This week the city will be talking about our streets and sidewalks, and about getting more help with police protection from the Grand Traverse County Sheriff, among other things. We are also continuing the discussion here about renewable energy and efficiency. Please give us your thoughts here, or join us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/PlanforTC.
1. Streets and sidewalks. The city is starting to put real money into our streets and sidewalks. In two years, we have gone from spending $100,00 per year to spending $1.2 million. Over $100,000 of that will be spent on sidewalks. We have a new infrastructure policy that calls for a bias in favor of sidewalks and bike lanes. http://www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us/Policy/InfrastructureStrategyPolicy.pdf In the future, the policy calls for a technique called “asset management” to maintain streets and sidewalks, but next year we’ll be focusing on the absolute worst condition streets. There is a map of these at http://www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us/agendas/packet20091214.pdf, on page 19 of the pdf. A list of streets for next year and the year after is at pages 31-41 of the same pdf.
Key questions remain:
a. Should local street reconstruction include traffic calming measures ( http://www.trafficcalming.org/ ) to slow down cut-through traffic in the neighborhoods? Even if it costs more? Some feel the city made a promise to people in the neighborhoods that calming would be done when the streets were re-constructed, yet that is so far not part of the discussion. What kind of measures do you want in the neighborhoods?
b. Is $1.2 million per year enough to spend on streets and sidewalks? A 2006 report found that we need to spend more than $26 million to meet our infrastructure needs in this city. http://www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us/departments/engineering/pr2006/tcpr2006.pdf How much should we be spending? How long should we plan to take to tackle these problems?
c. The plan says we need a bias in favor of sidewalks and bike lanes but some of our key transportation corridors remain almost impossible to cross on foot or ride through on a bicycle. The city re-striped the far east end of 8th street but currently has no concrete plan to re-stripe the area between Woodmere and Lake. You cannot legally and safely ride a bike east across Division St at the 7th St light because you are immediately riding against one-way traffic. (Division St itself is a whole other matter we’ll be getting to on this site soon). Should we favor sidewalks and bike lanes only when it is easy, when there are no trade-offs we have to make, or should pedestrians and cyclists be a real priority?
The city is in the process of making decisions on streets and sidewalks that we will have to live with for 20 years. Let us know what you want us to do!
2. Police. Traverse City residents are also residents of Grand Traverse County. As county residents, we help pay for the Grand Traverse County Sheriff’s department. We do not currently receive services from the Sheriff’s department other than at the jail, and through some mutual aid responsibilities. Two areas that have been discussed are:
Road Patrols. Based on a per capita breakdown of the 2008 budget, Traverse City taxpayers pay a share of the county’s road patrol budget that adds up to over $600,000 per year. Yet we receive no road patrol services from the county. Instead, we pay over $3.6 million for police protection from the Traverse City Police Department, a budget which includes road patrol.
Community Police Officers. The County also provides community police officers to townships who request them. The townships pick up roughly 75% of the cost of these officers, and the County picks up roughly 25%. The County could be asked to provide this service to the city. We could try a pilot program for using County community officers to meet some of our city policing needs. A pilot program could mean 2 to 8 officers to try it out. The city would be protected by the same number of officers, but at a lower cost to city taxpayers. By keeping the pilot program small at first, it could allow operational issues like chain-of-command and call responsibility to be worked through.
Benchmarking. The city has done some benchmarking of our police force to those of other comparable cities. The results are at http://www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us/agendas/packet20091214.pdf, starting on page 42 of the pdf.
Would you support asking the GT County Sheriff to take over a portion of the road patrol responsibility in the City that is now handled by the Traverse City Police Dept? Would you support a community police program in which some City police positions were replaced by community officers provided by the GT County Sheriff? Are there other collaborative efforts between these two law enforcement agencies that you would support? Do we have the right-size police force? Do we need more officers? Could we protect the city with fewer officers? What other ideas should we be looking at?
3. Renewable energy and efficiency. This week we’re continuing the Question of the Week on Traverse City Light & Power’s renewable energy plans, including biomass. Good questions and comments here and on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/PlanforTC about renewable energy and energy efficiency – look for more info in the comments to the Question of the Week page. (if the new info is not up yet, please check back later)
As always, thank you for visiting, and please give us your comments!
27 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 4, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Bill Hubbell
Although I support good conditions for bikers,let’s not forget the taxpayers/homeowners that are still wrestling with city streets that are not yet paved. I think that before we formulate a plan and endure expense to expand bike trails,let’s concentrate on securing a safe street environment so we all win.
January 6, 2010 at 5:21 pm
GLHowe
Just for clarity, does this imply that bikers aren’t taxpayers/homeowners? The improving of unpaved roads should be done and include amenities for active modes of transportation. It seems like one issue.
December 19, 2009 at 5:16 pm
streets & sidewalks 2, news on waterfront & sheriff – last update of 2009 « Plan For TC
[...] This past week saw a lot of discussion on this site about streets and sidewalks, which we hope can continue. (click here for recent comments: http://planfortc.com/2009/12/13/streets-police-energy-update-for-dec-13-20/comment-page-1/#comment-1…). [...]
December 18, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Beth Milligan
By the way, here is a fantastic video called “The Boulder Bike Story.” Its tagline is “The story of how any town can become bike friendly”:
Last year, 46% of Boulder’s transportation budget went to bikes, transit and pedestrians. The video is a well-produced and inspiring look at how other communities can copy their model.
December 18, 2009 at 9:13 pm
thrashertm
Keep in mind that Boulder has a very different weather climate than TC. 4-5 months out of the year most people do not want to be biking or walking generally.
There is also some conflict going on in Boulder between bikers and drivers – http://longmontledger.com/news/county-rolls-out-final-plan-to-reduce-conflict-between-cyclists-cars/
It seems that some bikers refuse to give way to allow traffic to flow, while some drivers are less than polite to bikers. I was in Boulder last summer and saw the results of a biker mauled by a driver; it was not pretty.
December 19, 2009 at 12:19 am
Beth Milligan
Good points – that tension has to be addressed, though with education and fair regard for all forms of transport it can be easily mitigated. The climate doesn’t seem as big a factor – the first line of the story you cited talks about limited biking during Boulder’s winter months: “Only a few cyclists were still cruising around town this week, most navigating the snow-packed roads with beefy mountain bike tires, head-to-toe layers and an apparent predisposition for suffering. But next spring, when roads are dry and the skies are blue, bikers will likely be back in droves…”
I’ve read reports where Boulder and other platinum bike cities plow the bike paths and sidewalks in some areas before they even plow the roads. That might be extreme in TC, but the difficulty in getting around – as Bill Palladino pointed out in his photo essay under “A Liveable City” – does significantly decrease winter cycling and walking here. I live on Union St, and I’d walk and bike way more in the winter if even the main bike and pedestrian arteries were better maintained.
December 19, 2009 at 2:42 pm
GLHowe
Minneapolis/St. Paul, as well as Madison, WI are perhaps better models for Traverse City regarding year-round non-motorized transportation as we share some climate variables. Both have high numbers of walkers and bikers. The government bodies value alternative means of commuting and have placed a good amount of priority on serving them.
The short video from the Star Tribune titled “Winter biking: just part of the year-round commute” speaks volumes to getting out in the cold on a daily basis. http://bit.ly/6nOzxS
December 19, 2009 at 2:43 pm
GLHowe
Direct link to video: http://www.startribune.com/video/12962607.html
December 19, 2009 at 3:59 pm
thrashertm
Beth – I think the city should definitely be looking at other comparable communities that are “doing it right”. But we also should keep in mind that there is a limited amount of funding to go around. What is the expense required to achieve the desired results? How does that compare with the other priorities of the city and of the taxpayers?
It would be nice if someone from the city government actively participated in this discussion and could weigh in on these issues.
December 18, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Beth Milligan
As someone fairly new to the biking movement, it’s been an eye-opening experience to see the lack of awareness in drivers of cyclists and pedestrians on the road in Traverse City. This summer, I was hit by a driver backing out of her driveway on Wadsworth St. She was only looking for cars when she backed out; it was almost as if I was invisible to her because I was on a bicycle. Even after she struck me, she didn’t realize it and kept backing up – nearly crushing my leg, which was pinned under my bike – until I screamed, at which point she got off her cell phone and stopped the car. “I’m so sorry – I wasn’t even paying attention,” she said as she helped pull me out from under the car.
I was lucky not to be badly hurt, but I’ve heard about and witnessed dozens of instances like this in TC where cyclists weren’t so lucky. It sometimes seems like this debate gets framed in an “us versus them” mentality with drivers vs. cyclists, or that cyclists/pedestrians are dismissed as a small niche environmental group clinging to an impractical mode of transportation. What I hope the city commission keeps in mind as they undertake this discussion is that policy creates priority. If cyclists and pedestrians are treated as an important factor on a policy level, the priority of the city residents will also transform over time. Increased levels of bike lanes and sidewalks will generate increased numbers of bikers and pedestrians. Increased levels of bikers and pedestrians, in turn, will generate increased awareness of those groups in drivers – as well as create greater mass and demand to substantiate further infrastructure improvements.
Far from clinging to an impractical mode of transportation, cyclists and pedestrians have acknowledged the undeniable fact that the days of defining our infrastructure by the automobile are numbered. Sarna’s comments are spot on – paradigm shifts on a municipal level are difficult. But they’re also essential if this community is going to have a viable infrastructure 5, 20 and 50 years from now.
December 19, 2009 at 4:08 pm
thrashertm
“Far from clinging to an impractical mode of transportation, cyclists and pedestrians have acknowledged the undeniable fact that the days of defining our infrastructure by the automobile are numbered. Sarna’s comments are spot on – paradigm shifts on a municipal level are difficult. But they’re also essential if this community is going to have a viable infrastructure 5, 20 and 50 years from now.”
The auto is the dominant mode of transportation because it suits most consumers’ needs best. I am very skeptical of government-led efforts to drag consumers into new “paradigms” because of the unintended consequences of such policies. There should be widespread support from the citizenry before paradigm shifts are made – change should be initiated from the bottom-up and not from the top down.
December 18, 2009 at 12:52 pm
GLHowe
The question of safety is fairly myopic. It implies that the only reason to provide something like Complete Street infrastructure is to fix a safety issue. As if, the possibility of an extra expense (or shifting of expenses) needs to be justified by that marker alone.
That said, there are several parts of Traverse City that are unsafe, or perceived unsafe, to either fully utilize or to simply cross. A note about safety, when you’re exposed as a walker or biker, the perception of safety is often the deciding factor.
A quick list:
* South Entrance of NMC on Front St.
* Munson Ave.
* Garfield & Front Intersection
* The entire route of Garfield (Agave is .5 miles away from my house, difficult to reach)
* Woodmere (nice Blvd, but is unconnected. TART crossing has blind spot)
* 8th St. (Suicidal)
* Front St. (different stretches have different issues)
* Cass St. & Union St. South of Old Town
* 7th St. crossing of Division
* The State St. bend
* 14th St.
* Division
* Grandview and Division
If it’s in the city and there are businesses and homes, I’m calling it a neighborhood.
The interesting realization looking at this list is that most of these are also trouble spots for automobile traffic. Take the 8th Street speedway for example: It’s a 25 mph zone that most people use to go 35-45mph. It’s difficult not to. It’s counter-intuitive, but if we reduced lanes and cut the speed-limit to 20 mph (or left it at 25mph) we would actually see increased flow of traffic. One reason being is that you can fit more cars closer together in the same amount of space at slower speeds.
We could talk about similar schemes on Division St.
December 18, 2009 at 3:24 am
Sarna
I want to acknowledge that what is being asked for is a fundamental shift in the entire transportation conversation. There can be no denying that for the last half-century, cars have dominated our landscape and our mindscape. We spend inordinate amounts of money and attention on the needs of motor vehicles.
It is difficult to step back and question our assumptions. Why do we call expanding car/truck infrastructure “improvements” when cars kill more people every year than cigarettes and war? Why do we allow the limited open-space the public owns to be devoted to roads instead of kids? Why is it “normal” to spend huge money on infrastructure that is so expensive to maintain (did I also mention dangerous)? Why invite car exhaust pollute our air – even next to schools?
Why are we continuing with plans to build a brand new road thru our largest park (the Commons) though it is based on outdated agreements and no one attending public hearings actually wants it (except for the lady who wanted to cut thru to get to Meijer)?? What else might we accomplish with those same funds?
Our built-environment makes it easy to serve the car so it is hard to conceive of serving another deity. It is even more difficult to ask for a paradigm shift at the municipal level. But good leaders can lead great movements…and it’s ok with me if change happens at a walking pace.
December 18, 2009 at 5:18 am
thrashertm
Totally agree with you about the Franke road extension through the Commons. This amounts to nothing more than a bailout of the businesses that chose to locate there. Ironically, I think this road will bring in so much traffic that it will undermine the serenity and beauty that makes the Commons a draw in the first place.
December 18, 2009 at 1:33 am
thrashertm
Lots of good suggestions on city streets that could be improved for pedestrians. I have also experienced the adventure of crossing Division near between Grandview Parkway and W Front and agree that it’s not easy.
The question in my mind is whether we should add a stop sign or a traffic light (with sensors please!) – or whether we need to make our streets and intersections and make them look like this –
http://tiny.cc/xKWF7
Should we inhibit the traffic flow on Division with additional traffic lights, or expect pedestrians to go up to the major intersections to cross safely?
December 17, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Laura
Division is impossible to cross North of Lakeshore drive. We looked at a house on 6th street that we loved, but due to division traffic and the fact that there is no way to cross it we moved elsewhere. There have been horrible accidents on division and there will be more if measures aren’t taken.
December 17, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Patrick Daly
The intersection of 12th/Cass is potentially very dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists. In particular, the Northbound lane on Cass presents a tough situation for drivers as the stop sign is relatively shielded from view. My wife and I have noticed cars slamming on their breaks literally almost every day since we’ve lived here (over 4 years now).
There is a “stop sign ahead” sign about 250 feet prior to the stop sign, but even that sign is hard to see in summer when the trees are full of leaves.
Just last week there was an accident at the intersection.
Glad to have a forum to post this!
December 17, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Emily
>Can someone provide some specific examples of neighborhood roads that are dangerous to bikers and pedestrians as they are currently designed?
Division is a nightmare for pedestrians and cyclists. North of Front + Division, lots of people (try to) cross Division at Randolph Street to access business like Sleder’s, The Dairy Lodge, Tilley’s Party Store, Bay Bread, Frenchie’s Famous — it’s a dangerous crossing, but people do it because no one wants to walk all the way up to the light at Front and Division, or at Division and Grandview Parkway (another intersection incredibly dangerous for pedestrians; motorists never bother to see if you’re crossing there, DESPITE crossing signals and no-turn-on-red signs and flags… I’ve been nearly hit several times there).
Within neighborhoods, the intersection of Randolph Street and Madison Street is very dangerous, I live right there and have witnessed three accidents there in the past year, to which police were called. It needs to be a four-way stop; motorists speed up and down the hill (Randolph) on their way to Hickory Meadows & the disc golf course, and they don’t have to stop at the Madison intersection, which only encourages the speeding. I’m not sure if pedestrians/bikers aren’t aware it’s only a two-way stop… either way, folks do not use caution there.
December 17, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Linnaea
This is possibly not considered a “neighborhood road,” but Cass St. south of 14th is dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists. It’s a very busy street, and there are (essentially) no sidewalks to escape to. I live along this stretch of Cass, and I do see plenty of people walking and biking along here. Once the west side Boardman Lake Trail is completed, it won’t be such an issue, but who knows how many years before that will happen? Even so, in the winter the trail would be inaccessible to bikers and all but the hardiest pedestrians.
While I’m on the issue of snow, I’m curious as to why the city doesn’t place a higher priority on clearing sidewalks. Often the pedestrian has no choice but to walk in the street. This can be especially dangerous along such busy streets as 8th and 14th.
I would say the majority of pedestrians and bicyclists don’t care as much about crumbling roads as they do about the inability to get to where they want to go safely. The majority of Traverse City is great for biking; there are just a few spots that could be improved to make it exceptional. Of course, then we’d have to start working on the rest of the county…
December 18, 2009 at 1:28 am
chrisbzdok
Bill Paladino has a good photo essay on snow removal and what it says about the city’s priorities: click on A Liveable City to the left, comments, or http://planfortc.com/2009/10/08/liveable/#comments
December 17, 2009 at 3:07 pm
GLHowe
In response to the expense for traffic calming/street reclaiming design and infrastructure, it need not be expensive. We already have the roadways, they just are not designed for multiple modes of transportation. It isn’t a matter of more money, just a shift of priority. As TC grows, this will become more and more apparent.
The key is that the city embrace its own Infrastructure Policy with serious effort and guidance of staff. As an active walker and bike commuter, I’m tired of just getting thrown the leftovers or included as an after thought.
The city needs to begin to provide some equity in the money spent on infrastructure, or at least how the decisions are made. Are they providing choices to people? Are they encouraging more numbers to walk or bike? The majority of city trips are 1 to 2 miles…the city has an opportunity to lead the way and encourage more of those trips be made by pedestrians, bicyclists, bus riders and cars if need be.
Safety in design leads to Safety in numbers.
December 17, 2009 at 5:37 pm
thrashertm
Can someone provide some specific examples of neighborhood roads that are dangerous to bikers and pedestrians as they are currently designed? Have there been accidents It seems to me that 99% of the neighborhood roads in the city are adequate.
We should take a comprehensive view of expense to also include the cost of people’s lost time when they are forced to slow down unnecessarily for traffic “calming”. 4-5 months a year 95% of the community will not be making use of the special biking and walking lanes because it’s too cold or rainy.
Don’t get me wrong – I like to bike and walk through the city as well. I would just like to ensure that the city is not going to engage in some kind of boondoggle project like laying down 4 lane pedestrian/biking thoroughfares all over town. The city does not have the best track record on these issues – look at the pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Division and Grandview Parkway. Another example is how the City stupidly has tried to consolidate 3 northbound narrow lanes at the intersection of Garfield and Front. You used to always be able to squeeze by to make a right hand turn without any trouble. They have redesigned the intersection to make it “safer” and have obstructed traffic flow.
December 18, 2009 at 12:59 am
Jennifer
Lake St. between 8th and 10th is horrendous for bikes and pedestrians. Traffic goes way too fast and the “intersection” of 10th, Lake, and the entrance to Oryana (where there is a trail entrance) is very dangerous. Maybe it seems like such a small stretch shouldn’t be a big issue, but because of businesses abutting a neighborhood, the screwy parking situation, and the ever-increasing cutting through to avoid the Cass/8th light, it really is bad. Additionally, you can’t really cross 8th at Lake safely on foot or bike which means you have to walk either to Boardman or Cass – neither of which are good crossings.
December 18, 2009 at 1:56 pm
GLHowe
Jennifer, it is actually the small stretches that are the typical problems–20-30 feet of bad design can result in a lot of people simply choosing not to bother walking or biking.
Improving the connectivity of the network is what will take vision, strong leadership and constant citizen input & over-site. And why it’s not as simple as throwing in a bike-lane here and there. Bike lanes to nowhere are, well, dead-ends.
December 17, 2009 at 4:07 am
thrashertm
I would like to see some justification supporting the implementation of expensive and unproven traffic calming techniques. Has there been an epidemic of speeding-related accidents in our neighborhoods? Will traffic calming prevent these accidents from occurring in the future? Lets see the evidence before spending the taxpayers’ money.
If we want to keep cut-through drivers out of the neighborhoods, I suggest we improve the efficiency and flow of our main roads. One great way to do that would be to add magnetic sensors to major intersections so that lights will only change when there are cars waiting. Another way to speed up traffic flow, in combination with the sensors, is to have longer green light periods. Let the traffic accumulate, then keep the light green until the entire line of traffic clears the intersection.
December 15, 2009 at 1:25 pm
GLHowe
Fairly disappointing Study Session last night from the perspective of walkers and bikers. Although nothing was voted on, staff presentations were uninspiring and offered nothing new for 2010/2011 and the commission, for the most part, lacked leadership in terms of representing walkers and bikers.
Same story: City staff presents very limited choices to the commission, regarding both the West End parking deck and Transportation Infrastructure improvements. Then, concerns are raised (mainly over the costs associated with that or this) and then the answers are vague or coupled with a “if we don’t move on these now, we will miss our opportunity” or “it will cost us more if…”.
So, its City Planning by reaction to and opportunity presents, instead of taking the time to lead and to design streets that will actually make a difference.
When the staff was asked by commissioner Maryann Moore and Mayor Chris Bzdok about bike lanes or other Complete Street technology implementations, both city manager Ben Bifoss and Department of Public Services manager Bob Cole were both vague, evasive and admittedly noncommittal. Asked when discussions about implementations could take place, the answer was that “it was a possible, not likely, in the spring of 2010″
So, perhaps I’m missing something, but it doesn’t look like the transportation element of the master plan is worth anything. No new bike infrastructure, let alone street calming technology.
Today at least. Maybe tomorrow.
December 14, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Fred Schaafsma
Chris
Excellent list of questions! In particular point 2c hits home. it is important to live up to the spirit of the Bronze Award for Bicycle Friendly City that TC received in May 2009. Besides bike lanes, traffic lights are critical in terms of how configured and how timed. The traffic light at Front and Division Streets is a problem. MDOT has the responsibility for that traffic light. They seem to me more focused on motor vehicle traffic flow than pedestrian and cyclist safety. We cannot wait till 2013 (or later) for a reconfiguration of Division St! The July 16, 2009 crash of a car into a cyclist (resulting in severe injuries to the cyclist) points out the problem there. We cannot wait in preventing injury or death to road users there, especially pedestrians and cyclists.
The Cherry Capital Cycling Club through its Safety and Education Team (of which I am the leader) is working on this issue but we are encountering a lot of resistance or lack of support. We’ll continue the work to remedy this intersection but need help from the City to get it a priority. We have a lot of data but we need action…