Crash Bang Boom, Safety Given the Zoom

[XLFD]

A little over two weeks ago, I presented an article entitled The Dangerous Dune Diagonal where I explained my opposition to a proposal for a traffic control order (TCO) to put in diagonal parking spaces in a place where it would be dangerous to do so.  The City wisely decided to consider the issue further rather than adopt the TCO amid any sort of prior discussion by the council or committee.  They put it up for discussion at a public safety committee late last week and it came before the council without anything new.  Police Chief Tim Kozal Introduced it as follows:

"To better provide available parking at the beach, it has been determined that there is a need to reconfigure the northernmost parking area... A traffic control order has been prepared to reflect the move from parallel parking to diagonal parking.  The order with (sic) then provide eight (8) parking spaces."

Here is the TCO in full dated two weeks prior, with it's purpose highlighted (i.e. to create to create additional parking):

I still had the same reservations about the move and how it exacerbated the conflicts already existing in the area from poor regulatory and informational signage, and only made matters worse-- but I had to admit that the eight (8) spots created would be more parking.  The video of the meeting (held by Zoom) can be viewed here.  

XLFD:  (5:30 in) "The Uniform Traffic Code says that all duties carried out by the local traffic engineer (In Ludington, the police chief) shall be in accordance with standard and accepted engineering practices as found in the Traffic Engineering Handbook.  It is inarguable that the change from parallel to diagonal parking will create more parking, but it is also inarguable that the change will create additional hazards that the traffic engineer has not in any way attempted to justify creating at this or the last meeting. 

To the contrary, he is allowing a T-intersection to continue operating against regulatory traffic control mandates, also without justification, and fails to provide this council and the people with a diagram showing how this new system would work.  Is a lane of traffic going also to be removed or shifted south just to create less than a handful of parking spaces in an area where the City spent $600,000 in destroying dozens of parking spaces?

I can't imagine that our new traffic engineer is out looking for ways to increase parking spaces at the expense of public safety without being employed by another person or group who wants extra parking in that area.  But like many of the City's initiatives, the public, and even this council at times, is left in the dark about the driving forces behind policy when ideally that should be openly shared when relevant. (END)

Through their somewhat lengthy discussion on this topic later in the meeting, I would find out that the initiative to reconfigure these parking spaces were attributed to DPW Supervisor Joe Stickney, and it would be learned that the issue had been discussed at committee level where they refigured the amount of spaces it would create would only be six (6).  The only city councilor with a lick of common sense, defended my point and added one or two cogent additions of her own.

Councilor Serna (20:00 in):  "...It's an accident-- an accident waiting to happen."  She then describes the difficulties of driving a low-profile vehicle coming out of the park from the north turning east.  One would have to roll through a busy crosswalk to get a view of traffic heading west.  She wonders what the police chief did to come to the conclusion he did with the parking, showing a crude diagram she made and noting the two arcs of travel and their point in common, and then put the result in terms the other councilors could understand:

"Oh, crash, bang, boom.  Accident... I mean, it's the stupidest idea ever, there's gotta be a better solution."  

Councilor Winczewski:  "At the committee meeting, we looked at this and talked about maybe having a traveling stop sign that would move out a bit and come back in the wintertime.  So that if it needed to be extended so people could see better, that was an option."  She also mention moving the crosswalk further north so pedestrians would be encouraged to not cross at the corner, and passed the torch to the police chief to explain that there would be buffers for the angle parking on both sides.  

A voice claiming to be the chief's, stated there would be buffers on each side, reducing the angle parking spaces from eight to six, after which the city manager showed a diagram not included in the packet showing the buffers and the six spaces and speaking of an additional problem of having two westbound lanes originating at the M-116 turnoff coming from only one lane going west before that, as the northmost lane was restricted for right turns.  Some vehicles get trapped for a time in the north lane when other cars go beside them.  

Councilor Bourgette makes a couple of points effectively for the change, but actually makes two points against it.  He claims it's not a high speed area, however, there is no guidance for westbound traffic to slow or stop at the end of Ludington Avenue, so those unaware of the problem may be traveling at a good clip, just like those coming out of Stearns.  Nor is there guidance telling them that right turns are prohibited until they see the 'do not enter' sign at the last moment.  He also advocates for moving stop signs and moving crosswalks which Councilor Winczewski commented on.  If you look through the traffic engineering guides, you will find such solutions non-existent or not endorsed in any conditions.

Before the issue was put to vote, Councilor Serna reiterated her main points again, talking of young drivers' tendency to pull out quickly from Stearns and the host of pedestrians in that area, how other spots for parking could be made in that area, and how the area might be better used for golf carts only and the like.  She would be the only one to vote against it. 

EPILOGUE:  The only good thing that will come from this TCO, is the unstated-in-the-TCO reduction of the redundant traffic lane usurped for the additional space needed for diagonal parking.  This new one lane one-block section should have paint at its end showing that only left turns are allowed at that point, and ideally it should have a stop sign, which would make everything much safer, and if the two stop signs at the top of the 'T' were removed at the same time, traffic flow would be back to how it should be.  

The most ironic part of this TCO however is that it was "to create to create additional parking", and it doesn't if it is just making six parking spaces.  I measured the distance required for parallel parked cars and trucks on James Street, I then compared this result with the length of the block being restriped, and found you could park six motor vehicles comfortably in the space provided.  Since you might not believe my figures, I went to Google maps and superimposed a trio of cars parked at James Street twice on the same scale view of the block in question, and it shows that, yes, you can parallel park six cars or trucks on that block-- the same amount of spaces they have for vehicles by the reconfiguration.  

If no new parking spaces are created, safety is reduced, and the missing stop sign at Ludington Avenue's end is not forthcoming, this move is guaranteed to fail miserably in accomplishing anything positive.   Even Dial-a-Ride will be sorely inconvenienced and have to find a new place to drop off and pick up beach visitors.  

If the City's goal changes from a fallacious 'parking space creation' to a new one in order to reduce the two lanes into one lane, a better move may be to move the parallel parking out to the next lane, and widen the sidewalk to the north of it for other public purposes.  This would be a great area for placemaking without detracting from the natural qualities of the beach, or make potentially a spot for vendors or bicycle ride sharing or parking.  The possibilities are endless, but they all amount to nothing if this foolish change is allowed to go forth.

[Willy]

One has to wonder what is going on inside their heads. I thank Councilor Serna for her common sense and X for his vigilance.

[XLFD]

I was at the west end tonight, they have completed the new striping, and there are seven (7) angled parking spaces, the angle looks more acute than the ones along both sides of Stearns Outer Drive.  

For those paying attention, they promised eight (8) parking spaces to the councilors and the public in their packet, they noted that there would only be six (6) created during and throughout Monday's LCC meeting (though voted on the TCO that said eight (8) would be made), and reality is that they built seven (7) angle parking spaces.  

They likely read the Torch and figured they would have to do more than six or else they would look silly.  Even more silly than Joe grappling the young ladies.

[XLFD]

I was at the west end of Ludington Avenue on Saturday night, just a little while before nightfall.  The breakwall was closed due to wavy conditions so I turned my attention to this T-intersection, because Stearns was still busy, and the new angle parking spots were filled.  I actually arrived when it was the 'safest', besides one van, there were only cars in the seven spaces, but only about ten minutes into my vigil, three F-150 sized trucks were parked side by side at the three westernmost parking spaces.

Even before that, however, I witnessed so many near misses, so many needless dangerous situations that have only been exacerbated by the new parking.  It was totally like Councilor Serna and myself described at the meeting where I once again reiterated that the regulatory stop signs were oriented incorrectly.  I am hopeful to invite the police chief or the DPW supervisor (or even the city manager) to watch this intersection for fifteen minutes or more on next Friday or Saturday evening and show them the extent of the problem when this intersection is busy and the new parking blocks the view.  Hopefully they will see the stop sign coming out of Stearns is redundant and dangerous in its redundancy, the lack of a stop sign at the end of the avenue is crazy, and having two lanes of traffic at that point adds to the problems.

[Willy]

X, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for anyone in charge to admit they made a big mistake by adding unsafe parking spaces but also by eliminating 50 parking spaces by burying them under concrete and scrawny shrubs. When will the citizens of Ludington stop electing idiots.

[XLFD]

Willy, I sort of got my wish earlier today... sort of...

I went down to the beach as I do on most summer days either to walk the pier, check on the scene or do one of my impromptu mask checks (I didn't see any today at the beach).  But I noticed a car was stopped in the parking area right where Stearns Outer Drive met the T-intersection and they were talking with Mayor Steve Miller.  They would be carrying on a conversation for the next 35 minutes.  Since I had planned to look at the intersection as part of my trip, I observed from a distance for the full time. 

Being that it was a cool summer Sunday afternoon, the T-intersection rarely had cars going to the end of the avenue, but the new angled parking lot was full with a mix of trucks, vans and cars making visibility very bad.  Had there been more traffic as there is in the evening, I probably would have seen what I had seen the previous night, but I only saw a couple of near misses and mass confusion events at the 'T'.  I don't think the mayor was paying attention to that, however.  

I won't delude myself into thinking that they will ever admit the west end slab was a mistake, even when it hasn't been used for its first two years for any real purpose other than giving the DPW something extra to look out after and clean on occasion.  But I really do want to point out how much safer this area could be, and how dangerous it currently is. 

[Freedom Seeker]

How interesting with the lucky number seven! Such a gross picture, Willy. I'm sure that was your intention. Just gives me the heebie-geebees to think what we might have in Biden.

[Willy]

FS, we're talking about leftists here so nothing abnormal about that image. A teenager leading the Global Climate Change movement and a touchy, feely, corrupted, senile Democrat Presidential candidate. Seems normal to me.