[ back ]
Traffic signal faces down-and-out choice
(by Sue Reid - May 16, 2012)
Traffic signal faces down-and-out choice
By SUE REID
An unwarranted traffic signal on Kruse Drive generated discussion at last week's meeting of Solon City Council's safety and public properties committee.
Jordan Burns, attorney for Developers Diversified Realty, developer of the Uptown Solon shopping center, asked what obligation, if any, the company has to upgrade the signal.
As part of the upcoming citywide traffic-signal rehabilitation, only warranted signals will receive funding through the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency. The removal of unwarranted signals can be funded, but improvements to them cannot.
Four unwarranted signals were identified in the city, including the one on Kruse Drive near the former Borders store. Upgrades to one unwarranted signal on Bainbridge Road is being funded by the Cleveland Clinic, which has a medical center there.
The city has had some meetings with DDR about this signal and would consider removing it, but it has not received any official response from the company, city Engineer John J. Busch said. If the Uptown Solon owner wants to maintain the signal, it would have to pay for the improvement, Mr. Busch said.
The developer originally had the signal installed, Mr. Burns told the committee. "DDR funded the original acquisition of that traffic signal, and there was no discussion of an ongoing obligation to maintain it," he said. The company did not find a development agreement and went back 14 years, only to find minutes of meeting discussions, he said.
"Our view is we fulfilled our obligation," Mr. Burns said, adding that installing the signal cost considerably more than the modification.
"We are late in the game," Mr. Burns said, "and we are uncertain as to what the upgrades are and exactly what is required or optional."
"To get the federal funds, you have to determine if the signal is warranted," traffic engineer Kevin Westbrooks said. The signal on Kruse needs a new controller and cabinet, as well as a variety of hardware upgrades, he said, which would cost roughly $76,000.
"If you put the money in, you can keep the signal," Mr. Westbrooks said to Mr. Burns, "but we will not pay for the upgrade."
"From the standpoint of it being an unwarranted signal, we will not pay for the upgrade," Councilman William I. Russo said. "If they don't want to pay for it, it's coming down."
"We need to do a little more investigation and discussion," Mr. Burns said.
Committee members said the city want to complete the discussions in order to move forward with finalizing the project.
The funds become available July 1, Mr. Busch said, at which time the city will be able to bid out and award the signal-upgrade project.
No signals have been removed yet, he said.
The two-year project will involve upgrading the majority of the city's 46 traffic signals, including their complete reconstruction at 16 intersections.
The overall estimated cost of the project is $7.4 million, of which the city is receiving 80 percent from NOACA's congestion mitigation air quality program, approximately $5.76 million. The city is responsible for paying the 20 percent local match of about $1.44 million.
[ back ]
