Planners Throw Bypass "Potato" In Council's Lap

Planners Throw Bypass ‘Potato’ In Council’s Lap

By Ron Cordray
(City Government Reporter)

Following more than two years of off-and-on debate, review and study, the Ann Arbor Planning Commission has failed to make a decision on the routing of the Packard-Beakes bypass.

The matter is now out of the hands of commissioners and will presumably be settled by City Council Monday night.

Commissioners last night rejected a resolution to endorse the original bypass plan and did not vote on any alternatives. The vote on the resolution ended in a 4 to 4 deadlock.

Most observers believe the original plan will receive a more favorable reception at Monday’s council meeting.

The Packard-Beakes bypass was part of the 1966 road bond issue approved by voters but since 1969 has been embroiled in a continuing controversy. In 1969, council voted a “brief delay” on work being done on the bypass to permit the Model Cities Policy Board to review the plan and come up with any alternative it might suggest.

Model Cities representatives, and a number of councilmen, objected to the original plan because they said it would cause severe damage to the northcentral neighborhood — dissecting it with a major thoroughfare.

The plan called for connecting Packard with First and Ashley and having-these two streets connect with Beakes and Kingsley.

An alternative suggested by the Planning Department staff would have closed Beakes at Main St., thus preventing through traffic on that residential street. There was no vote on this alternative last night.

Before taking action on the routing of the bypass, the commission endorsed a series of policy statements regarding Packard-Beakes which were offered by Commissioner Charles Reinhart. His suggestions included: (1) That landscaping plans be developed and implemented the entire length of the bypass route; (2) That needs for pedestrian overpass, crosswalks and signals be incorporated in the plan; (3) At the time the decision on a Fuller penetrator route is made, that the impact of this route on the northcentral area be taken into consideration; and (4) The bypass through Beakes and Kingsley be designed to handle only moderate traffic and that steps be taken to insure that traffic does not use other residential streets.

The commission’s resolution on the Packard-Beakes proposal also included three recommendations of an ad hoc committee—that the affected streets remain two lanes with parking, that alternate parking be provided, and that pedestrian crosswalks be signalized as needed.

Robert Weaver, the council’s representative on the commission, voted against the resolution to endorse the bypass but said he did so only because he objected to the two-lane restriction. Weaver says he favors the Packard-Breakes plan but does not want “to play traffic engineer.”

Commissioner John P. Crecine had to leave last night’s meeting before the vote on the bypass, and commissioners decided against allowing his vote for the bypass to be included.

Planning Department Director Michael Prochaska, who recommended that commission endorse the original route, commented, “Staff's experience with the controversies that have swirled about the Ashley-First (Packard-Beakes) bypass have convinced us of the necessity to be much more careful in the future in matters related to thoroughfare planning.

“Roads planned to carry major traffic loads have such enduring effects upon contiguous properties and neighborhoods that exceptional efforts are required to insure community support for such proposals,” Prochaska said. “Without general agreement on roadway alignments, we do not think it necessary any longer to push a project.”

Prochaska added that the planning staff will not continue to recommend increased lane capacities at the expense of the urban environment. “At least from our perspective, if we do not take such a stand, and soon, we will have lost the very reason why we provide the roads in the first place. Roads take us to places, but places are only worth visiting when they remain places and are protected from incursion by deadening rushes of high volume traffic.”