News: Making Milan Road safer, more convenient

http://www.pointbuzz.com/news.htm?id=987

While I'm staying in Sandusky I make it a habit to never actually get out on to 250 because of how busy it always is. I just take the back road to the mall and I can access it all that way. Its really convenient because theres no tourists that are just going to chance it and take random back roads to get to there, they just stick to 250 because thats where the (apparently ugly) signs are.

But seriously.... 2013?

Gotta wait for the money I guess. It is the classic case of the current capacity of the road being more than it can handle due to development. Who knows how big CP will be seven years.

Why in God's green Earth would they waste money on sidewalks along 250???

With the amount of stop and go traffic that goes down rt 250 during a Saturday morning, the amount of accidents should be expected. After most spend hours driving 80-90 MPH, it's hard to drive 30-40 plus stop and go traffic.

If they could make the right turn only lanes wider than the size of a car, they would have less trouble. By the mall and Walmart is where I would do it.

I would have to guess most of the issues involve tourists. Most locals know how to get around without using 250. I was so happy when I learned my way around that garbage.

It's funny that they have to wait 7 years for a couple million. For road work, that's not a big sum. Must be some really bad roads in Ohio.

It seems to be the way it is. There's a road widening project here in North Ridgeville that is way overdue and isn't schedules for completion until 2013. Similar story. Thinking about putting up with Center Ridge Rd. in its current condition for another 7 years scares me. This little farm town just wasn't ready to become the number one city in the state for new home construction.

Sidewalks would be important on Rt. 250, especially with the number of hotels on the road. It adds an insignificant cost to the overall project and benefits pedestrians in the process. Why not?

*** Edited 8/8/2006 12:43:08 AM UTC by Walt***

What sane person would want to walk on a road like that? Even if they have no other choice i image that they would rather travel in another mode. I can't recall ever seeing anyone walk along that streatch, and i do look out for such an odd occurance. It's something i obcess over when i drive through places that are that poorly designed.

People will only walk if they have to or want to. Neither of which applies to that area. One, the visitors to the area almost always have a car to use. Two, the distances between the shoping plazas/attractions are prohibitive to walking for most people. Three the number of lanes, width of street and speed of traffic on 250 creates an unearving sense of danger to the average person. So that leaves the locals who are too poor to afford a car. I wonder, is there a bus line? If so then that further reduces the number of people stuck walking that war zone.

Widening and adding lanes only adds to the anti-pedestrian nature to the street scape. Even with a cute little sidewalk and pretty signs.

The problem with 250 (traffic flow and the "ugliness") is in its design. The problem is built into its bones. No amount of widening or sidewalks or pretty signs will reduce the traffic and/or accidents or make people want to walk there.

Changing the light timing may improve the traffic flow, but it won't reudce the number of cars, thus accidents will continue to occur. Plus it doesn't help encourage pedestrians.

Limiting the access should help reduce at least the places where accidents happen and i would wager may also reduce the accident ratio for the road. It also encourges pedestrian activity when curb cuts are minimuized. But it will also make it even more cumbersome to traverse the area and create other issues like those mentioned in the article. And really this one point in favor of pedestrians doesn't offset far more serious deterents to walking along 250.

Adding lanes will only increase the traffic flow and the new lanes will fill up as soon as the orange barrels fly south for the winter. Nothing will make the street look "pretty" with the varying setbacks and horrendous anti-archetecture so loved by the big box and national restaurant chains. 250 isn't a place, it's an anti-place where poor souls have to go because the rest of Sandusky is so depressed (and depressing). They would be better off using that money to annex that township and redesigning the area. Or, for a more realistic suggestion, create bus lanes and offer bus service up and down the strip and to the CBD and CP. But even buses have their issues in a design so heavily slanted to the auto.

The point is that the project will do little to solve the problems and sidewalks are a complete and total waste of time and money.
*** Edited 8/8/2006 2:59:54 AM UTC by gener***

Do they really have to wait seven years before they fix the signal timing? That's something that could be done NOW which would result in an IMMEDIATE improvement and, if done right, would probably eliminate a lot of those rear-end collisions.

If you are travelling in the dominant direction, once you stop for one traffic signal, you shouldn't have to stop for any of the others so long as you're going the speed limit. The fact that you typically have to stop at every @#$! intersection indicates that the signal timing is FUBAR.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Agreed, General; on both the light timing being a quick fix and about them being FUBAR. Of course, no one ever wants to drive the speed limit nowadays, so that doesn't help things.

I stay as far away from 250 as humanly possible at all times... :)

Yep Rideman, I hear you on that. When heading to our Sandusky office I found that even when rt. 250 is dead I'm stopping at EVERY. SINGLE. TRAFFIC. LIGHT. So what do I do? I push the speed up to 45 - 50 MPH and slam on the brakes whenever I see the Perkins tax collectors (That's the Police department for those not following).

Now I take Rye Beach Rd. to Perkins road all the way over to the office crossing 250. No way in heck am I putting up with the idiotic programming of the traffic lights. Besides, this year alone they have added 3 new traffic signal intersections on that road.

~Rob Willi

Dave's got the right idea. There's a reason I take the Rye Beach Rd exit when I head up to CP. I hate the traffic on 250 and the traffic is only so bad thanks to stoping at EVERY FRIGGING LIGHT.

I too agree that the light pattern can be changed immediately to improve the traffic flow. But i still can't see how this will reduce the number of accidents. (i'm still looking for statistical evidence). Just because traffic flows easier throught the area doesn't reduce the number of intersections. It definately wouldn't calm the traffic and slow people down. And even if your chances of blowing through the area without a red light increases there are still plenty of people who will have to come to a stop at a light and give them a chance to not pay attention and cause an accident. People rear-end either because they aren't paying attention or they are driving beyond their control (ie too fast for the weather conditions or tailgating). Better timed lights do nothing for these human issues.

It would however reduce road rage shootings ;)

The usual cause of a rear-end collision is when someone just rolling along crashes into the back end of someone who is stopped for a traffic signal. It is particularly common when the person who stopped for the traffic signal stopped suddenly because the light just turned red right in front of him because it was poorly timed.

When lights are timed properly, once you stop for one light, there is no more stopping until you get to the end of the zone, assuming you are travelling in the dominant direction. When a significant proportion of the crashes are rear-end collisions, light timing can make a significant dent in the number of crashes. It doesn't help you with cross-traffic crashes, but it can reduce the rear-enders.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

RideMan said:
When a significant proportion of the crashes are rear-end collisions, light timing can make a significant dent in the number of crashes.
--Dave Althoff, Jr.

That brought a small smile to my face.

There may be something to that, but i'm still looking for the studies. For example the red light cameras which were thought up to reduce dangerous driving almost always increase the number of accidents. Not that this is comparing apples to apples. I'm using it as an example of you don't always get what seems at the time to be the most logical outcome. After all there are still a lot of people on these roads all having to stop at one point or another. For example, Chester Ave on the near east side of Cleveland is one of the best timed roads in the city and there are regular accidents.