Why are the traffic lights being taken down?

[David Brainard]

And so here we are again, folks. The effete city administration does nothing. Sort of makes you wonder why they are being paid at all.

-30-

[Corey Rossen]

I thought Lakewood only goes East/West?.

I played Frogger with my daughter yesterday as we went from CVS to Drug Mart to the Library.

The cars did not win this time!

Corey

[Jim O'Bryan]

I agree. I don't care how many cars travel there. There are terrible sightlines. Can't even blame the drivers. You have to stop in the crosswalk to see left or right. I have to think this was a study based on a computer counting cars rather than an engineer onsite actually looking at clearances, etc. It's a deathtrap.

Still waiting to see the study.

No one seems to be able to direct me to it.

Shawn, do you have a study number or name? I would like to post it.

FWIW


.

[Bill Call]

Still waiting to see the study.

No one seems to be able to direct me to it.

Shawn, do you have a study number or name? I would like to post it.

That's an excellent idea.

Removing one or two lights won't affect the speed of traffic one bit. Removing a traffic light at the library might actually increase delays because of the number of people who will try to cross the street from the parking lot at Drug Mart to get to the library.

This is a good example of regionalism in action.

[Betsy Voinovich]

I thought Lakewood only goes East/West?.

I played Frogger with my daughter yesterday as we went from CVS to Drug Mart to the Library.

The cars did not win this time!

Corey

Hi Corey,

I know that game of Frogger, and I'm sure like you, I only play it when it's possible to win! (well for sure when I'm with my kids.)

So you couldn't cross from CVS to Drug Mart at Mars because the light was flashing. You could have walked back to Elmwood (the longest strangest light in the city-- but I am in NO WAY saying that we don't need a light there in case the State of Ohio is listening..) then you would have arrived in front of the Root, and headed West for a good distance to Drug Mart. After that, you would have to go to Arthur to cross in front of Taco Bell and then go back to the library, or else you could go back to Elmwood and cross and walk past the CVS block again.

One thing i don't get is I remember reading about how all the patrons at the library were going to head across the street to eat at Quaker Steak and Lube after taking out their books or seeing lectures or concerts. How are they going to get there now?

I think residents of Mars would have more to say about this change.

I was hoping someone from the City would come back on and explain how this makes sense. I remember reading something in Chris Bindel's City Council column in the Observer about this. I'm going to find that and see what it said.

Betsy Voinovich

[Shawn Juris]

Jim,Who in the administration have you asked? This is the 2nd place that I read that you were waiting for me to provide it. In the future please email or call. Personally, I would prefer that this information be sent out by the relevant department.
I see this report much like crime reports, without an understanding of the bigger picture and someone who can analyze it its far less valuable and opens the door for misinterpreted results. This is what I've come to understand about the process. Remember that phase 2 which impacts Manor Park dates back to 2009. Our reality is that the Federal government allocates funds through ODOT under a program to address traffic congestion and air quality. A study was completed which contrary to some rumors considers approved school routes and pedestrians amongst other things. That study found the lights which are being removed did not qualify for funding. The city was faced with the option to fund these items on their own. The decision was made to not pay for these locations. That's it. There are other crosswalks nearby and they should be used as needed.

[Betsy Voinovich]

This is from Chris Bindel's Observer report of the City Council meeting on September 6th, 2011:

Director Beno then asked Council to pass an updated version of an ordinance they have previously passed regarding the traffic signal project along the western half of Detroit Avenue.

The ordinance has to be changed due to increasing cost. The project is increasing for two reasons. The first is due to the city wishing to continue replacing the traffic signals along Detroit with the more decorative poles like the ones that have been installed on the other half of Detroit and on Clifton Blvd. This has resulted in an increase of $256,000 dollars. The second increase, about $44,000 is due to the City deciding to keep the traffic light at Detroit and Lakeland, which was previously slated to be removed without a replacement. The reason the City has decided to keep the traffic light is they believe traffic will greatly increase in that area with the addition of the new CVS that is to be built.

As this light is not approved by ODOT it would have to be replaced at 100% cost to the City. However the City was able to negotiate with CVS so that they will cover half of the $88,000 dollar price tag.


This is from Chris Bindel's Observer report of the City Council meeting on September 19th, 2011:

Councilman Tom Bullock (Ward II) then read a communication from the Public Works Committee regarding an ordinance that updates a previous ordinance that was passed by Council regarding the replacement of the Detroit Avenue traffic signals. The amendments of the ordinance include increasing contracting authority to allow for more stylish traffic poles and the replacement of the light at Lakeland which was originally slated to be removed. The Committee recommended adoption, however Bullock wanted to mention that they also had a discussion that carries over to other areas of Lakewood as well. The reason they chose to keep the Lakeland light is due to the building of a CVS on that block. Bullock stated that the possible developments of a McDonald's in the area of Woodard and Hall Avenues would similarly change the traffic patterns and should be considered as well. He asked the City to consider doing a traffic study to see where those intersections stand today and do projections as to how that development would impact the traffic flow. Bullock said that as the changes in the ordinance he just recommended for passage stand right now, there is no change to the plan to not replace the light at Hall, leaving no traffic lights at any intersection around the proposed McDonald's.

Before voting on the ordinance Councilman Bullock asked if Mayor Mike Summers would respond to the concerns raised, and the proposed traffic study. The Mayor said that they have been committed from the beginning to collecting the appropriate data and have already gathered information from Woodward regarding the traffic volume. He continued saying they had plans of expanding that data collection to Edwards and Wagar as well.

The new traffic capacity analyzer that the City is using can measure and collect data for traffic volume, time of day and speed which has more dimensions than the city was previously able to collect. In this situation, time of day and speed are invaluable to understanding the specific traffic patterns and issues that the area faces.

The City has already begun discussions with a traffic consulting and engineering firm to interpret the data and discuss possible strategies to fix any possible issues. The Mayor said that they would of course include the residents in the discussions and that several different things can be considered such as traffic-calming engineering or making part of the street one way. The Mayor closed his remarks saying they still have some work ahead of them, but they will do what they can to create a solution that works for the residents.




Well, Jim, it sounds like the study you are asking Councilman Juris for is "an ordinance that updates a previous ordinance that was passed by Council regarding the replacement of the Detroit Avenue traffic signals."

This sounds like the study was done by the City of Lakewood--what is "new traffic capacity analyzer"? But the discussion of keeping the light at Lakeland sounds like it involved ODOT. And that ODOT will not approve of a Lakeland light, thus the City of Lakewood has to pay for it and will split the cost with CVS. So does that mean that ODOT is paying for the replacement of the other traffic signals? Is our need to replace our existing signals with "more decorative poles like the ones that have been installed on the other half of Detroit and on Clifton Blvd... result(ing) in an increase of $256,000 dollars" causing the City to have to pay more for lights, and thus requiring the city to have less lights?

Do we have a choice to skip replacing our lights with more decorative poles, allowing us to keep our lights at Mars, Hall and Manor Park?

And what of: "The City has already begun discussions with a traffic consulting and engineering firm to interpret the data and discuss possible strategies to fix any possible issues. The Mayor said that they would of course include the residents in the discussions and that several different things can be considered such as traffic-calming engineering or making part of the street one way.[/b] The Mayor closed his remarks saying they still have some work ahead of them, but they will do what they can to create a solution that works for the residents.

?

It sounds like we have some "possible issues", and I don't remember meetings with residents where they were included in the discussions, though I don't follow the goings-on at Council as closely as I should. (When I go to meetings they tend to be School Board meetings and the public meetings are at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME as the City Council meetings which has been mentioned before) I am so glad I was able to search online for Chris Bindel's reports so I could start somewhere.

It sounds like the full plan clearly involves ODOT, it sounds like it would be a good time to discuss the plan before the lights are taken away on the dates stated on the signals right now-- something like Feb 14-- while we're already seeing difficulties from just having them turn into flashers.

I'm not saying that we might not have to get used to new traffic patterns, or that we can't or shouldn't. I would love to see the reasoning for losing the lights we're losing, and I'm really hoping it's not about needing money for decorative light poles. (Which reminds me of getting a brand new gazebo, however lovely, at Lakewood Park, when the playground equipment is in such serious need of repair.)

Off to shovel.

Betsy Voinovich

[Ryan Salo]

For being such a walkable city we don't have enough pedestrian only crossings. If lights are too expensive we should try something like this. Lets have McDonalds pay for one on detroit.

These are even solar powered so they won't have to tie into the grid.

http://www.elteccorp.com/pedestrian.php

[Ryan Salo]

We can at least put these signs up around the bars since drunks will definitely not walk to the nearest light.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Jim,Who in the administration have you asked? This is the 2nd place that I read that you were waiting for me to provide it. In the future please email or call. Personally, I would prefer that this information be sent out by the relevant department.
I see this report much like crime reports, without an understanding of the bigger picture and someone who can analyze it its far less valuable and opens the door for misinterpreted results. This is what I've come to understand about the process. Remember that phase 2 which impacts Manor Park dates back to 2009. Our reality is that the Federal government allocates funds through ODOT under a program to address traffic congestion and air quality. A study was completed which contrary to some rumors considers approved school routes and pedestrians amongst other things. That study found the lights which are being removed did not qualify for funding. The city was faced with the option to fund these items on their own. The decision was made to not pay for these locations. That's it. There are other crosswalks nearby and they should be used as needed.

Shawn,

Please, I merely mentioned, with others asking, about the study to had mentioned.. I
have asked two about a state study on traffic for Detroit Avenue. Both said they knew of
no such study except for the Detroit Streetscape plans of a couple years ago. This was
the study for traffic on Detroit, that Tom Jordan had enlarged into the "Detroit
Streetscape." I was merely thinking it might be interesting to see what was studied by
who and why.

Where we had been told it was a traffic study it was now a cost issue. A decision made to
save money in a tightening budget but with no actual regard for the pedestrian traffic, the
safety of the Barton Center residents going to Giant Eagle or the bank.

So what other safety cuts are we making?

FWIW

[Jim O'Bryan]

Savings?

A couple questions some of us came up over coffee and a field trip.


The lights at Manor Park and Detroit. 2 units 6 lights. for 4 streets.

How much extra did the sign and installation cost? X 8?


Cove and Detroit 4 units, 6 lights. for 4 streets.


Cook and Detroit. 8 units 12 lights for 2 streets and a driveway. Now I am not a traffic
genius, but this has been a nightmare since it happened. If they make the driveway an
entrance only, it would seem we could get rid of 6 lights and save a ton of money and
make the area safer for all.

Taking the lights down at Manor Park makes no sense. Mars and Detroit, no sense.

So back to the questions.
1) How much is this going to cost as opposed to doing nothing.
2) Who pays?
3) Whose study?
a) traffic
b) pedestrians
4) What are the goals?
4) What other options have been looked at?

.

[Betsy Voinovich]

Hi all,

I'm worried that we're running out of time here and that this is just going to "happen" to us so I wrote to City Council and the Mayor and the Law Director today about the concerns being expressed here (and everywhere! Especially in the Drug Mart line and at the library) about the loss of these traffic signals.

Here's a copy of the letter:


Good afternoon,

I'm writing to express the concern that many residents have regarding the removal of traffic signals on Detroit. For many of us, seeing the signals become blinkers, and the accompanying signs announcing their removal, was the first news we had of this situation.

Already, many have witnessed near accidents, with cars, and with cars and pedestrians.

It would serve the citizens well if you would go over the traffic study used to justify these changes, and make it clear how the specific needs of the city of Lakewood were taken into consideration.

The following is from Chris Bindel's Lakewood Observer (Vol. 7, Issue 21) report of the City Council meeting on September 19th, 2011: The City has already begun discussions with a traffic consulting and engineering firm to interpret the data and discuss possible strategies to fix any possible issues. The Mayor said that they would of course include the residents in the discussions. I have never heard of any discussion with residents regarding these issues, and am certain that there would have been a loud protest as well as some productive discussion.

If ODOT requests certain changes which would be harmful to Lakewood citizens, it falls to our Council and our Mayor to protect our community, and certainly to apprise us of what is going on and why.

Once again, I find myself unable to attend the next Council meeting and I'm asking that this letter be read aloud during the Public Communication portion, so it becomes a part of the Public Record.

I would greatly appreciate a response that I can share with other concerned citizens. I have posted a copy of this letter on the Observation Deck, where this discussion began. I'm including a link, so that you can see what citizens are saying for themselves.viewtopic.php?f=7&t=10662&start=15

Thank you very much for your time, your accessibility and your service.

Betsy Voinovich

Lakewood parent and resident

[Paul Schrimpf]

Here's a real radical idea, just crying for the throwing of tomatoes in this direction:

Close off Cook at Detroit. Create a modest bike parking/common area. Cars could still access the parking lots and bank teller from Clifton or through the other lots.

Then you have just one light servicing the plaza, and you still have access to the parking lots from the remaining streets. It would also settle down traffic flow a bit.

Just thinking outside the lines a bit. There are probably a hundred reasons against it.

[Stan Austin]

Paul---- that's not all that radical actually. In my council-at-large campaign in 1973 I had the assistance of a person who was expert at traffic engineering and computer modeling (that kind of computer work was kind of rare back then).
He had mapped out a proposal which would have closed quite a few streets at the tracks with loops so they wouldn't be dead ends. This was to solve a problem of the -at the time- high train traffic and vehicle congestion on Detroit.
Several years later the City Engineer for the Harbarger Administration proposed much the same idea of closing off and looping streets.
So, there are many alternatives that should be considered that shouldn't just be limited to tinkering with traffic signals.
Stan Austin

[Edward Favre]

Here is some history about the discussion of closing crossings in the late 1980s and early 1990s.......
At the time, about 20 trains a day used two tracks and crossings had only flashers, not gates. Car/train accidents were common. Since Lakewood has the most crossings per mile of any rail line in Ohio, there had been the logical thought of trying to eliminate some crossings. There was even a basic list of what streets could be closed. The discsussion went public with no real citizen input. Residents were caught somewhat by surprise and the fear of my street being overloaded with traffic because your crossing was closed prevailed. End of that story.

Later, the railroad upgraded one track and removed the other. Crossing gates were installed. After acquiring many Conrail assets around 1999, and a political firestorm due to the fear of possible increased train traffic, Norfolk Southern diverted most of the traffic to those lines. Train/car accidents are now very rare.

Much has changed since then and an this topic surely could be revisited as part of a larger traffic discussion. However, it would need to be inclusive and common sense.