READ: Comments, Responses to SR 91 Project

The community spoke its mind on roundabouts at a meeting in October, now here is how the city responded to questions and concerns

After city council voted 4-3 last week on posting the comments from a State Route 91 improvements meeting in October, the community questions and answers are now live on www.mytwinsburg.com.

City Engineer Amy Mohr said last week that posting these comments doesn't neccesarily lock the city into the changes, it simply keeps the process moving so they don't lose money if they do wish to proceed, rather than staying at a stand-still.

Here are a few things to keep mind while reading the comments:

  • There were more than 29 comments, but many questions were duplicated so they were simply consolidated so it wasn't repetitive.
  • The questions/comments that occured the most have the highest rank, from 1-29.
  • The Ohio Department of Transportation has viewed and analyzed both questions/comments and responses to ensure accuracy.

According to the document, "public comments showed that 11 were in favor of the project (with minor concerns), eight were against the project in any form,
and 72 were in favor of the project (widening of SR 91), but were against the use of roundabouts at the intersections."

According to the city, by April ODOT will review eveything and could approve the enivronmental document, including comments, moving the project into the design phase.

More news on SR 91 and roundabouts:

Dave February 23, 2012 at 02:07 PM
I'm for doing the project, but it will have little impact on my life during the project and after completion due to my travel patterns. However, I can see why people who are against the project or are not sure about it have concerns. My question is who completed the responses to the public comments/questions. The responses sure make it seem like the project has been decided and is going forward. This is not the case since Council has not yet approved the project, but it makes those against the project seem like they don't have a voice. ODOT is "reviewing everything and could approve the environmental document" by April. This project seems to be moving down the road (pun intended) even though no one has "approved" the project. Council either needs to halt the process of going forward with any decisions by parties outside of the city or step up and make a decision one way or the other. I believe this project will be an improvement for our city because it will improve traffic flow, and there are other benefits such as wider shoulders for safety and an improved sewer system. When the roundabout was approved for Glenwood and Liberty, I thought it was unnecessary and not the right choice. However, now I like it because my progress does not come to a stop to wait for a light. So, I urge Council to take the comments, studies, etc. and make a decision instead of leading the residents on for an extended period of uncertainty. Either way, there will be people who aren't happy.
LB February 23, 2012 at 05:27 PM
I like the widening of 91 idea, however, I do not like the roundabout idea at all. I can't stand the one we have now. While driving I get people pulling in front of me all the time, to the point, where I have to slam on my brakes or hit them. I don't have a problem with rush hour times in the morning or at night and I am in both of them. I am still concerned that it's gonna be a little harder to get onto 91 from the sidestreets.
Mitch Cooper February 23, 2012 at 05:46 PM
Dave, thank you for your response. There aren't any more rulings council has to make on this project. However, it appears there is some hesitation with some members of council so it's not a "done deal," as Council President Ted Yates put it a week ago.
Scott Darpel February 23, 2012 at 06:11 PM
Once again, I have grave concerns the firm doing the work is not providing enough information to our council (incomplete engineering analysis & simulation) at best, and based on these responses, potentially an un-truth at worst. I specifically refer to items #2 and 18, since they both deal with my concern, the ability to turn left off the sides streets onto 91. When you read these responses (oh, there will NOT be a continuous flow and you will get gaps to enable you to turn), you get the impression that they included traffic data for cars turning left off the side streets and the Deer run apartments. When I specifically asked, however, on two occasions, I was told by members of this firm that that data was not included in the analysis and simulation. How, then, can you tell me there "should" be adequate breaks in traffic to allow me to turn left onto 91 if you have not included it in the simulation? "There will not necessarily be a steady stream of traffic coming from the Glenwood roundabout. Allowing free flow of traffic will decrease the vehicle queue and reduce or minimize the traffic backup. That, in turn, will create gaps in the traffic flow heading south" I apologize, and I'm not trying to be an a-hole, but this response simply does not make sense, as it seems (to me) to contradict itself. The vehicle queues are reduced due to a more constant flow of traffic. So, how, exactly, does this create gaps? This is opinion - not facts supported by data.
J Curry February 23, 2012 at 06:49 PM
I agree Scott, there will not be a gap in traffic. During the hours of 6:30am - 7:00am and 4:00pm - 7:00pm, there is a constant flow of traffic and people turning left from the Deer Run Apartments have to wait anywhere from 5 - 10 mins just to make that turn and when they do it is has to be at a high rate of speed. This is just an accident waiting to happen.
Scott Darpel February 23, 2012 at 06:59 PM
J, even more problematic may be the weekends. That's when I find traffic to be at its worst. To be honest, I actully believe accidents AT 91 & Glenwood will settle down to a lower number than today, but I worry that this just create a much worse problem slightly down the street.
Just DaFax February 23, 2012 at 07:12 PM
Turn right, go around the roundabout and exit the way you came in. Problem solved!
Scott Darpel February 23, 2012 at 07:54 PM
How, exactly, does that solve the problem of turning left onto 91 from Sherwin, Warren Parkway, etc?
Dave February 23, 2012 at 07:55 PM
Mitch, Based on my conversation with Seth Rodin earlier this week, council still needs to vote to approve the funds for the project. The analysis and design work is going forward (as per the comments). However, the actual project work has not been approved. My point is that those against this project are given the impression that the project will be done based on the response to the comments/questions. If I was on that side of this argument, I would feel that we had already lost.
Sally Gaydosh February 25, 2012 at 05:34 PM
I would like to add to Dave concerns regarding the intended construction of roundabouts on Route 91. Unfortunately his concerns regarding timely legislative “approval” of major land use projects are not unique. For years, city officials have proven to move forward with such major land use projects by ignoring the systematic procedures outlined in Ohio Law and Twinsburg Charter which in the end proves that “The electors of this City shall have the power to reject at the polls any ordinance or other measure enacted by Council by referendum petition” Sally Gaydosh


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something