Traffic patterns and safety

Open Discussion - for our Readers, Islanders, and Web Site Visitors alike. Discussion regarding any and all aspects of Beaver Island are welcome here. Also a place for general Beaver Island conversation and discussion.

Moderator: Gillespie

Post Reply
Kaydonmasini

Traffic patterns and safety

Post by Kaydonmasini »

Just wondering what everyone's opinion would be on the following proposal..............

Concerning the traffic pattern on the narrow portion of Main St. between the Historical Museum and the Parish Hall.........

Make this block one-way (heading South) with a sign stating "One way-no trucks-local traffic only". Also have a stop sign in front of the Parish Hall. Anyone coming from the new beach parking lot (or down from the hill past the Church) would see a sign that says "No entry".

Rationale: There is no commercial business on this narrow section of Main Street and no need for any trucks to use it. Those serving/delivering to the Parish Hall for special events normally service the hall from the side entrance, not the front.

It also would maintain the step entrance to the Playground free of traffic and is a safety precaution, especially with cars coming and going in and out of the new beach parking lot. All cars going to the new parking area would have to come down the hill and turn right (or left upon exiting) which would eliminate any cross or through traffic....another safety precaution.

Our concern (and we believe that of many others) is with the narrow street in this section; trucks going in both directions; cars going in both directions; the increase in traffic due to the new beach parking; and with the children accessing the beach playground equipment, it is a disaster waiting to happen.

We have digital photos of the "Parish Hall corner" taken this past summer if anyone is interested. They show congestion; stopped cars; bicycles;etc. It is also used by cars towing boats on their way to the Boat dock; delivery trucks; tractor trailers; campers; etc.

For everyone on the Island (ourselves included). who has used this stretch between the Church and the Historical Museum for many, many years, it would require an adjustment to a long-standing habit.

Kay and Don Masini
Gillespie
Posts: 1563
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 1:43 pm
Contact:

Good idea!

Post by Gillespie »

Kay and Don, This idea, or a similar one, has been in play for some time, and, as I understand it has to be approved by the Michigan State Police and only after a traffic study. That is not to say that it cannot be done but when I inquired this summer I found that it was fairly "thorny". In reading Robert Coles commentary in the last topic I must admit that I had been very impressed and encouraged with the idea both of expanding the beach but also putting in an appropriate parking area to hold cars both for beach goers and people attending hall or church services. For too long disaster has been avoided at the corner of Main and Bonner streets with all the vehicles that pool there. Despite the fact that asphalt may not be appealing to all, it does lessen the odds of silt and mud running into the bay as well as easier access to our beautfiul harbor for many. Those who cannot recognize these improvements as helpful and useful do have other options. They can petition the transportation authority to tie up the boat. Sadly the island is changing and perhaps too fast but we have to keep up with demand and the beach and parking improvements will be a large step in that direction. :roll:
Robert Cole

Solutions and perspectives

Post by Robert Cole »

The Masini's suggestions for improving the safety of what we used to call the "Hall Corner" are practical and much needed. Solutions to the increasing congestion there will become even more urgent once the new parking lot is placed at this corner.

It could be argued that the Township Engineer's design of the harbor road upgrade worsened congestion at the corner by narrowing the roadway. The original claim of the road upgrade plan promised that the harbor roadway would be widened, rather than narrowed, though many sections of it were, including the Museum/Parish Hall block. Though the rationale for narrowing the road wasn't made clear to the public that I'm aware of, it's probably water under the bridge now--unless of course the corner could be widened again during the construction of the parking lot. It remains to be seen whether the new lot will ease or worsen safety conditions on the corner, as that depends on the design of the lot itself and it's integration into the park area.

Incidentally, one of the more notable consequences of Engineer Voogt's roadway design is the loss of parking space on either side of our roadway, creating, interestingly enough, a greater need for off-road parking in the harbor area. Fortunately for us, the Township Engineer also happens to be the hired engineer for a private-sector paving contractor that is in a position to develop such newly-needed parking areas.

As for Rich's comments: I supported the idea of public beach expansion at this site several years ago, when St. James Township first pursued it. Unfortunately, the effort failed at that time due to some unexpected obstacle. I also spoke for the beach expansion, in itself, at the Public Hearing of July 10, 2003. The difference this time around is that the expansion now involves the commercial re-zoning of several harbor-front residential properties, the paving of a large swath of greenspace near the beach, and the potential impact of these conditions on that area of Paradise Bay. Easier access to our beautiful harbor at the expense of these entangled conditions has struck many in the community as a mixed blessing at best.

Silt run-off into the bay at this site has hardly been a problem there. The area supports the healthy growth of grasses, bushes, and trees which function as a better erosion control and waste filtration system than would, say, perforated PVC pipe buried in gravel at the edge of over 11'000 square feet of blacktop laid at the base of a long sloping hillside. On the other hand, the placement of that much asphalt near the bay presents an increase in run-off of toxic fuels and wastes from cars and other sources. For this reason, H&D/Township Engineer Gary Voogt plans to include a leach field at the harbor side of the lot; or at least he stated that he would at the Public Hearing. Hopefully this will adequately protect the harbor. Updated water quality data is scheduled to be released next year, at which point the public should have a better understanding of any possible impact the H&D-installed road drainage system and the H&D-installed parking lot leach system have had on water quality in Paradise Bay.

Rich seems to imply that any who have questioned the need for a paved lot at this site are simply anti-growth. I can't speak for others who objected to this proposal, but I personally recognize the importance of the tourist economy to the Island community, have advocated and enjoyed it all my life, and have even argued, among other points, for it's creative expansion in a June 2002 Beaver Beacon article titled "Conserving Community". My argument there, as here, is not against growth, but for the consensus-based balance of the community's economic, social, and environmental needs.

The issues we face today are often more complex than most we've faced in the past; it isn't always black and white by any means. They used to say, "the devil is in the details." That certainly applies to the details of this recently brokered and approved deal creating the parking lot, which reveal emerging issues of a much larger scale. One can look at this new development as simply another parking area meant to serve both tourists and residents, or as an extension of the road further south along the bay. If the latter definition is the more accurate one--and the site plan drawn up by the Engineer seems to suggest that it is--then in reality we are looking toward a new and different harborscape indeed.

Maybe the Township needs far greater commercial development--and the infrastructure to support it--over what certain development interests see as "unused" greenspace and residential zones. Maybe it doesn't. And maybe the proper approach lies near the middle. I'd say somewhere between the polar opposites of stagnation and unchecked development lies a center where the larger good of the community can be met. I realize that some people in local leadership positions might consider that view naive. But whatever direction our Township leaders feel is best to move the community in, it must be done with public awareness and input, not in avoidance of the same. It is my view that wider informed public input into land-use planning promotes, rather than obstructs, good land-use policy. I suspect that the rising level of citizen interest in the formation of local public policy both stems from, and seeks to address, the perception that a handful of people are determining long-term changes here too quickly and quietly. In spite of what Rich asserts, those who question local government decisions do have options and tools, and should use them as often and intelligently as possible to exert influence over local planning processes.

In the end it is not a question of petitioning the Transportation Authority to tie up the boat. It is a question of what visitors to the Island will see when they arrive--and what we will be required to live with when they are gone.
Post Reply