roadways between 15k and 20k, MDOT relies on the city's input. The city's input of record is a request to try this.
Bob Krzewinski
Sun, Apr 15, 2012 : 6:37 p.m.
What gets me in the Sunday AnnArbor.com story on the proposed Jacson Road lane conversion is the "leader" of opposition, Karl Couyoumjian, says he is an "avid bicyclist" and that "putting bike lanes along Jackson Avenue would be lunacy and dangerous". I don't know how "avid" he is, but I would love him to go down four-lane Packard on a bike and then compare that to what that feels like on the two-traffic-lane with bike-lane sections. On the four lane Packard section, even when you are hugging the curb on a bike, cars routinely blow horns at you, "salute" you with their middle finger, or worse. On the two-lane sections of Packard, with bike lanes, none of this happens. Bike lanes being "dangerous"? No, they are refuges where both motorist and bicyclist can co-exist without tension.
Rodolfo Palma
Sun, Apr 15, 2012 : 3:01 a.m.
I commute that way by bicycle and car EVERY DAY. It is utterly dangerous. I totally agree with the proposed changes. I do not mind being a bit slowed down. There's already several signs there put up by local residents imploring people to slow down in their cars. I've biked that area hundreds of times. While most drivers are nice, a few have actually tried to kill me. There's no shoulder or bike lane on the part going west near Weber's Inn. I think that those drivers who complain are absurd. There are absolutely no other ways for me to get home via bike lane when I work downtown, and I'm not the only one. This proposed change would make the streets safer for children, cyclists, pedestrians, and anyone who is not driving cars at the moment. It'll make make the driving about 5-10 minutes slower downtown for me, but that time might save my life and that of my kids and neighbors when we can't all drive... heck, it might even save the life of a few drivers considering how people try and pass on that road. There's been many incidents involving cyclists and motorists on that stretch of road, and I welcome the progress. Thanks for the email of the MDOT person. I cannot wait to tell them how great of an idea this change is.
Vince Caruso
Sun, Apr 15, 2012 : 12:01 a.m.
I was at the meeting and saw strong support. Folks from other parts of town came and said when done near them was a great change. Get real folks, the almighty auto is losing it's mass appeal and we need to move to more sustainable future. It is a major gateway into the city and is one of the worst streets in the city. Bad for cars, bikes and pedestrians, no one is happy with it now except the commuters who could care less about the city. Glad to see the major change his mind, 6 or so years ago at a city lead meeting he strongly apposed this plan. I live in the area and support this as the vast majorly who showed up at the meeting, and most of the people I talked with. I just wish they would use Green Streets technologies to reduce the pollution and flood hazard caused by the road.
foobar417
Tue, Apr 17, 2012 : 10:31 p.m.
And that trend is slowly reversing itself. A smaller fraction of the current young drivers are interested in getting a license than the generation before. More and more young people are voting with their feet to live in more urban, liveable, sustainable cities. Cities that embrace this, like Ann Arbor, are thriving. The exurbs of suburban sprawl are are starting to fail.
iamwrite
Mon, Apr 16, 2012 : 8:43 p.m.
Get real yourself. Michigan is the "Motor City", and most commuters rely on cars in America due to urban sprawl. Next time you need an ambulance, we will send the bike version just for you.
Ron Stout
Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 6:13 p.m.
America is decades behind Europe in having no real safe bicycle lanes . I noticed this when , as a kid coming back to America after having lived in Germany , there was no safe place to ride a bike like I had been accustomed to - car and bikes collide - bikers lose . I hope the next bicycle fatality is not one of your own !
Andrew Claydon
Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 5:45 a.m.
A few things you're all not considering. 1. The bike lane isn't so much a bike lane as extra space on the right side of the lane. In my area buses always use the bike lane when they stop. Between the the bike lane and the extra width of the main lane cars will be able to pass the buses while only crossing about 1 or 2 feet in to the center turn lane. Cars turning left will be in the turn lane and not blocking the main lane. There will be no more getting stuck behind a bus or a left turning car which requires switching lanes. This will actually improve the flow without the stop start of getting caught behind buses and turning cars. Cars turning left will also only have to cross one lane of traffic instead of two. 2. Lets face it, the bike lanes are not practical for commuters. They are going to take Liberty or Miller since they are way more bike friendly. Bus routes are normally a pain for cyclist since they are constantly passing each other. The lanes are mostly being put in to fill the space and you also get more MDOT money for them even if they rarely get used by cyclist. That's going to save the city money. This is the #1 reason bike lanes get put in. Maybe the locals will use them to get to the park or the shopping centers on Maple but as a commuting route between downtown and the west side, no. 3. Ford Rd. in Ypsilanti Township was mentioned earlier for going through the same thing. A business along there collected signatures and try to get the road repainted back to 4 lanes from 3 but statistics found that accidents were down drastically after the change so they kept it single lanes with turn a lane. 4. Yes, this may slow traffic a bit but it is a residential area. And for the residents get in and out of driveways is gonna be easier. As for the folks cutting trough on a commute is will be less stressful for the reasons above. If it's also a main bus route, consider trying the bus. Save some gas, relax and read a book on the way home.
Mick52
Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 1:28 a.m.
This is nuts. AA needs someone with bicycle transportation expertise. You put bicycle traffic off major roads. Some cities call them "bicycle boulevards." You run them on parallel streets with less traffic. I don't like to use Wikipedia, but this is an accurate description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_boulevard
julieswhimsies
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 1:06 a.m.
Exactly, Mick....the Portland model. It could could easily work here, as this is a much smaller town.
Mick52
Thu, Apr 19, 2012 : 1:34 a.m.
I am not saying you can't put a bike lane anywhere. But reducing Jackson to two lanes to add a bike lane is crazy. It is a major through fare going east and west for commuters. I think it will really clog up vehicular traffic. I would advise to divert bike traffic to Washington St. where it parallels Jackson and to Liberty where bike lanes are already on the roadway. When I am on a ride, heck even when I am in a car, I often move one block over to parallel streets where traffic is much less congested and moves smoother, like 4th Ave and Ashley during rush hour.
foobar417
Tue, Apr 17, 2012 : 10:32 p.m.
Just because it makes sense to have bike boulevards doesn't mean it doesn't also make sense to have bike lanes on other roads. People might actually wish to get to destinations on those roads.
iamwrite
Mon, Apr 16, 2012 : 8:40 p.m.
John Q, Over 15,000 ADT is busy for Ann Arbor. If this is not a "busy" route then why are bike paths needed?
John Q
Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 4:54 p.m.
Plenty of big cities have bike lanes on main roads. I've seen them all over the country and they are used. Jackson road isn't that busy.
DNB
Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 12:54 a.m.
I wish that the mayor and the city council could have been in the traffice leaving downtown this evening. Traffic was backed up, bumper-to-bumper, going west, from S. 7th all the way to I-94. I can't imagine how bad it would be when/if the 4 lanes decrease down to 3, with one of those being the "suicide" turn lane. While both lanes were sitting, I wondered how on earth the fire trucks could possibly get out of that station.
John Q
Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 4:55 p.m.
Turn on lights and pull into center lane.
SPIKE ROBERSON
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 8:02 p.m.
Obviously, the people who run Ann Arbor government don't care about what the people who live and work here want. This anti-car agenda has been going on for years in the form of unnecessary 4-way stops, 4-lane roads downsized to 2, "traffic calming," etc. As for those vocal and influential bicyclists who tout the wonders of the pedal: Most of us out here with jobs for which it is inappropriate to show up in sweaty spandex, bike cleats and a styrofoam hat disagree. The price for this kind of politically-motivated traffic engineering will be paid in traffic congestion -- resulting in more pollution -- and loses to downtown business.
Jaime Magiera
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 3:54 p.m.
I understand that some folks have a predilection for driving automobiles and think only in terms of their ability to do so. However, bikes are a legitimate method of transportation for work and play. So is pedestrian travel. One's ability to drive a car as quickly as possible down a stretch of roadway does not trump these other methods of traveling. The city is attempting to create a safer roadway for all, that better accommodates the other methods of transportation. There is nothing wrong with that. It's perfectly legal and a perfectly good idea in a town continues to grow. Ann Arbor is reaching a saturation point with automobiles. At the same time, more and more people are purchasing bikes. It's logical that we should improve our city's roadways to accommodate this method of transportation which is more healthy, more environmentally friendly and less reliant on materials that put our national security at risk.
Jim Walker
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 2:23 p.m.
I sent the following email yesterday, titled Inadequate Survey: To MDOT, City Council, and the Project Management Department: I find it difficult to believe that anyone at MDOT, City Council, or the Project Management Department honestly believes the opinions of just 33 people regarding a corridor with an ADT of 15,500 is a fair and adequate sample of community views on which to base such a major change in that critical commuting corridor. It just isn't credible. Respectfully submitted, James C. Walker National Motorists Association
iamwrite
Mon, Apr 16, 2012 : 8:38 p.m.
JohnQ, still waiting for you to present the data. Just like you told me to go to Google, yet you cannot provide REAL data pertaining to Ann Arbor. Also, you have not answered why this is only going to be done to a few blocks and not the entire stretch.
John Q
Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 4:56 p.m.
Look on the SEMCOG site. You can get traffic volumes for almost every road in southeast Michigan.
iamwrite
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 7:57 p.m.
I see that you are trying to compare Jackson Avenue with similar sized roads in the SE Michigan area. Can I see some data please? Also, why is this only being done to a few blocks and not the entire stretch? YOU WIN THE INTERNET TODAY! Happy Friday John Q!
iamwrite
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 7:40 p.m.
John Q, then why did you post the SemCog map in the first place? That is a map of SE Michigan, not Ann Arbor. If you are talking about other major roads in Ann Arbor, then please list the roads and their respective ADT. "15,000 ADT is nothing when it comes to traffic volume in Southeastern Michigan." No where did you mention comparing roads in Ann Arbor. Your argument has no basis, and you are changing your own words to make an invalid point. Thank you very much.
John Q
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 7:09 p.m.
I'm not comparing Jackson Road to "major highways". I'm comparing it to other 3 and 4 lane roads in the area. They handle far more traffic than Jackson does. SMC - The people who do traffic studies are not the people who engineer the roads. Based on your comments, you know nothing about traffic engineering at all.
SMC
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 4:36 p.m.
Of course, we're still assuming that the 15,000 number is accurate, which I suspect it isn't. The study was done by the same engineers who can't seem to engineer a road that lasts more than 3 years before it needs repaving.
iamwrite
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 4:30 p.m.
John Q-Your data is skewed to your argument alone. Jackson Avenue is a busy Rd for Ann Arbor. Please do not try and compare Jackson Avenue with major highways around SE Michigan.
John Q
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 4:06 p.m.
15,000 ADT is nothing when it comes to traffic volume in Southeastern Michigan. This wouldn't rate as a major road in most suburban communities. 15,000 ADT is at the low end of the range of traffic volumes in the area. http://www.semcog.org/uploadedFiles/Data_and_Maps/Map_library/FlowMap2009Small.pdf
iamwrite
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 1:21 p.m.
@foobar-If this is about "safety" for drivers and pedestrians, then why do they not propose doing this for the entire stretch of the road? An extra 12" which is only 6" per side does provide my car or the pedestrians with a special bubble that protects everyone from the big-bad world. I agree that the road needs to be re-paved. Doing this conversion will create a bottleneck at that point during rush hour when there is a critical mass of vehicles. Yes a 4 to 3 conversion is fine for anytime other than rush hour, but why do we need to make this painful for people traveling in and out of Ann Arbor on the notion of "safety" for the children. This is fear mongering at its best/worst, and you are spinning your wheels trying to convince people that it is "for the pedestrians (you said children as well)". If this is truly about safety, then why are you and the city not trying to do this to EVERY 4 lane road in Ann Arbor?
iamwrite
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 7:47 p.m.
John Q, I am very much paying attention. You are calling me out for not having data, yet when I present the data from the previous story, you flip your argument. And you still have not presented anything factual yourself. "The roads I'm referring to aren't located in Ann Arbor." & "I'm comparing it to other 3 and 4 lane roads in the area." So, what is your definition of "in the area"? I compared roads that fit my opinion of what the local area is, and I asked for a counterpoint with "some actual numbers". Still waiting...
John Q
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 7:07 p.m.
Pay attention. The roads I'm referring to aren't located in Ann Arbor. The world is bigger than Ann Arbor and roads that have greater volume than Jackson Road have been successfully converted from 4 lanes to 3. 15,000 is not a busy road. Many roads in southeast Michigan handle far more trips per day. The change is being proposed to make the road safer and improve traffic flow.
iamwrite
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 4:25 p.m.
Do you care to back your statement up with actual numbers? I just did. The MDOT numbers from the previous article clearly state that Jackson Rd is busier than the others. Jackson Rd. traffic is actually busier than 15,000. Jackson Rd. (15,500 ADT) (this will go up over the years as population increases) South Main, Ann Arbor-Saline to Eisenhower (13,300 ADT) Platt, Packard to Ellsworth (13,800 ADT) Packard, Stadium to Jewett (12,000 ADT) Huron Parkway, Nixon to Plymouth (6,100 ADT) West Stadium Blvd., Seventh to Pauline (14,900 ADT) Green, Plymouth to Glazier Way (9,200 ADT) "Most suburban roads are 3 lanes and handle as much or more than Jackson and no one calls them a "critical" or "busy" road." Where are your facts? 15,000 vehicles a day is the definition of a busy road. If Jackson Rd. is not a busy or critical road according to your logic then why is this even being proposed? Please do not waste your time in a response to tell me for "safety". With that logic, this should be applied to all of Jackson Rd., not a few blocks.
John Q
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 4:01 p.m.
Care to back that up with some actual numbers? Many of the road conversions were done on roads as "busy" as Jackson Road. Let's keep it in perspective. 15,000 trips a day on a road is not "busy". It's designation as a "state business route" is irrelevant. Most suburban roads are 3 lanes and handle as much or more traffic than Jackson and no one calls them a "critical" or "busy" road.
iamwrite
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 2:20 p.m.
John Q-Yes, they are doing the 4 to 3 on roads that are LESS congested then Jackson which is every opponents point. What is your point of having a bottleneck and not doing this the entire stretch of Jackson? I did not oppose the other 4 to 3 changes in Ann Arbor, and I like them. Jackson Road is a state business route which has more critical mass and needs to be repaved as is. My fact is that this has more critical mass then Platt Rd. and Stadium, MDOT proved that. What is your fact that only doing a few blocks of this conversion instead of the entire road will be beneficial?
John Q
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 2:03 p.m.
If you can handle doing a Google search, you'll discover that these conversions are being done all over the state and the county. Amazingly, the people in East Lansing have managed to survive these road conversions just fine. I'm sure the residents of Ann Arbor can as well despite all of the fearmongering by people who can't muster one fact-based argument against it.
DonBee
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 12:56 p.m.
Let's make sure we make it harder and harder to get into downtown Ann Arbor. Then anyone who wants to work or eat down town will have to move into the high rises and more high rises can be built and filled. This will reduce CO2 production from automobiles and greatly raise the taxable value of the DDA area, so that the Ann Arbor City government can hit them for $3 million a year or maybe 4, instead of 2 million a year. If we can find a location for another "big dig" underground garage, that would be helpful too. Disrupting the roads downtown is good for forcing people to move downtown. Reducing lanes, not repairing streets, closing fire stations and other tactics will all help increase the density of the downtown area. Rents and prices will skyrocket, as people need to be downtown to get downtown. Eventually, like the attempt in Kalamazoo, main street can be closed and turned into a pedestrian mall. LOL
Jaime Magiera
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 3:58 p.m.
Hey Don, actually, a more mall-like downtown would be awesome. Great idea. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-AbPav5E5M
iamwrite
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 1:22 p.m.
Haha, if everyone lives in the high-rises and rides bikes, the DDA's funds will dry up in no time! Bring it!
eastsider2
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 11:05 a.m.
Like EBL, I drive Packard near King George and Stadium plus Platt from Packard to Ellsworth (both went from 4 to 3). To me, the 3 lane config is safer and I haven't noticed any traffic problems. I agree that Jackson probably carries more traffic. How to turn left from a side street onto a 3 lane during heavy traffic? Same way you turn left onto a 5 with a center turn lane. Most find an opening in traffic coming from your left, turn into the center turn lane and then wait for another opening in that direction.
SMC
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 5:42 a.m.
Why are the supporters of this proposal unable to provide any real world examples of two objects successfully occupying the same space at the same time? Better still, just explain, without referring to "other cities where it's worked" or "traffic studies" just how it is that 4 lanes will merge seamlessly into two, without massive backups at the traffic choke points? The computers say it will work, so let's hear how rush hour traffic will not be made worse by forced merging down two fewer lanes than there were previously. Please provide real-world studies that show how rush hour traffic is improved by these choke points.
julieswhimsies
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 1:03 a.m.
Real world examples....Portland, Oregon. The streets and traffic flow has been designed to accommodate cyclists. My 33 year old son commutes to work in downtown Portland daily. Hence, he and his wife rarely use their one car. Portland has a terrible traffic problem. A lot of people avoid this by cycling. The ad agency provides indoor parking for all bikes. Great town!
SMC
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 4:40 p.m.
Speed has nothing to do with it. The traffic barely moves on this stretch at rush hour anyway, and it will positively crawl for miles in either direction from the merge points. If it takes 20 minutes to cross the intersection of Maple and Jackson at rush hour, they've done something wrong.
John Q
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 3:59 p.m.
Left-turning traffic in a 4 lane road configuration causes problems with traffic flow. You would rather have the opportunity to weave in and out of traffic over safety. At least be honest about your preferences. Most people will take a safer road over your desire to speed.
SMC
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 3:21 p.m.
Oh, I don't doubt for a minute that everyone plodding along single file will be much safer, because they're travelling much slower, and there will be fewer vehicles travelling that route, because the traffic jams will encourage them to seek alternate ones. However, I fail to see how creating a logjam at either end of this stretch of Jackson ave is going to help the flow of traffic in and out of downtown in any way.
John Q
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 2:01 p.m.
It will work because the removal of 2 lanes is offset by the addition of the turn lane. That removes left turning traffic that previously reduced the traffic volume. We're still waiting for your examples of where traffic conversions from 4 lanes to 3 made the road less safe.
Ron Granger
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 1:08 p.m.
"Please provide real-world studies that show how rush hour traffic is improved by these choke points." This isn't about what you want, or how fast you can drive your mighty car through this residential area. It is about safety. Pedestrian safety, and driver safety.
Left is Right
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 4:13 a.m.
"We were looking at this several years ago and we had computer modeling and they were showing about a minute's change in difference between Maple and down to Main Street, so all the way through," he said of the potential traffic impacts. "And then also at that time, if I recall correctly, they weren't showing offshoot into other streets." This is evidence that the modeling is not very realistic. The first thing I do when traffic gets slow is to veer off onto the side streets (as well as lots of folks I know). If the mayor and council would like to do an experiment, I suggest they try it on an even more appropriate section of road that could see many more bike commuters and that suffers from the same problems as Jackson: Washtenaw between Forest and Brockman. Yes, let's try our little experiment there first.
G. Orwell
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 4:07 a.m.
I attached the wrong video above. Here is the correct one. This is what is being used to indoctrinate school children in the UK. It is coming to AA and other U.S. cities. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7rCAYkoMT0
Michael Tosto
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 3:33 a.m.
As a cyclist, I would love to have bike lanes on Jackson so I could get to places in A2 that I normally wouldn't bike to such as Planet Rock. A2 is small enough to get almost anywhere on a bike in under 1/2 hour, so for those of you complaining about the increased commute times, get off your duff and try bike commuting. The time you would save driving a car within A2 city limits would be surprisingly low and who knows, maybe you would get a bit of exercise...
Michael Tosto
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 10:04 p.m.
SMC, you are mostly right on that one. I personally do see a lot of cyclists running reds and not signaling, although I am not one of them. It has to do with the lack of proper education on cycle rights in the country which will hopefully be changing soon. I don't mean to be condescending but the number of bicycles on the roads will only be increasing as peak oil advances and gas prices continue to rise. Cities like Portland and Madison have received gold certifications for being bike friendly communities, and just so happen to be some of the healthiest and happiest places to live in the US. I think A2 should strive to compete is all.
SMC
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 5:52 a.m.
Thank you for your condescending recommendation of bicycle commuting to get us all off of our ignorant, lazy backsides. Did they teach you that self-righteousness in bicycle-safety school? Oh wait, there isn't one, since everyone knows that cyclists as a group are incapable of obeying traffic laws.
Plubius
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 3:24 a.m.
What is it with the dim-wits in the city planning office? Reducing lanes of traffic is never a good idea, yet they have forced many of these upon us.
John Q
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 3:05 a.m.
Why are opponents of this proposal unable to provide any real-world examples where a conversion has made a road less safe? There are hundreds of examples of conversions that have been successful, making roads more safe without sacrificing capacity. Lots of fearmongering but a complete absence of any fact-based positions.
John Q
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 1:58 p.m.
If it was common sense, communities would still be building 4 lane roads. But they don't because they're not as safe as 3 lane roads.
a2roots
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 12:49 p.m.
Amazing we have to fix something that has worked well for so many years. Common sense and open eyes is all it takes to see problems created along S. Main. Long lines of cars due to single lane traffic make it virtually impossible for cars from side streets and driveways to enter the roadway. Multiply this 10 plus fold for traffic along Jackson/Huron and it will be a nightmare. The problem is that people like to think these changes will solve problems when in fact they will create a bunch of new ones. The only thing that is broke is the crappy road surface and that should be the only thing fixed.
John Q
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 11:26 a.m.
It's called an intersection. It's designed to accommodate different lane configurations. Do you want to try coming up with some actual points against the idea?
SMC
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 5:25 a.m.
Why are the supporters of this proposal unable to provide any real world examples of two objects successfully occupying the same space at the same time? Better still, just explain, without referring to "other cities where it's worked" or "traffic studies" just how it is that 4 lanes will merge seamlessly into two, without massive backups at the traffic choke points?
G. Orwell
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 2:44 a.m.
Here is the city of the future. Cities without cars. Or, where only the very wealthy will be able to own and drive personal cars. No meatS except on your birthday, and everything you do will be assigned to you by the state. Enjoy your future. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1W-_lpLk0Y&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Cendra Lynn
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 2:24 a.m.
Let the mayor and those who voted for this, plus the city engineers (who can't even get the traffic lights right) come over to Crest St. and attempt to exit onto Huron (which becomes Jackson 1 block west) at any time between 7 am and 10:30 pm. It's an art, not a science. Even right turns can require a wait of several minutes. Turning left can cause a backup of 6-8 cars on Crest. Since Dexter has been closed, we who live here allow five minutes to exit because the cars backed up on Jackson heading East come through the light in long lines. When Dexter re-opens, there will be no breaks in traffic on Huron if cars are backed up on Jackson. Exiting Crest to Huron will be even more impossible.
foobar417
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 4:14 a.m.
By the logic of some of the posters here, you should just drive down Liberty, because hey, what's a couple of blocks out of your way? Being serious, my guess is you'll be pleasantly surprised. A 4-to-3 conversion means you only need to break through or into 2 lanes of traffic, not 3 or 4. And if not, that's why they said ... it's just paint. Try it and see. There are routine reports that people were scared by 4-to-3 conversions and then pleasantly surprised. Even on this thread.
Shannlil2
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 12:41 a.m.
NO TO BIKES LANES!!! For one, its to busy of a road. Second, they just spent tons and tons of our tax money redoing the damn road. It is fine the way it is. There are a lot other non busy roads that bicyclist can ride on.
John Q
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 7:10 p.m.
Traffic backups at the intersection often have little to do with the number of lanes. 4 lanes cause more congestion than 3.
SMC
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 4:42 p.m.
One could argue its necessity if there weren't already traffic backups at the major intersections and along the route. But there are.
John Q
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 11:27 a.m.
No, it wouldn't be a 5 lane road. A 5 lane road is completely unnecessary for that volume of traffic. 3 lanes is plenty.
SMC
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 5:26 a.m.
You're right, John. If this were a new road, it would be a 5-lane road, which is what it should be converted into.
foobar417
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 4:16 a.m.
They haven't spent money redoing this road in ages. What road are you thinking of? The bike lanes are not the point. The primary point is to improve car safety. The added benefits are an environment that can also accomodate bikes at no additional cost and creates a safer environment for pedestrians.
John Q
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 2:38 a.m.
This has nothing to do with bike lanes. Those are a bonus of getting a center turn lane which makes the road safe. If this was a new road, no city would build it as a 4 lane road. Get out of the 1950s please.
Ron Granger
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 1:37 a.m.
Me. Me. Me. Me. Share the road. This is also about pedestrian safety. Four lane roads are much more dangerous to cross.
mike gatti
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 12:25 a.m.
I do wish they would do more to mark the bike lanes on 1st and on Ashley. Cars treat them like turn lanes and you end up with two cars turning into one lane. The lanes are marked on the road but no signs anywhere posted. this is an accident waiting to happen.
mike gatti
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 12:21 a.m.
They did this at Stadium between 7th and Pauline. What a mess it is during high traffic times. It is brutal.
foobar417
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 4:11 a.m.
That's nonsense. I drive or ride through there at "rush hour" fairly often. It works fine.
EyeHeartA2
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 11:14 p.m.
I love the "If we make the road miserable to drive on, there are less accidents" logic. OF COURSE there are. Everybody just takes a different route. Hopefully, through the neighborhood of the supporters of this stupid proposal. Where does Major Lefthie live anyway?
John Q
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 7:11 p.m.
Some motorists will take alternative routes. But most motorists aren't going to be bothered going through neighborhoods. That's the usual fearmongering technique of those who can't back up their points with facts.
SMC
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 4:48 p.m.
You're right. Motorists will just cut through the neighborhoods instead.
John Q
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 11:28 a.m.
Thanks for showing how it will be safer. You'll no longer be able to weave in and out of traffic at speeds above the speed limit.
SMC
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 4:39 a.m.
Unless you're stuck behind a bus, a garbage truck, a delivery truck, a semi truck, a thoughtless dolt who is texting, or a hybrid driver, who will single-handedly save the planet by making everyone stuck behind them drive 5mph below the speed limit.
John Q
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 11:51 p.m.
It has nothing to do with making "the road miserable to drive on". Three lanes with a left-turn lane is safer than 4 lanes without. It's as simple as that.
Andrew MacKie-Mason
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:58 p.m.
This is a no-brainer. Jackson isn't safe with four lanes at the current width along that section. People should either be willing to support a tax-hike to buy the land and do the work necessary to widen the road, or they should accept the fact that it really always has been a 3-lane road that we crammed 4 lanes into.
John Q
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:36 p.m.
A 3 lane road with a center-left turn lane is always safer than a 4 lane road. A road like Jackson can handle the conversion from 4 lanes to 3. These conversions have been done all over the country with positive impact on traffic flow and traffic safety. Sorry but there's nothing special or different about the traffic or drivers in Ann Arbor. How come none of the opponents of this can back up their sky-is-falling claims with some actual facts or analysis to back up "what they know"?
Skyjockey43
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:27 p.m.
The safety argument is a red herring. If you reduce a four lane road to three lanes plus bike lanes on either side, the driving lanes will still be just as narrow. This isn't about public safety at all. This is about a city council that wants to impose their own green agenda on the rest of us by making it as inconvenient as possible for us to drive our own cars.
foobar417
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 4:10 a.m.
@Skyjockey: So you make one assertion (no change in width), I counter it with basic math, so you assert that added width makes no difference. And then throw in a red herring of supposedly who did or did not ask for what on a different stretch of road and therefore that wild speculation proves your point on this stretch. As for your wild speculation ... What was the traffic count on Washtenaw from Central Campus to the Stadium split? Was it over 20k? Who raised the speed limit? It's an MDOT road, but they do take input from the city. There's also that 85% law that forces neighborhoods around the state to raise speed limits, even if they don't want to, or be unable to enforce *any* speed limit in the courts. Could be that the city agreed to follow the law, whether they liked it or not? We don't know without ... drum roll ... actual facts. As for that 85% law, I think it's dumb, but it is the law. Another law I do like says that bikes have a right to be on the road. Another one advocates for design of complete streets. Sometimes you like a law, sometimes you don't, but a law's a law unless we change it through our democratically elected representatives. If we're going to fix Huron in the real world, not Internet fantasy land, then we can't ignore the laws we don't like and follow the ones we do.
John Q
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 2:40 a.m.
It has nothing to do with bikes. Adding a center turn lane makes the road safer. Also, the lanes will be widened from 10 feet to 11 feet. At least your honest in demanding the least safe road configuration possible.
Skyjockey43
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 12:28 a.m.
John Q, stacking foam blocks ten feet high on either side of the road might make it safer as well. Or just banning cars altogether will make everyone safer. When does it end? Here's an idea: let's propose a 5mph speed limit for all bicycles and also a municipal law mandating training wheels for all two wheeled transports. It will make biking safer right?
Skyjockey43
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 12:24 a.m.
Oh and Foobar? If you really think that six extra inches on either side of your car will make any difference at all, then I have a beautiful bridge up in the U.P. for sale. Cheap!
Skyjockey43
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 12:22 a.m.
Ok Foobar, tell me how many accidents have occurred on that stretch of Jackson Rd attributed to lane width have occurred in the last ten years? Or better yet, tell me why not only did these same safety minded city council members NOT propose reducing lanes on Washtenaw from central campus to the Stadium split, but instead RAISED the speed limit from 35 to 45? You can quote safety "experts" to me all you want, but as a cab driver in ths city I can tell you that lane width has far less to do with safety than driver distraction . I bet each and every one of you who are so concerned with safety routinely use your cell phones while driving.
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:49 p.m.
No. That's not true. MDOT specifically laid out the math: 10+10+10+10 = 40. (Today's math.) 4+11+10+11+4= 40. (Proposed math.) It's absolutely about public safety. 4-to-3 conversions have been proven over and over to reduce crashes. Specifically, they almost eliminate the chance of someone slamming into someone who has stopped to make a left turn. And, they have far less impact on traffic flow than you would intuitively expect.
John Q
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:32 p.m.
It is safer. Adding a left-hand turn lane will improve the safety. Are you a traffic engineer?
SMC
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:18 p.m.
Hey, here's an interesting question: Everyone in favor of this absurdly illogical "narrow the road to make traffic flow better" plan cites the MDOT traffic studies, results of similar projects on completely different roads (with completely different traffic), and so forth... Yet, when the city passed the pedestrian safety law, everyone was behind it, even though it was passed without any traffic studies to support it! Funny how that works...
SMC
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 4:46 a.m.
I couldn't care less whether you favor the pedestrian ordinance, foobar, but the question remains: Why does the city council pass an ordinance, in the name of safety, without commissioning or consulting a traffic study, then claim that narrowing a road will make it safer, based on a traffic study? In other words, motor vehicle traffic only conforms to traffic studies when it suits the city council's anti-car agenda.
tegel
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 12:04 a.m.
Um... that not a question and not very interesting. I don't seem the harm in giving it a try. It's only paint after all.
Andrew MacKie-Mason
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 10 p.m.
They also support laws about food safety without any traffic studies to support them! And laws about murder! Hypocrisy!!
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:51 p.m.
Just because someone supports a 4-to-3 conversion doesn't mean they supported the pedestrian ordinance as implemented.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:06 p.m.
Personally, I don't bike commute but those lanes on Jackson are narrow and I find myself getting frustrated when I have to pass a bicycle. I imagine that I frustrate the bicyclists too with my 'timid driving behind them and then changing lanes to pass' routine because the lanes are too narrow to share. I would much prefer it if they had their own lane. This works out very well everywhere I have seen it. Oh suddenly I can drive without shortening my life hating on bicyclists during my commute *and* not hating on people who make left turns in front of me. Sounds like a win for my blood pressure.
Andrew MacKie-Mason
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 10 p.m.
Making a separate bike lane doesn't eliminate the need to pass safely.
Are you serious?
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 8:49 p.m.
Both sides can argue all day about the possible congestion this change might cause. Let's conduct an experiment to test all of the conjectures: Block off the outer two lanes for a week and mark them for bicycle use only. Those of us waiting in the backups can then have time to count the number of bicycles. At the end of the week we will at least have some current evidence!
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:58 p.m.
They fix the road. They paint the lines. The city tries it for a while. If the traffic gets worse, they'll repaint the lines. No harm, no foul. If it works out fine (as it usually does), they'll put in pedestrian islands and make it easier for folks (especially kids) to cross.
SMC
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:01 p.m.
No, no, we can only base these changes on computer-generated surveys conducted by the traffic wizards in their secret labs at MDOT. Actual experimentation in the real world may result in an outcome that does not favor the cyclist coalition. Better still, observe how traffic reacts to lane closures on a freeway.
hail2thevict0r
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 7:44 p.m.
There are many things wrong with changing it to a 3 lane road - most of which involves being stuck in huge traffic light caused traffic jams on the way to and from work or being behind an Ann Arbor bus on the way to or from work. Not to mention the people waiting to turn left at lights all the way up and down that street. Terrible idea. I'd certainly switch routes into and from work.
John Q
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 7:17 p.m.
Main and Stadium for one example. State Street as it goes south from downtown has higher traffic volumes and transitions through multiple lane configurations.
SMC
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 3:24 p.m.
Which of those places in town has even close to that much traffic on it at rush hour, John?
John Q
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 11:34 a.m.
Merging can be handled at the intersection. You may be amazed to know that there are places in town where the number of lanes actually changes and people actually still can drive.
SMC
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 5:28 a.m.
Does the left turn lane also allow 4 lanes of traffic to merge into 2 lanes, without causing massive backups?
John Q
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:45 p.m.
The left turn lane allows traffic to turn without interfering with through traffic.
SMC
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 8:49 p.m.
But, but... THE TRAFFIC STUDIES! If the traffic studies say the traffic won't be backed up, then it won't! Because MDOT could never be wrong! I mean, they've only let the state's roadway network fall to rack and ruin for years now... From about 5-6pm most days, Eastbound traffic at Maple/Jackson is backed up almost to the I-94 overpass as it is. I can only imagine what will happen when that many cars are forced from 2 lanes down to one. Get ready for stop-go traffic from the intersection at Wagner!
jackson72
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 7:09 p.m.
This is an incredibly bad idea and is nothing like the lane reductions that have been done on Stadium, Packard and Platt, Roads. Jackson Ave. has a MUCH higher traffic count as it is THE major western artery to enter and leave downtown. To intentionally cause backups by reducing the traffic flow is absurd. Unfortunately, our mayor and his council of lemmings feel that they do not need to listen to, heed or care about what the majority of the people of Ann Arbor really want. It's almost frightening how our Mayor Hiefte made sure that this "public forum" show for MDOT in February was carefully choreographed to only include a small, hand-picked group of residents so as to allow little or no dissent. Worse yet, having heard all of this negative feedback in the past week, the mayor is refusing to allow another public forum from taking place because he knows that we're on to him and how he works. That is not how democracy is supposed to work Mayor Hiefte...but you know that, don't you?
foobar417
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 4 a.m.
It was available more widely. I learned of it 3 different ways. I simply picked an obvious one. Also, in case you haven't tried it yet, you can sign up to be automatically notified of any announcement in any area of city government. Concerned about the planning committee? Sign up for those announcements. Concerned about HDC approvals? Sign up for those announcements.
Left is Right
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 3:36 a.m.
Actually since this is a state and federally funded route the information regarding a public hearing should have been posted more widely than on the city's website. And I have a house in the area that will be affected and was not notified via mail. Perhaps they used the 300 foot rule?
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:52 p.m.
The meeting was posted on the oh-so-secret city website here: http://www.a2gov.org/news/Pages/MDOTI-94BLPublicMeeting2012-02-16.aspx Participate or accept your representation. Your choice.
John Q
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:39 p.m.
15,000 trips per day is a lot of traffic....if you live in Manchester. It's a minor road's worth of traffic in most Detroit area suburbs. No suburb in Detroit builds 5 lane roads for 15,000 trips a day. Why should Ann Arbor?
SMC
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:01 p.m.
No, I wasn't at the meeting. I'm not a member of the bicycling coalition, so I did not get notification to attend.
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 8:59 p.m.
There were a wide range of opinions, for and against at the forum. Where you even there? (I was.)
SMC
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 7:25 p.m.
It is foolish to question Dear Leader. He knows what is best for us.
Linda Peck
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 7:08 p.m.
p.s. Buses and garbage trucks also travel this road
Linda Peck
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 7:06 p.m.
I live in this neighborhood and I was not notified of it, and usually I stay up on the news via the internet. I wondered why this was not publicized better. I think I know why. People have an agenda in this town and sometimes they are pushy about it. I do think this need to be considered a bit further before making this big change. I don't think 3 lanes will be adequate for the road, and I don't think bicycles belong in the picture here. There is not enough space for them, even with 3 lanes. Go take a look and see what you think.
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 10:26 p.m.
It was publicized just fine. http://www.a2gov.org/news/Pages/MDOTI-94BLPublicMeeting2012-02-16.aspx
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:01 p.m.
It's a 40 foot road bed. Currently that's 4 10-foot-wide lanes, which are too narrow for moving cars. The proposal is a 4 foot bike lane, an 11 foot car lane, a 10 foot turning lane, an 11 foot driving lane, and a 4 foot bike lane. A much better design for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians, all of whom are equally valid means of travel.
SMC
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 7:02 p.m.
To the pro-cycling/anti-motorist Luddites out there, I say this: You cannot compress 4 lanes of backed-up traffic into 2 smoothly flowing ones. It simply can't happen. One does not need an MDOT Expert Traffic Study to see this, it simply takes common sense. For example, when construction projects cut a freeway from 3 lanes to 2, what happens during rush-hour traffic? That's right, mile-long traffic backups happen. It doesn't matter if the merging lanes are 1000 yards long, backups will occur, on a daily basis. I do not believe for one second that this lane reduction is being done in the interest of safety or improved traffic flow. It is being done to add bike lanes where there should be none, on a business route. The Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition (the same group who brought us the accident-causing pedestrian ordinance) are probably the ones who are pushing this agenda, because as far as they're concerned, if they simply make it difficult for motorists to get where they're going in cars, they'll simply give up and ride bicycles instead. Furthermore, the only reason that Jackson Ave seems too narrow now is because not all of it is usable. There are at least a 2-foot wide stretch of potholes on both sides of the road, and more at various points in the middle. Eliminate those, and the road will seem much less constricted, when everyone has the use of all of it. If a center lane needs to be added, simply expand the roadway. The curbs are not immovable. I understand that a few blades of grass and a tree or two may be displaced if this is done, but such is the cost of progress.
foobar417
Tue, Apr 17, 2012 : 5:33 p.m.
Sure, there's a pattern emerging. Last time the roads were reconfigured (50s? 60s?) they assumed they need to shove 4 lanes down the road, without heed to the needs of other users of the roadway. Traffic engineering has evolved since then. You don't cite what the traffic count is on each of those roadways or how that balances with the available right-of-way for each roadway. The actual answer should depend on the width of the right-of-way and the traffic count and the trade-off the city wants to make between the rights of homeowners, the rights of drivers, the rights of cyclists, and the rights of pedestrians. The answer will vary in each case.
SMC
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 3:33 p.m.
Not every road in the city is as bad during rush hour as this stretch already is, and reducing the number of lanes will not improve the poor traffic flow. Not every road in the city needs to be as wide, but some of them do. Namely, the ones that serve as commercial routes, and provide access to freeway interchanges. North Main is 4 lanes for over a mile. Ann Arbor-Saline to S Main is 4 lanes all the way to downtown. Washtenaw Ave is 4 lanes from the exits at US-23, and continues as 4 lanes whichever way you go at the Stadium fork. Do you see a pattern emerging? These are the freeway interchanges used by the majority of business traffic in and out of the city, and it isn't bicycle traffic.
John Q
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 2:06 p.m.
Based on your logic, we should make every road in the city 7 lanes wide to handle a theoretical traffic volume that may happen one or two hours a day. No suburban community would build a 5 lane road for 15,000 trips a day. Why should Ann Arbor?
SMC
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 5:34 a.m.
Following that reasoning, what measures shall the city take as traffic volume approaches 20,000 vehicles per day? Will the passes be issued on a first-come, first-served basis? Will the restaurants downtown be compensated when they don't get their deliveries, because the truck carrying their produce was vehicle #20,001? Of course there is no backup when traffic is light. There is no backup on any road when no one's on it. The issue isn't how the traffic will flow at 2pm, but how it will flow at 5pm, through a section of road that is already too congested as it is. Narrowing it down to 1 lane in either direction will only create more delays at rush hour.
snark12
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 5:16 a.m.
The obvious answer to your theoretical highway construction zone that goes from two lanes to one with a traffic backup is in the volume of traffic. As stated here, these conversions don't work with traffic levels over 20k vehicles per day. That would be the case in your example. Note that there is no backup at your highway construction site at 9pm at night when traffic is lower.
SMC
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 4:55 a.m.
Ah yes, the old freeze-thaw cycle. It does make one wonder how the simple, unsophisticated people of Ontario, Canada, have managed to construct a road network for themselves that does not require complete repaving every 3 years, as the roads in Michigan seem to. Perhaps they have access to magical asphalt that we can't get on this side of the border. Oh, and John Q & foobar, as much as you're enamored of the traffic studies and "other places where it's worked," I say again: drive through a construction zone on the any freeway, where one lane is closed, during rush hour, and explain how it will be any different here. Better still, please provide counter arguments where two objects have successfully occupied the same space, at the same time.
John Q
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 11:53 p.m.
Forget the traffic studies. 4 lane to 3 lane conversions have been done all over the country and have improved safety and traffic flow. Please provide your counter arguments based in reality, not what you believe to be true.
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 10:24 p.m.
Actually, I'd blame the freeze-thaw cycle in MIchigan and the underfunding of road maintenance by the state legislature before I'd blame MDOT. And I'd believe some one trained in traffic engineering far more than an anonymous internet poster who seems to conflate his opinion with obvious facts.
SMC
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 10:10 p.m.
You keep on citing a traffic study that was done by MDOT, who are collectively responsible for the terrible condition of the roads in our state. You have 2 lanes of traffic which much merge down to one lane. At rush hour, everyone wants to get home. People who are already not the best when it comes to road manners and merging efficiently are going to suddenly figure out how to do it quickly and safely, to prevent traffic from backing up behind them? I'd like to know upon which planet these traffic studies were performed.
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:53 p.m.
Actually, it's a slamdunk where there are less than 15k cars. It's still a generally good idea for 15k to 20k. It's a bad idea above 20k. How hard is that to figure out? And Jackson was terrible before it had all the potholes. A 40-foot wide road with 4 lanes is nuts, no matter how perfect the surface.
John Q
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:33 p.m.
Are you a traffic engineer? What expertise do you have on this topic?
SMC
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:13 p.m.
It works fine elsewhere, where there is less traffic, which itself is made up of fewer delivery trucks, buses, garbage trucks, semi trucks, and a few thousand extra motorists. If the absence of a center turn lane makes the road dangerous, they should go ahead and add one, by widening the road. When the traffic volume increases (and it will), that will have to be done anyway.
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:03 p.m.
You can and it works fine elsewhere. And I think the primary reason is to create a safer driving environment. MDOT talked repeatedly about how bad it is to have a 4-lane road with left turners, people weaving around them, and not seeing them stop. They have extensive experience that this reduces the number and seriousness of accidents.
Kim
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 6:56 p.m.
I'm all for bike lanes, but for this stretch of Jackson Ave/Huron Street is it really necessary. There are side streets just a block over either east or west, so I feel there's no need for cyclists on that stretch of the road and say let the cars have that one... I think A2 could put the funds to much better uses...
foobar417
Tue, Apr 17, 2012 : 5:29 p.m.
Traffic engineers don't try to engineer for how people theoretically behave. They try to engineer for how people actually behave. There have been repeated studies that show it is safer for cyclists and pedestrians if cyclists ride in the roadway rather than on the sidewalk.
SMC
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 4:50 a.m.
It is everyone's responsibility to pay attention to what they're doing, whether they're driving a car or riding a bike. However, it's not unfair to suggest that those with more to lose in the event of a collision would do well to be more careful.
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 10:28 p.m.
You've never seen a car turning into a driveway or out of a driveway? Every single time they cross the sidewalk. The dangerous one is when people pull out of a driveway. They drive all the way up to the edge of the road through the sidewalk and then stop and look left and right. I can't count how many times I've seen people pull right in front of a young cyclist on a sidewalk. It's incredibly unsafe.
SMC
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 10:11 p.m.
Funny, I've driven that stretch of road for 15 years, and I've never seen a car driving on the sidewalk.
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:55 p.m.
No, it's more dangerous to ride on a sidewalk than a well designed roadway. First of all, fast moving cyclists intimidate pedestrians and they need a safe space too. Second of all, most drivers pull through the sidewalk before looking. Driving on a sidewalk is far more dangerous to a cyclist than driving on the roadway.
SMC
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:20 p.m.
There are already two bikes lanes adjacent to Jackson Ave. We call them sidewalks. Its where you should ride your bike, if you feel it's too dangerous to ride on the street.
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:05 p.m.
What if someone lives on that stretch of Jackson and wants to bike? What if someone lives on that stretch of Jackson and wants to walk, but feels intimidated by the close proximity of traffic? What if you want to get to a destination on that road. This kind of logic is as silly as telling a motorist "why don't you just take 94". Because, of course, it doesn't necessarily go where you want to go. That's why you picked the road you picked. The primary reason to do this is not the bike lanes anyway, but to reduce the danger to ****DRIVERS****.
Kim
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 6:57 p.m.
I meant a block over either north or south....
G. Orwell
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 6:54 p.m.
It's all about "UN Agenda 21." Google it.
fjord
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 8:22 p.m.
No.
firstfolio
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 6:40 p.m.
I've witnessed rear-ender accidents on that stretch.I tense up and constantly glance at the rear view mirror when taking a left onto Worden...and good thing I do...averted two accidents by abandoning my attempts and speeding up,fast...spooky stuff...Change always seems to be a four letter word to most folks.I welcome it.
iamwrite
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 6:18 p.m.
Look at the picture at the top of the article...see the pavement between the Buick and the curb? If that is "narrow" then please travel in Europe where the roads are even narrower, yet they do not have a problem sharing the road and paying attention.
foobar417
Tue, Apr 17, 2012 : 5:28 p.m.
MDOT made the following argument in the following order. 1) It's been proven over and over that reducing from 4-to-3 lanes works for certain traffic counts to both reduce traffic accidents (improved driver safety) without unduly impacting congestion. This traffic count meets that criteria. 2) As an added benefit, this makes it possible to make things safer for cyclists by including bike lanes. 3) If this works, as a further added benefit, we can add pedestrian islands later, which will make things safer for pedestrians.
SMC
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 5:37 a.m.
So, this is really about the children, not the safety of motor vehicles or cyclists? I didn't see any mention of children's safety from anyone else who supports this plan.
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 10:30 p.m.
It doesn't matter if the delivery trucks take 15 more seconds either. I care more about some child's life than I care about perfect accommodation of every motorist. Just look at the story yesterday. There are definitely things the city can do to make safer routes to schools.
SMC
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 10:13 p.m.
It's not just for me. I do not carry the thousands of pounds of goods that the downtown businesses need to function on a daily basis. If I did, I would be far too busy to engage in this debate with you.
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:56 p.m.
Why is your right to go down that stretch 15 seconds faster more important than the private property rights of the homeowners? There is no excuse to use eminent domain here. We have a 40 foot roadway. Live with it. Design something safe for everyone, not just you.
SMC
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:21 p.m.
And if it's safer to have a center lane, widen the road to make one.
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:06 p.m.
No, 10-feet wide lanes feel very narrow, no matter what. Plus, the chief issue is having folks turn out of the lane of traffic. It's much safer for ***DRIVERS*** to have a center turn lane. That was MDOT's primary argument for trying this ***AS AN EXPERIMENT THAT'S EASILY REVERSED ***.
SMC
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 7:21 p.m.
More to the point, look the gigantic, car-swallowing potholes. If they were gone, the road would seem a lot less constricted.
Markie C.
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 6:06 p.m.
This would not be comparable to the changes to 3 lanes on Packard or Stadium! This stretch of Jackson is one of the three main exit/entrance points to our city for out-of-town traffic. This would be like changing the Washtenaw approach to US23 or the Ann Arbor-Saline Rd. approach to I94 to 3 lanes! Doesn't sound like a good idea in those spots does it? Yes, the lanes are narrower, get off your cellphone and pay attention! If you can't keep your SUV in between the lines, get a smaller car! If you want a bike lane, come up with the money to expand the road! But this plan is really, really dumb.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:12 p.m.
Oh man, I drive that bit of Washtenaw all of the time and I would LOVE it if they added bike lanes!
SMC
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 8:45 p.m.
It will be easier to keep your vehicle (regardless of its size) in the center of the lane, once the road is repaved so that the lane width isn't effectively reduced by 2 feet by all the potholes.
Ron Granger
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 5:55 p.m.
This is already been done on other Ann Arbor roads with great success - despite a bunch of doom and gloom from naysayers who decree any change as an assault on their right. Packard Rd has had a 3X to 4X reduction in accidents since the change. Accidents kill. Fewer accidents save lives. From the April 4 article on annarbor.com: "He [Homayoon Pirooz, head of the city's project management unit] used the example of Platt Road, which the city converted from four to three lanes from Packard to Ellsworth. Prior to the changes, he said, there were 20 to 30 accidents per year, but now in the last two years it's down to six or seven."
Brad
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 8:25 p.m.
How many fatal accidents have we had on Packard in the last 20 years? Exactly. The sky isn't falling. And the 3-lane thing sucks.
iamwrite
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 6:13 p.m.
Ron, this proposal is not like the other 4 to 3 changes. There are already worse back-ups here than there was on Platt Rd. This will only create a bottleneck for a state business route.
rkb0929
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 5:43 p.m.
This is as ridiculous as all the other lane deductions are. The signage at each end of the Stadium Blvd. is different for each end! And I live off Packard and drive on all these other roads too, and just CANNOT see the benefit in reducing from 2 lanes each way to 1 with center lane, and for SUCH A SHORT DISTANCE. If we were talking about miles and miles it may be different, but for such a short distance, it's just annoying for regular traffic, and very confusing I would think for out-of-towners, and let's face it, an awful lot of AA traffic is from out-of-towners. Our city officials need to try to figure out a way to get the Stadium Bridge opened ASAP, not worrying about another road construction nightmare!
Markie C.
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 5:42 p.m.
It would be a huge mistake to change this stretch of road from 4 to 3 lanes. I would encourage anyone who thinks it wouldn't be to spend some time observing traffic there anytime between 4:30 pm and 7:00pm on any weekday. Even with 2 lanes of traffic, the westbound flow during this time is usually backed up from the light at Maple all the way to Worden (about 3-4 light changes if you're lucky). If you constrict this to 1 lane headed west, I would fully expect bumper-to-bumper traffic all the way from Maple to Huron for a solid 2.5 hours every weekday.
SMC
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:03 p.m.
It's backed up to the freeway overpass (and often past it) in the other direction.
blahblahblah
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 5:26 p.m.
Business route 94 (aka Huron and Jackson Rd.) is mostly likely a major evacuation route under the state and local governments' mandated emergency preparation plans. The pending MDOT study needs to take this into consideration.
ellyelly77
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 5:06 p.m.
I think bike lanes on Jackson would be an accident waiting happen. But I have to say I agree with another commenter that the current 4 lanes are too small for today's vehicle sizes. I get nervous in my small car coming up next to a large SUV and have been practically run off the road several times because a large vehicle has to take up a lane and a half. I need to see more info on how this would play out...as the person in the article noted, rush hour times on Jackson always have huge backups and I can't see how cutting a lane would do anything but make that worse.
a2roots
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 5:04 p.m.
The city's non-motorized transportation plan was passed a few years back. It was pushed quite successfully through under the publics radar by the bicyclist lobby in Ann Arbor. Numerous roads have already been changed because of this plan and they all have choke points that create unsafe driving conditions. They also due to enormously long single lines of traffic make it virtually impossible to make turns in which you have to cross over one of the lanes. Needless to say there are few if any bicycle riders that use the bike lanes associated with the realignments. The greater public good is certainly not being served by these lanes. No matter what anyone says if gets set-up it will never be turned back. S. Main, Packard and Stadium all should be switched back. Where is the count on the number of bike riders? I drive these roads very often and rarely see bike traffic regardless of time of day. Build it and they will come just does not work.
a2roots
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 12:34 p.m.
Well, foobar417 your data is flawed. I have lived in Ann Arbor over 50 years and any suggestion that bicycle ridership has increased by leaps and bounds is utter nonsense. There is not one study that indicates the cost and realignment of traffic lanes has led to any such huge increase in ridership. Stand at a street corner and do a count. Stadium by Lewis Jewelers or S. Main near Buschs would be good spots to count. In either one it is unlikely you will count more than 50 over a 24 hour period. The greater good of the community is not being served.
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:09 p.m.
That's nonsense. I have lived in AA for over 15 years and the amount of bike commuters grows by leaps and bounds every year. I drive or ride 3 miles in town to work and there's not a single major road I take that doesn't have multiple cyclists on it at the moment I happen to drive in in the morning and back in the evening. Look at the census data.
MRunner73
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 4:59 p.m.
First; Thank You Ann Arbor.com for the poll question. After nearly 1400 votes cast in only 6 hours after this article was released, the people have and are speaking out on this. The Mayor and City Counsel better had better pay attention to this. It would be worth mentioning that this being a Presidental Election year means that any new names on the ballot for either Mayor or City Counsel seats that will be up for re-election (and I do not know who is or isn't up for re-election) will risk being voted out. I for one will welcome newcomers to the local government scene. Lastly, roads are made automobile traffic. The city does a very good job of providing bike lanes. First rule of driving, share the road, yield whenever possible. First rule of cycling: watch out for cars and yield whenever possible. How many car-cyclist accidents have occurred anywhere in A2 the past 20 years? Bet we can count 'em on one hand.
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:12 p.m.
So, you are willing to put up with more accidents because the odds are it won't be you and you can't stand a minute of inconvenience? The authorities are suppose to work for the common good, not the majority good. Cyclists and vehicles are both legally entitled to use all roads except where specifically prohibited (e.g. interstates). Designing for all means of access is the stated intent of the state. (The Republican-dominated legislature just passed Complete Streets legislation this year.) Folks all over the country have realized that if you design for vehicle safety, cyclist safety, and pedestrian safety, we ***all*** benefit, even those who don't make the choices you choose.
Ron Granger
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 8:13 p.m.
"How many car-cyclist accidents have occurred anywhere in A2 the past 20 years? Bet we can count 'em on one hand." Really? I'll bet you can't - unless you have some inability to count.
Hume
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 7:10 p.m.
The poll is a joke. There is a small group of people just voting over and over again. There may even be a person who has created a macro bot to keep voting. I would like to see AA.com fix the voting system on their website of the results are meaningless.
Frustrated in A2
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 4:55 p.m.
Dear City Council, just look at this informal poll! Don't do it!
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:14 p.m.
The poll is garbage. Just like the polls that give overwhelming support to positions you oppose. They are easy to spambot. And "all the posters" can easily be the same poster with different user names. We live in a participatory representative democracy. If you want change, write letters to the editor, make the time to go to public meetings, run for office, etc. The current mayor and council were elected with overwhelming support from their constituents. That's democratic process. Not riggable, anonymous comment forums which most people avoid like the plague.
Ron Granger
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 4:52 p.m.
If this causes some commuters to take the many highway alternatives instead (94, 14, 23), then it is a good thing.
foobar417
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 4:26 a.m.
@Left is Right: You are awfully happy to tell everyone else how to live their lives and yet the idea that someone might constrain you ever so slightly is ***OUTRAGEOUS***. There are plenty of houses west of splitsville that it would be ridiculous to go over to Dexter and back. You wouldn't do it in your car. Why should they have to. It's a pretty simple concept: All city wayfares should be accessible to all citizens, regardless of how they choose to get there. Drive / walk / bike / bus / taxi. We should design for *everyone*, not just you. And it's in your best interest too. Because someday you might be to poor to own a car or too old to drive a car or too disabled to drive a car. But even if you stay rich, and young, and healthy for eternity, every time the city accommodates more non-drivers, that's less cars between you and your destination.
Left is Right
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 3:23 a.m.
@foobar 1. This is Jackson not Huron. Students living on the N side of Jackson can cross at Splitsville. 2. I take Dexter when commuting to Maple Village via bike.
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:16 p.m.
You don't seem so concerned about how a student walks from Slauson to his house on the other side of Huron. Or a cyclist commutes out to KMart.
SMC
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 6:45 p.m.
And how do you propose they get to those highways? The Jackson-Huron Corridor has a major freeway interchange at each end of it, and creating a needless choke point in the middle of it will not help matters.
cornelius McDougenschniefferburgenstein jr. 3 esq.
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 4:39 p.m.
ive ridden a bike on jackson+it was terrorfying.
leaguebus
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 4:38 p.m.
A left turn lane on Huron would be fine, especially with streets like 7th that have lots of left turns. Try it and see if it would work. It worked on Stadium between 7th and Pauline...
louise
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 4:03 p.m.
These people that want to decide without the input of the residence that live on Jackson and have lived there for many years don't know what they are talking about. There is back up from Maple/Stadium all the way to atleast Worden ave if not farther at rush hour. it is not easy getting out of driveways during this time. If they want to do something to improve traffic flow they should really think about putting a turn lane, which would make 5 lanes. There should be no bike lane if an additional lane is not put in because it is toooo narrow as it is. So I really think they should rethink and also let the residence on Jackson have input on this matter---either have another meeting regarding this and also a letter to go out to.
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:17 p.m.
There were lots of people who live on Jackson at the MDOT meeting. Some were very concerned about it. They made that point. Others were very concerned about how dangerous the road was to homeowners along it. There was not a uniform viewpoint.
Goofus
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 3:50 p.m.
This is the same city government responsible for the disasterous Hiefje's Hole on 5th and the resulting closure for 2 years.
H R L
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 3:28 p.m.
That picture clearly is not rush hour because there are traffic back ups. Anyone who drives that route or lives on Jackson Road knows this.
iamwrite
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 3:03 p.m.
To quote the Joker, "This town needs an enema!" Let's put in a round-a-bout instead!
SMC
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:05 p.m.
It can't possibly make things worse than reducing the number of available lanes.
Thaddeus
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 2:46 p.m.
For all of the naysayers who are being so critical about this proposal, you should instead be very grateful. Ann Arbor actually has Officials that look at studies, facts, and hard science to make planning decisions. Unlike our Federal and State Governments increasingly do. If a person wishes to criticize a proposal like this 4 to 3 road conversion, be prepared to show evidence, studies, etc. as to why it would be a bad idea. Research will show you that there is virtually no evidence to back-up all of the opposition shown here. Just look at the recent 4 to 3 conversions that have been done. And your complaint is....? If you can find one, were you involved in planning meetings, sending in feedback on the projects, etc....? Transportation science, like medical science has evolved tremendously since the 1960s. It would be nice to see more people be open-minded enough to allow their understanding of transportation science catch-up with the times....
Left is Right
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 3:19 a.m.
And a courtroom that does not allow cross-examination!
Left is Right
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 3:18 a.m.
Science? More courtroom than science. Decide on the outcome, present the evidence supporting that outcome, disregard evidence that does not.
SMC
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 7:05 p.m.
Yes, because there are never traffic backups when road construction reduces the number of lanes on a freeway, right? One needn't rely on traffic studies to determine this, it only takes common sense. Also, these city officials are the same people who did not consult any traffic studies before they implemented their ill-conceived and poorly executed pedestrian safety ordinance. Furthermore, these studies were done by MDOT, who have historically not been very good at simply maintaining the roads, much less improving them.
MRunner73
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 5:09 p.m.
Almost there but the 4 to 3 idea is bad because of the merger points. Once merged, it works. There should always be as many lanes as available. I think the original 4 lane stretches of Packard, south of Stadium and Main Street from Eisenhower to AA-Saline worked fine. The left hand lane can be used for left hand turning which allows passing on the right. Slower moving cars can be passed. (As Mr Spock would say: This is illogical.) Traffic behaves like a fluid. A 4 to 3 idea acts like a compression agent and that is not good. So much for modelling.
Brad
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 4:08 p.m.
Ah yes - "livability". Fluff-speak for "I have no objective reasons".
iamwrite
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 3:26 p.m.
I also am aware of "bottlenecks".
Thaddeus
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 3:22 p.m.
More efficiently handling the traffic is the main reason for this project. More lanes = more congestion. If you don't believe me, do an online search or other reading. "Calming", "safety" "livability" are nice net results of this proposed project....
iamwrite
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 3:01 p.m.
Fact=the other 4 to 3 conversions are not on a state business route. Fact=traffic is too busy during rush hour to allow this "calming"
Brad
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 2:53 p.m.
Yeah - the science of slowing down traffic. Believe it or not, there are many of us out here who don't think all traffic is in need of "calming" (the euphemism for slowing it down). We have things to do, and the roads are there primarily to convey automotive traffic. That's what they were built for.
Tru2Blu76
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 2:44 p.m.
Couyoumjian said, "I ride a lot, and putting bike lanes along Jackson Avenue would be lunacy and dangerous." -- Which reveals he's not a bike commuter, doesn't use his bike for shopping trips on the west side. It also means that, if he rides his bike on the Jackson Ave. corridor, he does it on the sidewalk, which has a steep incline - making it a lot more dangerous for pedestrian / cyclist interaction. Couyoumjian's view is that which shows he's impatient to get over his commute and he seems intolerant of ANY interference or the needs of others. Following his logic: bikes would be completely banned from that corridor and thereby banned from access to the NW businesses along Maple (without a ridiculous detour).
Tru2Blu76
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 10:15 p.m.
@iamwrite: What is intolerant about making that roadway more useable and safe for all modes of transportation? You seem to be confused about the meaning of the word "intolerant" and, instead, take the side of Karl Couyoumjian, who clearly states he wants that road open for HIS purposes.
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:19 p.m.
A lot of times sidewalks go up and down a lot, while the roadbed has been smoothed.
Brad
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 8:19 p.m.
The sidewalk is somehow more inclined than the road? How does that work?
iamwrite
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 3:22 p.m.
Tru2Blu76, it seems that your comment is intolerant of the needs in regards to the people who get stuck in traffic on that route.
bunnyabbot
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 2:43 p.m.
As someone who grew up and lived on the westside and drove Jackson Rd since Drivers Ed I can say I am against this. IT is not unsafe, most people don't weave through traffic. I have never seen an accident on the road. I have had to turn onto streets and driveways and pull out of them. I also go the speed limit. I have never seen anyone riding a bike on the sidewalk that wasn't kids (who wouldn't ride in the street anyway). What I can say is that I avoid it at all costs during rush hour. The intersection of Jackson and Maple (and then the next intersection down at Stadium/S Maple and also at Jackson and 94) is a mess. THey should be putting effort into figuring out how to time the lights during peak times to get as many cars outgoing as possible and more than 4 cars turning left before the light changes.
Mark
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 2:39 p.m.
I do not understand how the city can say that this will not cause traffic problems. I travel the road every day and there are already back ups. Making this just three lanes is crazy. I do not mind bikers but then they need to abide but the law and stop at all stop signs, stay in their lane and not change form sidewalk to road at their convenience just to avoid a traffic signal. The road actually needs to be wider ( wider four lanes then are there now) with the addition of a bike lane. The problem is nobody wants to pay for it.
zags
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 3:08 p.m.
There is no room to widen the road especially on the north side. The sidewalks are already to close to the road for a four lane road.
coffeedrinker
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 2:12 p.m.
Where do the cyclers go when they get to Revena?
SMC
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 5:01 a.m.
The city has grown, but the roadway hasn't. Unless the city council has devised a way to airlift the commercial goods to their recipients downtown, it's time to widen the roadway.
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 10:35 p.m.
Not everyone can afford a car is physically able to drive. And yet, we let them keep their citizenship. Not everyone prioritizes things in the same order you do. It is a business route. It is a major commuter artery. It's also a residential street. It's also an old street and too narrow. And it's also used (or would be used if made safer) by cyclists and pedestrians. Try thinking about everyone and not just yourself.
SMC
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 10:19 p.m.
Everyone does not need to be accommodated. It's a business route, primarily used by commercial traffic, and thousands of commuters in cars. Cyclists have many other options to get to and from downtown. Commercial delivery trucks do not, unless the residents of the adjacent neighborhoods want delivery trucks cutting through their streets all day long. Unfortunately, the goods going downtown will not deliver themselves, and unless the cyclists are willing to strap a few boxes each to their bicycles, someone gets the short end of the stick. As I've said before, there are many transportation options available to you besides your bike, and many other routes you have access to.
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:21 p.m.
@SMC: So, it's equally valid to say "who cares" to your self-centered views. I think it's actually far more useful to see how ****EVERYONE*** can be accommodated. And if you have an idea that's worked elsewhere, looks reasonable to traffic engineers, and can be easily reversed, then it's worth trying.
SMC
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:06 p.m.
Who cares?
Kim
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 7:01 p.m.
cut across to Washington and it's a delightful bike ride without the terrifying traffic!
Kerri
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 2:10 p.m.
I live on Stadium Blvd and everyone was upset when they reduced it from 4 lanes to 3. A left hand turn lane was added as well as bike lanes and it is so much better than it was before and the traffic actually seems better, not worse. I know that Jackson is a little bit of a busier street but in the long run I think it will be much better. That street is already an accident waiting to happen with no left hand turn lanes.
Indymama
Mon, Apr 16, 2012 : 6:15 a.m.
Skyjockey is right!! I drive Stadium usually several times a day. Everytime I have to go East on Stadium through the light at Pauline, there is always one or two drivers racing to get to the lane "reduction" from two lanes to one lane to "get ahead of the other cars" before Stadium turns into the one lane. VERY DANGEROUS!!
Skyjockey43
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:41 p.m.
Better? There we a very bad accident on stadium yesterday because someone cut off another driver at the merge. I see close calls at this bottleneck EVERY day. This arrangement is far more dangerous than the way it was before.
paul wiener
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:58 p.m.
As soon as bike riders are forced to pay a registration fee for their bicycles and a license fee for driving them, I'll take their interest in and right to biking lanes seriously.
JDed
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 8:31 p.m.
The majority of harm done to our roads is done by mother nature . . .
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:23 p.m.
As soon as vehicles are required to pay for the actual costs of maintaining city infrastructure, I'll take your comment seriously. At least you are upfront about your self-centeredness.
Ron Granger
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 4:50 p.m.
Gosh, I thought the taxes we pay would be enough. That includes the pedestrians who need to cross that street. Sorry if that is inconvenient for the people coming in from out of town. Btw, my bike is registered with a permanent license.
JDed
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:57 p.m.
The city hasn't done to well with some of their professional road plan designs. South State between the freeway and eisenhower . . . (this may have been a U of M engineering study
bobslowson
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:50 p.m.
State business roads are for CARS not BIKES. This city has become bike crazy...so when are cars outlawed all together? I'm sure that proposal is in the works at the golden hall of the mayor
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:23 p.m.
The state law says otherwise.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:03 p.m.
Actually bikes have as much of a right to the road as any car. I believe that is the state law. Considering that, isn't it best to come up with a solution that includes bikes since so many people do use them to commute?
jcj
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:48 p.m.
It is frustrating enough to the AATA buses sitting at a stop waiting to get back on schedule (with no one at the stop or getting off ) when you have another lane to get around the bus. Now imagine Jackson ave with one lane and the bus driver sitting their having coffee while traffic backs up to Main St!
Epengar
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 7:26 p.m.
It will *definitely* never happen. They only do this at a few stops on each route, (a total of *1* between Maple and Main along Huron/Jackson, and that one one stop is at Huron and Seventh, no where near the segment that would be converted to 3 lanes.
Rod Johnson
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 5:53 p.m.
Yes, imagine it, because it will probably never happen in reality.
E. Daniel Ayres
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:46 p.m.
I was recently hit from behind by a distracted driver in a four lane section of road thru a residential area where the only way to turn across traffic was to block the left lane in my direction. Having a turn lane would have prevented the total loss of my truck! I'm also an experienced bike commuter who made an 18.5 mile round trip between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor back when portions of Ellsworth Road were still dirrt and Washtenaw had not yet been fully widened to four lanes. There were no bike paths or bike lanes nor were there curb cuts where sidewalks did exist. IMHO the three lane configuration is safer all around and will not actually slow the flow of traffic. It may actually speed things up since there will not be dangerous lane changes by folks going the same direction having to dodge people stopped waiiting to turn across oncoming traffic. Way too many people in these four lane situations don't bother to signal lane changes when attempting to get around someone slowed or stopped to turn. Think about it and respect the professionals, traffic engineers who have studied and modeled traffic flows professionally for years. THEY ARE CORRECT... IT WILL BE SAFER AND PROBABLY JUST AS FAST FOR CARS AS THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION. As an added bonus, bike commuters who will only become more numerous as the price for fuel keeps rising may have a chance to survive on a road they have just as much right to use as any car driver. Bikes were here before cars and may be here long after cars become extinct. The road in question was probably once a cart track with horses and possibly bicycles on it before there were any cars.
Hume
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:42 p.m.
I'm skeptical about the pole results here because you can vote, then click on vote and then you can vote again. You can do this in a loop. I see the vote count going up at a fast pace. I would request AA.com to strip out multiple votes that came from the same IP or to restrict votes to people who have logged into an account and only give these people one vote. Otherwise you will have a small group of people who are skewing the results very badly.
Robert Hughes
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 11:32 a.m.
Excellent point.
misty80
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:31 p.m.
MDOT please listen to the people, especially like myself that have lived on Jackson Ave for 25 plus years. When you buy a house on a busy road that has 4 lanes you expect delays getting in and out of driveways. What you don't expect is politicians butting in and trying to take lanes away from a very busy street. I believe that all of City Council that voted for this change should live on Jackson Avenue for a week and see how difficult it is to get in and out of a driveway and then think what it would be like if the lanes were reduced! Well that won't happen because Council doesn't have common sense!!
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:25 p.m.
Not everyone who lives on Jackson Avenue agrees with you. They made that clear at the MDOT meeting.
Emma B
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:29 p.m.
Well I think this is great idea. But then again, I also follow the speed limit and regularly deal with the aggressive passing and weaving that has nearly had me driving on the sidewalk, so I can see how this comes as a terrible shock to some.
Barzoom
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:26 p.m.
Heaven forbid that the mayor and city council listen to the wishes of the people. They know what's best. They will tell you so. Another example of Boulder Envy on the part of our city government.
smokeblwr
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:25 p.m.
I'm a big guy: 5'11" 290. They can't expect me to fit my SUV in those narrow lanes! I welcome wider lanes.
iamwrite
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 3:07 p.m.
What does your size and height have to do with this? "They can't expect me to fit my SUV in those narrow lanes!" How wide is your SUV? 5'5"? What happened to the other 4+ feet?
justcurious
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:19 p.m.
Perhaps the good mayor of Ann Arbor needs to have his esteemed traffic engineers work on a way of "CALMING" all of the citizen anger for his unpopular proposals, including this one.
Skyjockey43
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:45 p.m.
Oh you mean like the calm manner Ann Arbor liberals respond to conservative initiatives such as Arizona's immigration law? Thanks for the laugh. I needed a good chuckle today
iamwrite
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:04 p.m.
This section of the road is Business 94. If you look at other "business" routes in other cities, it is 4 lanes. For the people who complain about riding their bicycles on sidewalks, it is called common sense. You have to pay attention to your surroundings, just like drivers on the road. Saying that driving on the road is safer then the sidewalk pretty much says that I should drive my car on the sidewalk. Because my car is sooo dangerous. Why only convert a small section? Let's turn all of the road back to two-tracks and start riding horses to and from Ann Arbor. @foobar417-about not having a pedestrian crosswalk right in front of your house...walk! Don't expect the city to put a pedestrian-crossing every 30 feet. Bottom line=the other roads that have been converted are not business routes. Who will be running against the mayor? Please stand up!
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:29 p.m.
First of all, I don't actually live on Jackson. I was trying to think through ***all*** the use cases, not just whatever benefits me personally. Kids will be kids. Kids are lazy. Some kids will not walk a half mile out of their way to use a stop light. We need to design roads so that doing what comes naturally is safe for drivers, safe for cyclists, and safe for pedestrians of all ages. There have been ***many*** success stories where 4-to-3 conversions won over tons of skeptics who said "it'll never work". It's worth trying.
zags
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:03 p.m.
It's so easy to sit at your computer and complain about everything under the sun. A little bit harder to get up off your butt and go to a community meeting and actually interact with real people. 33 people showed up at the community meeting with a majority commenting in favor of the lane reduction. I see "the online commenters" are opposed and they want a direct link to MDOT to voice their disapproval. Well, as much you may hate the mayor, hate the city council, hate the traffic engineers, and hate Ann Arbor in general, real people meeting face to face is where the rubber meets the road. Use the power of the internet to organize yourselves and go to a meeting if you want to protest. BTW, I own property on Huron, drive it multiple times a day, and would absolutely welcome a lane reduction, mostly for the left turn lane. Bike lanes on the sidewalk do not work and are dangerous for pedestrians and at intersections. and also, the speed limit is 35mph on that stretch, not that any of you pay attention to that. Slow down. See you at the next meeting.
jackson72
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 11:52 p.m.
I agree with you. There SHOULD have been a public meeting. However our dear mayor and his cronies KNEW that there would be considerable dissent to this road narrowing, so they intentionally didn't publicize the February meeting they set up for MDOT. They knew if they did, MDOT would see the amount of opposition to this project. There are many of us that would welcome a true public meeting, but our less than courageous mayor has refused. He is afraid to see the amount of people that are opposed to this. So ZAGS, I challenge you to contact the mayor and DEMAND a true public meeting on this subject.
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:31 p.m.
There were plenty of opportunities to find out about it, including the oh-so-secret city website. http://www.a2gov.org/news/Pages/MDOTI-94BLPublicMeeting2012-02-16.aspx
SMC
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:08 p.m.
Only 33 people attended, because the meeting was not properly publicized. Those of us who are not part of the Washtenaw Cyclists Coalition did not receive engraved invitations, as the privileged elite did.
Kerri
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 4:11 p.m.
I Agree with you 100%
Jim Zamberlan
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:07 p.m.
Thank you.
Ron Granger
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:02 p.m.
"Couyoumjian said he lives off Washtenaw Avenue and uses Jackson Avenue to commute to and from his office on Jackson every day." If he's in such a hurry, he should take the highway. Stop trying to turn the surface streets of the city into something they are not.
fjord
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:58 p.m.
All of the same complaints being voiced above were also aimed at the reduction of a similar stretch of West Stadium from four lanes to three. Well, that project came and went, and nobody seems to mind the reconfigured road now. I drive on that section of Stadium every day, and though I was skeptical of that project before it happened, now I think it's an improvement over the way it was before. Guess what? It'll happen again with Jackson Avenue, exactly as it did with West Stadium. Once the project is complete, most of you will find yourselves wondering exactly what it was you were complaining about.
Jake C
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 2:11 p.m.
Brad, the mayor and his associates respond to actual people sending actual emails and making phone calls and in-person visits. They don't spend their days reading anonymous polls on web sites.
clownfish
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 2 p.m.
The facts, as interesting as they may be, are irrelevant.
Brad
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:04 p.m.
So you and the mayor say "nobody minds it" yet there are a lot of people (not to mention the poll voting) that are saying otherwise. You are acting like nobody is out there driving on Packard, Platt, W. Stadium (etc) every day.
Ron Granger
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:57 p.m.
These traffic calming changes have been shown again and again to reduce accidents and save pedestrian lives. When these changes were proposed for Platt and Packard, some yelled like the world was coming to an end. It didn't. Those changes work well. These will be lines painted on the road. The road we must all share. Relax and share the road.
jcj
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 4:42 p.m.
Mr Granger You are good at citing data that has NO relevance to the proposed changes. If this is such a good idea then why not do it on Washtenaw also from S. University to Brockman? "These traffic calming changes have been shown again and again to reduce accidents and save pedestrian lives." So do speed bumps and it's cheaper!
Ron Granger
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 10:30 p.m.
"Still waiting for the list of accidents on this stretch of road in the last 20 years!" Look it up if it's important to you. Also, let us know when you can refute the Packard data I posted.
jcj
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:19 p.m.
Still waiting for the list of accidents on this stretch of road in the last 20 years! It looks like MDOT is smarter than our city council so I doubt it will happen. Too bad we will just have to live with all the mayhem and deaths for a few more years. lol
Ron Granger
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 4:45 p.m.
Fewer accidents means lives saved. Packard Rd has had a 3X to 4X reduction in accidents since the change. From the April 4 article: "He [Homayoon Pirooz, head of the city's project management unit] used the example of Platt Road, which the city converted from four to three lanes from Packard to Ellsworth. Prior to the changes, he said, there were 20 to 30 accidents per year, but now in the last two years it's down to six or seven."
jcj
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:44 p.m.
"These traffic calming changes have been shown again and again to reduce accidents and save pedestrian lives." Please cites the accidents and lives that have been lost on this part of Jackson rd!
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:51 p.m.
If you send a comment to MDOT, I also suggest you email your city council members and the Mayor. Their email addresses are here: www.a2gov.org/government/citycouncil/Pages/Home.aspx
CobraII
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:50 p.m.
The mayor also thought spending $750,000 on a fountain was a good idea too!!!
SMC
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:15 p.m.
Do not question Dear Leader. Dear Leader knows what it best.
A2lover
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:48 p.m.
The obvious way to cause the death or bad injury of a cyclist.
SMC
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 5:05 a.m.
When self-righteousness overrides self-preservation, the results are predictable.
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:33 p.m.
The law says otherwise, your self-centeredness aside.
SMC
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:15 p.m.
Or ride on the sidewalks, where they belong.
thinker
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 4:12 p.m.
Maybe a better way would be for all cyclists to wear helmets.
zeeba
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:46 p.m.
They did this about 20 years ago with Grand River Ave. in East Lansing. I thought it was a bad idea at the time, but it actually improved traffic flow. Or is the problem just that the Crazy Aunt in the Attic doesn't want to follow Little Brother's lead in anything?
Maggie Levenstein
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:46 p.m.
As someone who lives in a neighborhood next to this road, I strongly support this proposal. The traffic on this road is way too fast. It is dangerous and undermines the quality of life for people who live on the west side of this city.
SMC
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 6:47 p.m.
If you think it's fast now, just wait until commercial traffic forces passenger vehicle traffic through your neighborhood to get around it.
thinker
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:49 p.m.
It's a State business route. If you don't like it , move.
Ron Granger
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:46 p.m.
Roads are for people, not cars. Roads are paid for by people, not cars.
DonBee
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 12:45 p.m.
Mr. Granger - The vast majority of the road repair comes from excise taxes on tires, batteries and other auto parts, and gasoline/diesel fuel taxes. A small amount comes from other taxes. Lately to stimulate the economy, the Federal government has borrowed to make more road funds available (so you could say the money comes from China by way of Wal-Mart) If roads were for people than there would be excise taxes on your shoes, there are not. Sidewalks on the other hand are paid for (for the most part) with non-automotive related taxes and are for people. I would suggest walking on the sidewalk, not on the road. It is safer.
SMC
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 6:43 p.m.
Roads are for people, in cars. And trucks. And semi trucks. And every other motorized transport that carries the goods and supplies needed for the city to function. Perhaps if this were southeast Asia, where everything is delivered on bicycles and rikshaws, you might have a valid point.
Brad
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:17 p.m.
Sure you don't mean roads are for horses?
CPLtownie
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:40 p.m.
Recall the Mayor. Cut him off before he and the rest of the Fairy Tell Castle inhabitants run amok with yet another rediculous project. JUST SAY NO TO THIS MAYOR AND HIS CRONIES. They certainly can say it to their voters.
aabikes
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:39 p.m.
"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare." Edmund Burke
Unusual Suspect
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:39 p.m.
"emails from the public were asking us not to abide by the city request" "Mayor John Hieftje said he doesn't see any reason for the city to change its mind" And right there you have one of the biggest problems with our city wrapped up into two sentences.
thinker
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:36 p.m.
I just sent an email to mdot@michigan.gov. So far, it has not been returned.
Ignatz
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:35 p.m.
I've experienced a similar lane reduction that occurred on Grove Rd. in Ypsilanti Township from the I-94 overpass to just before Bridge Rd. Traffic is definately more of a mess. A slow driver will back up traffic because nobody can pass. At times some drivers are so exasperated that they use the left hand turn lane as a passing lane. The center turn lane is not really needed, even during rush hour. The two nice bike lanes are rarely used and when they are, it's by joggers as much as bicycles. I'm convinced that traffic engineers are more concerned about having traffic standing still rather than getting it to flow better.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 8:54 p.m.
I have to admit that I find your view of that particular road to be very interesting. I also am a frequent driver on Grove Road in Ypsilanti Twp and I have found the changes to be a huge improvement. I much prefer it with one lane in each direction and a left turn lane. I keep hoping they'll make the same change on Michigan Ave between I-94 and downtown Ypsilanti. But then, I don't really like sharing lanes with bicycles and really prefer it when they get their own lanes. I also get more annoyed than I probably should when I get stuck behind someone turning left.
Thaddeus
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 6:33 p.m.
A surprising number of people appear to not know what the term "Limit" as in "Speed Limit" means. It means the highest or most extreme speed legally allowed. It does not mean that anyone using that road who isn't travelling as fast or faster than the posted "Limit" should be run-over or run off the road.
E. Daniel Ayres
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:58 p.m.
I periodically ride that section of road on a bicycle. The vast majority of folks out there are driving 10-20 mph above the speed limit! Also, even before the reconfiguration, that road is wider than the four lane section in Ann Arbor under discussion. The only reason traffic is a "mess" there is because of the folks living around there drive agressively and speed. The width of the road there and the fact that it used to be served by a ramp from i-94 established bad habit patterns among the drivers. Speed limit signs never broke their bad habits and the ramp closure still pisses some of them off because it increased the amount of surface street between their work and their homes. GET OVER IT and drive safely!
Ignatz
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:17 p.m.
A clarification: Slow driver = one going slower than the speed limit. On that stretch of road the limit is low, anyway.
zags
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:08 p.m.
Is the slow driver going the speed limit? What if someone drove 35 mph on Jackson? Would they be labeled a slow driver impeding other drivers?
motorcycleminer
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:59 p.m.
Ignatz..the're not " traffic engineers " the're just puppets who jump everytime the head clown pulls the string..if they were truly " traffic engineers " MDOT would'nt be slapping their hands all the time......
Ron Granger
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:49 p.m.
"A slow driver will back up traffic because nobody can pass. " Oh dear, the humanity! It's a short stretch of road that is very residential, not an on-ramp to I-94. Maybe try driving slower?
sellers
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:33 p.m.
If Jackson is only reduced to 3 lanes between Huron/Dexter and east of Maple, how does that help Huron from Dexter to downtown ? If you reduce that section to 3 lanes, than you need to show how traffic will flow in and out via Dexter and expect Dexter to pickup some slack, and also ensure that traffic volume flow will continue through the narrower Jackson, which means make sure bus stops do NOT block traffic, pedestrian crossings are timed so that traffic flow is not impacted (e.g. time with lights east and west of that section) and ensure the timing of the Dexter/Huron light supports flow of traffic into the Jackson that is adequate for what the Maple light can handle, otherwise you will get a large backup. If you can handle that - I'm all for it!
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:37 p.m.
I asked the MDOT engineers. Basically, the traffic flow east of Dexter is higher than 20k, so they won't do a lane reduction. (It won't work according to their models.) So, what's happening in real life is that Dexter and Jackson have traffic that comes together on Huron. MDOT's rule of thumb: Under 15k ... just do the 4-to-3 conversion. It's a slamdunk. 15k - 20k ... it's a little questionable ... ask the city for input first. Over 20k. Don't do it. Too much traffic. In this case, the traffic is 15.5k. So just above the range they call a slam dunk. The traffic east of Dexter is over 20k.
zags
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:10 p.m.
I agree, the whole bus thing is a problem. They need to figure that one out for the project to make sense.
tim
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:27 p.m.
If anything Jackson rd should be expanded-- the idea might work if other roads were built to take on more traffic. If jackson road were one lane the traffic would be backed up to main street during rush hour waiting for the light to turn green at jackson and maple.
Alan Goldsmith
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:26 p.m.
Just like the Mayor being a coward and afraid to appoint diverse voices on city commissions and boards who disagree with him, likewise he loves to limit public input on projects such as this one. MDOT and the City did everything they could to restrict advance notice to the 'public' hearing and when the public IS notified and rejects something, like the I-94 plan, he has isn't able to listen. Don't confuse me with the facts--my mind is already made up. Let's open up this fiasco to comments and flood MDOT with real feedback that reflects users/drivers of this stretch of Huron/Jackson. Why The Mayor is fears talking to people who disagree with him, I'll leave for others with degrees in psychology.
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:39 p.m.
You're right of course. It was totally secret. Hidden on the oh-so-secret city website as a news release. http://www.a2gov.org/news/Pages/MDOTI-94BLPublicMeeting2012-02-16.aspx
SMC
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 2:22 p.m.
Show us where Stadium and Platt handle nearly as much traffic on a daily basis.
clownfish
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:58 p.m.
Show us the facts then. Stadium and Platt have undergone a change similar to the one proposed, what have been the adverse side effects?
zip the cat
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:25 p.m.
All you whiners and complainers of the way the city is run have a choice to get rid of the Brain dead city council and off the wall thinking mayor every election time,but,but. You sit at home and do nothing to solve your delema so if you don't like the way your city is run move,vote them out or shut up and stop whineing like a bunch of 2 yr olds
Unusual Suspect
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:41 p.m.
Please don't use the words "Wall" and "Mayor" in the same sentence again. Don't encourage him.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:24 p.m.
This is a really awful idea! 1. AATA and School Busses will now block traffic when they stop. 2. City Garbage Trucks will now block traffic when they stop 3. The road could be widened. 4. Traffic surges at rush hour will cause even worse back ups. 5. It will be a lot harder to turn onto Jackson from a side street. 6. The other roads converted to three lanes from four are failed "experiments". Inconveniencing 15,500 cars a day, just to help the few bicyclists who use the road instead of a sidewalk? I commute to work by bicycle on Huron and Washtenaw and would never consider using the roadway. I value my life and drive slowly and courteously on the sidewalks.
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:45 p.m.
@SLR: You are making all sorts of assumptions about priorities. Q: Is it more important to widen a roadway or respect the quality of life and private property rights of the owners? A: It depends. Sometimes its worth it. Sometimes its not. But its certainly not something to throw out "casually". Q: Are traffic surges better or worse in a 4 lane vs. 3 lane configuration? A: You need actual modeling. In general, people underestimate how much turbulence you introduce into fluid dynamics with rapid shifting of lanes. Q: Which is higher priority: Safety or Traffic speed? A: It depends. Q: Which is higher priority: The mode of transportation used by the majority or accomodating all modes of transportation equitably so that people have the freedom to make their own choices? A: It depends on the tradeoffs. My point: Anyone who leaps to a conclusion that what benefits them and people like them is obviously in the public interest, probably doesn't have the total public's interest at heart.
Epengar
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 7:19 p.m.
If you never drive on the other 4 -to-3 conversions, how do you know they are "failed"? Why are you ignoring rates of accidents in your arguments?
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:47 p.m.
@Sellers: The previous article stated: "[City Engineer] Pirooz said the city has successfully completed conversions from four to three lanes on a number of streets, including the following: South Main, Ann Arbor-Saline to Eisenhower (13,300 ADT) Platt, Packard to Ellsworth (13,800 ADT) Packard, Stadium to Jewett (12,000 ADT) Huron Parkway, Nixon to Plymouth (6,100 ADT) West Stadium Blvd., Seventh to Pauline (14,900 ADT) Green, Plymouth to Glazier Way (9,200 ADT)" I drive on and have been inconvenienced by stopped busses, traffic jams and/or other verrrry slow moving traffic on South Main, Packard, and West Stadium. Ever drive Packard during rush hour? I never travel on the other three. My own experience is echoed in many of the comments I've heard from people in town, and in comments on-line in both this and other articles in the past. If these roads reverted back to being four lanes, drivers wouldn't be so inconvenienced. The vision here of a car-less, pedestrian and bicycle ruling elite city is very wrong. I love to bicycle and it is important to have adequate sidewalks and bike paths in the city, but not at the expense of causing traffic jams!
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:46 p.m.
Sorry, for the double post, my comment earlier with Mark Sweeney's contact info was temporarily blocked by the censor.
sellers
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:35 p.m.
6. The other roads converted to three lanes from four are failed "experiments". Do you have any examples and evidence of this? I can think of a few that work fine, Platt comes to mind as does State.
Real Life
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:22 p.m.
Let's see, did this plan come forward on April 1st? Bike lanes on Jackson? There's already an east-west commuting corridor available on Liberty. Perhaps there should be one north of Jackson on Miller if there isn't one already. Judging by the number of bikes I see on Liberty everyday, perhaps dozens of people use the bike lanes. We're going to screw up Jackson just as we screwed up Stadium? When will the madness end? PS - BTW, I assume the new Stadium Blvd bridge will have four lanes. Anyone know for sure?
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:46 p.m.
Stadium Bridge will have four lanes 2 bike lanes, and pedestrian walkways on both sides.
EBL
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:20 p.m.
I live just off Packard. I drive on Packard between Stadium and Crestland every day. I also use Platt Road from Packard to Ellsworth regularly. Both of those roads were converted from four narrow lanes into two wider lanes with a center left turn lane and a bike lane. I find that the driving experience on both of those stretches is vastly improved. Wider lanes are safer. Cyclists use the Packard route safely. The center left turn lane reduces the back-ups caused by left turners and the people swerving into the right lane when delayed by a left turner. I am not sure what is creating so much opposition, except fear of change. I also drive Jackson Road regularly between Main and Maple. Those narrow lanes are a hazard in themselves and make that a harrowing drive. I think even those people opposed to this change will be pleasantly surprised at the improved driving environment that changing the striping will created.
Left is Right
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 2:51 a.m.
That information may not be directly applicable. Packard and Platt in those locations likely have significantly lower average and peak traffic loads than Jackson between Stadium and Huron. In fact, the load on Jackson is relatively light during the day but--like N. Main--it's used heavily by commuters. Without reviewing the simulations cited by the City in some detail (including the assumptions and verifying robustness of conclusions to uncertainties in those assumptions), I certainly cannot claim that 3 is better than 4 for this case. And given the council's propensity to use what amounts to "junk science" to back up it's positions (think crosswalk ordinance), I'm more certain than not that the desired outcome was preordained and the evidence was "designed" to support it.
aanative
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 5:40 p.m.
Clownfish, I can only speak of my experiences on the west side, and I just can't imagine drivers yielding in BOTH directions when attempting left turns from side streets. Hope my concerns are unfounded, but I remain skeptical.
Dan Ezekiel
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 2:25 p.m.
I agree that fear of change is a major factor in the opposition to this proposal. Understandably, we are all suspicious of proposed changes. For example, the endless agonizing about the roundabouts on Maple when they were first proposed. Like you, I believe most of the opponents will actually like the change once they get used to it.
SMC
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 2:21 p.m.
Packard is not Jackson Ave. That stretch of Packard does not serve as a major route to and from freeway exits, even with the Stadium bridge project underway. I've seen cities larger than ours function with no traffic signals whatsoever. Perhaps we should try the free-for-all approach with major intersections as well?
clownfish
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:57 p.m.
aanative, is that the experience of those living on Platt or Stadium? I drive in the neighborhood around Platt/Packard a lot, both the east and west side. I never have a problem pulling out onto Platt. When traffic is heavy, rush hours, people let me out as needed.
aanative
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:57 p.m.
No, not fear of change. Fear of being trapped in our own neighborhood after implementation of multiple traffic measures designed to slow or impede traffic. Turns onto Jackson or Liberty that are challenging now may well be impossible during peak hours of the day.
clownfish
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:57 p.m.
I have to chuckle at the "voting"! Here we have actual real world experience with this type of change, and people vote it down because reality trumps their preconceived notions! If you are opposed to this change go to the places where it has been done and use that to prove your point.
sellers
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:38 p.m.
I agree I was worried about Platt myself, but find that it works okay. The question is, has there been a shift in traffic to other roads running parallel, or is it a diet gone well.
Mitch
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:14 p.m.
This is a prime example of the people voting him in again. Please remember this next time the major pain comes up in to election!!!
Ming Bucibei
Sun, Apr 15, 2012 : 2:08 p.m.
One party governmnet is always a disaster AA is so jerrymandered that any other party can not & does not canidates Ming Bucibei
demistify
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 6:27 p.m.
I agree there is room for improvement. But you will have to come up with a more plausible alternative than Pat Lesko.
Alan Goldsmith
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:07 p.m.
Contact MDOT: Mailing Address: State Transportation Building 425 W. Ottawa St. P.O. Box 30050 Lansing, MI 48909 517-373-2090 Link for email comments on the MDOT webpage: http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-12960-64505--,00.html
Brad
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:22 p.m.
Thanks for the link, Alan. If you have an opinion on this matter you should paste that link into your browser and make a quick comment to MDOT. It takes less than a minute and it sounds like they are actually listening. The mayor - not so much.
Brad
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:04 p.m.
"Hieftje said he hasn't seen evidence that switching from four to three lanes is unpopular with Ann Arbor residents." Here you go, your honor: I HATE THE THREE-LANE THING! A LOT!! It slows traffic down and makes the busses even more of an impediment than they already are.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 11:51 a.m.
Mark Sweeney at MDOT's e-mail address is: sweeneym@michigan.gov . His phone number is: (810) 227-4681. Please contact him to express why this is a really awful idea! 1. AATA and AAPS Busses will now block traffic when they stop. 2. City Garbage Trucks will now block traffic when they stop. 3. The road could be widened. 4. Traffic surges at rush hour will cause even worse back ups. 5. It will be a lot harder to turn onto Jackson from a side street. 6. The other roads converted to three lanes from four are failed "experiments". Inconveniencing 15,500 cars a day, just to help the few bicyclists who use the road instead of a sidewalk? I commute to work by bicycle on Huron and Washtenaw and would never consider using the roadway. I value my life and drive slowly and courtesously on the sidewalks.
Jim Osborn
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 12:09 p.m.
@Jeff S. (Real Name?) 1) Driving around a bus in the center lane is illegal, even if it makes sense. 2) Stadium was not "plagued before it was converted" people need to use turn signals and not tailgate. 3) the worst part of the lane being too narrow is where the road turns and the curb sticks out past a telephone pole. The curb can be moved, and even the pole by 12 to 18 inches. 4) it is always easier to turn onto a road with 2 lanes as both lanes are not used, with traffic condensed into a single lane, there will be fewer gaps. Some people are afraid to use lane B if there is a car approaching in lane A. If this is a major road, then the school busses should not stop on it, but turn off of it. Two lanes always can carry more traffic than one, a road such as this may need to prohibit left turns during rush hour. I would never ride my bike on this street, When I go in this direction, I choose a parallel residential street - So much more enjoyable and safer.
Jeff S
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 7:06 p.m.
First of all, school buses with red lights active already stop all lanes of traffic regardless, that is the law. As for the AATA buses, unless there is a car in the middle turn lane next to it, there would be plenty of space to drive around it. If you've ever driven down Packard you would realize that is a non-issue. The garbage trucks schedule may not conflict with rush hour, that I'm not sure about. As for expanding the road are you a homeowner on that street? I doubt that would be a popular solution. Having a dedicated left turn lane greatly reduces rear-end collisions (which used to plague Stadium before it was converted) and less lanes will make it easier to turn out from the neighborhoods. Any well educated cyclist knows riding in a bike lane is safer and makes you more visible than on the sidewalk, as the majority of bike v car accidents are from turning right and hitting someone in a sidewalk crosswalk. Commuting via sidewalks is impractical. It is also very dangerous for foot pedestrians. http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/sidepath/sidecrash.htm Use some critical thinking skills! Support this change!
Greg M
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 6:46 p.m.
You posted the same thing the last time AnnArbor.com reported on this, but again all you have here are six (or seven) opinions. The studies I've read from the California and Iowa DsOT, feds, etc all conclude that 3 lanes with a center turn is safer than 4 with minimal impact on throughput, for roads under 20k vehicles per day. Those studies were done with actual roads. And as I said before, the bike lane idea could easily be scrapped in favor of pull-outs for buses. I'd (politely) suggest that instead of firing off factless emails to Mr. Sweeney, one should participate in the process by attending the public meetings. I think we can all agree that Jackson Road needs improvement, so why not make constructive suggestions about how it can best be done?
aabikes
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 6:21 p.m.
Just sent him a note about how badly I hope this pulls through. They are obviously expecting this much resistance. Embrace the change. If by some chance Jackson road is the exception, they can revert it back. However, I doubt it will be.
Dan Ezekiel
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 2:22 p.m.
Thanks for the info about how to contact Mr. Sweeney. So far, this is a good, lively discussion!
Sieben 7
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 11:47 a.m.
The city's "notification process is a joke. I live on Glendale Cir and a couple of years ago they put in "traffic calming devices" on Glendale leading up to Jackson Ave. At no time were we notified of the proposed change despite the fact that if I head north put of my driveway I reach the first device within two blocks directly, Glendale is our direct route to Jackson and the area to the north, east and west and it would have been informing a mere 15 households to include us. Now I am being told that they feel that an adequate "cross section" was invited. I would be curious to see how many mailings went out and to whom they were sent. As far as the canard about simply repainting the lanes if it doesn't work out ... this is like saying the Bush tax cuts are only temporary. Once something is in place good luck changing it.
foobar417
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 4:37 a.m.
Do you use the city notification system to subscribe to notices you wish to receive? Do you check the city's news page regularly? Or do you wait for the magic Internet fairy to hand-deliver emails to every house's email address, since they are all listed in the ... um ... phone book.
aanative
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 5:25 p.m.
Kerri, I check snail mail and email every day and never saw one bit of info announcing proposed changes or neighborhood meetings, despite owning a home in the immediate vicinity.
Kerri
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 4:17 p.m.
I received plenty of notification from the city when there were changes to the road in front on my house. I also had plenty of opportunities to go to at least three meetings about it. Maybe you should check your mail more often.
bobslowson
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:37 p.m.
@ aanative....Yep...one council person's "wishes" trump all those opposing views around him...welcome to A2 politics!
aanative
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:45 p.m.
Completely agree. Not one, not two, but three traffic humps with no neighborhood notification process. This is Councilman Carsten Hohnke's neighborhood, and by golly if he wants Jackson reduced to 3 lanes he's going to get it, and to heck with his neighbors!
Machine
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 11:38 a.m.
The current mayor has been in office since 2000 (12 years!). Perhaps this city needs term limits to force someone like him out of office.
Mitch
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:16 p.m.
Not really, the people need to get out and vote. And those of us that care need to encourage others to VOTE this knuckle head out.
j hampton
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 11:27 a.m.
I frequently drive from downtown Ypsilanti to the courthouse at the corner of Huron and Main. The quickest route, by a wide margin, is I-94 west to Jackson Ave. All other viable routes, Washtenaw, Packard, Geddes, I-94 to S main are much slower, mostly due to traffic lights and stop and go traffic. I suspect that these "improvements" to Jackson Ave. will substantially lenghten the commute into downtown Ann Arbor.
a2xarob
Sun, Apr 15, 2012 : 10:01 p.m.
J Hampton - Have you tried 94 to 23 N to 14W to Main St. exit? I'm guessing it would be faster than your preferred route. It looks out of the way, but might be quite a bit faster.
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 3:15 p.m.
MDOT does and they referenced their existence. That's the basis for their recommendation.
clownfish
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:54 p.m.
You suspect, but do you have any engineering studies to back up your suspicions?
sellers
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:40 p.m.
I'm not sure you can determine that. 4 lanes with poor traffic control devices can be less effective than 3 lanes. Data on the projected number of left turns, impact of stopping vehicles (busses, recycle/rubbish trucks, street sweeting) are items to take into account as well as traffic signal/ped crossing timing.
thinker
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:28 p.m.
Well, we DO want to keep outsiders from spending their money downtown, don't we? This will do it for sure!
Goober
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 11:24 a.m.
We need to quit complaining, as the majority of AA voters love the mayor and most of our council personnel. On this basis, they have the support of the majority of Ann Arbor voters and can do almost anything they want. Their track record proves this.
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 11:02 a.m.
The road is too narrow for 4 lanes of cars. There's no fixing that. 4 10-foot wide lanes plus a propensity for drivers to speed and weave makes an incredibly unsafe environment for drivers, not to mention homeowners with kids in their yard, pedestrians, and even cyclists. Crossing a 4 lane road safely as a pedestrian is nigh impossible. And plenty of kids cross it. The two nearest crosswalks are 0.8 miles apart. Just like there will always be some drivers that treat this as a slalom course, there will always be some pedestrians unwilling to walk a half mile out of their way to cross a street. None of the other 4-to-3 conversions in town have been a disaster. Let them fix the road and try painting it as a 3-lane road. If it doesn't work, have a community discussion.
SMC
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 5:15 a.m.
Fewer cars = fewer crashes. When a route becomes inconvenient, people select an alternate route. You don't need a traffic study to figure that out.
foobar417
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 4:39 a.m.
And the fact that the observed crash rate has gone way done on Platt? Are you just ignoring facts you don't like or is it that you don't care about the safety of your fellow humans?
Plubius
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 3:29 a.m.
Wrong - the 4-to-3 conversions are all, uniformly disastrous. They reduce traffic flow, causes traffic jams, and needlessly raise tensions. This is an example of fantastical dreams trumping reality - that the bike lanes would be used, etc. Does anyone remember the justification for changing Platt - 'peek-a-boo lefts' - what a total crock.
motorcycleminer
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 8:56 p.m.
People who live on major arteries into and out of a town should know better than to bitch about the traffic , unless you bought it at midnight during a gas crisis you didn't do your homework ..it's like the people who live behind the AA airport griping about airplanes...Caveat emptor my friends
SMC
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 6:40 p.m.
They need to accept reality, and widen the road enough for a center lane and 4 traffic lanes, and call it done. Cyclists can use the sidewalks. Job done.
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 3:14 p.m.
At the meeting, they stated they would consider it ****after**** seeing if the 4-to-3 conversion worked. Basically, they think the conversion will work, based on past experience. If it doesn't work, they can repaint the lines back the way they were very cheaply. If it does work, they can consider adding pedestrian islands.
Ann English
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 11:56 a.m.
A previous article about this proposal cited reducing part of Platt Road from four lanes to three lanes. I drove south on that stretch of Platt yesterday and noticed the pedestrian islands placed intermittently in the center lane. Does the city have any intention of putting in similar pedestrian islands in the center lane of that similarly residential stretch of Jackson?
motorcycleminer
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 11 a.m.
As usual prince john ( " I put my faith in the city's traffic engineers " not the people who actually have to drive the road ) and his minions DON'T CARE what the citizens want..like his counterparts in pittsfield township and their " merry go round ' at state and ellsworth and the crowd east of the beltway...YOU DON'T COUNT ... voters for reasons known but to god put these people in and then wonder why things go to hell....smarten up folks ,time for these folks to hit the trail..
SMC
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 5:17 a.m.
Funny how they value the input of the traffic engineers when deciding to make a road narrower, but they don't consult these engineers when drafting a pedestrian safety law that makes it more dangerous to drive a car.
JDed
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:57 p.m.
The city hasn't done to well with some of their professional road plan designs. South State between the freeway and eisenhower . . . (this may have been a U of M engineering study
foobar417
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 11:06 a.m.
Seriously? You'd prefer a mayor to put his faith in random anonymous posters on a message board over people who are trained to model traffic studies?
Dan Ezekiel
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 10:58 a.m.
Like Allan Goldsmith, I'd like a direct link to comment on this proposal to MDOT, but my comment would be in favor of the proposal. I am a bike commuter, but also a pedestrian and a car driver. When I pointed out previously that I've tried to ride my bike on Jackson Rd., but it was too unsafe, commenters were full of suggestions: I should ride on other roads or ride on the sidewalk. It's terribly unsafe to ride bikes on the sidewalk, and also really dangerous to pedestrians. Since drivers had so many suggestions about how I should travel, is it fair to ask if all the single drivers I see in giant SUV's might consider finding another person who is going to the same place? That would immediately cut traffic volume in half. Also, you would have someone to talk to and would save money on gas.
SMC
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 8:53 p.m.
If you don't like the street, bike on the sidewalk. That's what it's there for. You'll notice that there are no bike lanes on I-94, and this particular road is the business loop of that very highway. It is the primary/designated route for commercial traffic from the west into downtown Ann Arbor, and thus, may be unsuitable for use by cyclists.
Sieben 7
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 11:59 a.m.
I ride my bike on Jackson, between Maple and Huron, quite frequently. Valuing my life I will not ride in the roadway. This leaves the sidewalk which I have had few problems with. I rarely encounter a pedestrian no less multiples, occasionally I need to be wary of drivers leaving driveways or blocking the crosswalk when entering from a side street but these again, are rare instances. I also use Liberty as a bike route. Riding in the bike lane I can't count how many times cars have come within inches of me, not to mention the switch from street to sidewalk to street at 7th St. And then of course the actual bike path is strewn with debris and loose gravel, especially in the spring, as well as plowed snow in the winter. My conclusion is that roadway bike paths are far from ideal nor are they particularly the safest arrangement.
Ming Bucibei
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 10:33 a.m.
The reducing roadway for bike lines is a very very bad idea as well as typically anti-car Like the city buses (typically < 5 riders in a bus at all hours), I have hardly seen the bike lanes used People do not bike as much as was once done in years past The bikers should use the sidewalks as the were once encouraged to do--much safer & no conflict with cars--painted bike lanes and narrowed car lanes are just asking for mor bikers to be killed (BTW i ride a bike) Ming Bucibei
Joe
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 3:25 p.m.
Riding on the sidewalk: no conflict with cars, except for every 10-20 feet when there's a driveway or intersection, at which point neither driver nor cyclist see each other or have time to react. Bike lanes make it easier for cars to pass cyclists who are biking in the safest possible place--the road.
a2cents
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 3:21 p.m.
Narrow car lanes exist now and will be improved (not "narrowed" ) under the proposal.
TheGerman
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 10:48 a.m.
I used to ride the AATA daily and cannot remember a time when there were less than 5 people on the bus. Maybe on some of the smaller infrequent routes that is occasionally the case, but not overall. Ridership has been increasing year over year. Bike sales are also at all time highs as more and more people realize that there are many ways to get to work and improve ones health. Also, riding on the sidewalk is dangerous as well because of people not looking when pulling/backing out of driveways, so most certainly a conflict.
MyOpinion
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 10:32 a.m.
For all the naysayers: As currently configured, all four lanes are really too narrow for current car sizes. Perhaps in 20 years when everyone is driving a Smart car, the lane width will be ok. As a sometimes bike rider, I would tend to avoid riding a bike on trunk roads, but I have taken advantage of the new bike lanes on Stadium Blvd. Time will tell if I'll use Jackson. Liberty, less than a mile south of Jackson has reasonably good bike lanes, except when they disappear at 7th. Stadium Blvd is a good example of a road with a center lane for left turns. I'd venture to say that Stadium's center lane is used far more often than the proposed Jackson Road turning lane would be. I don't think we've been inundated with accidents due to that change.
Thaddeus
Sun, Apr 15, 2012 : 5:28 a.m.
jcj - If you believe MDOT, the City, and others are wrong to use the data and studies at hand, what data and studies do you recommend are used instead? For all of the naysayers commenting, I have yet to see any of them, including yourself offer other data or studies. Let alone any of them that would indicate that this project shouldn't go forward. There are many very good reasons why roads are increasingly engineered differently than they were fifty years ago. Are you insisting that we instead continue to do things in a way that has resulted in the unwanted consequences that this road has had for decades? Or might you want better? Are you open-minded enough to be aware that there is a "better" - as in more efficient, faster, safer, more inclusive way to stripe a road....?
jcj
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 4:49 p.m.
Thaddeus My point was. Just because you are working with accumilative 21st century data.., does not mean you will apply the data or interpret it correctly. The Koreans were working with their accumilative 21st century data, when their rocket failed this week! Using your standard must mean you agree with everything city council does and everything the school board does. Because I am sure they don't use 19th century data to reach their conclusions!
Thaddeus
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 5:15 a.m.
"Well Ford was working with accumulative 20st century data when they came out with the Edsel!" Indeed jcj - I agree with you fully. Just as Henry Ford was working with accumulative EARLY 20th century understanding and data, the naysayers here are for the most part using (now very) out-dated MID-20th century understanding and data. To draw an analogy - I suspect there would be comparable outrage from naysayers if someone tried to explain the internet or a modern cell phone (a phone with a powerful one-in-one super computer, camera, games, etc, etc, etc) to someone who's understanding of computer technology is circa 1951 UNIVAC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIVAC_I....
jcj
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 4:29 p.m.
Thaddeus A history lesson for YOU! During World War II, the United States, with the assistance (collaboration) of physicists, mathematicians, and engineers from the U.S., Britain, Canada and Germany (former Nazi physicists), completed the Manhattan Project to produce the first atomic bomb. "they are working with accumulative 21st century data" Well Ford was working with accumulative 20st century data when they came out with the Edsel!
Forever27
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 2:56 p.m.
@thaddeus, bikes will have a "right" to the road once they start to obey the rules of it. until then, you get nothing.
Thaddeus
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 2:07 p.m.
"roads are made for cars first, bikes are a secondary consideration." This is false. Bicycles have 100% the rights of using this road as do cars. Bicycles also don't clog the roads as cars do, and promote a cleaner, safer, and healthier roadway. More traffic lanes do not mean that more motor vehicles can be pushed through a road in a given time. This is because regardless how many lanes there are, only so many vehicles can exit/ enter a road at any given time. Do an online search for "more traffic lanes more congestion" for further information. A history lesson for you: It was the American Wheelmen (an early bicycle advocacy group) who led the charge to have roads paved starting in 1880. This was decades before cars filled the roads. There are many very good reasons for a 4 to 3 lane conversion here. Some of which were hit upon in this article. If you wish to criticize the Mayor, City engineers, the science of transportation planning, and the City's moving into the present and future, please remember that they are working with accumilative 21st century data....
jcj
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:38 p.m.
Comparing Stadium to Jackson Rd is ludicrous! IF their won't be much left turn traffic on Jackson as YOU stated. WHY have it!
justcurious
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:15 p.m.
If they are already too narrow, how on earth have we managed to get down them all these years. Cars are not wider...I wish you luck in mixing it up on your bike in traffic.
Forever27
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:35 p.m.
roads are made for cars first, bikes are a secondary consideration. You shouldn't be riding a bike on such a busy thoroughfare anyway. Go two blocks in either direction and you already have bike lanes on much less busy roads.
Alan Goldsmith
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 10:31 a.m.
"Sweeney said the conversion from four to three lanes is an idea that originated with the city. He said MDOT worked with the city on a mailing list for the February meeting." Uh huh...
A2James
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 10:31 a.m.
The Ann Arbor City Council works for and represents Ann Arbor city residents. Nothing complicated or "awkward" about it. The demands of the people should always trump the demands of the politicians working for them...especially when it comes to crazy ideas such as narrowing/putting bike lanes on a designated interstate business loop.
Alan Goldsmith
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 10:24 a.m.
It would be very helpful if AnnArbor.com posted an email address or link so people commenting on this story could send their input directly to MDOT to assist in the democratic process.
Alan Goldsmith
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:09 p.m.
I posted it again--not sure why yours was deleted.
GirlNextDoor
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:06 p.m.
SweeneyM@michigan.gov
GirlNextDoor
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:03 p.m.
Alan, it's gone now...Why the secrecy?
Alan Goldsmith
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:01 p.m.
Thank you!
GirlNextDoor
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 11:52 a.m.
Alan, I posted that info below.
Alan Goldsmith
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 10:21 a.m.
"We were looking at this several years ago and we had computer modeling..." Like ANYONE believes you Mr. Mayor.
foobar417
Fri, Apr 13, 2012 : 4:44 a.m.
It's actually kind of funny. You look at any article on annarbor.com that mentions the mayor. The first three posts are by Mr. Goldsmith ranting against the mayor. Then there are three lengthy posts by the bank president that oppose some things the mayor has done stridently and embrace other things stridently. At least they have a few facts, even if they make all sorts of assumptions about the right ranking of priorities as if they universal principles.
Epengar
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 7:13 p.m.
Alan, your endless one-note tirade against the mayor has undermined your credibility.
Alan Goldsmith
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 10:20 a.m.
"Hieftje said he hasn't seen evidence that switching from four to three lanes is unpopular with Ann Arbor residents. He thinks it will be welcomed by people on Jackson Avenue." Either the Mayor is blind or deliberately spewing falsehoods. Pretty much par for the course for his 'leadership'.
Jared Mauch
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 2:53 p.m.
As a non-city resident, I use this route to enter the city all the time. If its the desire of the Mayor to make downtown less attractive to visit, this proposal will achieve the desired results. I'm supportive of bike lanes, and even increased public transit but without viable alternatives to enter the city one can not cut off the main transportation route for those from the west. Anyone that has seen the Jackson/Stadium/Maple intersection at peak times knows how busy this area gets. There's a lot of stuff crammed in that area, including the residences along this proposed stretch. Without some viable replacement transportation (eg: light rail, regular park and ride service, at 10 minute intervals or less) this is not helpful.
bobslowson
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:36 p.m.
Watch out..I called the mayor "arrogant" and my comment was deleted...
Alan Goldsmith
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 10:18 a.m.
"Mayor John Hieftje said he doesn't see any reason for the city to change its mind. He's still putting his faith in the city's traffic engineers who are recommending the lane reduction." No reason to change its mind because of the pesky public, voters and citizen feedback.
Thaddeus
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 3:11 p.m.
Do a bit of online research on such 4 to 3 lane conversions, and be engaged by attending/ giving feedback at transportation planning meetings. More than just complaining - show evidence (facts, studies, results from such already finished projects) to back-up the reasons why you "think" this 4 to 3 lane conversion is a bad idea. You will find your own discontent extremely difficult to justify....
Hume
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 1:44 p.m.
Well then vote him out. Enough said...
clownfish
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:50 p.m.
Yes, he is following the recommendations of professional engineers and reports that the citizen feedback he received is positive. They held a meeting, were you there to express your expert opinion on traffic control?
Ann English
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 11:46 a.m.
Sounds like the mayor thinks we're stupid, that we don't know what's good for us, but he does. That kind of elitist thinking has reached the local level of government.
Chip Reed
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 10:18 a.m.
I know they "hate our freedoms", but having one lane for either driving faster (the "fast lane") or being stopped while waiting to turn (the "turn lane") is an accident waiting to happen. I say put the interurban tracks back in.
Andrew MacKie-Mason
Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 9:57 p.m.
You're right, abusing a turn lane for going fast would be a terrible idea.