(05-12-2018 11:40 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 07:48 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 08:43 PM)Toledo Football 1st Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 01:24 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Speaking of County, there is a lot of interesting conversation happening regarding the Dorr St. dumbbell 475/23 Interchange that's scheduled for construction starting in Q3 of this year. Supposedly it will pull anywhere between 2,000-3,000 vehicles off of Secor during peak, and gives another significant University access point.

Off of Secor or Central?

Secor between Central and Bancroft, which is an absolute hell hole. This plan was put into action when the Village residents went crazy about expanding the unsafe Secor corridor. Putting an interchange at Dorr St. will allow for every commuter and employee that uses 475/23 from the south (Perrysburg, Whitehouse, Monclova, Maumee, Holland/Springfield Township, etc.) to travel straight up Dorr now instead of carrying on to Central then backtrack southbound on Secor or, in more extreme cases, going all the way to the 475 Secor interchange.

You and PaulJ work in the same promotional Dept at UT?

"Residents" means exactly that. They live there. They didn't "go crazy." A comment that comes off a bit arrogant, no? They responded reasonably and presented their concerns (and had the economice and political backing to make it real) with common sense. Any other city neighborhood and that boondoggle would have been forced down the throats so a few people could make some bucks and the people living there dealing with the scrapings.

Second, "hell hole" is what they were trying to turn it into. The stats of the parallel section of Westwood support that. Morons think "wider" is better. Engineers know that's not always true and in this case, it isn't. At worst, the trial design would have been the way to go. At best, status quo. People who feel "slowed" by Secor have and do find the several alternative routes.

The only thinking at play here, was to get hold of government money. It wasn't "safety," "logistics" or anything else first. The incredible thing is, they couldn't even keep it under their hats. They flat out said it.

The interchange at Dorr/475 will, well, I already said what it will do if someone doesn't get their heads out the azzes and first deal with Secor-Dorr-Bryne. This presuming numbers accurate as to how many would actually transfer to that corridor. It's quite a stretch and many lights from 475 to be commuting when the highway to Secor will get them much closer. But that's not even worth debate as time will answer what is correct.

I'm a transportation and city planning engineer with 15 years worth of professional experience (who did not work on this, or any of the projects in the area), and yes, Secor's lane width is unsafe by both State and Federal guidelines and does effect traffic flow models in a negative way, but keep thinking what you'd like about that road. The only reason why that plan was scrapped was because of the Ottawa Hills residents having an established sense of separation from reality and arguing about loss of tax revenue from 12 homes (all of which had already accepted ED Packages by the way, and now cannot sell their homes) instead of just accepting that they want different treatment than everyone else. I then actually give firm data about another intersection which you discount due to, I don't know, "feelings"? It's obvious you live in your own reality based on plenty of posts on this board, so I'm not entirely certain why I'm responding to yours anymore.

(05-12-2018 11:40 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  The interchange at Dorr/475 will, well, I already said what it will do if someone doesn't get their heads out the azzes and first deal with Secor-Dorr-Bryne. This presuming numbers accurate as to how many would actually transfer to that corridor. It's quite a stretch and many lights from 475 to be commuting when the highway to Secor will get them much closer. But that's not even worth debate as time will answer what is correct.

Dorr/475 to Secor/Dorr via Dorr St is 3.7 miles, 7 minutes, according to Google Maps.

Dorr/475 to Secor/Dorr via 475 is 8.4 miles, 13 minutes.

Secor/475 to Secor/Dorr is 2.3 miles, 7 minutes.

This new interchange will make a it quicker and easier to get to UT. It will also alleviate a lot of traffic on Secor between 475 and Bancroft, which everyone knows can is a big mess, especially during rush hour.

And Byrne/Dorr/Secor is not nearly as bad as it used to be since they somewhat redid that area a couple years ago.

(05-13-2018 10:03 AM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(05-12-2018 11:40 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  The interchange at Dorr/475 will, well, I already said what it will do if someone doesn't get their heads out the azzes and first deal with Secor-Dorr-Bryne. This presuming numbers accurate as to how many would actually transfer to that corridor. It's quite a stretch and many lights from 475 to be commuting when the highway to Secor will get them much closer. But that's not even worth debate as time will answer what is correct.

Dorr/475 to Secor/Dorr via Dorr St is 3.7 miles, 7 minutes, according to Google Maps.

Dorr/475 to Secor/Dorr via 475 is 8.4 miles, 13 minutes.

Secor/475 to Secor/Dorr is 2.3 miles, 7 minutes.

This new interchange will make a it quicker and easier to get to UT. It will also alleviate a lot of traffic on Secor between 475 and Bancroft, which everyone knows can is a big mess, especially during rush hour.

And Byrne/Dorr/Secor is not nearly as bad as it used to be since they somewhat redid that area a couple years ago.

Boldface: Not necessarily on Point A or B.

It wasn't after 15 years but after about 15 minutes the Engineering Profs at my alma stated first priority is, how will people react to change.


Other than new surface and lane markings, I'm not sure what they did at Bryne? It looks nicer but whenever I've been through, it's severely backed up. If the numbers change suggested turns correct, 2000-3000 additional vehicles during rush, I don't think it will handle it as is. The delay won't be linear to the additional vehicles. It will lock. But without those suggestions I made, I also think 2000-3000 to be an over-estimate. My reasons

- There's a lot of traffic and lights between the new interchange and UT. I think a driver's preference will remain their drive pattern as is. Even with the "mess," it will be faster coming in Secor.
- I would suspect most of those drivers were headed towards area 2 and 13. Rocket Hall parking is already saturated. Engineering has some space but not many people. Without attractive new parking arrangements, I again, still see those drivers headed towards 2 and 13 which means a person now coming in Dorr will take a trip around and through campus. Again, risking a lock, particularly by the student crossing near International.

Wider roads, even additional roads do not lead to "safer." It was only last Summer, the section of Douglas/Westwood was published as one of the highest ticketes for speeding. There are no houses/people living there. Wide road there works well. Speeders, eh. For a residential like Secor, in which there is little turn traffic during rush, the goal is to get it SLOWLY but consistently from Bancroft to Central then dispersed. A wider road there with such a mixed clientele will ENCOURAGE speeding amongst the slow and that's dangerous in a residential. Those crazy neighbors were smart to put up a fight.

The road worked fine when campus housed over 30,000. It works fine with 20,000. The problem isn't numbers. The problem is the change in vehicles navicating the roads.

MY position is as when those seeking money started proposing the fad of the moment rotary because... someone was offering money and lunches, my position is, do and see what the simulations will say.

The effects on campus of a new Dorr-475 interchange can more than be simulated. It's simply a matter of asking faculty and students for a week, to take that route for the purposes of study.

REGARDLESS: the effort should be lead by need and simulation, not money grab. If city could have resisted opening their big mouths (Planners calling the citizens "crazy" doesn't help) then they might have been able to make a case for Secor. As done, people dug in.

Presuming someone with 15 years experience was correct, I don't understand why the state and fed did not mandate that road be "corrected." They didn't. They offered money to fund options. City and construction saw a grab.

If Secor's Lane width is "dangerous" on general principals, then so are half the city streets if not more. Besides which, that wasn't the issue I raised. I raised the issue, the appropriateness of calling residents' actions to be involved in their neighborhood "crazy."

Didn't we just deal with a city planner that thought basketball courts attract a bad clientele? I've run into more than a bit of arrogance (sometimes uneducated) as a citizen. It needs to change. They are servants.

(05-13-2018 01:03 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  Other than new surface and lane markings, I'm not sure what they did at Bryne? It looks nicer but whenever I've been through, it's severely backed up. If the numbers change suggested turns correct, 2000-3000 additional vehicles during rush, I don't think it will handle it as is. The delay won't be linear to the additional vehicles. It will lock. But without those suggestions I made, I also think 2000-3000 to be an over-estimate. My reasons

Seriously??? You think all they did was put down new surface and lane markings??? And you are trying to say the new plan won't work? FFS.

EB Dorr, between Byrne and Secor, used to be TWO lanes at the Secor light; right lane was straight or right turn, left lane was straight or left turn. Now it is FOUR lanes; left 2 are left turn only, right turn are straight.

WB used to be 3 lanes at Byrne; 1 left turn only lane, 2 straight lanes. Now there are FOUR lanes; 2 left turn only 2 straight.

Plus, they added a middle barrier so people cannot turn left, crossing oncoming traffic.


From Dorr/475, you currently go through 6 traffic lights to get to Dorr/Secor.

From Secor/475, you currently go through 6 traffic lights to get to Dorr/Secor.


Also, this new interchange is not being done only for UT. It is also to alleviate traffic on Central Ave and Airport Hwy. Both those roads are already very busy.

(05-13-2018 01:03 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  I've run into more than a bit of arrogance (sometimes uneducated) as a citizen. It needs to change.

Oh, the irony of this statement.

Thank God football is only 110 days and a wake up away...

(05-13-2018 01:03 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  If Secor's Lane width is "dangerous" on general principals, then so are half the city streets if not more. Besides which, that wasn't the issue I raised. I raised the issue, the appropriateness of calling residents' actions to be involved in their neighborhood "crazy." .

The Dorr interchange is a direct response to the city's decision to scrap the Bancroft idea. The solution, after widening was taken off the table, is to mitigate the congestion, and the Dorr interchange has been deemed effective through study at removing cars from that section of road. It really isn't that hard to understand, and has happened quite a bit where I previously worked south of here. The koney earmarked for improvement on local roads from the county on Secor is now just being moved down the road a bit. Thankfully, I'm not a racist like the city planner you mentioned previously (and by extension, seemingly lumped me in with), I'm simply using data that has been produced through proven means.

(05-13-2018 03:31 PM)RangerRocket Wrote:  Thank God football is only 110 days and a wake up away...

(05-13-2018 01:03 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(05-13-2018 10:03 AM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(05-12-2018 11:40 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  The interchange at Dorr/475 will, well, I already said what it will do if someone doesn't get their heads out the azzes and first deal with Secor-Dorr-Bryne. This presuming numbers accurate as to how many would actually transfer to that corridor. It's quite a stretch and many lights from 475 to be commuting when the highway to Secor will get them much closer. But that's not even worth debate as time will answer what is correct.

Dorr/475 to Secor/Dorr via Dorr St is 3.7 miles, 7 minutes, according to Google Maps.

Dorr/475 to Secor/Dorr via 475 is 8.4 miles, 13 minutes.

Secor/475 to Secor/Dorr is 2.3 miles, 7 minutes.

This new interchange will make a it quicker and easier to get to UT. It will also alleviate a lot of traffic on Secor between 475 and Bancroft, which everyone knows can is a big mess, especially during rush hour.

And Byrne/Dorr/Secor is not nearly as bad as it used to be since they somewhat redid that area a couple years ago.

Boldface: Not necessarily on Point A or B.

It wasn't after 15 years but after about 15 minutes the Engineering Profs at my alma stated first priority is, how will people react to change.


Other than new surface and lane markings, I'm not sure what they did at Bryne? It looks nicer but whenever I've been through, it's severely backed up. If the numbers change suggested turns correct, 2000-3000 additional vehicles during rush, I don't think it will handle it as is. The delay won't be linear to the additional vehicles. It will lock. But without those suggestions I made, I also think 2000-3000 to be an over-estimate. My reasons

- There's a lot of traffic and lights between the new interchange and UT. I think a driver's preference will remain their drive pattern as is. Even with the "mess," it will be faster coming in Secor.
- I would suspect most of those drivers were headed towards area 2 and 13. Rocket Hall parking is already saturated. Engineering has some space but not many people. Without attractive new parking arrangements, I again, still see those drivers headed towards 2 and 13 which means a person now coming in Dorr will take a trip around and through campus. Again, risking a lock, particularly by the student crossing near International.

Wider roads, even additional roads do not lead to "safer." It was only last Summer, the section of Douglas/Westwood was published as one of the highest ticketes for speeding. There are no houses/people living there. Wide road there works well. Speeders, eh. For a residential like Secor, in which there is little turn traffic during rush, the goal is to get it SLOWLY but consistently from Bancroft to Central then dispersed. A wider road there with such a mixed clientele will ENCOURAGE speeding amongst the slow and that's dangerous in a residential. Those crazy neighbors were smart to put up a fight.

The road worked fine when campus housed over 30,000. It works fine with 20,000. The problem isn't numbers. The problem is the change in vehicles navicating the roads.

MY position is as when those seeking money started proposing the fad of the moment rotary because... someone was offering money and lunches, my position is, do and see what the simulations will say.

The effects on campus of a new Dorr-475 interchange can more than be simulated. It's simply a matter of asking faculty and students for a week, to take that route for the purposes of study.

REGARDLESS: the effort should be lead by need and simulation, not money grab. If city could have resisted opening their big mouths (Planners calling the citizens "crazy" doesn't help) then they might have been able to make a case for Secor. As done, people dug in.

Presuming someone with 15 years experience was correct, I don't understand why the state and fed did not mandate that road be "corrected." They didn't. They offered money to fund options. City and construction saw a grab.

If Secor's Lane width is "dangerous" on general principals, then so are half the city streets if not more. Besides which, that wasn't the issue I raised. I raised the issue, the appropriateness of calling residents' actions to be involved in their neighborhood "crazy."

Didn't we just deal with a city planner that thought basketball courts attract a bad clientele? I've run into more than a bit of arrogance (sometimes uneducated) as a citizen. It needs to change. They are servants.

You certainly are an expert on arrogance. Ignorance too?

(05-13-2018 05:49 PM)AquaRocket Wrote:  

(05-13-2018 01:03 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  Didn't we just deal with a city planner that thought basketball courts attract a bad clientele? I've run into more than a bit of arrogance (sometimes uneducated) as a citizen. It needs to change. They are servants.

You certainly are an expert on arrogance. Ignorance too?

One determiner of arrogance might be whether or not someone asks for information and input. Noticing those question marks in my post, well, that would be admitted ignorance, wouldn't it?

Care to fill any of it in? Or is snide all you got?

(05-13-2018 03:52 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(05-13-2018 01:03 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  If Secor's Lane width is "dangerous" on general principals, then so are half the city streets if not more. Besides which, that wasn't the issue I raised. I raised the issue, the appropriateness of calling residents' actions to be involved in their neighborhood "crazy." .

The Dorr interchange is a direct response to the city's decision to scrap the Bancroft idea. The solution, after widening was taken off the table, is to mitigate the congestion, and the Dorr interchange has been deemed effective through study at removing cars from that section of road. It really isn't that hard to understand, and has happened quite a bit where I previously worked south of here.

Someone came up with a "direct response" mitigation for the Secor approach to campus by putting an interchange nearly an additional half dozen lights (and a school zone?) away? And it had nothing to do with Sylvania developers and residents begging for an interchange between Central and Airport for...forever? Was a nice coincidence for them.

Can you fill me in on who specifically you are quoting?

We agree to disagree on the "hard to understand." I guess no engineers were even needed to come up with this plan. Unintended consequences ARE "hard to understand." This is why the proposed environments are simulated and public input is sought. It's cost effective, modern and often can predict, what "easy to understand" misses. Or we can wait for the boondoggle to happen and roll some heads.

You presume a significant problem on Secor, something lived with when the univeristy population was 50% bigger. Fine. But you foresee no...logistical changes needed on campus when this apparently massive number of commuters decides to approach from the other side of campus? Not rhetorical.

As I posted, not much to debate since the effects if significant will be seen.

So back to the quoted point to which you chose not to respond. Try three.

You see no problem with a city planner referring to residents as "crazy," simply because they show concern (apparently seen as rightious) for their neighborhood? You are very informed, both regards the local sports scene and apparently the workings of city engineering AND I respect your input, honesty and openness. But you can't see a problem in how they approached that situation or your comment?

Not trying to force anything here but it is not hard to understand why your comment could be seen as insulting to the people you work for.

(05-13-2018 06:15 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  Someone came up with a "direct response" mitigation for the Secor approach to campus by putting an interchange nearly an additional half dozen lights (and a school zone?) away? And it had nothing to do with Sylvania developers and residents begging for an interchange between Central and Airport for...forever? Was a nice coincidence for them.

There it is! I've been waiting for you to blame this on the suburbanites, the same way you did the new 475/23 interchange and Central Ave exit.

(05-13-2018 06:15 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  You see no problem with a city planner referring to residents as "crazy," simply because they show concern (apparently seen as rightious) for their neighborhood? You are very informed, both regards the local sports scene and apparently the workings of city engineering AND I respect your input, honesty and openness. But you can't see a problem in how they approached that situation or your comment?

Please show me where a Toledo city planner referred to residents as "crazy."

(05-13-2018 06:21 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(05-13-2018 06:15 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  Someone came up with a "direct response" mitigation for the Secor approach to campus by putting an interchange nearly an additional half dozen lights (and a school zone?) away? And it had nothing to do with Sylvania developers and residents begging for an interchange between Central and Airport for...forever? Was a nice coincidence for them.

There it is! I've been waiting for you to blame this on the suburbanites, the same way you did the new 475/23 interchange and Central Ave exit.

You've been waiting huh.

"blame?" Where did I fault "suburbanites," for this? They've every right to try and improve their access to the highway and from a developer POV AND a safety POV, it makes sense, presuming they can get the needed accesses without too much bullying and fit it in there. It's much too long a stretch of road without emergency exit.

Central interchange? I presume you're refering to the Central Ave overpass? The "suburbanites" as the ones affected were the first to complain about it.

(05-13-2018 06:25 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(05-13-2018 06:15 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  You see no problem with a city planner referring to residents as "crazy," simply because they show concern (apparently seen as rightious) for their neighborhood? You are very informed, both regards the local sports scene and apparently the workings of city engineering AND I respect your input, honesty and openness. But you can't see a problem in how they approached that situation or your comment?

Please show me where a Toledo city planner referred to residents as "crazy."

I didn't say "Toledo." Read your own quoting. Perhaps it is and perhaps it isn't but as for showing you, I'll leave it to you to read the thread.

(05-13-2018 06:54 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(05-13-2018 06:21 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(05-13-2018 06:15 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  Someone came up with a "direct response" mitigation for the Secor approach to campus by putting an interchange nearly an additional half dozen lights (and a school zone?) away? And it had nothing to do with Sylvania developers and residents begging for an interchange between Central and Airport for...forever? Was a nice coincidence for them.

There it is! I've been waiting for you to blame this on the suburbanites, the same way you did the new 475/23 interchange and Central Ave exit.

You've been waiting huh.

"blame?" Where did I fault "suburbanites," for this? They've every right to try and improve their access to the highway and from a developer POV AND a safety POV, it makes sense, presuming they can get the needed accesses without too much bullying and fit it in there. It's much too long a stretch of road without emergency exit.

Central interchange? I presume you're refering to the Central Ave overpass? The "suburbanites" as the ones affected were the first to complain about it.

(05-13-2018 06:25 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(05-13-2018 06:15 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  You see no problem with a city planner referring to residents as "crazy," simply because they show concern (apparently seen as rightious) for their neighborhood? You are very informed, both regards the local sports scene and apparently the workings of city engineering AND I respect your input, honesty and openness. But you can't see a problem in how they approached that situation or your comment?

Please show me where a Toledo city planner referred to residents as "crazy."

I didn't say "Toledo." Read your own quoting. Perhaps it is and perhaps it isn't but as for showing you, I'll leave it to you to read the thread.

Back when they were redoing the 475/23 interchange, you were bitching about it because it was benefiting the suburbs and that they should be spending that money on Toledo.

Then why are you making an issue out of a poster on a message board saying residents went crazy about something? BTW, that is different than calling them crazy.

(05-13-2018 07:06 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  Back when they were redoing the 475/23 interchange, you were bitching about it because it was benefiting the suburbs and that they should be spending that money on Toledo.

Who "they?" If it was city money primarily benefitting the burbs then it would be a legit complaint. You would want your local taxes funding infrastructure in other communities? If it was county money, then it's politics.

(05-11-2018 12:23 PM)inductchuck16 Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 08:19 AM)Michigan Rocket Wrote:  Thanks. I'll tell you what else I think UT should do to make the campus more pleasing. Remove all those dumb advertising billboards from inside The Glass Bowl. Looks like a Double A Baseball Field. I find it hard to believe that those billboards bring in that much revenue. And I agree the UTMC Signage should go too.

I've been saying this for years and I won't stop, those 1970s-looking advertising billboards inside the Glass Bowl need to be replaced by an LED ribbon board stretching the entire length of the east-side upper deck ASAP. It would enhance the stadium atmosphere tremendously, more than you think. And while we're at it, let's replace the old rundown stadium lighting with new modern lighting fixtures.

+1 - It would be a major upgrade. The GB has always been, and always will be, the premier stadium in the MAC. Infocision (Akron) is very nice, but the GB has a richer history, and a much better game day atmosphere.

(05-14-2018 06:44 AM)FMRocket Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 12:23 PM)inductchuck16 Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 08:19 AM)Michigan Rocket Wrote:  Thanks. I'll tell you what else I think UT should do to make the campus more pleasing. Remove all those dumb advertising billboards from inside The Glass Bowl. Looks like a Double A Baseball Field. I find it hard to believe that those billboards bring in that much revenue. And I agree the UTMC Signage should go too.

I've been saying this for years and I won't stop, those 1970s-looking advertising billboards inside the Glass Bowl need to be replaced by an LED ribbon board stretching the entire length of the east-side upper deck ASAP. It would enhance the stadium atmosphere tremendously, more than you think. And while we're at it, let's replace the old rundown stadium lighting with new modern lighting fixtures.

+1 - It would be a major upgrade. The GB has always been, and always will be, the premier stadium in the MAC. Infocision (Akron) is very nice, but the GB has a richer history, and a much better game day atmosphere.

And a winning football team!

New interchange at Dorr will be a huge improvement to traffic flow to UT, and I suspect UT will promote heavily as route to get to campus, especially from those coming from the south. I do not think (and would like to see detailed traffic flow studies) that it alone will increase south-north traffic heading up Secor from Dorr to Westgate and 475. I travel from Maumee and areas further south to main campus frequently and would certainly welcome and use an interchange at Dorr to get to UT, but would never think of it as way to get to Central/Westgate. Regardless of Dorr traffic and the new interchange, the Ottawa Hills and Toledo still need to address road conditions on Secor from Dorr to Central, some way, some how, even if making two lanes legal width and adding dedicated turn lane at Kenwood needs to be done just to address current conditions and traffic.

I usually take I-75 to Collingwood exit to Dorr from Perrysburg, but would take I-475/23 to a new Dorr St. interchange if that ever became a viable option. Much needed, IMO ...