Comments on: Revised rendering of 8th Street now available

By: GLHowe

GLHowe — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:49:00 +0000

Thanks for the comments.

Bob, it appears that the city is not excited about petitioning for any curb widening, if they even are. What are the options after if that fails?

As for Barlow. I’m personally not opposed to cut through traffic-it’s the beauty of the grid and of connectivity (just go at or below the speed limit). However, I don’t think it should be ‘encouraged’ and turning lanes into neighborhoods have a very high threshold to prove that they are required.

Rob, I’d be interested in your source for labeling Barlow St. a truck route and a N/S thoroughfare. How was this designated? Is it an older master plan, via MDOT or county office?

Just part of seeking the information.

By: Rob Hite

Rob Hite — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:13:38 +0000

Barlow is a designated truck route. It is meant to be a north/south thoroughfare. How might you suggest getting to the highway other than Garfield? While I agree it is a dangerous light, using a 23 yr old example of an officer being killed there by a drunk driver late at night while directing traffic is somewhat of a stretch in my opinion.

By: Evan Smith

Evan Smith — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:26:12 +0000

I personally continue to be disappointed that the City is encouraging the routing of traffic into the Oak Park neighborhood. The sole purpose of a left hand turn lane at Barlow is to provide a shortcut and avoid having to continue on to Garfield. The intersection of Front and Barlow has seen a Police Officer killed and is one of the most dangerous ones in the City. This plan will only make it even more dangerous.

By: Bob Otwell

Bob Otwell — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:08:15 +0000

I am disappointed in the new rendering provided by the city engineering department. It does not change the basic design of the street from what was put forth 3 months ago. It is appreciated that the engineering department has finally put out a drawing for the public to look at.

I am very much in favor of Traverse City using Sharrows in town under the right situations. I have concerns that this is not the best place to start. There are relatively high traffic speeds and traffic volumes (13,000 vehicles per day) and I don’t see anything in this design to lower the speeds. In addition, the city engineering drawing misrepresents the width of the shared lane. The cross section in the three lane portion of the project shows 13 feet, but the real width of the shared lane is 11.5 feet, because the gutter pan does not count. Here is the language directly from AASHTO – the traffic engineers bible; “In general, 14 feet of usable lane width is the recommended width for shared use in a wide curb lane. Usable width normally would be from the longitudinal joint of the of the gutter pan to the lane stripe (the gutter pan should not be included as usable width).” We don’t have 14 feet for a safe shared lane, we only have 11.5 feet. Again, a small amount of curb widening could really help.

TART Trails sent a letter to Carl Levin’s office last week, and Carl has wrote a letter last Friday to the Federal Highway Administrator to ask for flexibility.