Detroit - Removal of I-375

[Flint1979]

i-496 and I-475 are bypasses of I-96 and I-75 respectively.

Except they bypass thru the city instead of around, which some purists don't like.

I-96 and I-75 bypass downtown, that is fine.

[Terry Shea]

If you're going to make I-375 into a new route number just reroute M-3 down the boulevard and call it a day. I can see that route having a route number but not the GHB.

MDOT doesn't like Interstate Highways, especially 3-digits.  They refused to give M-6 an interstate number because they said it would be "too confusing" having several X-96 interstates, and now apparently they're working on removing the rest of the 3-digits in the state.

*citation needed*

Boulevarding I-375 is only one specific action and not motivated by any singular distaste for 3dis.

If you're going to make I-375 into a new route number just reroute M-3 down the boulevard and call it a day. I can see that route having a route number but not the GHB.

MDOT doesn't like Interstate Highways, especially 3-digits.  They refused to give M-6 an interstate number because they said it would be "too confusing" having several X-96 interstates, and now apparently they're working on removing the rest of the 3-digits in the state.

*citation needed*

Boulevarding I-375 is only one specific action and not motivated by any singular distaste for 3dis.

Please cut the crap and quit trying to cause problems.  It's obvious that you just don't like me and that's fine, but there's absolutely no reason to deliberately go around stirring up trouble and trying to cause me problems with moderation here.  For your information, MDOT removed signage on I-296 and left it as an unsigned interstate in the early '80's, saying it was too confusing:

http://www.michiganhighways.org/listings/I-296.html

When the M-6 freeway was created, linking I-96 and I-196, the same reasoning was used for not giving it an interstate number.  Too confusing. 

They're in the process of removing I-375 and are in the discussion stages for doing the same thing to I-194.  There was even talk of bulldozing part of I-475 through Flint and turning it into a boulevard, but I think that came from their mayor.

At any rate, it seems apparent to me what they're trying to do, and that is my opinion.

I don't go making demands of you or anyone else.  Now please drop the attitude and let's make an effort to get along, ok?

[Rothman]

If you're going to make I-375 into a new route number just reroute M-3 down the boulevard and call it a day. I can see that route having a route number but not the GHB.

MDOT doesn't like Interstate Highways, especially 3-digits.  They refused to give M-6 an interstate number because they said it would be "too confusing" having several X-96 interstates, and now apparently they're working on removing the rest of the 3-digits in the state.

*citation needed*

Boulevarding I-375 is only one specific action and not motivated by any singular distaste for 3dis.

If you're going to make I-375 into a new route number just reroute M-3 down the boulevard and call it a day. I can see that route having a route number but not the GHB.

MDOT doesn't like Interstate Highways, especially 3-digits.  They refused to give M-6 an interstate number because they said it would be "too confusing" having several X-96 interstates, and now apparently they're working on removing the rest of the 3-digits in the state.

*citation needed*

Boulevarding I-375 is only one specific action and not motivated by any singular distaste for 3dis.

Please cut the crap and quit trying to cause problems.  It's obvious that you just don't like me and that's fine, but there's absolutely no reason to deliberately go around stirring up trouble and trying to cause me problems with moderation here.  For your information, MDOT removed signage on I-296 and left it as an unsigned interstate in the early '80's, saying it was too confusing:

http://www.michiganhighways.org/listings/I-296.html

When the M-6 freeway was created, linking I-96 and I-196, the same reasoning was used for not giving it an interstate number.  Too confusing. 

They're in the process of removing I-375 and are in the discussion stages for doing the same thing to I-194.  There was even talk of bulldozing part of I-475 through Flint and turning it into a boulevard, but I think that came from their mayor.

At any rate, it seems apparent to me what they're trying to do, and that is my opinion.

I don't go making demands of you or anyone else.  Now please drop the attitude and let's make an effort to get along, ok?

Well, that escalated quickly.

Read the citation.  I-296 wasn't removed solely because it was inherently confusing as a 3di.  Rather, it was the complicated concurrency that caused the removal of the Interstate shields.

Again, boulevarding 3dis is being done mainly to improve urban planning and development, rather than MDOT simply detesting 3di shields and designations.

[vdeane]

I don't know what the story with I-194 is, but it wouldn't surprise me if MDOT was looking to save money.  Maybe they plan to replace the cloverleaf with I-94 with something that isn't freeway/freeway?  It wouldn't be the only case of a freeway ending at I-94 with at-grades at the ramps.  Just look at the new US 31/I-94 interchange.  The main through movements may not have to stop, but it most definitely does not meet interstate standards.  Or the DDI between US 127 and I-94.

[Flint1979]

I don't know what the story with I-194 is, but it wouldn't surprise me if MDOT was looking to save money.  Maybe they plan to replace the cloverleaf with I-94 with something that isn't freeway/freeway?  It wouldn't be the only case of a freeway ending at I-94 with at-grades at the ramps.  Just look at the new US 31/I-94 interchange.  The main through movements may not have to stop, but it most definitely does not meet interstate standards.  Or the DDI between US 127 and I-94.

I-194 is an interstate though, US-31 and 127 are just US highways.

[vdeane]

I don't know what the story with I-194 is, but it wouldn't surprise me if MDOT was looking to save money.  Maybe they plan to replace the cloverleaf with I-94 with something that isn't freeway/freeway?  It wouldn't be the only case of a freeway ending at I-94 with at-grades at the ramps.  Just look at the new US 31/I-94 interchange.  The main through movements may not have to stop, but it most definitely does not meet interstate standards.  Or the DDI between US 127 and I-94.

I-194 is an interstate though, US-31 and 127 are just US highways.

It might not be for much longer.  MDOT is doing a study where one of the alternatives might be removal, as reported in the Michigan Notes thread.

MDOT will be hosting a public house for the I-194 PEL study. From what I've seen from the long-term transportation plan for Battle Creek, the goal is either to do a full reconstruction or downgrade it to a boulevard similar to the I-375 plan in Detroit.

The PEL study will focus on the I-194 corridor from the north side of the I-94/I-194 interchange to Fountain Street in Battle Creek. I-194 plays a significant role in Calhoun County by providing regional connections to I-94 and downtown Battle Creek. The PEL study is a collaborative process that considers environmental, community, and economic goals in transportation planning.

https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/news-outreach/pressreleases/2023/06/07/mdot-public-open-house-for-i-194-pel-study-in-calhoun-county

[wanderer2575]

If you're going to make I-375 into a new route number just reroute M-3 down the boulevard and call it a day. I can see that route having a route number but not the GHB.

MDOT doesn't like Interstate Highways, especially 3-digits.  They refused to give M-6 an interstate number because they said it would be "too confusing" having several X-96 interstates, and now apparently they're working on removing the rest of the 3-digits in the state.

*citation needed*

Boulevarding I-375 is only one specific action and not motivated by any singular distaste for 3dis.

If you're going to make I-375 into a new route number just reroute M-3 down the boulevard and call it a day. I can see that route having a route number but not the GHB.

MDOT doesn't like Interstate Highways, especially 3-digits.  They refused to give M-6 an interstate number because they said it would be "too confusing" having several X-96 interstates, and now apparently they're working on removing the rest of the 3-digits in the state.

*citation needed*

Boulevarding I-375 is only one specific action and not motivated by any singular distaste for 3dis.

Please cut the crap and quit trying to cause problems.  It's obvious that you just don't like me and that's fine, but there's absolutely no reason to deliberately go around stirring up trouble and trying to cause me problems with moderation here.  For your information, MDOT removed signage on I-296 and left it as an unsigned interstate in the early '80's, saying it was too confusing:

http://www.michiganhighways.org/listings/I-296.html

When the M-6 freeway was created, linking I-96 and I-196, the same reasoning was used for not giving it an interstate number.  Too confusing. 

They're in the process of removing I-375 and are in the discussion stages for doing the same thing to I-194.  There was even talk of bulldozing part of I-475 through Flint and turning it into a boulevard, but I think that came from their mayor.

At any rate, it seems apparent to me what they're trying to do, and that is my opinion.

I don't go making demands of you or anyone else.  Now please drop the attitude and let's make an effort to get along, ok?

If that's your opinion, state it as such.  The issue I have is that you state stuff as fact, with nothing to back it up and not even any explanation of the rationale of your own opinions:  "MDOT doesn't like Interstate highways, especially 3dis."  "This project was rather costly with no benefit."  "Converting this interchange to a roundabout has no point."  "This project made the roadway less safe."  Rather than just crabbing and name-calling, how about giving some specifics about why your opinion is what it is?  No, it's not a demand and it's not required on the forum.  But if you can't even explain your own reasoning behind it then your opinion is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.  You may not agree with what I say, and that's okay.  But I at least provide rationale behind my opinions.

That MDOT didn't seek a 3di designation for what is M-6 is hardly evidence that its overall position is that it doesn't like Interstate highways.  If you want to make that case, you're going to have to come up with something a lot more definitive to make that statement as fact.

[JREwing78]

I-375 is different in that it would've been too expensive out of proportion with the benefits of keeping it an interstate, besides being politically unpopular with the City of Detroit.

I-194 is not the barrier to development or accessibility for Battle Creek that I-394 was for Detroit. It doesn't separate any previously-established neighborhoods. It's also the only direct connection to downtown from I-94. Whatever road remains there still has to cross a busy rail line and the Kalamazoo River, and you can't feasibly do that without maintaining the grade separations at Columbia Ave and Dickman Rd. The existing cloverleaf interchange at I-94 is also about the cheapest way to maintain a crossing at that location.

My prediction is that I-194 will be rebuilt largely as it exists now, with only minor design improvements at the interchanges.

[skluth]

I-375 is different in that it would've been too expensive out of proportion with the benefits of keeping it an interstate, besides being politically unpopular with the City of Detroit.

I-194 is not the barrier to development or accessibility for Battle Creek that I-394 was for Detroit. It doesn't separate any previously-established neighborhoods. It's also the only direct connection to downtown from I-94. Whatever road remains there still has to cross a busy rail line and the Kalamazoo River, and you can't feasibly do that without maintaining the grade separations at Columbia Ave and Dickman Rd. The existing cloverleaf interchange at I-94 is also about the cheapest way to maintain a crossing at that location.

My prediction is that I-194 will be rebuilt largely as it exists now, with only minor design improvements at the interchanges.

I think it would be dumb to have an intersection at Dickman while maintaining grade separation for the rail line though it would be possible. I disagree that grade separation would be needed at Columbia Av. I think the Columbia Av viaduct should be rebuilt with adequate sidewalks and probably bike lanes, but that's my opinion and separate from whether a viaduct is needed. There is also the possibility of intersections at Golden Av and Burnham St, though the latter would be especially unwise with the current interchange at Dickman.

Personally, I think the highway should probably remain much like it is with perhaps a smaller interchange at Dickman. The bridge over the railroad tracks are absolutely necessary as the rail line has mostly at-grade crossings through Battle Creek and the highway viaduct is undoubtedly very important for emergency traffic.

You are completely correct that I-375 is a far different situation than I-194. I doubt there is much clamor in Battle Creek to remove their highway and most probably see it as unobtrusive. Other than making the crossings more bike and pedestrian-friendly, I really don't see the need to change what is currently there.

[Molandfreak]

If you're going to make I-375 into a new route number just reroute M-3 down the boulevard and call it a day. I can see that route having a route number but not the GHB.

MDOT doesn't like Interstate Highways, especially 3-digits.  They refused to give M-6 an interstate number because they said it would be "too confusing" having several X-96 interstates, and now apparently they're working on removing the rest of the 3-digits in the state.

*citation needed*

Boulevarding I-375 is only one specific action and not motivated by any singular distaste for 3dis.

If you're going to make I-375 into a new route number just reroute M-3 down the boulevard and call it a day. I can see that route having a route number but not the GHB.

MDOT doesn't like Interstate Highways, especially 3-digits.  They refused to give M-6 an interstate number because they said it would be "too confusing" having several X-96 interstates, and now apparently they're working on removing the rest of the 3-digits in the state.

*citation needed*

Boulevarding I-375 is only one specific action and not motivated by any singular distaste for 3dis.

Please cut the crap and quit trying to cause problems.  It's obvious that you just don't like me and that's fine, but there's absolutely no reason to deliberately go around stirring up trouble and trying to cause me problems with moderation here.  For your information, MDOT removed signage on I-296 and left it as an unsigned interstate in the early '80's, saying it was too confusing:

http://www.michiganhighways.org/listings/I-296.html

When the M-6 freeway was created, linking I-96 and I-196, the same reasoning was used for not giving it an interstate number.  Too confusing. 

They're in the process of removing I-375 and are in the discussion stages for doing the same thing to I-194.  There was even talk of bulldozing part of I-475 through Flint and turning it into a boulevard, but I think that came from their mayor.

At any rate, it seems apparent to me what they're trying to do, and that is my opinion.

I don't go making demands of you or anyone else.  Now please drop the attitude and let's make an effort to get along, ok?

At some point, I hope you would do some introspection and look at how you are behaving in these exchanges. For any of Rothman's faults, he isn't the one who advocated for another user to gouge their frontal lobe out just for disagreeing with him. Who did that again?

You constantly take any dispute you have with another user and make it nuclear. Does everything you disagree with have to be the worst thing in the world?

[Rothman]

Pfft.  I have no faults.

[Terry Shea]

If you're going to make I-375 into a new route number just reroute M-3 down the boulevard and call it a day. I can see that route having a route number but not the GHB.

MDOT doesn't like Interstate Highways, especially 3-digits.  They refused to give M-6 an interstate number because they said it would be "too confusing" having several X-96 interstates, and now apparently they're working on removing the rest of the 3-digits in the state.

*citation needed*

Boulevarding I-375 is only one specific action and not motivated by any singular distaste for 3dis.

If you're going to make I-375 into a new route number just reroute M-3 down the boulevard and call it a day. I can see that route having a route number but not the GHB.

MDOT doesn't like Interstate Highways, especially 3-digits.  They refused to give M-6 an interstate number because they said it would be "too confusing" having several X-96 interstates, and now apparently they're working on removing the rest of the 3-digits in the state.

*citation needed*

Boulevarding I-375 is only one specific action and not motivated by any singular distaste for 3dis.

Please cut the crap and quit trying to cause problems.  It's obvious that you just don't like me and that's fine, but there's absolutely no reason to deliberately go around stirring up trouble and trying to cause me problems with moderation here.  For your information, MDOT removed signage on I-296 and left it as an unsigned interstate in the early '80's, saying it was too confusing:

http://www.michiganhighways.org/listings/I-296.html

When the M-6 freeway was created, linking I-96 and I-196, the same reasoning was used for not giving it an interstate number.  Too confusing. 

They're in the process of removing I-375 and are in the discussion stages for doing the same thing to I-194.  There was even talk of bulldozing part of I-475 through Flint and turning it into a boulevard, but I think that came from their mayor.

At any rate, it seems apparent to me what they're trying to do, and that is my opinion.

I don't go making demands of you or anyone else.  Now please drop the attitude and let's make an effort to get along, ok?

At some point, I hope you would do some introspection and look at how you are behaving in these exchanges. For any of Rothman's faults, he isn't the one who advocated for another user to gouge their frontal lobe out just for disagreeing with him. Who did that again?

You constantly take any dispute you have with another user and make it nuclear. Does everything you disagree with have to be the worst thing in the world?

Please point out where I made any such reference.  I offered an olive branch here and apparently it wasn't accepted.

[Molandfreak]

I offered an olive branch here and apparently it wasn't accepted.

Yes, and in response to it not being accepted here, you chose to be an abusive twat over it as usual. Nobody is forcing you to even respond to Rothman's comments, and there are no rules against being snarky.

Please point out where I made any such reference.

I'm sure you know exactly what I'm talking about since the mods supposedly have been communicating with you. Stop trying to blame your problems with the admin team on Rothman, because nobody is forcing you to respond to him in the first place, let alone single-handedly escalate these conflicts.

[thenetwork]

Quick question, has any new route number been officially announced for the rebuilt route? I presume an Interstate designation would obviously no longer apply.
(I'm sorry, I'd go through the thread but it's pretty long, figured someone here's been paying closer attention could probably answer faster)

Thanks!

There's discussion in the Michigan Notes thread, starting around post #1400, that it will be a trunkline but no number has been definitively announced.  MDOT's animation videos showing the flow of traffic through the proposed I-75 interchange have "M-XX" shields on the signs.

If the proposed Gordie Howe International Bridge had been given a number, M-401 would have a no-brainer. Maybe the signs will say To ON 401.

I would be very surprised.  There is no "TO ON-402" on the signs in Port Huron, and no "TO ON-17B" ever on the signs in Sault Ste. Marie.  And that's without the likes of the perennial thorn that is the Detroit International Bridge Co.  I don't doubt the DIBC would get a lawsuit going if they think anything MDOT does, even putting a route shield on a sign, promotes the use of the Gordie Howe Bridge over the Ambassador Bridge.

But in each of those border crossings, there is only one crossing available.  In Detroit, you will have three crossings at that part of the border. I can see MDOT at the bare minimum installing supplementary signs stating,

"TO [shield] 401 [/shield] EAST
London/Toronto
USE GORDIE HOWE BRIDGE (and/or)
EXIT xx
-----
WINDSOR, CANADA (Business District)
USE AMBASSADOR BRIDGE or TUNNEL


I think by that time, most people using the older bridge and Tunnel will still be bound for Windsor proper, while those using the GHB will be using it to bypass Windsor altogether, so by leaving Windsor off the GHB signs would be acceptable.

[The Ghostbuster]

This will likely be a completely impractical and hair-brained idea, but once existing 375 is converted into a boulevard, the 375 designation should be shifted to the freeway connecting the Gordie Howe International Bridge with ON 401.

[skluth]

This will likely be a completely impractical and hair-brained idea, but once existing 375 is converted into a boulevard, the 375 designation should be shifted to the freeway connecting the Gordie Howe International Bridge with ON 401.

Getting off-topic here but if any number is used for the Gordie Howe Bridge it should be '9' or something like 975.

[Molandfreak]

This will likely be a completely impractical and hair-brained idea, but once existing 375 is converted into a boulevard, the 375 designation should be shifted to the freeway connecting the Gordie Howe International Bridge with ON 401.

Why make it any more confusing than it needs to be?

[GaryV]

This will likely be a completely impractical and hair-brained idea, but once existing 375 is converted into a boulevard, the 375 designation should be shifted to the freeway connecting the Gordie Howe International Bridge with ON 401.

Why make it any more confusing than it needs to be?

And why would they put a Michigan-related highway number in Ontario? If that few hundred yards of highway between the bridge and 401 needs a number, just extend 401, except it isn't probably going to be all freeway.

[cbeach40]

This will likely be a completely impractical and hair-brained idea, but once existing 375 is converted into a boulevard, the 375 designation should be shifted to the freeway connecting the Gordie Howe International Bridge with ON 401.

Why make it any more confusing than it needs to be?

And why would they put a Michigan-related highway number in Ontario? If that few hundred yards of highway between the bridge and 401 needs a number, just extend 401, except it isn't probably going to be all freeway.

Hwy 401 ends at the bridge, and the bridge directly connects to I-75 via an interchange. There's no connector highway.

[Flint1979]

This will likely be a completely impractical and hair-brained idea, but once existing 375 is converted into a boulevard, the 375 designation should be shifted to the freeway connecting the Gordie Howe International Bridge with ON 401.

That makes no sense and makes things confusing. There isn't no freeway connecting to the Gordie Howe Bridge it's a ramp and isn't worthy of a route number of any kind.

[Flint1979]

This will likely be a completely impractical and hair-brained idea, but once existing 375 is converted into a boulevard, the 375 designation should be shifted to the freeway connecting the Gordie Howe International Bridge with ON 401.

Getting off-topic here but if any number is used for the Gordie Howe Bridge it should be '9' or something like 975.

Really? Why is this ramp to the bridge worthy of a route number? Knowing MDOT there isn't going to be a route number. MDOT isn't giving a ramp connecting to Canada a route number.

[Flint1979]

This will likely be a completely impractical and hair-brained idea, but once existing 375 is converted into a boulevard, the 375 designation should be shifted to the freeway connecting the Gordie Howe International Bridge with ON 401.

Why make it any more confusing than it needs to be?

And why would they put a Michigan-related highway number in Ontario? If that few hundred yards of highway between the bridge and 401 needs a number, just extend 401, except it isn't probably going to be all freeway.

Right. It's a ramp connecting to a bridge that's all it is.

[catch22]

This will likely be a completely impractical and hair-brained idea, but once existing 375 is converted into a boulevard, the 375 designation should be shifted to the freeway connecting the Gordie Howe International Bridge with ON 401.

Why make it any more confusing than it needs to be?

And why would they put a Michigan-related highway number in Ontario? If that few hundred yards of highway between the bridge and 401 needs a number, just extend 401, except it isn't probably going to be all freeway.

Right. It's a ramp connecting to a bridge that's all it is.

Yup. The ramps to/from I-75 to the north edge of the bridge property will be about 1/2 mile long by my rough guess.  I think some folks have the impression that there's going to be some sort of longer connector road between the two but there's no room for one.

The US Port of Entry map at the bridge's web site shows this pretty well:

https://www.gordiehoweinternationalbridge.com/en/gallery#!nav-maps

[GaryV]

This will likely be a completely impractical and hair-brained idea, but once existing 375 is converted into a boulevard, the 375 designation should be shifted to the freeway connecting the Gordie Howe International Bridge with ON 401.

Why make it any more confusing than it needs to be?

And why would they put a Michigan-related highway number in Ontario? If that few hundred yards of highway between the bridge and 401 needs a number, just extend 401, except it isn't probably going to be all freeway.

Right. It's a ramp connecting to a bridge that's all it is.

Yup. The ramps to/from I-75 to the north edge of the bridge property will be about 1/2 mile long by my rough guess.  I think some folks have the impression that there's going to be some sort of longer connector road between the two but there's no room for one.

The US Port of Entry map at the bridge's web site shows this pretty well:

https://www.gordiehoweinternationalbridge.com/en/gallery#!nav-maps

We are talking 2 different things here. The roadway at the north end of the bridge, in Michigan, could be considered for a Michigan highway number (although unlikely).

However what was originally proposed in this sub-thread was to have the ramp on the south end of the bridge in Ontario numbered 375. That makes no sense whatsoever.

[Flint1979]

This will likely be a completely impractical and hair-brained idea, but once existing 375 is converted into a boulevard, the 375 designation should be shifted to the freeway connecting the Gordie Howe International Bridge with ON 401.

Why make it any more confusing than it needs to be?

And why would they put a Michigan-related highway number in Ontario? If that few hundred yards of highway between the bridge and 401 needs a number, just extend 401, except it isn't probably going to be all freeway.

Right. It's a ramp connecting to a bridge that's all it is.

Yup. The ramps to/from I-75 to the north edge of the bridge property will be about 1/2 mile long by my rough guess.  I think some folks have the impression that there's going to be some sort of longer connector road between the two but there's no room for one.

The US Port of Entry map at the bridge's web site shows this pretty well:

https://www.gordiehoweinternationalbridge.com/en/gallery#!nav-maps

We are talking 2 different things here. The roadway at the north end of the bridge, in Michigan, could be considered for a Michigan highway number (although unlikely).

However what was originally proposed in this sub-thread was to have the ramp on the south end of the bridge in Ontario numbered 375. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Having a route number of any kind makes no sense at all. There are four crossings between the US and Canada in Michigan, with this new  bridge it'll be five. The Blue Water and International bridges already have an Interstate highway leading up to the border so it makes sense there. Where it doesn't make any sense is in Detroit, with the Ambassador Bridge there are signs simply saying Bridge to Canada without a need for a route number, same with the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel having signs Tunnel to Canada. So I'm just wondering why we would need to put a route number on this bridge especially a number that has already been used in Detroit and will cause confusion. I don't see the point in it at all and don't think MDOT is going to waste their time making the leadup ramps to the Gordie Howe Bridge into a state highway or Interstate. I know you and others on this forum live in Michigan too and are just as up to date on most things in this state as I am. It would be out of MDOT's nature to do this.