Public furor aside, rationale for changing Jackson Avenue to three lanes is sound
If public opinion weighs heavily against a proposal to convert a portion of Jackson Avenue in Ann Arbor from four lanes to three, past experience argues in favor of it.
That’s why we are finding it hard to fault Michigan Department of Transportation officials for moving ahead with the change, despite the fury it’s engendering in the community.
And what a fury it is. In a recent poll among AnnArbor.com readers, more than 2,500 people responded, and 62 percent were against it. Angry commenters on our web site have described the idea as “awful,’’ “asinine,’’ “insanty’’ and worse.
As vehement as the opposition has been, it is reminiscent of similar outcries that rang out in this community when other streets - including Platt - went through a similar conversion in past years. But those changes achieved what they were intended to do, which was to improve traffic flow and decrease accidents, and we hear nary a concern about them these days. Given that experience, we are open to the Jackson Avenue conversion. We suspect it will turn out to be a similar non-issue once it’s in place.
Jackson Avenue
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
While opponents of the plan have many objections, a primary one seems to be the concern that it would somehow exacerbate the traffic bottleneck that occurs at Jackson and Maple Road during rush hour. That is indeed a nightmarish intersection at peak times, but there’s not a reason the Jackson Avenue change would necessarily make it worse. Jackson will remain a four-lane street for nearly 1,000 feet approaching the intersection, and most of the traffic that chokes that intersection at the beginning and end of the day doesn’t come from that direction anyway. The higher traffic volumes come from Jackson in the other direction and from Maple. What it would take to reduce that traffic snarl is a whole other issue, and the Jackson Avenue plan isn’t likely to affect it much either way.
There also appears to be a misperception that the conversion to three lanes is being done primarily to allow bikes lanes. While that may be a byproduct of the work, it’s not the purpose for it. The real goal is to make that stretch of road safer for motorists and pedestrians trying to cross the street. It’s simply too narrow - less than 40 feet across, or less than 10 feet per lane - to accommodate four lanes of traffic. Current standards call for at least 11 feet per lane. The narrowness leads to a high frequency of side-swipe car accidents, as well as rear-end collisions, usually caused by motorists trying to change lanes quickly. There were 53 of these types of accidents from 2008 to 2010.
Opponents of the plan ask why the road can’t just be widened, but that is no easy solution. This stretch of Jackson is residential, with many driveways and homes already close to the street. Widening the road would be a costly and complex undertaking, in comparison to the relatively easy task of simply re-striping the street for three lanes.
We’ve also heard concerns that with a traffic volume of roughly 15,500 cars a day, that stretch of Jackson Avenue is too busy to be a good candidate for a three-lane conversion. But that’s not necessarily so. By traffic engineering standards, any road with fewer than 15,000 cars per day is considered ideal for that conversion. Any road with 20,000 cars or more is considered too heavily trafficked for a three-lane arrangement to work. Roads with a traffic volume between 15,000 and 20,000 may or may not be suitable, and need to be studied. In this case, the traffic is at the low end of that range, and the recommendation is to go with three lanes.
One final, less serious concern we’ve heard is that with only one lane in each direction, traffic could be obstructed by AATA buses or garbage trucks. However, there still would be a center-turn lane, and under city code, it is perfectly legal to use the center lane to pass a vehicle like a bus or garbage truck that is moving slowly or stopped. So that needn’t be a problem for motorists.
Local and state officials have taken a heap of abuse for even suggesting this three-lane conversion, but when we look at the facts, there’s a case to be made for the proposal, and past experience - not just on Platt, but on East Stadium, Green, Huron Parkway and South Main as well - has shown that going from four lanes to three can improve traffic safety.
And while we hesitate to oversimplify an issue that has created such furor, we can’t help but observe that it’s just paint. They are going to paint new lines in the road. If it doesn’t work, it’s an easy thing to revert Jackson Avenue back to four lanes. We don’t see compelling cause to block this plan. The case for it is rational in a way that overrides the arguments we’ve heard against it.
(This editorial was published in today's newspaper and reflects the opinion of the Editorial Board at AnnArbor.com.)
Comments
FedUpinA2
Mon, Jul 16, 2012 : 1:05 a.m.
OK, you did this on west Stadium past 7th St., and is terrible there when traffic is heavy. Now you think it will improve Jackson Ave. What are you people smoking??? I pray for the day when get responsible government back in Ann Arbor. This town has a reputation for extreme liberalism, and city council hasn't let anybody think otherwise yet. God help us, the government won't.
Bcar
Tue, Jul 10, 2012 : 11:27 a.m.
Yeah, and the merge into one lane will also be really easy and fast moving... stop drinking the koolaid!!
akronymn
Mon, Jul 9, 2012 : 3:43 a.m.
Thanks for this thoughtful piece. It's a refreshing break from all the uninformed commentary on this upcoming conversion. After experience the change at Platt I'm looking forward to this one.
SEC Fan
Mon, Jul 9, 2012 : 2:02 a.m.
the problem is that the Gods are angry. You can't change the 'number' of lanes of traffic on any road without virgin sacrifices to appease the Gods. we must also vow to give our first born sons for the next 10 years as well as 50% of our crops. and you thought traffic studies and data and facts should influence our decisions! That's pure witchcraft and sorcery thinking.
48104
Mon, Jul 9, 2012 : 1:24 a.m.
Nice to read some sensible words on this overheated topic.
theodynus
Mon, Jul 9, 2012 : 12:06 a.m.
If traffic engineering were something everyone could understand intuitively IT WOULDN'T BE CALLED ENGINEERING.
demistify
Mon, Jul 9, 2012 : 1:59 a.m.
Engineering is a rational pursuit, not magical mumbo-jumbo. It integrates facts and experience into analysis. The results are usually in agreement with common sense, except only in complex and unfamiliar situations (which this is not).
Brad
Mon, Jul 9, 2012 : 12:41 a.m.
I don't need intuition to know that the traffic moves more slowly in the three lane stretches. The speedometer works just fine for that. And if you have trouble keeping your car in the lanes on Jackson then you need to get a narrower car or better driving skills.
Billy Bob Schwartz
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 9:35 p.m.
Tony...I love your fourth paragraph. Sounds like your argument is something like this: The people were asked on other projects what they thought, and they were ignored, and now nobody complains, so why not ignore the public now, too? I.e., the people have been dumb before, and we survived ignoring them, so we should do it some more. Pretty insulting.
JRW
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 9:27 p.m.
You can be sure there will be bike lanes painted on this stretch....one wonders if this is the real reason for making this idiotic change.
JRW
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 9:22 p.m.
Glad I don't have to drive into A2 on this stretch every day. Taking it down to three lanes will cause incredible back-ups. "We've also heard concerns that with a traffic volume of roughly 15,500 cars a day, that stretch of Jackson Avenue is too busy to be a good candidate for a three-lane conversion. But that's not necessarily so. By traffic engineering standards, any road with fewer than 15,000 cars per day is considered ideal for that conversion." Uh, it's already over the 15,000 cars considered ideal, and volumes are INCREASING not decreasing. More and more development on the west side of the city out past Wagner means more and more cars flowing into the city. They just don't get it. Good luck to those of you who live on the west side.
brimble
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 7:22 p.m.
I still don't understand what benefit this has -- someone please offer up why the 4 to 3 will occur for only this portion, and then still be four too-narrow lanes both to the east and the west! As well, I wonder, given that this roadway is designated "Business I-94", whether there are any Federal regulations which apply -- including to lane width and/or lane count? If so, is there any corresponding Federal money available? Surely the City engineers are on top of this, but what are the rules here?
Stephen Landes
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 6:18 p.m.
So we're going to have Jackson Ave going from four lanes to three lanes and back to four lanes in what is, in my opinion, a relatively short distance? Sure, like that makes LOTS of sense.
jcj
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 5:23 p.m.
While we are on the subject of traffic patterns on the west side, let me vent about the numbskulls that drive north on stadium through the light by the dairy queen that puts you on S. Maple. They drive right past the light and then try to turn left into Westgate so they can get to Zingermans! If they would turn left at the S. Maple light they could get into Zingermans much faster WITHOUT tying up the lane meant for left turns onto Jackson going west. I refuse to make room for ANYONE so stupid!
mixmaster
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 4:53 p.m.
A center left turn lane is NOT for passing or for merging from across the other lane. Both moves are illegal and incredibly dangerous. The center turn lane is not the problem. It's the stupid impatient drivers who feel entitled and above the law and other drivers.
say it plain
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 4:45 p.m.
If this city would just fix the timing of the traffic lights (is it on purpose to get people to give up driving altogether!?), and keep the streets in decent repair (Miller Rd anybody? anybody? and maybe we need to use different materials given how often this seems to be rutted by the elements?), probably the citizens would be more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on new changes that they claim will be beneficial.
Brad
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 4:24 p.m.
That's pretty dismissive of the wishes and legitimate concerns of many citizens. Unsurprisingly, AA.com comes down squarely aligned with the wishes of the city "leadership". I couldn't be less surprised. It's what we've come to expect.
Brad
Mon, Jul 9, 2012 : 12:39 a.m.
And who do you think decided that Platt, Packard, Stadium and Jackson should be four lanes in the first place. The "experts"!
Brad
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 11:26 p.m.
The primary claim of road diets is that they increase safety. I don't doubt that. Any time you slow traffic down it will likely increase safety, and road diets DO slow traffic down (fact). Slow it down to zero MPH and it will be safer yet. But society has made a decision that we need to get around somewhat, so we accept a level of risk in order to facilitate that. Having said that, I think there are a number of us out here who don't believe that the increase in safety is significant enough to warrant the increased travel time. It's actually very simple. Anybody know how many pedestrian injuries there have been on that stretch of Jackson Rd.? I sure don't remember many (OK, no) reports of these. So I think it's more a matter of disagreement in the priorities than a matter of right/wrong. Like some people thought the pedestrian ordinance was silly and unnecessary (another thing that was supposed to increase safety but in reality had the opposite effect). So if the majority of AA citizens would prefer to prioritize reduced travel time over increased safety then that is the way it should be. The people making the ordinances are supposed to be "representative", remember? One more thing - wasn't it "experts" who were managing the library structure project that had 5th Ave. closed for years longer than predicted? Didn't we have "experts" design the pretty thoroughly non-working fountain outside City Hall? And even these purported city "experts" keep talking about it like it's an experiment (hey - it's just paint!).
johnnya2
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 9:16 p.m.
Dismissive of those who have not studied the issue or are not experts. It would be like AA.com listening to the views of a large majority of people who believe the earth is flat. It is why there are EXPERTS in fields. I am sure when you go to work every morning you are second guessed by people who do not even work in your industry and you say, well they MUST know more because they are a majority or because it hurts them specifically? I hope not, but if you do, I suggest you are not very good in your field.
Laura
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 4:15 p.m.
A quote from Sgt. Jill Bennett: " Yes, you are allowed to pass in the "third" lane of a roadway. This "third" lane is not the center turn lane. A center turn lane is not considered a "lane" for purposes of vehicular travel because it is there for a specific purpose and is only allowed to be used for a "reasonable distance." This third "center" lane that this section of law is referring to is usually found in a rural area where a "passing" lane has been created so that vehicles may get around motorhomes, travel trailers, log trucks, semi trucks, etc." So.....I'm still a little confused. I've seen this kind of passing done on the new stretch of stadium, but it was always small vehicles passing other small vehicles.
Billy Bob Schwartz
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 9:49 p.m.
The road from A2 to Jackson used to have a lot of three-lane where the center lane was just an extra lane, so regardless of which way you were going, if you wanted to pass you just passed. Lots of head-on disasters back then. Finally, the state woke up and turned it into two lanes. Part of Grand River Rd. used to be that way, too. What a nutty idea.
mixmaster
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 4:49 p.m.
The center turn lane is by law for left turns only. Passing is illegal and using it for merging into the lane across is also illegal. People who make illegal merges and passes are incredibly dangerous potentially causing head on collisions. The size of the vehicle means nothing.
Macabre Sunset
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 4:13 p.m.
Much of this problem would go away if Ann Arbor just hired a traffic engineer who could synchronize the lights. Try driving down Maple/Stadium. You're lucky if you make two lights in a row. If they ran the roads in New York City the way they do in Ann Arbor, the city would be in gridlock 24 hours a day. Ironic, too, coming from a city that supposedly cares about the environment. As long as the road goes back to four lanes 1,000 feet from the intersection, this proposal could work. But it's still a drop in the bucket as long as the traffic department is run by people who don't understand traffic flow.
Macabre Sunset
Mon, Jul 9, 2012 : 2 a.m.
It's too bad they apparently hired the same programmers who designed Microsoft Bob. (inside joke, sorry)
theodynus
Mon, Jul 9, 2012 : 12:08 a.m.
Yeah, gosh, if only Ann Arbor had all their signals on a computerized system that could optimize for any variable the city engineers wanted. Oh. Wait. http://www.a2gov.org/government/publicservices/project_management/trafengineer/Pages/TrafficSinals.aspx
Billy Bob Schwartz
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 9:46 p.m.
I don't know if it still works this way, but it used to be that the only street in town where you could drive straight through without a stop was Packard. Of course, since Packard angles SE-NW (sort of), that meant that the other streets in town were in distastrous non-synch. Maybe Macabre has a good idea here.
Tru2Blu76
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 3:53 p.m.
If Jackson Ave. were to be left alone until the pavement degrades to soil-like consistency, then ox carts would become mandatory on that stretch and the entire problem (of accidents and congestion) would disappear. And since asphalt is much like tar sands, that kind of pavement could be recycled to supplement our dwindling oil supply and move us closer to "oil independence"-! What was the motor vehicle accident rate in Ann Arbor in the year of 1912? That's right: very close to zero accidents per year. We can learn a lot from the past. Buy an ox... and a nice cart for it to pull. There's now a perfectly good ($50 million) underground stable right next to the main branch of the AA Library. So what's the problem?
chapmaja
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 3:14 p.m.
Continuing my previous comment about the plan for traffic at a couple of the worst places in AA for traffic. The off ramp from I-94 would have 3 lanes where it ends. The left lane would be for left turns onto WB Jackson Rd. The Center lane would be for people going straight down Jackson toward AA or for people turning left onto Maple Rd. The right of the three lanes would be a lane for people turning right onto Maple-Stadium. I would also favor one additional improvement that would get a lot of complaints. Add an interchange at Liberty and I-94. It might seem strange, but that interchange, if built properly could keep a substantial amount of traffic off of Jackson Rd and I-94's interchange and Jackson Rd at Maple/Stadium. One thing Ann Arbor really lacks it quality road and expressway infrastructure. The highways are the biggest issue, with all of them, except M-14 needing to be 3 lanes wide all around Ann Arbor. M-14 only needs some improvements to improve traffic flow, and those largely relate to US-23's issues. There needs to be the removal of a couple interchanges and the building of others. There should be an interchange at Pontiac Trail / US-23 / M-14. There needs to be an interchange at Liberty and I-94 to relieve traffic flow from the Jackson Rd-Maple-Stadium area. (This would require a major improvement to Liberty). The problem basically boils down to Ann Arbor being treated a small college town from an infrstructure standpioint, when in reality is a large traffic dependent town. It is time that the government leaders look at what is really needed for the roads around this area and fix the problems that exist.
chapmaja
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 3:04 p.m.
I personally like this traffic idea, but I think a lot more needs to be done around Ann Arbor to improve traffic flow. The area near the expressway interchanges is a major problem in this area. The first thing that needs to change is that I-94 and US-23 both need to be widen to 3 lanes in each direction from the current two lanes The second thing that needs to change is the interchanges all need to be rebuilt. State St. is by far the worst interchange in Ann Arbor. I know it would be a complete mess, but that entire interchange needs to be removed and rebuilt. State St would be a perfect location for a single point universal interchange. In this type interchange there are only 3 light settings for traffic flow. One setting allows traffic straight through the interchange. The second allows two lanes of traffic (one from each direction), exiting the expressway to go. The third setting allows traffic that has to cross the expressway to get on to go. Currently one of the major backups at State St. during rush hour is traffic that has to cross St street and merge into traffic without complete signal protection. When added to a 2 lane each direction expressway is causes major problems. (The root problem is I-94 being too narrow, it needs 3 lanes). As for the Jackson Rd area. I think this is another area that the interchanges need a lot of work. The traffic flow from I-94 to Jackson Rd and turning causes major problems. To fix this I do have a suggestion. First, stop people from making left hand turns from WB Jackson into Westgate, that is idiotic and stops traffic while people let them go. Next, extend the right turn lane for Jackson Rd at Maple all the way back to where the enterence to Westgate is near the gas station. Third, extend the off ramp at Jackson Rd and redo the lights on that off ramp. The ramp should be much larger and much longer. The ramp should begin about 1/4 mile further down I-94.
chapmaja
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 2:44 p.m.
I don't live in the area, but do drive this section of road on a regular basis coming into Ann Arbor for work. I personally think this will be an improvement over the current project, as long as MDOT does a complete conversion and doesn't just repaint the lines. Nothing is more annoying than when traffic is 2 lanes each direction and a bus stops in the right lane of traffic. You get all the idiots who are not paying attention who pull right into the left lane without noticing that traffic is coming in that lane. Now traffic will be forced to slow down when a bus stops then look forward, as opposed to in the review and side mirrors, to make sure it is clear to proceed around the bus/garbage truck. It's easier for drivers to see ahead than behind and left of them. Also, with a left turn lane, there should be a free lane of traffic not stopped by people turning left into residences of down side streets. Finally, there is one additional suggestion that I have for MDOT, as a commuter on this section of road. In the locations where there are bus stops present, widen roadway some to allow the busses more room to the right side of the road, thus they block less of the travel lane and don't require cars to use the full center lane to pass them.
blammo
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 2:23 p.m.
The last paragraph is the biggest misleading argument of the whole thing. "And while we hesitate to oversimplify an issue that has created such furor, we can't help but observe that it's just paint. They are going to paint new lines in the road. If it doesn't work, it's an easy thing to revert Jackson Avenue back to four lanes." I believe that MDOT will be rebuilding traffic signals, updating crosswalk ramps to be ADA compliant, and most likley may be installing pedeistrian refuge islands. Signals will be changed to provide either left turn indications or illuminated signage to show lane assignments. In pavement road sensors will be replaced and located due to new lanes. A ton of signage will have to be installed that properly shows center lane usage, bike lanes, and lanes assignments at the signals themselves. If midblock pedestrian reguge islands are installed, they will be concrete and in the center lane, and may even be built with the yellow flashing crosswalk lights. Plus who know whatever else. Going back to 4 lanes from 3 will be expensive and unlikely. Don't be fooled with "it's just paint". It's WAY more than paint.
BulaBiker
Wed, Aug 22, 2012 : 8:12 p.m.
Read the article. The sections just outside the road diet (where the traffic lights are) is not changing. There will be no reason to change the signs or traffic lights and sensors.Get your facts right!
Jim Walker
Mon, Jul 9, 2012 : 2:47 p.m.
For Barbara Read: You raise an important point that I hope you will ask at the meeting of a high MDOT official and WRITE DOWN the answer. If the system cannot legally be switched back to four lanes, then the comments about "it is just paint" were all false. We need to know the answer. James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, Ann Arbor, MI
Barbara Read
Mon, Jul 9, 2012 : 4:02 a.m.
Don't forget that the new standard is 11'. They may not be allowed to go back to 10' once it's been converted. You find this in remodeling a house: not meeting code in an old building is fine; but once you begin changing things, you'd better meet all the new codes or you won't pass inspection.
crw
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 2:07 p.m.
The metric cited for deciding this is cars/day. But if you were to drive Jackson Rd. at 3am, or even 3pm, either 3 or 4 lanes would work fine. Cars per day is only pertinent if the traffic rate is constant throughout the day, and it isn't. MDOT should be looking at peak period traffic - between 5 and 6pm. I suspect that the volume between First and Revena is 6,500 cars/day higher is due to nonpeak traffic. Perhaps MDOT measured the traffic rate during rush hour, but I have not seen it mentioned anywhere. If this plan doesn't work, the editors say it can just get changed back, but then we'd still have the problem of narrow lanes. If the real solution for narrow lanes is to widen the road, a lot of money will have been spent on resurfacing it only to have to do the job over again.
jcj
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 3:19 p.m.
crw Brilliant that is the best argument I have heard yet! The total number of cars per day is irrelevant! It is the number of cars in a given time frame. What say you Tony?
chapmaja
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 3:18 p.m.
Narrow the road really is not an option. The road is through residental areas and there are laws and regulations regarding how close homes can be to roadways. The only way widening the road does any good is to put a center turn lane and widen traffic lanes in, which requires roughly 10 feet for the turn lane, plus a couple feet for each lane. I'm not sure there is 16-20 feet available to widen the roadway.
swcornell
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 2:07 p.m.
I think this change is a good idea. When I travel this road completely through, I must remain in the right lane the entire time because the left lane is essentially being used as a left turn lane. The right lane has trees growing right up next to the road. So there's little room to maneuver. Hey here's an idea, take the trees out and turn the road into a five lane. Great traffic flow then. This 4 to 3 lane change has been done to other roads with great success. The only reason anyone is opposing this is because they hate that the road will be impassable for a summer while the work is completed! And yes when completed it will mean changing everyone's driving habits, boo, hoo, hoo! It also means that the people living there cannot have a moving van pull up and park there the entire day. After all the road belongs to everyone, not to you.
Chimay
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 1:42 p.m.
How is it possible that passing a stopped vehicle in a center turn lane safer than having four lanes? What a fabulous idea - let's go from having a few fender benders a year to head-on collisions in a center turn lane. Brilliant.
mixmaster
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 2:30 p.m.
That's if people attempt to ILLEGALLY use the center lane as a merge into traffic instead of left turns. The center lane is NOT a merge into traffic lane, people!
Chimay
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 1:43 p.m.
D'oh. ... a center turn lane *is* safer than ...
Think!
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 1:32 p.m.
Tony, Do you know if there are future plans or considerations for doing the same to the stretch of Washtenaw just east of campus?
Adam Schubatis
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 8:22 p.m.
I would whole-heartedly support such a conversion. I live at Hill and Washtenaw, and I think the lanes are much too narrow north of Stadium. Traffic volumes always seem too light on this stretch of road to justify a four lane configuration.
Erhard Rothe
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 1:28 p.m.
On July 1 I wrote the following email to the mayor and to each of the city council members. I received an immediate "Out of Office Autoreply" from the mayor's office. No one else did even that much. Dear Mayor and Council Members: As a result of today's ANNARBOR.com article, and several previous ones, I wish to express my opposition to the change. (1) Today's article cites the daily volume of traffic. Surely a more relevant basis is the rate of traffic flow at different times of the day. I have been stuck in rush hour traffic on the affected stretch several times and it is horrible. And presumably the actual rate near 5PM has already been depressed because of the congestion-created slow flow has influenced canny commuters who have found shortcuts. (2) A previous article quoted the City as saying that traffic experts predicted a better traffic flow after the reduction from four lanes to three. No rationale was presented for this very counterintuitive assertion. (3) The format of the upcoming MDOT meeting suggests that protestors will get short shrift. Why should MDOT personnel not give a presentation so that everyone will immediately see their point of view, and be able to respond or simply ask relevant questions. It makes no sense to have the same half dozen points hashed over individually with every attendee. Sincerely, Erhard Rothe Ann Arbor (5th Ward)
chapmaja
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 2:54 p.m.
Let me explain something to you. If done properly, limiting the flow of traffic can be beneficial in several ways. This plan limits the flow of traffic by removing several logjams in the flow that occur almost every rush hour. That logjam is people making a left hand turn across the flow of traffic. It is very common that people have to stop and block a lane of traffic for many seconds and often up to or over a minute before they can turn. Having a left turn lane eliminate this logjam, and allows traffic to freely flow past this blockage. It is no different than when someone has a garden hose running on full. If they press on the hose, the flow of water is reduced at that point and thus the total flow gets reduced. With all of that said, I do have some concerns regarding how this will be created, and more importantly, why it will not include Huron St. as well as Jackson.
mixmaster
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 1:12 p.m.
Aww, it took some of you 10 more minutes to get somewhere. I feel your pain.
jcj
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 12:58 p.m.
"We suspect it will turn out to be a similar non-issue once it's in place" As most of us know the public meetings coming up are JUST a facade to make it appear someone is listening to the public! It now has a traffic volume of roughly 15,500 cars a day. Roads with a traffic volume between 15,000 and 20,000 may or may not be suitable. Has the number of cars decreased in the last 10 years? Is it expected to stay the same or decrease in the next 10 years? Simple logic says NO. But on the other hand the way the powers that be are railroading things through this community there may be less traffic in the future. "There also appears to be a misperception that the conversion to three lanes is being done primarily to allow bikes lanes. The real goal is to make that stretch of road safer for motorists and pedestrians trying to cross the street." When exactly does all this pedestrian crossing happen? Why would anyone need to cross ANYWHERE except at a designated crossing? There is Nothing on the other side in this area except other residence's! And lastly, Since you are such an expert Tony you MUST live in this neighborhood correct?
Giacomo Senna
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 5:41 p.m.
I am a cyclist, though not a bike commuter so I don't ride on Jackson Road regularly. The bike lanes are not my rationale for favoring the conversion, though they will be a positive outcome of this change IMO. I say this largely because they will create a wider buffer between the vehicle traffic and the sidewalks that carry a lot of pedestrian traffic, including children before & after school. My desire is for smoother traffic flow and a safer environment for both vehicles and those of us who live in the area.
jcj
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 3:17 p.m.
Giacomo Any chance you are a biker?
Tony Dearing
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 2:12 p.m.
I don't live in this neighborhood, although Kyle Poplin, a community member who serves on our Editorial Board, does live in the neighborhood and he was part of our discussion on this issue.
Giacomo Senna
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 2 p.m.
I do live in this neighborhood, and I wholeheartedly support the conversion.
a2cents
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 1:32 p.m.
Anyone silly enough to cross this stretch of 4-lane careening traffic on foot... is no more.
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 1:15 p.m.
"And lastly, Since you are such an expert Tony you MUST live in this neighborhood correct?' I don't know where Tony lives but I thought he was moving to New Jersey.
annarboral
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 12:40 p.m.
You are out of contact with reality. Platt Road changes have made traffic flow dramatically worse. How can you change a four lane road to two traffic lanes (the left turn lane actually impedes traffic as drivers do not fully enter it) and expect anything else? Traffic is backed up on that road. We have totally empty bikes lanes. We have fixed objects protruding from the middle of the road (trafic islands) that will sooner or later cause a serious accident when a careless driver hits one of those curbs. Spending lots of money to make things worse? What a concept!
Halter
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 11:12 p.m.
The problem on Platt is not so much that stretch between Packard and Ellsworth as it is the stretch between Washtenaw and Packard....that backs up completely starting at 4:00 and lasting until well after 6:30 -- thank God I moved out of my house in that stretch of Platt, or it would be impossible to get into or out of my own driveway during those hours...The problem is everyone jostling and jockying to get into the one lane that goes through to south of Packard....and that starts all the way back at the Platt Road Speedway curve....
Robert Hughes
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 2:17 p.m.
I bike on Platt most days that I commute. They aren't totally empty. I often see other bikers on them.
mixmaster
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 1:13 p.m.
No accounting for careless drivers. Don't blame the traffic islands for their inability to drive safely and sanely.
Tony Dearing
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 12:26 p.m.
Whatever your views on this issue, MDOT is holding an open house on Tuesday to discuss it. The open house will be from 5-8 p.m. at Abbot Elementary School, 2670 Sequoia Parkway.
Halter
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 11:09 p.m.
I suggest EVERYONE that has been reading and commenting on these stories attend this meeting
jcj
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 1:02 p.m.
But Tony you said "We suspect it will turn out to be a similar non-issue ONCE IT IS IN PLACE". Why bother going to this meeting to bark at the moon?
mixmaster
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 12:13 p.m.
Ann Arbor's rush hour is just about that, an hour. What's the rush? Slow down and stop whining so much, I hear it causes road rage.
mixmaster
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 12:10 p.m.
People drive way too fast on Jackson/Huron. What's the hurry everyone? Lower the speed limit, time the lights and reduce to three lanes will help keep all but the most ardent driving scofflaws and whiners about 5 more minutes behind the wheel, sane.
Jim Walker
Mon, Jul 9, 2012 : 2:42 p.m.
The speed limit on Jackson Avenue was not set with the access point count method. The 85th percentile speed was studied by the state police in 2006 and was 42 mph near Worden. The posted 35 was not changed, but should have been changed to 40 to smooth out the flow. James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, Ann Arbor, MI
chapmaja
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 2:48 p.m.
Unless there is an 85th percentile speed study done, the speed limit on the section of roadway is set by STATE LAW, based on access points. I would assume that a traffic study has been done on this section of roadway, but I don't know for sure. If there has not been one done, the speed limit is supposed to be based on the number of access points present on the roadway in each 1/2 mile segment.
Linda Peck
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 11:53 a.m.
Time will tell. Sometimes we have to actually make a mistake before we realize it was a mistake.
1bit
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 3:16 p.m.
Goober: It's called voting.
Goober
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 2:39 p.m.
Like the new $750,000 piece of art that lights and runs on rain water? Too bad a lone cigaratte butt will snuff it out. Also, a drought. Too bad this was our tax money. So, if our city officials listen to their own ideas, ignore the feedback of many and the decision made by them is wrong, how do we undo the damage?
Will Warner
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 1:23 p.m.
And there is also this: Life is an uncontrolled experiment, so while we know that some decisions will be mistakes, we may not always know which ones were, even in retrospect.
1bit
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 12:02 p.m.
And the corollary is, of course, sometimes things we think might be mistakes don't turn out to be so.
local
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 11:38 a.m.
I think the biggest issue is that these are elected officials making these decisions. If the same people who elected them aren't necessarily in favor of this move, then shouldn't the elected officials listen to those folks and not move forward? If a majority of the people who elected you don't want something, but you do it anyway, how do you think it is going to go over? I worry about back-ups in this area, it takes forever going in and out of town during those peak hours now. I personally think this will make it worse for those busy times during the day.
mixmaster
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 5:07 p.m.
The only ones who are against this are the few consistently against everything commenters.
Goober
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 2:36 p.m.
Our elected officials have proven that they follow their own agendas, have their own ideas and are free to do what they want until replaced. Fact says that many of them have been re-elected.
brimble
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 11:29 a.m.
The single best argument for the 4 to 3 conversion is the individual lane width. Trying to drive next to a truck of any size on this section of Jackson is certainly harrowing. But how does going from 4 to 3 to 4 (as one drives in either direction) help? Why only this section? The lanes are just as narrow east of the Dexter Ave. interchange. So, what, again, is the reason to do this for only this portion?
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 1:13 p.m.
"Trying to drive next to a truck of any size...." Just a point of fact, no matter how big a truck is lengthwise they are all 96" wide or less on that road.
Arieswoman
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 11:20 a.m.
I live on Platt Road and really like that I have a left turn lane without worrying about someone ramming the rear of my car. I attended the public meetings and some of our input was taken. It has been easier to pull out safely too. Many were against the changes on Platt but it has proven very good for everyone. They put a bus pull off near RiteAid and that helps too. The bicycles have their own bike lanes. I just wish folks coming into the city limits would SLOW down! There is a school zone near me and it is well marked.
Killosaur
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 11:12 a.m.
The goal of the lane reduction is to reduce accidents because there were 53 accidents over a 3 year period. That's about 18 accidents per year on annual traffic of about 5.7 million cars. How safe is safe?
Killosaur
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 6:13 p.m.
Robert, I didn't say that the accidents didn't matter to those involved. I asked how safe is safe. What is the DOT acceptable level of side-swipe accidents and what is the cost to achieve that level? What are the savings gained from eliminating those accidents? Basic stuff, really, but not addressed in the opinion piece.
Robert Hughes
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 2:14 p.m.
Were you in one of those 53 accidents? It matters to the people involved.
northside
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 11:11 a.m.
I fully understand the problems with the road remaining four lanes. It is uncomfortably narrow. But the change to three lanes is very risky and I don't have much faith in the generic engineering standards applied to these situations. Aren't these the same type of standards that led to the speed limit being raised on the dangerous stretch of M-14 near Barton Drive? As for there being a "public furor" about the Jackson Avenue change, all that is cited is a poll on annarbor.com and angry comments. The polls on this site are not scientific and there are angry comments on newspaper sites about just everything.
Goober
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 2:34 p.m.
Our feedback will not matter. The mayor and most of city council want this change for sake of adding bike lanes. On this basis - it will be so!
northside
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 2:08 p.m.
Thanks Tony - the feedback given to MDOT is a legit sign of public disapproval. This site's comments section, however, should not be used to gauge public opinion. Posters here are not a representative sample of the general population. The same holds for polls on the site. For example, if one had based a prediction of the Ann Arbor Schools technology millage outcome on the comments and polls here, the expectation was that it would have been voted down. Instead, it passed comfortably. One reason is that conservatives and libertarians have a disproportionate presence here.
Tony Dearing
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 12:18 p.m.
While we think there's a case for this change, we can't discount the level of public opposition to it, and it's not just on our our web site. Here's another indication: http://annarbor.com/news/mdot-inundated-with-negative-feedback-on-jackson-avenue-lane-reduction-proposal/
Bill Sloan
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 11:06 a.m.
Answers to questions such as traffic patterns and flow should be data driven based upon studies done by professionals whose expertise prepares them to research such questions. Personal opinion based upon narrow observation and anecdotes are essentially irrelevant. For example, after all the fuss, our several roundabouts seem to be working quite well, as predicted.
Robert Hughes
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 2:12 p.m.
Halter, it seems to me that slower traffic is safer traffic. Roundabouts certainly create safer traffic flow. Intersections are one of the most dangerous places on the road.
jcj
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 1:05 p.m.
All ANYONE has to do is look at the MDOT standards now in place! Roads with a traffic volume between 15,000 and 20,000 may or may not be suitable. This road has 15,500 now. End of discussion!
Halter
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 11:26 a.m.
Not true...what the roundabouts has done is to jam up all other access routes as daily drivers avoid them like the plague...I don't see any experts running to examine THAT consequence, just patting themselves on the back for their success.
SonnyDog09
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 10:58 a.m.
Why do "public servants" bother to ask for feedback from the public, when they are just going to do whatever the hell they want, anyway? It goes like this: We're public servants. We don't care what you think. We are smarter than you. Just shut the hell up and send us more money.
Goober
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 11:27 p.m.
To johnnya2 So, anyone who does not like traffic circles is a moron and too stupid to learn new ways? Please explain how your comments strengthen your position and opinions.
G. Orwell
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 2:51 p.m.
To give the impression of participation and give the illusion that they work for us.
Goober
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 2:31 p.m.
Do we know what 'being patronized' means?
Hot Sam
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 10:23 a.m.
When I lived on Huron Street, we studied this extensively ...the worst part of this plan is that it doesn't go all the way in town ...
Jim Walker
Mon, Jul 9, 2012 : 3:28 p.m.
MDOT published a major report on their Road Diets #RC-1555 available here: www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9622_11045_24249-270908--,00.html Quoting from the Abstract on page iii at the very front of the report: "The results of the operational analysis support a guideline that suggests that 4-to-3 lane conversions result in significant delay when average daily traffic (ADT) exceeds 10,000 and, more importantly, when pear hour volumes exceed 1,000." On page 51, Recommendations for Implementation of Research Findings: "MDOT should share the following quantitative, operations-related findings of this research with the FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) and suggest changes to the appropriate section of the Michigan Operations Manual which is addressed to "4-to-3 Lane Conversions." -The ADT threshhold for considering such road diets should be changed to < or = 10,000 -More importantly, detailed operational analysis should be done when ADTs are 10,000 or more OR when pear hour volumes exceed 1,000." Jackson Avenue has an ADT of 15,500 now which is projected to grow to perhaps 18,000 in the foreseeable future. MDOT used peak hourly numbers for Jackson Avenue of 1,145 in the AM and 1,364 in the PM. It seems very likely that the conversion will result in significant traffic delays, using MDOT's published report. The significant traffic delays that may result may not bother the city council, but they WILL bother the thousands of commuters and commercial drivers who need this vital I-94 Business Loop to and from the west of Ann Arbor. The possible diversions of traffic to Liberty, Dexter, Miller, and Pauline and possibly to small neighborhood streets might please residents along Jackson Avenue but are unlikely to please residents on the alternate routes. Interested users should surely attend the meeting at Abbott School on Tuesday July 10 to voice there opinions. James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, Ann Arbor, MI
hail2thevict0r
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 7:23 p.m.
Of course people on Huron Street would love this. It would cut traffic down on their street by a lot.
jcj
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 3:15 p.m.
Nice backhanded slap Tony! Obviously you Tony are not as familiar with your own article as others are! I quote "Roads with a traffic volume between 15,000 and 20,000 may or may not be suitable".
Tony Dearing
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 10:54 a.m.
I appreciate your 2 cents. I was mostly adding that info for others who may not be as familiar with this issue as you obviously are.
Hot Sam
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 10:52 a.m.
I understand Tony...traffic has increased since we did the studies some 12 or 13 years ago...I still think the cyclical nature of the traffic, combined with proper timing of the lights, could be doable...just my .02 (out of many dollars) :-)
Tony Dearing
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 10:33 a.m.
Sam, as you get closer to downtown, the traffic levels are higher, more like 22,000 cars a day, and that's why the plan doesn't extend past Revena, as Jackson Avenue becomes Huron Street. Anything over 20,000 cars a day isn't considered suitable for three lanes.
Chip Reed
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 10:18 a.m.
Thank you for explaining that traffic will not be halted every time a bus or garbage truck stops on Jackson. That sounded like baloney when citizens opined that that would cause everything to come to a screeching halt.
hail2thevict0r
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 8:59 p.m.
that's assuming that all of the people who already back up traffic because they're turning aren't using the turn lane. Now, instead of 1 lane for each side, both sides will be using 1 turn lane. Making it not only more dangerous to use the lane for passing, given you could potentially be going into oncoming turning traffic, but now causing turning cars to back up BOTH sides of the road. Great! Now buses can cause traffic jams on both the east and westbound jackson road traffic! Great idea!
Chip Reed
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 7:46 p.m.
In fact, having a center lane that is only being used for turns makes it easier to get in that lane...
hail2thevict0r
Sun, Jul 8, 2012 : 1:18 p.m.
It seems people who are writing these articles have no idea why people are against it or haven't yet driven down that street during peak times. Even with 4 lanes (no turn lane) a garbage truck or bus in the middle of it backs up traffic for a long while. And forget it if you end up being stuck behind one of those things. You'll never find a space to merge into the other lane. Not to mention the occasional biker. A biker using the 1 lane will back that up for a mile unless there's a planned bike lane (which I don't know if there is or not). Even then it won't be good. If their purpose is to get traffic to move to a different street - I think they'll succeed. But I'm guessing the people on liberty and Miller are going to be a little more than angry when traffic on their street doubles.