Why are the traffic lights being taken down?

[Jim O'Bryan]

Paul

You are not far off one plan I have seen in the past. One is for Cook, to go straight into the parking lot. Getting
rid of 8 lights! And cleaning up a bad intersection.

Another plan is to shut down "Downtown" and build a ring road around the area, and everything inside would
become commerce, ahhhhhhhhh economic development, ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh shopping, ahhhhhhhhhhh lust
like Legacy Village, ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. In violet

A variation on that idea, and, could be part of a first stage, was the "Futrell Project"(?). This would create half of the ring, north of Detroit Ave. In Blue[/color]



It would seem that closing the State Route down in DowtowN Lakewood" has been the fantasy of many groups, on one side shopping and the chance for lower taxes. On the
other side, normally. It would give us GREEN, space, and we could be GREENER, and walk everywhere.

Ed

I was driving around with Steve over the past couple days looking at Detroit, Madison, and Clifton.
Is there a reason why there is such redundancy in Lights outside of the obvious, failure?

Also as the train historian, at some point, Detroit had Trolleys(2), cars, bikes, horses, and carts. Right?

Did Lakewood once have 74,000 residents, walking, and driving around?

It seems to me that the traffic patterns around this town, have gotten more complicated, but have done
nothing to ease the ability for bikes, residents, cars, or buses get around.

Then as we drive around and see an insane amount of lights at intersection, why are we not moving to
placing them on corners, that clean up the wires, and just would seem to make it easier and more quaint?

Do we really even need lights for turning lanes?

Now that we realize this is a cost problem, it opens a huge array of choices.

.

[Edward Favre]

Jim:

There are national standards that states must mirror in order to get funding. Among those include standards for traffic signals. One of which requires at least two signals for each direction. It is redundancy in case one fails as well as for reasons like enabling motorist to still see a signal if a larger vehicle, like a truck or bus, is blocking the view of the other.

Lakewood had trolley lines on Detroit and Madison. Both had two tracks in the middle of the street, one eastbound and one westbound. The Detroit line ended at the car barns which were located where the apartments around the Mayfair are now. John's Diner once sat there as well. Steel poles for the trolley wires are still common along the route. The Madsion line ended at Cordova. I think 1954 was the last year either ran. The Lake Shore Electric interurban line ran on each side of Clifton, up W. Clifton and out over the old Detroit Bridge. It ended in the late 1930s.

Lakewood population was over 70,000 in the 1970 census. I can't find the number now, but I think it was right around 72,000.

[David Anderson]

Hello, all.

As I have come to understand traffic equipment, potential adjustments, and the Detroit Avenue light replacement plan, the Ohio Department of Transportation evaluates all traffic through an intersection/light and determines whether a traffic light is merited.

ODOT determined the lights currently slated for removal were not warranted. The City did push back in some cases where the study had some lights in the gray area of consideration and successfully persuaded ODOT to reconsider.

In short, Lakewood’s cost to replace warranted lights is $28,000 or 20% of $140,000. Our cost to replace a traffic light not deemed warranted by ODOT is $140,000. (The city has opted to replace the light at Marlow and Detroit at $140,000.)

This change may seem to some to be counterproductive. However, the studies and traffic engineers feel these adjustments will make all traffic safer and smoother. I stand by the support Council recently gave this signal replacement initiative which originated more than two years ago.

We all must take time to adjust as well. I pulled out of the library onto Mars to take a left on Detroit. I was ready to make my left and realized a car was backing out of one of the diagonal parking spots across the street directly into my lane. (I believe the parking on that section of Detroit will be reconfigured with the building’s rehab.)

P.S. - Lakewood’s population is at 52,131.

Yours in service,
David W. Anderson
Councilman – Ward 1
216-789-6463

[Jim O'Bryan]

We all must take time to adjust as well. I pulled out of the library onto Mars to take a left on Detroit. I was ready to make my left and realized a car was backing out of one of the diagonal parking spots across the street directly into my lane. (I believe the parking on that section of Detroit will be reconfigured with the building’s rehab.)

P.S. - Lakewood’s population is at 52,131.

Yours in service,
David W. Anderson
Councilman – Ward 1
216-789-6463

David

Thanks, haha, that's a good story.

Back to the light at Manor Park. What is the state's criteria for the need of lights? I am curious because I have
only found one person who is happy over the light removal. He lives on Manor Park, and is tired of having to
stop and not turn left on red. While we all feel his pain, as we now feel your in that story! Whew! Do they take
into account pedestrian traffic? When the mayor was counting cars at the Detroit Theater he was there for
nearly four hours? How long did the state watch the intersection? During School hours? On the first Tuesday
of the month, when SS checks come in, and seniors go to the bank for money? Between 9 and 12 am, when
the seniors trickling to Giant Eagle are countable?

Do they take into account the bus line at the corner? I am just curious, what is the criteria.

There has to be a way to counter this mandate.

Thanks for weighing in, I am guessing this was handed off to you?


.

[Matt Jones]

What is the state's criteria for the need of lights? I am curious because I have
only found one person who is happy over the light removal. He lives on Manor Park, and is tired of having to
stop and not turn left on red. While we all feel his pain, as we now feel your in that story! Whew! Do they take
into account pedestrian traffic? .

The state's criteria for traffic signals is found in Chapter 4C of the Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices:
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Op ... Tables.pdf
(Warning: this is a large file)

Basically there are 9 different "signal warrants", at least one of which must be met in order for a signal to qualify for ODOT funds. Two of the warrants are based on pedestrian traffic: Warrant 4, which looks at pedestrian crossing volume as a function of vehicular traffic volume on the major street, and Warrant 5, which deals with school crossings. So yes, pedestrian traffic is taken into account.

[Jim O'Bryan]

What is the state's criteria for the need of lights? I am curious because I have
only found one person who is happy over the light removal. He lives on Manor Park, and is tired of having to
stop and not turn left on red. While we all feel his pain, as we now feel your in that story! Whew! Do they take
into account pedestrian traffic? .

The state's criteria for traffic signals is found in Chapter 4C of the Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices:
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Op ... Tables.pdf
(Warning: this is a large file)

Basically there are 9 different "signal warrants", at least one of which must be met in order for a signal to qualify for ODOT funds. Two of the warrants are based on pedestrian traffic: Warrant 4, which looks at pedestrian crossing volume as a function of vehicular traffic volume on the major street, and Warrant 5, which deals with school crossings. So yes, pedestrian traffic is taken into account.

Matt

Thanks for posting I found Warrant 9, also could come into play, but doubtful.

I am also put off where they use the term, "Should contain..." in the study section often, not "Must
contain...."

So it is back to trying to find the study (12 hours).


.

[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

Hi all,

I wanted to get back on here and report the results of my email. I'm glad to see Councilman Anderson weighing in here. Mayor Summers and Councilman Juris responded to my email. I'm sharing it here as I said I would in my letter to the Council and the Mayor.

From Councilman Shawn Juris
January 23rd, 2012

Hi Betsy,
As I believe I have said online, I would strongly encourage anyone using these intersections to observe the change in traffic patterns and when necessary to take advantage of the remaining signaled crosswalks nearby.
Warm regards,
Shawn Juris
City Council Ward 3


From Mayor Mike Summers
January 25th, 2012

Betsy

Thanks for expressing your concern about the Detroit Traffic Signal changes.

The Traffic signal replacement initiative on Clifton and Detroit is designed to achieve smoother traffic flow, safe pedestrian access, improved air quality (less idling), and improved energy efficiency (both car gasoline use and electricity for the lights). All of these are worthy objectives. These new lights are more energy efficient, and are integrated with each other to monitor and adjust timing to better meet all of the objectives.

Each intersection is evaluated by the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) against automobile and pedestrian traffic levels. Minimum thresholds are needed to warrant the approximately $140,000 investment in each signal. Lakewood’s local share is 20% of this cost. If a signal is not warranted by the Ohio Department of Transportation, Lakewood has the option to pay the full $140,000 price on our own.

On Detroit, The Manor Park, Marlowe, and Mars intersections were not determined to meet the minimum necessary to warrant ODOT’s investment. The City of Lakewood decided that the gap between Bunts and Belle Avenue was too great a distance to not ensure safe pedestrian crossing of Detroit. We elected to pay the $140,000 for the Marlowe traffic light.

Marlow was chosen for several reasons:

1. It is in the direction of the Hospital and more retail activity.

2. Emergency Vehicle traffic is better managed

3. There is more pedestrian traffic at this intersection than Manor Park.

4. The Bus Shelter on the South side of Detroit in front of Lakewood Hospital (East bound bus traffic) is the same distance from the Westerly as the same side bus shelter to the West of the PNC Bank building.

5. Pedestrian traffic from the Westerly to cross Detroit Avenue requires approximately 130-150 steps to the Marlowe traffic signal. (as measured from the Barton Center sign in the front of the building.)

Decisions such as the Manor Park light require a careful balance of all factors. Safety is paramount, but safety can be assured if we alter some long developed habits and travel in different directions for short distances to ensure safe crossing. Automobile traffic in Lakewood has many options it can choose to minimize any congestion and delay.

The Mars Avenue intersection is bracketed by Arthur Avenue 200 feet to the West, and Andrews light, 300 feet to the East.

These changes were announced 2 years ago. I met with the Westerly residents in early 2010 in my capacity as Ward 3 Councilperson to discuss them. This discussion helped affirm the need to invest in the Marlowe Light at city expense. Originally, the Arthur Ave lights and Hall lights were also not ”warranted” by ODOT. The data was closer to meeting minimums, or an additional criteria of “safe routes to schools’ was invoked to get ODOT to reconsider their decision. We were able to persuade them to do so and these lights were reinstated. Because the Arthur light was reinstated, we could not get the Mars light, 200 feet away, from obtaining reinstatement.

I have offered to meet with the Westerly residents again if the desire to do so.

Michael P. Summers
Mayor, City of Lakewood
Mike.summers@lakewoodoh.net


I was glad to get Mayor Summers' detailed perspective.

Betsy Voinovich

[David Anderson]

Hello, Betsy and everyone.

I have a copy of the study. It weighs in at 8.65MB and 75 pages. I will attempt to upload to this message. If I am successful, all readers must note that the year appearing in the study starting on page five is incorrect. The month and dates are correct but the data is from 2008 not 2004. The cover page is marked correctly as 2008.

The 2008 study is not an ODOT study, but, rather, Lakewood entered into an agreement with NHTB Ohio, Inc. to design and administer study which included pedestrian and vehicle traffic counts. The ODOT measures the results and parameters according to Federal Highway Administration guidelines (a requirement for Federal DOT funds).

Remember, all the lights in the area were studied because improvements were sought for the entire area, not at individual intersections, if that makes sense. (What good would it do to enhance traffic at one light just to have it bottle up 500 feet down the road?)

Nine of the 13 intersections studied indeed warranted lights. These nine will receive enhanced signals and crossings which, as mentioned earlier, will allow all traffic to move more smoothly and safely (using less energy). Again, Lakewood will pay the full cost to keep and upgrade the light at Marlow.

To me, it would have made no sense to remove the remaining three lights without upgrading the 10 others. The upgrade is what will make all of this work and I don’t think we’ll see the gains on this effort until all the upgrades are made.

I do hope this helps and will try to check in on this conversation more regularly.

Yours in service,
David W. Anderson

[Jim O'Bryan]

David

Thanks for weighing in and posting the information and study.

While it might not have any impact, if the city is looking for ways to save them, maybe some more eyes,
and some legal eyes looking at this could help.

I have noticed the lights off, which is a good way to test the idea.

I also read in the state, information that all of the mechanisms for the signal will stay in place, just in case.

We shall see.


.

[Betsy Voinovich]

Hello, Betsy and everyone.

I have a copy of the study. It weighs in at 8.65MB and 75 pages. I will attempt to upload to this message. If I am successful, all readers must note that the year appearing in the study starting on page five is incorrect. The month and dates are correct but the data is from 2008 not 2004. The cover page is marked correctly as 2008.

The 2008 study is not an ODOT study, but, rather, Lakewood entered into an agreement with NHTB Ohio, Inc. to design and administer study which included pedestrian and vehicle traffic counts. The ODOT measures the results and parameters according to Federal Highway Administration guidelines (a requirement for Federal DOT funds).

Remember, all the lights in the area were studied because improvements were sought for the entire area, not at individual intersections, if that makes sense. (What good would it do to enhance traffic at one light just to have it bottle up 500 feet down the road?)

Nine of the 13 intersections studied indeed warranted lights. These nine will receive enhanced signals and crossings which, as mentioned earlier, will allow all traffic to move more smoothly and safely (using less energy). Again, Lakewood will pay the full cost to keep and upgrade the light at Marlow.

To me, it would have made no sense to remove the remaining three lights without upgrading the 10 others. The upgrade is what will make all of this work and I don’t think we’ll see the gains on this effort until all the upgrades are made.

I do hope this helps and will try to check in on this conversation more regularly.

Yours in service,
David W. Anderson

Hi David,

Thanks for replying and thanks for posting the study, which I finally had time to take a look at. The main study isn't that long, there are a lot of appendices, the traffic and pedestrian counts for all of the intersections, graphs showing times of maximum use, etc.

It looks thorough, and it seems it has been pored over by the Council and (from reading Mayor Summer's letter to me) the Mayor.

I still have a couple of questions-- the study didn't address any intersections further west than Mars-- was there an in depth study of this kind conducted for Detroit and Hall, and was the fact that a new McDonald's might be there taken into consideration when that light was targeted? Because this study was completed in 2008, there might be some differences-- some major ones-- like the fact that there wasn't a potential McDonald's then.

I will bring to you a question put to me this morning by another Deck reader, do you know if the City would have the right to say "No thanks" period, to ODOT, if we wanted to? Does ODOT HAVE to update traffic signals on state routes? Do the State's desires/needs take precedence over the City's in situations like these?

Thank you so much for sharing this process with the community.

Betsy Voinovich

[Betsy Voinovich]

Today's the day! We lose three of our lights. The dismantling of Mars/Detroit is complete. I guess they'll paint out the crosswalk. Though I have now seen the study, it still seems a little schizophrenic to me. On one hand, Lakewood has received accolades for its walkability, and this move, whatever else it does, makes the city less walkable. (Also less drivable unless you're going straight down Detroit, in which case you can now zoom on through--)

Anyway, my saying this does not mean I don't think Lakewood is a great place to live. I wonder why we have to sacrifice our walkability. What if ODOT replaced the ones they think we need, and we didn't "pay for new ones" but just kept the ones that are already hanging there? If the new ones are decorative and black, and the old ones are bright yellow, they wouldn't match-- but our walkers would be safer.. and we'd probably have a slew of professional painters who could volunteer to paint the yellow ones.

Okay, I'm not being deliberately obtuse. If this is a sound traffic study, and the new system is all timed out and has been brought into the 21st century by ODOT, we will be able to discern some positive effects in the coming weeks and months. I'm willing to hold out for that.

Here are some pictures in case you want to reminisce over what it used to be like at Manor Park and Detroit...

extrafficlight.jpg (76.97 KiB) Viewed 2360 times

removesign.jpg (92.02 KiB) Viewed 2360 times

Betsy Voinovich

[J Hrlec]

For me, these changes make Lakewood no less walkable... if anything it encourages me to walk a block more to end up generally in the same area across the street.

I'm more concerned about people getting electrocuted when trying to trigger lights to use existing cross-walks:

[Jim O'Bryan]

The lights on Manor Park come down after City Hall realizes it cannot afford to keep them.


.

[Betsy Voinovich]

Well now I've been stuck behind people at Mars and at Manor Park who didn't realize the lights would be gone and who had the notion that they would be turning left-- when I was on Mars yesterday I was late for picking up one of my kids and it was agonizing, so I made a mental note: Never go down that street again, even if I am turning right, because the person in front of me might want to turn left. So that's less traffic there, I guess. More at Arthur. more at Elmwood? At that hour Elmwood is full of cars turning into Grant, so that one's also not going to work. The traffic isn't going to go away. I wonder if when they do the studies they think about the alternate routes that cars will be forced to take, and whether if they eliminate enough signals, cars will be lined up across the train tracks-- stuff like that-- I guess we'll see how it goes.

For me, these changes make Lakewood no less walkable... if anything it encourages me to walk a block more to end up generally in the same area across the street.

I'm more concerned about people getting electrocuted when trying to trigger lights to use existing cross-walks:

Hi J--

Yeah that looks pretty scary. Which intersection is that?

And you're right, pedestrians will all get to do a lot more walking-- as they head to whatever light is available, which might be pleasant when the weather is good and the streets are shoveled, and this has been a good winter for it. I guess by walkable I meant that it was easy to get around the city on foot, efficiently, but more exercise is good. I think the interesting thing to do will be to observer whether pedestrian and car traffic can absorb these changes-- our population is lower than last time our traffic signal situation was evaluated. It will be interesting to see if it makes getting around easier or better.

Betsy Voinovich

[Danielle Masters]

We've made adjustments too. I never go down Manor Park anymore unless I am going to the gas station. Now I go up Marlowe when heading up to the high school. I have seen several close calls though while traveling past the Manor Park intersection, hopefully that will change once people get used to the changes.