Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Michigan Highways website featured in Detroit Free Press

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Chris Bessert

unread,
Oct 13, 2003, 3:13:15 AM10/13/03
to
Well, the mention was for the "Michgigan Lefts" page in the Michigan
Highways website, but hell, I'll tell you that the web counter on my
homepage has gone nuts today! It's about 3am right now, and already
for Monday I have 32 hits! That's about three-quarters of my normal
daily page hits for the homepage!

Anyway, Matt Helms writing in today's (Oct. 13, 2003) "Driving Today"
section of the Freep's website links to my page for history and
background on our venerable Michigan Lefts:

http://www.freep.com/news/driving/helms13_20031013.htm

It's cool that he linked to my homepage and not directly to the
Michigan Left page, too. More exposure of the website to the
"masses." ;^)

Later,
Chris

--
Chris Bessert
Bess...@aol.com
http://www.michiganhighways.org
http://www.wisconsinhighways.org
http://www.ontariohighways.org

Dan Garnell

unread,
Oct 13, 2003, 11:15:08 AM10/13/03
to
> Well, the mention was for the "Michigan Lefts" page in the Michigan

> Highways website, but hell, I'll tell you that the web counter on my
> homepage has gone nuts today! It's about 3am right now, and already
> for Monday I have 32 hits! That's about three-quarters of my normal
> daily page hits for the homepage!
>
> Anyway, Matt Helms writing in today's (Oct. 13, 2003) "Driving Today"
> section of the Freep's website links to my page for history and
> background on our venerable Michigan Lefts:
>
> http://www.freep.com/news/driving/helms13_20031013.htm
>
> It's cool that he linked to my homepage and not directly to the
> Michigan Left page, too. More exposure of the website to the
> "masses." ;^)

Congratulations, Chris! Keep up the good work!

Dan


casey j cress

unread,
Oct 13, 2003, 11:51:36 AM10/13/03
to
I noticed in the article he says that a "right cloverleaf" style of left
turn (seen in New Jersey) would be confusing to adopt in Michigan. But
there are indeed several of these along Van Dyke in Sterling Heights and
Warren, and I know of at least one in Lansing as well.

Incidently, I think these should be converted to traditional
Michigan-lefts. It's especially confusing on Van Dyke given that some
cross roads employ the traditional left, while others use the right
cloverleaf-thing. And it makes a difference as to which lane one needs
to be in... I have seen many do a lot of last-minute lane switching.
Plus, it seems like a waste of valuable real estate on a very busy road.

Chris Bessert wrote:

> Anyway, Matt Helms writing in today's (Oct. 13, 2003) "Driving Today"
> section of the Freep's website links to my page for history and
> background on our venerable Michigan Lefts:
>
> http://www.freep.com/news/driving/helms13_20031013.htm
>
> It's cool that he linked to my homepage and not directly to the
> Michigan Left page, too. More exposure of the website to the
> "masses." ;^)
>
> Later,
> Chris
>

--
Casey J Cress
Muskegon - East Lansing - Troy
http://www.msu.edu/~cresscas/michigan

Joe Galea

unread,
Oct 13, 2003, 1:55:38 PM10/13/03
to

"Chris Bessert" <Bess...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3F8A508B...@aol.com...

That little page comes in handy for when I need to show my Florida friends
just why we don't turn left in Michigan. ;)


Barry L. Camp

unread,
Oct 13, 2003, 5:58:02 PM10/13/03
to

"casey j cress" <cres...@msu.edu> wrote in message
news:bmehj5$7mt$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...

> I noticed in the article he says that a "right cloverleaf" style of left
> turn (seen in New Jersey) would be confusing to adopt in Michigan. But
> there are indeed several of these along Van Dyke in Sterling Heights and
> Warren, and I know of at least one in Lansing as well.

They are scattered all throughout the state. Northeast of Grand Rapids there
is one on Northland Drive (M-44) at West River Drive. To switch from
northbound Northland to westbound West River, a 270-degree right turn is
required. Usually you have to wait *twice* at that intersection for green
lights! >p

> Incidently, I think these should be converted to traditional
> Michigan-lefts. It's especially confusing on Van Dyke given that some
> cross roads employ the traditional left, while others use the right
> cloverleaf-thing. And it makes a difference as to which lane one needs
> to be in... I have seen many do a lot of last-minute lane switching.

That works for divided highways, but in my example above, it is a very tight
5-lane to 5-lane intersection, and West River Drive is stuck between a
hillside and the Grand River.

http://www.terraserver.com/image_gx.asp?max_res=0.1524&stack=11&file_name={99C52160-AF1F-4563-AB4B-A3618E91F6F2}&ulx=-85.60383900000&uly=43.08897700000&lrx=-85.55478500000&lry=43.03992300000&cpx=-85.57931178&cpy=43.064449608&initRes=8

> Plus, it seems like a waste of valuable real estate on a very busy road.

I would have to agree with you on that one.


Barry L. Camp


Chris Bessert

unread,
Oct 14, 2003, 8:16:02 AM10/14/03
to
"Barry L. Camp" <blc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> That works for divided highways, but in my example above, it is a very
tight
> 5-lane to 5-lane intersection, and West River Drive is stuck between a
> hillside and the Grand River.

Here's where I love my job... (Not to show up Barry, but this is the
kind of data I work with on a daily basis.)

The following image shows the loop in question with contours on a two-
foot interval:

http://www.michiganhighways.org/etc/northland-westriver-loop.jpg

This *is* a decent slope there!

Chris Bessert

unread,
Oct 14, 2003, 10:48:27 AM10/14/03
to
"Chris Bessert" <Bess...@aol.com> wrote:
> [...]

> Anyway, Matt Helms writing in today's (Oct. 13, 2003) "Driving Today"
> section of the Freep's website links to my page for history and
> background on our venerable Michigan Lefts:
>
> http://www.freep.com/news/driving/helms13_20031013.htm
> [...]

Well, a few interesting items from the past 30 hours or so, in connect-
ion with the above feature in the Free Press...

First, why do so many people use Google to search for my website's URL?
It makes no sense. Why type "www.michiganhighways.org" into the search
form when it would have been faster just to type it in the location
field in the web browser instead of Google's address?

Second, according to my web counter, yesterday blew away all records
(save for one...so far) for homepage visits. Previous one-day record
was about 235, yesterday was 1,278. Previous one-week record was about
500 or so, this week we're at 1,330 and it's only Tuesday morning. My
one-month record is 2,333 and it's the 14th of the month and I'm at
1,848 so it seems that record will fall as well. Thanks Freep!

Third, it seems there is some hostility out there regarding our dear
Michigan Left. A few people who've commented on them and linked to the
site via their weblogs:

o http://www.alteredperception.net/ - scroll down to the "Michigan
Highways and Byways" heading
o http://www.dustbury.com/archives/001729.html
o http://www.vlalerlie.org/archives/000641.php
o http://suicidegirls.com/members/CE20934/171582/

And some more Michigan Left fun:
o http://www.freep.com/news/driving/helms31_20030731.htm

Joe Galea

unread,
Oct 14, 2003, 11:48:41 AM10/14/03
to

"Chris Bessert" <Bess...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bmh2br$2kqe$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...

For as "dangerous" as these intersections appear to the intrepid bloggers,
I've seen many more near accidents on divided highways with mere left turn
signals which are prevalent throughout Florida. These same people would
complain about the clusterf*ck that is SW 34th and Archer Rd in Gainesville,
FL, even though it's your standard signallized left. Some people are such
geniuses.


Barry L. Camp

unread,
Oct 14, 2003, 2:14:15 PM10/14/03
to

"Chris Bessert" <Bess...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bmh2br$2kqe$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...

> Third, it seems there is some hostility out there regarding our dear


> Michigan Left. A few people who've commented on them and linked to the
> site via their weblogs:

I have never understood why people react this way about the Michigan Left,
and further, don't understand why other states have chosen not to apply it
to their own highways.

Granted, it requires additional capital to build the 2 "legal U-turns" for
each intersection, but the overall savings of life, limb and property (not
to mention insurance cost savings) overrides that far and away.

Barry L. Camp


Charles Sarjeant

unread,
Oct 14, 2003, 8:06:38 PM10/14/03
to
"Barry L. Camp" <blc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<voof7p7...@corp.supernews.com>...

Speaking as a non-Michigander, I don't like Michigan lefts because
they are confusing to at least this non-local. First, they aren't
installed on every road so most local streets have the normal left
turns. Of course all busy undivided multi-lane highways (28th St. in
Grand Rapids, for example) don't have them. To out-of-towners, this
makes it more confusing. Second, turning right (then make a U-turn)
off a local thoroughfare to turn left onto a highway is totally
non-intuitive. Third, I still don't understand why a signalized U-turn
is better/safer than a signalized left at the actual intersection.

That said, I understand the argument for them at some locations. I
still don't know if I buy it completely, though.

As for the additional capital, I just wish Michigan would have
invested some of that capital into maintaining the surfaces of their
highways through the years. I-69 south of I-94 had the worst washboard
surface until recently.

Joe Galea

unread,
Oct 14, 2003, 8:47:52 PM10/14/03
to
[snip]

> Speaking as a non-Michigander, I don't like Michigan lefts because
> they are confusing to at least this non-local. First, they aren't
> installed on every road so most local streets have the normal left
> turns. Of course all busy undivided multi-lane highways (28th St. in
> Grand Rapids, for example) don't have them. To out-of-towners, this
> makes it more confusing. Second, turning right (then make a U-turn)
> off a local thoroughfare to turn left onto a highway is totally
> non-intuitive. Third, I still don't understand why a signalized U-turn
> is better/safer than a signalized left at the actual intersection.
>
> That said, I understand the argument for them at some locations. I
> still don't know if I buy it completely, though.
>
> As for the additional capital, I just wish Michigan would have
> invested some of that capital into maintaining the surfaces of their
> highways through the years. I-69 south of I-94 had the worst washboard
> surface until recently.

Generally the Michigan lefts are signed to some degree. Given the very
small numbers of non-Michigan plates I would see on any given day anyways,
efficiency on Michigan roads shouldn't take a seat to familiarity for a few
visitors.


Chris Bessert

unread,
Oct 15, 2003, 1:55:21 PM10/15/03
to
"Charles Sarjeant" <charles....@insightbb.com> wrote:
> Speaking as a non-Michigander, I don't like Michigan lefts because
> they are confusing to at least this non-local.

I'll grant you that (or at least most-of-that), but even though the
first efforts at standardization of road signs, markings and signals
began in the 1920s and really hit their stride in the 1960s, there
are always going to be idosyncracies while each state (and county
and city, etc.) continue to maintain their own roads. You cannot
always make assumptions when driving in other states/countries/etc.
I hope all motorists are prudent when driving in non-familiar areas
to pay attention to road signs and pavement markings. (We all know
this isn't true, however...)

> First, they aren't installed on every road so most local streets
> have the normal left turns. Of course all busy undivided multi-lane
> highways (28th St. in Grand Rapids, for example) don't have them.
> To out-of-towners, this makes it more confusing.

However, in almost every instance (I'm having a hard time even coming
up with an example of when this is NOT the case, although I'm sure
they're out there), a graphical sign "explaining" the movement is
placed at the intersection, as well as several signs in advance noting
"NO LEFT TURN AT US-31," for example. In addition, on state trunklines
with Michigan Lefts, the junction route marker assembly is placed so
that the arrow only points right ("{31} -->").

> Second, turning right (then make a U-turn)
> off a local thoroughfare to turn left onto a highway is totally
> non-intuitive.

Granted, although if the motorist observed the graphical signage
denoting the Michigan Left operation at the intersection, they would
at least have an inkling of how to make the movement.

> Third, I still don't understand why a signalized U-turn
> is better/safer than a signalized left at the actual intersection.

Here's a few off the top of my head:

o Two signal phases instead of four -- no "left turn arrow" phases
o Less traffic backing up at the intersection, due to less signal
phases (above) and less turn movements (below)
o MUCH safer, as the number of potential conflict points in the
intersection is minimized -- only two possible movements: through
or right
o Eliminates the need for U-turns at busy intersections -- in many
states, to reach a business or residence on the other side of a
divided highway means having to pull a U-turn at the next inter-
section, while on Michigan Left boulevards, a dedicate or semi-
dedicated point is provided for that purpose at regular intervals
o Depending on time and location, I've been able to turn right onto
the divided highway, flip the Michigan Left and be through the
intersection with the sideroad even before the light for the
sideroad turns! Thus, at times you can complete the entire man-
euver in less time than it takes to wait for the initial green
light on the sideroad!

And none of these:
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/fourthlevel/interbriefing/brief2b.jpg

> That said, I understand the argument for them at some locations. I
> still don't know if I buy it completely, though.

A lot of people (non-locals, usually) make their minds up about
Michigan Lefts without truly experiencing them; they either see the
image/write-up on my website or hear about them or even by using one
without understanding how they work. No, you as a motorist don't have
to "swerve across x-lanes of traffic to get to the turnaround"... you
either should have been in the left lane to begin with if you're on
the divided highway (especially if you were planning on making a left
at that intersection in the first place!) or, if turning from an
intersecting sideroad, there are natural breaks in traffic or, if the
traffic is too heavy, there will be a traffic signal there to stop
the divided highway motorists, leaving you nothing but x-lanes of
empty roadway -- no serving/darting/etc involved!

Then, once you've gotten into the turnaround, the same principle
applies here -- no "swerving across x-lanes of traffic to get to the
right turn at the side road" involved! Either, again there's a break
in traffic or there's a light at the turnaround allowing you to take
as much time as you'd like to make your maneuver. Plus, if there is
a traffic light at the turnaround, you don't have to wait for green
as you're making a left-on-red from one one-way street to another,
in essence. (MDOT has been erecting signs to this effect at some major
Michigan Left intersections where there seems to be confusion on this
point.)

Plus, look at it this way: If the Michigan Lefts were that poor of a
traffic device, why would they still be around after more than four
decades of use? My mother was nine when the first one went into use
in Detroit -- I'm thirty now and they're only spreading to more high-
ways throughout Michigan. Obviously, the locals don't have a major
problem with them and the out-of-towners aren't causing that much of
a problem or are catching on quickly enough to not cause too many
accidents. If they were a danger, I think you'd see them go away very
quickly! :^) With traffic accident numbers decreasing at intersections
that have been converted to Michigan Left use, it would be a hard sell
to make MDOT stop putting them in.

> As for the additional capital, I just wish Michigan would have
> invested some of that capital into maintaining the surfaces of their
> highways through the years. I-69 south of I-94 had the worst washboard
> surface until recently.

I know different people will feel differently about this type of thing.
Personally, I can take some rough pavement here and there over having
utter gridlock on non-freeway arterials and more accidents and injuries
at less-safe intersections.

Charles Sarjeant

unread,
Oct 15, 2003, 11:51:26 PM10/15/03
to
"Chris Bessert" <Bess...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<bmk1ma$2itk$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...

> "Charles Sarjeant" <charles....@insightbb.com> wrote:
> > Speaking as a non-Michigander, I don't like Michigan lefts because
> > they are confusing to at least this non-local.
>
> I'll grant you that (or at least most-of-that), but even though the..
>
>(snipped)

Still, the main reason that out-of-staters hate them is that they are
confusing. I agree you can easily get accustomed to them.

> > Second, turning right (then make a U-turn)
> > off a local thoroughfare to turn left onto a highway is totally
> > non-intuitive.
>
> Granted, although if the motorist observed the graphical signage
> denoting the Michigan Left operation at the intersection, they would
> at least have an inkling of how to make the movement.
>

>(snipped)


The most vivid case I remember was during rush hour trying to turn
left on to Telegraph Rd. (i.e. turn right) in Southfield. By the time
I saw the sign you mention, it was too late to move right. I had to go
a quarter mile up, and turn around. OK, that's not the end of the
world, but it seems that everybody I work with that goes up to Detroit
has at least one of these experiences, You can see why people don't
come back demanding Michigan lefts.



> > Third, I still don't understand why a signalized U-turn
> > is better/safer than a signalized left at the actual intersection.
>
> Here's a few off the top of my head:
>
> o Two signal phases instead of four -- no "left turn arrow" phases
> o Less traffic backing up at the intersection, due to less signal

> > That said, I understand the argument for them at some locations. I
> > still don't know if I buy it completely, though.
>

>(snipped)

I still prefer a regular left turn arrow over a signalized Michigan
left.

> A lot of people (non-locals, usually) make their minds up about
> Michigan Lefts without truly experiencing them; they either see the
> image/write-up on my website or hear about them or even by using one
> without understanding how they work.
>

>(snipped)

Despite misgivings about the things I mentioned, I am not
anti-Michigan lefts for some cases. In fact I would like to see them
in other states, but just not to the extent they are used in Michigan.


>
>
> Plus, look at it this way: If the Michigan Lefts were that poor of a
> traffic device, why would they still be around after more than four
> decades of use?

I don't think they are always a poor idea as I mentioned. In some
instances, they would be an excellent choice.


>
> > As for the additional capital, I just wish Michigan would have
> > invested some of that capital into maintaining the surfaces of their
> > highways through the years. I-69 south of I-94 had the worst washboard
> > surface until recently.
>
> I know different people will feel differently about this type of thing.
> Personally, I can take some rough pavement here and there over having
> utter gridlock on non-freeway arterials and more accidents and injuries
> at less-safe intersections.

Well, your arguments are strong for Michigan lefts, but I think you
may be in the minority on this one. Didn't Engler almost lose an
election because of the poor condition of the roads? When I was a kid,
I lived in Grand Rapids for a few years. Whenever we visited relatives
in Chicago, we would marvel at how good Michigan roads were compared
to Indiana's (especially) and Illinois'. Well that turned around
completely in the 1990s. Michigan had rough roads, and Indiana had
smooth. Girders on Michigan highway overpasses were always rusty and
sometimes rusted through. Indiana's were painted. Michigan's roads
were largely unmowed, etc. etc. As a vacation destination state, I
think this policy really hurt the image of Michigan, but that is just
my opinion. I have been very pleasantly surprised to see many
improvements in the past three years, but I don't know if they are
still where they should be.
>
> Later,
> Chris

Joe Galea

unread,
Oct 16, 2003, 12:50:52 AM10/16/03
to

> > I'll grant you that (or at least most-of-that), but even though the..
> >
> >(snipped)
>
> Still, the main reason that out-of-staters hate them is that they are
> confusing. I agree you can easily get accustomed to them.

And I don't like states with sequential exit numbers instead mileage-based
ones or none at all. Or jughandles or the myriad other regional practices
found in every state.

[snip]


>
> The most vivid case I remember was during rush hour trying to turn
> left on to Telegraph Rd. (i.e. turn right) in Southfield. By the time
> I saw the sign you mention, it was too late to move right. I had to go
> a quarter mile up, and turn around. OK, that's not the end of the
> world, but it seems that everybody I work with that goes up to Detroit
> has at least one of these experiences, You can see why people don't
> come back demanding Michigan lefts.

We all have an experience like that, but guess what? I've missed exits in
other states. It happens.

> I still prefer a regular left turn arrow over a signalized Michigan
> left.

A personal preference, not backed up by data. There are a lot of things I
*prefer*, but that doesn't make them the best option.

[snip]


> Well, your arguments are strong for Michigan lefts, but I think you
> may be in the minority on this one. Didn't Engler almost lose an
> election because of the poor condition of the roads? When I was a kid,
> I lived in Grand Rapids for a few years. Whenever we visited relatives
> in Chicago, we would marvel at how good Michigan roads were compared
> to Indiana's (especially) and Illinois'. Well that turned around
> completely in the 1990s. Michigan had rough roads, and Indiana had
> smooth. Girders on Michigan highway overpasses were always rusty and
> sometimes rusted through. Indiana's were painted. Michigan's roads
> were largely unmowed, etc. etc. As a vacation destination state, I
> think this policy really hurt the image of Michigan, but that is just
> my opinion. I have been very pleasantly surprised to see many
> improvements in the past three years, but I don't know if they are
> still where they should be.

EVERYONE who has ever been to Michigan knows the roads need vast
improvement, but the extra money spent on constructing Michigan Lefts would
probably total barely enough to resurface maybe 20 miles of freeway.
Cost/effect analysis, I guess.


Chris Bessert

unread,
Oct 16, 2003, 5:31:18 PM10/16/03
to
"Charles Sarjeant" <charles....@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
> The most vivid case I remember was during rush hour trying to turn
> left on to Telegraph Rd. (i.e. turn right) in Southfield. By the time
> I saw the sign you mention, it was too late to move right. I had to go
> a quarter mile up, and turn around. OK, that's not the end of the
> world, but it seems that everybody I work with that goes up to Detroit
> has at least one of these experiences, You can see why people don't
> come back demanding Michigan lefts.

I do see you point, but being Devil's Advocate here, how many visitors
to Boston have been confounded by their rotaries? I wouldn't call for
the removal off all rotaries or refuse to return to Boston because of
them. "Local character," I guess...

> I still prefer a regular left turn arrow over a signalized Michigan
> left.

Please don't take offense to this, but I have a feeling you would
complain if everyone had to wait twice as long at every major inter-
section because of the doubled amount of traffic signal phases.
Actually, there would be more negative effects than just making the
wait at the light longer. Longer backups at each light stretch across
sidestreet/sideroad intersections, blocking those intersections,
and the impacts just grow from there.

By removing two light phases from each signalized intersection keeps
traffic moving better. It's hard to complain about well-moving
traffic...

> Despite misgivings about the things I mentioned, I am not
> anti-Michigan lefts for some cases. In fact I would like to see them
> in other states, but just not to the extent they are used in Michigan.

The problem with making them more sporatically-used is that there is
less uniformity. It would be best to either make ALL intersections
along a certain stretch of boulevard Michigan Lefts or none at all,
instead of making the Michigan Lefts intermittant. That way you would
not know which lane to intuitively be in -- here it's a signalized
left, next two it's a Michigan Left, the three after that they're
signalized again, while the one after that is back to Michigan Left...

> Well, your arguments are strong for Michigan lefts, but I think you
> may be in the minority on this one.

The minority among everyone in North America? Sure. But that's
because everyone in North America doesn't understand them. Just the
same with jughandles in New Jersey, rotaries in Massachusetts,
consecutively-numbered exits in the Northeast, flashing green in
parts of Canada, hyphenated route numbers in Louisiana and Newfound-
land, lettered highways in Missouri and Wisconsin, etc., etc...

> Didn't Engler almost lose an
> election because of the poor condition of the roads?

Here's what happened. Blanchard (governor 1983-1991) did a halfway
decent job with the roads; could've done better, could've done worse.
Blanchard's predecessor, Milliken (1969-1983) did pretty well with
them and left Blanchard with a solid base. Then Engler (1991-2002)
comes in and basically does NOTHING with the roads--lets them
crumble into near oblivion. Seriously, political leanings aside,
Engler allowed the Michigan highway system go to pot. Sure, there
were a few problems from the Blanchard years, but what do you expect
will happen when you don't lift a finger for your first two terms
in office?

So, yes, Engler was called to the mat at the end of his second term
because the roads were so horrible. A gas tax hike was pushed through
(who ever said Republicans don't raise taxes?) and Engler decided to
spend a few dimes on roads. Basically, he drastically limited the
amount of new roads and poured all the money into fixing the crap
we had already in place. What else would you do? Engler's third term
was when you had the "Fix the worst roads and bring 90 percent of the
state's highways up to at least 'Good' condition in seven years"
program begin. Although I think we've stretched that to nine years
now, we're still dealing with the effects of ignoring the roads for
two terms.

> When I was a kid,
> I lived in Grand Rapids for a few years. Whenever we visited relatives
> in Chicago, we would marvel at how good Michigan roads were compared
> to Indiana's (especially) and Illinois'. Well that turned around
> completely in the 1990s. Michigan had rough roads, and Indiana had
> smooth. Girders on Michigan highway overpasses were always rusty and
> sometimes rusted through. Indiana's were painted.

Called utter lack of maintenance. Engler wanted to privatize the
road maintenance business in Michigan. His pilot project on all of
I-496 and US-127 in Lansing was a major disaster. The private company
maintained the road to a poorer standard (lower quality) than MDOT
for *more* than it would have cost MDOT to maintain it to the higher
standard. So, what was the logical outcome? Renew the contract in
the hopes that it might improve and, when factored out over the entire
term, it would cost less than if the state maintained the highways.
Well, that didn't work, either. But at least one of Engler's friends
in the paving industry (Ajax) made a sweet amount of cash off the
whole fiasco!

> Michigan's roads were largely unmowed, etc. etc. As a vacation
> destination state, I think this policy really hurt the image of
> Michigan, but that is just my opinion.

You may very well be correct here. Being a very tourism-oriented
state, aesthetic beauty needs to be an important factor. However,
you have to admit when the roads are crumbling and no new capacity
is being added, that spending large sums of money on mowing the
entire median versus just the shoulders is a VERY hard sell for the
locals/taxpayers of Michigan. Not that your point isn't relavant,
it would just be political suicide to sacrifice (more) maintenance
for mowing.

> I have been very pleasantly surprised to see many
> improvements in the past three years, but I don't know if they are
> still where they should be.

Again, I agree with you. We're definately still trying to dig ourselves
out from underneath the problems from the early-1990s. Maybe over the
course of the next decade we can get in front of the problems and be
even more proactive about road maintenance issues in Michigan.

But, in my mind, it all goes back to why Engler chose roads as his
sacrificial lamb in the early-90s? He always claimed it was Blanchard's
fault--lack of maintenance in the 80s--but I'm sorry, the roads didn't
just go from quality to crap overnight on January 1, 1990. His entire
(dirty) campaign against Blanchard hinged on not "wasting" tax dollars
and giving money back to the people. Well, he ignored roads until the
people screamed loud enough (near election time, too!) and did just
what he accused Blanchard of doing: raised taxes. People re-elected
him in 1998 for the very reason they threw Blanchard out of office,
ironically. (Then again, Engler's opponent that year was about as
close to a circus clown as you can get without makeup and a really,
really big tent.)

Sometimes I hate politics... :^(

Charles Sarjeant

unread,
Oct 16, 2003, 7:21:16 PM10/16/03
to
"Joe Galea" <jgal...@ufl.edu> wrote in message news:<bmld28$5n2$1...@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu>...

> > > I'll grant you that (or at least most-of-that), but even though the..
> > >
> > >(snipped)
> >
> > Still, the main reason that out-of-staters hate them is that they are
> > confusing. I agree you can easily get accustomed to them.
>
> And I don't like states with sequential exit numbers instead mileage-based
> ones or none at all. Or jughandles or the myriad other regional practices
> found in every state.

So what's your point? The question was why do out of state people hate
Michigan lefts. That is what I answered.

>
> [snip]
> >
> > The most vivid case I remember was during rush hour trying to turn
> > left on to Telegraph Rd. (i.e. turn right) in Southfield. By the time
> > I saw the sign you mention, it was too late to move right. I had to go
> > a quarter mile up, and turn around. OK, that's not the end of the
> > world, but it seems that everybody I work with that goes up to Detroit
> > has at least one of these experiences, You can see why people don't
> > come back demanding Michigan lefts.
>
> We all have an experience like that, but guess what? I've missed exits in
> other states. It happens.

Again, I was giving an example of why people get confused to support
the original reply. I have missed exits due to inadequate signage or
my own inattention, but again, that isn't the point.


>
> > I still prefer a regular left turn arrow over a signalized Michigan
> > left.
>
> A personal preference, not backed up by data. There are a lot of things I
> *prefer*, but that doesn't make them the best option.

Yes, that is why is used the verb "prefer". It is possible that the
other 49 states are dead wrong, and Michigan is the only state that
does it right. I doubt it, though. My opinion that there are many
valid many ways to accomplish things well. Michigan lefts, in some or
many cases are ONE of those alternatives.

Some people like them and some don't. Those who don't like them
usually do not like them because they are confusing when you aren't
familiar with them. No other state has adopted them (at least to the
extent Michigan has) so many out-of-state visitors find them
confusing. That is fact.


>
> [snip]
> > Well, your arguments are strong for Michigan lefts, but I think you
> > may be in the minority on this one. Didn't Engler almost lose an
> > election because of the poor condition of the roads? When I was a kid,
> > I lived in Grand Rapids for a few years. Whenever we visited relatives
> > in Chicago, we would marvel at how good Michigan roads were compared
> > to Indiana's (especially) and Illinois'. Well that turned around
> > completely in the 1990s. Michigan had rough roads, and Indiana had
> > smooth. Girders on Michigan highway overpasses were always rusty and
> > sometimes rusted through. Indiana's were painted. Michigan's roads
> > were largely unmowed, etc. etc. As a vacation destination state, I
> > think this policy really hurt the image of Michigan, but that is just
> > my opinion. I have been very pleasantly surprised to see many
> > improvements in the past three years, but I don't know if they are
> > still where they should be.
>
> EVERYONE who has ever been to Michigan knows the roads need vast
> improvement, but the extra money spent on constructing Michigan Lefts would
> probably total barely enough to resurface maybe 20 miles of freeway.
> Cost/effect analysis, I guess.

On both points, I agree.

0 new messages