|
Traffic
Flow
-
Minimize Neighborhood Cut Through with a
natural Stadium and State Stoplight. The one way streets in Burns
Park, that are used for people to get from State to Stadium, can be turned
into traditional residential streets.
-
Minimize
Granger use as a Super Highway. With
people knowing they have the opportunity to turn onto Stadium from State,
less people will cut through Granger.
-
Minimize
Neighborhood Cut Through during Construction Time.
One would have to imagine our City could tear down the bridge and put in a
temporary road faster than tearing down the bridge and rebuilding it.
-
A Stop Light
at Stadium and State could allow for the Elimination of Stop Lights at
several locations.
The city
spends a lot of time trying to use Stop Lights as a reason to build the
bridge. $250,000 per year in crashes due to a new Stop Light at
Stadium and State Street in lieu of a bridge. This was totaled to a
$7.4 million present net worth, and then used to as part of the cost
comparison for building a bridge. But...
The Study Leaves out savings of eliminating 3 to 4 Stoplights! ($20
Million in Savings????)
Frankly, this is hypothetical
cost that should not be used to justify building a bridge for State Street
and Stadium. Nowhere in our traffic calming initiative does the city
discuss building bridges over intersections to ease traffic flow.
The cost is an accepted cost by society. If not, we'd have bridges
at every major stop light in the city. Stadium and Jackson, as well as Huron and
Washtenaw were just upgraded, and there was no mention of building bridges
to save these hypothetical costs.
However, if the report is
going to use this as justification for not building a bridge, then how
about an equal amount of time and effort on Stop Lights that could be
eliminated.
1. Stimpson and State would
not longer need to be regulated by a Stop Light. Stimpson is used as
a cut through because people are unable to turn from Stadium directly onto
State Street.
2. Stimpson and Industrial
would no longer need a Stop Light for the same reasons as above.
3. Stadium and
Industrial could also have the stop light removed. Again, this Stop
Light primarily serves to allow traffic who want to find State Street to
turn right or left. Now, it would be similar to other streets along
Stadium. The 2 East / West neighborhood streets could be turned into
a dead end to eliminate the 6 way intersection, also help create a safer /
quieter neighborhood.
4. You could even
stretch the envelope to include the Stop Light at Granger, used by people
cutting through the neighborhood to find State Street or those just coming
from it. This could become a typical, quite residential street with
people not having to cut through any more.
Well, eliminating 3
stoplights should put the yearly crash savings well over $!0 million.
4 might even push the savings up to $20! Heck, since we are all
struggling to save, how about we cut all stop lights in the State
by 50 percent. We'd probably save billions. But then again,
probably not. Which is exactly the problem with using hypothetical
costs. There are so many other hypothetical costs that could be
added, when do you stop? Instead, the study needs a brick and mortar
cost analysis - the real cost.
$500,000 per
year in energy costs due to a new Stop Light at Stadium and State Street in
lieu of a bridge. This was totaled to a $14.8 million present net
worth, and then used to as part of the cost comparison for building a
bridge. But... The Study Leaves
out savings of eliminating 3 to 4 Stoplights, cut throughs, and Stop
Signs! ($30 Million in Savings????)
Another hypothetical cost
that should not be used to justify building a bridge for State Street and
Stadium. Sure, people in Ann Arbor like to think they are saving the
environment and are generally a leftist bunch. Apparently, the
leftist feeling in Ann Arbor is so strong that they follow the "Three
Lefts makes a Right" philosophy - (currently, to turn right from State to
Stadium, you have to take a Left on Stimpson, Take a Left on
Industrial, and Take a Left on Stadium!!!). How about getting some of
the "Opinion" out of the opinion letter and also discuss the energy savings
associated with NOT building the bridges as well:
1. The Opinion letter
leaves out the gas being wasted as people have to cut through the
neighborhoods and wait in traffic for each turn. Turn from State,
onto Granger or Stimpson, wait at a light, then onto Packard or
Industrial, wait at a light, then onto Stadium (Red Lines). Sounds
like a lot of wasted gas - more than just sitting at one stop light.
Must be $20 million here.
2. Or, how about
Golden and Park, with their stop signs, wasting gas as people stop and
start, cutting through the neighborhood (Yellow Lines). Perhaps a
little less wasteful than a Stop Light. Make it $10 million.
Well, look at that. $30
million in savings right there. Where are the savings? Well,
not really anywhere. People won't get a check in the mail. But
- it sure sounds great. Which is exactly the problem with the
"opinion letter." It sounds great that building the bridge will save
almost $14 million in gas, but is it real? And, if it is, how about
the gas being wasted because the bridge exists. That might make the
letter a bit more factual.
|