US 31 freeway gap in Michigan finally will be filled (well 1 of them anyway)

[silverback1065]

what is so confusing about changing the numbering to interstates? california did it years ago and no one seemed to have a problem with it. also 231 isnt a good bypass as it doesnt actually connect with 31 at all. but michigan loves half stepping everything on roads it's not surprising.

California didn't change most of their state routes to Interstates. They still have a whole bunch of state route freeways.

I'm referring to them changing the numbers at all. It's like you all think drivers are stupid and can't make out a change in numbers.

[silverback1065]

i guess i'm thinking like a road geek, the average driver will likely lose their mind 

[JREwing78]

Around 7,000 - 8,000 AADT.

Could warrant being at least a 4 lane divided highway.

Massachusetts is considering a road diet (from two per direction to one per direction plus two-way left turn lane) on a road with a maximum of 19,000 AADT. Two-lane roads can handle over 20,000 AADT, as seen in this thread. Is 7,000-8,000 really enough to widen?

MDOT clearly doesn't think so. Even when it does, it's more likely to do what they did with M-20 between Mount Pleasant and Midland - a 5-lane (2 per direction plus two-way left turn lane) configuration. This isn't the MDOT of 60 years ago - they're not building new freeways anymore.

MDOT focused recent improvements (wisely) on an extension of the US-131 freeway to north of Manton. Any other work in and around Traverse City in the next 20-30 years, short of a wholesale change in local politics or MDOT receiving a truly massive cash infusion, will be limited to 4/5 laning existing surface routes (M-37, M-113, M-72, M-55). There's simply no appetite to punch a freeway/expressway to or around Traverse City.

[silverback1065]

Around 7,000 - 8,000 AADT.

Could warrant being at least a 4 lane divided highway.

Massachusetts is considering a road diet (from two per direction to one per direction plus two-way left turn lane) on a road with a maximum of 19,000 AADT. Two-lane roads can handle over 20,000 AADT, as seen in this thread. Is 7,000-8,000 really enough to widen?

MDOT clearly doesn't think so. Even when it does, it's more likely to do what they did with M-20 between Mount Pleasant and Midland - a 5-lane (2 per direction plus two-way left turn lane) configuration. This isn't the MDOT of 60 years ago - they're not building new freeways anymore.

MDOT focused recent improvements (wisely) on an extension of the US-131 freeway to north of Manton. Any other work in and around Traverse City in the next 20-30 years, short of a wholesale change in local politics or MDOT receiving a truly massive cash infusion, will be limited to 4/5 laning existing surface routes (M-37, M-113, M-72, M-55). There's simply no appetite to punch a freeway/expressway to or around Traverse City.

4 lane divided for 31 north of 10 is a good idea, but the way it currently is isn't really bad. i've made that drive a lot and traffic isnt bad, it's just fine. the freeway gap from 196 to 96 is the only thing that needs filling really.

[Terry Shea]

Around 7,000 - 8,000 AADT.

Could warrant being at least a 4 lane divided highway.

Massachusetts is considering a road diet (from two per direction to one per direction plus two-way left turn lane) on a road with a maximum of 19,000 AADT. Two-lane roads can handle over 20,000 AADT, as seen in this thread. Is 7,000-8,000 really enough to widen?

MDOT clearly doesn't think so. Even when it does, it's more likely to do what they did with M-20 between Mount Pleasant and Midland - a 5-lane (2 per direction plus two-way left turn lane) configuration. This isn't the MDOT of 60 years ago - they're not building new freeways anymore.

MDOT focused recent improvements (wisely) on an extension of the US-131 freeway to north of Manton. Any other work in and around Traverse City in the next 20-30 years, short of a wholesale change in local politics or MDOT receiving a truly massive cash infusion, will be limited to 4/5 laning existing surface routes (M-37, M-113, M-72, M-55). There's simply no appetite to punch a freeway/expressway to or around Traverse City.

4 lane divided for 31 north of 10 is a good idea, but the way it currently is isn't really bad. i've made that drive a lot and traffic isnt bad, it's just fine. the freeway gap from 196 to 96 is the only thing that needs filling really.

Try it on a summer weekend or holiday weekend.  An 8 lane freeway wouldn't be enough!

[Flint1979]

Around 7,000 - 8,000 AADT.

Could warrant being at least a 4 lane divided highway.

Massachusetts is considering a road diet (from two per direction to one per direction plus two-way left turn lane) on a road with a maximum of 19,000 AADT. Two-lane roads can handle over 20,000 AADT, as seen in this thread. Is 7,000-8,000 really enough to widen?

MDOT clearly doesn't think so. Even when it does, it's more likely to do what they did with M-20 between Mount Pleasant and Midland - a 5-lane (2 per direction plus two-way left turn lane) configuration. This isn't the MDOT of 60 years ago - they're not building new freeways anymore.

MDOT focused recent improvements (wisely) on an extension of the US-131 freeway to north of Manton. Any other work in and around Traverse City in the next 20-30 years, short of a wholesale change in local politics or MDOT receiving a truly massive cash infusion, will be limited to 4/5 laning existing surface routes (M-37, M-113, M-72, M-55). There's simply no appetite to punch a freeway/expressway to or around Traverse City.

4 lane divided for 31 north of 10 is a good idea, but the way it currently is isn't really bad. i've made that drive a lot and traffic isnt bad, it's just fine. the freeway gap from 196 to 96 is the only thing that needs filling really.

I don't see the need to fill the freeway gap between 196 and 96. There's already M-231 there to bypass Grand Haven and M-231 is 65 mph. The only problem with Grand Haven is the drawbridge that opens quite often. Even though M-231 won't connect to US-31 it's still a viable bypass of Grand Haven. MDOT isn't going to just remove US-31 from the streets of Grand Haven but M-231 has been open for about 5 years now and serves as the Grand Haven bypass.

[JREwing78]

4 lane divided for 31 north of 10 is a good idea, but the way it currently is isn't really bad. i've made that drive a lot and traffic isnt bad, it's just fine. the freeway gap from 196 to 96 is the only thing that needs filling really.

I don't see the need to fill the freeway gap between 196 and 96. There's already M-231 there to bypass Grand Haven and M-231 is 65 mph. The only problem with Grand Haven is the drawbridge that opens quite often. Even though M-231 won't connect to US-31 it's still a viable bypass of Grand Haven. MDOT isn't going to just remove US-31 from the streets of Grand Haven but M-231 has been open for about 5 years now and serves as the Grand Haven bypass.

MDOT isn't exactly in a hurry, but they did wisely realize their window for getting US-31 out of Holland and Grand Haven was closing and started buying right-of-way for it. It was necessary to get M-231 built because of the lack of other bridges over the Grand River bridge, but it's a stopgap until MDOT has funding to (ultimately) complete a full bypass.

MDOT could certainly keep US-31 on the same alignment through Holland - it would just be expensive to rebuild. But anything through Grand Haven is expensive and full of NIMBYs who (rightfully) would object to any kind of urban freeway punched through.

[silverback1065]

Around 7,000 - 8,000 AADT.

Could warrant being at least a 4 lane divided highway.

Massachusetts is considering a road diet (from two per direction to one per direction plus two-way left turn lane) on a road with a maximum of 19,000 AADT. Two-lane roads can handle over 20,000 AADT, as seen in this thread. Is 7,000-8,000 really enough to widen?

MDOT clearly doesn't think so. Even when it does, it's more likely to do what they did with M-20 between Mount Pleasant and Midland - a 5-lane (2 per direction plus two-way left turn lane) configuration. This isn't the MDOT of 60 years ago - they're not building new freeways anymore.

MDOT focused recent improvements (wisely) on an extension of the US-131 freeway to north of Manton. Any other work in and around Traverse City in the next 20-30 years, short of a wholesale change in local politics or MDOT receiving a truly massive cash infusion, will be limited to 4/5 laning existing surface routes (M-37, M-113, M-72, M-55). There's simply no appetite to punch a freeway/expressway to or around Traverse City.

4 lane divided for 31 north of 10 is a good idea, but the way it currently is isn't really bad. i've made that drive a lot and traffic isnt bad, it's just fine. the freeway gap from 196 to 96 is the only thing that needs filling really.

I don't see the need to fill the freeway gap between 196 and 96. There's already M-231 there to bypass Grand Haven and M-231 is 65 mph. The only problem with Grand Haven is the drawbridge that opens quite often. Even though M-231 won't connect to US-31 it's still a viable bypass of Grand Haven. MDOT isn't going to just remove US-31 from the streets of Grand Haven but M-231 has been open for about 5 years now and serves as the Grand Haven bypass.

they removed it through countless other cities along the route and called it business 31, i dont see how they wouldnt do it there too.

[Flint1979]

Around 7,000 - 8,000 AADT.

Could warrant being at least a 4 lane divided highway.

Massachusetts is considering a road diet (from two per direction to one per direction plus two-way left turn lane) on a road with a maximum of 19,000 AADT. Two-lane roads can handle over 20,000 AADT, as seen in this thread. Is 7,000-8,000 really enough to widen?

MDOT clearly doesn't think so. Even when it does, it's more likely to do what they did with M-20 between Mount Pleasant and Midland - a 5-lane (2 per direction plus two-way left turn lane) configuration. This isn't the MDOT of 60 years ago - they're not building new freeways anymore.

MDOT focused recent improvements (wisely) on an extension of the US-131 freeway to north of Manton. Any other work in and around Traverse City in the next 20-30 years, short of a wholesale change in local politics or MDOT receiving a truly massive cash infusion, will be limited to 4/5 laning existing surface routes (M-37, M-113, M-72, M-55). There's simply no appetite to punch a freeway/expressway to or around Traverse City.

4 lane divided for 31 north of 10 is a good idea, but the way it currently is isn't really bad. i've made that drive a lot and traffic isnt bad, it's just fine. the freeway gap from 196 to 96 is the only thing that needs filling really.

I don't see the need to fill the freeway gap between 196 and 96. There's already M-231 there to bypass Grand Haven and M-231 is 65 mph. The only problem with Grand Haven is the drawbridge that opens quite often. Even though M-231 won't connect to US-31 it's still a viable bypass of Grand Haven. MDOT isn't going to just remove US-31 from the streets of Grand Haven but M-231 has been open for about 5 years now and serves as the Grand Haven bypass.

they removed it through countless other cities along the route and called it business 31, i dont see how they wouldnt do it there too.

There are more cities that US-31 goes through than goes around. There isn't much demand for it.

M-45 to M-231 to I-96 back to US-31 and vice versa is fine. And if you wanted to avoid stretches of US-31 you could always take two lane 120th Avenue between Holland and M-45.

[Terry Shea]

Around 7,000 - 8,000 AADT.

Could warrant being at least a 4 lane divided highway.

Massachusetts is considering a road diet (from two per direction to one per direction plus two-way left turn lane) on a road with a maximum of 19,000 AADT. Two-lane roads can handle over 20,000 AADT, as seen in this thread. Is 7,000-8,000 really enough to widen?

MDOT clearly doesn't think so. Even when it does, it's more likely to do what they did with M-20 between Mount Pleasant and Midland - a 5-lane (2 per direction plus two-way left turn lane) configuration. This isn't the MDOT of 60 years ago - they're not building new freeways anymore.

MDOT focused recent improvements (wisely) on an extension of the US-131 freeway to north of Manton. Any other work in and around Traverse City in the next 20-30 years, short of a wholesale change in local politics or MDOT receiving a truly massive cash infusion, will be limited to 4/5 laning existing surface routes (M-37, M-113, M-72, M-55). There's simply no appetite to punch a freeway/expressway to or around Traverse City.

4 lane divided for 31 north of 10 is a good idea, but the way it currently is isn't really bad. i've made that drive a lot and traffic isnt bad, it's just fine. the freeway gap from 196 to 96 is the only thing that needs filling really.

I don't see the need to fill the freeway gap between 196 and 96. There's already M-231 there to bypass Grand Haven and M-231 is 65 mph. The only problem with Grand Haven is the drawbridge that opens quite often. Even though M-231 won't connect to US-31 it's still a viable bypass of Grand Haven. MDOT isn't going to just remove US-31 from the streets of Grand Haven but M-231 has been open for about 5 years now and serves as the Grand Haven bypass.

they removed it through countless other cities along the route and called it business 31, i dont see how they wouldnt do it there too.

There are more cities that US-31 goes through than goes around. There isn't much demand for it.

M-45 to M-231 to I-96 back to US-31 and vice versa is fine. And if you wanted to avoid stretches of US-31 you could always take two lane 120th Avenue between Holland and M-45.

As is it's gotta be the dumbest bypass ever.  You're probably doubling the mileage to travel on mostly 2-lane roads.  What sense does that make?

[GaryV]

Around 7,000 - 8,000 AADT.

Could warrant being at least a 4 lane divided highway.

Massachusetts is considering a road diet (from two per direction to one per direction plus two-way left turn lane) on a road with a maximum of 19,000 AADT. Two-lane roads can handle over 20,000 AADT, as seen in this thread. Is 7,000-8,000 really enough to widen?

MDOT clearly doesn't think so. Even when it does, it's more likely to do what they did with M-20 between Mount Pleasant and Midland - a 5-lane (2 per direction plus two-way left turn lane) configuration. This isn't the MDOT of 60 years ago - they're not building new freeways anymore.

MDOT focused recent improvements (wisely) on an extension of the US-131 freeway to north of Manton. Any other work in and around Traverse City in the next 20-30 years, short of a wholesale change in local politics or MDOT receiving a truly massive cash infusion, will be limited to 4/5 laning existing surface routes (M-37, M-113, M-72, M-55). There's simply no appetite to punch a freeway/expressway to or around Traverse City.

4 lane divided for 31 north of 10 is a good idea, but the way it currently is isn't really bad. i've made that drive a lot and traffic isnt bad, it's just fine. the freeway gap from 196 to 96 is the only thing that needs filling really.

I don't see the need to fill the freeway gap between 196 and 96. There's already M-231 there to bypass Grand Haven and M-231 is 65 mph. The only problem with Grand Haven is the drawbridge that opens quite often. Even though M-231 won't connect to US-31 it's still a viable bypass of Grand Haven. MDOT isn't going to just remove US-31 from the streets of Grand Haven but M-231 has been open for about 5 years now and serves as the Grand Haven bypass.

they removed it through countless other cities along the route and called it business 31, i dont see how they wouldnt do it there too.

There are more cities that US-31 goes through than goes around. There isn't much demand for it.

M-45 to M-231 to I-96 back to US-31 and vice versa is fine. And if you wanted to avoid stretches of US-31 you could always take two lane 120th Avenue between Holland and M-45.

As is it's gotta be the dumbest bypass ever.  You're probably doubling the mileage to travel on mostly 2-lane roads.  What sense does that make?

I just looked at a trip from South Haven to Whitehall on Google maps.  Same time using US-31 and M-231.  2.6 miles longer on M-231.  It uses New Holland to 120th to a jog on M-45 to M-231.

[JREwing78]

As is it's gotta be the dumbest bypass ever.  You're probably doubling the mileage to travel on mostly 2-lane roads.  What sense does that make?

Long-term, M-231 will add a 2nd set of travel lanes and become converted to a freeway bypass of both Grand Haven and Holland. MDOT has plans on the books and a Record of Decision on what that will look like. More: https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9621_11058_35076---,00.html

If you haven't noticed, MDOT isn't exactly awash in money. What money it does have is mainly being directed to rebuilding and repairing existing highways, including I-75 in Oakland County and I-94 in Detroit. That work is being funded by a massive bond because Gov. Whitmer couldn't get the Republicans in the legislature to play along with raising the gas tax, but continuing to wait to fix the roads would've become substantially more expensive.

So yeah, M-231's basic function currently is a crossing of the Grand River. Next closest crossing is about 20 miles farther upstream. If the bridge for US-31 in Grand Haven acts up (not uncommon), that is the relief route for US-31 travelers. Locals have also found the crossing quite handy - last AADT numbers were around 8600 vpd. That's hardly an indication that building the roadway was "dumb".

[jzn110]

As is it's gotta be the dumbest bypass ever.  You're probably doubling the mileage to travel on mostly 2-lane roads.  What sense does that make?

Long-term, M-231 will add a 2nd set of travel lanes and become converted to a freeway bypass of both Grand Haven and Holland. MDOT has plans on the books and a Record of Decision on what that will look like. More: https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9621_11058_35076---,00.html

If you haven't noticed, MDOT isn't exactly awash in money. What money it does have is mainly being directed to rebuilding and repairing existing highways, including I-75 in Oakland County and I-94 in Detroit. That work is being funded by a massive bond because Gov. Whitmer couldn't get the Republicans in the legislature to play along with raising the gas tax, but continuing to wait to fix the roads would've become substantially more expensive.

So yeah, M-231's basic function currently is a crossing of the Grand River. Next closest crossing is about 20 miles farther upstream. If the bridge for US-31 in Grand Haven acts up (not uncommon), that is the relief route for US-31 travelers. Locals have also found the crossing quite handy - last AADT numbers were around 8600 vpd. That's hardly an indication that building the roadway was "dumb".

As a resident of the area, I can confirm that M-231 is incredibly handy for traveling to local areas south and east of Grand Haven, and it's definitely handy for when the drawbridge acts up.

And if you're commuting long distance down US-31, it's pretty much about the same amount of time to bypass GH via 96/231/45 as it is to stay on 31 when traffic isn't super heavy. Not a perfect bypass, but better than nothing.

[Terry Shea]

Around 7,000 - 8,000 AADT.

Could warrant being at least a 4 lane divided highway.

Massachusetts is considering a road diet (from two per direction to one per direction plus two-way left turn lane) on a road with a maximum of 19,000 AADT. Two-lane roads can handle over 20,000 AADT, as seen in this thread. Is 7,000-8,000 really enough to widen?

MDOT clearly doesn't think so. Even when it does, it's more likely to do what they did with M-20 between Mount Pleasant and Midland - a 5-lane (2 per direction plus two-way left turn lane) configuration. This isn't the MDOT of 60 years ago - they're not building new freeways anymore.

MDOT focused recent improvements (wisely) on an extension of the US-131 freeway to north of Manton. Any other work in and around Traverse City in the next 20-30 years, short of a wholesale change in local politics or MDOT receiving a truly massive cash infusion, will be limited to 4/5 laning existing surface routes (M-37, M-113, M-72, M-55). There's simply no appetite to punch a freeway/expressway to or around Traverse City.

4 lane divided for 31 north of 10 is a good idea, but the way it currently is isn't really bad. i've made that drive a lot and traffic isnt bad, it's just fine. the freeway gap from 196 to 96 is the only thing that needs filling really.

I don't see the need to fill the freeway gap between 196 and 96. There's already M-231 there to bypass Grand Haven and M-231 is 65 mph. The only problem with Grand Haven is the drawbridge that opens quite often. Even though M-231 won't connect to US-31 it's still a viable bypass of Grand Haven. MDOT isn't going to just remove US-31 from the streets of Grand Haven but M-231 has been open for about 5 years now and serves as the Grand Haven bypass.

they removed it through countless other cities along the route and called it business 31, i dont see how they wouldnt do it there too.

There are more cities that US-31 goes through than goes around. There isn't much demand for it.

M-45 to M-231 to I-96 back to US-31 and vice versa is fine. And if you wanted to avoid stretches of US-31 you could always take two lane 120th Avenue between Holland and M-45.

As is it's gotta be the dumbest bypass ever.  You're probably doubling the mileage to travel on mostly 2-lane roads.  What sense does that make?

I just looked at a trip from South Haven to Whitehall on Google maps.  Same time using US-31 and M-231.  2.6 miles longer on M-231.  It uses New Holland to 120th to a jog on M-45 to M-231.

I was talking about US-31 to M-45 to M-231 to I-96 back to US-31, since that's supposed to be the "bypass."  It's probably 2.6 times longer, not 2.6 miles longer.  I find it hard to believe adding 120th into the mix would cut off any miles, although it would certainly cut off time bypassing Holland.  Problem is most people are unaware 120th Ave. exists.

[Terry Shea]

As is it's gotta be the dumbest bypass ever.  You're probably doubling the mileage to travel on mostly 2-lane roads.  What sense does that make?

Long-term, M-231 will add a 2nd set of travel lanes and become converted to a freeway bypass of both Grand Haven and Holland. MDOT has plans on the books and a Record of Decision on what that will look like. More: https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9621_11058_35076---,00.html

If you haven't noticed, MDOT isn't exactly awash in money. What money it does have is mainly being directed to rebuilding and repairing existing highways, including I-75 in Oakland County and I-94 in Detroit. That work is being funded by a massive bond because Gov. Whitmer couldn't get the Republicans in the legislature to play along with raising the gas tax, but continuing to wait to fix the roads would've become substantially more expensive.

So yeah, M-231's basic function currently is a crossing of the Grand River. Next closest crossing is about 20 miles farther upstream. If the bridge for US-31 in Grand Haven acts up (not uncommon), that is the relief route for US-31 travelers. Locals have also found the crossing quite handy - last AADT numbers were around 8600 vpd. That's hardly an indication that building the roadway was "dumb".

That's not what I said.  I said "as is it's gotta be the dumbest bypass ever," and I'll stand by that.  I understand the need for the river crossing, for the bascule bridge back up and the fact that it may (or may not) be upgraded and extended in 3-4 centuries, but speaking strictly from a bypass standpoint for US-31 it doesn't really work, and won't until the entire original project is completed.

[GaryV]

Around 7,000 - 8,000 AADT.

Could warrant being at least a 4 lane divided highway.

Massachusetts is considering a road diet (from two per direction to one per direction plus two-way left turn lane) on a road with a maximum of 19,000 AADT. Two-lane roads can handle over 20,000 AADT, as seen in this thread. Is 7,000-8,000 really enough to widen?

MDOT clearly doesn't think so. Even when it does, it's more likely to do what they did with M-20 between Mount Pleasant and Midland - a 5-lane (2 per direction plus two-way left turn lane) configuration. This isn't the MDOT of 60 years ago - they're not building new freeways anymore.

MDOT focused recent improvements (wisely) on an extension of the US-131 freeway to north of Manton. Any other work in and around Traverse City in the next 20-30 years, short of a wholesale change in local politics or MDOT receiving a truly massive cash infusion, will be limited to 4/5 laning existing surface routes (M-37, M-113, M-72, M-55). There's simply no appetite to punch a freeway/expressway to or around Traverse City.

4 lane divided for 31 north of 10 is a good idea, but the way it currently is isn't really bad. i've made that drive a lot and traffic isnt bad, it's just fine. the freeway gap from 196 to 96 is the only thing that needs filling really.

I don't see the need to fill the freeway gap between 196 and 96. There's already M-231 there to bypass Grand Haven and M-231 is 65 mph. The only problem with Grand Haven is the drawbridge that opens quite often. Even though M-231 won't connect to US-31 it's still a viable bypass of Grand Haven. MDOT isn't going to just remove US-31 from the streets of Grand Haven but M-231 has been open for about 5 years now and serves as the Grand Haven bypass.

they removed it through countless other cities along the route and called it business 31, i dont see how they wouldnt do it there too.

There are more cities that US-31 goes through than goes around. There isn't much demand for it.

M-45 to M-231 to I-96 back to US-31 and vice versa is fine. And if you wanted to avoid stretches of US-31 you could always take two lane 120th Avenue between Holland and M-45.

As is it's gotta be the dumbest bypass ever.  You're probably doubling the mileage to travel on mostly 2-lane roads.  What sense does that make?

I just looked at a trip from South Haven to Whitehall on Google maps.  Same time using US-31 and M-231.  2.6 miles longer on M-231.  It uses New Holland to 120th to a jog on M-45 to M-231.

I was talking about US-31 to M-45 to M-231 to I-96 back to US-31, since that's supposed to be the "bypass."  It's probably 2.6 times longer, not 2.6 miles longer.  I find it hard to believe adding 120th into the mix would cut off any miles, although it would certainly cut off time bypassing Holland.  Problem is most people are unaware 120th Ave. exists.

OK, let's try a shorter route to bypass Grand Haven only.  Agnew (near the intersection of US-31 and M-45 to Muskegon Heights. Early on a Sunday morning, when there should be little traffic, so the difference in times should be greatest.
Via US-31: 18 miles, 21 minutes. 
Via M-45 and M-231: 24.5 miles, 25 minutes. 
That's not 2.6 times longer by any measure.

[Flint1979]

M-231 is a partial bypass it's not a full bypass.

[Flint1979]

Also Grand Haven is the seat of Ottawa County (I actually think Allendale should be the seat but oh well) and I really don't know how Grand Haven got to be the county seat because the jail and courthouse aren't even in Grand Haven they are in West Olive on 120th Avenue in the middle of nowhere pretty much.

[Terry Shea]

Around 7,000 - 8,000 AADT.

Could warrant being at least a 4 lane divided highway.

Massachusetts is considering a road diet (from two per direction to one per direction plus two-way left turn lane) on a road with a maximum of 19,000 AADT. Two-lane roads can handle over 20,000 AADT, as seen in this thread. Is 7,000-8,000 really enough to widen?

MDOT clearly doesn't think so. Even when it does, it's more likely to do what they did with M-20 between Mount Pleasant and Midland - a 5-lane (2 per direction plus two-way left turn lane) configuration. This isn't the MDOT of 60 years ago - they're not building new freeways anymore.

MDOT focused recent improvements (wisely) on an extension of the US-131 freeway to north of Manton. Any other work in and around Traverse City in the next 20-30 years, short of a wholesale change in local politics or MDOT receiving a truly massive cash infusion, will be limited to 4/5 laning existing surface routes (M-37, M-113, M-72, M-55). There's simply no appetite to punch a freeway/expressway to or around Traverse City.

4 lane divided for 31 north of 10 is a good idea, but the way it currently is isn't really bad. i've made that drive a lot and traffic isnt bad, it's just fine. the freeway gap from 196 to 96 is the only thing that needs filling really.

I don't see the need to fill the freeway gap between 196 and 96. There's already M-231 there to bypass Grand Haven and M-231 is 65 mph. The only problem with Grand Haven is the drawbridge that opens quite often. Even though M-231 won't connect to US-31 it's still a viable bypass of Grand Haven. MDOT isn't going to just remove US-31 from the streets of Grand Haven but M-231 has been open for about 5 years now and serves as the Grand Haven bypass.

they removed it through countless other cities along the route and called it business 31, i dont see how they wouldnt do it there too.

There are more cities that US-31 goes through than goes around. There isn't much demand for it.

M-45 to M-231 to I-96 back to US-31 and vice versa is fine. And if you wanted to avoid stretches of US-31 you could always take two lane 120th Avenue between Holland and M-45.

As is it's gotta be the dumbest bypass ever.  You're probably doubling the mileage to travel on mostly 2-lane roads.  What sense does that make?

I just looked at a trip from South Haven to Whitehall on Google maps.  Same time using US-31 and M-231.  2.6 miles longer on M-231.  It uses New Holland to 120th to a jog on M-45 to M-231.

I was talking about US-31 to M-45 to M-231 to I-96 back to US-31, since that's supposed to be the "bypass."  It's probably 2.6 times longer, not 2.6 miles longer.  I find it hard to believe adding 120th into the mix would cut off any miles, although it would certainly cut off time bypassing Holland.  Problem is most people are unaware 120th Ave. exists.

OK, let's try a shorter route to bypass Grand Haven only.  Agnew (near the intersection of US-31 and M-45 to Muskegon Heights. Early on a Sunday morning, when there should be little traffic, so the difference in times should be greatest.
Via US-31: 18 miles, 21 minutes. 
Via M-45 and M-231: 24.5 miles, 25 minutes. 
That's not 2.6 times longer by any measure.

Use the starting point where M-45 intersects US-31, and the I-96/US-31 interchange for the endpoint.  Or even use M-104/US-31 for the endpoint.  That has to be adding 13-15 miles using M-231.

[GaryV]

Around 7,000 - 8,000 AADT.

Could warrant being at least a 4 lane divided highway.

Massachusetts is considering a road diet (from two per direction to one per direction plus two-way left turn lane) on a road with a maximum of 19,000 AADT. Two-lane roads can handle over 20,000 AADT, as seen in this thread. Is 7,000-8,000 really enough to widen?

MDOT clearly doesn't think so. Even when it does, it's more likely to do what they did with M-20 between Mount Pleasant and Midland - a 5-lane (2 per direction plus two-way left turn lane) configuration. This isn't the MDOT of 60 years ago - they're not building new freeways anymore.

MDOT focused recent improvements (wisely) on an extension of the US-131 freeway to north of Manton. Any other work in and around Traverse City in the next 20-30 years, short of a wholesale change in local politics or MDOT receiving a truly massive cash infusion, will be limited to 4/5 laning existing surface routes (M-37, M-113, M-72, M-55). There's simply no appetite to punch a freeway/expressway to or around Traverse City.

4 lane divided for 31 north of 10 is a good idea, but the way it currently is isn't really bad. i've made that drive a lot and traffic isnt bad, it's just fine. the freeway gap from 196 to 96 is the only thing that needs filling really.

I don't see the need to fill the freeway gap between 196 and 96. There's already M-231 there to bypass Grand Haven and M-231 is 65 mph. The only problem with Grand Haven is the drawbridge that opens quite often. Even though M-231 won't connect to US-31 it's still a viable bypass of Grand Haven. MDOT isn't going to just remove US-31 from the streets of Grand Haven but M-231 has been open for about 5 years now and serves as the Grand Haven bypass.

they removed it through countless other cities along the route and called it business 31, i dont see how they wouldnt do it there too.

There are more cities that US-31 goes through than goes around. There isn't much demand for it.

M-45 to M-231 to I-96 back to US-31 and vice versa is fine. And if you wanted to avoid stretches of US-31 you could always take two lane 120th Avenue between Holland and M-45.

As is it's gotta be the dumbest bypass ever.  You're probably doubling the mileage to travel on mostly 2-lane roads.  What sense does that make?

I just looked at a trip from South Haven to Whitehall on Google maps.  Same time using US-31 and M-231.  2.6 miles longer on M-231.  It uses New Holland to 120th to a jog on M-45 to M-231.

I was talking about US-31 to M-45 to M-231 to I-96 back to US-31, since that's supposed to be the "bypass."  It's probably 2.6 times longer, not 2.6 miles longer.  I find it hard to believe adding 120th into the mix would cut off any miles, although it would certainly cut off time bypassing Holland.  Problem is most people are unaware 120th Ave. exists.

OK, let's try a shorter route to bypass Grand Haven only.  Agnew (near the intersection of US-31 and M-45 to Muskegon Heights. Early on a Sunday morning, when there should be little traffic, so the difference in times should be greatest.
Via US-31: 18 miles, 21 minutes. 
Via M-45 and M-231: 24.5 miles, 25 minutes. 
That's not 2.6 times longer by any measure.

Use the starting point where M-45 intersects US-31, and the I-96/US-31 interchange for the endpoint.  Or even use M-104/US-31 for the endpoint.  That has to be adding 13-15 miles using M-231.

Did you even look at my endpoints?  Agnew is less than 1/2 mile south of M-45.  And Muskegon Heights is 2 miles down US-31  Bus from the endpoint of I-96.  Both routings - through Grand Haven or via M-231 - would use those 2 1/2 miles.

And why in the world would you use M-104 instead of I-96 going to points north?  It only gets you back to Spring Lake, and if there was a jam because the US-31 drawbridge was up, you'd be heading right back into that traffic.

[Flint1979]

M-104 is there to serve as a connector between I-96 and US-31 connecting Grand Haven to Metro Grand Rapids. Originally it was part of US-16 before that highway was moved further north to run between Nunica and Muskegon.

[Terry Shea]

M-104 is there to serve as a connector between I-96 and US-31 connecting Grand Haven to Metro Grand Rapids. Originally it was part of US-16 before that highway was moved further north to run between Nunica and Muskegon.

That can't possibly be right.  Just by eyeballing a map you can tell

Around 7,000 - 8,000 AADT.

Could warrant being at least a 4 lane divided highway.

Massachusetts is considering a road diet (from two per direction to one per direction plus two-way left turn lane) on a road with a maximum of 19,000 AADT. Two-lane roads can handle over 20,000 AADT, as seen in this thread. Is 7,000-8,000 really enough to widen?

MDOT clearly doesn't think so. Even when it does, it's more likely to do what they did with M-20 between Mount Pleasant and Midland - a 5-lane (2 per direction plus two-way left turn lane) configuration. This isn't the MDOT of 60 years ago - they're not building new freeways anymore.

MDOT focused recent improvements (wisely) on an extension of the US-131 freeway to north of Manton. Any other work in and around Traverse City in the next 20-30 years, short of a wholesale change in local politics or MDOT receiving a truly massive cash infusion, will be limited to 4/5 laning existing surface routes (M-37, M-113, M-72, M-55). There's simply no appetite to punch a freeway/expressway to or around Traverse City.

4 lane divided for 31 north of 10 is a good idea, but the way it currently is isn't really bad. i've made that drive a lot and traffic isnt bad, it's just fine. the freeway gap from 196 to 96 is the only thing that needs filling really.

I don't see the need to fill the freeway gap between 196 and 96. There's already M-231 there to bypass Grand Haven and M-231 is 65 mph. The only problem with Grand Haven is the drawbridge that opens quite often. Even though M-231 won't connect to US-31 it's still a viable bypass of Grand Haven. MDOT isn't going to just remove US-31 from the streets of Grand Haven but M-231 has been open for about 5 years now and serves as the Grand Haven bypass.

they removed it through countless other cities along the route and called it business 31, i dont see how they wouldnt do it there too.

There are more cities that US-31 goes through than goes around. There isn't much demand for it.

M-45 to M-231 to I-96 back to US-31 and vice versa is fine. And if you wanted to avoid stretches of US-31 you could always take two lane 120th Avenue between Holland and M-45.

As is it's gotta be the dumbest bypass ever.  You're probably doubling the mileage to travel on mostly 2-lane roads.  What sense does that make?

I just looked at a trip from South Haven to Whitehall on Google maps.  Same time using US-31 and M-231.  2.6 miles longer on M-231.  It uses New Holland to 120th to a jog on M-45 to M-231.

I was talking about US-31 to M-45 to M-231 to I-96 back to US-31, since that's supposed to be the "bypass."  It's probably 2.6 times longer, not 2.6 miles longer.  I find it hard to believe adding 120th into the mix would cut off any miles, although it would certainly cut off time bypassing Holland.  Problem is most people are unaware 120th Ave. exists.

OK, let's try a shorter route to bypass Grand Haven only.  Agnew (near the intersection of US-31 and M-45 to Muskegon Heights. Early on a Sunday morning, when there should be little traffic, so the difference in times should be greatest.
Via US-31: 18 miles, 21 minutes. 
Via M-45 and M-231: 24.5 miles, 25 minutes. 
That's not 2.6 times longer by any measure.

Use the starting point where M-45 intersects US-31, and the I-96/US-31 interchange for the endpoint.  Or even use M-104/US-31 for the endpoint.  That has to be adding 13-15 miles using M-231.

Did you even look at my endpoints?  Agnew is less than 1/2 mile south of M-45.  And Muskegon Heights is 2 miles down US-31  Bus from the endpoint of I-96.  Both routings - through Grand Haven or via M-231 - would use those 2 1/2 miles.

And why in the world would you use M-104 instead of I-96 going to points north?  It only gets you back to Spring Lake, and if there was a jam because the US-31 drawbridge was up, you'd be heading right back into that traffic.

That can't possibly be right.  Just by eyeballing a map you can tell it's much, much, much greater than a 2 and a half mile difference!  The shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line.  I used M-104 because that's exactly what people have to do when the bascule bridge gets stuck open and they need to get to the other side.  It's about 6 miles back to US-31 along M-104 and probably about 4 miles from US-31 to M-231.

[Flint1979]

It's almost 5 miles between US-31 and M-231 along M-45.

From M-231 to US-31 along M-104 it's 6 and a half miles.

I've got a direction that's less than 2 miles difference between Holland and Muskegon and takes exactly 1 minute longer.

Coming from Holland, take US-31 to New Holland Street, make a right, then a left onto 120th Avenue, following that to M-45 make a left and then a right onto M-231. Take M-231 to I-96 west to US-31 north to M-46 west. That is going into downtown Muskegon.

It's 38.9 miles taking my directions and 36.2 miles to stay on US-31 through Grand Haven.

[silverback1065]

Why does this bridge get stuck open? sounds like you should replace the bridge rather than build a whole new road just in case this bridge fails.

[Flint1979]

How much would it cost to just tunnel US-31 under the Grand River where the drawbridge is? That drawbridge has been a problem since I was a kid and I'm talking back to the 80's. It's probably too old to fix anyway just replace the stupid thing.

Ironically if you zoom in on the satellite view on GSV the drawbridge is in the up position letting a boat through.