A Sunday in the Park: Cartier

[XLFD]

The Ludington city park I most often go to is Cartier Park.  Whenever I bicycle to the State Park, or go to anyplace north of town, I invariably will go through it using the multi-use path.  In the spring and fall in particular, I will walk the paths with family and friends.  It's an excellent place to walk a dog, or ride bikes with youngsters.  It was, and still is a good place to ride a mountain bike or walk on the unimproved trails.

 

I like this park, and thought the current City's leaders did a good thing when they used grants (75%) and city funds to construct the path back in 2004.  Likewise, I think they have managed the camping area nicely, and further improved the draw of the park with the addition of the gazebo and fishing piers along the lake.

 

But on Sunday, September 19, 2010, I was riding my bicycle through the park with my camera and decided to comment on a few things that have troubled me concerning this area over the last couple of years. 

 

--South of Multi-use path on Lakeshore Dr.

 

Look at the above picture, and think of what you see, and don't see.  The dense pines to the left totally obscures the lines of sight between the motorist on Lakeshore and any path-user.  The path entrance is across from the entrance to Epworth Heights, so quite often you will have some motorist pass on the right (in the shoulder) of a vehicle that is waiting to turn into Epworth; many vehicles will also drift over into the shoulder before making a right turn into the entrance of Cartier Park just beyond the path interface.  Either way, there is a deadly potential for a cyclist (or pedestrian) coming off the path and onto the shoulder to collide with one of the above type of vehicles.  Most cyclists will pay attention and yield to shoulder-drivers, but many who may be unaware of the danger will blithely come out onto the shoulder.  To minimize the chance of a collision, and potential liability, the City should have a sign either prohibiting passing on the right on the roadside, or at least warning them of the potentiality of cyclists-walkers appearing on the shoulder.  Better yet, uproot the cheesy spruce trees and replacing them with trees which allow much improved sight lines for both.

 

--Path and Campground roads, and signs

 

Those two yellow pipe obstacles on the top pic have been used by the DPW over the last few years to almost totally obstruct the path, presumably to keep vehicles from using it.  State laws say that you just can't do that, and it becomes a safety issue when you consider a bike or pedestrian walking on these paths when it's dark.  We have had a tug of war between us, with me opening the way and them closing it back up, even though we never have actually been there at the same time.  A compromise was reached when they were moved to obstruct just the outer fifth of the sidewalk by my unseen antagonist. 

 

Both pics show the two mini stop signs meant to get cyclists to 'stop'.  These signs have no true regulatory value (by the MUTCD), but they are good indicators for cyclists/skaters etc. to yield to all other road-users.  Why isn't there a mini stop sign for path-users on the other side of the road?  Why not just have a mini yield sign?

 

--Wayfinding Signs, west entrance

 

ZCP Rath Bryant Signs.JPG

ZCP Gazebo signs.JPG

 

The city has put up numerous signs around the pathway, three like this at the west, southeast, and north entrances on the path.  Each shows where the proposed dog park is to be located.  Early this year, there were hopes by some that this dog park would be put up by the end of the year.  Some deranged individual has pointed out the city charter and about how the city would be violating its own laws by allowing this to be built without it being voted on by the electorate of the city, and how a local politico violated ethic laws by representing a private interest looking to build it.  Read the thread Hot Dogs, A Sloppy Joe, and One Sweet Pickle, for more on this.

 

Using the map, I looked for the dog park.  I couldn't find it, but took the following pictures of the area where the park is scheduled to be:

 

--Entrance to Dog Park, as per maps

 

ZCP Dog Park 2.JPG

ZCP Dog Park 3.JPG

 

A beautiful quiet, area.  No chain link fences, or barking to spoil my Sunday at the park.  If the City Leaders decide to despoil this area with the proposed dog park without a vote by the public to legitimize it and allow it, I will definitely take them on.

[Edie Lindsey]

I thought they planned on putting the dog park closer to the campsites. That area is gorgeous-- are they going to clear off all those trees just to put some cruddy looking fences up?

Who cares about the barking dogs, I'd be more worried about the dog owners shouting over that.

Also, got to agree about the path/Lakeshore crossing, it is unnecesarily dangerous, as is.

[AQUAMAN]

Pretty acute observation on that path that ends at Lakeshore. I wasn't aware of it at all. And, many times I have passed on the shoulder because of the Epworth traffic that was held up from all the incoming vehicle traffic to Ludington. Definitely a very dangerous situation as it stands right now. That should be taken down to the city officials for immediate attention before someone does get hurt unnecessarily, perhaps killed too.

[XLFD]

One of the first times I rode my bicycle down this way from the path, my brother who was riding with me noted that it was common for vehicles to claim the shoulder as they slowed to get into Cartier Park. Later, I noted cars passing Epworth-turners on the shoulder and saw a near-miss on a runner coming from behind the trees. I always slow to a crawl if I need to pass on this shoulder at this point, but that's only because of my knowledge of the situation.

Since it is on M-116, the MDOT might also be able to give attention to the problem. I'll be writing a small wish list for them soon, including this.

[XLFD]

John,
1) That street-right-of-way between Cartier and Bryant is adjacent to the city owned cemetery. Section 46-71(b) of the City Code states that "The owner of any existing dwellings or property upon which any building is located or any vacant lot, adjacent to a public street, shall be required to construct a sidewalk along the front lot line adjoining the street, and in the case of a corner lot along the front line and side lot line adjacent to the public streets. Because resources available to the city to provide for the public portion of the cost of such sidewalks does not allow for addressing all of the properties in the City of Ludington immediately, the city council shall establish a list of priorities for addressing sidewalks from time to time. However, it is the intent that as public funds for the public portion of the cost of such sidewalks exists, that all of the properties adjacent to a public street in the city shall be required to have sidewalks"

This could be open to interpretation as pertains to cemeteries, but the intent of the city's sidewalk laws is to have safe pedestrian facilities available for every property in the city adjacent to the road. There is a fair amount of foot traffic (esp. during Macker) along M-116 and a shoulder is just not safe enough for peds or strollers with 45+ mph vehicle traffic zooming by on thin lanes, IMHO.

2) If the current Doggie Beach at the end of Loomis had more action, I could see the dog park advocates point. You can let them run off the leash there, get in the water even. But it's deader than the new transient docks for action. I went there on Sunday too, and saw a couple gals with their dogs... headed up Loomis after having parked near the beach.

[AQUAMAN]

Some things to consider here? M-116 is a Michigan Highway, controlled by MDOT, not owned by the City of Ludville. Imho this is not a safe place for baby strollers, traffic is going 45-55 MPH. Please consider a safe back street that is slowly traveled, and where traffic is nil. The badly needed doggie beach/park is being done for the all too many animal lovers/owners that have absolutely no place to exercise their dog. If you look at the signage of ALL the Parks around, you will see they have intentionally disqualified any animals from exercising in them. Wasn't like this years ago, but now lately, for liability reasons and such, they have totally excluded them. Not fair, imho, but true.