The Observation Deck

It seems that so many good conversations gotten broken up by the month of celebrating the
Czech Republic, as I was on this break from real work I went back and was fascinated by
the conversation with Ward 3 councilman and City Hall that had the lights being removed at
Manor Park and Detroit, and Mars and Detroit because of both a study(never produced) and
the fact that we could not "afford" those two lights and they had to be removed.

Now the councilman citing studies that never happened is nothing new, and certainly City
Hall likes to play the poor card to get out of promises, or to even think of any idea outside
of their desire to see "south lakewood" a giant strip mall.

So what part of the imaginary study, or massive find in the budget allowed for the very
unneeded light at Spring Garden and Detroit? Why is this intersection more important or
the need for these extra lights so important at Dunkin Donuts than the Barton Center, or
the Lakewood Public Library?

Or is this more mediocrity, confusions and miss-truths dribbled out by City Hall?

No one understands the light at Spring Garden and Detroit, no one on the street, St. James
was closed at the time, after all the councilman was happy for the fact that St. James could
become a brew pub that served wings.

So why the new light, why are we playing with the safety of seniors? Why are we causing
traffic jams on residential side streets?

Just curious.


.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:It seems that so many good conversations gotten broken up by the month of celebrating the
Czech Republic, as I was on this break from real work I went back and was fascinated by
the conversation with Ward 3 councilman and City Hall that had the lights being removed at
Manor Park and Detroit, and Mars and Detroit because of both a study(never produced) and
the fact that we could not "afford" those two lights and they had to be removed.

.

Hi Jim,

Actually there is a study; it came up in the last discussion we had on here about this called, "Why are the traffic lights being taken down?"

You probably forgot about it because when you asked Councilman Juris for it and he replied on January 19th, 2012:

Shawn Juris said

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, 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.


So Councilman Juris was unwilling to share this information with you, a constituent, and the community (on the Deck) because you didn't ask the "relevent department," and also because we on the Deck couldn't handle the information: "without an understanding of the bigger picture and someone who can analyze it its far less valuable and opens the door for misinterpreted results."

I wrote to members of Council and Mayor Summer, asking for an explanation for the removal of the lights, and shared the different replies on the Deck at the time.

Here is my 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



Here is Councilman Juris' response:

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

I guess the lack of info that Councilman Juris provided is an indication of the fact that he didn't think that I could handle hearing about the traffic study, or that it wasn't worth the time to state that the needs of Lakewood citizens had indeed been taken into account, if they indeed had. Also I don't live in Ward 3. Councilman Juris likes the "too bad" response. You don't like it? "Too bad." Senior citizens want a park bench? Citizen upset and needing info about traffic patterns changing in the center of town? Parks closing early? "That's how it is."

I don't feel represented at all by this kind of response, but I have to say that it IS a response, and Mr. Juris acknowledged that he received my email, and that he is indeed a Councilperson, and I am a constituent. Many Council members did not respond at all, including my own, Ward 2 Council member, where one of the worst situations was created by the removal of a light that was used all day long, in front of the library.

Mayor Summers had a much more thorough reply:

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




And Councilman Anderson came on the Deck, and shared his answer with the whole community, posting the study and providing some details, making it clear that though the study is dated 2004, it's actually from 2008, which might be why, in 2012, it's kind of a problem in the first place.

There was less traffic on Mars in 2008 when the Library steps were not used for LEAF or for the Front Porch series. The City was aware that the Quaker Steak and Lube would be coming in, more traffic, along with a revamped Drug Mart. Obviously given all the signage and all of the fuss ( a ribbon-cutting, announcing that Kauffman Park is a parking lot on the signs, etc) the City was hoping for more traffic right there.

You can go to the link to get Councilman Anderson's reply and the 2008 study. It's worth looking at. Though it is 75 pages, it's actually very short, the pages are the actual notes taken on each street, so you can look at what time of day it was, whether it was winter, or night, or rush hour, or school time, in 2008.


Here's the link, Councilman Anderson's reply is on page 3 of the thread:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=10662&hilit=Why+are+the+traffic+lights+being+taken+down&start=30

So there's the study, such as it is. We could probably have used a more recent study, but there definitely was one, and Councilman Anderson has made it possible for you to page through every bit of what it was like here in 2008.

Betsy Voinovich

Wow Betsy, great job. Thanks for that very thorough report!

Betsy Voinovich wrote:The City was aware that the Quaker Steak and Lube would be coming in, more traffic, along with a revamped Drug Mart. Obviously given all the signage and all of the fuss ( a ribbon-cutting, announcing that Kauffman Park is a parking lot on the signs, etc) the City was hoping for more traffic right there.

Betsy,

As you stated, City Hall was ready for more traffic because of QS&L.

The ribbons have been cut.

Let's ride!

Matt

As Promised QSL Ready To Roll It Out Downtown Lakewood!!!!!

http://www.lakewoodobserver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11786&p=85945#p85945

I am delighted to see the Yield to Stick Figures signs out again at Manor Park & Detroit and in front of City Hall!

Not to revive this discussion but...

I used to avoid Detroit like the plague because there were so many traffic lights. There is a traffic light at just about every intersection from Manor Park to Summit/Westwood. I've always thought that was overkill. Now it doesn't seem as bad. Maybe I don't mind stopping so often to see what's new, since I've avoided Detroit for so long.

I can see the logic of removing the traffic light at Mars as there are lights a block in either direction at Arthur and Elmwood. It seems like these two lights were always in synch which would allow Mars traffic to get on to Detroit. I haven't seen any backups on Mars as a result. Has anyone else?

If I squint, I can see the logic of removing the Manor Park light as there are traffic lights a couple blocks either way at Bunts and Marlowe. But if it was up to me, I probably would have left this one alone.

Spring Garden makes some sense as there is a long stretch with no lights. Either the added light is speed control or City Hall threw a bone to Dunkin.

What I can't understand is the obsession with fancy light poles. The City paid $256,000 for "decorative pole enhancements" on Detroit. Basically, the standard light poles weren't good enough. See page 64 of the September 6, 2011 Council docket. Meanwhile the City has no money for basketball courts and no money for benches for seniors to rest a bit. Quality of life improvements for residents or "decorative pole enhancements"? Not really a tough choice in my book.

BTW, since the City spent close to a million dollars on the Detroit signal project, does that mean the Detroit Streetscape Project is dead? I guess I always knew that was one of those boondoggle projects that ends up sitting on a shelf somewhere after countless thousands were spent on architectural drawings, engineering studies and cost estimates.