Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Road Diet topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Eastpointe council hears residents oppose 9 Mile road diet; city says comments sent to NEPA
Summary
At an Oct. 21 Eastpointe City Council meeting, city staff reported 78 public submissions opposed and 10 in favor of a proposed road diet on 9 Mile Road. Residents at the meeting raised safety and emergency-response concerns and said they felt local public-safety feedback had been sidelined.
Eastpointe City officials told the City Council on Oct. 21 that the city compiled public feedback from an Oct. 15 forum on a proposed “road diet” on 9 Mile Road and has forwarded the responses to the federal review agency NEPA. City staff said the forum produced 78 submissions opposing the road diet and 10 in favor.
The tally was reported by City Manager (interim) Elke Toome during the administration report. "Once they were compiled, we do have 78 combined responses…against the road diet. And we had 10 responses that were for the road diet," Toome said. She told council staff had sent the compiled comments to NEPA but had not yet received acknowlegement of receipt.
The forum and the council meeting drew multiple residents who said the project would worsen congestion and hamper emergency response. Jennifer Nicholas, an Eastpointe resident, said police and fire expertise appeared to have been disregarded and questioned claims that a road diet would reduce speed or spur economic growth. "The traffic study that was done said that a road diet wouldn't really decrease speed on 9 Mile. It did say that there would be queuing, which would cause traffic backups that police and fire have mentioned concerns about previous," Nicholas said.
Walt Jakubiak, a resident who said construction on 9 Mile had already caused long lines outside his house, told council members three of whom he said do not live on 9 Mile, that he opposed the changes and urged fellow residents to vote in the upcoming election. Bob Grout and other speakers also said they had been unable to hear police and fire perspectives at the public forum; Toome replied the forum was intended for public comment and that police and fire were welcome to attend and had submitted written comments in earlier project phases.
Council members asked staff for clarification about how anonymous or unsigned emails were recorded. Kim Holman, assistant city administrator, said staff noted whether an email indicated the writer was a resident or gave an address; where no address or residency statement appeared the field was left blank but the content was included in the file sent to AEW and NEPA.
Why it matters: The road diet proposal is part of a federally reviewed project phase subject to NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act), which takes public and agency inputs into account. Local officials and residents framed the issue around safety, traffic queuing, emergency response times and economic impacts to businesses along 9 Mile.
Council did not take a formal vote on the road diet at the Oct. 21 meeting; staff said compiled public comments will be part of the NEPA record. The city manager also reminded residents the administration would keep accepting emailed comments until a stated deadline for the forum process and that meeting video and collected input would be available per the NEPA process if requested.
