jns131

Tue, Nov 9, 2010 : 10:04 a.m.

There needs to be a better definition of Yield then the one posted here. Yield means yielding to the right of way to the person who commands the intersection. But if that person is exiting off the round about then the person who has slowed down does not need to stop but cautiously move forward into the round about and get out of it as quickly as possible. As for your definition? I say nada. You get into the grocery store as quickly as possible and get out because you are late for an important date. I do agree people absolutely freeze when inside a round about and think they are going to get hit. Should hear some of the stories I have heard after installing that round about up near Skyline. After installed? One driver flew over the circle going at a hi rate because the driver did not realize changes had been made. OOP's. Yield to the round about and keep moving this is what they are made for. Otherwise, we will send you all to Brighton for a quick fix on that one round about off 23 near that shopping mall. Now that is a scary round about indeed.

Susan Schwartzenberger

Tue, Nov 9, 2010 : 9:05 a.m.

@jns131 - The YIELD sign at the entry of a round-a-bout absolutely means STOP if there is existing traffic in the circle. TRAFFIC ALREADY IN THE CIRCLE HAS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY and shouldn't stop. Of course, since approaching traffic often runs the yield sign, cautious drivers tend to stop inside the circle to keep from getting hit. Stopping when you are in the roundabout is equivilent to stopping under the traffic signal in a traditional 4-way intersection. Not yielding to traffic already in the roundabout is like running a red light in a traditional 4-way intersection. A lot of drivers do not actually know the difference between MERGE and YIELD. Yield often means STOP. I drive daily through the roundabout at Whittaker and Stony Creek. Most people "get it" and I love the smooth flow of traffic. The biggest problem is that many drivers on northbound Whittaker think they can MERGE when there is already traffic in the roundabout. Since I come north on Stony Creek and often want to go into the little strip of offices on the east side of the roundabout, I've nearly gotten hit by northbound drivers who don't yield... about 20 or 30 times. To avoid getting hit... guess what? I have to stop in the circle, which stops the traffic suddenly behind me... I hope. Please, all drivers: If you know the true, legal meaning of YIELD, pass it on to all your friends and family members. If you don't know it: Learn it. Practice it. As for reducing four lanes to two (with a center turn lane and bike paths): Great idea for lots of roads. When there are four lanes, there is always the battle for some drivers to go fast/get ahead/be first, and traffic speeds up. If there is only one lane, it slows down, sure, but there are fewer rear-end crashes, or "avoidance failure" accidents when people have to stop for a car turning left from the "fast lane."

BobbyJohn

Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 7:18 p.m.

@Jake I have to say that I always avoid taking Main St. North of William in downtown A2 because w/ only 1 lane each way it is a constant traffic jam. Hard to go 1 block without hitting a red light. And lots of stop and go. Again, this is very bad for energy efficiency, wear on the car, and inconvenient. 4 is always better than 3, to paraphrase George Orwell

beaumont_slave

Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 4:50 p.m.

you keep believing that jake.. my dad was in road construction for 50 years he built these roads all around here.. he still doesnt understand why they did what they did.

Jake C

Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 3:11 p.m.

@beaumont_slave: "#1 concern is safety?.. since when.. they have degrees thats all.. and statisics. that does not mean they have common sense." And the Average Joe who uses this road automatically has more common sense than the person whose job it is to think about traffic patterns all day long? Their only concern is usually getting from point A to point B as fast as possible without running into someone or getting pulled over for a speeding violation. Why do people think that road designers don't actually drive on the roads they're re-designing *personally* before recommending these kinds of changes? I guarantee you they do, multiple times per day, every day of the week, AND at different times, before even *proposing* a change. And for everyone complaining about roundabouts, US-23 and Geddes is so much better and smoother-flowing since the newly installed roundabouts. Likewise, Main Street in Ann Arbor in downtown (with 1 lane in each direction + a center turn lane) is so much easier to navigate than Main Street from Stadium to Williams where it's 2 lanes in each direction with no center turn lane. I'd much rather have traffic going slightly slower than having people swerving from lane to lane because you can't tell who's turning right or left with all the hills and turns. Examples like Willow or Hewitt streets are all the more reason to put in more traffic-slowing measures to keep traffic slowing at a safer and more constant speed instead of letting people just blow through as fast as posible.

jns131

Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 2:19 p.m.

Doborah? There is a petition going around in that area trying to get speed bumps on Crestwood, Glenwood and Hawthorn. Might want to check it out. I was told only one member of the family can sign it. Might want to check out Geddes road at 23 for its new round abouts. Wow. What a change. Makes getting thru there so much easier. Now to teach people that yield means slow down not stop. There are few areas in Ypsi that need round abouts.

beaumont_slave

Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 12:51 p.m.

@ Bridget.. #1 concern is safety?.. since when.. they have degrees thats all.. and statisics. that does not mean they have common sense. since when was it safe for them to put the cross over from west willow.crossing the freeway in to our neighborhood.. semi's trying to turn and ending up in ppls yards.. trees getting hit,, all on a road that had 18 inches of gravel and base.. not even close to what the state requires for a road.. no curb. because of this mistake from these educated ppl. we ended up with our water and sewer all having to be replaced. They need to let this be for now till they can find a better way to fix it

Bridget

Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 12:40 p.m.

The cyclists might feel unsafe on this road and therefore, bike on the sidewalk or take a different route. Ann Arbor may not be Portland, but does it want to be so car-dependent? Also, many studies and simulations are done before deciding to undertake a project like this. Safety is the number one priority for traffic engineering and if the current rate of accidents is unacceptable, then something has to be done. Even if the road design is not causing these accidents, redesigning it could be a solution. A lane can handle about 1800 cars an hour. The current level of traffic is not even close to exceeding this.

Ignatz

Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 12:37 p.m.

@Woman in Ypsilanti: I don't like the idea of a left hand turn lane, either. As has been pointed out, it alone wolud take away two lanes of travel in each direction. It's been my experience that traffic flows better without a left turn lane when four total lanes are present as opposed to having that lane with just two other lanes. I do like left hand turn lanes, but only when there are enough regular lanes.

beaumont_slave

Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 12:27 p.m.

also... since i drive thru this area repeatedly everday, i want to know if they determined if all these accidents were rear enders. or ppl. running the yellow light and just careless driving, just because there are accidents doesnt mean they are caused by the road and flow of traffic.and yes from russel north the road blends to one lane over the bridge and north and surprise ppl.. ive never seen a bick using the bike lane.. they are always on the walkway

beaumont_slave

Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 12:21 p.m.

NO ROUND ABOUT!!.. i live right there at the intersection of ecorse and ford,, that is the worse designed intersection ive ever seen. when they 1st put that thru it came into our subdivision.The ENGINEER of the day decided to not follow the plans. We had to fight tooth and nail to get them to change it.Changing that intersection down to one lane would be such a hazard.People cant get thru it now imagine all the cars in 1 lane trying to turn or go straight.. over the bridge,and with a round about( i hate those things) the side streets would never get out onto ecorse! PUT a dang bike path on the curb in the grass...obviously no one cares what the people who live around here want anyway.

YpsiLivin

Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 12:19 p.m.

Jake C said: And sorry, but anecdotal evidence should not be considered when conducting major traffic studies. Well, the major failing of using traffic studies to determine speed limits is that traffic studies don't take into account the unique features of the road being studied. Only anecdotal evidence does. In the case of Hewitt, southbound drivers come up a hill while driving around a blind curve in the road. They can't see northbound traffic until they reach the top of the hill and northbound traffic likewise can't see southbound traffic. Until seconds before impact, that is. Slightly farther south, Hewitt has a large valley near Congress which is just deep enough to hide a northbound car. Drivers on the side streets turning left or crossing Hewitt don't see the northbound vehicles that are in the valley or southbound vehicles that are coming up the hill and around the curve, both traveling above the posted speed limit. Until seconds before impact. Drivers in the valley on Hewitt don't see cars stopped waiting to make a left turn from Hewitt onto one of the side streets until seconds before impact. Traffic studies don't take these sight-line factors into account. The end result (for us anyway) of steadfast, exclusive reliance on speed studies has been extensive property damage, increased personal injury and increased risk of injury. Simple studies that merely count the number of cars and their average speed don't always collect the whole story.

local

Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 12:15 p.m.

I drive this section periodically and isn't the bridge that goes over Michigan Ave only two lanes? If that is the case, just keep it two lanes. The fact of the matter is, that section of road is in terrible shape, no matter how many lanes they make it, repaving is a must.

Deborah

Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 12:10 p.m.

I live 2 blocks from russel and ford and I can tell you it is plain old fashioned good sense to slow traffic on that road. The businesses opposing it, like most businesses are doing so because they always oppose change. They like the flow the way it is for some reason. I avoid businesses on Ford Rd between Ecorse and the bridge specifically because of the poor traffic flow and safety. It is about time this got done. We need speed bumps on Hawthorn, Crestwood etc so as to slow people who shortcut from ecorse to ford as well. They go ripping through residential neighborhoods at 40 plus mph

Woman in Ypsilanti

Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 11:21 a.m.

@jns131 I totally agree about the roundabout idea. I used to really hate them but I am coming around. We should do everything to make our roadways as safe as possible even if it means that people have to add a few minutes to their commutes. I hope the next road to get this treatment is Huron River Drive between Hogback and EMU's campus.

jns131

Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 11:11 a.m.

I really hate to say this because I really hate them but we need a round about just after that intersection of Ecorse and Ford. I have seen more people fly thru here and get hit or sit there trying to turn left for more then 5 minutes. This is an extremely busy intersection. I agree with the changes. If we can stop the accidents which a lot of us are forgetting about to a middle turn lane will keep me from hoping the person behind me stops. Our neighbor suffered a total loss from trying to turn. Just glad the vehicle was damage and nothing else. Stop whining and start rejoicing to the fact that maybe people will slow down in that area, finally. MDOT? Remember Lisa Tubbs? She would love a round about in that area too.

jns131

Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 11:10 a.m.

I really hate to say this because I really hate them but we need a round about just after that intersection of Ecorse and Ford. I have seen more people fly thru here and get hit or sit there trying to turn left for more then 5 minutes. This is an extremely busy intersection. I agree with the changes. If we can stop the accidents which a lot of us are forgetting about to a middle turn lane will keep me from hoping the person behind me stops. Our neighbor suffered a total loss from trying to turn. Just glad the vehicle was damage and nothing else. Stop whining and start rejoicing to the fact that maybe people will slow down in that area, finally. MDOT? Remember Lisa Tubbs? She would love a round about in that area too.

Jake C

Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 11:07 a.m.

@BobbyJohn: Yes, the article does indeed quote Mr. Townsend that average speeds on Grove have gone down. However it does not include what the average speed was before, and what it went down to. It is possible that many drivers were regularly exceeding the posted speed limit, but are now travelling at a safer speed. And of course most businesses along the route would object to construction -- any building project makes it more difficult to reach the businesses along the construction route. I wouldn't mind too much if this project were delayed a year or two until the local economy had a chance to make some recovery, but you can't always put economic interests ahead of general public safety. "As for my anecdotal experience, driving on many reduced roads, it has made driving more difficult, less effective time wise, and going at these slower speeds is less energy efficient and more polluting than going at 40-45 mph and are in overdrive." Believe it or not, fuel efficiency can be better at a lower steady speed, instead of people travelling faster but frequently switching lanes and jamming on the gas & brakes. There is no one "magic speed" for getting optimal gas mileage for all cars, nor should that be the primary consideration when designing traffic routes -- safety first, efficiency second. And sorry, but anecdotal evidence should not be considered when conducting major traffic studies. That stretch of Ford road is what, about 1.5 miles long? If everything else stayed the same, a 5 MPH reduction in traffic would make travelling this entire stretch of road about a whopping 10 or 15 seconds longer. If that makes you late for work, you need to plan your commute better. Any claims that cars will "make more pollution" going 5 MPH slower is more than offset by having a steady stream of vehicles that don't have to swerve between two lanes or stop and wait for traffic to clear if someone in front of them wants to turn left because there's no center turn lane. Not to mention all the costs associated with traffic accidents -- police need to show up, ambulances called, traffic backups, etc, etc. Traffic construction experts earn the money they make for a good reason -- they're paid to understand the things that the rest of the public doesn't ever think about (even if they like to complain about it all the time).

Woman in Ypsilanti

Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 10:57 a.m.

@Ignatz I think you are failing to realize that the main reason this change is occurring is to add a left turn lane. That is going to make things safer for drivers of automobiles and ultimately will lead to lower costs for them. So you have four possible lanes. One in each direction and then a left turn lane. What would you suggest for the other lane? Having two lanes in one direction? That doesn't seem like it would add much benefit to anyone. Why not take that extra lane and turn it into bike lanes? Is there anything better which can be done with a single extra lane?

foobar417

Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 10:48 a.m.

@BobbyJohn: You are right. I read right past that. I believe (not based on this article, but one I read a while back, which is why I read right past it) that what he's talking about is the speeds have been reduced by design down to the speed limit. In other words, it has had an impact on excessive speeding, but not on the ability to move down the road at the speed limit. However, I'll have to find the reference to back that up.

BobbyJohn

Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 10:31 a.m.

@foobar If you read the article, you will see that the traffic engineer, Mr. Townsend himself says that the average speed on Grove has gone done since the road was reduced by a lane. You say that traffic engineers do not reduce lanes if road speed is effectively reduced. Obviously not true. As for my anecdotal experience, driving on many reduced roads, it has made driving more difficult, less effective time wise, and going at these slower speeds is less energy efficient and more polluting than going at 40-45 mph and are in overdrive. I am a biking enthusiast and favor making biking safer and more pleasant, but it should not be accomplished making driving more difficult and more polluting. Bicyclists like breathing cleaner air when cycling.

Ignatz

Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 10 a.m.

@foobar417: Looks like we have another wrong law, this one causing us to spend our tax dollars unwisely. Maybe Mr. Snyder can fix that when after he takes his oath. We have extremely limited money to maitain our roads. I don't think it should be spent on things that will almost never be used. This isn't Portland, OR. We have neither the weather nor culture to warrent specific bicycle routes when they take away from motorized vehicles. If we were rolling in dough, I'd support the establishment and maintenace of bike routes, as long as they didn't take away from the real purpose of roads.

Brad

Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 9:20 a.m.

They should take a look at the newly "remodeled" Division St in Ann Arbor before they make the same huge mistake made here. Someone parking on the left side of that street will be killed getting out of the car before it's over. Why would they narrow one of the main N-S corridors through town (or counting Fifth, BOTH of the N-S corridors)? Because they could fit in nine more (or whatever) parking meters.

foobar417

Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 9:18 a.m.

@Ignatz: Your opinion on who roads should be designed for or how state funds should be spent do not match the law. Here is the legal definition of a street in Michigan:(http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/publicact/pdf/2010-PA-0134.pdf): "Street means a street, avenue, boulevard, highway, road, lane, alley, viaduct, or other public way intended for use by motor vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and other legal users." According to Act 51 (www.michigan.gov/documents/act51simple_28749_7.pdf): "Non-Motorized Routes A minimum of one per cent (based on a ten-year average) of MTF funds distributed to the state, counties and cities must be used for non-motorized transportation facilities. Such facilities can be in conjunction with or separate from a road. [Sec. 10k]" An example difference between a fact an an anecdote: Anecdote: I've personaly observed that traffic flows slower when I happen to drive down the street. Fact (made-up example): A certified traffic engineer has designed a study measuring average car speed over a fixed distance over the course of a week before and after a change. That speed went from X MPH before the change to Y MPH after the change. In addition, crash rates have gone from A per time unit before the change to B per time unit after the change. With the latter we can design our transportation according to solid engineering principles. With the former we can argue in online comment forums.

Thomas

Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 9:17 a.m.

well said foobar417. as for the statements from ignatz, get a clue will ya. bikes have had the right to the road long before cars and i doubt reducing the lanes will cause anyone to be late to their destination. i live in one of the grove rd subdivisions and when they reduced those lanes the traffic flowed just fine. it also slowed the speeders that would travel well over the posted speed limit.

YpsiLivin

Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 9:06 a.m.

Once again, I'd like to volunteer Hewitt Road for the same treatment. The speed limit on Hewitt was raised to 45 mph about ten or fifteen years ago and since that time, the residents (because Hewitt between Packard and Ellsworth is primarily residential) have seen a LOT of accidents. Mostly property damage to the cars involved but we've had two rollovers in the past two years, lots of cars ending up on lawns, cars driving on the bike path, a 75% year-over-year mailbox fatality rate, two car v. house collisions - one house got knocked off of its foundation - and that's just on MY block. To make matters worse, the kids from the high school walk down Hewitt in the morning and the afternoon. It's only a matter of time before someone gets seriously injured or killed, but if that's what it will take to get the Road Commission's attention, then so be it. After all, who wants to incur the wrath of "impatient drivers?" The township can't set its own speed limits, the County is asleep at the switch, and everyone is pointing their fingers at the MSP (which is just doing what the data suggest) for raising the speed limit in the first place. Meanwhile, our houses are getting shelled by "impatient drivers" who can't muster the requisite skills to keep their vehicles under control. Going 45 on Hewitt might get drivers to I-94 faster, but it's producing a lot of "collateral damage" to the residences on Hewitt. The drivers who have a problem with slowing down, following the speed limits and respecting the areas through which they're driving probably shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car in the first place.

Ignatz

Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 8:51 a.m.

@foobar417: If bicyclists pay fuel taxes for their cars, then let them drive their cars. If they want to have special, hardly used lanes for their bicycles, then they can pay for them. As for facts, what I see on the roads are more factual than what any studies may portray. Here's another fact: Grove is more difficult to travel since the "improvements".

foobar417

Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 8:34 a.m.

@Ignatz: Roads are not fully paid for by road taxes. Many bicyclists own cars. So yes, bicyclists pay their fair share of roads, particularly given the relative damage they do to the roads.. Moreover, it's the law in Michigan: streets need to be designed for everyone (cars, bikes, pedestrians), not just cars. A center turn lane is actually safer, because cars turning left are less likely to get rear ended when a mistake (failure to signal, failure to observe the car ahead is stopping) is made. Traffic engineers do not recommend road diets unless the facts (e.g. no effective reduction in speed, increaed safety for everyone) warrant them. Anecdotal stories by impatient motorists do not constitute "facts".

Ignatz

Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 7:56 a.m.

When the Grove lanes were reduced, I could see an immediate reduction in traffic flow efficiency. The left hand turn lanes are not needed, since there were two lanes going in each direction. Drivers could anticipate those turning left (if they had their signal on, of course) and move into the right lane. The bicycle lanes (not paid for by those who would benefit) are rarely used, especially in the winter. Since there is a bike path right next to the street anyway, the additions seem really stupid. In addition to all this, with a speed limit of just 35 MPH, I see many drivers get frustrated and pass in no passing zones. I wish those in charge of traffic flow would concentrate on having vehicles move more effectively rather than hinder them. These changes made things worse.

murph

Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 7:18 a.m.

Improved safety (decreased crashes), "no adverse effect on level of service" (traffic still flows just as well), and creating safe places for cyclists (for free). What's not to love? As Commissioner Rutledge notes, this is a decision on facts, not a beauty pageant, and I applaud the Commission (or at least 2/3 of it) for making the decision based on the facts. Thank you for making the County's roads safer for all travelers!

Silly Sally

Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 7:03 a.m.

I really dislike this relentless drive to narrow roads from 4 lanes to 2 lanes with a center turn lane. It slows traffic, enraging drivers who are caught behind a slowpoke. Why should auto drivers lose 50% of their lanes to aide a few bicycle riders, who pay no road taxes? Some roads such as Oak Valley by the Ice Cube have a center turn lane that caused cars to travel near the curb. This is especially dangerous for bicycle riders.