Ann Arbor finally putting money into its neglected roads, but executing plans that are flawed
After delaying street repairs for several years, the city of Ann Arbor embarked on a major repair program, including rebuilding Dexter Avenue from Huron Street to Maple Road on the city's west side.
Steven Pepple | AnnArbor.com
Based on the most recently available data, Washtenaw County was fourth in the state for miles of poor roads at 977 miles with a poor rating. Among Michigan counties, it was 14th in overall percentage of poor roads at 43 percent of its total 5,773 miles of federal aid roads.
Ann Arbor ranked third out of nearly 1,800 municipalities in the state with 189 miles in poor condition. Overall, 55 percent of Ann Arbor's 342 miles of federal-aid qualified roads were deemed poor, the report shows.
Until recently, in Ann Arbor, the streets were allowed to go to pot because the city was saving money, in case it needed it for reconstructing the Stadium Bridges. The sum saved up was huge. According to the city’s June 30, 2011, audit report on page 25, on that date $29,207,631 of “Road Construction Street Repair Millage” fund balance sat in a separate bank account (“bucket”).
However, some say that the amount in the road repair millage account was much smaller and the report says on page 80: “As of June 30, 2011, the city had $15,422,531 in construction commitments for various projects including resurfacing of streets, bridge reconstruction and other road improvements.” How much of that $15 million was reserved for the Stadium Bridge project we’ll never know because the city manages its affairs to keep the maximum amount of information that could embarrass it top secret.
Why didn't they just issue bonds--either for the bridges or for the streets so that they could stay on schedule with repairs, resurfacing and replacements? They borrowed more than $100 million for boondoggles like the “Rog Mahal” and “Big Dig”. Why not borrow for something we actually needed, like fixing the many roads in disrepair?
Let’s use some common sense and stop spending money we don’t have for luxuries we don’t need and borrow only for what is truly needed.
Some say, the money available is insufficient to keep our roads in excellent repair, but I believe poor management policies are largely to blame for wasting a lot of the money that is available. A multitude of management and policy reforms are needed and urgently before any additional funds are wasted or taxes are increased.
I’ll outlined those in more detail in a future column, including poor highway construction practices that the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) requires, the need to scale back gravel trucks and heavy trucks to reduce road damage, the need to implement best practices and massive waste of taxpayer funds on local highway building projects we didn’t need at all.
Making roads pedestrian and bicycle friendly when roads are rebuilt should also be a priority, as it improves quality of life and makes the area more desirable to live in. Microsoft relocated from Albuquerque, N.M., to Redmond, Wash., early in its corporate existence, for example, primarily because Redmond had the Sammamish River Trail, a 10.9-mile bike path and recreational rail trail. By adopting a Complete Streets ordinance, Ann Arbor has some good theory already in place, however how the policy is being carried out is often poorly executed.
I'll be happier when we build out the sidewalk the rest of the way down Washtenaw Avenue to U.S. 23 and when we figure out a safe bicycle passage under or over U.S. 23, I-94 and M-14 where the major roads cross them at the city limits as I've had occasion to bicycle across them and felt lucky my children weren’t orphaned each time I run that gauntlet!
However, when repairing the roads, Ann Arbor’s current city leaders believe that in order to create the bicycle lanes called for by Complete Streets cheaply, we should move away from four lane highways to three lane highways except on the busiest highways. For example, a proposal passed City Council last week to apply to MDOT for conversion of a portion of Jackson Avenue, an I-94 business loop, from 4 to 3 lanes with bike lanes, east of Maple Road to Revena Boulevard, which is where Huron Street splits into Jackson and Dexter avenues.
I drive on and have been inconvenienced by stopped busses, traffic jams and/or other verrrry slow moving traffic on South Main, Packard, and West Stadium where the city has completed conversions from four to three lanes. Ever drive Packard during rush hour? While I rarely travel on the other three, my own experience is echoed in many of the comments I've heard from people in town, and in comments on-line on other articles in the past. If these roads reverted back to being four lanes, drivers wouldn't be so inconvenienced.
The vision here of a car-less, pedestrian and bicycle ruling elite city is very wrong. I love to bicycle and it is important to have adequate sidewalks and bike paths in the city, but not at the expense of causing traffic jams.
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".
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, but is part of a pattern.
On this last problem, 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).
Stephen Ranzini is president of Ann Arbor-based University Bank. He is a former community member of the AnnArbor.com editorial board. You may reach him at ranzini@university-bank.com.
Comments
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Thu, May 10, 2012 : 2:33 a.m.
@Paul A: members of city council with whom I discussed the issue were unable to get this information from the city. While I appreciate you bringing to my attention the WATS publication, the amount you cite is not the amount I was seeking, because before the federal money came in, the city reserved more money for the Stadium Bridge replacement project in their financial statement than was ultimately spent, just in case the federal funds didn't ever arrive.
Paul A.
Fri, May 4, 2012 : 4:11 p.m.
While there is much to comment on in Stephen's column (his arguments against the proposed Jackson Road Diet being the most obvious) I would like to point out one area no one seems to have addressed: "How much of that $15 million was reserved for the Stadium Bridge project we'll never know because the city manages its affairs to keep the maximum amount of information that could embarrass it top secret." Well according to the public and published information (WATS "The Vehicle" publication, April 2012) that amount cited as $6,807,200 coming from the City of Ann Arbor. I would suggest that Stephen do a little basic research before stating that the City is trying to keep information "top secret". If this is indicative of the quality of his analysis, then I think we can probably assume that some of his other data are equally un-researched. Finally, I would be happy to join Stephen on his commute to work via bicycle and perhaps help him feel more comfortable riding and sharing the roadway with other traffic. I encourage him to participate in the many cycling activities taking place this month.
John Q
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 8:38 p.m.
Poor SMC, he doesn't realize that MDOT requires 11' wide lanes on Business Loops.
Jack
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 7:41 a.m.
It appears to me that the City's plan does not actually widen the lanes at all. The lane that is being removed is being used as bike lanes. The driving lanes remain their narrow selves. With cars in the middle turn lanes, there's really not much difference. So, it's really about the bike lanes?
Jack
Sat, Apr 21, 2012 : 5:19 p.m.
John Q: I didn't make any claim. I asked a question.
SMC
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 8:05 p.m.
The current lanes are 10 feet (120') wide. The widest SUV ever made was the Hummer H1, which was 86.5" wide. That still leaves almost 3 feet of extra space per lane, if the entire roadway were usable and not filled with potholes. Is this still about safety, or about adding a convenience for the few (cyclists) at the expense of the many?
John Q
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 4:22 p.m.
An 11 foot wide lane is a standard lane width. The lanes today are not up to current standards. Would it kill you to spend some time getting educated before making your uninformed comments?
SMC
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 2:59 p.m.
Of course it's really about the bike lanes. The addition of said lanes to a major thoroughfare at the expense of motor vehicle traffic flow is by no means a happy accident. I'd love to hear how much everyone would be in favor of this plan, if it did not include the bike lanes. Oh, and the cynical nod to safety is accomplished by making the lanes 1 foot wider.
John Q
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 10:57 a.m.
On what basis are you making that claim? The city clearly stated that the lanes will be wider in the new configuration. So it's not really about the bike lanes.
Left is Right
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 4:55 a.m.
Safety??? Leave it at four lanes and prohibit left turns!
Left is Right
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 4:01 a.m.
Let's look at the economic costs of inconveniencing those 15,500 cars a day in a 423 conversion if you believe the figures that it will add 1 minute to each trip (Mean? Median? Maximum? Minimum? Who knows?). 1 minute / vehicle X 15,500 vehicles / day (assuming occupancy = 1) = 15,500 minutes / day of lost productivity or 32.3 full-time equivalents (FTE's). Assuming each FTE is approximately $50K/year, that simple conversion results in a $1.6M loss per year in productive work. Perhaps not a lot given the other 480 "productive" minutes in a day, but not insignificant. And given that the one minute figure is most probably fairy-tale thinking for the highly non-uniform traffic flow on Jackson and...well...it adds up.
John Q
Sat, Apr 21, 2012 : 4:19 a.m.
Wrong again.
SMC
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 7:49 p.m.
They both carry more traffic than a 2 lane road can support. They have that in common.
John Q
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 4:24 p.m.
What do a freeway and Jackson Road have in common? Nothing.
SMC
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 2:52 p.m.
There's plenty of evidence, John, in the form of giant concrete slabs known as "freeways." None of them are one lane in either direction, and there's a reason for that. If one lane were just as efficient as two lanes, every road would be one lane. But they aren't.
John Q
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 10:58 a.m.
On what basis are you making these assumptions? Just making up numbers. There's nothing to show that a 3 lane road is less efficient than a 4 lane road.
Left is Right
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 3:33 a.m.
For those who are tempted to discount the emergency vehicle issue with the fire station on Jackson, this is the mayor's justification for keeping the fire station on Stadium closed, "We are going to have Stadium Boulevard torn up right in front of the station, so you're only going to have one lane in each direction for much of that time," Hieftje said. "That's just a poor way to go, because there's really no way for those cars to get out of the way for a firetruck." (from annarbor.com) It'll be a lot different for the proposed three-lane on Jackson? Doubt that. Or maybe the Jackson fire station is also on the chopping block?
John Q
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 4:27 p.m.
Amazing how there's been thousands of road conversions across the county, many on roads as busy as Jackson Road. But it's only today that you have discovered this danger that before now was never known.
SMC
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 2:50 p.m.
What good is a left turn lane when the traffic is backed up for a mile in either direction, and the left turn lane isn't continuous, because it has pedestrian islands in it? Will the WBWC send volunteers to help sort through the charred remains of someone's house, or donate money to help rebuild it?
John Q
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 10:58 a.m.
Every hear of a left-turn lane? That's a clear lane for emergency vehicles. No community builds 4 lane roads today. Nice trying to keep Ann Arbor back in the 1950s.
Jack
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 7:33 a.m.
It is
Tintin Milou
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 1:05 a.m.
Sometime they'll give a traffic jam and nobody will come!
pbehjatnia
Thu, Apr 19, 2012 : 11 p.m.
please run for mayor.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Thu, Apr 19, 2012 : 8:10 p.m.
John Q: Contrary to what you assert, I wrote: "3) The road could be widened." Why couldn't this stretch of key high traffic road be expanded to four or five lanes with adequate bicycle paths on either side?
SMC
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 7:59 p.m.
You claim that there is no need to widen the road, based on current or future traffic volumes. Again, I ask, how do you know for certain what the future traffic volumes on Jackson ave will be? Based on current traffic volumes, the backups during rush hour are already bordering on absurd. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation of how merging the same volume of traffic down half as many lanes will be accomplished without making the backups even worse. Every traffic backup that occurs where a large volume of traffic must merge in such a fashion is neither conjecture, nor speculation.
John Q
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 4:28 p.m.
It has nothing to do with predicting the future. It's the difference between living in the world of reality and facts and the world of baseless speculation and conjecture.
SMC
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 3 p.m.
If you can predict the future, John, why are you wasting your time debating this, and not picking stocks, or lottery numbers?
John Q
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 11 a.m.
There's not plenty of space. Nor is there a need. Neither SMC or Ranzini have shown any justification for a wider road based on the current or future traffic volumes.
Left is Right
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 4:51 a.m.
SLR, I'm with you until here. Widening the road would completely change the character of the beautiful Jackson-Splitsville neighborhood. The treelawns are already narrow and the housing setbacks are not generous. These are desirable neighborhoods that would become much less desirable if every whim of the commuting public was accommodated. And I also believe that the four-to-three conversion is not well considered. There needs to be a balance.
SMC
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 3:03 a.m.
The road can be widened, there's plenty of space for it.
John Q
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 2:51 a.m.
Because there's not the required right-of-way to fit the additional lanes? Because the traffic right-of-way doesn't justify the need for 5 lanes. Because a 4 lane cross-section is less safe for drivers than 3 lanes? Because adding lanes will induce more traffic to use this route, leading to as much congestion as exists today. Because adding more lanes increases the city's road maintenance costs. The only argument you've put forward in support of returning to 4 lanes, which you advocated for the roads that have already been converted to 3 lanes, is that some drivers claim to be inconvenienced.
John Q
Thu, Apr 19, 2012 : 7:32 p.m.
Mr. Ranzini's advocacy for 4 lane roads is bizarre. Name one roadway that's been built in this configuration in the last 25 years. Good luck finding an example because no community would build a road this way. It's less safe than a 3 lane or 5 lane cross-section and it less efficient. He might as well be encouraging a return to cars without seat belts and air bags. His comments about forcing bicyclists to use the sidewalk shows he has no clue about providing a safe environment for bicyclists. There's a lot of people in Ann Arbor with years of experience and knowledge in transportation systems. Mr. Ranzini isn't one of them. Before he shares his "expert" opinion with the world, he should talk to some of them so that he can understand why what he's advocating is backwards and dangerous to drivers and bikers.
John Q
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 8:40 p.m.
I'll bet you don't even do it.
SMC
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 8 p.m.
I'll bet it would be more than 33, which is the number of people who attended the city council meeting to discuss this issue.
John Q
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 4:29 p.m.
Go start your petition drive for 5 lanes. Let's see how many signatures you can get for that.
SMC
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 2:48 p.m.
Widen the road, remove the outlawns. Better traffic flow, fewer accidents, and the local residents have less lawn to mow. Win-win-win.
Left is Right
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 4:24 a.m.
Agree Jim. Widening the road is really not a palatable option here; the outlawns are already pitifully narrow. And after being initially in favor of the 4-to-3 change a few years ago--until considering ramifications with fire trucks (who it seemed were constantly driving past my house), buses, etc.--I came to the conclusion that it really was not a good solution for Jackson (moreover, it would do nothing for the problem created by those who bizarrely insist on turning left at Seventh and Huron at rush hour). Somewhat reluctantly, I've come to accept the current narrow-lane configuration of Jackson as being most appropriate. Washtenaw between South U and Brockman has the same problem.
Jim Zamberlan
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 3:15 a.m.
Unless I missed it, no one has brought up the fact that while Jackson Road is a state business loop and a major artery, it is also lined on both sides for almost the entire length of the proposed changes with private residential properties. Are those who advocate for widening the road suggesting that the state take through eminent domain the private property of these homeowners? The setbacks are already quite shallow in many cases. The argument to widen the road seems like a non-starter.
SMC
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 3:07 a.m.
How does a 5-lane road induce more traffic? Will motorists from out of town come to Ann Arbor at rush hour, just to drive on the new and improved Jackson Ave? Roads are widened to deal with increases in traffic, not the other way around. However, even if more commuters choose to use a newly widened Jackson to get to I-94, it might reduce the congestion at the State and AA-Saline interchanges. Win-win.
John Q
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 2:53 a.m.
More lanes aren't better. They increase the city's short-term and long-term maintenance costs, they induce traffic leading to even more traffic and congestion, and they are completely unnecessary. Only a fool would advocate for a 5 lane road for a road that handles less than 20,000 trips per day.
SMC
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 2:41 a.m.
Fine, let's make it a 5-lane road, then. More lanes are better.
EBL
Thu, Apr 19, 2012 : 2:16 p.m.
I would like to comment on the proposed change of Jackson Road from four lanes to three. I am very much in favor of that change. The current situation hazardous. I travel on roads that underwent those conversions (Packard from Stadium to Jewett, and Platt from Packard to Ellsworth and West Stadium. Those changes have made a major improvement in safety and traffic flow. Delays caused by mail trucks (once a day), garbage pickup (once a week) and buses stopping intermittently, are slight inconveniences far outweighed by the important services they provide to the community as a whole, The safety advantages of having a dedicated turn lane far outweigh the advantages of four undersized lanes. On four lane roads, without a dedicated turn lane, cars pull into the right lane, to avoid stopping behind left-turning cars. This occurs many more times an hour than busses stopping or garbage trucks. It's happened to me and forced me off the road. Cars seem to have no problem making their way without incident around busses and garbage trucks on State street, Packard, and South Industrial. This is true on Packard and South Industrial even though both seems to be carrying much more traffic during the Stadium Bridge construction. I also find, as a cyclist, that a bike lane is safer than riding on the sidewalk where cars entering the roadway do not see you. Bike associations agree. In general, vehicle drivers look only to see if auto traffic has cleared before pulling out, and seldom notice pedestrians and bikes on the sidewalk. Nonetheless, I would like to see occasional bus pull offs at major stops such as those that currently exist in front of the Mallet's Creek branch of the library or on Washtenaw by Arborland. This change is long overdue and I would like to see it extended as far along Jackson Road as possible and suggest that it should also be considered for Washtenaw. If it doesn't work, just re-stripe.
Steve Hendel
Thu, Apr 19, 2012 : 1:39 p.m.
This column is just a rehash of Mr Ranzini's previous comments on the original article (re: Jackson Rd) in annarbor.com . Can't we at least get something original?
clownfish
Thu, Apr 19, 2012 : 12:49 p.m.
How many of you ever worked in City Hall prior to the expansion? I worked there in the 80's and way back then it was overcrowded and an inefficient work space. Employees would be in the same elevator with perps moving up to the courts, or be asked to leave the elevator at these times. The police area was crowded and unsafe due to air contamination. Offices were scattered in a many buildings, rented out at commercial rates at cost to the taxpayer. I understand fiscal concern about spending money on an ugly building, but it was needed and long overdue.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Sat, Apr 21, 2012 : 5:27 p.m.
@Jack: Walls and floors can be sealed so Radon does not penetrate basements. Asbestos can be removed and remediated. A new building was not required. A renovation of the building was required. Having a "gold plated" $400 per square foot luxury office with $150,000 hanging art installations in the lobby is inappropriate for a municipal government. If the county had realized that the courts were overstaffed due to a drop in caseload and the extra judge could be eliminated, they would not have asked the city to leave.
Jack
Sat, Apr 21, 2012 : 5:18 p.m.
Mr. Ranzini: I beg to differ. Where were you going to put the Courts? Had you ever been to the fourth floor and seen the "offices"? Like a maze. Tiny, tiny. The police were absolutely crammed into their space on the first floor and basement. The basement was unusable. Between the radon and asbestos, it is not a great environment for one's health. The City had been trying, in the good economic times you seem to believe would be acceptable, to build a new building. The voters rejected it. No time was a good time as far as the citizenry was concerned. Your Border's comparison is disingenuous at best. If the County was so concerned about lease money, perhaps it should not have kicked the district court out of the County Building. That would have helped.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 12:12 p.m.
@clownfish & Jack: many citizens call the building the "Rog Mahal" because the cost of construction was over $400 per square foot, which is a very expensive cost of construction. For example, currently the 350,000 ft2 former Borders HQ could be purchased for under $20 per ft2. Maybe it was needed, but did it have to be "gold plated"? Did it have to be built *now* when there were pressing needs not being met, or later when the economy recovers and tax revenue rises making it easier to afford? Also, building it subtracted from lease revenue the county was receiving, causing them to cut back their own programs to close a deficit. As county taxpayers, we all got hurt by that. Lastly, the number of city employees had already declined from over 1,000 in 2000 to under 650 now, so the overcrowding issue you mention was already relieved. Finally, the "over crowding" in the county court house was caused by having an extra judge that a state judicial committee concluded wan't even needed any more, so building a new court building was a complete waste of tax payer funds. I do agree the police quarters needed renovation, but that would have been a lot cheaper than building the "Rog Mahal"!
Jack
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 7:27 a.m.
I worked there, too. Very crowded and unhealthy. I don't get the snarky Taj Mahal comments, either, other than an attempt to ingratiate oneself with potential voters, as I'm quite sure the author intends one day to run for office. The new building is hardly luxurious. I'm also not clear as to the ability of the City to legally widen that section of road. It is crowded at rush hour but nothing coated to traffic going West on Catherine trying to cross Main at rush hour.
clownfish
Thu, Apr 19, 2012 : 12:43 p.m.
Stadium and Platt have undergone the "3-lane" switch, it works. Unless you can provide some stats to show that it is NOT working your complaints are just hyperbole.
Jim Osborn
Thu, Apr 19, 2012 : 9:18 p.m.
A DOS computer may still work, just not very well by today's standards. First, neither street has the traffic that Jackson has; especially Platt. Neither heads directly towards a freeway on ramp or exit, as Jackson does. Jackson traffic head toward the Jackon I-94 ramp, or turn north to Maple to get to M-14. Platt? Ellsworth? Big deal. Stadium being reduced to only one lane westward certainly exacerbates football traffic that leave the BIG HOUSE. If it were so important to reduce traffic on Stadium west of Main Street from 4 lanes to 3, then why was it so important to have a 4 lane bridge just east of Main Street? We could have saved a lot of money...
Salbolal
Thu, Apr 19, 2012 : 11:57 a.m.
I complain about traffic and street condition, too, but then, I go to a place like LA or NYC, and realize, it's not that bad back here on the other side of the grass.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Thu, Apr 19, 2012 : 7:23 a.m.
Stuart: all great questions to which I don't know the answers except for the one about did the city use up it's bonding authority, the answer is no according to the audited financial (CAFR) report and the one about was the surplus built up to show more cash to boost the bond rating, the answer to which is I doubt it, since the city's 52 separate accounts ("buckets") are swimming in cash, $207 million to $222.3 million at 6/30/2011 depending upon which buckets you include, (see page 21) here: www.a2gov.org/government/financeadminservices/procurement/Documents/City%20of%20Ann%20Arbor%20Comprehensive%20Annual%20Financial%20Report.pdf
Stuart Brown
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 8:44 a.m.
Stephen, Perhaps it is simply a pervasive view within city hall that the citizens are simply marks to be played. The name of the game is to accumulate as much cash as possible to feed what ever pet projects our "betters" can conjure up. Why let roads degrade when the city is sitting on so much cash? The cost of the repairs is much higher when roads degrade to poor status. Ann Arbor has a special millage to pay for road repair and the city along with a pliant council that was more than happy to run interference played the citizens to the max by constantly acting as if the city was broke and could not afford repairs that had already been paid for but not done. Here is another theory on why the city accumulated $29 million in the road repair fund; to get citizens to pass a millage renewal in 2011. The Ann Arbor city council epitomizes all of the negative stereotypes that go with the word "politician".
Stuart Brown
Thu, Apr 19, 2012 : 6:29 a.m.
Steve, I would very much like an answer to the question that was posed: why did the city have no plans to use bonds to pay for the Stadium Street bridge? Was the city's bond authority used up by Roger's bond arbitrage plan? Was the road repair fund a slush fund to support some pet project? The bottom line is that the cost of repairing roads rated poor is much higher than it would have been had the city been using the money for regular maintenance. I heard that it was possible to use water department money if special and expensive pavement that is porous to water is used to replace road in poor condition; was this part of the answer? Another theory is that the road repair fund was allowed to accumulate such a huge surplus in order to maintain a good bond credit rating for the city; this way the city could finance its real top priorities like Raj Mahal and the big dig. The bottom line is that citizens of Ann Arbor paid for Cadillac service but received a Yugo in exchange when it came to road quality.
Epengar
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 7:38 p.m.
I suggest an alternate headline: Bank President ignores safety benefits and accident reduction by new street plan, complains of "inconvenience."
John Q
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 4:31 p.m.
Interesting that you can't produce any evidence backing your claims.
SMC
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 2:46 p.m.
If you research anything long enough, you'll probably find the answer you were looking for in the first place.
John Q
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 11:02 a.m.
They are absolutely baseless. Thousands of road diets elsewhere in Michigan and across the country show contrary to your claim, that these conversions works. Who should I believe? Your baseless opinions or reality? I'll stick with reality.
SMC
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 3:10 a.m.
Until you (or any of your vaunted traffic engineers) can demonstrate how the existing afternoon rush hour traffic will be merged from 4 lanes to 2, without causing massive backups, my opinions and assertions are far from baseless. Tomorrow, at 5pm, take a drive down M14 East, so you can see what happens when rush hour traffic has to merge down to one lane.
John Q
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 2:54 a.m.
So get out there and count the cars. Until you do, I think we're all safe discounting your baseless opinions.
SMC
Thu, Apr 19, 2012 : 12:58 a.m.
If I had evidence, I wouldn't waste my time using it to win a debate with you. However, if the traffic figures come from MDOT, the same group who have historically proven themselves monumentally incapable of a task as simple as proper road construction and maintenance, I have my doubts as to their ability to count cars.
Epengar
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 8:44 p.m.
SMC, I don't believe that traffic statistics have been fabricated. Got any evidence?
SMC
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 8:33 p.m.
Oh wait, here's a better one: "City Council Ignores Crumbling Roadways for Years, Instead Wastes Time Passing Resolutions Stating Moral Opposition to Several Wars and Conflicts, and Lobbying to Make Ann Arbor a Protected Refuge for Spotted Owls."
SMC
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 8:24 p.m.
Nice, but not as good as: "Ann Arbor City Council and Cyclists Coalition Fabricate Traffic Statistics To Further Own Agenda, Get Angry When Common-Sense Public Sees Right Through It."
Ron Granger
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 3:11 p.m.
"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?" Cars don't pay taxes, people do. Sidewalks are deadly because so many drivers don't stop before crossing them, and yield the right of way. Maybe you have a plan for drivers who cross sidewalks unsafely? Your proposal ignores basic public safety. It ignores the concept of sharing the road with other members of the community.
Ron Granger
Thu, Apr 19, 2012 : 1:37 a.m.
Your fantasy that roads are funded solely from gas taxes is just a fantasy.
joe.blow
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 7:41 p.m.
Cars pay a gas tax which helps pay for roads, what do bikes pay? Don't get me wrong, I like bike lanes, but are you serious? I bet you're one of those people who drive their peddle bike down the center of a 45mph road, because you have the same rights as the car going 45mph.
Jeremy Miller
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 4:21 p.m.
State and federal fuel tax pays for road your bike it using.
SMC
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 3:31 p.m.
People who drive cars pay taxes, and there are more of them than bicycle commuters. Pedestrians and cyclists who use the sidewalk should pay better attention to the motor vehicle traffic when crossing streets and sidewalks. Self-righteousness should not preempt self-preservation.
Ron Granger
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 3:04 p.m.
"6) Some of the other higher traffic roads already converted to three lanes from four in Ann Arbor are failed "experiments"." Can you cite specifics instead of empty hype? The reduction in traffic accidents on Packard have been dramatic.
John Q
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 11:04 a.m.
If it's a 4 lane road, it absolutely makes sense to convert those roads to a 3 lane road. That's why it's been done on thousands of these roads across the country.
Left is Right
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 3:44 a.m.
"It's a strawman argument because it has no basis in fact." Suggesting that somehow you're imbued with truth? Ironic in a small way.
SMC
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 3:13 a.m.
In that case, John, why not make every road in town (or better yet, in the state) 2 lanes, with a center turning lane? Wait, I know the answer: because it slows traffic down to a level that is unacceptable for major traffic arteries, which is what Jackson Ave is.
John Q
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 3:05 a.m.
Reducing traffic speed isn't how 3 lane conversions make the road safer. As I've explained numerous times, it's accomplished by removing left-turning traffic from the through lanes, eliminating weaving traffic and in the case of Jackson Road, providing standard width lanes. These changes make the traffic flower more smoothly and more safely.
SMC
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 2:36 a.m.
OK, John, I'll break it down so even the simplest person could understand it: -Rush hour traffic at the Maple/Jackson intersection is currently backed up for an unreasonable distance in either direction. -Attempting to force an equal number of cars into a smaller number of lanes will cause larger backups. This is because two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, and rush hour traffic does not merge efficiently. -Longer traffic backups mean slower traffic, which means fewer accidents. This is how "road diets" produce safer roads. If traffic safety were the only concern, the road would simply be widened to include a center turning lane. Traffic flow would be improved, there would be no danger from people turning left, and there would be no bottleneck effect during peak traffic.
John Q
Thu, Apr 19, 2012 : 7:36 p.m.
It's a strawman argument because it has no basis in fact. You have consistently failed to provide any evidence to back up any of your claims. You make statements about "what you know" or dismiss facts presented because "you know" that they must be falsified. Road diets don't make roads safer because they slow down traffic. In fact, traffic can move just as well or even better after a road diet. Safety comes from removing left-turn conflicts, reducing rear-end accidents caused by left-turners, reducing the number of lanes that drivers have to cross when turning, eliminating weaving in and out of traffic lanes, etc. These are all documented facts from hundreds of road diet projects. "That it also causes an increase in travel times, senseless gridlock, and increased response time for emergency vehicles is of little concern to the bicycle coalition and their followers." Prove it. Show us the studies to back up the claims.
SMC
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 5:06 p.m.
Proponents of road-narrowing and bike lanes have stated that reducing the space available for motor vehicles to travel have cited safety and reduction of accidents as the reasons behind this. I merely point out that yes, reducing the flow of traffic to a complete crawl, which is what the road narrowing does, will naturally cause a reduction in traffic accidents. How is that a straw-man argument? That it also causes an increase in travel times, senseless gridlock, and increased response time for emergency vehicles is of little concern to the bicycle coalition and their followers.
Peregrine
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 4:26 p.m.
@SMC: Can we stop with the straw man arguments? The traffic will move. Let's have an honest discussion.
SMC
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 3:33 p.m.
Of course, there are no accidents when traffic doesn't move. Reducing traffic speeds to 5mph also defeats the purpose of having a roadway network. At that point, we might as well walk everywhere, carrying our worldly goods in baskets on either end of a pole.
tegel
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 2:48 p.m.
Here are a few things to consider: "The vision here of a car-less, pedestrian and bicycle ruling elite city is very wrong." Yes it is wrong, and this vision is all in your head. Bicycle lanes and car lanes are not mutually exclusive. Planning to incorporate bike lanes where possible is hardly the same as wanting a car-less society. Jumping to extremes with rhetoric like this does not promote rational discussion. Please stop. Your reasons it will not work are hardly solid: "1) AATA buses will now block traffic when they stop." According to Google Maps, there are 5 stops on that stretch on the inbound, and none on the outbound. This does not mean it is unworkable. For example, bus stops could be inset to accomodate passing cars. "2) Garbage trucks will now block traffic when they stop" Yes, this is a residential area which will benefit from the slower speeds. Garbage truck scheudules can easily be adjusted to avoid peak hours. Non-issue. "3) The road could be widened." Not practical. "4) Traffic surges at rush hour will cause even worse back-ups." Maybe so. If the situation becomes untenable, it can easily be reconfigured back to 4 lanes with a little bit of paint. "5) It will be a lot harder to turn onto Jackson from a side street." The middle turn lane should make this workable. If not, see 4 above. "6) Some of the other higher traffic roads already converted to three lanes from four in Ann Arbor are failed "experiments"." That seems to be a matter of opinion. Others have commented the success of these changes. Lastly: "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?" As has been stated many times. This is not about adding bike lanes, it is about safety. Cars move way too fast through this area often weaving in and out. The speed limit is 35, but 45-50 seems like the norm. Bike lanes are a side e
SMC
Thu, Apr 19, 2012 : 12:40 a.m.
Yes, Ann, this is the sort of idiocy we've come to expect from the mayor's office. Sadly, that just means we've been desensitized as the years have progressed.
Ann English
Thu, Apr 19, 2012 : 12:04 a.m.
The very idea of closing Huron River Drive from Main Street to vehicular traffic! I remember when M-14 was closed to traffic going north on Main Street, for resurfacing. Drivers took Huron River Drive because they wanted to continue going north, and a lot of them took Maple Road north of Huron River Drive because they could continue going north that way, although they did have to ask directions for how to get from there (Maple and Stein, Maple and Joy) to US-23 north. That entrance ramp to M-14 will eventually need resurfacing again. Vehicular access to Huron River Drive will still be part of a detour when that happens. The lack of bike lanes on Huron River Drive today doesn't stop bicyclist from cycling on it.
SMC
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 6:58 p.m.
I beg to differ, Tegel. No one figured out a plan that made everyone happy for HRD, it took the fire chief to point out the lunacy of the mayor's plan to shut down HRD to motor vehicle traffic, before common sense prevailed, and HRD was repaved in exactly the same configuration it was before. In that instance, the cyclist coalition did not get their way, because it would have resulted in people dying. Were it not for that, the WBWC and their puppet in the mayor's office would have had their bike trail, at the expense of motor vehicle access to HRD. My guess is, they're still bitter about it to this day. Furthermore, those among us with little short-term memory would to well to recall that the WBWC was the force that pushed the nonsensical pedestrian safety ordinance into law. The result is a law that does not make it any safer for motorists or pedestrians, and has cost the city thousands of dollars in new flashing lights and signage. It is sad that a selfish special-interest group has the ear of the mayor and city council, but the rest of the uninvolved residents of our city are equally to blame for letting it happen. Not questioning the common sense of our elected officials is what leads to the sort of brain-dead thinking that's behind the road-narrowing proposal, as is the unwillingness of Ann Arbor's electorate to vote for more than one party. I'm not saying the other party would do a better job, mind you, (far from it, in fact) but having the same party affiliation for every elected official only leads to mindless group-think. You may believe it's paranoia, and refuse to buy into it, but the situation as it exists is not located entirely in any one person's head.
tegel
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 5:53 p.m.
SMC, Thanks for clarifying a few things. Here are some additional thoughts: 1. Biketopia. I still don't buy into the paranoia. For the HRD "plan" you cite, I remember this idea was floated for a section of the road as an alternative due to concern about the environmental effects on the river from the road construction. Ultimately they figured out a way to make it work. I think everyone is happy with how it turned out. 2. I don't know if the insets are feasible, but as I mentioned, there are 5 stops inbound and none outbound. Much different than widening the entire road on both sides. I don't see blocking the bike lanes as an issue. If they are part of traffic, then they will have to deal with temporary disruptions like everyone else. 3. From what I've read, the commercial designation has no bearing on the decision. Do you have other information? 4. It may ultimately come down to widening the roadway, but this would be a major disruption. Much more than a "few blades of grass". 5. Safety is indeed the main concern. If it works, then the road will be much safer (closer to speed limit, less dodging and weaving). If not, then it's no less safe than what we have now. (Btw, the proposal is for 3 lanes not 2) 6. I figured the left turn maneuver is illegal, but so is driving 45-50 in a 35 zone, and that doesn't seem to stop anyone :-) Most people who live in the neighborhoods welcome the proposal and will figure out how to adapt.
SMC
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 3:25 p.m.
I hate to break it to you, but the city council's vision is of a car-less biketopian future. I shall refer you to the mayor's plan for west Huron River Drive, which called for closing the road to motor vehicle traffic and converting the road into a bicycle path, because adding bike lanes was not feasible. If this isn't a blatant example of putting the desires of the few above the needs of the many, I don't know what is. The bike/walk coalition was behind that plan, too. Addressing the rest of your arguments, point by point: 1) You say the bus stops could be inset, yet in point #3, you claim that widening the road would not be practical. How does this work, then? Also, the bus stops would block the bike lanes, which would surely cause public outcry from the cycling community. 2) This is a designated commercial route we're talking about, not a side street. 3) Why isn't it practical to widen the roadway? Yes, it would cost more, but as the city grows, the forethought will pay off. It may require the sacrifice of a few blades of grass, but so did last summer's sidewalk compliance project. 4) Every argument in favor of narrowing the road ends with "if it doesn't work, we'll just restripe it back to 4 lanes." Yet, every proponent of the narrowing plan points to safety as the reason for narrowing the road in the first place. If the ultimate goal is safety, the road should be widened after the 4 lane to 2 lane plan fails. 5) That maneuver is illegal under the state's motor vehicle laws. In short, the argument that narrowing the road in the name of safety doesn't hold water. The safest thing to do is widen the road to accommodate 4 traffic lanes and a center turning lane, but since there isn't room for bicyclists in that scenario, city council is against it.
tegel
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 2:51 p.m.
ffect. (Oop. it said I had 30-some characters left)
Ron Granger
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 2:34 p.m.
Potholes on the streets have interesting benefits: You must pay attention to your driving, or you'll hit them. I contend they help reduce the problem of distracted driving. Someone should study that. Another bonus - they tend to slow speeding drivers.
Left is Right
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 3:06 a.m.
More attention to avoiding the potholes, less attention to pedestrians and bicyclists.
Hmm
Thu, Apr 19, 2012 : 7:56 p.m.
I have seen it all, someone actually thinks potholes are a good thing on here? Wow!
SMC
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 2:48 p.m.
That must be the Hieftje plan to slow traffic while simultaneously reducing enforcement. With that in mind, I think that Jackson ave should be restriped, not repaved. Saves money, and the gigantic pothole collections near the curbs will be in the new bicycle lanes. Perhaps the need to constantly dodge potholes will make the cyclists in our town more observant of traffic laws?
Ron Granger
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 2:32 p.m.
Nowhere in your article do you mention "safety". That suggests that your priorities are misguided and out of touch.
SMC
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 2:36 p.m.
Of course, there are fewer car accidents when traffic isn't moving at all.
Alan Goldsmith
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 2:12 p.m.
According to Lynne Kirby, the MDOT employee who replied to my email of concern on the I-94 Business Route 'conversion: "MDOT appreciates and values your input. We also value the Ann Arbor City Council's Resolution and the city's previous documented plans for the conversion. MDOT will continue to discuss this with the city; however, in the meantime, please continue to provide your input to city staff and the city's council members. Thank you." Yeah, like clueless Margie Teall, our Comic Book Mayor and others in City Government who are on board with this fiasco waiting to happen. Sounds like MDOT has already made up their minds.
Sparty
Thu, Apr 19, 2012 : 12:23 p.m.
Keep on waiting Girl,you'll never get responses from anyone if you live in the 4th Ward. We are the unrepresented, unfortunately.
SMC
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 2:26 p.m.
They wrote a canned response after being flooded with emails and calls from people opposed to the road-narrowing plan for Jackson Ave. It's not the desired effect, but at least MDOT is aware that not everyone in this town is drinking the Hieftje kool-aid. And yes, I agree that no one on the city council is the least bit interested in hearing an opinion that differs from their own, or that of wbwc.org
GirlNextDoor
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 2:22 p.m.
Alan, that's the same canned response I got, twice, from two different MDOT employees. I live in the 4th ward, and last summer I left several messages on Margie's home phone, and I also emailed her about an issue in our neighborhood...still waiting for a response from her.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 2:05 p.m.
@Fjord: Unfortunately, the original piece was actually the length of three AnnArbor.com columns and a lot had to be left on the cutting room floor. Hopefully, when you see Part 2 you'll see the rest of the arguments that had to be cut out of this column to edit it for required length. The main point I am trying to make with this article is that while I like and very much support bike lanes, you can't do it on the cheap by just repainting lines on busy roads. You must spend the money to widen the roads and do it right. Also where bicycle lanes are needed most urgently, where bridges cross the freeway system and there is no safe way for bicycles to pass, have generally not been addressed at all, and should have a higher priority. Now, when the city is again spending tens of millions of dollars a year rebuilding roads, is the time to spend the money and do it right. Instead they are just doing some repaving and repainting of lines, and no road widening.
Unusual Suspect
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 9:10 p.m.
That's too bad. I assumed that since it wasn't filled with spelling and grammatical errors that it couldn't be AnnArbor.com's intellectual property.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 4:57 p.m.
@DonBee: Great point! As always you have great comments related to school issues. @Unusual Suspect: This is AnnArbor.com's policy on the maximum length of a column that applies to all columnists including me. I have to follow this rule to be one of their columnists, which I am 100% okay with. If I set up my own blog I would be competing with AnnArbor.com and that would be incompatible with being an AnnArbor.com columnist unless they tell me otherwise. If you send me an email to ranzini@university-bank.com, I'd be happy to send you the entire original, unedited column, which covers many more topics, as mentioned above. Some of this material will be in the next column dealing with highway & road issues.
Unusual Suspect
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 3:51 p.m.
How can an online blog have a maximum article length? Do you have your own blog somewhere where you can post the whole thing?
DonBee
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 3:49 p.m.
Not only bike lanes on bridges, but as the school district forces more and more students to walk to school, a place for children to cross the freeways on the bridges that is not a traffic lane.
Alan Goldsmith
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 2:05 p.m.
Thanks to my 4th Ward representative Margie Teall for her part in letting our roads fall apart while being more concerned about 'other' priorities. It's time for Ms. Teall, and others who allowed this to happen to be tossed out of office. She's had enough time to prove her 'leadership skills' and has been a failure on this issue and scores of others.
Sparty
Thu, Apr 19, 2012 : 12:19 p.m.
If she showed up at Council that may be helpful - or maybe not. She is useless.
annarboral
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 2:02 p.m.
You say converting four lane roads to three lanes but that's really misleading. The third lane is only for left turns so it is mostly empty. Worse still is that people making left turns tend to almost stop in the traffic lane before moving over to the left turn lane. Often their cars straddle the traffic lane anyway. So we've converted four lane roads to two lane roads at great excpense and for what? I wouldn't use any of the bikes lane because they put fast moving cars in super close proximity to the bikes. If the car or bike wander just a little bit then the bike is in big trouble. I'd guess the bikes agree as 99.9% of the bike lanes are empty. BTW: I really appreciate your comments, keep up the good work!!!
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 2:08 p.m.
@annarboral: Thanks very much for your kind comment!
fjord
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 1:21 p.m.
Starts as an op-ed about road repair in general, but quickly turns into just another bit of whining about the proposed Jackson Avenue project. Focus!
say it plain
Thu, Apr 19, 2012 : 3:41 a.m.
Lol about the in-a-bad-mood comp-101 teacher comments... check the title, though, in the author's defense... "AA finally putting money into its neglected roads, but executing plans that are flawed"... that is a kind of shorthand for "op-ed about road repair in general that will turn into complaints about specific plans", no?!
SMC
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 1:12 p.m.
One important point that was left out of an otherwise well-written article: If the lane reduction on Jackson Ave is implemented, traffic flow will be similar to that of other overloaded one-lane roads during rush hour: it will be an endless line of cars, bumper-to-bumper, from one end of Jackson to the other. When the fire station on Jackson receives an emergency call at rush hour, how long will it take to get the trucks out of the station and on their way, when traffic in both directions in completely impassable? It's sad that no one at the city council or mayor's office thinks of these things, as was the case when they proposed that Huron River Drive (west of Main) be closed to motor vehicle traffic and converted to a bike trail, since funds were not available to both repair the road and add bike lanes. In that scenario, the mayor's blatant pro-bike/anti-car stance was less veiled, but he still did not consider that the roads are used by emergency vehicles as well as bicyclists.
SMC
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 3:09 p.m.
Widening isn't justified based on the current volume of the road, despite the current rush hour traffic backups? Someone needs to do a more accurate count. Oh, and I'm pretty sure it's not the city spending the money, but MDOT, at least most of it. Lastly, when constructing a roadway, it makes sense to make it bigger/better than you actually need it to be at the time, just in case. This is why the Autobahn had no speed limits; it was designed for a 100mph safe travel speed, at a time when no cars were capable of that speed. It's why original sections of that same road network are still in use to this day, having never needed a rebuild. They were built properly in the first place.
John Q
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 3:11 a.m.
Jackson Road isn't being considered for widening because it's not justified by the traffic volume on the road. You want the city to spend untold millions on widening a road for no reason other than your uninformed opinion.
SMC
Thu, Apr 19, 2012 : 12:55 a.m.
"Business routes are primary arterials and begin and end on the Interstate." Ask your cardiologist what happens when you constrict a major artery. You're absolutely correct that I'm dead-set against the idea, because it's being done for the wrong reasons and because it simply won't work. Jackson Ave needs to be widened with a center turn lane to deal with future increases in traffic, and now is the time to do it, with the road needing a major resurfacing anyway. Unfortunately, MDOT's time is being wasted by our city council, as they are now required to consider their nonsense proposal, instead of debating whether or not to widen the road. Yes, it's unfortunate that some people choose to break the traffic laws, especially in residential areas. However, as I've already said, narrowing the road solves one problem by creating a larger one. When last I looked, Jackson Ave was not littered with the remains of pedestrians and cyclists, nor was it listed as one of the more dangerous stretches of road in the city or county. But, since no one can ever argue with measures done in the name of "road safety," everyone seems to automatically accept it as the reason, rather than question why a major route into town is being constricted. While I'm slightly amused that you are the only proponent of this plan who acknowledges that it will cause traffic backups, I have my doubts that anyone headed for the I-94 ramps on Jackson are going to detour down Dexter or Maple. Like the road-constriction plan, it simply doesn't make sense.
tegel
Thu, Apr 19, 2012 : 12:26 a.m.
SMC, From the MDOT Website: "Business Route (BR) - A business route connects the freeway or through highway with the downtown and commercial areas of a city or town. Business routes are primary arterials and begin and end on the Interstate. Business Loops and Business Spurs are types of Business Routes. Business Loop implies that the business route will return to the parent route, while a business spur implies that the business route will only spur into the commercial area and not return to the parent route." It says nothing about it being permissible to travel 10-15mph above the speed limit. You are obviously dead set against even trying this idea and doing everything you can to voice dissent. Nothing wrong with that, more power to you. Some of us hope the city will listen to the recommendations of the the experts, and ignore the doomsday rhetoric on forums such as this. My feeling is that between Miller, Dexter and Liberty, there is enough extra capacity to relieve any congestion caused by this change. I think it's worth a try. We'll just have to agre to disagree and wait to see what happens.
SMC
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 8:15 p.m.
Again, Tegel, cars will be lined up nose-to-tail from Maple Rd west, because slower traffic is safer traffic, as everyone keeps saying. Even if a few cars can pull over to let the firetrucks out of the station, they'll eventually encounter some problems driving up the middle lane, namely the pedestrian refuge islands that are part of this traffic jam creation scheme. Has anyone else stopped to consider why it is that every other fire station in town is located on a 4 lane road? It isn't just coincidence, I assure you. As far as the residents concerns about traffic speed on Jackson Rd, it was clearly labeled as a business loop for years. Business loops mean increased traffic volumes and higher speeds. It's like buying a house next to the airport, and then complaining about the noise. If traffic's moving too fast in front of your house, complain to the city, and perhaps they'll step up traffic enforcement in your area. Oh wait, they won't, because that's the same city council that gutted the police budget. Furthermore, if narrowing the road (which is what reducing the number of lanes really amounts to) is the solution to speeding and traffic safety, why not reduce every freeway through the entire state down to one lane? Just think of the money the state will save on road maintenance and the State Police budget!
tegel
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 7:50 p.m.
SMC, The overall road width will remain unchanged, so I don't see how this will affect emergency vehicles since there will still be room for cars to pull over to let them pass. This should be even easier since there will only be one lane in each direction containing the majority of cars leaving the center of the road will be wide open for them. For someone trying to turn left during that time, they will have to move over just like with the current configuration. As for the local residents, asking people to move if they don't like cars speeding in front of their house is a bit much, don't you think?
SMC
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 6:21 p.m.
Tegel, you're citing examples of traffic that are not right in front of the fire station, where traffic will be backed up during rush hour, because that's what's happens when 2 lanes worth of cars are made to merge into one lane. If there is currently a traffic backup at the intersection of Jackson and Maple, and there is, it stands to reason that the backups will only get worse once the road is narrowed. I did not just speculate the current traffic backups, because they happen every day. Since the proponents of the road-narrowing plan keep citing the improved road safety by slowing of traffic, I am also not speculating when I say that the traffic backups will be even worse. The fire trucks cannot use the bike lanes, nor is it safe for them to use the center lane. The safest solution is to widen the road to include a center turning lane. Furthermore, if the local residents feel that the traffic moves too fast on Jackson Rd, they always have the option of relocating. Jackson avenue has been a business route for longer than I can remember, so it's not as if this was suddenly sprung upon them. They certainly won't lose money selling prime real estate in Ann Arbor.
tegel
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 6:04 p.m.
SMC, This is speculation on your part, since traffic studies show otherwise. I don't think the outboud traffic will be an issue. Going west, Huron is effectively down to one moving lane approaching 7th due to cars waiting to turn left. after that it opens back up to 2 lanes, then the right turn at Dexter would siphon off some traffic just before the proposed area of change. No bus stops after that until Maple. Inbound is a differnt story. I imagine more people will start to use Dexter and Miller helping with the volume, but who knows if it will be enough. I assume this was part of the calculations. I've lived in the area since 1995 and think this is long overdue. The handmade speed limit signs posted in the yards are a good indicator that traffic moves way too fast through that stretch.
SMC
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 1:32 p.m.
City council's solution will be to encourage the fire department to switch from trucks to bicycles.
GirlNextDoor
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 1:29 p.m.
While I was sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic last Friday during evening rush hour I thought the exact same thing about the A2 Fire Station-impossible for the fire trucks to get out quickly, and safely. Both lanes heading west were a "parking lot" from S. 7th all the way to I-94.
bunnyabbot
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 1:12 p.m.
I now avoid going anywhere during the morning or evening rush hour. Getting stuck on any entry or exit route for 94, 23 or 14 is such a hassle that on the rare occasion I have to join the masses I am relieved I don't usually partake in the anxiety inducing headache of it. All arteries (including Jackson Rd, as is) are clogged.
blahblahblah
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 1:06 p.m.
How many more people have to die on US 23 between Ann Arbor and Brighton before our city, county and state leadership take notice?
G. Orwell
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 12:58 p.m.
"The vision here of a car-less, pedestrian and bicycle ruling elite city is very wrong." It is called, "UN Agenda 21." Google it. It is not in the best interest of the people.
aabikes
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 12:57 p.m.
"A summary of the comments from the Jackson road article"
Forever27
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 12:34 p.m.
thank you for this piece, stephen.
Chip Reed
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 12:33 p.m.
I see drivers stopped behind city buses every day. It is my understanding that drivers are to stop for school buses with flashing red lights. When I encounter a garbage truck or city bus that is stopped, I go around it if it is safe to do so. I don't understand why this could not be done on Jackson Ave in a three-lane configuration.
demistify
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 2:13 p.m.
The third lane is legally a turn lane. Using it as a passing lane occurs, but can get you a ticket.
SMC
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 1:14 p.m.
Ah yes, I completely forgot that it was illegal to pass in the turning lane. If everyone obeyed that law, I wonder how smoothly traffic would flow on the other roads that have had their lanes reduced?
Basic Bob
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 1:08 p.m.
Because it is illegal to use the third lane for anything except for deceleration and stopping when making a left turn. The center lane can't be used for passing, and by law it should not be used as a safe haven while making a left turn onto the road. Traffic studies do not reflect that many drivers improperly use the center lane that way. If you use the center lane improperly and cause an accident, you will be cited.
SMC
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 1:04 p.m.
At the risk of inciting another pointless debate (as has happened with other articles on this topic), I will point out that it is not just stopped buses and garbage trucks that are responsible for traffic slowdowns, and getting around them isn't always as safe as it may appear, in the 3-lane configuration. Furthermore, the main problem with the lane-reduction strategy is the bottleneck effect where the traffic must merge together, which will be simply awful at rush hour on Jackson.
smokeblwr
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 11:58 a.m.
I think a subway system would be of great help to reducing above-ground traffic congestion.
DonBee
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 3:45 p.m.
But on rainy days they could double as storm sewers and holding tanks for storm water, until it could be processed.
demistify
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 2:10 p.m.
Subways get very expensive in a flood plain.
Brad
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 11:57 a.m.
At 15,500 vehicles per day on Jackson it is already near or over the threshold (per the city's chief traffic engineer) where a 4-to-3 lane "road diet" would be a low- or no-impact solution to vehicular traffic. Couple that with the various predictions of employment increases in the city and the attendant additional traffic and you come to the conclusion that it simply isn't a workable solution. It will inevitably slow down traffic and increase commute times. As far as making comments to MDOT, I hope that Mr. Sweeney is more receptive than the person who responed to my last comment made through a link provided by another commenter on a previous article. While the response had a thin veneer of respect to it, the general gist was that MDOT was really going to listen to the mayor/council and that if I had any more comments I should direct them there. Thanks for another on-the-money piece, Mr. Ranzini.
SMC
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 1:21 p.m.
@GirlNextDoor: Funny, I got the exact same canned response, from two different employees at MDOT. @theodynus: I question the veracity of the 15,500 number as it is. There is no doubt in my mind that misinformation would be used by the city council and their friends at the Washtenaw Cyclists Coalition to get what they wanted. It would not surprise me if that number were really closer to 20,000.
theodynus
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 1:12 p.m.
I'd question that 15,500 number. http://publications.iowa.gov/2888/1/4to3lane.pdf Page 44 lists many cases in which 4-lane roads with ADTs over 15,000 were converted to 3-lane without any level of service reduction.
GirlNextDoor
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 12:55 p.m.
Brad, this is the canned response I got from MDOT on 4/13. I got the EXACT same response on 4/16 from another MDOT employee. "Thank you for your e-mail. MDOT appreciates and values your input. Please keep in mind, the Ann Arbor City Council's resolution and the city's previous documented plans for the conversion. Thus, it may also be helpful for you to provide your input to city staff and council members. MDOT will continue to discuss this issue with the city." Great article, Mr. Ranzini.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 12:41 p.m.
Thanks for your very kind comment, @Brad!
Kafkaland
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 11:56 a.m.
@joe.blow: I agree, the two lanes on I94 around Ann Arbor are completely inadequate. I believe they looked into widening this stretch ten years ago or so, and determined that a small cemetary near Westgate was in the way, and that relocating it or a portion of it would be too much of a hassle. And that was the end of it. Perhaps time to revist that decision?
Jack
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 6:54 a.m.
The cemetery near Westgate is not small. Many a2 families have relatives buried there. I doubt they would be receptive to having their relatives moved.
blahblahblah
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 1:01 p.m.
The other issue is the number of bridges involved including the one over the railroad tracks by State St.
Jim Osborn
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 11:54 a.m.
Great article! What was left out, I think, was stopped cars behind a vehicle on Jackson who's driver desires to make a right turn, who is anticipating a pedestrian about to cross the a side street. For all of the talk about bicycle safety and lanes, some of the lanes abruptly stop without warning (Division Street), tossing the bicyclist into traffic. The mayor missed a good chance to lobby the County Road Comm. To include a shoulder on the Roads that leave Ann Arbor such as south State Street so bicycles can have a lane. Even 12 wide inches paved 2" deep is better than dirt. A silly picture does little for safety. When a road needs to be torn up and redone from the dirt up, it means that maintenance has been deferred for too long. My friend who is a high level employee in another state's DOT is amazed at how often it happens in Michigan.
SMC
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 1:40 p.m.
I will be looking forward to that column, Stephen. I've often wondered how it is that the Ontario Provincial government has managed to engineer roadways that are much more durable and resilient than the ones in Michigan, despite temperatures that run a wider range of extremes than they do here. It sort of invalidates the "frost heaves" explanation.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 12:38 p.m.
@Jim Osborn: great additional points! I will explain some of the reasons why the roads have to be torn up from dirt up way too frequently in Michigan in the next column, which among other points explains serious and longstanding problems with MDOT's poor construction techniques, which are not to industry best practices, wasting huge amounts of taxpayer money!
joe.blow
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 11:38 a.m.
Ann Arbor has many major problems with traffic. Before we start on inner-city streets, they need to examine outer traffic flow patterns. Why in the world is I-94 3 lanes before and after Ann Arbor, but only 2 lanes in city limits? That should be the first priority! Next up should be making US-23 3 lanes. Get traffic moving around the perimeter, and it will flow better in the inner-city as people choose these routes to get around. Next up, the business routes need to be business routes, with extra lanes, and priority traffic signals. I went from Domino's farms to Best Buy the other day (dumbly) using inner-city routes. IT TOOK ME 25MIN!!!!! AA has a problem, the first step is admitting it has a problem. People here have the mentality that traffic isn't a problem because it's better than Detroit. Ever been to a community AA sized? This one is whack for traffic.
Unusual Suspect
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 3:47 p.m.
Years ago I saw a hand-made sign posted there by somebody reading, "Jackson Rd Death Ramp." Next time you're there take a look at the number of repairs for the next couple hundred yards after that entrance that have been done following the demolition derby that takes place there on an almost daily basis. The cement median is a collection of dozens of concrete patches poured at various times during the last 20 years, and the guard rail on the right shoulder looks like it got in a fight with with Robosaurus.
SMC
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 2:52 p.m.
Real-estate (or lack thereof) is also the reason that the Jackson Rd on-ramp to I-94E appears to have been designed by a sadist with a sense of humor. A ramp/interchange between M14W and I94E would also help to alleviate many of our city's traffic problems as well.
Unusual Suspect
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 2:19 p.m.
My understanding is that the state (who I believe is who would do the expressway work) wants to go to three-lane on I-94, but there are problems involving not only bridges (Scio Church, Liberty and Jackson) but also real estate. The problem is at Jackson Rd, where the expressway squeezes between the cemetery and Westgate Shopping Center. Any widening at that point might require additional land, and it would have to come from one or both of those properties.
SMC
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 1:35 p.m.
It's not just your imagination, it's the predictable result of too much traffic trying to get down not enough roadway. The freeways should have been widened years ago, but they weren't. Proper lane discipline should have been taught in driver's ed and enforced by the police, but it wasn't. Accidents are the inevitable result.
blahblahblah
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 12:52 p.m.
Don't hold your breathe for the much needed freeway work you described. Our city, county and state leadership would rather focus on mass transit (bus, trains, etc.) than address the major freeway problems (US 23 north of Ann Arbor and I-94 east of Ann Arbor Saline). Is it just me or does it seem like the accident rate is starting to go up on the freeway loop around Ann Arbor?
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 12:32 p.m.
@Joe Blow: I totally agree! In the next piece on transportation that I write, I will try to include some of your excellent points, since that piece deals with problems I see wth interstate road construction and county-wide issues.
Sue
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 11:28 a.m.
Stephen, thank you for a reasoned, beautifully written piece. I DID email Mr. Sweeney, trying to echo your calm points. I hope MANY MANY others will to so, too. When I thought about your bullets about buses, delivery trucks, garbage trucks, and disabled vehicles stopping the flow to a road-rage standstill, it really hit home how poorly this has been thought out. Thanks you.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 12:34 p.m.
@Sue: Thanks for your very kind comments!