West Michigan Avenue to see 'road diet' with 3 lanes, bike lanes
West Michigan Avenue in Ypsilanti Township will go from four lanes to three lanes.
Tom Perkins | For AnnArbor.com
West Michigan Avenue will be trimmed from four lanes to three between Ypsilanti Township’s border with the city of Ypsilanti and Hewitt Road.
Instead of two lanes of travel in either east or west, the road will have one lane traveling in each direction and a dedicated left-hand-turn lane. Bike lanes also will be marked on both sides of the road.
Roy Townsend, director of the Washtenaw County Road Commission, said the change is designed to improve safety along the stretch, which has a high volume of traffic and high number of accidents.
It sees a traffic count of approximately 18,300 cars daily and 135 accidents were recorded there between 2006 and 2010.
The prevailing causes were rear-end and head-on collisions caused by cars turning left into driveways or side streets.
Townsend said providing a dedicated left-hand-turn lane will significantly cut down on the number of accidents
“Road diets increase safety and generally reduces crashes between 30 and 45 percent,” he said. “The accidents are usually caused by cars trying to turn left into driveways, so the road diet gives someone a chance to be in a left turn lane.”
Presently cars turn left from a lane that is also used for traffic traveling through at a regular speed.
Townsend said four-lane roads were commonly built in the late 1970s and 1980s, but are rarely constructed now because of safety issues. Roads are more frequently built with three or five lanes, as there is further west on Michigan Avenue.
Grove Road and Ford Boulevard in Ypsilanti Township also were recently given road diets from four to three lanes.
“The capacity and congestion in a three- or four-lane road is about the same,” Townsend said. “You can move almost as much traffic with three lanes. There is congestion, backups, people weaving in and out of lanes when there are four lanes and someone is making a left.
“You’re seeing more (road diets) statewide, too. Other communities are doing them and you end up with an extra 12 feet of road that you can turn into a bike lane.”
The speed limit will remain 45 miles per hour along the road.
The $500,000 project is funded through a federal safety program and will be completed this summer.
View West Michigan Avenue road diet in a larger map The above map is the approximate stretch affected.
Tom Perkins is a freelance reporter. Reach the AnnArbor.com news desk at news@annarbor.com.
Comments
Doc03911
Thu, Apr 25, 2013 : 12:08 p.m.
How many fatal accidents happen on Mich Ave in that area? If any road needs trimming, it's Hewitt. It has many accidents each year, with four lanes of 45mph traffic and bicycle riders and walking school kids on either side of the road.
Joe
Fri, Apr 26, 2013 : 12:54 a.m.
I definitely agree about Hewitt, but I think the change will be good for Mich Ave as well.
tom
Thu, Apr 25, 2013 : 3:41 a.m.
Where are all these bikes going, I never see any on this part of the road and where are they going from there, to Ellsworth, no way or where across 94, add some way for them to cross 94 maybe but this is not going to attach bike riders, how thye going to get to this area and again why? Ypsi has to be on board for this to work as a true bike lane and the cars move way to fast for this. I am all for bike lanes but they got to lead somewhere, this is kinda a waste without a regional plan for bikes. I ride my bike down MI ave in this area but never feel safe doing it.
Sara 'Noel' Feldkamp
Thu, Apr 25, 2013 : 1:36 a.m.
I am all for bike riding, but I have a better idea for the time being. Instead of MDOT spending all that money on making bike lanes and making traffic back-ups worse than what they already are, why not use that money to fix roads that need to be fixed. I can name at least 5 or more roads that could benefit from some repairs, and by repairs I am talking fixed not fill in the potholes and leave it to be damaged again.
John Q
Thu, Apr 25, 2013 : 3:23 a.m.
This is what is being done Sara. As roads need to be repaved, they are being reconfigured to add center turn lanes and bike lanes are created out of the excess pavement left after converting a 4 lane road to a 3 lane road.
TheDiagSquirrel
Thu, Apr 25, 2013 : 1:10 a.m.
Another show of incompetence from the WCRC. The only diet needed is them from our taxpaying dollars.
nunya
Thu, Apr 25, 2013 : 1:05 a.m.
First, the photo shows a perfectly decent bike path that already exists out of the lane of traffic. Second, many years ago there were several roads setup like this where the left turn lane became known as a suicide lane. Traffic at higher rates of speed (45+) would result in cars using the left turn lane as a passing lane to go around another car turning right (I know it is not legal but it is reality). While this happens someone pulls into the left turn lane and head-on collision. So, I am surprised to hear this reduces head on collisions because my history tells me it can cause them.
Joe
Fri, Apr 26, 2013 : 12:52 a.m.
The photo shows a small portion of poorly constructed sidewalk, not a "bike path." If you're familiar with the area, much of the "bike paths" around there consists of small ruts in the dirt half a foot from the road. Actual bike lanes (especially if they made them protected, though I doubt they will) will make it much safer.
annarboral
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 10:24 p.m.
Road diets for the WCRC have nothing to do with safety. They are "make work" concepts that allow the bureacracy to grow and to get even more union members paying dues to the democratic party. Safety will go from bad to worse when the road shrinks as there will be more rear end collisions not less. Ever notice how those left turn lanes typically have half the car sticking out and blocking both lanes? Also, putting high speed cars in high traffic areas a foot away from bicycles is nothing more than a disaster waiting to happen. I don't know what the answer is for bicycles but the existing bike lanes are either totally empty & useless or very dangerous for anyone to use.
Candy
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 9:11 p.m.
As someone who lives smack in the middle of the affected area and has to drive this stretch daily, obviously I'm not looking forward to having trouble getting in and out of my home base all summer. I wholeheartedly agree with the addition of a left-turn lane since I've come close hundreds of times to being rear-ended while turning left. The bike lane is fine too, though I don't know how many bicyclists ride in the area. The one travel lane in each direction frightens me, however, because drivers in the area are generally aggressive speed demons, and are not going to want to slow down for anyone! The person who said they'll be passing in the left-turn lane is right, and even more tailgating, which could lead to more rear-end collisions, will be going on.
Linda Peck
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 7:52 p.m.
Road diets such as this used to be known as death traps. I remember Telegraph Road in Detroit and Gratiot from Detroit to Ann Arbor being very dangerous because of their 3-lane structure. All roads are dangerous, and some are more so. This fad of the "road diet" is a potential throw-back that I hope will not be as bad I fear it will be.
Chris
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 9:07 p.m.
And Telegraph Road is "IN" Detroit for all of about two miles of its considerable length.
John Q
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 8:26 p.m.
You would have to go back to the days of the street cars to find the days when either Gratiot or Telegraph Roads were 3 lane roads.
a2citizen
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 8:09 p.m.
Gratiot from Detroit to Ann Arbor? And Telegraph is a boulevard with no left turns.
Ross
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 7:41 p.m.
And the knee-jerk, pro-car comments rise again. Bunch of road-raging traffic experts on this site, huh? Everyone chill the heck out. This is a good idea, especially on this stretch of road. The traffic isn't generally very thick, and when it is, accidents result when people turn, from either lane. This will be safer and generally flow just fine. Ok, so one or two hours per day may see a slightly lower average speed. Big f'in deal, it's safer, get over it. My buddy used to live in down town Ypsi and work in Pittsfield; he rode his bike into work as often as he could. but he had to go miles out of his way to avoid this stretch of michigan ave because the drivers were too rude, didn't give him room, and generally threatened his life. The sidewalk is in bad shape, too.
foobar417
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 10:23 p.m.
Clearly proof that there is no need for a bike lane. For bike lanes to attract bicyclists, they have to exist and they have to connect to destinations. Given the segment by segment approach most road projects take, sometimes it takes years and multiple projects to string together a connected infrastructure. This looks like a first step towards making M12 actually bikeable.
SEC Fan
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 7:33 p.m.
Why are they doing this? I suspect the last sentence is the "why"...
EyeHeartA2
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 7:05 p.m.
I thought only AA was the subject of such buffoonery, evidently, it is widespread.
Macabre Sunset
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 6:36 p.m.
Michigan is in the unique position of losing population over the last decade or so. That will not continue, as our one-state recession became part of a national recession, and recovery is inevitable. These "road diets" proposed by extremely liberal governments trying to socially engineer the populace are short-sighted. It won't be that long before congestion spills out onto surrounding roads and side streets and the situation becomes quite difficult. When the stated goal of a government is to promote different forms of transportation - forms that reduce the convenience of transportation - the result may be a short-term spike in those forms of transportation. But the long-term result is people who can choose will choose to live elsewhere. And, more importantly, businesses that can choose will also make that choice. You then get a community that's an unstable mix of elitists who agree with the politics of the government, and people who can't afford to move. They make a good point about four-lane roads: they aren't safe. Five or three is far safer. But a reduction to three will increase congestion elsewhere and create safety problems on those roads. Better to figure out a way to make it five and accept that social engineering is a concept better reserved for novels like 1984 and Brave New World. Take a pass on the Soma, Ypsilanti.
Michael
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 11:35 p.m.
Oh, Macabre. Just as everybody else said: the whole "the sky is falling" deal is really getting old with you conservatives. The hypocrisy is fascinating with your ideology. You despise "social engineering," yet you expect the government to continue to facilitate your gas-guzzling SUV by building more and more roads and wider and wider roads simply because of "market demand." You have absolutely 0 evidence to back up what you say at all. Whereas, there is COUNTLESS evidence for the need for more alternative modes of transportation. Creating these types of development have been SHOWN to make communities more vibrant places to live. God forbid that cities transform back into the places they once were instead of the decaying donuts conservatives have created with their sprawling suburbs.
John Q
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 8:28 p.m.
I love when the conservatives are demanding more government spending in the form of bigger roads that costs millions to widen and millions more to maintain all so that they can get from Point A to Point B in 30 seconds less time.
Ross
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 7:37 p.m.
jeez, Macabre. Extremely liberal gov'ts trying to socially engineer the populace..... The sky is falling! Grab your guns, man! You know what makes this idea so completely non-radical, as you'd so readily fear-monger us to believe? The fact that the road width isn't actually changing. So we can easily change it back if congestion piles up and the situation demands. Chill. Out.
Macabre Sunset
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 7:08 p.m.
Isn't that apples and oranges, though? Grand River splits into a divided road around campus, and there are effective supporting roads to handle other outflow - complete with dedicated left-turn signals. It was hardly a one-change transformation. This is just social engineering - decisions made without regard to car traffic by a small group of people who are more concerned about politics than convenience.
zeeba
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 6:48 p.m.
Wrong. Though it seems counterintuitive, changing a four-lane road to three with a center turn lane actually improves traffic flow, in addition to being safer. I thought it was nuts the first time I encountered it 25 years ago when East Lansing converted Grand River to 3 lanes. I'd lived along that road just a few years before and couldn't see how all that traffic could be handled with one lane in each direction. Surprise, surprise, it worked - and pretty well.
Corner Guy
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 6:09 p.m.
It will be just like Michigan ave from I 94 to Saline.
tosviol8or
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 5:10 p.m.
"It sees a traffic count of approximately 18,300 cars daily and 135 accidents were recorded there between 2006 and 2010. " Yet another demonstration of the lack of perspective shown by policymakers. That's a five-year period during which there occurred 135 accidents among the approximately 33.4 million cars traversing the road. What a major problem. If it were me, I'd track down the approximately 270 automobile owners involved, write them each a check for $1800 from the $500K available to remediate the "problem", and leave the road alone.
demistify
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 4:44 p.m.
"Road diets increase safety and generally reduces crashes between 30 and 45 percent" Indeed, the process can be repeated for further success with more dieting. The ultimate gold standard is zero crashes with zero lanes.
nunya
Thu, Apr 25, 2013 : 1 a.m.
Okay, well, I thought it was funny. Not sure why you are getting voted down.
Brad
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 4:12 p.m.
Here's the statement I like: "The capacity and congestion in a three- or four-lane road is about the same," Townsend said. "You can move almost as much traffic with three lanes." ALMOST AS MUCH TRAFFIC, the expert said. Finally one of them actually admitting to the obvious.
Thaddeus
Thu, Apr 25, 2013 : 2:52 a.m.
One should look at the big picture. While the 3-lane may move as much (automobile) traffic as the 4-lane road, it astronomically increases bicycle/non-motorized traffic and increases safety. When traffic volumes and related criteria merit such, 4-to-3 lane conversions are a wonderful improvement for the livability of an area.
Brad
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 6:16 p.m.
This particular beef is that to date I hadn't seen anyone admit that there is any reduction in flow. There have been anecdotal claims that it has increased the flow in a couple of the diet areas. Just trying to figure out what the real, objective story is about the flow question. If it really does reduce flow then the diets should be billed as such and sold on other merits. Truth in advertising.
Steve Bean
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 5:29 p.m.
So what's your beef then, Brad? I take it you don't think the reduction of collisions is a reasonable tradeoff?
Ignatz
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 4:09 p.m.
I travel Grove Rd. several times a day. It's rare that I see bicyclists on or near there. Those that i do see are on the path that was there before the road was put on a diet. Mostly I see runners in the bike lanes or nobody at all. The main effect the diet had was to pile up traffic behind slow moving cars that normally would have been able to pass before. I do see cars passing one another via the left hand turn lane...how safe might that be?
Billy
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 4:30 p.m.
"The main effect the diet had was to pile up traffic behind slow moving cars that normally would have been able to pass before." Correct...this will have an overall effect of disrupting traffic in the entire area....thus creating huge backups further up the road....cough cough packard....
dsponini
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 3:51 p.m.
BIG Mistake
DJBudSonic
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 3:47 p.m.
That is a lot of work for making only a handful of turning opportunities safer. Why don't they take this all the way in to town?
An Arborigine
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 3:29 p.m.
One person's rear-end collision is another person's road rage at merger points, a la Stadium Blvd.
Ross
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 7:32 p.m.
Ok, but one results in some mis-guided anger that can dissipate, and the other is a physical vehicle collision that can injure and kill people.
Nicholas Urfe
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 3:07 p.m.
Repeated for those who can't be bothered to actually read the article: "It sees a traffic count of approximately 18,300 cars daily and 135 accidents were recorded there between 2006 and 2010. The prevailing causes were rear-end and head-on collisions caused by cars turning left into driveways or side streets."
murph
Fri, Apr 26, 2013 : 2:59 p.m.
Billy -- I'm not sure if the distinction really matters. The idea of the 4-to-3 conversion is to remove the conflict by getting the left turns out of the middle of the travel lanes. We don't need to assign blame (and then do what about it, exactly?) if we have a cheap and easy engineering fix we can make.
Billy
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 4:28 p.m.
Now were the accidents caused by people turning left....or by people failing to stop and rear ending them? It's one or the other...it can't be blamed on both.
Michael
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 2:52 p.m.
This is excellent news! The safety of the whole is much more important than the speed of a few. With all road diets, traffic will move significantly more safely and will provide bicyclists with a great alternative to the sidewalks. With the extra space, wider sidewalks could be integrated as well, possibly even nice transit stops. The 1970s/1980s mentality still lives on in the older generation. Inevitably, this generation is hardest to convince that roads are no longer just for driving their SOVs. They are meant to be spaces where everyone can freely move. It would have been nice to see them turn the far lanes into dedicated transit lanes, but I'll take the road diet as a compromise.
Macabre Sunset
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 6:44 p.m.
For clarification to Michael, "Utopia" comes from the latin word for nowhere. Thomas More wrote of a liberal paradise called "Utopia" where everything was shared and carefully socially engineered. The problem, he wrote, was that when you provide everything for everyone, and the government makes all the decisions about how life should be lived, there's no incentive for anyone to provide the work that makes this paradise possible. Therefore, it's an imaginary paradise.
Michael
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 5:39 p.m.
Demistify, I frequent Michigan Ave on a daily basis. I live in Ypsilanti. The "utopia" that you speak of is not much of a utopia. These are basic urban form characteristics that can be used on any roadway to make it safer. Just because something is, doesn't mean that it has to stay that way. At one point, Michigan Ave did not look that way that it does today, it changed. So, given that logic, why can't it change again, as it is about to? The reason why it changed before was to accomodate the automobile, correct? Well, more attention is being given to alternative modes of transportation because they are vital to any community. I guess if you want to call that "utopia", go ahead. But this utopia you speak of is not that far-fetched.
demistify
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 5:05 p.m.
That's a nice sermon, Michael, but it is in the wrong venue. I suspect that you have never even been on Michigan Ave. It is not downtown. There are no sidewalks. There is no public transit. It is not a good candidate for your utopia.
easy123
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 4:48 p.m.
Superior Twn voter: You have an opinion, as Micheal does. What gives your voice more power over his - literally none. Please take a chill pill and rationalize your answer. You brought no reasonable discussion to the table. In short, it was rude!
Michael
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 4:39 p.m.
SOV is a single occupancy vehicle. Meaning only one person is present in the automobile. It is not an efficient mode of transportation. Its the very reason why we have so much congestion on our roadways, and the old answer has always been to build more and more roads. Not any more. Public transit, bicycle usage, and increased walkability are what will lead us into the future and provide a much healthier way of living and overall healthier community. "Please move out of your parent's basement"? Who do you think you're talking to? I'm not even from this area, and I live on my own. I come from a rural area in northern Michigan, surrounded by a sea of conservatives Trust me, I see the decimation that has been caused by the conservative mindset of the 1970s and 1980s that destroyed downtowns and destroyed the landscape of those cities in favor of the megastores of the likes of Walmart (conservative's best friend). Now, nobody wants to be in downtown areas because the automobile has destroyed the fabric of these communities. And yes, "you young people" do have a lot of answers to the problems that have plaguing society for decades.
murph
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 2:29 p.m.
4-to-3 lane conversions are great ways to improve safety for drivers in locations like this that have lots of turning movements. Having cars stop in the middle of the traffic lane to turn left is a significant cause of rear-end crashes, as well as causing traffic backups. The change will be good for drivers -- anything that happens for cyclists is just icing on the cake. The only problem with this proposal is that it is not going further. The stretch of West Michigan Ave within the City of Ypsilanti has the same issues -- reduced traffic counts, lots of left turns, high crash rates. For the greatest safety improvement, the conversion should be considered all the way to Ballard, at the western edge of downtown.
Ross
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 7:28 p.m.
True, Murph.
John Q
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 2:28 p.m.
It's amazing how mindless fools will fight to keep 4 lanes of unsafe driving conditions in order to show the "bikers" and "hipsters" who is boss.
Michael
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 6:28 p.m.
easy123, by "older", I merely meant those who have been socialized with an auto-centric frame of mind. Usually those people are in their 30s-40s now. Not that everyone in that age range thinks the same, but from my perspective, the younger, more educated are more likely to be in favor of road diets and Complete Streets.
easy123
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 4:45 p.m.
Micheal, I do not see too many "older" folks racing down streets. It seems to be the lower to mid generation on their cell phone hurrying get to whereever they need to go. We have destroyed family neighbourhoods doing this.
Michael
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 2:56 p.m.
I agree. Most often this mentality is seen with older folks who grew up in a time where the auto was king and consideration for alternative modes of transit was non-existent. They are often very hostile to pedestrians, bicyclists and transit because of the car-orientation of their mindsets. Inevitably, they will have to adapt to the way things are going because roads are not going to get any wider.
Ben Petiprin
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 2:09 p.m.
Bike lanes spread hipsters. BIKE LANES SPREAD HIPSTERS!!
aabikes
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 4:36 p.m.
the cool kids used to ride on Michigan ave WAY before there were bike lanes
actionjackson
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 4:33 p.m.
Ben P, Now what have we told you about yelling!
John of Saline
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 4:01 p.m.
That's juts like, your opinion, man.
DJBudSonic
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 3:45 p.m.
Not out there they don't - who wants to get their $1600 fixie stolen?
aabikes
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 3:13 p.m.
bahahahah! :)
Plubius
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 1:39 p.m.
'Road Diets' are nothing more than an attempt by the liberal political elite to rid the world of automobiles by making safe and efficient automobile travel impossible. When will this insanity end?
Joe
Fri, Apr 26, 2013 : 12:44 a.m.
MURKA! Yeah, I'm pretty sure Plubius and Superior are joking.
easy123
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 4:42 p.m.
I hope this is a joke. If you travel the road, you are a vistor in the neighbourhood. As a visitor, please treat the place with a certain degree of respect. You would not want this kind of traffic in your neighbourhood.. I never thought I was say this, but this needs to happen to N. main st. Some self-absorbant nacicissists commute to the UofM and use this road as their race track and cutting people off need to be ticketed. We are not beholden to them. When do the residents of A2 need to be worried about the inconveniences of commuters. Some A2 commuters, we know you need to get home -but don't try to save a minutes by being reckless. This are not your personal roads.
Superior Twp voter
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 4:10 p.m.
At Michael - "Progressives care about our fellow man significantly more than conservatives (its all about caring about yourself and nobody else)." What a statement of pure hog tripe. Soon you'll be trying to tell us you and the Democrats freed the slaves.
Michael
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 3:05 p.m.
Hahahaha. Oh, that's rich. So the safety of the public is not important to you? You need to get somewhere in such a rush that you could care less about your surroundings? What makes you think that the automobile should be treated above all other modes of transportation? They should all be treated with equal consideration. Progressives care about our fellow man significantly more than conservatives (its all about caring about yourself and nobody else). Unfortunately for you, Washtenaw County is an incredibly progressive county and you will only continue to see road diets occur and more focus on alternative modes of transit. You're going to have to either get used to it, accept it and adapt, or continue to complain about the world changing around you.
Billy
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 12:40 p.m.
Um...how much bike traffic does that area get? Yeah that's what I thought....why are they doing this again?
Joe
Fri, Apr 26, 2013 : 12:42 a.m.
They're building bike lanes... because... it sucks to ride a bike there. Why are you confused?
Bob Needham
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 3:15 p.m.
From the article: "Roy Townsend, director of the Washtenaw County Road Commission, said the change is designed to improve safety along the stretch, which has a high volume of traffic and high number of accidents." And from murph's comment below: "4-to-3 lane conversions are great ways to improve safety for drivers in locations like this that have lots of turning movements. Having cars stop in the middle of the traffic lane to turn left is a significant cause of rear-end crashes, as well as causing traffic backups. The change will be good for drivers -- anything that happens for cyclists is just icing on the cake."
foobar417
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 3:12 p.m.
As the article states, they are doing this to reduce crashes. It's a side benefit that you get bike lanes. PS Do you think it might be possible that the lack of bike facilities might be surpressing bike traffic?
Nicholas Urfe
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 3:06 p.m.
Did you read the article? Most crashes are caused by vehicles turning left.
Tom Joad
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 12:05 p.m.
About time intelligent engineering is applied. A dedicated left-turn lane is eminently safer than blocking an entire lane of traffic while a car makes a left turn into their driveway. Building more lanes is not an option as the expense is prohibitive and more lanes do not lead to faster travel. They learned that in Los Angeles when they started building 8-lane expressways. Traffic always fills up available space. You may not want to ride a bicycle on that current stretch but with demarcated bike-lanes you certainly may, because it makes it much safer for cyclists. It's a win-win for everyone. This 3-lane model should be utilized on Main and Huron Streets as well. The hegemony of the automobile is coming to an end.
Hugh Giariola
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 11:46 a.m.
As if anyone would ride a bicycle on that stretch of road. It's like putting antelope in the lion pen at at the zoo.
Joe
Fri, Apr 26, 2013 : 12:41 a.m.
Ergo, bike lanes.
jns131
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 11:37 p.m.
I love the new commercial for those zippy dips for french fries. This is the lamb go into the pigs pen and says smoke em out. Or some such nonsense.
motorcycleminer
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 11:33 a.m.
The ameba of Oz insanity moves east now too....could we have expected less.....
A2comments
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 10:48 a.m.
To ride a bike on that piece of road is to plan your own demise...
jns131
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 11:36 p.m.
Biking on any road in Washtenaw county is taking your own demise into your own hands. Give me a sidewalk any day of the week.
Chris
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 9 p.m.
It is now, but not after there are bike lanes.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 10:24 a.m.
"It sees a traffic count of approximately 18,300 cars daily..." MDOT does not recommend a road diet on roads with more than 15.000 cars a day of traffic. The road should be expanded to five lanes to reduce the traffic accident rate.
Kyle Mattson
Tue, Apr 30, 2013 : 5:04 p.m.
Hi all- Just a reminder that we have comments here on the site to give everyone in the community the opportunity to weigh in on the topics we report on. We understand that everyone has a different perspective on how commenting should be conducted and their own personal comfort level to posting and try to consider that within the practice of managing the feature on AnnArbor.com. If anyone has a question or concern they'd like to raise regarding another commenter feel free to shoot me an e-mail otherwise let's try to keep the focus on the story at hand. Thanks.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Thu, Apr 25, 2013 : 3:42 a.m.
@Joe Hood: I ride my bicycle to work often and love to do so for recreation with my son, too. If you don't care about commerce, it won't love you or your town back and being unemployed really sucks. Just ask the nearly 400,000 people in Michigan still unemployed. As a bank president, unfortunately I get to talk *often* to newly unemployed people who cannot pay their loans and are at risk of losing their businesses and homes, so perhaps I am a bit more sympathetic than some to the need for more jobs. Just because life is good for you and your son, do you want to pull up the rope to the life boat? I believe that we need to focus intently on job creation in our region, in our state and in our country. @M & @Peregrine: I make public comments under my own name on AnnArbor.com because I want Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County to be as good a place for my family and friends to live as is possible! I speak out when I see something that conflicts with what I believe to be the right thing to do for our community, so that we can move away from bad decision making towards good ones. @M (and the other readers who up voted @M's kind comment. I do appreciate the vote of confidence that you appreciate my public comments. That encourages me to continue to take the risk of expressing my opinions and speaking up.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Thu, Apr 25, 2013 : 3:26 a.m.
Thanks everyone for the vigorous debate! Special thanks to @SonnyDog09 for having my back while I was doing a 480 mile road trip today without internet access by putting the FACTS on the table that I was alluding to in my comment but unable to post since I was out of pocket. Having talked to the regional head of MDOT at length at a community hearing related to the Jackson Road road diet that will be inflicted upon residents and commuters in Ann Arbor in 2014 if we don't get city council to revoke their approval of that, my facts come straight from the expert and key decision-maker. Having said that, he will bend to the requests of local political bodies even if it doesn't really fit their view of what is most logical. His standard line is, it can always be undone if the experiment doesn't work out! @sellers: traffic ebbs and flows higher at rush hour and there is little traffic late at night, so to use 625 cars per hour (15,000 divided by 24 hours) as a measure is not really relevant. As @murph correctly points out, it is the peak hourly flow that matters most and no @foobar417 MDOT does do some analysis of their own before they agree to a road diet. However, as noted they bend to what the local political body wants unless it contradicts US DOT rules. @soggy waffle & John Q: If you want to reduce the accident rate and not inconvenience 18,300 drivers a day, you need to make the investment in expanding the road. If you don't have the money or don't care to solve the accident rate issue, don't make the investment. Alternatively, do the engineering and put the plans on the shelf in case some federal highway money suddenly becomes available for shovel ready projects in the next national recession. Pretending you don't have a problem doesn't solve the problem, however. Over time, this area will grow with the growth of EMU and the problem will grow.
Peregrine
Thu, Apr 25, 2013 : 12:22 a.m.
@Joe Hood: You don't seem to understand. Stephen is contemplating running for office, so he's trying to build a coalition of the disaffected by pandering and engaging in demagoguery. He hasn't done it yet for this article, but in the past he's pasted in portions of his essay in which he claims, with no evidence mind you, that past uses of "road diets" in Ann Arbor are "failed experiments". Of course your experience indicates otherwise. But when it comes to Stephen, it's no longer about facts. No matter how many times he trots out bits of his essay, they won't magically reflect truth.
Joe Hood
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 5:22 p.m.
Stephen: The road diets are better for communities overrun with traffic. Why should any road, except perhaps an Interstate (even then there should equal bicycle alternative) be unsafe for bicycles? Why do automobiles get to rule our lives? I can see why you are against road diets because you feel cars have a one to one relationship with commerce and as a bank president, more commerce is beneficial to your stakeholders. But is this really the bigger picture? When Stadium went on a diet, nothing bad happened. But the good is a road that is now usable for more than just automobile traffic. I don't consider myself a tree hugger but I ride my to work most every day (and usually ride with my son as he goes to school). The roadways I ride, like most in this area, are shared with automobiles. There is a certain detente between cars and bikes in normal conditions but add the morning or evening rush and the rules go out the window. In these situations you need a control and that control is a road diet.
you can't handle the truth
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 4:45 p.m.
There are 5 lanes. Just ride a bike. Make the tree huggers happy.
soggy waffle
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 4:15 p.m.
The 15k number is somewhat misinterpreted. They recommend a 4 to 3 when under 15, that doesn't mean they don't recommend over it. At 20k it still remains a good candidate, but you need to look at peak traffic. I don't have the mdot numbers on hand, but here is a source from FHWA, where MDOT gets a lot of guidance. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/fhwa_sa_12_013.htm Engineers take guidance from well researched AASHTO and FHWA documents, they aren't out in left field here. A big part of whether is feasible or not depends on the amount of traffic at peak times, so if traffic is well distributed throughout the day then it has more potential. Also, it costs a heck of a lot of money to expand the road, and many of the homes on the south side of this street have small setbacks. I think we should trust our road commission on this one.
Brad
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 4:10 p.m.
@sonny - thanks for those FACTS. So why are then even talking about it at 18,300? Does Ypsi have some "road diet secret" that they want to share?
SonnyDog09
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 3:19 p.m.
Where do the adt numbers come from? "The operational analysis of the several sites provide reasonably consistent results and support a guideline that suggests that 4-to3-lane road diet conversions result in significant increases in delay for ADTs over 10,000." http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_Research_Report_RC1555_376149_7.pdf "Average Daily Traffic Count (ADT) of 15,000 to 10,000, might be road diet feasible. ADT of under 10,000 highly likely as feasible. " http://www.co.genesee.mi.us/gcmpc-plan/LRTPWeb/TechReports/CStreets.pdf
foobar417
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 3:10 p.m.
Stephen, your statement is not true. MDOT does not even ask before doing it if there are 20k cars.
Michael
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 2:59 p.m.
MDOT has a lot of work to do in the realm of updating their traffic count recommendations. To me, they are incredibly outdated and do not reflect the trend of less auto-focused streets. Especially in Washtenaw County, where transit ridership, bicycle counts, and the like are extremely high, MDOT needs to change the way they address road construction.
sigdiamond
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 2:56 p.m.
The road should be expanded to 100 lanes and then there will never be another accident again.
John Q
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 2:26 p.m.
"The road should be expanded to five lanes to reduce the traffic accident rate." A road with this volume of traffic doesn't justify a 5 lane cross-section. Expanding the amount of road lanes is expensive and burdens the community with unnecessary long-term costs. What's the benefit to that?
murph
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 2:23 p.m.
Stephen, it depends on peak hour flow, turning movements, and other factors, not just overall traffic volume. While MDOT does not automatically recommend road diets for roads over 15k AADT, nor do they automatically recommend against them -- it's an "it depends" zone.
hawkhulk
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 1:34 p.m.
Yes, increase the lanes, not decrease them. A five lane street beats a three lane street any day; besides there is strength in numbers.
sellers
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 11:24 a.m.
Stephen, can you link to the source of your 15k/day number. (which is a low number as that would be 625 cars per hour, or around 10 a minute)
M
Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 11:06 a.m.
...run for city council. I'm not joking, I'll vote for you.