This is a memo I sent to my fellow city commissioners earlier this evening. If you care about what this street will be for the next 25 years, the city commission needs to hear from you.
_________________________________________________________
To: City Commissioners, City Manager, Planning Commission members
From: Chris Bzdok
Re: 8th St
__________________________________________________________
Summary
I want to fill you in on what is planned for 8th St, on my efforts to give the city commission some choices about the design of this project, and my suggestion for where we go from here. I’m sorry for the length, but I’m trying to put all the information out there.
The short version is that 8th St will be reconstructed this year from Garfield to Barlow. It’s a roughly $850,000 project with about $230,000 of stimulus funds. The old and new master plans, the Grand Vision, and other documents and discussions call for 8th St to be a complete street, with new pedestrian crossings and bike lanes.
Our city engineer decided not to include bikes or new pedestrian crossings, but never informed us of that. We’re now being told we can’t do anything because making changes will jeopardize the stimulus funds. That is contrary to informal feedback from others. So, working with TART – and with the assent of the city manager – we tried to get a second opinion from a local engineering firm. The city engineer called the president of the firm, and the second opinion lost its momentum.
I’ll be the first to admit it: I get emotional when it comes to bike lanes. But the issue is, who’s in charge here? The city commission, through our master plans and policies? Or the city engineer, who can overrule our plans and policies and not tell us?
I don’t do this lightly and I never want to do it again. But I have been trying since December to get staff to bring us some options to consider for this street before we re-construct it for the next 25 years. Options that would make it safer to bike, safer to cross, and discourage all the speeding.
My suggestion is that we ask the city manager to get a second opinion about what our options are, that he direct the city engineer not to interfere, and that we be presented with those options so we can make a decision.
I’ll start with a chronology.
Chronology
September 28, 1994
The old city master plan is enacted. This master plan was in effect until the new master plan was adopted on August 3, 2009. It specifically says future improvements of East 8th St need to include bike lanes and better pedestrian crossings:
Pedestrian and Bicycle Travel
There are areas within the community that are vehicle-oriented, where driving is encouraged and walking is made difficult. Numerous driveways, obstacles, and lack of sufficient rights of way to develop adequate sidewalks contribute to an environment hostile to the pedestrian. East Eighth Street, Fourteenth Street, Division Street, Garfield Avenue, East Front Street and Peninsula Drive are examples of roadways where the needs of the pedestrian and bicyclist must be taken into consideration. Roadway improvement designs must consider the needs of the pedestrian and bicyclist by incorporating sidewalks and bike lanes. In order to provide a sense of security for the pedestrians, sidewalks need adequate separation and clear demarcation from the roadway. Appropriate building concentrations at easy walking distances from bus stops and residential areas, plus interesting, lively street edges invite walking and biking. Lighting, landscaping, benches and public art are also encouraged, as they enhance the sidewalk environment. Pedestrian crossings should be clearly marked and lighted. (Page 4.6, the emphasis is mine).
2008 and 2009
The planning commission and city commission work on the new master plan. Until the new master plan is enacted, the old master plan remains in place.
The new master plan does not address specific locations, but rather gives directives for types of neighborhoods. The stretch of 8th Street in the project area is part TC 4 Corridor Neighborhood (between Garfield and Rose St), and part TC 3 Traditional Neighborhood (between Rose and Barlow).
TC 4 Corridor Neighborhood says: “Bike lanes incorporated with street markings along major streets.” There is even a photo of a bike lane with the caption “Bike Lanes” on page 15.
TC 3 Traditional Neighborhood says: “More formal designated transportation access (sidewalks, bike lanes, alleys).”
The new master plan also has 7 “Core Principles.” One of them is “Transportation choices are important to our vitality and environmental health.”
It also has 9 Goals. One of them is “Become pedestrian friendly and encourage more energy efficient, environmentally friendly transportation choices.”
Fall 2008
I do not have a precise time frame, but I believe the city engineer was designing the reconstruction of 8th St during this period. I do not know when he made the decision not to include bike lanes or new pedestrian crossings on 8th St. More on that decision later.
November 2008
The Grand Vision hired Harris Interactive to do a scientific poll, and the poll results come out. 91% of those surveyed in GT County want more walkable, bikeable neighborhoods. It was the highest positive response to any question they asked.
February 21, 2009
City Commissioner Jim Carruthers requests that 8th St be re-striped to include bike lanes. I can’t possibly say it better than he did:
There is lots of good study and information available for changing roads from 4 lanes to 3 lanes with bike lanes. Lowering traffic speeds, pedestrian safety, traffic calming and flow, emergency vehicle movement and a relatively inexpensive fix to support a pedestrian friendly town, are all positives as I see it. I have included a number of websites below for review. This is not rocket science and is something that many communities are doing all across this country.
I’m hoping we as a city can do a demonstration project on 8th Street, say from Lake to Woodmere for our spring street striping program and from Garfield to Munson (I am open to options). After some preliminary engineering study by the city (which is in process already I believe) I hope we can try this for the 2009 summer season.
Let’s take a pro-active approach to a safer, more walkable community, something citizens have been asking for now for some time. What is the harm in trying something like this?
April 20, 2009
City commission votes to re-stripe 8th St between Garfield and Munson. The city manager’s specific request was for authorization to undertake the “Eighth Street Re-striping Pilot Program in the spirit of making Eighth Street a more pedestrian and bicycle friendly street.” We were never given a choice to re-stripe from Woodmere to Lake that Commissioner Carruthers suggested as an option, but the idea was that this would be a pilot program. I don’t know about you, but I always thought a pilot program is something you try out and if successful, you do more.
April 20, 2009
City commission passes the first Neighborhood Enterprise Zone. The NEZ is a stretch of 8th St within the reconstruction project area, from Rose to Franklin. The NEZ is a tax abatement whose purpose is to “encourage owner occupied housing and new investment in core communities.” To reiterate: we are giving people some of their tax money back, in order to promote a more residential neighborhood along this stretch of 8th St.
June 8, 2009
City commission starts discussing Infrastructure Policy. Right from the get-go, the policy says:
All projects shall use the technical resource, “Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities.” Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) is a process of balancing the needs of all users of the system, including non-vehicular uses. It is a “Complete Streets” approach that incorporates methods to reduce vehicular traffic impacts on adjacent neighborhoods.
All major street construction should include a bias in favor of sidewalk or bikeway construction in conjunction with the street (in addition to the #1 sidewalk above). There may be cause to not include either sidewalks or bikeways but that cause would need to be demonstrated. (Emphasis is mine).
July 27, 2009
City commission continues discussing the Infrastructure Policy. The parts about complete streets and context-sensitive solutions for neighborhoods continue to be included.
August 3, 2009
City commission accepts the new master plan. The text about bike lanes in those neighborhoods, and transportation choices being a core principle and goal, is included.
August 27, 2009
City enters into the contract with MDOT for $230,000 of stimulus funds for 8th St. More on the specifics of this contract later.
September 21, 2009
City commission adopts the Infrastructure Policy, including the parts about complete streets and context-sensitive solutions for neighborhoods.
December 16, 2009
I hear from an outside source that the 8th St reconstruction project does not include bike lanes or new ped crossings. I inquire, and two days later Ben forwards me this email from the city engineer:
The 8th Street Reconstruction Project includes repair of sidewalks and installation of barrier free ramps to current standards. We examined opportunities to include bike lanes in the proposed cross section and found the street would need to be widened by 4′ in either direction (8′ total). When applying this additional width to the cross section we would need to remove several large trees and change the look of the route significantly. The wider street would reduce the tree lawn are between the sidewalk and curb to 3′. Thus, the existing width was retained.
The proposed project follows the current configuration including:
- A narrow center turn lane and wider travel lanes for shared use in the area between Rose and Garfield. The center turn lane also functions as a pedestrian refuge area
- A two lane section with wider travel lanes for shared use and parallel parking on the south side from Rose to Barlow
- The current configuration between Barlow and Woodmere with wider travel lanes for shared use
Also, the designated cross town bike route (Washington Street) is located a few blocks to the north and the recreation trail is located a few blocks to the south of this portion of 8th Street.
Note two things. First, the reason not to include bike lanes was not because they would cause a traffic or safety problem. It was because of some trees and some tree lawn. Second, the email says the project follows the current configuration, but that’s not entirely true. There is a new left turn lane on either side of Barlow.
December 2009
Mead and Hunt sends their first drafts of the Grand Vision corridor of significance reports. While they need a lot more work, there is one key item. Corridor #9 includes 8th St from Cass St east to Munson. The report says “In addition, a non-motorized facility should be constructed throughout the entire corridor.” (Emphasis is mine).
Early January 2010
I meet with Ben more than once on this. My impression from those meetings is that the city engineer’s position is that we simply cannot make any changes. The two reasons are (1) it would take a year to re-design and so we will lose the stimulus funds, and (2) MDOT will not agree to any changes and so we will lose the stimulus funds.
Informal inquiries with others in town indicate these things are not true, or not entirely true. I tell Ben I am going to see about getting a second opinion. Not to attribute any particular statements to Ben, my impression was that he expressed openness to a second opinion.
January 14, 2010
TART hires Gosling Czubak for the second opinion. It seemed more appropriate for a bicycle and pedestrian organization to hire the opinion than for me to do it. (Disclosure: I did contribute). The scope of work was for Gosling to do a concept design and have a meeting with TART and the city engineer about how to implement the design if the city commission chose to do so. Two landscape architects and a PE were involved for Gosling, and they made a contribution of part of their services.
TART would like to present the concept design Monday night; hopefully we can get copies ahead of time. The gist is that rather than widen the street 4 feet on either side for the whole stretch, they widen it only within 100 feet of Rose St and Garfield. They also take out the relatively recent center turn lane between Rose St and the approach to Garfield. (Garfield still has a turn lane.) Left-turning traffic into Glen’s is directed to use a short stretch of Rose St from the dedicated turn lane there. The travel lanes are narrowed slightly but still meet AASHTO standards and will help discourage speeding on 8th St. Better pedestrian crosswalks are included. Tree grates are installed where the tree lawns narrow around the intersections.
The plan is the very picture of what the old master plan says we want East 8th St to look like. Yet because the only differences are some paint and some widening around the two intersections, the changes can be done by change order. Engineering design – including for storm water – still needs to be done, but we understand that would take a week, not a year.
January 21, 2010
Bob Otwell from TART calls the city engineer and leaves a voice mail requesting a meeting with Gosling, TART, and city staff to discuss the second opinion. A couple hours later, the president of Gosling calls Otwell and puts the meeting on hold. Apparently the city engineer had called the president of Gosling.
January 27, 2010
The meeting does go forward, but the president of Gosling attends. This was not part of the scope of work for the second opinion, nor did TART request it. The report I got from the meeting (which I did not attend) was that the president of Gosling agreed with the city engineer that no changes could be made to the project.
A couple days later I asked for the purpose and substance of the city engineer’s call to the president of Gosling. Here is the response I received:
- Inquired about the nature of their work for TART after receiving a phone message from Bob Otwell requesting a meeting to review bike lane concepts
- Discussed the status of the Project
- Discussed the potential conflict of interest with their existing services contract with the City for testing and surveying services for the Project
- Inquired about the use of plans prepared by the City Engineer as the basis for their work
The existing services contract referred to was for soil testing and surveying, for about $12,000. I want to be clear – I do not think the president of Gosling did anything unreasonable under the circumstances.
But here is my question about the “conflict of interest.” The mayor told the city manager we were going to get a second opinion for the city commission to consider. The city manager told the mayor he was open to a second opinion. Gosling, who was working for the city on the soil testing, was hired to do the second opinion on the design. Was there really a conflict with the city’s interest, or just with the city engineer’s interest?
Discussion
As a result of discussion with the city manager (who has been frank and open every step of the way), here are the arguments I expect we will hear, and my notes on each:
A. We cannot change the project or we will lose the stimulus funds.
No one is arguing that we should give up the stimulus funds. The question is what changes can we make without losing the stimulus funds?
The agreement we entered with MDOT says that MDOT hires the contractor, and that has occurred. The work is supposed to start in the spring. The stimulus funds are for “shovel-ready” projects That doesn’t really answer the question though, because projects like these also have change orders as I understand it.
The contract we signed with MDOT is interesting. At page 5, it says “[MDOT’s] sole reason for entering into this contract is to enable [the city] to obtain and use” stimulus funds. It says that “any and all approvals of, reviews of, and recommendations regarding … plans and specifications … are done to assist [the city] in meeting program guidelines in order to qualify for available funds.” It says that the city still has “exclusive jurisdiction” and “control” of 8th St.
Now on Attachment II, item E (p 14 of pdf), the contract does say:
No extra work shall be performed nor changes in plans and specifications made until said work or changes are approved by the project engineer and authorized by [MDOT].
So we do need MDOT’s consent to make changes. Informal feedback from other sources is that if the project engineer advocates for changes, MDOT can be flexible. Remember – we’re not asking for more stimulus money for the changes.
Terms like “programming change” and “function change” have been thrown around. As in, “MDOT won’t agree to that because it’s a programming change,” or, “bike lanes can’t be put in because they change the function of the street.” But no one has been able to find where these terms come from, or how they dictate what we can or cannot do. The documents I received don’t say anything about this. We are talking about changing the paint and some extra width at two intersections. And if we cannot do both, can we do one of those? Can we do something else?
What about making changes after the project is closed out? Could we cut the curbs back at those intersections and change the paint then? What would that cost?
Page 13 of the attachment to the MDOT contract (p 23 of the pdf), raises some concern. It says that after the project is done, the city may “make no changes in ordinances or regulations enacted, or traffic controls installed in conjuction with the project work without prior approval of [MDOT] and approval of the FHWA, if required.”
We need to be absolutely sure we understand what that means. But it seems likely there are still options, if we want to find options.
B. Changing the design will take a year.
I have not heard this argument in a while, so I do not know if we will hear it again.
C. We need a public process.
That’s the goal of this discussion. There was no public discussion of this project. There was a public process involving the installation of the Rose St light in 2004, but there was no public process involved in the new center turn lane from Rose to Garfield.
There was also no public discussion of new turn lanes at Barlow. The neighbors are just now finding out about it. One of them wrote:
Ignoring for a moment that this design does nothing to improve or enhance 8th Street, I am deeply offended that the City has decided to encourage and facilitate the routing of traffic into the Oak Park neighborhood. Name any other place where they would treat the citizens and homeowners with such total disdain.
D. We’re just putting the street back exactly the way it was.
That is not true. The new left turn lanes at Barlow are different. The “function change” of those turn lanes will be to route traffic into that neighborhood and make it easier to speed on 8th St, as the above comment states.
E. The city commission was informed about this.
Could we have spotted a thread and pulled and pulled until we had answers? Maybe. Was it brought to our attention? Definitely not.
It’s true that action was taken – on the consent calendar – to approve various contracts related to this project. But I have reviewed each one of these packets. No contracts were ever provided to us. No plans were ever provided to us. No presentation or discussion was ever held.
When was the last time we did an $850,000 project in this city and it was never presented to us?
F. The city engineer made an engineering decision that bikes don’t belong on 8th St
I suggest this statement is the most direct explanation of this whole process. And it brings us back to the central question: Who is running the city? Whose decisions are these?
Let me tell you what you already know. People spend a ton of time on these efforts: city commission meetings, planning commission meetings, master plan meetings, ad hoc meetings, “conference committee” meetings, TALUS meetings, Grand Vision meetings. We discuss and debate goals and priorities and wording, and through time-intensive processes we make group decisions. These meetings are usually staffed, so we also spend public money on these plans and policies. And we make the decisions in public.
The old master plan was clear: put bike lanes and pedestrian enhancements on East 8th St when we improve it. The city engineer disregarded the master plan when he designed the project. Then, while we were putting in place the new infrastructure policy and the new master plan, he chose not to re-visit the design so it would be consistent with those documents.
We cannot review the details of every project. We set policy. But the point is that the policies we set are supposed to be followed. At the very least, if the city engineer decides to overrule our policies, shouldn’t we get a heads-up? Shouldn’t we be presented with recommendations, and then allowed to make the decision? If these plans and policies can just be overruled by one person without discussion, what do they even mean? Why bother?
Finally, as someone who is emotionally involved on this particular issue, let me tell you this. When you ride your bike in traffic, you are very aware of your surroundings. Therefore, you constantly observe the choices that were made on streets, bike trails, and intersections. As a city taxpayer who helps pay for this infrastructure, you ask yourself: Was a decision made here to protect me, or to expose me? Was my safety a higher priority or a lower priority at this location? Do I get a choice about how I get around my hometown, or don’t I? And whose decision is that anyway?
Bikes are on 8th street now. The question is whether they will get some protection, or continue to have no protection. The bigger question is, who decides?
Conclusion
We are boxed in now, and no one is going to suggest we give up the stimulus money. The question is whether we are boxed in completely, or only partially.
We tried to get a second opinion, but that process was influenced. My suggestion is we ask the city manager to get a new second opinion, and to direct the city engineer not to interfere. That’s what a second opinion is after all – one that the author of the first opinion does not influence.
Our choices will be more limited now than they were 6 or 12 months ago. But we still should have a chance to hear what is possible, what it will cost, and what the pros and cons are. That’s our job. That’s what people expect us to do.
Thanks for listening.
51 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 14, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Vic McCarty
All other issues aside. The Mayor claims that the city commission was never informed of plans to not include bike lines or pedestrian crossings and yet the city commission voted in favor of the plan? if this correct, and please correct me if I am wrong, then the real question is: what is the mayor talking about?
February 14, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Corwin Anderson
Vic, Exactly! the previous seated board (city commission) approved moving a head witht he street work. Now the Mayor (who seems to be running for something) acts like this was conjured out of thin air. It was actually well planned and doen according to the wants and desires of the city commission.
February 15, 2010 at 2:38 am
Beth Milligan
From my understanding of this issue, there were four times since the beginning of the project over the last year or so where an innocuous item related to the 8th St redesign (such as completing a street survey, etc.) was placed on the City Commission’s consent calendar. The calendar is designed for non-controversial items to be quickly voted on and moved through the Commission chambers. The full extent of the redesign – such as the inclusion (or lack thereof) of bike lanes – never came before the Commission for discussion in the way we typically think of occurring for high-interest projects.
There seems to be wide-ranging consent, from both the public and Commission itself, that a better process for communications and input is needed moving forward. That said, the issue of process and approval is more complex than it appears, and probably not well served by accusations of hidden intent or incompetency against the Commission.
February 15, 2010 at 7:27 am
Chris Bzdok
Vic – The CC never voted in favor of the plan. The items that came to the CC were a temporary coat of asphalt a year prior to the project, some survey work in the city that included 8th St, accepting stimulus money, and some soil testing. None of these were discussion items. The plan never came to the CC. That was my point.
Corwin – I’m not running for anything. Mayor is a part-time position in TC, and I love my day job. I am trying to increase participation in what we do, because I and others think it will lead to better outcomes.
Thanks for writing everyone.
February 10, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Matt
Once again it seems that the city and the state are not on the same page when it comes to the vision of Traverse City.
A few months ago the city stopped MDOT from construction work on Division St. because the plans did not follow the Grand Vision scope.
Now we are seeing the same thing with 8th St. instead now it seems that they will go ahead with the original plan and than make changes later on.
Most likely the changes will never come. (It’s like when they take away work benefits and tell you they will “re-visit it later”, right Munson.)
The city needs to show some backbone on this issue or we will be visiting it again and again with other projects.
The people have spoken, listen to them or loose their trust
February 9, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Breanne
It seems like this city has found itself in similar circumstances before. Transparency only occurs after contracts have been signed and decisions have been privately made. That’s when the excuses start dripping from mouths.
This is unacceptable. There needs to be some accountability for what has happened and how, once again, the process has failed. The message of the community is clear. Make it work. I cannot be sold on the excuse “If we give the money up we might not get it again”. It is clear in Mayor Bzdok’s letter that MDOT would be willing to work with the City Engineer Tim Lodge if he approved alterations to the current plan. So what are we really dealing with? A pouting City Engineer who doesn’t want to play fair and do the job his bosses, the residents of the City, demand he performs? A room of City Commissioners who are confronted with a hour’s worth of testimony from the People but still wiggle in their seats because of twisted bureaucracy?
It is time for accountability. If Tim Lodge refuses to accept a working relationship with the City and it’s residents and push towards an inclusive solution, which he failed to do from the beginning, I ask for his resignation. Why should we pay to hire an independent engineer because our City Engineer is stubborn. Yes he has helped create the TART trail but does this mean the citizens of the city can’t chose which way they safely walk and bike?
Why aren’t lanes narrowed to slow down traffic instead of widened to increase speed? Instead of left turn lanes on Rose and 8th why can’t lights be re-timed to include cars turning left? These are rational even possible solutions that Tim Lodge apparently refuses to discuss with the City. Why?
Perhaps, if plans cannot be changed in regards to the design of 8th Street it is our Commissioners’ responsibility to refuse federal funding and hold someone accountable for this mess and in the process gain back trust from the residents.
One question: Why is Mayor Bzdok’s letter is the stimulus money 230,000 but last night a number around 420,000 was being thrown around? What are the specifics here? It seems like everyone is a bit confused… and do we want to proceed under a cloud of confusion and distrust?
I will remain hopeful that the voices of the City were heard last night and the City Commissioners will exhaust all possibilities to do this right, even if that means starting from scratch.
February 9, 2010 at 11:54 pm
Corwin Anderson
Oh no! She wants us to be like Ann Arbor. Mindless eschewing from birkenstock souls. Where everyone that grasps the mantle of the vaunted seat is always running for something.
Nothing gets done and they do it so well!
February 10, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Breanne
You’ll have to clarify… I am not sure how your reply corresponds to my comment.
February 10, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Corwin Anderson
Breanne, my reference was to the non-sensical way you want people fired and to narrow lanes so all things are beautiful. That the little world you live in is kept quiet and perfect for you to enjoy. Not seeing the big picture (as someone wrote a few responses down) will get you “… tourism dollars finding a more friendly and less abrasive place to spend their money…” I know that it’s not all about money, but what do you think fuels the engine of TC? Manufacturing? Cherries? get a grip.
Yes, making bike lanes as part of an overall plan is a very nice addition to the town. TART is wonderful. But do it right and not get people squished while riding, just so you can say “we showed those city people now didn’t we”…?
Don’t do Ann Arbor where ever blade of grass and nuance is a political food fight! Or where the mayor is always running for something or trying to be all things to all people.
February 9, 2010 at 7:55 am
Chris Bzdok
Here is a link to a video by 9 and 10 news that includes footage and interviews of the 8th St ride/walk to city hall: http://www.9and10news.com/category/story/?id=204783
Thanks to all who emailed, attended, and spoke out on this issue. We will start going up the ladder this morning to ask for flexibility from the funding agencies to fix this project. I will keep you posted on our results here on this site.
February 9, 2010 at 2:03 am
Bill Palladino
After over an hour of public comment at the study session, with 33 citizens voicing their concerns, we’re still left in a maddening netherworld.
The city commission seemed unprepared for the issue at hand. Some were simply clueless about the proposed design that they agreed to by consent decree on an earlier date. Some seemed interested, yet unmoved by the public comment.
Aside from Mayor Bzdok and Commissioner Carruthers, the rest of the commissioners were more interested in saving face by sticking with an obviously misdirected plan, than in doing the right thing. One after another citizens stood up to support the commission in halting the project and reestablishing sensibility and trust. Most of the commission let this singular voice fall on deaf ears. There was a confusing preference for preserving the federal and state funding, whether or not the object of the funding serves community need. This is the most troubling fact of the entire night. If a City employee had contracted to shut down 8th street to vehicular traffic, because there was grant money available for it , would this be considered? I think not.
On the other end of the conversation, while City Engineer Tim Lodge has not been either easy to deal with or proactive in support of the bicycling community, he has simply been following the years of status quo development here in Traverse City. You will not find me defending Tim Lodge, but I am adamant that he is not the problem. Without a clear mandate from the City Commission that its policies, procedures, mission, and vision must be followed by City staff, he cannot be held liable.
A vision is useless in any organization without a clear strategy for communicating it to all who have the power to affect it. The City Commission must work with City staff, starting with the City Manager, to suggest that these policies are the priority for all staff. Otherwise the policies, initiatives, and mission the City Commission espouses will be for naught.
For my money the one thing that should’ve come immediately following the public comments tonight was a motion from the commission. The motion would’ve charged the City Manager with ensuring that City staff clearly understand the Master Plan, the Grand Vision, the Complete Streets Initiative, and the mission of the City Commission itself. Furthermore, the motion would hold this premise as the highest measure of success for any employee of the City. In turn this would set a standard for accountability reaching deep into the tiers of staff that actually do the bidding of the City, its commissioners, and indeed the people of Traverse City.
February 8, 2010 at 10:48 pm
Grant Carrithers
Something Stinks! It seems like the the mayor and city manager is throwing the City Engineer “under the bus.” As an engineer myself, shame on City leadership for simply not taking responsibliity and appearing to imply to blame the engineer, MDOT, Federal Government…etc. I’m sure city engineer identifies infrastructure issues and seeks direction and approval of priorities on what to do. The Grand Vision, City Master Plan, TART Vision etc. which I’m sure came along during or after the design process. Also as an engineer, my projects were never funded without review, approval and funding. The “buck” stops with who he works for.
You either trust your professional City Engineer or find a new one. It’s ridiculous to hire another engineering company to cover up a lack of city leadership and accountability.
Also for all the TART supporters like me, the City Engineer has done more for designing and building the “off road” trails we enjoy and deserves our thanks for being a professional and expanding the recreational trails and multi community “off road” trails we all enjoy.
As always, it’s easy to spend a few moments making these comments but do want to thank the elected City Leadership for your public service and the incredible sacrifice you make in that regard.
Nuff said.
February 8, 2010 at 11:49 pm
Jennifer
Grant,
Tonight’s meeting made it pretty clear that the city engineer did not do much to engage the public nor the commission on the “decisions” for 8th street. While I wholeheartedly agree with some of your comments, especially those regarding accountability, I also acknowledge that we have a new Mayor and several new Commissioners. It would be nice to know that the city employees were always adhering to the master plan; were transparent in their actions; and were doing their utmost to seek citizen input. This whole mess could’ve been avoided if any of the above were true. Trust has been eroded, not by the mayor but by the actions of a city employee. I’ve never gotten the impression that the mayor is trying to throw anyone under the bus; in fact it’s just refreshing that some of the wrongs are being exposed – not with an eye toward punishing but with an eye toward making sure they don’t continue to happen.
And yes, thank you to the elected leadership! It’s not a job I would want!
February 9, 2010 at 3:31 pm
June Thaden
I concur completely with Jennifer’s comments. Let’s all cool down, and wait for a few days while the City works with MDOT.
This is a difficult problem, and one we, as cyclists, shouldn’t pretend we have all the answers. MDOT has been a road & moving cars & trucks department for a long time. We must have some patience while they learn that time has passed — that petroleum and endless cars to move is coming to a viable end. Trust Mayor Bzdok and City Manager Bifoss to show they do have the best interests of all of us in mind. Recognize that just because we want a particular solution, compromise may have to be the answer.
February 8, 2010 at 5:31 pm
John Hall
Regardless of your personal opinion as to whether one should be riding on 8th, the fact is that the Master Plan calls for certain features and this appears to be ignored. That the mayor is airing this publicly is a good thing. It’s an anti-old boys network policy.
February 8, 2010 at 5:07 pm
John Hall
It is so true that we’ve spent years as a community outlining our wants and goals. The engineer made a mistake in ignoring them. I hope he will speak at the meeting and give us his input. We need a remedy!
February 7, 2010 at 10:32 am
Linnaea Melcarek
Just a quick point to those who say bikers should stick to the TART trail or use 8th Street’s sidewalk: for a large portion of the year, these routes are inaccessible to the majority of bicyclists. The road is the only place reliably cleared of snow.
As someone who lives along another dangerous street frequently used by bicyclists (Cass Street, which is a fight for another day), it seems to me that bike lanes must be a part of any 8th St. renovations. Because even if you don’t build them, bikers will use the street, and a number of them will be hurt or worse due to unsafe conditions.
February 7, 2010 at 10:20 pm
R. Mervau
Linnae, you expound on the points made bewlow. That 8th Street is a dangerous place for biking and so are other streets in TC. Just like many other town s or urban setting and some rual spots too.
There seems to be a collective need by many on here to place bikes and heavy machinery in the same mixing bowl. Why? The solution is in the design of an adjoining or enhjancement of the current sidwalk spaces for bicycles too. That is exactly what the TART trail is. A hybrid pedestrian “un-motorized” vehicle lane, removed from the side by side traffic of automobiles. Basicaly, your chances for getting smushed have been greratly reduced with this model.
Conversely, to hold up street repairs, filling of potholes and long overdue re-sufacing of a vital east west route in Traverese City is extremely short sighted. If you and others believe that the city Streets Engineer and other city department heads should come before a committe to do a study to produce more paperwork to get appoval for every little thing that is within their purvue doing thewir job… then you are in for city work and business to come to a screeching and costly halt.
If the Tart trail and some re-engineered version of it along the sidewalks of major routes in town is still not agreable. Then do like most cyclers of the fine coored garb… ride with traffic in the streets like we have for decades, observe the basic rules of the road. Don’t blow through 4-way stops just because you’re on a bike and deal with it. See my response below for further input.
February 8, 2010 at 5:36 pm
John Hall
We need to make 8th a less dangerous place to ride. People will ride on 8th, let’s make it less dangerous than it is.
Shortsighted would be your idea to forge ahead without doing it the right way the first time. Remember, the studies have already been done but apparently ignored by the engineer.
February 6, 2010 at 3:40 pm
chrisbzdok
In response to a few comments and emails, the following posting guidelines will take effect starting now:
1. Spirited discussion and debate are encouraged.
2. Criticism of the mayor is welcome.
3. Commenters must use their real names, or their posts will be removed.
Item #3 applies only to new posts, not to those that are already on here. We appreciate very much your comments on this site, and hope you will keep writing!
February 6, 2010 at 2:53 pm
H Geebae
In my view Mr. Byzdok should not criticize a city employee who may not defend himself while he’s employed by the city. This smacks of grandstanding by Byzdok and bullying of the city engineer.
The proper route is for the full commission to work with the city manager to develop and implement policy and not politicize the city engineer. The mayor seat is a symbolic joke which is an equal commissioner except for chairing meetings. We are a city manager form of government.
Further, it is worth noting that Mr. Lodge the city engineer is one of the few people to have stood up to Jerry Snowden and his friends running the Record Eagle. Take a quick stock and you’ll see that every person, agency, and employee who has dared to stand up to Mr. Snowden, or express the truth, has been publicly attacked, belittled, and ultimately either quit or been fired. Most citizens will never know the truth about what really occured on the west end parking project thanks to rank cronyism.
In this town you are either a co-conspirator of the paper, or an enemy. They allow no independance, they ignore the sins of their cronies, and marginalize and belittle those who dare to have opposing views to their simplistic trust fund mentality.
Which are you Byzdok? How often do you meet with the editors? What do you discuss? Do they EVER allow an opposing viewpoint at these meetings?
February 6, 2010 at 3:35 pm
chrisbzdok
Mr. or Ms. Geebae – the answer to your question is I met with the editors of the Record Eagle once, in October of 2009, as part of their process of meeting with all candidates for local office during election season. They asked me questions about my goals for the position, and I answered their questions as best I could. I have not met with them since becoming mayor, which I agree is an equal commissioner who chairs the meetings, but carries some other demands and expectations as well.
February 6, 2010 at 6:26 pm
June Thaden
“H. Geebae” So you believe the staff has more authority than the elected members of the Commission. With all respect to City Manager Bifoss, I don’t agree. After all, they all represent the people in Traverse City.
And definitely the Mayor is not a symbolic joke. Our Mayor Bzdok deserves respect, and does not “grandstand”, nor is he a puppet for anyone. Also, if you believe your words, sign your real name!
February 5, 2010 at 8:16 pm
Bob EIchenlaub
Good Mr Mayor. Keep up the good work. I am an avid biker and plan on attending the meeting on Monday night. This stretch is a suicide lane. Let’s make this road safe for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Bob Eichenlaub
February 5, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Beth Milligan
After reading through a few comments on this thread, I’d recommend laying down some basic rules of courtesy for posting in these forums. Conflicting ideas and views should never be censored, but name-calling and insults in no way contribute to meaningful discourse. It’s possible to present an opposing argument without demonizing everyone who doesn’t think the same way as you. Posts that don’t abide by that level of courtesy should be removed from the site. Just my two cents for both the posters and moderators on this board.
For the most part, though, I am amazed at how thoughtful the comments on both sides of this issue have been. Great to see so many people posting.
February 5, 2010 at 12:09 pm
June Thaden
I’m obviously one of those silly people “with minds of mush” the previous writer dismisses as having no reasonable argument. Nevertheless, this is what I just sent to the Commissioners.
Dear City Commissioner,
I am a longtime resident of Traverse City, 520 Highland Park Drive. I have long been an advocate for bicyclists’ place on the roads, and have served as Chair on the Board of the League of Michigan Bicyclists, on the Board of the League of American Wheelmen/now Bicyclists for 6 years (3 as President) as well as helping found TART and the Cherry Capital Cycling Club. So I am definitely biased. Non-motorized travel is increasingly important in our changing times, and for our health.
I applaud the City for supporting TART Trails when it was still (to Traverse City) a “new” idea being pushed by a relatively small group of individuals. And for continuing to listen to those of us concerned with bicyclist and pedestrian needs.
I have not always been an advocate of lined bike lanes, but have come to realize that they are the only way to ensure sufficient space will be set aside for bicycles. Cycling in our town has increased dramatically in Traverse City in the past decade or two, in part due to the stated acceptance and recognition of cycling as transportation when the first bike lanes were painted on the street.
The question of the redesign of 8th Street is basically one of what we want the street to be: is it a minor arterial carrying cars & trucks, or is it a city street through residential areas?
Many engineers will see it as Mr. Lodge does, and design a street with wide lanes to cause the largest volume of motorized traffic. Apparently his new design will increase the ability of cars and trucks to drive rapidly on this “get through Traverse City” road, regardless of the posted speed limit.
However, we in Traverse City have supported many statements in the Master Plans, Grand Vision, and other planning documents that we want to slow traffic on this street in an effort to make it safe and inviting to bicycling and walking. The trial with the restriping between Munson & Garfield seems to been working well, and it seems reasonable to treat the entire route from Cass to Garfield in a similar fashion. Obviously there are places where space makes a center turn lane not possible.
The current cross section of much of 8th St. has 13.5’ lanes. Such wide lanes encourage motorists to drive faster. Lanes two feet narrower would provide sufficient space while encouraging motorists to drive more slowly and carefully. As a frequent user of 8th Street, both as a motorist and a bicyclist, I would much prefer traffic that is not rushing through town.
One final thought involves my age. I’m pushing 80 and find it harder when on foot to hurry across streets in the time allowed by many crossings. I love Front St. where motorists mostly realize the cross walks are for pedestrians and do readily yield to folks on foot. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could make crossing streets throughout Traverse City more like Front St. than Division St. or Grandview?
I realize that there are times when motorized traffic is paramount, and roads need to be designed to accommodate them. Interstates and major highways are examples. 8th Street is not.
Sincerely,
June Thaden
cc City Manager, City Engineer
February 6, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Corwin Anderson
I have to agree with Mr. Mervau; the Grand Vision plan is an overpriced hunk of paper. While you have some good intentions, lets not get the master plan, current zoning and the wispy grand vision confused with each other.
8th St. is a major trunk line in the city. By putting bike riders in peril just for the sake of those with a certain ideology is wrong headed. Open up the sidewalks and other alternatives.
February 6, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Beth Milligan
I can understand concerns about costs, timelines or losing stimulus money, though I believe the concerns against bike lanes are strongly outweighed by those for the lanes. One criticism I can’t get my mind around, however, is that 8th St is a “major truck line” that should only be used by cars and trucks. 8th St is not a highway. It is, for the majority of its length besides Cass to Woodmere, a two-lane road that passes through town. And those two lanes are vital to the citizens of TC – they border an elementary school, lead to the public library, pass a popular grocery store, connect to the city government center, provide access to Division, downtown, Garfield and US-31, and house a broad mix of residential and commercial buildings. Most importantly, they have a 25 mph speed limit, making them completely safe for bikers and pedestrians to use provided there was infrastructure in place to do so. Why should such an important street be accessible only by automobile? Aren’t we putting bikers and pedestrians at risk by making a road that connects to so many important areas dangerous to use, so that those who don’t have cars have to make do with risky trips down sidewalks or sandwiched in the auto traffic?
The push to make this road safe for bikers and walkers is long overdue. I’m glad to see the commission taking the time to explore this.
February 4, 2010 at 11:47 pm
R Mervau
I too have traveled 8th Street and many streets on a daily basis. Being a main route from one side of town to the other, it truly amazes me the lilly little minds of mush when it comes to recognizing this on here.
Are you advocating that bicycles be forced to a designated lane in the same insane fashion that was done on Woodmere? I also ride a bike and having used the Woodmere example of a “suicide lane” among 4000lb vehicles is not my idea of good planning!
Designating that bicyclists must be put in a very uncompromising and potentially dangerous situation, just to serve some bike-rights agenda by a few militant minded ones of the tight pants crowd is mind boggling! Ok I like those tight pants too…but come on.
The TART trail is a wonderful pedestrian and bikers dream for cross city travel. It is mostly un-impeded by crossings with vehicle traffic from one end of town to the other. It truly is a marvel in linking people with our town and area. However, I realized that people live and work in areas off the trial and along the city’s streets and by-ways. As we were all taught when growing up, (way before “bike trails” ever existed) there are rules of the road to observe when riding a bike with or against traffic. And there are just some roads you don’t traverse if you want to survive to ride another day. That’s a fact.
Another fact is the safe and even flow of vehicle traffic into, through and out of Traverse City; which is paramount to commerce and doing business on a daily basis. When you impede this flow or cause a situation by design or law to put people and/or property in a perilous situation, it is quite disturbing. The city has a responsibility to a higher degree when insuring the publics’ safety through endeavors it sets in motion.
In addition, this little engine of a city runs on tourism. The ability to get those dollars riding in those vehicles into this town and area and around it in a somewhat orderly way and out again is a huge to key to ongoing success. If we continue to constrain, squeeze and tighten the road scapes to a more unpleasant level, those dollars will take their ride somewhere else that is more accessible and less abrasive.
Since we have a great number of alternative transportation mavens in our midst’s we do need to think of other ways to move about this fine land of ours. But don’t get your knickers all aflutter folks, since all those ideas of light and high speed rail will remain in southern Michigan along with their money for some time to come. Having co-designed a conceptual rapid rail system for the entire state that answers many of our local point to point business/transport needs, I can tell you don’t hold your breath on it happening. This is another story for another time…. so the bike lane idea is interesting, but let’s plan it with common sense. Not knee-jerk dangerous potential.
While the city engineer may have taken a more communicative route (according to the mayor); I will err on the side of the city engineer when it comes to the use and needs of the current roads. I applaud him for not running up the cost of the 8th street re-do with frivolous studies and social engineering grand plans like the “Grand Vision”. (Of which is merely an over priced document pushed by a small group with a force feeding agenda. The grand vision is not law, it’s not even part of the “master plan” and has no mandate for anything other than being the over priced piece of paper that it is.)
Now the new mayor wants to run up costs (something I thought he and others on the board ran against so they could get elected), by implementing a study, all hail another study! Just to do what is already in place. A good common sense plan. Get on with it!
8th Street is in dire need of better flow of traffic and resurfacing, that we all can agree on! So to accommodate a bike lane along that main route one has to consider a realistic space planning approach. Since TC is designated a “Tree City USA”; do you forsake the “green quotient of living breathing trees that are not hurting anybody just to prove a point by a few that bike the street as a necessary greener answer to that stretch of roads’ daily existence. If so, get out the chain saw!
February 5, 2010 at 12:17 pm
nathan
Excellent post! Probably the most enlightend and observant post here.
TC doesn’t need to be so militant on its actions. The new mayor obviously is a one term wonder!
good job R.
February 4, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Hans Voss
This is a crucial moment for our city. Mayor Bzdok has laid down a clear and compelling case. It’s the kind of leadership we need.
Here is the statement I just emailed to the Commission.
Dear Mr. Bifoss and Traverse City Commissioners,
I am writing to express my serious concern about the possibility that our community might proceed in re-paving part of 8th street without including bike lanes and improved pedestrian crossings. I am not able to attend the meeting on Monday because I am in Seattle at a national smart growth conference where I am reminded that the most successful cities in the country have fully incorporated complete streets strategies that require bike lanes and facilities to promote walking. The cities that are attracting the young workforce of the new economy — Seattle, Denver, San Diego, Portland, Boston, New York, Madison, and many more — recognize the driving factor in the 21st century economy is creating a sense of place that gives residents choices for how to get around, and more and more people are specifically looking for communities that prioritize walking and biking. Sure these cities are bigger than Traverse City, and some have been quicker to embrace the leading approaches to integrated transportation and land use planning, but I’ve always held the conviction our community has just as much vision and shared commitment for the future as any other place in the country. In fact, I assumed that given the extensive planning we’ve done in recent years bike lanes and pedestrian crossings would automatically be part of any new street — particularly one as important as 8th street. Given the controversy over how the plans have been developed, it’s obvious that the citizens of Traverse City cannot assume anything is a given, not even something as fundamental as bike lanes.
So how the City Commission handles this challenge is important. It is a crucial corridor down the center of our community. Seizing this opportunity to act on the goals codified in the city plan is an important milestone toward reaching the vision we have for the future. It is an important opportunity to send a clear message to the citizenry that the elected officials are accountable to the principles embraced by the community. And, it brings Traverse City one step closer to becoming the kind of place that has a quality of life that competes with any city in America and, ultimately, sustains a prosperous economy.
I sincerely hope you recognize the magnitude of the moment and do what it takes to make sure we do not lose this opportunity.
Thank you for your time and effort on behalf of Traverse City,
Hans Voss
727 Washington
p.s. Some of you may know that I work at the Michigan Land Use Institute. I submit these comments not on behalf of the Institute, which will be submitting formal comments soon, but as a private citizen.
February 4, 2010 at 9:25 pm
John Urbain
I think it’s pretty clear in the master plan, and supported by the Grand Vision as well as the City’s Zoning Ordinance that it is Traverse City’s desire to “de-emphasize the automobile” and promote pedestrian and alternate means of travel.
I am an avid cyclist. I bike on Old Mission Peninsula. I ride my mountain bike to the Vasa trails. I take my kids on the TART and the Boardman Lake Trail. If there was a safe way for me to bike to work, I certainly would do so.
I see from the list of comments here that most of Traverse City agrees that, if bike lanes can be added, they should be added. I agree. I would like to see it happen. It would help to make a safer, more direct route from Woodmere to East Bay. I would like to see the same thing happen all along Eighth Street to encourage people to use their bikes when commuting to work, patronizing the shops along this route, and for recreation.
If the alternative works and doesn’t delay the project or affect the funding, I think we should pursue it. We don’t rebuild roads like this every day, so let’s do it the way we intended (in the master plan) and take another step toward being a world-class pedestrian-and-bike-friendly city.
Thank you
February 4, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Sebastian
I agree that 8th street should be more bike and pedestrian oriented. Although it is a main road, it is still within the downtown area, and many neighborhoods, which make biking from these neighborhoods to the downtown area popular.
February 4, 2010 at 8:21 am
GLHowe
In the mayor’s defense, this is not a one-sided telling of the story. It just has a certain objective–defending a policy and process. There was an attempt to retrofit the issue within the confines of the governmental center, which is detailed above, but the results were not acceptable to many in the community.
It is no longer good enough to build functional streets meeting guidelines at the minimum. We must start today to build infrastructure that is exceptional–not expensive, exceptional.
With all do respect to some, there should be no designated truck routes in the city. That doesn’t rule out truck use, but as a destination city that sells itself on livability, a certain level of inconvenience (mainly slower speeds-starting with the current speed limits) by motorized vehicles should be expected.
This is a much needed discussion. Community building at it’s best.
February 3, 2010 at 11:34 pm
Susan Vigland
Thank you for sharing the detailed history of this issue. Your efforts are truly commendable.
The 8th Street story is getting out to the biking community. We plan to pack the house on Monday night!
February 3, 2010 at 11:34 pm
Jo
This information seems one sided from the Mayor’s point of view.
I would want to know the rest of the information regarding the 8th Street project from the City Manager and the City Engineer before making any judgements. If the Mayor had so many questions about this project, why didn’t he just ask the City Manager or the City Engineer, rather than post this letter on this website for all of us to read? It seems inappropriate to place his opinions in such a public place. I would be curious to know what the City Commission’s discussions were about this project at their meetings, where there were public present to comment on the project.
I would not want to bike on 8th street, which is a designated truck route. Nor would I want my children to ride their bikes on this busy street. There are pleanty of side streets in this area that can be used for safe biking.
Thank you City Manager and City Engineering for thiking of the safety of the community.
February 4, 2010 at 8:15 am
Beth Milligan
Hi Jo,
While it’s true side streets technically exist, 8th St is the primary corridor over to Garfield, as well as the link to Woodmere Ave where our public library lies. With its 25mph speed limit and high mix of residential and commercial units, 8th would – and should – be perfectly suited for bikers and pedestrians to use with proper infrastructure like bike lanes.
Differences of opinion aside, it’s great to see so many people getting involved in this discussion here. The level of transparency and interaction in a governmental process is refreshing. As our representatives, city officials should be more – not less – straightforward with their views, and doing so in a public forum like this allows for education and discussion to take place among the voters. Kudos to all involved.
February 3, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Matt
Thank you Mr. Bzdok for bringing this very important issue to our attention. I certainly hope that the rest of the City Commission supports you in this endeavor and that the City Engineer’s supervisor takes note of his subordinate’s inexcusable actions.
February 3, 2010 at 7:34 pm
Jon Thoms
The City should improve our streets with bike lanes if federal funding allows it. personally, I commute to work with a bike most days as a form of exercise. My career moves me around nationwide and i was excited to be in a city that has so much emphasis on non-automobile transportation. That’s one of the reasons we choose to live in the city. The tart trail is excellent during summertime but during the winter months, the trail doesn’t get cleaned until after the roads are. It’s just a fact of life, the trails come secondary, as they should be. which in return forces me to ride more on the road, whereas bike lanes would be an great source of protection.
February 3, 2010 at 7:24 pm
Elizabeth M.
A fabulous case. Kudos & best of luck, Mr. Mayor.
February 3, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Bill Palladino
This is a follow-up to the ongoing 8th Street repaving issue. As I looked at this site to find a place to put this comment it struck me that it could refer to many of the categories offered: Infrastructure, Sustainability, Transportation Choices, A Livable City – they all apply. The following is my letter to Mayor Bzdok and the rest of the City Commission that was sent to them yesterday. I thought it worth sharing.
Dear Mr. Mayor, and Commissioners:
Many of you know me as a long-time resident, economic development specialist, and businessman here in Traverse City. I live in Midtown, just off of 8th Street. You may also know me as an avid bicycle and pedestrian enthusiast / advocate. I use my bicycle daily year-round to commute to meetings and gatherings around the city unapologetically. I believe through this I am playing a role in making the City a better place to live.
8th Street has been a thorn in the tires and shoes of the local bike / pedestrian community for years. It serves as the only full east-west connector across town besides South Airport Road, and Grandview Pkwy / US 31; two roads which are arguably unrideable via bicycle. More importantly, 8th Street differs from these roads as it serves to connect the neighborhoods and communities along its path. Much of its length is lined with residences and small businesses, bike shops and hair salons, grocery stores and art galleries. Its commercial nature is mixed with a slow/local character. This is a street which should reflect the image the City wishes to project to the community.
No re-imagining of this important street can be considered without including full and safe access to bicycles and pedestrians. A few years ago, while riding on 8th Street eastbound between Lake Street and Boardman Ave., I was pulled over by a Traverse City police officer telling me to get on the sidewalk. When I argued with him that he was instructing me to do something illegal, he expressed more a concern for my safety than the law. He agreed it was legal for me to ride in that street, but urged me to take the sidewalk for my own safety. That incident is illustrative of the complex nature of the Complete Streets initiative. While I appreciated the officer’s candor, the sentiment did nothing to solve the real issue: 8th street is poorly designed, dangerous to ride on (or cross) without a car, and needs a well-thought redesign that reflects the nature of the neighborhoods it serves.
When I heard recently that the City was about to contract to repave 8th Street without consideration for the inclusion of bike lanes, I was appalled. This is now the second time in six months where the City’s staff (engineer) seems to be pushing hard to spend the City’s money without a true application of the the City Commission’s own Mission, “the Mission of the Traverse City City Commission is to guide the preservation and development of the City’s infrastructure, services, and planning based on extensive participation by its citizens coupled with the expertise of the City’s staff.” The first time was during the initial conversations regarding MDOT’s plan to “re-surface” Division Street. The atmosphere for public interaction is frequently met with defeatist language such as: “We can’t do that. MDOT won’t let us,” or “This is just the way it’s done here.” Furthermore the City’s own goals for infrastructure state it will: “…maintain its infrastructure to enhance the quality of life in the City.” Paving 8th Street without creating a safe, and reasonable access to the street for bicycles and pedestrians will not serve either the mission or the goals of the City, and will only serve to enhance the quality of life for those who choose to drive a car through it. This, in turn, will continue to promulgate the perceptions of many in the driving community that bicycles do not belong on the City’s streets.
Moreover, the additional time it would take to engineer and then pay for these improvements are minimal in the grand scheme of City infrastructure. Once a street is repaved however, the opportunity for such changes will be lost for at least another decade, if not longer. I for one, as a citizen who takes seriously the City’s charge to participate extensively in the process, want to ensure that 8th Street is safe for me and others, and I intend to see that happen in my lifetime. If the City chooses not to create safe bike lanes on 8th Street as part of this project, it should seriously consider returning the bronze award for a Bike Friendly City it received last year.
I urge you to carefully consider moving forward with the 8th Street project, making sure that it first meets the needs of residents using all forms of transportation. We are in changing times. Times where the decisions you make today will ring loudly for the community in years to come. I want your legacy to be one of strengthening the City’s quality of life, taking the time to make decisions that impact the community for your lifetime and beyond.
With sincere respect and gratitude for the service you provide,
Bill Palladino
February 5, 2010 at 2:00 am
Q
sucking up again, eh Bill ?
February 3, 2010 at 2:03 pm
denny rohn
City governments and city employees have the obligation to work together towards the common goals of the master plans and in open communication. When either the officials or employees choose to work on their own, opportunities will be missed and the basis of democracy is ignored. While it can be a bit more time consuming and tedious to include the input and opinions from many, the outcome will almost always be better for it. It is what our government is based on.
Every opportunity that Traverse City has to implement its Master Plan’s goals is a gift that this community can’t miss. There is rarely an opportunity to ‘go back’. I sincerely hope that the commission can at least take a baby step back right now to execute the Master Plan’s goal for Eight St.
February 3, 2010 at 12:46 pm
John Di Giacomo
I just moved to the area with my wife and we are looking for a house downtown. We will not consider a house south of 8th street simply because of this issue. We want pedestrian access to the TART trail and the downtown area, but in light of the high amounts of traffic on 8th and 14th it just does not make sense for us to look in those areas. I think that this type of project would greatly increase the desirability of that area of the city and its property values.
February 3, 2010 at 10:13 am
M'Lynn
I sit on the Cherry Capital Cycling Club Board, and have also been active with the Broke Spoke Cyclist Cooperative. In that capacity I teach classes such as Core Skills for Women and Girls, and Cycling Safely. Traverse City bike shops are experiencing burgeoning sales. Never before have we experienced so many cyclists, new and experienced, that seek to enjoy a healthier lifestyle on Traverse City streets riding two wheels. In my classes, time and time again the one biggest concern that is expressed by participants, is the fact that Traverse City does not have safe roads for people to ride their bikes around town. Women and younger people are especially vocal about wanting to ride safely and not feel like cars are whizzing by precariously close, or worse road rage. One person said it quite succinctly, “The TART is a start, but it doesn’t get us where we need to go.” The TART trail is a wonderful recreational trail, but it is not an effective part of a citywide bicycle oriented transportation system. Eighth Street, for instance, would be a corridor of choice for many cyclists as it leads to grocery stores, restaurants, schools, and across town (if only it were striped for cyclists, and the traffic was calmed).
Many factors contribute to “creating community.” But one of the most effective ways is to create more opportunities to smile, meet and greet other people in a convivial way face-to-face. Cycling, walking, and rollerblading create opportunities to create social interaction, strengthening our community and our neighborhoods.
Visit http://traversealive.com to read the rest of the letter.
February 3, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Julie
Excellent!
February 3, 2010 at 8:36 am
Jennifer
I truly appreciate this detailed information. I, and many others, will be at the meeting on the 8th to weigh in.
I am hopeful that the work done on East 8th is reflective of the identified goals of the citizens and tax-payers of this region; it would be a shame to learn that all of our time spent providing input to the Grand Vision process and so many other planning discussions is just a waste.
February 2, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Maura Ennenga
It is sad to see that one person can undue plans that will enable to better our cities streets and citzens health with just one phone call!
Is there not anyway we can inform the city leaders that they work for the taxpayers and we should not have to suffer at their hands. This just makes me crazy.
We here the city leaders tout that we will become a green city and provide those things necessary to do so, but one call from a guy who feels a little put out and Wham the whole thing is shut down.
Can we not challenge the city than on just how truly committed are they to our future as a better city?
Thank You,
Maura Ennenga