A plethora of questions for Michigan roads
Cujo6945
planning to get any interstate designations?
What parts of US 23 and US 27 will I-73 replace? Any I-x73 ideas???
For state routes that are freeway standard near interstate highways Michigan,
can you think of any 3dis for them?
Any other new/planned/proposed road projects underway in Michigan?
Where is US 12's terminus in Michigan specifically?
Why does US 24 have a N-S routing in Michigan. Where does US 24 have its
terminus?
Why didn't US 45 follow M-26's routing so US 45 & US 41 could begin together at
the same place.
What was the routing for decommissioned US 16 in Michigan?
Justin Joseph
AKA: Cujo
Dyche Anderson
Highways Web site, http://members.aol.com/hwys/MichHwys/MichHwys.html.
I'll do my best to answer these from memory.
Cujo6945 wrote:
>
> Portions of US 23, 27, 31, & 131 are freeway standard in Michigan. Are they
> planning to get any interstate designations?
Don't blink, maybe, no, no. The first two ONLY if I-73 is built.
Why would these roads need interstate designation?
>
> What parts of US 23 and US 27 will I-73 replace? Any I-x73 ideas???
The MDOT website has an I-73 page. The real question is between Lansing
and Ohio. Lansing-Gaylor will be over US-127, assuming that MDOT does
indeed rename US-27 to US-127 north of Lansing. The leading plan south
of Lansing is US-127 to Jackson, then a new road, paralleling existing
US-223 to US-23, where it would ever so briefly multiplex with US-23 before
it goes into Ohio. See the MDOT website for more details, and potential
alternate routes.
>
> For state routes that are freeway standard near interstate highways Michigan,
> can you think of any 3dis for them?
Chris lists the potential for M-14 to become I-394, but most of us here in
Michigan just don't see the need to make all of these freeways 3dis.
>
> Any other new/planned/proposed road projects underway in Michigan?
Several. The big one is M-6, the south bypass of Grand Rapids, which is
under construction and due to be completed in 2005. Another is M-2, a
bypass in Wayne County from I-75 to I-275 along the West Road corridor,
with a further possibility of being extended to US-23 in Washtenaw County.
Still another possibility is a new highway to more or less connect
I-96 and I-75 east of US-23 and west of I-275.
>
> Where is US 12's terminus in Michigan specifically?
Downtown Detroit. Woodward & Jefferson, I believe.
>
> Why does US 24 have a N-S routing in Michigan. Where does US 24 have its
> terminus?
Because it runs north-south in Michigan. It now terminates at I-75 & Dixie Highway.
>
> Why didn't US 45 follow M-26's routing so US 45 & US 41 could begin together at
> the same place.
>
This happened back in the 1930's. I don't know. But in the Copper Country, M-26
and US-41 do not, for the most part, run together, and they do not end (or begin,
depending on your point of view) at the same place, but their terminii are close.
> What was the routing for decommissioned US 16 in Michigan?
Basically Grand River Avenue/Road.
Dyche Anderson
Dan Garnell
they
> > planning to get any interstate designations?
>
> Don't blink, maybe, no, no. The first two ONLY if I-73 is built.
> Why would these roads need interstate designation?
And, it would only go over a small portion of US-23 if it does come to
fruition.
> >
> > Any other new/planned/proposed road projects underway in Michigan?
>
> Several. The big one is M-6, the south bypass of Grand Rapids, which is
> under construction and due to be completed in 2005. Another is M-2, a
> bypass in Wayne County from I-75 to I-275 along the West Road corridor,
> with a further possibility of being extended to US-23 in Washtenaw County.
> Still another possibility is a new highway to more or less connect
> I-96 and I-75 east of US-23 and west of I-275.
>
They had more public forums this week on this very topic in western Oakland
Co. However, from the info I've gathered, the route would only go from I-96
to M-59. Most likely, IMO, routed over Milford Rd. w/ a west bypass of the
city of Milford.
> >
> > Where is US 12's terminus in Michigan specifically?
>
> Downtown Detroit. Woodward & Jefferson, I believe.
>
Yes. However, the 1st westbound sign is at the start of Michigan Ave. There
is no US-12 ENDS sign, though.
> >
> > Why does US 24 have a N-S routing in Michigan. Where does US 24 have its
> > terminus?
>
> Because it runs north-south in Michigan. It now terminates at I-75 & Dixie Highway.
>
US-24 goes from an E-W highway to a N-S highway in Toledo. I'm not sure of
the exact location, but I'd think around the I-475/US-23 intechange.
--
Dan Garnell
E-mail: dg...@juno.com
http://eng-sci.udmercy.edu/
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Marc Fannin
> Many of the answers to your questions may be found at Chris Bessert's
> Michigan Highways Web site,
> http://members.aol.com/hwys/MichHwys/MichHwys.html.
>
> Cujo6945 wrote:
>
> > Portions of US 23, 27, 31, & 131 are freeway standard in Michigan.
> > Are they planning to get any interstate designations?
>
> Don't blink, maybe, no, no.
I'll amend: Don't blink, maybe, possibly at one time, no
The third one is different because of the info at
http://members.nbci.com/musxf579/rdmysttc.html
--
Marc Fannin musx...@kent.edu (use first) or musx...@hotmail.com
http://www.personal.kent.edu/~musxf579/
Roads: http://members.nbci.com/musxf579/roadsite.html
RoadGuruPE
Good answers thus far --- see:
http://www.mdot.state.mi.us/index.htm
Also major rework to Ambassador Bridgeaccess and platform, I-375, Continuing on
US131 (Cadillac/north and Kalamazoo/south), etc.,
See website
Chris Bessert
>
> Portions of US 23, 27, 31, & 131 are freeway standard in Michigan. Are they
> planning to get any interstate designations?
Let's put it this way, MDOT doesn't have too many copies of the "Let's
add an Interstate designation to this non-Interstate freeway" forms
lying around. :^) Others have posted here and I pretty much agree
with them that only what is now signed as US-27 (scheduled to become
part of US-127 in the coming years) may become part of I-73, also to
run along US-127 between Lansing and south of Jackson, but this is
still a 50/50 shot now (and I might be too liberal with my 50/50!).
> What parts of US 23 and US 27 will I-73 replace?
US-23: none. US-23 will see no changes as a result of I-73, should I-73
ever make it to Michigan.
US-27: all of it north of Lansing to Grayling. Although this stretch
may be re-signed as US-127 before any I-73 shields come along.
> Any I-x73 ideas???
Not really. No really decent-sized towns en route that would need them.
Jackson needs no loops or spurs, Lansing already has I-496.
> For state routes that are freeway standard near interstate highways Michigan,
> can you think of any 3dis for them?
Sure, could come up with hundreds, but as I and others have mentioned,
MDOT is not in the habit of adding 3dis. Word from their Grand Rapids
regional office is that the new M-6/South Beltline Frwy bypass of
Grand Rapids will likely not receive a non-chargable Interstate designa-
tion, even though it's probably the most deserving of one!
> Any other new/planned/proposed road projects underway in Michigan?
Others have pretty much mentioned the biggies. Others might be additional
"rationalization" plans, see my Rationalization page at the Michigan
Highways website at http://members.aol.com/Hwys/MichHwys/MichHwys.html .
> Where is US 12's terminus in Michigan specifically?
Dyche is correct: Woodward & Jefferson (M-10) downtown Detroit.
> Why does US 24 have a N-S routing in Michigan. Where does US 24 have its
> terminus?
I-75 Exit 93 near Clarkston.
> Why didn't US 45 follow M-26's routing so US 45 & US 41 could begin together at
> the same place.
Probably because the Michigan State Highway Department (predecessor
to the current MDOT) folks didn't think having two US Highways end in
the same place was a priority. Apparently Ontonagon was fine in both
the MSHD's and AASHTO's eyes in 1934.
> What was the routing for decommissioned US 16 in Michigan?
From Muskegon, US-16 followed different routings through Muskegon
Heights to Airline Dr, then southeast along Airline through Fruitport
and into Ottawa Co. In Ottawa Co, it followed Apple Dr into Nunica,
where it met an earlier routing along M-104. US-16 followed Apple Dr
into Coopersville. From there much of the route of US-16 lies under
the present route of I-96, except for the southern bypass of Marne.
In the Grand Rapids area, US-16 entered via Remembrance Rd to Leonard
St, then Walker Ave to Stocking Ave to Bridge St, to Monroe Ave to
Fulton St east to Lake Dr to Robinson Rd to Cascade Rd, which it
followed out of Greater GR via Cascade into Ionia Co.
At Ionia Co, the route of the former US-16 picks up the "Grand River
Ave" name it pretty much keeps all the way into downtown Detroit.
US-16 followed Grand River Ave through Portland, Eagle, Lansing,
East Lansing, Okemos, Williamston, Howell (my hometown), Brighton,
New Hudson, Novi, Farmington (my current home) and into Detroit. In
downtown Detroit, US-16 left Grand River at US-10/Woodward Ave and
followed Woodward Ave southerly for a few blocks to the common term-
inus for US-10/US-12/US-16/M-17 in downtown.
Later,
Chris
--
Chris Bessert
Bess...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/Hwys/
Chris Bessert
>
> Cujo6945 wrote:
> >
> > For state routes that are freeway standard near interstate highways Michigan,
> > can you think of any 3dis for them?
>
> Chris lists the potential for M-14 to become I-394, but most of us here in
> Michigan just don't see the need to make all of these freeways 3dis.
And I don't know just how interested MDOT is in making M-14 into I-394.
M-14 has been completed as a full freeway for about 17 years now, and
MDOT hasn't seemed to make one move in that direction.
> > Any other new/planned/proposed road projects underway in Michigan?
>
> Several. The big one is M-6, the south bypass of Grand Rapids, which is
> under construction and due to be completed in 2005. Another is M-2, a
> bypass in Wayne County from I-75 to I-275 along the West Road corridor,
> with a further possibility of being extended to US-23 in Washtenaw County.
> Still another possibility is a new highway to more or less connect
> I-96 and I-75 east of US-23 and west of I-275.
Get this - a contact of mine at MDOT states they have NOT given up on
the Oakland County route of I-275. I made sure to doubly-ask if he meant
the the originally as-proposed route of I-275, later M-275, and he said
yes, they hadn't driven the last (or anywhere near the last) nail in
I-275's coffin! And this does seem to go against all logic and outward
appearances, too. Who knows...
> > What was the routing for decommissioned US 16 in Michigan?
>
> Basically Grand River Avenue/Road.
<nitpick> All portions of Grand River have been Grand River *Ave* for
several decades now. True, many portions were once officially designated
Grand River *Road* in various areas, but every portion from the Kent/
Ionia Co line easterly to downtown Detroit is now officially Grand
River *Ave*. This change may have even pre-dated the decommissioning
of said US-16 in Michigan as well. </nitpick>
sadness or euphoria
>the Oakland County route of I-275. I made sure to doubly-ask if he meant
>the the originally as-proposed route of I-275, later M-275, and he said
>yes, they hadn't driven the last (or anywhere near the last) nail in
>I-275's coffin! And this does seem to go against all logic and outward
>appearances, too. Who knows...
Does this explain, once and for all, the reason I-275 currently has that
Useless Multiplex to I-696/96?
Chris Sampang
Somewhere on the SF Peninsula
===============================
"Everybody has a dream..." - Billy Joel
===============================
Webmaster, Freeways of San Francisco (http://sffwy.cjb.com)
Chris Bessert
>
> >Get this - a contact of mine at MDOT states they have NOT given up on
> >the Oakland County route of I-275. I made sure to doubly-ask if he meant
> >the the originally as-proposed route of I-275, later M-275, and he said
> >yes, they hadn't driven the last (or anywhere near the last) nail in
> >I-275's coffin! And this does seem to go against all logic and outward
> >appearances, too. Who knows...
>
> Does this explain, once and for all, the reason I-275 currently has that
> Useless Multiplex to I-696/96?
Possibly. There was a debate over this very point a couple months back
with no undeniable reasons offered, just idle speculation. Who knows...
Dyche Anderson
Remember that just about everyone - including MDOT - refers to the I-96/I-275
multiplex as I-275.
Dyche Anderson
D Outen
"Chris Bessert" <Bess...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3A74D63E...@aol.com...
> Get this - a contact of mine at MDOT states they have NOT given up on
> the Oakland County route of I-275. I made sure to doubly-ask if he
meant
> the the originally as-proposed route of I-275, later M-275, and he
said
> yes, they hadn't driven the last (or anywhere near the last) nail in
> I-275's coffin! And this does seem to go against all logic and outward
> appearances, too. Who knows...
>
I want whatever it is that he has.
An EIS for that route has a 0% chance of being approved today or in the
future. That is overstating the odds at that. Me wonders if he was
thinking about the proposed corridor under consideration to the west by
about 10 miles or so. Wouldn't be much use as a bypass and therefore
not deserving of an I-shield. You can tell I'm from Michigan by that
last sentence can't you :-)
Dave
Chris Bessert
Oh, don't I know it... :^( I still marvel at how people give directions
along the lines of "Take I-96 west to I-275, then north to I-96 west."
Some people will NEVER believe I-96 is concurrently designated along
this stretch, even given that for every I-275 sign north of M-14 there
is a companion I-96 sign...
But I guess the interesting point is that if MDOT *truly* had abandoned
all plans for I-275 north of I-696, why not remove the extra shields?
Anyone familiar with MDOT would agree they LOATHE concurrent designa-
tions more than most, and this one makes even less sense than I-69/US-27!
Although I'm sure Dave O will have some comments on this subject... :^)
Chris Bessert
>
> "Chris Bessert" <Bess...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Get this - a contact of mine at MDOT states they have NOT given up on
> > the Oakland County route of I-275. I made sure to doubly-ask if he
> > meant the the originally as-proposed route of I-275, later M-275, and
> > he said yes, they hadn't driven the last (or anywhere near the last)
> > nail in I-275's coffin! And this does seem to go against all logic and
> > outward appearances, too. Who knows...
>
> I want whatever it is that he has.
Undying optimism?
> An EIS for that route has a 0% chance of being approved today or in the
> future. That is overstating the odds at that.
True, but maybe only to a point.
Commerce Twp has already announced plans to build their own arterial
thoroughfare leading northerly from Pontiac Tr to replace what would
have been I-275/M-275. Slap an extra lane or two in there and some
higher design standards, and let MDOT pay for the lion's share... that
might be an easier sell than it used to be! You pay for a four-lane
divided road vs. the state pays for a six-lane divided highway.
The same area which screamed bloody murder when I-275/M-275 was proposed
several decades back is now screaming bloody murder over the clogged
1930s-era, two-lane county roads and the lack of a highway infrastruc-
ture in the area! It's a great example of "don't build it and they will
come anyway." As I'm sure Dave would agree, the new M-5/Haggerty Conn-
ector has been lauded by most in the area, especially since it can
trim a half-hour from some people's commutes! I've actaully received
e-mails from visitors to my website who live in the area asking why
the state never finished I-275, implying it was a boneheaded move on
the state's part. I politely explain they always wanted to, just that
the locals stopped it.
> Me wonders if he was thinking about the proposed corridor under
> consideration to the west by about 10 miles or so.
Nope. I asked and he said he believed BOTH I-275 and an 'intermediate'
connector to the west (eg. Milford Rd) were needed. Back in the 70s,
it would've just been I-275/M-275, but now some believe no less than
BOTH are despirately needed. Trust me, I quizzed him for some time on
just this topic, and he conceeded it may be difficult, but that the
department hadn't fully closed its books on this one.
> Wouldn't be much use as a bypass and therefore not deserving of an
> I-shield.
Nope. In fact, it would be mostly used as a local connector, much like
the current M-5/Haggerty Connector is, but at least any Milford-area
north-south connector would end into another state highway... unlike
its eastern cousins M-5 and M-10. Plus, no one has ever said any north-
south Milford-area connector would even be anything close to freeway
standards. Heck, it might be -- as I believe someone here mentioned --
an upgraded Milford Rd and some sort of Milford downtown bypass, two-
plus lanes undivided. We'll see...
D Outen
>
> But I guess the interesting point is that if MDOT *truly* had
abandoned
> all plans for I-275 north of I-696, why not remove the extra shields?
> Anyone familiar with MDOT would agree they LOATHE concurrent designa-
> tions more than most, and this one makes even less sense than
I-69/US-27!
>
> Although I'm sure Dave O will have some comments on this subject...
:^)
>
Well I'm guessing that the reason is that the corridor involved was the
I-275 corridor. That it carries I-96 was only a result of the
corridor for I-96 being relocated. Plus it doesn't hurt that saying
north or south 275 makes a lot more sense than saying east or west 96
with regards to the multiplexed stretch.
Are there any maps that show I-96 following the original corridor and
I-275 in its' corridor?
Dave
D Outen
> D Outen wrote:
> >
> > "Chris Bessert" <Bess...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Get this - a contact of mine at MDOT states they have NOT given up
on
> > > the Oakland County route of I-275. I made sure to doubly-ask if he
> > > meant the the originally as-proposed route of I-275, later M-275,
and
> > > he said yes, they hadn't driven the last (or anywhere near the
last)
> > > nail in I-275's coffin! And this does seem to go against all logic
and
> > > outward appearances, too. Who knows...
> >
> > I want whatever it is that he has.
>
> Undying optimism?
You really sure it wasn't some mind altering drugs?
>
> > An EIS for that route has a 0% chance of being approved today or in
the
> > future. That is overstating the odds at that.
>
> True, but maybe only to a point.
>
> Commerce Twp has already announced plans to build their own arterial
> thoroughfare leading northerly from Pontiac Tr to replace what would
> have been I-275/M-275. Slap an extra lane or two in there and some
> higher design standards, and let MDOT pay for the lion's share... that
> might be an easier sell than it used to be! You pay for a four-lane
> divided road vs. the state pays for a six-lane divided highway.
>
> The same area which screamed bloody murder when I-275/M-275 was
proposed
> several decades back is now screaming bloody murder over the clogged
> 1930s-era, two-lane county roads and the lack of a highway infrastruc-
> ture in the area! It's a great example of "don't build it and they
will
> come anyway." As I'm sure Dave would agree, the new M-5/Haggerty Conn-
> ector has been lauded by most in the area, especially since it can
> trim a half-hour from some people's commutes! I've actaully received
> e-mails from visitors to my website who live in the area asking why
> the state never finished I-275, implying it was a boneheaded move on
> the state's part. I politely explain they always wanted to, just that
> the locals stopped it.
Although they will never admit it, I think economics were an issue here.
MDOT could have built it back then had it been considered a priority.
But at that point in time MDOT had other projects to complete including
I-275's parent. From what I've seen, the Northwestern extension was
killed simply because it was never going to get high enough on the
priority list to get funding.
At this point a Federal EIS would kill a freeway through there.
Certainly local roads will get improved to an extent but then they don't
have to meet a Federal EIS unless Federal funds are used. But local
road improvements will be fought tooth and nail also. Prime example
is Orchard Lake residents forcing their town to give up supporting a
right turn lane from northbound Orchard Lake onto eastbound Long Lake.
That really wouldn't add much capacity but would make it safer.
Didn't stop the locals from squealing like pigs about it though.
Interesting about mentioning Commerce Township improving local roads.
Any short term gain by opening M-5 is quickly being diminished by the
intense zoning districts that Commerce has put in place along the
M-5/Haggerty Road corridor. In order for M-5 be of use with reducing
traffic volumes on the local road network, local governments needed to
exercise some restraint with the density of development. It certainly
didn't happen in Commerce. I think if we examine the campaign donation
records of Commerce Township we will find that developers have been very
loyal supporters.
My personal opinion now is to leave any road improvements through the
Lakes area up to the local governments. If built right now through
there, 275 wouldn't be of much benefit as a bypass because it would be
clogged by traffic. It may sound cold to write off an area like that,
but you have to understand that the 2 largest business centers in
Oakland County, Southfield and Troy have both put up their own local
money over the years for Federal, State, and County road projects, many
of which had NIMBY type opposition.
There seems to be 2 types of residents moving to the Lakes area. One
doesn't want any improvements to be done because that's why they moved
out there. The other wants the improvements but wants someone else to
pay for them. Not exactly the political force needed for any type of
major road project.
Dave
Dyche Anderson
>
>
> Although they will never admit it, I think economics were an issue here.
> MDOT could have built it back then had it been considered a priority.
> But at that point in time MDOT had other projects to complete including
> I-275's parent. From what I've seen, the Northwestern extension was
> killed simply because it was never going to get high enough on the
> priority list to get funding.
The Northwestern Extension was killed due to very heavy opposition by the
environmentalists back in the mid-70s. Of course, they (the environmentalists)
said that the road would never be needed, either. Oops.
Dyche Anderson
Chris Bessert
>
> Are there any maps that show I-96 following the original corridor and
> I-275 in its' corridor?
I have some photocopies of a report to the MSHD in, IIRC, 1964 which
recommended abandoning the "Grand River Alignment" for the Jeffries
Freeway and relocating it to the "C&O Railroad Corridor" westerly
through Livonia. The committee who issued the report studied many diff-
erent alignments, including the Grand River Alignment, and finally
decided upon the current routing. This was partly because slamming
the Jeffries through the neighborhoods adjacent to Grand River would
have been very expensive and severed many neighborhoods in two, and
partly because it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that a free-
way in the "C&O Corridor" would be built regardless of where the
Jeffries was eventually put. The Grand River Alignment was also less-
desirable because it was so close to the John C Lodge. The report did
mention that I-275 would run along the western edge of the metro area
and I-96 would join concurrently with that highway from the western
end of the "C&O Corridor" to the existing route west of Farmington. So,
to finally answer the question, that report definately shows that I-275
was proposed before I-96 was removed from the original "Grand Rapids
Alignment."
Chris Bessert
>
> My personal opinion now is to leave any road improvements through the
> Lakes area up to the local governments. If built right now through
> there, 275 wouldn't be of much benefit as a bypass because it would be
> clogged by traffic. It may sound cold to write off an area like that,
Actually, one passing fancy I've had in regards to the completion of
I-275 (yeah, yeah, I know it ain't gonna happen, but a boy can dream,
can't he?) would be somewhat of a reverse of the California tolled-
express/free-local system. In this way, a local/express configuration
would be built with no access between the two from I-96 to I-75
at Clarkston, with the "express" being free and the "local" being
tolled. Let the people who would benefit from it pay for it and let
the long-haul through traffic use it (for free) for the bypass it was
originally intended to be. I have very little sympathy for the people
of Commerce Twp and similar areas of central Oakland County. They
chose to live in an area where the roads are at 2,000% capacity, so
they should "enjoy" the "benfits."
Now, I realize there are many problems with my scenario, but I think
it's a novel way to while away a lazy afternoon...
bmg...@my-deja.com
As far as I can speculate, it's there becuase I-96 was to use the
Farmington Bypass and Grand River into Detroit, and secondly because
I-275 was to meet back up with I-75 near Pontiac. I figure it's just
a vestigual remnant.
Brandon Gorte
bmg...@hotmail.com
Joliet, IL