If you’ve already read the original part of this post, the update starts a few paragraphs down.
This week the Traverse city planning commission moved the city a few steps closer to some complete streets. Following the failure on 8th St, the PC has taken on the task of ensuring that future street projects meet the city’s Master Plan and the expectations of our residents. This includes working on a better process for capital improvements – the infrastructure template upon which everything else in the city is built.
More immediately, it includes the street projects for this year: sections of Cass, Oak, Maple, Union, Hannah, Barlow, Highland Park Drive, Third, Airport Access, Boyd/Bates, and Kelley. The PC held three of them and requested designs more in keeping with the goals of bike and pedestrian safety: Hannah, Airport Access, and Barlow.
Wednesday the PC decided to move forward with sidewalks on the stretch of Hannah, and a road diet on a stretch of Airport Access (four lanes down to three with marked shoulders for bicyclists. The PC left it to the city commission whether to add curb, gutter, and sidewalks to the stretch of Barlow, due to the increase in cost. Details are here: http://www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us/boards/planning/packet20100407.pdf.
The PC is also working on elements (like chapters) of the new Master Plan. The Transportation Element is led by Ross Richardson, and you can contact him or other members of the PC for more info on how the future of the city’s streets are being planned to meet the needs of all users. The PC’s info is here: http://www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us/boards/planningcomm.pdf.
Update: What to do about Barlow, and streets without sidewalks in general, is before the city commission Monday night. The stretch of Barlow on the table is between Centre and Carver. The new Master Plan classifies about 3/4 of this area as a Traditional TC neighborhood, which requires “more formal designated transportation access (sidewalks, bike lanes, alleys).” You can view the map of neighborhoods in the master plan here, on page 32 of the pdf: http://www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us/departments/planning/20090715masterplanapproved.pdf
The original plan from the city engineer was to simply repave this section of Barlow without without any pedestrian features, at a cost of $60,000. After the PC determined the master plan required more than that, the city engineer submitted a plan that adds two feet of road on both sides of the street for pedestrians to walk along, at a new total cost of $91,000. Or a sidewalk could be added to the west side only, which requires curb and gutter on both sides, and costs a total of $260,000.
Under the city’s infrastructure policy, the city has started again paying the cost of streets and sidewalks as a general burden of government, rather than expecting residents of specific streets to pay these costs through special assessments. However, city policy apparently still requires residents to pay half the cost of curb and gutter. Because curb and gutter is apparently necessary for any sidewalk, this creates a Catch-22: the city will pay to repair your existing sidewalk if you have one. But if you don’t have a sidewalk already, you have to pay half of the (much higher) cost of the curb and gutter. So if you do not have a sidewalk, you still cannot get one unless you pay for a big chunk of the cost.
Three things stand out about this situation. First, the financial roadblock it creates for individual neighbors on these streets prevents the master plan from ever being implemented on them. We again find ourselves in a situation where the city has a legally binding master plan but no intention of following it.
Second, rather than spreading costs, the current policy focuses hardship on those residents who for one reason or another do not or cannot drive. The director of the Grand Traverse Area Community Living Management Corporation wrote the city a letter saying that she has 34 residents on that stretch, none of whom have drivers licenses and many of whom have mobility impairments. The letter noted that as pedestrians with no other option, these residents remain vulnerable to fast-moving auto traffic if they want to go to the store.
Third, the situation programs an inequity into the city’s new effort to spend more money rebuilding our old and long-neglected infrastructure. If the city is now spending 10% of our general fund infrastructure dollars to replace existing sidewalks, but not to build new sidewalks in areas that are supposed to have them, that means the tax dollars of some residents are helping to replace the sidewalks of other residents, but not the other way around.
It often costs more money to be fair to everyone. In practical terms, if the city maintains but does not increase overall infrastructure spending, that means being fair to everyone will cause it to take longer to get all the infrastructure fixed. These kinds of tradeoffs are the decisions we are supposed to make. The city commission will be discussing this issue Monday night at 7 pm. I hope we will hear from you, by comment, email, or otherwise.
tomorrow: city finances, part 1
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 16, 2010 at 8:47 pm
twobee
Good posting. I live in that area and many times I have seen individuals walking south along Barlow and I worry about them because it seems dangerous at best and they seem to be challenged in terms of mobility. Although the speed limit along there is only 25mph, most people go much faster than that and don’t seem to care about coming close to running people down. I have walked along there myself and felt nervous about the way people drive and I don’t have any mobility challenges.
Also, I do find it unfair that the city puts so much money into the downtown area and neighborhoods while it neglects my neighborhood. It is like this area is not even part of TC yet we have to pay the higher tax rate (compared to nearby Garfield township). I do not get my income from tourist dollars so it seems unfair to me that so much of the high property tax rate I’m paying goes to support people who get their income from tourism and are in general much wealthier than I am. On my section of the street there is no street light, so it’s very dark at night, and there is no sidewalk. If I want to take a walk in my neighborhood, I won’t find many sidewalks to walk on, I have to walk in the street.
I love what was done with Woodmere, although some of the plants in the medians need to be shorter. I have a small car and have been unable to see around them making left turns to the library. Just thought I’d mention it.
April 14, 2010 at 10:33 pm
Ross Richardson
It is critical that we start doing the streets completely (and right for everyone) now. If we don’t get sidewalks and curbs on Barlow now, it may be 20 years before the issue is visited again. This section of Traverse City, generally considered a less economically advantaged area, suffers from decades of infrastructure neglect. In essence, we are being told that that we can’t fix it now, because it costs too much, because we didn’t do it right before. It is a very difficult to break out of this circular, self-defeating mindset.
April 12, 2010 at 8:33 am
WIll
I was just thinking it would be nice in the downtown streets area to have those little stands that have dog poo bags. With all the dogs that walk our streets and sadly the owners who do not clean up after them, it would be nice to make it easier for them to be more responsible pet owners. I walked downtown yesterday and it was a pretty littered with dog waste. I know the commons has them and people use them because they are there.
Just a thought.
April 16, 2010 at 6:20 am
Matt
No! I do not want my tax money going to plastic bags. If you are going to own a dog, it is your responsibility to take care of its waste, not mine. I belive you can get a ticket for not picking up after your dog!