Michigan Notes

[wanderer2575]

Hopefully MDOT ignores Ann Arbor...US-23 should have been widened decades ago.

Ann Arbor voices opposition to widening U.S. 23 highway

In a resolution approved unanimously Monday night, Oct. 16, City Council called on MDOT to implement a highway design that does not include adding any new lanes or other actions that would increase private vehicle traffic volumes.

The city also wants to make sure MDOT gives close attention to the mobility needs of people walking, biking and riding buses, citing a goal to reduce driving in the city by 50% by 2030 as part of the city's quest to reduce carbon emissions. MDOT announced earlier this year it was launching a major study for the U.S. 23 corridor between M-14 and I-94 with plans to replace bridges and possibly widen the highway, saying it carries about 70,000 vehicles on a typical weekday and there's traffic congestion, including backups at exit ramps. The agency has been reviewing several alternatives to go from two to three lanes in each direction, including flex lanes similar to what exists on U.S. 23 north of Ann Arbor to relieve congestion during peak hours, high-occupancy vehicle lanes to promote carpooling, and other options.

MDOT has indicated it plans to finalize a design in 2025 for construction in 2026 through 2028.

The project represents "a generational $250 million investment" in rebuilding 1960s-era stretches of U.S. 23, council stated in its resolution, calling on MDOT to prioritize safe connections at several U.S. 23 crossing points that were designed decades ago for high-speed motor vehicle movement without accommodations for people walking and biking.

"Really what we're asking of MDOT is for them to take this reconstruction as an opportunity to connect what has been divided and create safe, accessible options for people walking, biking and rolling to cross this freeway," said Council Member Dharma Akmon, D-4th Ward.

https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/2023/10/ann-arbor-voices-opposition-to-widening-us-23-highway.html

I am absolutely in favor of more and safer facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross the freeway.  With those provided, the city shouldn't care whether lanes are added to the freeway.  When the city provides details of its plan to force 50% of the people driving there to stop doing so, then I'll be more interested in considering its opposition.

[GaryV]

Ann Arbor is the same city that is considering buying out DTE infrastructure so it can run it's own electric utility on 100% renewables. Because DTE isn't moving away from carbon fast enough for them.

[Ellie]

Hopefully MDOT ignores Ann Arbor...US-23 should have been widened decades ago.

Ann Arbor voices opposition to widening U.S. 23 highway

In a resolution approved unanimously Monday night, Oct. 16, City Council called on MDOT to implement a highway design that does not include adding any new lanes or other actions that would increase private vehicle traffic volumes.

The city also wants to make sure MDOT gives close attention to the mobility needs of people walking, biking and riding buses, citing a goal to reduce driving in the city by 50% by 2030 as part of the city's quest to reduce carbon emissions. MDOT announced earlier this year it was launching a major study for the U.S. 23 corridor between M-14 and I-94 with plans to replace bridges and possibly widen the highway, saying it carries about 70,000 vehicles on a typical weekday and there's traffic congestion, including backups at exit ramps. The agency has been reviewing several alternatives to go from two to three lanes in each direction, including flex lanes similar to what exists on U.S. 23 north of Ann Arbor to relieve congestion during peak hours, high-occupancy vehicle lanes to promote carpooling, and other options.

MDOT has indicated it plans to finalize a design in 2025 for construction in 2026 through 2028.

The project represents "a generational $250 million investment" in rebuilding 1960s-era stretches of U.S. 23, council stated in its resolution, calling on MDOT to prioritize safe connections at several U.S. 23 crossing points that were designed decades ago for high-speed motor vehicle movement without accommodations for people walking and biking.

"Really what we're asking of MDOT is for them to take this reconstruction as an opportunity to connect what has been divided and create safe, accessible options for people walking, biking and rolling to cross this freeway," said Council Member Dharma Akmon, D-4th Ward.

https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/2023/10/ann-arbor-voices-opposition-to-widening-us-23-highway.html

I am absolutely in favor of more and safer facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross the freeway.  With those provided, the city shouldn't care whether lanes are added to the freeway.  When the city provides details of its plan to force 50% of the people driving there to stop doing so, then I'll be more interested in considering its opposition.

Ann Arbor's plan is not to "force 50% of the people driving there to stop", it's to make other forms of transportation more compelling to reduce the number of car trips taken. The city has actively been working on this by approving dense and mixed-use developments as well as building out the pedestrian and biking network.

Ann Arbor is the same city that is considering buying out DTE infrastructure so it can run it's own electric utility on 100% renewables. Because DTE isn't moving away from carbon fast enough for them.

That's not it at all. DTE is a frustrating electrical provider with frequent outages and high rates. It's no wonder the city would want to move away from DTE.

[The Ghostbuster]

I say widen US 23 to six lanes and ignore the NIMBYs. I doubt expanding 23 will require massive amounts of homes and businesses to be torn down, and the needs of other modes of transportation, while important, should not overrule the benefits of an improved Ann Arbor freeway system.

[Ellie]

I say widen US 23 to six lanes and ignore the NIMBYs. I doubt expanding 23 will require massive amounts of homes and businesses to be torn down, and the needs of other modes of transportation, while important, should not overrule the benefits of an improved Ann Arbor freeway system.

Yeah we should widen it (as someone who's taken that rather frequently). If anything this isn't even the thing MDOT is doing that is most annoying to people in Ann Arbor, them trying to fence the rail ROW is awful.

[Flint1979]

US-23 should have been widened for it's entire stretch between the split in Flint to the Ohio line. That highway is well over capacity and two lanes in each direction aren't enough.

I rode on I-75 into Detroit yesterday and they already have the markings for the HOV lanes. South of 12 Mile it really started moving with the extra lane there now and the traffic that used to back up there didn't back up at all during the afternoon rush hour yesterday.

[wanderer2575]

Hopefully MDOT ignores Ann Arbor...US-23 should have been widened decades ago.

Ann Arbor voices opposition to widening U.S. 23 highway

In a resolution approved unanimously Monday night, Oct. 16, City Council called on MDOT to implement a highway design that does not include adding any new lanes or other actions that would increase private vehicle traffic volumes.

The city also wants to make sure MDOT gives close attention to the mobility needs of people walking, biking and riding buses, citing a goal to reduce driving in the city by 50% by 2030 as part of the city's quest to reduce carbon emissions. MDOT announced earlier this year it was launching a major study for the U.S. 23 corridor between M-14 and I-94 with plans to replace bridges and possibly widen the highway, saying it carries about 70,000 vehicles on a typical weekday and there's traffic congestion, including backups at exit ramps. The agency has been reviewing several alternatives to go from two to three lanes in each direction, including flex lanes similar to what exists on U.S. 23 north of Ann Arbor to relieve congestion during peak hours, high-occupancy vehicle lanes to promote carpooling, and other options.

MDOT has indicated it plans to finalize a design in 2025 for construction in 2026 through 2028.

The project represents "a generational $250 million investment" in rebuilding 1960s-era stretches of U.S. 23, council stated in its resolution, calling on MDOT to prioritize safe connections at several U.S. 23 crossing points that were designed decades ago for high-speed motor vehicle movement without accommodations for people walking and biking.

"Really what we're asking of MDOT is for them to take this reconstruction as an opportunity to connect what has been divided and create safe, accessible options for people walking, biking and rolling to cross this freeway," said Council Member Dharma Akmon, D-4th Ward.

https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/2023/10/ann-arbor-voices-opposition-to-widening-us-23-highway.html

I am absolutely in favor of more and safer facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross the freeway.  With those provided, the city shouldn't care whether lanes are added to the freeway.  When the city provides details of its plan to force 50% of the people driving there to stop doing so, then I'll be more interested in considering its opposition.

Ann Arbor's plan is not to "force 50% of the people driving there to stop", it's to make other forms of transportation more compelling to reduce the number of car trips taken. The city has actively been working on this by approving dense and mixed-use developments as well as building out the pedestrian and biking network.

That's fine as far as it goes, but let us know in seven years how much these isolated developments have reduced the number of vehicle miles.  Hint:  It will be far lower than 50%.

[JREwing78]

US-23 should have been widened for it's entire stretch between the split in Flint to the Ohio line. That highway is well over capacity and two lanes in each direction aren't enough.

I concur, but not holding my breath for folks in Michigan to willingly plunk down an additional $500-1000/year in fuel taxes or registration fees to jump start a freeway widening spree.

Ann Arbor's plan is not to "force 50% of the people driving there to stop", it's to make other forms of transportation more compelling to reduce the number of car trips taken. The city has actively been working on this by approving dense and mixed-use developments as well as building out the pedestrian and biking network.

I expect MDOT to make some accommodations for biking/walking/transit, but there's no either/or here. US-23 is not solely a "commute to Ann Arbor" route - it's also an important regional and state route that has to be built to safety standards. Obviously, I'm preaching to the choir on this one.

What's ironic is that these are the same folks complaining about MDOT proposal to remove (for safety reasons) the M-14/Barton Dr. interchange. It's not removing the M-14 freeway entirely, but it's also not widening the freeway and improving safety. When it comes down to it, public transportation or other non-car commuting is "fine for thee, but not for me". Basically, they want all the other folks off the road to keep it for themselves! But that's not how this works.

If anything this isn't even the thing MDOT is doing that is most annoying to people in Ann Arbor, them trying to fence the rail ROW is awful.

I understand the lack of fondness from residents for MDOT fencing off the railroad right-of-way (it IS state-owned railroad, BTW). Nobody involved with mapping out or building the railroad line in the 1800s was planning for someone in 2023 throwing a fit because they can't cross the railroad track to get to the river.

Obviously killing wayward students or wildlife is bad, so I also understand the compulsion for MDOT to try to stop it. And nobody has the appetite for funding any substantive change in routing or in over/underpasses to separate pedestrian and train traffic.

There's no good, cheap answers here - but it's a problem that's going to have to be solved if Ann Arbor expects people to use light rail to commute to work, or if genuinely high-speed rail is ever going to happen.

[Flint1979]

I've seen the fencing they want to put up, they look like prison bars.

[Ellie]

Ann Arbor's plan is not to "force 50% of the people driving there to stop", it's to make other forms of transportation more compelling to reduce the number of car trips taken. The city has actively been working on this by approving dense and mixed-use developments as well as building out the pedestrian and biking network.

That's fine as far as it goes, but let us know in seven years how much these isolated developments have reduced the number of vehicle miles.  Hint:  It will be far lower than 50%.

Ann Arbor's plan is insufficient (they should be upzoning far more aggressively to avoid any developments being isolated, for example), but that does not mean it is a bad idea.

US-23 should have been widened for it's entire stretch between the split in Flint to the Ohio line. That highway is well over capacity and two lanes in each direction aren't enough.

I concur, but not holding my breath for folks in Michigan to willingly plunk down an additional $500-1000/year in fuel taxes or registration fees to jump start a freeway widening spree.

Ann Arbor's plan is not to "force 50% of the people driving there to stop", it's to make other forms of transportation more compelling to reduce the number of car trips taken. The city has actively been working on this by approving dense and mixed-use developments as well as building out the pedestrian and biking network.

I expect MDOT to make some accommodations for biking/walking/transit, but there's no either/or here. US-23 is not solely a "commute to Ann Arbor" route - it's also an important regional and state route that has to be built to safety standards. Obviously, I'm preaching to the choir on this one.

What's ironic is that these are the same folks complaining about MDOT proposal to remove (for safety reasons) the M-14/Barton Dr. interchange. It's not removing the M-14 freeway entirely, but it's also not widening the freeway and improving safety. When it comes down to it, public transportation or other non-car commuting is "fine for thee, but not for me". Basically, they want all the other folks off the road to keep it for themselves! But that's not how this works.

If anything this isn't even the thing MDOT is doing that is most annoying to people in Ann Arbor, them trying to fence the rail ROW is awful.

I understand the lack of fondness from residents for MDOT fencing off the railroad right-of-way (it IS state-owned railroad, BTW). Nobody involved with mapping out or building the railroad line in the 1800s was planning for someone in 2023 throwing a fit because they can't cross the railroad track to get to the river.

Obviously killing wayward students or wildlife is bad, so I also understand the compulsion for MDOT to try to stop it. And nobody has the appetite for funding any substantive change in routing or in over/underpasses to separate pedestrian and train traffic.

There's no good, cheap answers here - but it's a problem that's going to have to be solved if Ann Arbor expects people to use light rail to commute to work, or if genuinely high-speed rail is ever going to happen.

US-23 being a through route is exactly why I support widening. Induced demand applies generally when infrastructure improvements spur more development to use that infrastructure, but I don't see a widening doing that in this case. It would mostly just improve the flow of traffic.

As someone who lived near there, we definitely should not remove the M-14/Barton interchange before we start construction on the new plan. It's not really that dangerous if you know how to drive. Ban trucks from it, maybe.

As for the rail right-of-way, yeah, if we want to run a true HSR system we will need to secure it better. I don't see light rail ever getting run on those tracks, and I would imagine if Ann Arbor ever does get a metro system (one can dream) it would be grade-separated.

[Papa Emeritus]

It's not surprising that Ann Arbor is anti-US 23.

Ann Arbor is so environmentally progressive that I'm surprised they have off leash dog parks.

Scientific studies by organizations as diverse as UCLA and New Scientist magazine have proved that the amount of carbon emitted to manufacture and distribute the food consumed by an average sized dog, is greater than the carbon emitted by an SUV.

Given the environmental views of people in Ann Arbor, I'd expect that they would be closing their off leash dog parks, so that people will be encouraged to fight climate change by not owning dogs.

[Rothman]

It's not surprising that Ann Arbor is anti-US 23.

Ann Arbor is so environmentally progressive that I'm surprised they have off leash dog parks.

Scientific studies by organizations as diverse as UCLA and New Scientist magazine have proved that the amount of carbon emitted to manufacture and distribute the food consumed by an average sized dog, is greater than the carbon emitted by an SUV.

Given the environmental views of people in Ann Arbor, I'd expect that they would be closing their off leash dog parks, so that people will be encouraged to fight climate change by not owning dogs.

That comparison sounds idiotic to me.  Same emissions as an SUV driven over the same distance?  Well, duh.  A semi would emit more, but it's carrying a lot of other stuff, too.

Just sounds like someone wanted a justification against some sort of vage environmental regulation, no matter how flawed.

[Papa Emeritus]

It's not surprising that Ann Arbor is anti-US 23.

Ann Arbor is so environmentally progressive that I'm surprised they have off leash dog parks.

Scientific studies by organizations as diverse as UCLA and New Scientist magazine have proved that the amount of carbon emitted to manufacture and distribute the food consumed by an average sized dog, is greater than the carbon emitted by an SUV.

Given the environmental views of people in Ann Arbor, I'd expect that they would be closing their off leash dog parks, so that people will be encouraged to fight climate change by not owning dogs.

That comparison sounds idiotic to me.  Same emissions as an SUV driven over the same distance?  Well, duh.  A semi would emit more, but it's carrying a lot of other stuff, too.

Just sounds like someone wanted a justification against some sort of vage environmental regulation, no matter how flawed.

Here are two examples of the studies, and they seem well researched:

https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/the-truth-about-cats-and-dogs-environmental-impact

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/consumer-news/59619/dogs-cause-more-pollution-cars

Another major source of environmental harm is the manufacture and distribution of fast fashion garments. Studies show these garments are typically worn just seven to ten times before going to a landfill. 

It's very frustrating that environmentalists oppose all road expansion projects, and feel people should refrain from air travel altogether, while largely ignoring the environmental harm of dogs and the clothing industry.

If we need to fight climate change, the burden should not be placed 100% on users of motor vehicles and aviation. Other groups, like people who shop at H&M and Zara, and dog owners, need to share the burden, too.

[Flint1979]

US-23 barely even enters Ann Arbor, it rides along the northern and eastern city limits and is controled by MDOT so who cares what Ann Arbor has to say about US-23?

[Rothman]

US-23 barely even enters Ann Arbor, it rides along the northern and eastern city limits and is controled by MDOT so who cares what Ann Arbor has to say about US-23?

FHWA, through NEPA...

[triplemultiplex]

Here are two examples of the studies, and they seem well researched:

https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/the-truth-about-cats-and-dogs-environmental-impact

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/consumer-news/59619/dogs-cause-more-pollution-cars

Another major source of environmental harm is the manufacture and distribution of fast fashion garments. Studies show these garments are typically worn just seven to ten times before going to a landfill. 

It's very frustrating that environmentalists oppose all road expansion projects, and feel people should refrain from air travel altogether, while largely ignoring the environmental harm of dogs and the clothing industry.

If we need to fight climate change, the burden should not be placed 100% on users of motor vehicles and aviation. Other groups, like people who shop at H&M and Zara, and dog owners, need to share the burden, too.

That's all just "whataboutism".  The unstated premise being since we can't do everything, might as well do nothing.  Saturate the conversation with other, unrelated 'bad' things to make a given issue seem insurmountable so people give up and the status quo is maintained by default.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

Another major source of environmental harm is the manufacture and distribution of fast fashion garments. Studies show these garments are typically worn just seven to ten times before going to a landfill. 

It's very frustrating that environmentalists oppose all road expansion projects, and feel people should refrain from air travel altogether, while largely ignoring the environmental harm of dogs and the clothing industry.

If we need to fight climate change, the burden should not be placed 100% on users of motor vehicles and aviation. Other groups, like people who shop at H&M and Zara, and dog owners, need to share the burden, too.

Are you one of those who believe dogs give humans cancer?

[Papa Emeritus]

Another major source of environmental harm is the manufacture and distribution of fast fashion garments. Studies show these garments are typically worn just seven to ten times before going to a landfill. 

It's very frustrating that environmentalists oppose all road expansion projects, and feel people should refrain from air travel altogether, while largely ignoring the environmental harm of dogs and the clothing industry.

If we need to fight climate change, the burden should not be placed 100% on users of motor vehicles and aviation. Other groups, like people who shop at H&M and Zara, and dog owners, need to share the burden, too.

Are you one of those who believe dogs give humans cancer?

I think theories that dogs give humans cancer are absurd.

Many environmentalists act as though climate change will go away if everyone stops flying, uses mass transit as much as possible, and drives an EV rather than a gasoline powered automobile. There are numerous sources of greenhouse gas emissions, and blaming only road and air transportation is counterproductive.

It takes a lot of energy to manufacture the materials to construct mcMansions, and it takes even more energy to heat and cool them. As I mentioned earlier, the fast fashion industry is also dreadful for the environment, because of the energy required to manufacture garments, then ship them from sweat shops in Asia to H&M and Zara stores in the US and Europe, and the additional energy required to haul them to a landfill after the garments' owners throw them out. There are also negative environmental consequences of dog ownership.

To me, a person who protests against freeway expansion for environmental reasons, but lives in a mcMansion, shops at H&M or Zara two or three times a month, and / or owns a large dog, is NOT an environmentalist, because they are unwilling to reduce their own environmental footprint. What they are, is a hypocrite.

[Rothman]

We're pretty far afield from Michigan...

...but not the dominant rants of a good number of Michiganders...

[Flint1979]

We Michiganians know our state well.

[paulthemapguy]

It's not surprising that Ann Arbor is anti-US 23.

Ann Arbor is so environmentally progressive that I'm surprised they have off leash dog parks.

Scientific studies by organizations as diverse as UCLA and New Scientist magazine have proved that the amount of carbon emitted to manufacture and distribute the food consumed by an average sized dog, is greater than the carbon emitted by an SUV.

Given the environmental views of people in Ann Arbor, I'd expect that they would be closing their off leash dog parks, so that people will be encouraged to fight climate change by not owning dogs.

That comparison sounds idiotic to me.  Same emissions as an SUV driven over the same distance?  Well, duh.  A semi would emit more, but it's carrying a lot of other stuff, too.

Just sounds like someone wanted a justification against some sort of vague environmental regulation, no matter how flawed.

This is 100% what happened there. Took the words right out of my mouth (probably chose better ones than I would have, actually).

[JREwing78]

Some notes from a recent weekend trip to Michigan:

...

- We're within a week or so of I-94 construction in Kalamazoo wrapping up. All 6 lanes are open west of Sprinkle Rd, and the Portage Rd exit is simply missing signage (overhead and otherwise). That will be worthwhile relief.

MDOT announced that the 6-lane widening east to Sprinkle Rd is "substantially complete", with the Portage Rd interchange reopened to traffic.
https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/news-outreach/pressreleases/2023/10/29/i-94-expansion-portage-road-interchange-reopens-today

[JREwing78]

I came across this article about the construction of the Davidson Freeway in Highland Park. There's lots of historic images.
https://detroiturbanism.blogspot.com/2023/01/highland-park-iv-davison-detroits-first.html

[JREwing78]

MDOT's railroad project to replace the overpasses of Mechanic St and Jackson St in Jackson has been completed.

It's not clear from the photos how much of a clearance improvement they achieved; the old overpass at Mechanic St was 10' 0", while Jackson St was 11' 9".

https://www.facebook.com/MichiganDOT/posts/pfbid02ydjszYa788nvUGNHsGMSZizCRwkmk31b74kmLAsX1bdJVdc1DKVMKoUmHiyiBeo8l

[wanderer2575]

MDOT's railroad project to replace the overpasses of Mechanic St and Jackson St in Jackson has been completed.

It's not clear from the photos how much of a clearance improvement they achieved; the old overpass at Mechanic St was 10' 0", while Jackson St was 11' 9".

https://www.facebook.com/MichiganDOT/posts/pfbid02ydjszYa788nvUGNHsGMSZizCRwkmk31b74kmLAsX1bdJVdc1DKVMKoUmHiyiBeo8l

According to MDOT's response to a question in the comments of this Facebook post, the clearance on Mechanic Street is now 10' 7" and the clearance on Jackson Street is now 14' 6".  MDOT's response also noted several factors prevented a higher Mechanic Street clearance :  The M-50 intersection, other nearby grade separations, and the water table.