Michigan Notes

[Terry Shea]

If you hate roundabouts do not and I repeat do not travel on Baldwin Road north of I-75, also don't get off at the Lee Road exit on US-23.

I'm not sure where either location is, but if I happen to exit onto one, I'll deal with it.

[Flint1979]

If you hate roundabouts do not and I repeat do not travel on Baldwin Road north of I-75, also don't get off at the Lee Road exit on US-23.

I'm not sure where either location is, but if I happen to exit onto one, I'll deal with it.

Exit 84 on I-75 and exit 58 on US-23.

[7/8]

Delivery trucks have to get in and out, but boulevard and the roundabout are way too dinky for a truck to properly navigate.  There are pedestrian crossings at each end of the unmerry-go-round, further complicating matters.  There's a sidewalk on the mall side of the circular disaster that suddenly ends for no apparent reason.  For a pedestrian heading north toward 28th St., the person would have to use the crosswalk and cross at the entrance/exit to the Pi Hole on Lake Eastbrook Blvd., use the crosswalk to cross Sparks Dr., and then use the crosswalk at the other end of the circle of insanity to continue using the sidewalk.  Brilliant planning!

The roundabout has a very wide truck apron and depressed splitter islands for larger trucks to drive over, so I don't see the issue there. However, I agree with you on the sidewalk. It's a poor design to force a pedestrian to have to cross three legs of the roundabout (six crosswalks) when a sidewalk on the west side would require zero crossings and a much shorter distance. There's a bit of a grade differential to the parking lot, but maybe a small retaining wall with a railing could've worked?

[afguy]

MDOT has launched a study of the U.S. 23 corridor in Ann Arbor between I-94 and M-14. While no concrete alternatives have been announced, I believe MDOT is leaning toward adding a third lane. This widening is totally overdue as this section of freeway always backs up during the morning and afternoon rush hour.

https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/projects-studies/studies/traffic-and-environmental-linkages-studies/us-23-improvement-project-study-ann-arbor

[JREwing78]

You just really, really hate roundabouts, don't you?

Of course I hate roundabouts!  Everyone I know hates roundabouts!  And I hate it when the government wastes money!

In other words:

"I hate it!" = "Government waste"

"I love it!" = "Sound fiscal management"

You might try reading and comprehending the rest of what I posted.

I did. You just say all the projects are wasteful, without looking at any data, besides the fact you hate roundabouts with a burning passion.

First off, I was responding to JREwing78, not to you.  I had no problem with what you had posted.  Now I do, because both you and JREwing78 appear to be deliberately misconstruing what I stated and/or deliberately editing my comments to remove context.  To be clear, yes, I generally hate roundabouts.  I used the closest roundabouts to where I live as examples of why I and probably 95% of the residents in this area hate them so much.  That's not to say that an unmerry-go-round that is properly designed and constructed can't work in certain locations and situations, but the whole concept is being used as a catch all.  They're building them where they are certainly not necessary, needed, wanted or make any sense.

Without doing the engineering studies and data collection involved to verify said roundabouts are "wasteful", I can only assume that the City of Grand Rapids, while relatively affluent, is not so flush with cash they can afford to build things like roundabouts out of sheer vanity.

There was absolutely no reason for that Pfeiffer Woods Dr. roundabout to be built, and there was absolutely no reason to waste money to narrow Lake Eastbrook Blvd from 4 lanes to 3 and then to waste more money to narrow it again from 3 lanes to 2 extremely narrow lanes, and put a dinky, narrow tight turned roundabout with entrance and exit points right on top of each other.  All they've done is to waste an awful lot of money making the entire drive and/or walk much more unsafe.

Other than re-striping, what did it cost the City (of Grand Rapids) to convert a 4-lane to a 3-lane road? It doesn't appear (from the 2007 Google Street View) that they removed/replaced curbs and gutters to do it. A 4-lane to 3-lane conversion in most cases doesn't cause congestion and prevents turning traffic from  being rear-ended.

For this last redo, the 2 "extremely narrow" lanes and roundabout and the raised median have a purpose - to get drivers to slow the f*** down! Notice also that they incorporated somewhere for people to walk, which wasn't there before. And I bet you it's no more congested (or not congested, by the Street View imagery), than it was before the change. Also note the 15+ years that elapsed (and the horrid roadway condition before the last redo) between these changes. The road surface was clearly used up.

It's only a "waste of money" if you can objectively show people how it's a waste. Otherwise, "That's just like, your opinion, man!"

[JREwing78]

MDOT has launched a study of the U.S. 23 corridor in Ann Arbor between I-94 and M-14. While no concrete alternatives have been announced, I believe MDOT is leaning toward adding a third lane. This widening is totally overdue as this section of freeway always backs up during the morning and afternoon rush hour.

https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/projects-studies/studies/traffic-and-environmental-linkages-studies/us-23-improvement-project-study-ann-arbor

Given its age and general condition, it's ripe for a ground-up rebuild. I would also assume, given how the I-94 widening in Jackson and Kalamazoo was handled, that it will gain a third travel lane in each direction. If MDOT was smart, they would also have a C/D lane between each exit.

Washtenaw Ave would be a good candidate for a diverging-diamond interchange or a SPUI. The diverging-diamond tends to be cheaper to build and clearer to navigate (once people understand why they're being directed to the left side), so it will likely win.

There's unlikely to be much of a change at Geddes Rd besides replacing the bridge with a taller and longer one to fit additional lanes.

Plymouth Rd is a good diverging-diamond candidate. They would need to relocate the Park & Ride, but there's room in the NE quadrant of the interchange for it, or two smaller ones in the NE and SW quadrants.

[jOnstar1979]

If you hate roundabouts do not and I repeat do not travel on Baldwin Road north of I-75, also don't get off at the Lee Road exit on US-23.

I agree with you all the way on the Lee Road Mess off US-23. I have been very close to getting hit there many times. I know this will never happen, but I wish they would remove the roundabout on Van Dyke and 18 Mile and rework the whole connection to M-53. In my opinion, that roundabout has never been safe!

[Flint1979]

MDOT needs to add a third lane to more than just that stretch of US-23. The flex lanes are stupid because they are only used during certain times of the day it should be at least three lanes in each direction through north of Ann Arbor.

[JREwing78]

MDOT needs to add a third lane to more than just that stretch of US-23. The flex lanes are stupid because they are only used during certain times of the day it should be at least three lanes in each direction through north of Ann Arbor.

I'll be curious to see if the Democratic-majorirty legislature actually has the balls to implement a substantive fuel tax increase (and some kind of pay-per-mile on electric vehicles). Frankly, that's the only way MDOT's coffers are going to be funded sufficiently to widen the I-94, I-96, US-131, and US-23 corridors anywhere traffic counts warrant the widening.

So, far, the "Fix the Damn Roads" shtick seems to strictly mean "Fix", not "Widen", with limited exceptions for areas getting a ground-up roadway rebuild (I-94 in Kalamazoo, I-94 in Jackson, I-75 in Oakland County, etc).

[CoolAngrybirdsrio4]

MDOT has launched a study of the U.S. 23 corridor in Ann Arbor between I-94 and M-14. While no concrete alternatives have been announced, I believe MDOT is leaning toward adding a third lane. This widening is totally overdue as this section of freeway always backs up during the morning and afternoon rush hour.

https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/projects-studies/studies/traffic-and-environmental-linkages-studies/us-23-improvement-project-study-ann-arbor

Traffic during rush hour is pretty bad around Ann Arbor. Even prior the afternoon rush it gets jammed up there.

[Terry Shea]

You just really, really hate roundabouts, don't you?

Of course I hate roundabouts!  Everyone I know hates roundabouts!  And I hate it when the government wastes money!

In other words:

"I hate it!" = "Government waste"

"I love it!" = "Sound fiscal management"

You might try reading and comprehending the rest of what I posted.

I did. You just say all the projects are wasteful, without looking at any data, besides the fact you hate roundabouts with a burning passion.

First off, I was responding to JREwing78, not to you.  I had no problem with what you had posted.  Now I do, because both you and JREwing78 appear to be deliberately misconstruing what I stated and/or deliberately editing my comments to remove context.  To be clear, yes, I generally hate roundabouts.  I used the closest roundabouts to where I live as examples of why I and probably 95% of the residents in this area hate them so much.  That's not to say that an unmerry-go-round that is properly designed and constructed can't work in certain locations and situations, but the whole concept is being used as a catch all.  They're building them where they are certainly not necessary, needed, wanted or make any sense.

Without doing the engineering studies and data collection involved to verify said roundabouts are "wasteful", I can only assume that the City of Grand Rapids, while relatively affluent, is not so flush with cash they can afford to build things like roundabouts out of sheer vanity.

There was absolutely no reason for that Pfeiffer Woods Dr. roundabout to be built, and there was absolutely no reason to waste money to narrow Lake Eastbrook Blvd from 4 lanes to 3 and then to waste more money to narrow it again from 3 lanes to 2 extremely narrow lanes, and put a dinky, narrow tight turned roundabout with entrance and exit points right on top of each other.  All they've done is to waste an awful lot of money making the entire drive and/or walk much more unsafe.

Other than re-striping, what did it cost the City (of Grand Rapids) to convert a 4-lane to a 3-lane road? It doesn't appear (from the 2007 Google Street View) that they removed/replaced curbs and gutters to do it. A 4-lane to 3-lane conversion in most cases doesn't cause congestion and prevents turning traffic from  being rear-ended.

For this last redo, the 2 "extremely narrow" lanes and roundabout and the raised median have a purpose - to get drivers to slow the f*** down! Notice also that they incorporated somewhere for people to walk, which wasn't there before. And I bet you it's no more congested (or not congested, by the Street View imagery), than it was before the change. Also note the 15+ years that elapsed (and the horrid roadway condition before the last redo) between these changes. The road surface was clearly used up.

It's only a "waste of money" if you can objectively show people how it's a waste. Otherwise, "That's just like, your opinion, man!"

Actually, there were sidewalks before the recent construction.  And the 3-lane configuration also had bike paths which are now gone, adding to the safety issues.  And it was impossible to speed through there because the pavement was the absolute worst in the state, which is saying a lot!  I had to go to the Secretary of State office in the mall there last week, and pulling out onto Lake Eastbrook Blvd just north of the roundabout in an Encore was no picnic.  I'm glad they finally did something about the pavement issues, but everything else they did simply made everything less safe.  And although I don't have a breakdown on the construction figures, I'm sure the work was rather costly.  And no, I do not believe that the City of Grand Rapids is affluent or relatively affluent by any stretch of the imagination.  And yes, in my opinion, everything but the repaving was an unnecessary waste of money, making the stretch of roadway far less safe.  Yes, that is my opinion.  And that shouldn't be a problem because this is a forum for expressing opinions.   

[Terry Shea]

If you hate roundabouts do not and I repeat do not travel on Baldwin Road north of I-75, also don't get off at the Lee Road exit on US-23.

I agree with you all the way on the Lee Road Mess off US-23. I have been very close to getting hit there many times. I know this will never happen, but I wish they would remove the roundabout on Van Dyke and 18 Mile and rework the whole connection to M-53. In my opinion, that roundabout has never been safe!

I've never been through that one, but I believe there is one at the end of the exit ramp from Van Dyke to 26 Mile that had me afraid to pull out.  Traffic was just flying through there!

[sprjus4]

Actually, there were sidewalks before the recent construction.

Where exactly?

And the 3-lane configuration also had bike paths which are now gone, adding to the safety issues.

They removed the bike lanes that were shared with the travel lane, and constructed a new multi-use path that is separated by a curb and grass buffer... how exactly did this "add to safety issues?"  

I had to go to the Secretary of State office in the mall there last week, and pulling out onto Lake Eastbrook Blvd just north of the roundabout in an Encore was no picnic.

Where exactly is the issue? Having to exit, and do a U-turn at the roundabout? Having to use another exit? Roundabouts are fairly easy to navigate.

I'm glad they finally did something about the pavement issues, but everything else they did simply made everything less safe.

You still have yet to provide evidence of where they diminished safety. They added a raised median controlling access and removing several left turning conflict points, and eliminated a three-way stop, replacing it with a roundabout with less conflict points. They barrier separated bike lanes (via a curb / gutter and grass buffer) and relocated them onto a new shared used / multi-use path and eliminated conflicts between cars and bicycles.

Where in this have they diminished safety?

And although I don't have a breakdown on the construction figures, I'm sure the work was rather costly.

So... you're assuming it was costly. There's no actual figure to back up that it was costly. What other aspects were involved? I did a little Googling and found that they replaced a water main on that stretch of roadway that required tearing it up. Considering the road was fully reconstructed then, how much more cost would those safety and operational improvements really have added?

everything but the repaving was an unnecessary waste of money

Replacing a water main was a waste of money? Tearing the roadway up and fully reconstructing it - as opposed to a simple resurfacing that would just crumble in 5 years from a base that is faulty - was a waste?

making the stretch of roadway far less safe.

How?

Yes, that is my opinion.  And that shouldn't be a problem because this is a forum for expressing opinions.

No one is saying it's a problem. But at the same time, this is a forum, where critical questions can be asked as well about said opinions.

[Henry]

Just wondering, any updates from Detroitland regarding the I-375 boulevard project? It's been several months since this development broke:

$105 million dollar grand awarded for this project:

"On Sept. 15, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg and local Detroit leaders announced that Michigan won a $105 million competitive federal grant to fund the I-375 modernization project in Detroit. The project will replace the outdated I-375 freeway with an accessible boulevard, spurring economic development and linking adjacent areas of Detroit."

- https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/officials-celebrate-michigan-winning-105m-for-historic-i-375/58052

PS, any way we can get a name change to something more relevant?

[sprjus4]

To supplement any forthcoming answers, there is March 2023 Street View available along I-375.

[wanderer2575]

Just wondering, any updates from Detroitland regarding the I-375 boulevard project? It's been several months since this development broke:

$105 million dollar grand awarded for this project:

"On Sept. 15, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg and local Detroit leaders announced that Michigan won a $105 million competitive federal grant to fund the I-375 modernization project in Detroit. The project will replace the outdated I-375 freeway with an accessible boulevard, spurring economic development and linking adjacent areas of Detroit."

- https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/officials-celebrate-michigan-winning-105m-for-historic-i-375/58052

PS, any way we can get a name change to something more relevant?

Coincidental to your asking, MDOT had an open house presentation last night that unfortunately I was not able to attend.  Here are a few excerpts from the Detroit Free Press article today (paywalled):

I-375 project in Detroit could mean big changes -- but some wonder who will benefit
Eric D. Lawrence, Detroit Free Press

...  Lewis, who, along with a couple of hundred other interested people, attended a Michigan Department of Transportation open house Wednesday, doesn't necessarily envision a Walmart in the area, but he does see possibilities for what he described as upgrading the city.  Count him as a fan of this project, now estimated to cost about $360 million, that epitomizes efforts to reimagine the kinds of highway building and affiliated "urban renewal"  efforts in the last century blamed for targeting many minority and immigrant neighborhoods around the country.

"I don't like the idea. I love the idea," Lewis said, noting that I-375 should never have been built.

That sentiment reflects the idea expressed by numerous officials and others in recent years, including U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, that racism influenced where many U.S. highways were sited.  Buttigieg, notably, announced a nearly $105 million grant for the I-375 project in September during a stop in Detroit, where Mayor Mike Duggan said he'd been advocating for years "to fill in this ditch and knit this city back together."

Turning I-375 into a street-level boulevard wouldn't recreate what was lost when Black Bottom, Paradise Valley and most of Hastings Street were removed or replaced, but a number of those at the open house said they hope the project will provide some benefits to the community, although they also worry the benefits could disproportionately benefit wealthy landowners in the city and want to prevent that from happening.

...  Although the final design isn't complete, the "selected alternative" envisions six lanes for much of the route stretching south from I-75 to Atwater Street but adding cycling and pedestrian infrastructure.  Project manager Jon Loree said design should be completed in 2025, with major construction possible from 2026 to 2028 although work could start in late 2025.  Three years of construction is the worst-case scenario, he said, but noted that unlike some other major projects that closed to traffic to allow for a shorter construction period, vehicle access will be maintained throughout the process for this effort.

...  Hill said she has concerns, including that Black-owned businesses will get pushed out, an echo of the destruction that accompanied the end of Hastings Street as a key commercial corridor for Detroit's Black community in preparation for the new highway and service drives decades ago.

...  Harris said he feels the boulevard will be an improvement but he acknowledged that the new boulevard will still be a large roadway.  "I do think that's too many lanes.  It still feels very wide," he said, echoing comments from others who have questioned how such a wide boulevard would actually reconnect the city.

Although numerous people at the open house said they support changing I-375 to a boulevard, not everyone is necessarily a fan.

...  Joe Smith, 53, who has lived in Lafayette Park since 2013 and downtown since 2009, said I-375 has divided downtown and the Lafayette Park area beautifully, providing a barrier that has protected a tree-lined section of the city.  "It exists because I-375 is our moat," he said.

Smith said he loves that the current project has gotten people talking about the history of the area, specifically what happened to Black Bottom, which wasn't widely recognized, especially in the suburbs, but he's skeptical about how that discussion has been used as justification for this project.  Repairing the damage can only happen with free land, Smith said, but he sees it becoming a development opportunity that a billionaire might snap up.

"What they did here, how are you going to fix that?" Smith said, referencing the people who were displaced to build I-375 and Lafayette Park.

Here is the current project website, which includes a link to yesterday's presentation:  https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/projects-studies/special-construction/i-375-project

If you watch the concept video at the bottom of that website, you'll see it shows exit signs with "M-XX" shields for the new boulevard, which suggests it will be a numbered state trunkline.

[The Ghostbuster]

I personally wouldn't tear down 375. I would rebuild it as a freeway and build decks over the existing freeway. I don't think the 375 downgrade will be the boon everyone says it will be.

[bessertc]

Just wondering, any updates from Detroitland regarding the I-375 boulevard project? It's been several months since this development broke:

$105 million dollar grand awarded for this project:

"On Sept. 15, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg and local Detroit leaders announced that Michigan won a $105 million competitive federal grant to fund the I-375 modernization project in Detroit. The project will replace the outdated I-375 freeway with an accessible boulevard, spurring economic development and linking adjacent areas of Detroit."

- https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/officials-celebrate-michigan-winning-105m-for-historic-i-375/58052

PS, any way we can get a name change to something more relevant?

Just wondering... a "name change" for what? The project name ("I-375 Reconnecting Communities Project")? What it's often referred to as ("I-375 modernization project")? The name of the facility (Walter P Chrysler Freeway)? Something else?

Coincidental to your asking, MDOT had an open house presentation last night that unfortunately I was not able to attend.  Here are a few excerpts from the Detroit Free Press article today (paywalled):

<snip>

Here is the current project website, which includes a link to yesterday's presentation:  https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/projects-studies/special-construction/i-375-project

If you watch the concept video at the bottom of that website, you'll see it shows exit signs with "M-XX" shields for the new boulevard, which suggests it will be a numbered state trunkline.

Yes, MDOT has stated in the past what is now I-375 will remain a state trunkline route, as Jefferson east of Woodward Ave has long been unsigned BS I-375 and it, too, is remaining a state trunkline as well. I haven't heard any definites on the route designation, but, as I noted when I updated my I-375 route listing on the Michigan Highways website, it will likely be M-375. I also postulated they could call it M-175 or even BS I-75, but I doubt it. I also doubt they'd extend the M-10 designation along Jefferson from Woodward east, then north along the new boulevard, since that would create two M-10 & I-75 junctions, which would be quite confusing to out-of-towners and especially create havoc for 9-1-1 emergency response.

Also on the Michigan Highways website related to I-375:

• I-375 Route Map
• Downtown Detroit Trunklines Map (PDF)
• BS I-375 Route Listing

I've also updated the I-375 route listing with the $360 million figure–it had previously been $270 million–which is a far cry from the originally-anticipated $80 million cost when this all first started. I've also added a link to the new version of the project website (the archived old site is also there). I should probably move the I-375 route listing to its own page soon, as I've been in the process of doing with the rest of the route listings on the site... for the past decade.

[afguy]

New interchange planned for U.S. 131, but project is on hold for funding

A project to add two interchange ramps at U.S. 131 and the U.S. 131 Business Route north of Kalamazoo is in the works, but there is no timeline for when it might be built, Michigan Department of Transportation spokesperson Nick Schirripa said.

There are currently two ramps at the interchange — one that allow business route drivers to get on U.S. 131 northbound, and one that lets U.S. 131 southbound drivers get on the business route. This potential project would add two more ramps — from northbound U.S. 131 onto the business route and from the business route onto to southbound U.S. 131 (as shown in orange on the map, above).

Local municipalities, including Oshtemo and Kalamazoo townships, have asked for the extra connection, so MDOT has designed the project. But it will sit on the shelf until there's funding, Schirripa said.

A main reason the project is requested is because it would offer more access from U.S. 131 to and from downtown from places other than West Main Street and Stadium Drive, Schirripa said

https://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/2023/04/new-interchange-planned-for-us-131-but-project-is-on-hold-for-funding.html#:~:text=KALAMAZOO%2C%20MI%20%E2%80%93%20A%20new%20interchange,Transportation%20spokesperson%20Nick%20Schirripa%20said.

[bessertc]

New interchange planned for U.S. 131, but project is on hold for funding

A project to add two interchange ramps at U.S. 131 and the U.S. 131 Business Route north of Kalamazoo is in the works, but there is no timeline for when it might be built, Michigan Department of Transportation spokesperson Nick Schirripa said.

There are currently two ramps at the interchange — one that allow business route drivers to get on U.S. 131 northbound, and one that lets U.S. 131 southbound drivers get on the business route. This potential project would add two more ramps — from northbound U.S. 131 onto the business route and from the business route onto to southbound U.S. 131 (as shown in orange on the map, above).

Local municipalities, including Oshtemo and Kalamazoo townships, have asked for the extra connection, so MDOT has designed the project. But it will sit on the shelf until there's funding, Schirripa said.

A main reason the project is requested is because it would offer more access from U.S. 131 to and from downtown from places other than West Main Street and Stadium Drive, Schirripa said

https://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/2023/04/new-interchange-planned-for-us-131-but-project-is-on-hold-for-funding.html#:~:text=KALAMAZOO%2C%20MI%20%E2%80%93%20A%20new%20interchange,Transportation%20spokesperson%20Nick%20Schirripa%20said.

Well, that's definitely a much more scaled-down version of what had originally been planned, which was a quasi-complete interchange at G Avenue–"quasi" in that all movements to and from mainline US-131 and G Ave were going to be offered with the exception of the nbd off-ramp to G Ave would have only been accessible from BUS US-131 coming out of Kalamazoo. This ramp would have been what facilitated the movements from nbd BUS US-131 to sbd US-131, via the new G Ave overpass to the sbd US-131 on-ramp from G Ave. Of the originally-proposed interchange plans, I liked this one the best, personally, since every time I go into the office, I use this interchange twice–once in each direction. Some of the other plans had the BUS US-131 freeway being narrowed down into a two-lane roadway that would have overpassed US-131 and continued westerly onto G Ave (with all ramps available). Yes, I'm being somewhat selfish in that I like my full-freeway-speed ramps onto and off of BUS US-131 right now and I didn't want to have to slow to 55 or 45 mph and have to make 90º turns and deal with stop signs or traffic lights. Hey, what can I say... sometimes I do think of myself, too! 

Here's what I had in the Kalamazoo County GIS database until I just updated it a few minutes ago to what MDOT had on their map in the newspaper. You can see how much the plan differs, as I've georeferenced the new map into our system (that's the darker aerial image with the two lighter, thinner orange lines. The originally-proposed ramps from my system are the slightly darker and thicker orange lines. (One good thing about this new version is that the currently-undeveloped Kalamazoo Nature Center property on the southwest quadrant of the originally-proposed interchange won't be carved into by the realigned 10th St.)

[The Ghostbuster]

Wasn't Business 131 (along with most of Business 94, and MI-43 through town) decommissioned within Kalamazoo save for the freeway spur in 2019? Google Maps still shows Business 131 starting and ending at W. Kalamazoo Ave., when it really starts and ends at W. Dunkley St.

[JREwing78]

Wasn't Business 131 (along with most of Business 94, and MI-43 through town) decommissioned within Kalamazoo save for the freeway spur in 2019? Google Maps still shows Business 131 starting and ending at W. Kalamazoo Ave., when it really starts and ends at W. Dunkley St.

According to the current MDOT map (@BessertC would have better info):
https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/-/media/Project/Websites/MDOT/Travel/Map/State-Map/State-Map-Full.pdf?rev=8870c04507b84311b33042f77a31d953&hash=1AF678CD32B4FADA4E9BF40A738ADE6C
- BR US-131 still officially exists from the US-131 interchange along the freeway spur to Westnedge Ave, but does not enter the City of Kalamazoo
- M-43 is multiplexed with M-89 west to US-131, then with US-131 south to the existing M-43/Main St interchange (exit 38). M-43 is not designated east of US-131 at exit 38 along Main St.
- A new designation, M-343, exists on Gull Rd (former M-43) northeast to M-89 in Richland.
- M-96 and Bus. I-94 terminate at their intersection (King Hwy @ AmVet Memorial Hwy) just inside Kalamazoo city limits

[bessertc]

Wasn't Business 131 (along with most of Business 94, and MI-43 through town) decommissioned within Kalamazoo save for the freeway spur in 2019? Google Maps still shows Business 131 starting and ending at W. Kalamazoo Ave., when it really starts and ends at W. Dunkley St.

According to the current MDOT map (@BessertC would have better info):
https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/-/media/Project/Websites/MDOT/Travel/Map/State-Map/State-Map-Full.pdf?rev=8870c04507b84311b33042f77a31d953&hash=1AF678CD32B4FADA4E9BF40A738ADE6C
- BR US-131 still officially exists from the US-131 interchange along the freeway spur to Westnedge Ave, but does not enter the City of Kalamazoo
- M-43 is multiplexed with M-89 west to US-131, then with US-131 south to the existing M-43/Main St interchange (exit 38). M-43 is not designated east of US-131 at exit 38 along Main St.
- A new designation, M-343, exists on Gull Rd (former M-43) northeast to M-89 in Richland.
- M-96 and Bus. I-94 terminate at their intersection (King Hwy @ AmVet Memorial Hwy) just inside Kalamazoo city limits

Ask and ye shall receive.

Yes. The freeway spur (and the small segment of limited-access "expressway" from the end of the freeway at N Westnedge Ave southerly to the city limit) is still a trunkline route designated as BUS US-131. While MDOT likes to claim BS I-94 (Business SPUR I-94) terminates along with M-96 at the corner of King Hwy & the Amvets Memorial Pkwy–which matches what an MDOT Regional Engineer said to me first-hand back in 2019–but they ended up signing BS I-94 along King Hwy from Amvets Memorial Pkwy west and northwest to the end of the trunkline at Mills St. So, while internal MDOT GIS databases state the portion of BS I-94 from M-96 to Mills St is an "unsigned state trunkline," it's actually signed–hence the way I depict it on my website. OLD M-43 is unsigned along W Main St from Douglas St west to US-131 and OLD BL I-94(/BUS US-131) is similarly unsigned along Stadium Dr from Rambling Rd west to US-131. However, oddly enough, MDOT failed to remove the BL I-94 route markers from the concurrent stretch along US-131 between Stadium Dr and I-94, however I consider that an MDOT error and not a sign that the Business LOOP is still designated along that stretch. MDOT internal data similarly supports this conclusion.

You can see the current limits of the various routes from this map I created of the Greater Kalamazoo area (on this map, dark magenta highways are the unsigned trunkline routes):


Additionally, as you can read on my M-343 Route Listing on how MDOT considers M-343 and M-89 to run concurrently from downtown Richland northerly to the jct with M-43 north of Richland, while signage clearly states M-343 "ENDS" in downtown Richland at jct M-89. Yet another disagreement between MDOT's GIS and mapping folks and MDOT's route-signing folks. (Makes for some fun when trying to maintain a comprehensive website about Michigan's Highway system... eh? )

[JREwing78]

I'm going to guess there's no forthcoming plans to create an interchange (partial or otherwise) at Ravine Rd or Nichols Rd from Bus US-131, which would help justify the new US-131 ramps.

Douglas Ave is a ways to backtrack from G Ave or Drake Rd to hit US-131 - those folks would probably still be better off hopping on at Main St. or D Ave. There's no ROW reserved for such a connection; Kalamazoo Twp is going to have to take several homes to make an additional interchange from Bus US-131 happen. Can it make up for it in additional development? Who knows...

I also don't see where Oshtemo Twp gains anything from these ramps. An exit at G Ave or GH Ave would be far more useful than these ramps.

It's also telling that MDOT isn't jumping up and down to build it. Back prior to the development along the Bus US-131 ROW, when an exit to Nichols Rd would've been cheap to build, I could see the usefulness of the additional ramps. But now? I don't see the point.

[bessertc]

I'm going to guess there's no forthcoming plans to create an interchange (partial or otherwise) at Ravine Rd or Nichols Rd from Bus US-131, which would help justify the new US-131 ramps.

Douglas Ave is a ways to backtrack from G Ave or Drake Rd to hit US-131 - those folks would probably still be better off hopping on at Main St. or D Ave. There's no ROW reserved for such a connection; Kalamazoo Twp is going to have to take several homes to make an additional interchange from Bus US-131 happen. Can it make up for it in additional development? Who knows...

I also don't see where Oshtemo Twp gains anything from these ramps. An exit at G Ave or GH Ave would be far more useful than these ramps.

It's also telling that MDOT isn't jumping up and down to build it. Back prior to the development along the Bus US-131 ROW, when an exit to Nichols Rd would've been cheap to build, I could see the usefulness of the additional ramps. But now? I don't see the point.

Well, this is where some of the alternate plans, including the planned interchange we had in our system at the County until this morning, would've been helpful. If there was a quasi-full interchange with G Ave, you would've had your connection with Ravine Rd, 12th St and Drake Rd. That's why I was pulling for that version versus just completing the interchange with the two ramps they seem to be wanting to put in at this point. MDOT recently put traffic lights at both off-ramp terminals at D Ave, in part due to the increased truck traffic because of the new Loves truckstop, but also because there's so much traffic getting on and off at that interchange. It's becoming like the same issue as the Milford Rd exit on I-96 in western Oakland County.

With the article didn't report on and what MDOT failed to mention, for some odd reason, is that MDOT continues to state to local governments in the area that if they come up with all or most of the funding for the interchange, MDOT will construct it. Now. What's also being lost is there are several major industrial developments on the north side of Kalamazoo that are drastically increasing their truck shipments, which is part of the reason all of the local governments and the County are on board with completing this interchange. And when MDOT states the traffic volumes aren't there, that's due, in part, to the fact that many people can't use this route because the ramps aren't there! It's a Catch 22. When you complete the interchange, traffic volumes along that freeway spur will absolutely increase! The major industry on the north side has already stated they would be happy to redirect their trucks out of downtown Kalamazoo if there was a complete interchange there. It's puzzling to hear MDOT using this type of reasoning.