Of note, one may remember that UT at one point made a $1 million commitment to the Door Rd/475 exchange-so some one thought it benefited UT. Fortunately wiser minds prevailed when President Gaber declined to fund the project as an university with a tight operating budget should not be using its own funds to pay for community infrastructure (she was also smart enough to know that there was an enough political pressure and need that it was going to proceed anyways with state and local funds).

Numerous studies have shown that there sufficient parking spots at UT to manage the student and employee population needs (I can easily find a spot on the busiest day on campus). The issue is people pay for parking-students and staff-and expect to be able to park next to the building they are going to-within a 5 minute walk. They do not want to walk an extra 5 minutes-which is what you may need to do from 10a-3p M-F when classes are in session. Even with a full Glass Bowl, there are plenty of parking spots (even with multiple lots closed game day), just takes a few more minutes to walk from them. As Engineering expands-both enrollments and buildings-additional parking may be needed in that area. When there is a huge on-campus event during the week, like bball or fball, it does create some traffic flow issues and parking pressures, but is still manageable, and UTPD have been doing a better job in directing traffic, big improvement in last few decades. I was not here in mid 1990s when UT had student population of 25,000 (and that was without UTMC), often wondered what the traffic and parking debates were like then, compared to now with main campus student and staff population less,yet parking complaining remains. BTW I have worked or attended four other 4 year universities (all similar in size to UT) and visited a few dozen more over my career, and parking and traffic issues are the same at all of them-not unique to UT!

(06-01-2018 12:40 PM)PaulJ Wrote:  Of note, one may remember that UT at one point made a $1 million commitment to the Door Rd/475 exchange-so some one thought it benefited UT. Fortunately wiser minds prevailed when President Gaber declined to fund the project as an university with a tight operating budget should not be using its own funds to pay for community infrastructure (she was also smart enough to know that there was an enough political pressure and need that it was going to proceed anyways with state and local funds).

Numerous studies have shown that there sufficient parking spots at UT to manage the student and employee population needs (I can easily find a spot on the busiest day on campus). The issue is people pay for parking-students and staff-and expect to be able to park next to the building they are going to-within a 5 minute walk. They do not want to walk an extra 5 minutes-which is what you may need to do from 10a-3p M-F when classes are in session. Even with a full Glass Bowl, there are plenty of parking spots (even with multiple lots closed game day), just takes a few more minutes to walk from them. As Engineering expands-both enrollments and buildings-additional parking may be needed in that area. When there is a huge on-campus event during the week, like bball or fball, it does create some traffic flow issues and parking pressures, but is still manageable, and UTPD have been doing a better job in directing traffic, big improvement in last few decades. I was not here in mid 1990s when UT had student population of 25,000 (and that was without UTMC), often wondered what the traffic and parking debates were like then, compared to now with main campus student and staff population less,yet parking complaining remains. BTW I have worked or attended four other 4 year universities (all similar in size to UT) and visited a few dozen more over my career, and parking and traffic issues are the same at all of them-not unique to UT!

UT students have complained about parking when there were 16,000 students or 26,000. The same people want to park one minute from the center of campus.

People that think parking is a challenge need to look at MSU or other large universities. You can walk a loooong way to class. UT has parking all around the perimeter. Never a long way to class.

(06-01-2018 08:29 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  People that think parking is a challenge need to look at MSU or other large universities. You can walk a loooong way to class. UT has parking all around the perimeter. Never a long way to class.

You can pay from $210 to $780 for a student parking pass at Arizona State.

So it's "students" that are expected to primarily be relocating their driving habits from Secor to Dorr?

No, it isn't.

The problem as stated is staff shift traffic bogging Secor, not random student traffic. It's wishful thinking to design a change in logistics and expect logistics to remain the same. Alleiviate a problem in one area, you have to plan for possible repercussions. No free lunches. Faculty has assigned lots, which if this new route actually is the honey-pot being claimed,then there will be a large shift of vehicle traffic in a relatively small time-fram, entering campus from the other direction, heading to parking assigned as if they're coming from the old direction. Not brain surgery. I'm not the one claiming big numbers here. I'm justmentally stepping through the process as if they're right, considering where the implications may lie.

If they're right and the shift does occur, 2000 I believe was the number, then that's 2000 vehicles in a smallish time frame using new routes to get to old assigned parking. Tower Drive cannot accomodate that. The left onto Secor cannot accomodate that. It will be a mess. If the University's general response to POV is as on this board, then they have earned the negatives. They need to have a contingency.

KISS, not ignore. Not wishful thinking. You plan for the worse and hope it isn't. It's a simple matter to survey staff to get a measure of the impact.

My suspicion, previously stated is that Dorr will not be a popular route from the Western/SW burbs. Too far on city street, with too many intersections and bottlenecks and as has been mentioned, people will not want their parking relocated to Rocket Hall, unless they work in Rocket Hall. They'll remain with the devil they know. But a survey and a simulation or even better, a cycle's worth of reinactment will give the "planners" an idea the impact on logistics.

(06-01-2018 11:08 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(06-01-2018 05:52 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  The new intersection is meant primarily to assist development and alleviate bottlenecks at Central and Airport due to the rising suburban population from development that has already occurred. Toledo's benefit is that by reducing time to Downtown, Jeep and a few other places, they may be able to inhibit further relocation of business to the burbs. From the suburban POV, relocating business has the danger of relocating urban woes. They want to better pick and choose, which businesses they keep close and which they prefer to keep at arms length, but need for jobs.

I'm newer to this board, but I gather that this has kind of been your schtick for awhile (ie. Suburbs are the enemy and are destroying Toledo because of the blanket term: development). Literally every decision made with mass transit in a metropolitan area has a significant amount to do with development and management of that development...it's not a new theory you've got, and certainly not as malicious as you seem to believe it is.

Yep. Anything to do with suburbs/private schools is the enemy to him.

(06-01-2018 10:16 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(06-01-2018 11:08 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(06-01-2018 05:52 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  The new intersection is meant primarily to assist development and alleviate bottlenecks at Central and Airport due to the rising suburban population from development that has already occurred. Toledo's benefit is that by reducing time to Downtown, Jeep and a few other places, they may be able to inhibit further relocation of business to the burbs. From the suburban POV, relocating business has the danger of relocating urban woes. They want to better pick and choose, which businesses they keep close and which they prefer to keep at arms length, but need for jobs.

I'm newer to this board, but I gather that this has kind of been your schtick for awhile (ie. Suburbs are the enemy and are destroying Toledo because of the blanket term: development). Literally every decision made with mass transit in a metropolitan area has a significant amount to do with development and management of that development...it's not a new theory you've got, and certainly not as malicious as you seem to believe it is.

Yep. Anything to do with suburbs/private schools is the enemy to him.

Oh you poor little child, looking for butt hurt anywhere you can find it. I neither said nor wrote anything "bad" about the burbs. I said nothing about this interchange being "bad" for Toledo. For those that can actually read, I explained in what ways it has been desired by the city, the burbs and ODOT. UT wasn't even part of the game, this has been on-going for over 20 years. These are not secrets.

And me not saying "private schools" are better (which was the gist of your crying game, oh so many years ago and it was really only one particular school you cried about now be honest) is not the same as saying something "bad" about the private schools.

UT's ranking might go up a bit if you'd stop returning the Forbe's surveys. Just hit "delete." Logic and Reasoning doesn't seem like it was required by your major.

(06-01-2018 11:08 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  I'm newer to this board, but I gather that this has kind of been your schtick for awhile (ie. Suburbs are the enemy and are destroying Toledo because of the blanket term: development). Literally every decision made with mass transit in a metropolitan area has a significant amount to do with development and management of that development...it's not a new theory you've got, and certainly not as malicious as you seem to believe it is.

Is it "Not new theory" or is it "schtick?" Kind of blowing it out both sides here aren't you?

I think you MIGHT be being a bit disengenuous here.

Care to elaborate, what you feel in that post accuses the burbs of being the enemy? As you said, it's "textbook." There is nothing in that post hasn't been said in public meetings. It's simple urban and neo-suburban real estate reasoning. You know that. It's your job. I made no claim of ownership as you imply.

(06-01-2018 11:08 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

Quote:It's a longer than normal stretch of metro highway without access and also sorely in need of an escape route in event of accident.

Couldn't agree more, the fact that there is a 3-mile stretch in a highly concentrated, metropolitan area that does not have an egress and is not above standard highway regulations for the amount of daily traffic it sees (which will be changed), is asinine at best and incredibly unsafe at worst.

3-mile? I think it's a bit further than that from Central to Shadow Valley. Are we talking about different roads? Different sections?

(06-01-2018 11:08 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

Quote:This idea that UT motivated that interchange is just political smoke blowing by those that got their azzes handed to them on Secor, and need a "win."

I don't believe anyone has stated this, because I would've called them on it too. UT in no way motivates State/County decisions, city...sure,

I think UT being a state university and a major economic contributor to three counties might motivate decisions a bit further from the city, but that's probably picking nits as well besides the point.

By "anyone" you mean? Yes it has been said on this board.

(06-01-2018 11:08 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

Quote: now approaching campus from the opposite side, ... into a campus with the parking lots now suddenly on the wrong side of campus.

I'm also trying to determine what you mean by parking lots being on the wrong side of campus now?

I'm trying to determine what you're having difficulty understanding (or if you're being obtuse)? Analogy needed? Ok. The road to your apartment complex is on the northside so they put the parking there but in order to allieviate that congested road, the city just put in this really neat and easy to access alley to the southwest side, but you don't have a parking spot on the southside (and you might not want one anyhow), of which there aren't 1500 spare spaces anyhow so you and 1500 of your closest neighbors have to drive over the path meant for low volume bikes and little kids carrying textbooks (???) to get to your parking spots on the northside. If only the apartment complex had planned ahead, those children (and bikes) would be alive today. sigh.

That help?

(06-01-2018 11:08 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  There are quite literally parking lots on every corner of campus

Which will no longer, quite litterally be on the corners needed as they are already being used by the people that used them before the traffic flow change. Or are you presuming 1500 cars will vacate so that the cars your study says will now choose this new route can park there? No? Then those cars will have to drive around or through campus to get to the same-ol unless the University makes some logistics changes, to accomodate the new flow.

Quite literally.

(06-01-2018 11:08 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  ...and also, are you now suggesting that the space be used for parking instead of your previous rant

I'm seeing a pattern. People that disagree with you how their neighborhood should be used or propose different ideas are "ranters" as opposed to, simply having opinions based upon different knowledge and experience. Not anti-social at all, these uh, city planners.

No, I did not propose they use that space for parking. I proposed there might be a better use of their planning time.

(06-01-2018 09:29 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  So it's "students" that are expected to primarily be relocating their driving habits from Secor to Dorr?

No, it isn't.

The problem as stated is staff shift traffic bogging Secor, not random student traffic. It's wishful thinking to design a change in logistics and expect logistics to remain the same. Alleiviate a problem in one area, you have to plan for possible repercussions. No free lunches. Faculty has assigned lots, which if this new route actually is the honey-pot being claimed,then there will be a large shift of vehicle traffic in a relatively small time-fram, entering campus from the other direction, heading to parking assigned as if they're coming from the old direction. Not brain surgery. I'm not the one claiming big numbers here. I'm justmentally stepping through the process as if they're right, considering where the implications may lie.

If they're right and the shift does occur, 2000 I believe was the number, then that's 2000 vehicles in a smallish time frame using new routes to get to old assigned parking. Tower Drive cannot accomodate that. The left onto Secor cannot accomodate that. It will be a mess. If the University's general response to POV is as on this board, then they have earned the negatives. They need to have a contingency.

KISS, not ignore. Not wishful thinking. You plan for the worse and hope it isn't. It's a simple matter to survey staff to get a measure of the impact.

My suspicion, previously stated is that Dorr will not be a popular route from the Western/SW burbs. Too far on city street, with too many intersections and bottlenecks and as has been mentioned, people will not want their parking relocated to Rocket Hall, unless they work in Rocket Hall. They'll remain with the devil they know. But a survey and a simulation or even better, a cycle's worth of reinactment will give the "planners" an idea the impact on logistics.

"If they're right and the shift does occur, 2000 I believe was the number, then that's 2000 vehicles in a smallish time frame using new routes to get to old assigned parking. "

Was that data specifically for a shift in UT traffic only (and all pay or only morning and late afternoon traffic) that would use the new Dorr interchange or am I misunderstanding? I know having an alternate route for north bound traffic coming to UT-both local and from areas south of Toledo, also the extra exit off 475 during accidents, are benefits from this project, but my understanding-and please correct me if I am wrong-is that the anticipated traffic flow and amounts changes are much more than associated with UT bound traffic?? I know UT likes the additional exit and entrance way into main campus via Dorr, but I doubt it will result in major changes to traffic flows into and out of campus off Dorr for commuters. But maybe I have all this wrong??

(06-03-2018 02:31 PM)PaulJ Wrote:  

(06-01-2018 09:29 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  So it's "students" that are expected to primarily be relocating their driving habits from Secor to Dorr?

No, it isn't.

The problem as stated is staff shift traffic bogging Secor, not random student traffic. .

"If they're right and the shift does occur, 2000 I believe was the number, then that's 2000 vehicles in a smallish time frame using new routes to get to old assigned parking. "

Was that data specifically for a shift in UT traffic only (and all pay or only morning and late afternoon traffic) that would use the new Dorr interchange or am I misunderstanding?

It wasn't MY data.

This discussion (our board's version, not the traffic engineer's) has been ongoing for what, a bit over a year?

Summary, with no penalty for inaccuracies.

So going back to the beginning, the reasons offered on the board for the changes needed on OH Secor was rush hour traffic, presumming when most staff come and then (mostly staff) go fiveish. Obviously students mixed in with that but there is more come-and-go with students, so peak hours still being staff hours. From personal experience, there can be another big go 9ish pm, so I imagine then also as well the morning rush inwards and football games.

And then later, after the OH proposal hit a road block, it was offered, not by me, that a Dorr St. interchange would alleviate OH Secor problems as "2000" commuters would choose that rush-route as opposed to the OH-Secor. Again, not MY data but I think the board just ran with it, trusting the source. I'm more skeptical that 2000 commuters, staff or otherwise would be preferring that option to their already established patterns but still based MY suggestions that UT might be wise to prepare for that, presumming the prediction is based upon solid methodology (as opposed to staff addresses).

I'm trying to recall the major players, besides you and me. One was a traffic engineer, who weighed in on the rotary and widening discussion. Indian? BearCat is a city planner and provided that insight. MBG provided some energetic imaginings that shade had been thrown at burbs and privates schools. Ranger hovers the "delete" button (he still a mod?), while H2O sits at his keyboard eating pop-corn (my imagining :) )

They might have a different view of the time-line of discussion and be able to be more specific as to where the "2000" estimate came from, but that's how I recall it.

(06-03-2018 06:46 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  (he still a mod)?

Yep

I did find reference in a Blade story about a public meeting for the Dorr St I475 project that referred to a Engineering study for the Secor Rd corridor that indicated 6,000+ more vehicles travel along that road when UT classes are in session compared to when they are not. I certainly believe UT traffic is a major contributor to traffic along Secor between Bancroft and Central, but I do no think the Dorr St I475 interchange is going to completely resolve the road problems along Secor and need for major improvements. Plenty of that UT-Secor traffic comes from the north and most of those drivers are not going to divert south along I475 to access UT via Dorr Street. I think the I475/Dorr Street interchange will provide a wider range of improvements and benefits way beyond UT trafffic-many of these are presented in the case for the project. But I do not think it will cause a huge shift in UT Secor Rd traffic, it will provide those visiting campus (and UT employees) from south of Toledo via I75 another option to reach campus. Frankly when I am traveling up I75 north to UT, I always avoid I475W as I just hate the traffic and often accident delays along that stretch, and instead take I475E and exit off Bancroft-a route even more improvement with recent/ongoing upgrades along Bancroft.

Secor Road will still need improvements, and I am not suggesting adding roundabouts at Bancroft and Kenwood, but certainly the lanes need to be widened and consideration for a dedicated left turn lane in both directions at Kenwood would be huge improvements. Frankly the idea that some Ottawa Hills residents are making that it should be reduced to two lanes and treated more of a neighborhood street and not a major north-south traffic corridor is crazy as it has never been a residential neighborhood and traffic volume has been a problem for over 20 years, and no improvements to Dorr Street is going to correct the problems on Secor. I know both Dorr/I475 and Secor Rd projects have been discussed for decades, not so sure whether more recent movement on the Dorr/I475 interchange was directly related to the failure alone of the proposed Secor Rd improvements, and frankly find it hard to believe that the City believes that with Dorr/I475 there will be no need to address Secor.

(06-03-2018 06:46 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  They might have a different view of the time-line of discussion and be able to be more specific as to where the "2000" estimate came from, but that's how I recall it.

The 1500-3000 came from the County Engineers' Office during an open public forum about the project last year.

(06-04-2018 08:58 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(06-03-2018 06:46 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  They might have a different view of the time-line of discussion and be able to be more specific as to where the "2000" estimate came from, but that's how I recall it.

The 1500-3000 came from the County Engineers' Office during an open public forum about the project last year.

Still seems a high to me, and "1500-3000" is a pretty big range, wondering whether that is more of a "guess" than true hard data collected on traffic flow and assigning to UT as destination. Looking at the project materials it was clear to me that even though UT was mentioned as a project benefit, it was down the list from several others that seem to me to be more valid. I know UT likes the idea of an alternate route from 75/475 to main campus via Dorr Street, especially for visitors to UT from south of Toledo. But in terms of daily road traffic flow and volume-especially UT employees at start and end of business day, including use of UT Dorr St entrance and into parking areas on south side of campus-I just don't see much changes occurring.

Oh and maybe its just me, but I make regular mid day trips to and from UT campus to Maumee and Perrysburg and NEVER use I475W as a route. Only time I ever get on that section of I475 would be to go to Fallen Timbers or access State Route #24E-which I do perhaps 1-2 x a year.

(06-04-2018 10:09 AM)PaulJ Wrote:  

(06-04-2018 08:58 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(06-03-2018 06:46 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  They might have a different view of the time-line of discussion and be able to be more specific as to where the "2000" estimate came from, but that's how I recall it.

The 1500-3000 came from the County Engineers' Office during an open public forum about the project last year.

Still seems a high to me, and "1500-3000" is a pretty big range, wondering whether that is more of a "guess" than true hard data collected on traffic flow and assigning to UT as destination. Looking at the project materials it was clear to me that even though UT was mentioned as a project benefit, it was down the list from several others that seem to me to be more valid. I know UT likes the idea of an alternate route from 75/475 to main campus via Dorr Street, especially for visitors to UT from south of Toledo. But in terms of daily road traffic flow and volume-especially UT employees at start and end of business day, including use of UT Dorr St entrance and into parking areas on south side of campus-I just don't see much changes occurring.

I think that range had a lot more to do with the drastic swings in traffic in the area depending on the time of year. Student population is down considerably over the summer, which could cause there to be a significant variability in the lower bound, but they were adamant that in peak conditions the Dorr Interchange would service an average of 3000 drivers otherwise utilizing other routes the Secor/Dorr complex and were VERY specific about it pull traffic off of Central Ave. and Secor. I remember those both because myself and a faculty member were at the meeting and both were extremely interested in how they came to that conclusion. Discussions after the fact showed it was due to multiple traffic behavioral models and flow assessments from other areas. It was immediately after the Secor debacle and they made specific reference to it causing a positive effect to that specific section of the road.

The widening of Secor between Bancroft and Kenwood and overall between Bancroft and Central is very problematic as we all know. As a nearby resident (within 300 feet of this situation) I have defined standing on the subject so I feel I can chime in but I don't really know what's been stated all the way through this thread so I'll just jump in.

I cannot see how O.H. will ever grant a widening of Secor between Bancroft and Kenwood. The widening HAS to be on the OH side since the storm sewers are on Toledo's side of Secor. This is same the same issue obviously as had been discussed during the last fight about Secor alterations. OH has a tax base issue and will only widen Secor (they lose 10 to 12 houses and their tax revenue) if revenue can be offset. How can they agree to a widening if this is a constant concern???? One thought was that streets like Gallatin, Pelham, Darlington, Grimsby, and Kirkwall would all be deadheaded (no access to Secor) and that property taxes would rise in that neighborhodd due to lack of through traffic and thus property values would rise and offset the tax base loss. This is hopeful at best. I see no easy solution to the Secor situation given that two municipalities are involved and one with only a residential tax base.

Secor is far from ideal in its current state just based on road condition driving hazards. It's always tough to improve roads in a 100% residential area and especially one with influential tax payers based on income levels. I think a better plan is to improve Douglas as much as possible and steer traffic in that direction for N-S travel and access to 475. Why is Secor the only choice???

I can see that many posters are well informed on this subject.

Go Rockets!

Is this a problem of population shifting causing changes in traffic flow? Secor was somewhat adequate when there was 60,000 more people in the City and the University had a larger enrollment. And yes OH has a tax problem, not only would they lose on the property taxes, but also on Village Income Tax.

(06-04-2018 01:15 PM)IamN2daRockets! Wrote:  The widening of Secor between Bancroft and Kenwood and overall between Bancroft and Central is very problematic as we all know. As a nearby resident (within 300 feet of this situation) I have defined standing on the subject so I feel I can chime in but I don't really know what's been stated all the way through this thread so I'll just jump in.

I cannot see how O.H. will ever grant a widening of Secor between Bancroft and Kenwood. The widening HAS to be on the OH side since the storm sewers are on Toledo's side of Secor. This is same the same issue obviously as had been discussed during the last fight about Secor alterations. OH has a tax base issue and will only widen Secor (they lose 10 to 12 houses and their tax revenue) if revenue can be offset. How can they agree to a widening if this is a constant concern???? One thought was that streets like Gallatin, Pelham, Darlington, Grimsby, and Kirkwall would all be deadheaded (no access to Secor) and that property taxes would rise in that neighborhodd due to lack of through traffic and thus property values would rise and offset the tax base loss. This is hopeful at best. I see no easy solution to the Secor situation given that two municipalities are involved and one with only a residential tax base.

Secor is far from ideal in its current state just based on road condition driving hazards. It's always tough to improve roads in a 100% residential area and especially one with influential tax payers based on income levels. I think a better plan is to improve Douglas as much as possible and steer traffic in that direction for N-S travel and access to 475. Why is Secor the only choice???

I can see that many posters are well informed on this subject.

Go Rockets!

I do not see Secor as the only choice, but I think it is an option that eventually will need to be addressed. Even if the lanes are widened, what does that "cost" in terms of lost homes on the OH side??

Dorr/I475 will no doubt help, but I am not as convinced that it will greatly reduce the Secor traffic, especially 8-10a and 4-6pm M-F, when UT classes are in session. Although I drive that section as infrequently as possible, I have noted that there clearly is also traffic volume heading both north and south that does not end or start at UT, but proceeds to or from Dorr (traffic heading east to or west from Dorr/Byrne/Reynolds).

(06-04-2018 02:20 PM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  Is this a problem of population shifting causing changes in traffic flow? Secor was somewhat adequate when there was 60,000 more people in the City and the University had a larger enrollment. And yes OH has a tax problem, not only would they lose on the property taxes, but also on Village Income Tax.

Yes it would appear population shifts towards West Toledo, Sylvannia, and also north of Central/Monroe (plus redevelopment at Westgate/Secor/475 corridor), has resulted in more north-south traffic using Secor Road. Another reason I do not think Dorr/475 project will completely resolve Secor-Bancroft programs since a good portion of that traffic is not UT board-especially from starting points south of Toledo.

Perhaps I am wrong but also not so sure large numbers of Ann Arbor starting traffic coming to UT will continue down and use new Dorr St exit, while avoiding Secor. If they wanted to avoid Secor they already have options including Central and Corey Rd exits.