This resolution is balderdash. Ann Arbor needs more road diets, plain and simple. And the same CMs who did not want the lowertown mobility study want this?
I strongly oppose resolution 19-0610 that would require all road diets to be approved by City Council. The resolution’s wording reflects concern that certain roadway changes could “adversely impact [automobile] traffic flow and congestion” and therefore should come for city council approval. I do not see an advantage to subjecting roadway improvements, which are already the product of qualified engineering analyses and robust public engagement through the master planning process and project development, to an additional layer of political review. Indeed, I believe these proposed process changes could easily undermine citizen engagement by allowing Council to alter/deny plans already vetted through the neighborhood planning process. Furthermore, I am incredibly concerned that the only projects that would come under Council review are road diets (lane reductions) which are projects intended to lower traffic speeds and improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists.
Engaging the community in decisions that affect geographic areas with which they have familiarity is reasonable. Community engagement that incorporates community feedback will both improve projects and inform those who will most frequently experience the outcome of any given project. The result will likely be greater short and long term support for changes. The engagement process could extend the planning process, but the outcome of community support and understanding will be a gain.
This resolution is balderdash. Ann Arbor needs more road diets, plain and simple. And the same CMs who did not want the lowertown mobility study want this?
I strongly oppose resolution 19-0610 that would require all road diets to be approved by City Council. The resolution’s wording reflects concern that certain roadway changes could “adversely impact [automobile] traffic flow and congestion” and therefore should come for city council approval. I do not see an advantage to subjecting roadway improvements, which are already the product of qualified engineering analyses and robust public engagement through the master planning process and project development, to an additional layer of political review. Indeed, I believe these proposed process changes could easily undermine citizen engagement by allowing Council to alter/deny plans already vetted through the neighborhood planning process. Furthermore, I am incredibly concerned that the only projects that would come under Council review are road diets (lane reductions) which are projects intended to lower traffic speeds and improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists.
Engaging the community in decisions that affect geographic areas with which they have familiarity is reasonable. Community engagement that incorporates community feedback will both improve projects and inform those who will most frequently experience the outcome of any given project. The result will likely be greater short and long term support for changes. The engagement process could extend the planning process, but the outcome of community support and understanding will be a gain.