If you're coming for the game, plan extra time; city and U still fighting
City wants more money, University thinks they're over charging. But how it might hamper you-
The new traffic control plan will have the city's police officers manually managing — without signals in operation — the Stadium Boulevard and Main Street intersection starting two hours before game time. All other intersections along Ann Arbor-Saline Road will operate by signals — not manually — and will operate based on the normal weekend schedule. After the game, Ann Arbor-Saline Road will be one way, heading south to I-94, as has historically been the case. But the State Street corridor will operate by signals — not manually — and will operate based on the normal weekend schedule both before and after the game.
If you're coming or leaving from/to the South, expect it to take longer.
If you want to assess for yourself, it has a nice breakdown of the salary demands. Why it might be a problem? I couldn't have phrased this any worse:
Crawford said eight signs and signals technicians will be out doing traffic control on game days this year, but they'll be doing less work. In the past, the city had all 12 of its technicians out.
I
September 2nd, 2011 at 9:26 AM ^
Can't wait...
Also, 23 southbound had some construction last Saturday and was down to one lane.
September 2nd, 2011 at 9:51 AM ^
Where was this US-23 construction? MDOT's Game Day Travel Restrictions page for the WMU game doesn't mention any lane closures for US-23. This is the only related item:
Spencer Road, Livingston County, has one lane open at US-23 with a temporary signal. All lanes of US-23 are open.
Much of the construction around the state is being suspended for the Labor Day weekend. This brief article from yesterday also said:
MDOT will also suspend construction and lift lane restrictions on home game days in and around East Lansing and Ann Arbor, wherever possible.
September 2nd, 2011 at 9:55 AM ^
That's a good thing. The one lane squeeze was right at 96 and 23 south -- at the ramp. It was pretty tore up but it may have been temporary.
September 2nd, 2011 at 1:16 PM ^
There is a lane shift on US 23 a little further south of Brighton but it is still two lanes going north and south. The right lane on northbound US 23 is closed so they added a narrow lane on southbound. Northbound traffic is split with one lane being the normal left and the other being southbounds left lane but going north. It's a little weird but better than one lane.
September 2nd, 2011 at 9:27 AM ^
something tells me the 10th may be a bit of a clusterf*ck
September 2nd, 2011 at 9:33 AM ^
For the Western game, so they are forced by complaint to come to a decision before next week. Because, yeah....
September 2nd, 2011 at 9:42 AM ^
Article indicates the city's making an exception for the ND game and following their practices from past years. But only for that game (likely b/c the traffic exiting the game's going to be a total and complete nightmare, rather than the normal clusterfuck).
City officials said the night game against Notre Dame on Sept. 10 is the only exception to the traffic plan. For that game, the full range of services historically provided both before and after the game will be in effect along Ann Arbor-Saline Road and State Street.
September 2nd, 2011 at 9:35 AM ^
September 2nd, 2011 at 9:47 AM ^
Both entities are acting like children.
If traffic turns into a complete CF, screw them both. I will stop coming to A2 for games as will other alums. At some point, if the game experience becomes hours and hours in traffic, it just won't happen. I love Michigan football, but not if I spend the weekend sitting in a car.
Worse will be what happens when an ambulance can't get through because of gridlock and someone dies.
September 2nd, 2011 at 10:52 AM ^
No, they are not BOTH acting like children. I am tired of false equivalency arguments. Cities and other governments generally, and I presume Ann Arbor too, are cash strapped. In this case, Michigan Athletics have money coming out of their blow hole. I know this because I noticed that my ticket prices significantly increased this year and somehow Dave Brandon had money to add two new varisity teams this year. I'm sure the lacrosse teams are nice, but I don't think they are really necessary.
UM should step up to the plate and help, at least at this time in our economy. Maybe it isn't the solution forever, but for now they are the ones who can address the needs created by the events they host and for which they earn the proceeds.
September 2nd, 2011 at 11:34 AM ^
Lol at this shit the role of an athletic department itsn't to prop up the economy of ann arbor its to add teams and help student athletes. Any real michigan fan supports all the michigan teams and that includes supporting lacrosse over a little traffic problem. And while I haven't read the details I can't imgaing costs have gone up for the city so I'm not sure why the school should have to pay more for the same services.
September 2nd, 2011 at 12:02 PM ^
should just give it to someone else who has found ways to squander all of theirs? Starting to sound political.
It doesn't seem like the University doesn't want to pay; they just don't want to get gouged and pay for the City's boondoggles over and above the costs actually caused by the game.
I think the poster was right, that they're both being childish, but if there's any "inequivalency" it's that the town is trying to scam the University.
September 2nd, 2011 at 9:48 AM ^
i am already in the stadium, yo!
September 2nd, 2011 at 10:19 AM ^
Exactly, I am usually in the stadium with about 90 minutes before kickoff.
September 2nd, 2011 at 10:15 AM ^
If you know the side streets well enough, you can avoid a lot of unneccessary traffic, park free about a mile away, and walk past the gridlock. And the money you save on parking might buy you a 5-inch pizza or a 16-ounce soft drink.
September 2nd, 2011 at 10:40 AM ^
Agreed. Also probably your best comment ever.
September 2nd, 2011 at 10:40 AM ^
One of my favorite parts of the gameday experience is walking toward the Stadium with the current students. It also doesn't hurt that parking is always easy around Church St. and whatever. It certainly isn't a bad thing that I can stop at Dominick's for a drink. Couldn't care less about parking near the stadium or traffic near it.
September 2nd, 2011 at 10:52 AM ^
typical spoiled Ann Arbor townies that have no concept of reality. In my time as a student living off campus I encountered the numerous policies enacted by residents to oppress the student population (parking?). So they're claiming that over the football season the city is spending $150,000.00 on traffic services for game days? Here's a question. How much revenue is brought in to the city of Ann Arbor every weekend during a home game? This is just a case of the greedy trying to take more. These people charge outrageous sums of money for renting houses that resemble slums and completely ignore the fact that UM is the only reason Ann Arbor exists and isn't suffering in the economy like every other small town in the midwest. I definitely feel sorry for the people coming from out of town to watch the game. I guess I can only hope that the AA residents that already complain about the inconvenience that the University and students are to their nice little town have to go through hell on game days bc they won't provide the services that are required.
September 2nd, 2011 at 11:27 AM ^
As someone pointed out the last time this came up, very little of the revenue that football brings into Ann Arbor finds its way to the city government's coffers. The sales tax revenue from stores, restaurants and hotels goes directly to the state (does AA have a hotel tax?) A small fraction may make it back to the city through revenue sharing, but it's a very small fraction indeed. All the money from parking exists in a very nebulous cash market that is not taxed and almost certainly doesn't affect property assessments (and thus raise property taxes).
As for the other complaints, house rentals near campus are a matter of supply and demand. If you want to pay less, there are a lot of cheap apartments on the way to Ypsi.
The valid line of attack against the city here is that they're padding their cost estimates by lumping irrelevant administrative services on top of the labor costs of the people who would manually direct traffic.
September 2nd, 2011 at 11:58 AM ^
As the poster you replied to seems to think, but the money brought in by sales tax and the like isn't how the city makes it money off games and the University. It's by all the thriving businesses, and the property rates which they make a windfall off of. There's a reason property taxes are so much higher in Ann Arbor than cities around it. Ypsilanti has Eastern, but it's a lot cheaper there because property values are so low. They rake in an absurdly high tax rate due to the University existing here. Otherwise it might still be mostly farmland. That offsets property the University owns. And sure, lawn parking doesn't get taxed, but full parking structures and and city owned property (as well as meters, tickets, and everything that goes with it) all go straight to the city. The city may be cash strapped, but it's more because of their tendency to spend on needless things and projects rather than essentials.
September 2nd, 2011 at 12:14 PM ^
But most of the thriving business (other than the M-Den and perhaps a couple hotels) would exist without football. The mistake here is conflating the university and football. To take one example, Amherst, Mass, has a thriving commercial business culture with numerous hotels and restaurants without big time college sports (unless you consider UMass basketball big time, which is stretching it), and remains the most healthy local economy in western Mass, which has some pretty bleak areas. It's the university that spurs the business climate and the high property rates, not football.
I somewhat agree with the point about the city's spending, though almost every municipality is strapped now. That's just the nature of the economic downturn and the inability of local governments to run deficits (stopping here. no politics). And the city should do more to justify the administrative costs they're asking the university to pick up. But the broader point I was trying to make is that this is a specific football related cost that does not significantly increase the city revenue, and to challenge the assumption that football, in and of itself, brings significant revenues to city government.
September 2nd, 2011 at 2:20 PM ^
To local businesses. I was friends with the owner of one of the local bars (not to mention a restaurant or two), and they completely depended on those football Saturdays to get into the black. A bad schedule or bad team could actually change how profitable they were, or even if they were at all.
But beyond that, to say that Football is separate from the University is like saying the hospital is. They both bring in sizable money to the city, by funding the population, and by ancillary costs (I don't see the city returning part of their parking profits to the University).
Living in the city, and being part of the University, I can see both sides, and think they should be able to come to some agreement. The problem seems to not be that the University isn't willing to pay though; they just don't want to pay for all sorts of graft overhead cost that the City seems to be tacking on. And while U-M does a bunch of money-grubbing things, Ann Arbor has not instilled a lot of confidence that they're going to better use the money.
September 2nd, 2011 at 3:11 PM ^
analyzing the breakdown in the costs that the city says it accrues on a typical game day. The University agreed to pay a lesser amount but is contesting some of the charges - which is normal in everyday business. Obviously the relationship between the city of AA and the University isn't a typical client-customer business relationship, but any customer is going to dispute charges they don't believe are relevant. As to the downtrodden minority comment - this issue is definitely a touchy one for me since i was able to experience the city firsthand. I totally agree that if you go anywhere on campus you're going to see your fair share of BMWs, Lexus and Audi's and those are probably the same students that can afford to live in the outrageously overpriced new apartments going up around town, but in my opinion its by no means a representation of the entire student population. There are a lot of American students at the University that do still have to find ways to save money while attending and being able to save $50-$100 on rent somewhere makes a large difference in what its like attending school throughout the year. Regarding the comment that its easier to find cheap apartments as you go towards Ypsi - sure, no arguement, but walking to class is a lot different than driving, having to worry about gas and trying to find parking and pay for that on a daily basis. That being said I think the difference is made up by living on campus and not having those added expenses on a daily basis.