MDOT plans July 10 open house to discuss conversion of Jackson Avenue from 4 to 3 lanes
Ann Arbor resident Jim Walker is dreading the day Jackson Avenue is reduced from four to three lanes, but he fears it's inevitable at this point.
And he's not expecting positive results.
"I don't see how it could possibly work at rush hour," said Walker, executive director of the National Motorists Association Foundation.
"It probably works about 20 hours a day when traffic is light," he said. "But in-bound in the morning and out-bound in the afternoon, I see it's likely to be a parking lot.
"And how much traffic — if they see it backed up — is going to divert to Dexter Avenue and Liberty, and maybe a bit to Miller and Pauline? How are those residents going to like it?"
Walker is planning to air those concerns July 10 when the Michigan Department of Transportation holds an open house to discuss upcoming improvements to the Interstate 94 Business Loop. That includes the Jackson Avenue lane reduction, a proposal that has sparked controversy among residents who fear it will cause traffic backups.
Ann Arbor officials say the idea behind the lane conversion is that wider lanes will improve safety conditions and decrease the number of accidents on Jackson Avenue.
The meeting takes place from 5-8 p.m. July 10 at Abbot Elementary School, 2670 Sequoia Parkway, in Ann Arbor.
MDOT and city officials will be available to answer questions about plans to convert a four-lane section of Jackson Avenue from Burwood Avenue to Revena Boulevard to one lane of traffic in each direction with a new center turn lane and potentially bicycle lanes.
Jackson Avenue is an I-94 Business Loop between I-94 and downtown Ann Arbor.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
MDOT plans to move forward with the reconstruction of Jackson Avenue and Huron Street between I-94 and Main Street in 2014. That is when the lane conversion, which the city requested, would happen.
The construction plans include resurfacing 2.4 miles of pavement, reconstructing ramps at the I-94 interchange, improving drainage and upgrading sidewalks and traffic signals.
The city has completed conversions from four to three lanes on a number of streets, including portions of South Main, Platt, Packard, Huron Parkway, West Stadium and Green.
City officials said it makes a lot of sense to do so when average daily traffic is less than 15,000 vehicles. Roadway segments with daily traffic between 15,000 and 20,000 vehicles also are good candidates, but those need more detailed traffic analyses, city officials said.
Homayoon Pirooz, head of the city's project management unit, said the portion of Jackson Avenue being evaluated has about 15,500 vehicles per day.
Even though there are more side swipe accidents along Huron Street between Jackson and First than there are on Jackson between Maple and Huron, Pirooz said only Jackson Avenue is being considered for a lane reduction because Huron Street has too much traffic.
"MDOT does not accept proposals for 4-3 lane conversions on corridors with traffic volumes exceeding 20,000 automobiles per day," he said.
The traffic volume on Huron Street east of Jackson Avenue is about 22,000 vehicles per day, which makes a lane conversion there a no go from the start, Pirooz said.
Council Member Jane Lumm, an Independent who represents the 2nd Ward, has opposed the lane conversion. She said she's disappointed the open house on July 10 won't include a formal presentation by MDOT followed by an interactive question-and-answer session.
MDOT spokeswoman Lynne Kirby said the open house format allows people an opportunity to ask questions and discuss the project with MDOT staff on a one-on-one basis. She said MDOT uses the format frequently and has found it to be successful.
"We will also have comment forms available for attendees to provide written comments about the project," she said.
Walker said he'd prefer to have a more formal opportunity to speak and have all of his concerns and other comments from the audience officially recorded.
"They're not doing that," he said. "In my mind, it's probably a way to bury the negative."
Special accommodations can be made by calling 810-227-4681.
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
Bill
Thu, Jul 12, 2012 : 1:02 p.m.
SO where is the follow up on the July 10 discussion? Reporting????
AAPS Student
Wed, Jul 4, 2012 : 4:35 p.m.
I don't like this plan, I use that way to go to school every morning and come home that way. I agree that to try this out would be helpful; put cones in 1 lane to "block it off" and see how it goes. It is not going to work well; the traffic will be even worse than it is now (right now the traffic during rush hour is terrible). I emailed the Mayor and the City Council saying that I oppose this plan, and the Mayor said that they appreciate the criticism. No matter that most people oppose this project, the City Council is still going through with it. I admit that bike lanes are needed, but this is not the way to do it. The reason that there were not a lot of people at the meeting before was because the City Council and the Mayor kept it quiet knowing that this plan would not be popular with the residents. I know that I will attend the July 10 open house.
James
Sat, Jun 30, 2012 : 7:53 p.m.
I'm intertested to see how this will all work out.I,personally,am looking forward to taking a left onto Warden without having to constantly look in the rear view for fear of getting rear ended....had to gun it 3 times to avoid an accident.
Ron Granger
Sat, Jun 30, 2012 : 4:47 p.m.
MDOT "listens" to traffic studies, statistics, and traffic engineers. Emotional pleas by people who want to speed home at the fastest possible rate, consequences be damned, do not matter.
Brad
Sat, Jun 30, 2012 : 1:33 p.m.
I'm hoping that MDOT may do something that our elected "representatives" don't seem to be very good at - listening to the desires of the citizens/taxpayers and responding to that (i.e., representing) instead of their own "grand plan". Too bad MDOT is having to take all the heat that really should be on the mayor/council since it's really them pushing this knucklehead idea.
Arboriginal
Sat, Jun 30, 2012 : 1:26 p.m.
The thing that kills me is that we are having MDOT spend money on this and there is never any talk of building freeway walls. Ypsi has walls. WEST WILLOW has walls! What gives? Seems like a simple quality of life issue.
mtlaurel
Sat, Jun 30, 2012 : 12:01 p.m.
The road is uncomfortable to drive due to the volume ,speed, and truck/service vehicles mixed with "regular" passenger vehicles. In addition,it always seems in poor surface condition[not sure why]. The change may improve the experience of driving,but the potential for delays and congestion should be explained - if MDOT has calculated that into this, then it will be worth it to hear some answers. I have avoided that section of road for some time:it is relatively easy to find alternate ways to go E/W and arrive at destinations.
1bit
Sat, Jun 30, 2012 : 11:33 a.m.
It amazes me how much angst there is here over some paint on the road. Really, it's just paint. If it doesn't work then it can be painted back to the original.
blammo
Mon, Jul 2, 2012 : 2:02 a.m.
It is more than paint. If the signals are being rebuilt, they will be done so with dedicated left signals or illuminated signage. Plus there will be a ton of road signage indicating all lane assignments at intersections, as well as midblock 'shared left turn' lane signage and bike lane designations. Not to mention the investment in lane markings for both vehicles and bikes, which are costly. They will also most likely install pedestrian refuge islands for modblock crossing. Last, there will be in pavement vehicle sensors replaced according to lane placement for signal control. Placing this coridor into 3 lanes will not be something that can be just 'painted back'. They willhave to go 'all-in'.
Robert Hughes
Sat, Jun 30, 2012 : 2:14 a.m.
Wow! I might have to wait an extra minute, or even perhaps, God forbid, ten on my commute home. The indignity of watching bicyclists flashing by me as I wait. The impotence I feel, having to wave pedestrians to walk in front of my car so they can cross at a corner street. And most of all, the reduced chance to see another person get hurt, or maybe even killed in an automobile accident. I can't believe anyone would ever support such a change.
Robert Hughes
Sat, Jun 30, 2012 : 2:48 p.m.
Brad, when did I say I'd be willing to do "anything" to reduce risk? I think it's a very positive move that MDOT is taking, that's all.
Brad
Sat, Jun 30, 2012 : 2:35 p.m.
So if you're willing to do ANYTHING to reduce the already very low probability of someone being injured or maybe even KILLED in an auto accident they why aren't you lobbying for the end of all auto traffic in the city? Why go halfway when you are talking about someone being INJURED OR POSSIBLY KILLED. After that you can eliminate the bicycle traffic, because they could run into someone and INJURE OR POSSIBLY KILL them. Probably everything with wheels will have to go before it's safe.
1bit
Sat, Jun 30, 2012 : 11:31 a.m.
LIR: Your math is wrong. There are 15.5k vehicles per day. At most, there will be four hours out of the day (rush hour) affected. So do you design a road for four hours out of the day or the other twenty?
ordmad
Sat, Jun 30, 2012 : 4:36 a.m.
Bravo.
Left is Right
Sat, Jun 30, 2012 : 3:13 a.m.
Hmm, so let's suppose that maybe 5000 of those 15.5 are subject to an extra 10 minutes. That's 50K minutes/day or said another way about 100 FTE's in lost opportunity/productivity. Does the tradeoff make sense? Even with an extra minute on average for the 15K it's 30+ FTE's. And if I were driving that road, you can bet that those extra minutes wouldn't come out of my time no matter what any Standard Practice Guide says. BTW, what is the rate of injury/fatal accidents on Jacskon now?
say it plain
Sat, Jun 30, 2012 : 2:45 a.m.
The sarcasm is nasty over-the-top, and doesn't do your 'position' much good, just to say. Will we poor motorized commuters also get citations for idling all those extra minutes at the endless wait at the intersection in question, or will you spot us that carbon-footprint credit, pretty please ? ;-)
Left is Right
Sat, Jun 30, 2012 : 1:07 a.m.
One thing that always amuses me in this discussion is use of the 15-20K/day threshold or guideline as if that's the only thing that mattered. So cars are uniformly distributed throughout the day? Or maybe the traffic distribution over time is the same on *all* streets and the rate is just a multiplier? Seems to me that the distribution on Jackson is *much* different than Packard, which is often cited as a "success" here (hey, I agree, it's kinda OK). I'm pretty sure that the same "boil-it-down-to-a-single-number" thinking will lead to an erroneous conclusion on Jackson. Seems to me that traffic density has at least as much to do with it--and the peak density on Jackson in the morning and evening is pretty high. Of course it's true that turbulent flows--caused perhaps by cars waiting to make a left turn or stopped buses--may make a 4-laner worse than three, which may allow for smoother flow but many simulations would need to be done to show that (and on that particular roadway). In the end, the only way to get an accurate answer may be to do the experiment. I like the idea with using cones or even temporary lines to actually test it before committing to it. To commit and then say it'll be changed back if it doesn't work is....well, it's bad public policy.
1bit
Sat, Jun 30, 2012 : 5:20 p.m.
Paint is cheap and cones would impede traffic, not help. It is an experiment. Are we so staid in our ways that we can't try something new? Changing it back if unsuccessful is not "bad public policy", it is the courage to try something different and humility to accept that it was unsuccessful. Personally, having been wrong on this issue before, I'm betting it will work out fine.
a2roots
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 11:38 p.m.
I am pretty certain MDOT is not the one pushing this, it is the City. Initially MDOT was mystified why the City would want do this. MDOT, I believe has the final say if this is to happen. Will they stay with what the City wants or listen to the people? As the world turns continues....
Jim Walker
Sun, Jul 1, 2012 : 6:27 p.m.
a2roots: You are correct, the request was from the city, but MDOT has the final say. James C. Walker, NMA, A2
SMC
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 10:28 p.m.
MDOT will speak to the people, now that's they've already made up their minds. Brilliant.
MRunner73
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 9:43 p.m.
Call me crazy but I think the people will speak out. Thanks to Ann Arbor.com for the series of articles on this. At least the word is out and although the poll is unscientific, Mr Ranzini is correct on the public sentiment. Power to the people. Think positive.
Linda Peck
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 9:15 p.m.
I think this discussion is pointless. MDOT is going ahead with this and they are only demonstrating what they are going to do on July 10. Many of us have written and written and to no avail. I hope MDOT will take the responsibility when the plan does not work so well. Meanwhile, I would appreciate knowing who is doing the talking here by seeing actual names and not mojo handles.
Jim Walker
Sun, Jul 1, 2012 : 6:26 p.m.
For Linda Peck: I hope you are going to get a specific answer from MDOT on WHAT will be the metric to decide if it works, or not, and take down the names and contact information of those that answer for future reference. James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, Ann Arbor, MI
Arboriginal
Sat, Jun 30, 2012 : 1:21 p.m.
I am Arboriginal.
Brad
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 9:09 p.m.
I was just out on the part of Packard that underwent the 4-3 lane treatment, and was reminded of another "feature" of this design - the "two-stage left-turn" onto the major road from a side street. This is when someone on a side street wants to turn left onto the major (e.g., Packard) road but there aren't any openings so they turn left into the center lane and then block that lane waiting to merge into the right (i.e., only traffic carrying) lane. Turns out the one I encountered on Packard today wanted to merge into the space I was already occupying. That doesn't happen with four lanes. Ever.
Kara H
Sat, Jun 30, 2012 : 2:35 p.m.
Well you're right that no ever does a left turn into the center turn lane if there is no center turn lane. So what? With only traffic lanes you often get turners who turn in front of other drivers or slow down traffic by not coming up to speed after their turn. All are annoying but what's your point? Packard has fewer accidents now so it's unlikely to be actually a bad or hazardous thing.
bunnyabbot
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 9:35 p.m.
or the center lane creeper. the person that turns from a side street into the center lane and wants to merge into traffic but then creeps along in the middle lane until they are able to do so. Usually preoccupied with the traffic behind them they forget the traffic in front of them that might also want into the middle lane, or even a car behind them that wants to get into the middle lane to make a left into a driveway.
Macabre Sunset
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 8:06 p.m.
I thought this was a joke when I first read about it. Just go to the Jackon/Maple intersection any time near any rush hour. Not only is the light poorly timed, but the line of traffic going back on Jackson is often three lights long. I can't even imagine the cluster-whatever if they go ahead with this. When it opens, people would have to use Liberty, Dexter and Miller to get around Jackson and further overwhelm the intersection. We need another bike lane there like a fish needs a Toyota 4-Runner.
Atticus F.
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 7:53 p.m.
Look at the nightmare of eliminating 2 lanes on packard near platt. hope the people in that neighborhood dont mind 300 cars a day driving down their residential street going 40 mph. ...ask the folks who live on Hampshire how that's working out for them.
Kara H
Sat, Jun 30, 2012 : 2:30 p.m.
What nightmare specifically are you refering to? Traffic travels well there, except for the current situation with the construction at that intersection.
Brad
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 9:34 p.m.
@Atticus correctly mentions another "feature" of the 4-to-3 -- diverting traffic onto side streets.
bunnyabbot
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 7:41 p.m.
"The traffic volume on Huron Street east of Jackson Avenue is about 22,000 vehicles per day, which makes a lane conversion there a no go from the start, Pirooz said." and yet somehow that many cars become just 15,500 a few block down and easily funnels out because there are FOUR lanes. What a mess it will be if there are only one trffic lane in either direction. in the evening not only is the westbound traffic congesting the stadium intersection but so is the EASTBOUND. Anywhere around Westgate is a monster during rush hours. totally against this project, but then again I routinely cut from miller to dexter, dexter to jackson and jackson to stadium via neighborhoods, shaving minutes off of travel time and avoid all long lights :)
bunnyabbot
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 8:36 p.m.
Yes Atticus, more drivers will do the same, but with only four patrol cars out there I doubt they will have the resources to do as much, I think my chances are pretty decent to "cutting" through a neighborhood. Also, if you notice, public roads are public roads, it is not illegal to drive through a neighborhood. The only time I see a "local traffic only" sign is during construction.
Atticus F.
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 7:55 p.m.
You can forget about that... Once 300+ people get the same idea, they will put up a "local traffic only' sign, and ticket anybody who passes through.
Ron Granger
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 7:14 p.m.
This adds a left turn lane. That means cars will no longer be blocking traffic for left turns. More important, it means drivers won't be scrambling to change lanes around the stopped car.
bunnyabbot
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 7:51 p.m.
just another lane for people to use that don't actually use their turn signal to show their intentions to other drivers.
Atticus F.
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 7:46 p.m.
It also means more collisions in the middle lane...
whojix
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 7:29 p.m.
Yeah, instead both directions can scramble into the shared turn lane to get around a stopped garbage truck or AATA bus.
Sieben 7
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 6:56 p.m.
Thank you AA.com for letting us know about this meeting prior to it actually occurring, After reading the comments it would appear that some people equate , or would like to , Seattle and Ann Arbor, that this is a move to promote pedestrian safety, or that this will reduce accidents because that's what happened on Packard. It seems unfortunate that this (3 lane configuration) won't/can't be continued on Huron due to excessive volume but that because it is "only" 500 more than the suggested 15,000 limit that it is acceptable for Jackson. Mr. Ranzini offers an excellent suggestion that, once Dexter is completed, we have a trial period of two weeks where a lane in each direction is closed off, to get a feel for what would be real life. We don't even have to add bike lanes during this experiment. After all it would only involve a few gallons of paint, a couple of signs, and some cones/barricades.
Jim Walker
Tue, Jul 3, 2012 : 3:14 p.m.
For foobar417: MDOT's own report #RC-1555 says serious traffic delays are possible at anything over 10,000 ADT AND if peak hourly numbers exceed 1,000. See: http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9622_11045_24249-270908--,00.html The report recommended passing the data on to the FHWA to change the national rules for the "slam-dunk" level down to 10,000 ADT and/or 1,000 maximum peak hourly rate - to avoid unacceptable delays. James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, Ann Arbor, MI
foobar417
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 9:24 p.m.
MDOT has done it all over MIchigan. They reported in the public meeting that these traffic count rules of thumb have worked fine elsewhere.
Sieben 7
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 8:15 p.m.
foobar when you say it's worked all over the place I am not sure to what you are referring. I believe that this is the highest traffic count that they have attempted in AA.
foobar417
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 7:34 p.m.
15k is a slam dunk. They don't even bother to ask. 15k - 20k works, but the do consult the town or city. 20k+ doesn't work. And it's not just Packard. It's worked all over the place.
Frustrated in A2
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 6:26 p.m.
Just the other week I saw outbound Jackson at 5pm and both lanes were backed up to about Worden. There was no crash or vehicle stalled in the road, just folks trying to go home. I don't even want to imagine how far one lane of traffic would back up. I personally think this was a bad idea on S. Main and on W. Stadium and neither of those roads have the traffic flow of a main artery in and out of town like Jackson.
Epengar
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 6:14 p.m.
You'd think the Director of the "National Motorists Association Foundation" would be pretty interested in a plan to increase motorists' safety and smooth traffic flow. Apparently not. But then, the organization's website doesn't tell you who pays their bills, and Charity Navigator never heard of them. They don't even post a recent 990 tax form. The one I found elsewhere says most of their revenue came from advertising in 2010. Maybe their corporate-own, er, sponsors, have a different agenda.
Jim Walker
Tue, Jul 3, 2012 : 10:24 p.m.
For Epengar: The advertising helps to pay for the printing and mailing of our quarterly bulletin. You will also have noted how modest is our total budget. James C. Walker, NMAF and NMA
Epengar
Tue, Jul 3, 2012 : 8:02 p.m.
Mr. Walker, in these days of corporate-funded pseudo-grassroots organizations (I like the "astroturf" label somebody came up with), just claiming to be grassroots isn't good enough. Your publicly-available form 990 tax data show that no more than a third of your group's annual income is from donations, the other 2/3rds are "program services", nearly all advertising. If you want to be credible, update your site and be more transparent about what you do and who pays for it.
Jim Walker
Sun, Jul 1, 2012 : 6:21 p.m.
The National Motorists Association Foundation is a grass roots organization funded by private donations. We support research, education and litigation on motorists issues - particularly issues of unfair enforcement. The National Motorists Association is a grass roots member organization funded by dues and donations. Here is the first 30 years of history: www.motorists.org/nma-first-30 The NMA was a key organization in getting the hated and counter productive National Maximum Speed Limit finally repealed in 1995. James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, Ann Arbor, MI
Ron Granger
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 5:07 p.m.
Time and again studies show that road diets work. And that is regardless of the people who think their speed is more important than community safety. http://www.seattlepi.com/local/transportation/article/City-Nickerson-Street-safer-since-road-diet-3375324.php http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/Nickerson%20before%20and%20after%20study_FINAL.pdf
Big B
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 4:04 p.m.
Hopefully when they're done with the conversion they'll put a gigantic traffic circle in at Maple and Jackson.
bunnyabbot
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 7:50 p.m.
if they did that I would stop shopping anywhere near there!
Chris Hall
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 7:43 p.m.
Ha ha. This is funny. Then again... it would be hard to imagine making that intersection worse. As it is you can read a short novel while waiting for the light to change. At least with a big traffic circle everyone will be in motion cursing each other and driving like maniacs. That would at least be kind of exciting.
akronymn
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 3:35 p.m.
Interestingly bike/ped safety isn't the issue driving this change. It's traffic flow and vehicular safety. MDOT is notorious for ignoring the needs of cyclists and pedestrians. In Ypsilanti they are raising speed limits in several areas throughout town despite a demonstrated culture of bike and pedestrian usage in those areas. One of the areas is the site of a fatal hit and run accident from a couple years ago. I will concede that this *seems* like a bad idea on the surface. Crowded road, high traffic, and so on. The reality is that these conversions do work and surprisingly they benefit everyone motorists included. Accidents go down, traffic flows more smoothly and cyclists have a safe place to ride. Two good examples are Platt rd in Ann Arbor and Ford Blvd in Ypsilanti. Both of these were the same four lane, high volume thoroughfares. When MDOT proposed/planned the conversions at those two locations both were met with fierce criticism and backlash from the community. In both cases the updates to the road have proven effective at making traffic flow more safely, reducing accidents, easing entry/exit from the road and making the road more friendly to all users. Through put on Platt has not gone down significantly and congestion has not increased even at peak times. In fact reports from area residents indicate that the intersection of Platt and Packard is significantly faster/easier to navigate (ignoring current construction of course). I understand the outrage but I hope people will be patient and let the results speak for themselves. MDOT is not going to make this conversion and then ignore the results. In fact they will be paying especially close attention to be sure that the effects are desirable and are willing to return to the old road design if this conversion proves unhelpful. It's reasonable to be concerned about this. It's unreasonable to be unwilling to try this change which will very likely benefit the community.
Chris Hall
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 7:36 p.m.
I also agree this is a balanced and measured approach to this question. At first I thought this was an April Fool's joke, having traveled that stretch 10,000 times. But, I have to admit that when this was done to Platt it took a few seconds longer to traverse the area but the driving was significantly more peaceful and I didn't have to worry about wandering cars in the lane next to me. Who knows, this could actually work. But, I'm all for the testing first.
Greg M
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 5:24 p.m.
Thank you, this is the most reasonable and rational comment (including the article) I've read on the topic so far. The yardstick for undertaking any public transportation project like this should include a scientifically rigorous process for measuring the outcome, with clear goals to decide if test A or B wins out. Opinions like "I don't like this because it's a bad idea", "I hate cyclists", or even "imagine the traffic" are worse than useless noise. Measured outcomes like "minor accidents decreased by 29% and transit times increased by 19 seconds" or even "accident rates showed no improvement and transit times increased by 500 seconds" are useful and can be acted on. Since it sounds like MDOT intends to actually measure the results, I'd suggest that instead of complaining here, people who have concerns attend the open houses and ask MDOT what the measurement metrics will be, and what results will constitute success or failure for this 3-lane conversion test.
justcurious
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 2:54 p.m.
"It probably works about 20 hours a day when traffic is light," he said. "But in-bound in the morning and out-bound in the afternoon, I see it's likely to be a parking lot. Every hour is rush hour in Ann Arbor, from sunup till after sundown. Stupid idea, but not surprising considering it's Ann Arbor doing it.
demistify
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 2:39 p.m.
"MDOT does not accept proposals for 4-3 lane conversions on corridors with traffic volumes exceeding 20,000 automobiles per day," he said. In other words, it is so horrendous an idea at 20,000 that MDOT will throw you out if you suggest it. At 15,000 they are willing to let you try to convince them. Pirooz tries to spin that into the false pretense that MDOT thinks it is desirable.
Jim Walker
Sun, Jul 1, 2012 : 6:16 p.m.
For foobar417: MDOT's own report #RC-1555 says serious traffic delays are possible at anything over 10,000 ADT AND if peak hourly numbers exceed 1,000. See: http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9622_11045_24249-270908--,00.html James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, Ann Arbor, MI
foobar417
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 7:41 p.m.
That's not how MDOT presented it at all. At the last public meeting, they explained that at 15k, it's such a slam dunk they just do it. At 15k-20k, it works, but they consult the community. At 20k, it doesn't work, so they don't do it.
Paul Wiener
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 2:13 p.m.
Why is this insanity even being discussed? Can anyone possibly have the slightest respect for those who take this plan seriously and want to impose it on people? I'm disgusted beyond words, and I'll bet thousands of others are. Is there a single town planning thing the commissars who govern Ann Arbor will do - or have done in the last 20 years - that actually tries to make life easier for the populace and relies on common sense, experience, and human decency?
P. J. Murphy
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 8:39 p.m.
There isn't much question that at the moment this part of Jackson is often badly overcrowded and a fairly dangerous street. This change will make it safer for all users. It may, though this is debatable, encourage the use of alternate routes. Mr. Walker claims that the accidents will simply be transferred to other east/west arteries, but since they are only single lane, thats not a very credible assertion. The simple fact is that this approach has been tried in other parts of the city/county, and so far it's been quite successful. It's also been tried in other parts of the state with good results. It's no panacea, we simply have too many cars on the road in our area for any single solution to work everywhere.
Left is Right
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 7:17 p.m.
Well, just as with the pedestrian ordinance, with all the complaining from the public, it's become a personal crusade for our little Napoleans now.
Epengar
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 5:56 p.m.
I think Liberty, Dexter, Miller and Pauline all have more recently built and safer lane designs, so even if people do change their route, I don't think the accidents move with them.
Jim Walker
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 5:24 p.m.
Or, will it just move some of the accidents to Liberty, Dexter, Miller, Pauline and other routes people divert to in disgust with the gridlock? James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, Ann Arbor, MI
Epengar
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 3:21 p.m.
Because that change would significantly reduce the accident rate. That's a damn good reason to discuss it.
whojix
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 2:12 p.m.
My favorite part of this whole thing is MDOT saying they'll change it back to 4 lanes if it doesn't work. Because that's fiscally responsible. Good thing it's just empty lip service.
Jim Walker
Sun, Jul 1, 2012 : 6:11 p.m.
whojix asks the key question - WHAT will be the metric for MDOT to decide whether it is a success, or not? This question needs to be asked many times on July 10 of as many MDOT people as are courageous enough to give specific answers. James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, Ann Arbor, MI
whojix
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 7:48 p.m.
And what does MDOT define as not working? Not a chance they give an objective metric for determining the success of this. It's just an empty promise made by a bunch of patronizing goons.
foobar417
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 7:43 p.m.
They are rebuilding the whole road. That's 99% of the expense. They are not doing anything difficult to reverse. They are just painting it one way. If it works, they'll consider making it even safer by adding pedestrian islands. If it doesn't work, they'll paint it back. It is fiscally responsible and focused on safety. I'm glad for that.
whojix
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 4:23 p.m.
By who and for how long? Will you grab a few cans of paint and do it for free in a day or less?
Ron Granger
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 3:50 p.m.
"Because that's fiscally responsible. " They're just lines painted on the road.
Ron Granger
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 1:22 p.m.
This change was made on Packard years ago. At the time I thought it was a lousy idea. Other people acted like the sky was falling and the world was coming to an end! An end! Like their entire way of life was changing, and their car would be forever useless. It didn't. In fact, accidents decreased from 25 to 30 per year to 6 or 7. And traffic flows just fine. Yawn.
Brad
Sat, Jun 30, 2012 : 1:49 p.m.
It's just my opinion that you used only subjective terms to quantify the "flow"? And again you use "just fine" instead of something objective and quantifiable. Road diets slow down auto traffic. Fact.
1bit
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 10:54 p.m.
You are correct, Ron, and it has worked elsewhere in the City as well. I thought it was a crummy idea too at the time, but can admit I was wrong and traffic flows easier and safer.
P. J. Murphy
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 8:17 p.m.
In fact, Mr. Granger's observations tally with mine, and I live right along the Packard corridor where the change was made. It's a safer street all the way around. Easier to drive, easier to cross on foot, and yes, even better, for those lawless bicyclists. Who, I might add have have considerably multiplied in number now that they have a decent, safe place to ride.
Goober
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 7:06 p.m.
I believe everything that the city tells me too. Isn't this an old Jedi mind trick?
Ron Granger
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 3:39 p.m.
Brad, that is just your opinion. I live one block from that section and traffic flows just fine. Only a traffic study could compare the rates. But the reduced accidents are a fact reported by the city.
Brad
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 1:59 p.m.
I notice that you chose "just fine" to describe how traffic flows. Nothing objective like "flows better" or "flows as well as before" because we all know that isn't the case when you remove 25% of the resource supporting this "flow". Under any significant amount of traffic it flows "more slowly". That's the phrase you're looking for.
Barzoom
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 1:22 p.m.
This is just window dressing. They've already decided what they're going to do whether the people effected by this want it or not.
Peter Eckstein
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 1:09 p.m.
As someone who travels between the east and west side of the city several times a week, I cannot believe that this proposal is even being considered. I drove west on Jackson toward the world's longest light at Maple and had to wait through several cycles of the light t make a left turn onto Maple and get to Stadium Hardware. This was with two lanes to work with! What the situation would be like with one lane I cannot imagine! Why is MDOT unwilling to hold a public forum at which citizens can speak their minds and be heard by other citizens and the press? The answer: "MDOT uses the format frequently and has found it to be successful." I'm sure it has been successful from MDOT's perspective. It is called divide-and-conquer. Brush off one citizen at a time and never let them hear what others are thinking. Virtually every east-west thoroughfare in the city is now being block, partially or totally, by bridge and road repairs. If this one goes into effect this summer, before the Stadium bridges and other projects are finished, gridlock will be complete. The only hope is that AATA will expand its Smart Plan to include helicopter service across town.It won't just be The Ride advertised endlessly with our dollars, it can also be The Flight!
Jim Walker
Sun, Jul 1, 2012 : 6:09 p.m.
For foobar417: That early meeting was NOT properly advertised, it had a highly selective set of invitees that were certain to be heavily for the change, and the tactic worked. About 20 of the 33 people filed pro comments. To suggest that meeting had any intention whatsoever of being representative of the 15,000+ daily users is laughable. It was a set-up, it was rigged. James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, Ann Arbor, MI
Left is Right
Sat, Jun 30, 2012 : 3:58 a.m.
@say it plain Don't often pile on but absolutely agree with your post. As someone who needs to travel to several locations within the region almost daily, there are definite economic consequences.
say it plain
Sat, Jun 30, 2012 : 2:35 a.m.
You said it, @Peter Eckstein! Cute about the highway suggestion @Ron Granger, but it's truly not possible to get through the city of AA via car. Some of us actually have business and life to conduct in the places that stretch from region to region *within* the city, and life has become truly miserable on that count. But @Ron's sentiment does seem to be in line with the mayor and other officials' beliefs. Making a city of <150K quite this unpleasant to navigate does require some commitment!
foobar417
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 7:45 p.m.
@Jim Walker They had a "stand up and ask questions" meeting already. Why didn't you go there and listen to the balanced set of opinions (for / against / nervous)?
Left is Right
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 7:10 p.m.
Need you on council, Peter.
Jim Walker
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 5:21 p.m.
Many people have asked MDOT to have at least part of the July 10 meeting be in the formal forum style of a public presentation followed by open Q & A where both the questions and comments are recorded for the official record. So far, MDOT will not agree to do this, despite multiple requests. They will offer written comment forms for MDOT to analyze later and in private. This far less formal Open House meeting does NOT have the advantage of people in the room being able to hear the questions and the very public answers from MDOT. The Open House meeting seems deliberately designed to prevent extensive learning and public reaction, particularly because the majority of the attendees will not hear each interchange from others. I think MDOT, and I am certain the city officials, want to severely limit the ability of the negative reactions to be fully heard and responded to. James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, Ann Arbor, MI
Ron Granger
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 3:53 p.m.
Take the highway.
Goober
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 1:19 p.m.
Do you really think the mayor, most of city council and other city leaders care about the experiences and feelings of a car driver?
a2roots
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 12:41 p.m.
Study it, try it and so what? When it is done it will never be switched back. Totally asinine idea. I don't agree with Ranzini often, but on this I do. People need to get out and pitch a bit.. and open the eyes of decision makers. They have their heads so far up their rears they have lost all vision and common sense.
Ron Granger
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 12:25 p.m.
I wonder how many complainers can actually unstick themselves from their couch and go to the meeting? Judging by the low turnout at City Council meetings, not many.
Madhatter
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 12:20 p.m.
Wow, talk about taking a step back. I thought Ann Arbor had a bunch of progressives, but this sure seems like a Bush moment. Wow.....
Left is Right
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 7:08 p.m.
We like to believe that we're progressive, diverse, and tolerant. It's a delusion that has served us well.
justcurious
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 2:58 p.m.
"I thought Ann Arbor had a bunch of progressives." Huh?
Goober
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 1:17 p.m.
Yes - blame Bush. Take the easy out!
Ron Granger
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 12:12 p.m.
This will greatly increase the safety of pedestrians crossing the street, especially in crosswalks.
Brad
Sat, Jun 30, 2012 : 1:45 p.m.
Did any of those accidents on Packard involve pedestrians? I certainly don't recall it if they did. Car's wont be passing cars stopped for pedestrians? Why is that? It's 100% legal to pass using the center lane. Nope, wrong again.
foobar417
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 7:48 p.m.
One of the goals ... if it works ... is to be able to add pedestrian islands to increase pedestrian safety. You can also improve pedestrian safety by designing a road to reducing speeding and lane changing.
Sieben 7
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 7:12 p.m.
There is one crosswalk in the affected area and that is at the intersection of Dexter, Jackson and Huron, which is at the eastern end of this noble experiment (in other words it will have zero effect on the pedestrians in crosswalks, although for those crossing without the aid of crosswalks I will concede that it will be much easier to walk between the immobile cars). I would venture to guess that there have been 0 pedestrian accidents there in the last 5 years. In the meantime it will greatly increase the carbon output of the cars waiting in line, not to mention the cars attempting to turn left onto Jackson which has resulted in several minute waits at the midpoint of that stretch at 1 in the afternoon. Not sure if this is a worthwhile tradeoff for a city that likes to pride themselves on being "green".
Ron Granger
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 5:05 p.m.
Fact: accidents on Packard decreased from 25 to 30 per year to 6 or 7. Fewer accidents means more pedestrian safety. I means cars won't be passing cars stopped for pedestrians. http://www.seattlepi.com/local/transportation/article/City-Nickerson-Street-safer-since-road-diet-3375324.php
Brad
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 12:22 p.m.
According to ... ? At least it will be good to stem the tide of pedestrian-auto incidents that have been plaguing Jackson Rd. If I have the count correct I believe that is ... zero.
nelago
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 12:11 p.m.
The expense and frustration of finding parking in downtown A2 already keeps me from coming in more than I would like for dinner/shopping. Jackson is the most direct route in for me, so reducing the already congested road to three lanes will definitely affect whether or not I decide to go into town to patronize businesses there. I might just switch to using Liberty, but more likely I'll just go elsewhere (Saline, Dexter, Chelsea, Howell), to downtowns that actually want me to stop and stay.
John Q
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 3:25 p.m.
In other words, downtown is such a destination that there's too much traffic and I can't find any parking. Proof positive from you that city officials are doing things wrong?
justcurious
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 3:02 p.m.
I honestly don't think that Ann Arbor cares if anyone from outside their city frequents it. They like to be an island amongst the rabble. They even used to have bumper stickers that said "I'm from Ann Arbor, Right from the first!", whatever that meant. I only go there to usher or go to the dentist. And luckily the dentist is moving...unfortunately to Jackson Ave, just east of Stadium.
Brad
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 12:04 p.m.
So with all the growth predicted for Ann Arbor and all the new parking spaces downtown and the businesses moving there how long will it be before traffic on Jackson hits 20,000 per day? Or is this just a way to choke the auto traffic so as to make the highly-taxpayer-subsidized bus seem like a better option?
Jim Walker
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 5:03 p.m.
18,000 ADT is already on the predictable horizon. Jim Walker, National Motorists Association
Arboriginal
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 11:56 a.m.
I will be out of town, but hopefully somebody will have pics of westbound Jackson at peak hours. Backed up past Warden. What a big mistake!
Atticus F.
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 7:36 p.m.
It will be backed up to main if a bus happens to use the route during rush hour.
Razor
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 1:43 p.m.
It will be backed up past the Huron Dexter split if they do this
hail2thevict0r
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 11:56 a.m.
I don't get why they don't consider just simply widening the road on both sides (if they have the easements to do so) and then creating a wider road + more bike lane space. Getting rid of lanes would all but cause Jackson rd to turn into a parking lot come 5:00pm. I'd certainly find a new route. Just look what has happened since the closure of Dexter-Ann Arbor road right there at the fork. At 5:00 now it takes 3-4 light changes at the jackson/maple intersection to get through that light because of all the traffic - pretty much doubling the time it took before hand. I would expect this to be even worse if they closed an entire lane.
Peregrine
Sat, Jun 30, 2012 : 1:08 p.m.
With a center lane only used for turns I would think firetrucks would have an EASIER time moving through during rush hour. If a car were in the center (i.e., left turn) lane, other cars could shift into the bike lane on either side to make room for that car to get out of the center lane.
foobar417
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 9:29 p.m.
It may be a business loop, but it's also a residential street. That stretch is almost entirely single family homes. And you want to take *more* of their paltry front yards? How about we consider homeowner safety too? I know at least one person who spoke at the public meeting who said it was too dangerous to let their kids play in their front yard.
Left is Right
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 7:02 p.m.
Good thing they're closing that fire station.
John Q
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 3:23 p.m.
Good thing they'll be adding a center turn lane.
Razor
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 1:42 p.m.
I was on the road the other day (430 pm or so) and watched the fire engine trying to go on a call, the cars would not move out of the way. Reduction in lanes is a POOR decision!
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 11:40 a.m.
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. Making busy major roads three lanes instead of four is a really awful idea for the following reasons: 1) AATA buses will now block traffic when they stop. 2) 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) Some of the other higher traffic roads already converted to three lanes from four in Ann Arbor are failed "experiments". 7) The sidewalks could be improved as bicycle trails. Should we inconvenience 15,500 cars a day on Jackson Avenue, 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 use the sidewalks. While I support adding bicycle lanes on widened streets and support adding sidewalks and bike paths where none exist, this is the type of project that makes little sense. There is something you can do, right now. Mark Sweeney at MDOT is the person to make a public comment about this Jackson Road proposal. His email is sweeneym@michigan.gov and you can send an email to him (like I did) to make a public comment about this proposal to MDOT, and please do copy me at ranzini@university-bank.com. Also, email your city council members and the mayor (you can find their email addresses at www.a2gov.org/government/citycouncil/Pages/Home.aspx).
ordmad
Sat, Jun 30, 2012 : 4:21 a.m.
Same drivel, different day. Run for office already.
OverTaxed
Sat, Jun 30, 2012 : 1:16 a.m.
Stephen, you are wrong. The fancy bike path near Whole Foods cost nearly 2 Mil. I think it is just a sneaky way of getting bike lanes. In the last 10 years of living next to this section of road, I have never seen an accident. I say let fees to register bikes pay for the entire lane they would use. I bet a tidy sum. Cars pay a gas tax. What do bike riders pay for their part on the road?
hermhawk
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 6:19 p.m.
I totally agree with this assessment. I once rode a bicycle exclusively, and NEVER rode on the street unless there were no options. That is what sidewalk bike lanes are for. Now I see cyclists ride along side cars who refuse to use the sidewalks. I never bother to comment because I know the cyclist will develop an attitude. Can MDOT and the city use some common sense and skip the reduction altogether?
Epengar
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 3:19 p.m.
It's been made clear over and over that the main reason for this change is that it reduces the accident rate. Bike lanes are *not* the point. Why do you ignore that?
justcurious
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 3:06 p.m.
This is a very well thought out post. Thank you!
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 12:30 p.m.
@peg dash fab: why then did the city spend $1 million building that beautiful bicycle path along Washtenaw Avenue from Whole Foods to University Bank?? Something similar would be great along Jackson Avenue.
peg dash fab
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 12:05 p.m.
Sidewalks are for pedestrians, you selfish scofflaw! You obviously don't care a whit about safety!
SonnyDog09
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 11:39 a.m.
We are public servants. We don't care what the public thinks. Just shut up and send us more money.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 11:33 a.m.
Despite receiving hundreds of complaints, MDOT' is forging ahead and using this meeting as a sop to the majority who oppose the project. MDOT is being disrespectful to the public by not holding a true public hearing. In this article 2,534 people took the poll on this proposal and those against were 2 to 1 on top of those for this project: see www.annarbor.com/news/mdot-inundated-with-negative-feedback-on-jackson-avenue-lane-reduction-proposal/ While this type of project works well with traffic rates under 15,000 cars per day, this stretch of road already has more than that. Our political leaders need to hear from you by attending this meeting and by speaking up because "Mayor John Hieftje said he doesn't see any reason for the city to change its mind." Nor will MDOT unless enough people speak up!
MyOpinion
Sat, Jun 30, 2012 : 2:37 a.m.
@Stephen Lange Ranzini You strike me as a pretty smart guy, but you have a tendency to see things only in "black and white" and twist evidence to your truth. You state: In this article 2,534 people took the poll on this proposal and those against were 2 to 1 Have you ever noticed how often the comments on aa.com have no relation to election results? It isn't just that those that comment don't live in Ann Arbor. It also is a non-representative population. Have you ever heard of the "Literary Digest" poll? It predicted Alf Landon beating Roosevelt.
foobar417
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 9:36 p.m.
@Stephen Lange Ranzini And how do you know you are in the majority? Either of comments to MDOT or of opinion? At the public meeting it was fairly balanced. The number of bike riders in Ann Arbor has exploded over the last decade. I know many people who avoid the sewer of comments on aa.com, because, like mlive.com before it, it's become a self-reinforcing circle of self-righteous cynicism. I can only think of one "public poll" we've had in Ann Arbor ... biannual elections. For a decade we've had a mayor and city council focused on thinking creatively about all modes of transportation, but in terms of sustainability and breadth of modes. And, they keep getting elected. Maybe the majority of Ann Arbor's inhabitants actually like how the city is evolving?
Left is Right
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 6:59 p.m.
"And if the people who posted on this web site actually lived in Ann Arbor, that might mean something." This is a I-94 BL is a federally-funded highway; as such, it's more than just about what the city wants. Frankly, it's likely used by more people that live outside of town these days and it may more directly impact them than it does most city residents. Ann Arbor has many great qualities but it's unwise for it to remain so parochial in its attititudes (and these qualities preceded our more recent "we know better" attitude issue). Same thing goes for the townships. Good argument for a more regional government.
Jim Walker
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 5:01 p.m.
There are two key parameters, the daily traffic rate which MDOT's own analysis report on Road Diets #RC-1555 says 4 ->3 conversions can cause significant traffic delays over 10,000 vehicles per day AND what can be a more critical issue is if the peak hourly volumes go over 1,000 which Jackson will certainly do at some times of the day. The report is available here: http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9622_11045_24249-270908--,00.html Note also that current data says the daily traffic count will likely rise to about 18,000 in the predictable future. Jim Walker, National Motorists Association
sigdiamond
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 3:13 p.m.
"In this article 2,534 people took the poll on this proposal and those against were 2 to 1 on top of those for this project: see www.annarbor.com/news/mdot-inundated-with-negative-feedback-on-jackson-avenue-lane-reduction-proposal/" And if the people who posted on this web site actually lived in Ann Arbor, that might mean something.
Greg M
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 3:02 p.m.
At least some federal DOT material seems to suggest 20,000, not 15,000, as the upper limit for workable 3-lane conversions. The city says the same thing in the article. Where did you find the 15k number? Regardless, it seems like Jackson road is in a "could work" band between 15k and 20k, and thus a good candidate for a test - measure the outcomes and either keep 3 lanes or go back to 4. Count me in favor of actually testing this hypothesis, versus all the armchair quarterbacking from the "experts" (including City officials.) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/10053/index.cfm
Brad
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 11:32 a.m.
Seems like it's the mayor/council who *should* be hosting this type of event since they seem to be calling the shots on this one. But this time they'll hide behind MDOT - sort of like how they hide behind the DDA when it comes to parking.
a2phiggy
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 11:26 a.m.
Let's do this, MDOT: for one month, use stripes and cones to create a temporary version of what you are proposing, and let the chips fall where they may. There is NO reason to do this on a permanent basis without further study. None. This isn't about bikes, this isn't about traffic - it's about common sense. That's not too much to ask of you, is it?
Chris Hall
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 7:28 p.m.
Excellent idea!
Paul Epstein
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 10:43 a.m.
Yes, bike lanes are needed. However, yet another one-lane roadway is awful awful. Guess there's no winning this for anyone.
LuLzTrollFTW
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 10:37 a.m.
Laughing Out Loud!!!
HappySenior
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 10:35 a.m.
Well, earlier stories about this revamping of Jackson have MDOT officials saying the decision is already made and there will be three lanes because that's what the city government wants. What is the point of public discussion?
Left is Right
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 6:43 p.m.
I would not say that this is a forgone conclusion. I'm trying to keep an open mind but if I can attend the meeting, you can bet that I will be making sure that they've done the *right* homework. If they have not, I will register my concerns with officials at higher administrative levels. I suggest that others do the same.
Frustrated in A2
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 6:16 p.m.
My thoughts exactly!
Forever27
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 12:22 p.m.
the city council and MDOT got enough angry emails/phone calls that they have to at least appear to be considering the public will on this move. But, like you said, the decision has already been made.
Titus
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 11:36 a.m.
When there is the perception of choice, people believe that they have free will.
golfer
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 10:18 a.m.
still not a good idea at all. jackson BUSY.if it does it will go back after some one get hurt riding bikes.
Goober
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 10:17 a.m.
Yes - more bike lanes. I encourage the mayor and city council to continue their plans until all cars must drive around the city instead of through the city. This will help the viewing of city purchased art as it will be easier to view when passing on a bike vs. passing while trying to drive a car, dodging pedestrians, pot holes, etc.
Left is Right
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 6:36 p.m.
"It's not about bike lanes, it's about accidents. Why is that so hard to understand?" Because that's the rationalizaton and not the rationale maybe? Because our city government has aptly demonstrated a lack of critical thinking in so many other areas maybe? I remember that from the first attempted conversion, it seemed more about the residents along that section of Jackson thinking that they could divert more traffic to Liberty and Dexter. I was all for it at that time, until I found that it did not include Huron and that major pain-in-the-butt at Seventh where people continue to want to turn left. I think that *some* of the other 423 lane conversions work OK but considering peak traffic loads on Jackson these days, I have serious misgivings about this conversion.
mg0blue
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 3:27 p.m.
@Epengar, I haven't seen any cold hard numbers that reflect the exact number of crashes in this area in relation to other areas in the city, so I am not going to jump on board with that argument. I remember when this story first came out there was no mention of crashes, just talking about the addition of bike lanes. If the city can provide statistics, that are not skewed in their favor, that show there is a higher instance of crashes in that area, then I may be able to swallow this project a little easier.
Epengar
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 3:16 p.m.
It's not about bike lanes, it's about accidents. Why is that so hard to understand?
Goober
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 1:15 p.m.
Sorry, Plubius, but the mayor, most of city counsel and other city leaders have been thinking and acting this way for years. As long as the majority of AA voters leave them in power, they are totally free to do what they want.
Plubius
Fri, Jun 29, 2012 : 12:57 p.m.
So, the thousands of people who drive daily should be inconvenienced by the three who ride bikes? Only in A2 would some one think that this is a good idea.