This week I got a letter from Munson Medical Center, the Village at Grand Traverse Commons, Traverse Bay Area ISD, and Richmond Architects making their case for the future of Division St. According to Ray Minervini at last Monday’s CC meeting, over 4,000 people work at Munson. Over 350 people work at the Village, the largest adaptive reuse project in this country. With permission, here’s the letter:
Last week, a Grand Traverse Commons ad hoc property owners group met to discuss proposed improvements to Division Street. Representatives from major parcel owners were in attendance. Members of this group have been participating in the Commons Master Plan revision for the past two years, so in addition to our familiarity with city planning issues, we are daily users and observers of Division Street and its many deficiencies.
Our group reviewed several urgent needs and desired outcomes for Division Street improvements:
• Better safety for all users, reducing accidents with slower vehicle speeds, safer turning opportunities, and priority accommodations for pedestrians and cyclists,
• Improved access to from, through, and across the corridor for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists, including improved turning for the many users of the Commons,
• Higher quality ofthe corridor, with more consistent traffic flow and better driver behavior, achieved by reducing back-ups, cut through traffic, noise, and pollution,
• Recognize and improve the context and “place” of the street, a major entry point to the City, aware of the narrow right of way, close homes and prominent park and neighborhood character.
Given these desired outcomes, the “five roundabouts” concept recently developed with community input by URS Corporation and consultant Ian Lockwood is the leading Division Street design proposal among our Commons group. Even with key design details like 8-1/2 Street to be resolved, it appears to be the best option to adequately address each of the above outcomes that are so vitally important to the users of the Commons and the community at large.
Not only do we believe roundabouts to be the best proposed method for safely moving people through the City and among the neighborhoods, this concept should be the best value for local and State street dollars. It is the best way to work within existing curb faces, reducing project costs and right of way challenges.
Finally, our brief research shows that modern roundabouts are a proven, effective improvement for intersections across North America and Europe. They are not experimental. They safely accommodate large trucks, school buses, emergency vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists, and make most streets better places to use.
We appreciate the proactive approach you and the City Commission have taken to make Division Street better. We encourage the COmmissioners and community at large to give the roundabouts concept careful consideration. We hope this discussion will be based upon facts, successful reference examples, fmancial feasibility and benefits to the overall community.
We have a moral responsibility to our clients, customers, patients, neighbors and families to support the City’s efforts to make Division Street safer and better. That is why we support implementing smart street improvements like roundabouts as soon as possible.
Respectfully,
The Minervini Group LLC
Munson Medical Center
Richmond + Associates Architects
Traverse Bay Area ISD
23 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 3, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Matthew Ross
To all those who are against roundabouts,I would like to know what their solution to Division is. I’m willing to take a look at any plans they have. I hope that we all agree that something needs to be done, but sitting back and just saying it will not work, even when study after study say they do, without giving any other real solution are just obstructing those of us working to make Traverse City a more liveable community.
June 9, 2010 at 9:07 pm
Mike Coco
Matthew: I agree with your open and polite invitation for people to offer non-roundabout solutions to traffic on Division. I’ve been waiting five weeks for a response to appear to your request….but none has come.
All: I just returned from a road trip to/from New Hampshire. Along the way, we encountered roundabouts in SE Michigan, Ontario, Buffalo, Syracuse, Albany, Vermont and New Hampshire. Many of these roundabouts were located just off of major interstates and effectively handled semi-trucks. They kept traffic moving at a consistent yet safe speed. No waiting for the light to change. No left turns. No backed up traffic.
I also was able to travel to Park City this winter….again, roundabouts were used to efficiently move heavy traffic while allowing safe crossing opportunities for their local trail system and sidewalks.
As John Hall states, let’s not be afraid of the unknown. Let’s try roundabouts. We know that what we’re doing now on Division Street is not neighborhood friendly, not pedestrian friendly, not cyclist friendly and not even auto friendly.
June 10, 2010 at 12:34 pm
GLHowe
I agree, Mike. More of the same is not acceptable.
What’s left out many discussions about alternatives to roundies is the plan for an expanded intersection at 14th and Division, effectively taking a difficult 4 lane cross for walkers and turning it into 5 and 6 lanes with the double left-turn lanes added for ‘capacity’. The threshold for having a walkable corridor is 3 lanes…we already surpass that at most of our city’s major corners *. That is a major concern for me as a pedestrian, but also as a driver. The left turn is the most dangerous maneuver to make in traffic, does it make sense to make more of them?
I look forward to the Division St. process…trying to remain optimistic.
* Grandview and Division, peds asked to cross 8 lanes of highway.
* Garfield and Front, peds asked to cross 5 lanes of highway. Note proximity to ice cream stop and the park, both destinations for walkers, young and old.
May 2, 2010 at 10:00 am
John Hall
People are afraid of the unknown. Roundabouts done the right way are a great way to manage intersections like that at Division and the commons entry street. After they’re in people will say “Sheesh, why didn’t we do this sooner?”
May 1, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Mary Kitchener
Mr. Rick Shimmel:
With friends like you, I am sure Mr. Gillman or anyothers you associate with would not need enemies!
Mr. Gillman has the pulse of the city on this one. It’s sad that you of all people that derive your income from promoting concerts and gathings and making your money off of Traverse City and the Cherry Festival, you would take such a shrill stance. Are you possibly thinking of a way to put a concert in the middle of one of them to make money? (yes I am snickering).
The roundabouts are a traffic menace for our place and local environs. Ask any snow plow driver and street crew person and locally affected neighbor of your proposed roundabouts. They will tell you they do not embrace such ideas. I will gladly vote AGAINST the taking of parkland for any Munson/Sprectrum/Minervini additional streets and any roundabouts.
From where I stand, it looks like many members of the city commision like being one term wonders.
May 2, 2010 at 12:27 am
Matthew Ross
Since no one is getting rich being a city commissioner, I don’t believe re-election is a big concern. I for one will vote for the little bit of park land that is needed. I live in the 600 block of seventh street, and I do embrace the idea of roundabouts. As far as Munson and Minervini, one is the largest employer in the region and the other had the foresight to save a historical building that is a gem to the city,while other communities (Pontiac), bulldozed their state hospitals,(history that will be lost forever), for those reasons, their opinions matter to me.
May 2, 2010 at 10:58 am
Raymond
I can understand your concerns, but I think the facts show that most of your concerns are unfounded. The roundabouts concept is the only current proposal before the City intended to make Division Street, slower, steadier, quieter and safer – for neighbors, pedestrians, bicyclists and other drivers. To me, those outcomes are worth small pieces of park land. Again, roundabouts are not experimental. They are a demonstrated way to improve many intersections and surrounding communities: in snowy Colorado, sunny Florida and yes, even in Michigan. The evidence is out there… let’s discuss the facts. If there is better way to make Division Street better, let’s discuss it.
May 2, 2010 at 10:59 am
Raymond
ooops. My comment above intended for Mary.
May 2, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Mary Kitchener
It was already stated that the roundabouts would NOT be bicyclist friendly. Stop clouding the facts as previously stated by “experts”.
There exists planning and wonderful drawings by a local designer that keep getting pushed to the back ground. Is this for the sake of having paid the out of town gum flappers on how we should drive, walk and meander our streets? This young man of TC had put forth a wonderful plan for the bay front and Division St., and even the Warehouse district at no charge to any one!
Let’s use local common sense, by people that live here and use these streets everyday. Talk to those that live in Leelanau County, south of TC, west of TC and ask their input, it’s their roads too. Slowing down the traffic on a state highway for people nto get through town is not an answer. Taking of parkland for some social lifestyle planners dream is not the answer. Designing something around the city is.
May 3, 2010 at 8:24 am
GLHowe
Why would roundabouts be any worse than what we currently have for bicyclists? Where was this stated? The RE editorial? Give me a break.
The roundabout solution is a compromise to maintain current usage, improve accessibility and calm traffic. Roundabouts will be safe for all users due to the reduced conflict points and slower speeds. Speeds within a roundabout are between 15-20mph, much slower than the 35-45mph the corridor is designed for currently. They will also reduce the need to ‘race’ to the green-light ahead and ideally calm the entire corridor.
Many people will still choose not to ride their bikes through a two-lane roundabout, particularly at first, but that need not stop bike riders from utilizing the much improved crosswalks. I agree, this plan isn’t a complete street, but it moves us in the right direction.
One thing I’m beginning to wonder is whether or not those opposed to roundabouts simply don’t want to change their driving habits. They seem content with dangerous intersections, high speeds and not having to interact with other people on the roadway. The latter is key to a roundabout’s success: eye contact. It’s a key ingredient to safer roads and dare I say, a community. Yes, you do have to pay attention in a roundabout. Imagine that.
Every single concern I’ve seen raised from the loud “no” vote is answerable and has a solution. In the unlikely chance that Traverse City discovers an issue never before addressed with roundabouts, I’m confident that we can find a solution…and I’m a card-carrying pessimist.
I’m in full support of a Roundabout solution on Division St. and in full support of the Shimel inaugural stage in the center of the first one…rock it.
For more information:
* Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
* WIDOT has a better video than MDOT about roundabouts, including information about snow-removal, trucks and emergency vehicles.
* My Letter to the City Commission
May 3, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Raymond
Well stated, GLHowe. It’s true roundabouts are a compromise– but seems we agree that they are by far the best option available for just about every stakeholder group. The evidence is out there.
May 3, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Mary Kithener
Seems your “roundabouts ” and social engineering ideas do not meet with much approval. People in the neighborhoods have already been talking and reaching out to neighbors about the lame planning for adding 71/2 and 81/23 streets for Munson and the “state hospital”, not getting any traction.
Leave the wetlands and parkland alone.
May 2, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Rick Shimel
Mary— is it your position that anyone who isn’t opposed to the idea of roundabouts must have an angle they are working? I don’t want to break your heart but my position is undecided leaning toward roundabouts. My final decision will be based on the empirical evidence. The point of my original post was that if you are in the majority take it to the voters. Only the minority would hope for a city commission decision (I am aware that giving up parkland has to be voted on).
I sincerely believe this is the last chance the anti-roundabout group will have to kill this concept. I believe this for two reasons:
1. Roundabouts are currently being built all around the State and Country. Every year that goes by more and more locals (and/or their friends and family) will have had enough time on roundabouts for it to become a positive experience.
2. While not exclusively, this is trending as a younger v. older issue. Older is dying off every year. You may consider this “shrill” but to me I’m just pointing out the obvious.
Since you seem to want to personalize this let me introduce myself. I’m your neighbor. I live at the corner of Union St. and 9th St. My second floor home office overlooks the intersection. I watch cars cutting through every day. Lots and lots of them. I’m a serial neighborhood cutter myself. I know all of the bottlenecks and “picks” on Division St. If I’m on Division and see traffic stopping, or I anticipate it will, I immediately cut through the neighborhoods. I’m good at it. Alleys are even in play for me. If I knew traffic wasn’t going to stop I might not do it. I find no evidence that roundabouts will make this worse. If you have studied this, and have evidence that it will make it worse, please share you research.
I was born and raised in Traverse City. I was the Cherry Festival prince for Traverse Heights School in 1957. That makes me old. I make 1/10th of 1 percent of my income from the Cherry Festival and/or the Traverse City area. Again that’s 1/10th of 1 percent. You’re going to have to work harder to suggest that I have a financial interest in roundabouts or that I somehow owe the community a “no vote” on roundabouts. I also have 17 years of volunteer service in Traverse City. That service includes stints with the homeless shelter, humane society, crisis center, and the city of Traverse City. I pay the city about $280 dollars a month in taxes. I don’t think I owe you, or the city, anything.
May 1, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Rick Shimel
Commissioner Gillman is guessing. He’s 71 years old and has driven on traditional road designs for 55 years. His circle of friends has a similar history. He also listens to local talk radio and you will find the same demographics at play there. It isn’t surprising that he would think a majority of people have the same opinion that he does. It’s all he hears. Mike is a friend of mine and I worked very hard to get him elected. I’m very happy with the work he does and proud to have him represent me. He’s still guessing.
The only way to establish the “fact” of which side is in the majority would be a referendum. Rob, if you, Tim and others want to kill this concept in the cradle organize yourselves and demand a vote this fall. If you win you can put off roundabout talks for decades. If you lose it’s still going to be eight years, or so, before anything happens. Gentlemen, the question I have for you is, do you have the balls? If so, I would be honored to be the first to sign your petition to get this on the ballot.
Sadly, our cave people ancestors didn’t have the foresight to have a commission and elections. If they had we would never have had to suffer with the “wheel.” No wheel, no problem with our road ways. Finally, always, always, always remember… “Fire Bad!”
May 1, 2010 at 10:14 am
chrisbzdok
Just a reminder. Flaming is prohibited on this site. This is stated in the comment rules on the What Do You Think page and has been posted here before. Flaming is the act of posting a comment or article in an open publishing forum that is intended to be hostile and insulting. Disagreements are welcome, but this is going to be a civil site where all views are welcome and all commenters respected. Repeat flamers will be permanently banned from commenting. Commenters using fake names will be permanently banned as well. Final warning. Thank you to all who read and weigh in here, we wish to promote an atmosphere where this can continue.
April 30, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Jennifer
We are in a growing city – all of our streets are getting busier. Roundabouts as proposed make great sense to making our streets safer. The only way to keep them less busy is to stop evolving. Visit Detroit and see how that worked there! Yes to the plan, yes to 5 roundabouts, yes to doing it NOW!
April 30, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Tim Orthe
Jennifer, you are awhiney minority with your facts all wrong. Detroit didn not decay from the lack of roundabouts! Sheesh!
Traverse City has a lack of good local planning. No need to keep throwing bags of money at the roundabout issue, wqhen the true issue is getting on with the road plans already on the books.
April 30, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Rob
I couldn’t agree more. Commissioner Gillman pointed out the fact that contrary to what the loud minority thinks, the silent majority is not in favor of roundabouts. We weathered the last roundabout attempt and I sincerely hope for the same outcome this time ’round.
May 1, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Rick Shimel
Sorry, my above post was meant as a response to Rob
April 29, 2010 at 11:53 pm
Tim Orthe
As long as someone else pays for it , Hey Ray is all for it!!!
The residents of the 11th street area beg to differ!!!!!
This slams of pushing amalgamated ideas on the “voting” citizenry once again. First: There has to be a taking of parkland to achieve this ridiculous roungabout idea. Second there has to be an almost sure fire taking of individual land owners land at each intersection.
Second: The traffic that will be forced down the side streets from 6th to 13th will be outrageous at peak load times and uncomfortable at others. When you slow down the traffic it seeks otherways to keep going.
Third: Have you even considered the thru traffic from other areas that thas to use this state highway route of Division Street?
Just because the areas biggest employer uses the street and big man on campus Ray Minervini wants to drive more traffic to his under untilized commons (state hospital) does not mean the local citizens should be the ones to suffer for it. MDOT will gladly put them in and then laugh all the way back to Lansing, as TC spits and sputters about how they screwed up the neighborhoods for the next 35 years. Is anyone home at the planning office?
April 30, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Raymond
Division Street is not good. I hope we can agree that it needs fixing. Fixing it will require leadership– the Commons group intended nothing else by this letter. Our support of the roundabouts proposal is based on our shared belief, _based upon evidence_, that it will make Division Street safer and better for the neighborhoods, the Commons and the community at large. I encourage researching roundabouts online. The facts changed my mind. If people who oppose the roundabouts concept can present design alternatives that will create similar improvements in pedestrian and vehicle safety, slower speeds and other benefits, I truly want to hear about them.
In spite of the tone and content of your comment, I remain hopeful that the community can have a civil and informed discussion about the issue.
May 1, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Matthew Ross
Tim, Traveling through the side streets will be slower than taking the roundabouts. The side streets are filled with stop signs. The whole idea of roundabouts is to keep the traffic flowing, and it works. People already cut through the side street because of the congestion caused by traffic lights, and by people trying to make a left hand turn, plus there are ways to deal with that as well if it did become a problem.
May 2, 2010 at 10:29 am
Raymond
Matthew: Agreed– _Reduced_ cut through pressure is one of those counter-intuitive outcomes that requires a little research to learn about.