Michigan Notes

[dpatrickallen]

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 The project will replace the outdated I-375 freeway with an accessible boulevard, spurring economic development and linking adjacent areas of Detroit."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.

It is my understanding that the intent is to sign the boulevard replacing I-375 as an M route, but to the best of my knowledge, no M route number has been assigned at this time.  (For context, I am someone who is involved in route numbering at MDOT.)

[dpatrickallen]

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? )

I can confirm that in 2019, MDOT submitted applications to the AASHTO Route Numbering Committee, and the applications were approved (originally conditionally approved and then MDOT supplied the additional information requested for approval).

The first application was for the partial elimination of I-94BL in Kalamazoo from I-94 at the west end to M-96, leaving a business spur (I-94BS).  So, M-96 is the current AASHTO-approved west terminus.  Here is the specific language from the application to AASHTO:

"I-94 Business Loop in Kalamazoo, MI, is being shortened (not entirely eliminated, but shortening of a route is not an available choice on the application), and the route will now be I-94 Business Spur. The current business route between I-94 (west junction) and Kings Highway (M-96) is being eliminated (the signs are being removed) because a portion of the business route was turned back to local jurisdiction in January 2019. The business route will be resigned as I-94 Business Spur (vs. Loop) between Kings Highway (M-96) and I-94 (east junction). "

The second was for the partial elimination of US-131BR in Kalamazoo from US-131 at the south end to Dunkley St, leaving US-131BR as a spur.  Here is the specific language from the application to AASHTO:

"Business US 131 in Kalamazoo, MI, is being shortened (not entirely eliminated, but shortening of a route is not an available choice on the application). The current business route between US 131 (south junction) and Dunkley Street is being eliminated (the signs are being removed) because a portion of the business route was turned back to local jurisdiction in January 2019. This business route will remain signed between Dunkley Street and US-131 (north junction)."

I cannot speak to the current state of the signing in the field for these routes, that is outside my direct influence here at MDOT, but the above are the current AASHTO-approved limits for the business routes - for what that is worth.

[JoePCool14]

It is my understanding that the intent is to sign the boulevard replacing I-375 as an M route, but to the best of my knowledge, no M route number has been assigned at this time.  (For context, I am someone who is involved in route numbering at MDOT.)

Are there suggestions to simply switching it to M-375? I feel like that's not going to happen, but the idea has surely come up, right?

[The Ghostbuster]

Maybe they could extend M-10 east along unsigned BS 375, and then northward along the new boulevard back up to Interstate 75. The idea is likely crazy, since it could cause confusion, but if they don't number the new boulevard something like M-375, that could be one alternative.

[bessertc]

It is my understanding that the intent is to sign the boulevard replacing I-375 as an M route, but to the best of my knowledge, no M route number has been assigned at this time.  (For context, I am someone who is involved in route numbering at MDOT.)

Are there suggestions to simply switching it to M-375? I feel like that's not going to happen, but the idea has surely come up, right?

If I was a betting man (not to say that I'm not, TBH!), I'd say there's a good chance it will be M-375. It would retain the "375" number that people have known for 59 years, I can't see MDOT using a completely new, unrelated number (e.g. M-16 or M-7, etc.), and even with today's jurisdictional transfer of the portion of M-3 along Randolph St, and I really can't see MDOT removing the M-3 designation off Gratiot west of "375" so they could route it southerly on only a portion of the new boulevard (leaving the portion north of Gratiot to I-75 unnumbered), then westerly along Jefferson to M-10 at Randolph St. That would be quite a convoluted route (as long as we ignore BL I-94 in downtown Battle Creek or BL I-94 in southwestern Battle Creek or M-43 in the Greater Kalamazoo area... I should stop.). So, as I noted in a previous comment as well as on my I-375 route listing on my website, I have a good feeling it'll be M-375.

[bessertc]

Maybe they could extend M-10 east along unsigned BS 375, and then northward along the new boulevard back up to Interstate 75. The idea is likely crazy, since it could cause confusion, but if they don't number the new boulevard something like M-375, that could be one alternative.

As I noted on Friday:

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.

[bessertc]

I was informed (thanks P.A.!) that, effective today, the 0.396 mile segment of M-3 in downtown Detroit along Randolph St from Jefferson Ave (M-10 and BS I-375) northerly six blocks to Gratiot Ave has been transferred to the City of Detroit. M-3 now begins at the corner of Gratiot Ave & Randolph St and creates the fifth "spur" trunkline route in downtown Detroit that begins at a random city street instead of another trunkline or natural feature. The transfer agreement, as noted on my site, includes more than $7.6 million in project funding from MDOT to the City of Detroit to reconstruct Randolph St between Jefferson and Gratiot. I've included a modified version of my Downtown Detroit Trunklines map showing the transferred section below and I've changed the following pages on the Michigan Highways website to reflect today's transfer:

• M-3 route listing
• Downtown Detroit Trunklines Map (PDF)
• M-10 route listing
• BS I-375 route listing
• BS I-375 route map

[dpatrickallen]

It is my understanding that the intent is to sign the boulevard replacing I-375 as an M route, but to the best of my knowledge, no M route number has been assigned at this time.  (For context, I am someone who is involved in route numbering at MDOT.)

Are there suggestions to simply switching it to M-375? I feel like that's not going to happen, but the idea has surely come up, right?

I can confirm that the MDOT Metro Region is aware that M-375 is available, but it is my understanding that no decision has yet been made.  They will probably coordinate with Detroit and others on the final selection.

[thenetwork]

Could always bring back M-2 from the grave (briefly used in the 70s for Schoolcraft Road prior to the completion of I-96 through Livonia).  Then downtown Detroit would have M-1, M-2 and M-3 within the area -- a nice numeric trio.

[JoePCool14]

It is my understanding that the intent is to sign the boulevard replacing I-375 as an M route, but to the best of my knowledge, no M route number has been assigned at this time.  (For context, I am someone who is involved in route numbering at MDOT.)

Are there suggestions to simply switching it to M-375? I feel like that's not going to happen, but the idea has surely come up, right?

I can confirm that the MDOT Metro Region is aware that M-375 is available, but it is my understanding that no decision has yet been made.  They will probably coordinate with Detroit and others on the final selection.

Sounds good. Personally, I'd vouch for it for the sake of consistency. But I can see someone pulling strings, outside of your control, who would want to remove that number entirely and do something completely new. Appreciate the insights!

[Flint1979]

I would hope they don't sign it any number. MDOT would be smart to turn control over to the city.

[wanderer2575]

I was informed (thanks P.A.!) that, effective today, the 0.396 mile segment of M-3 in downtown Detroit along Randolph St from Jefferson Ave (M-10 and BS I-375) northerly six blocks to Gratiot Ave has been transferred to the City of Detroit. M-3 now begins at the corner of Gratiot Ave & Randolph St and creates the fifth "spur" trunkline route in downtown Detroit that begins at a random city street instead of another trunkline or natural feature. The transfer agreement, as noted on my site, includes more than $7.6 million in project funding from MDOT to the City of Detroit to reconstruct Randolph St between Jefferson and Gratiot. I've included a modified version of my Downtown Detroit Trunklines map showing the transferred section below and I've changed the following pages on the Michigan Highways website to reflect today's transfer:

• M-3 route listing
• Downtown Detroit Trunklines Map (PDF)
• M-10 route listing
• BS I-375 route listing
• BS I-375 route map

On the plus side:  Since the southbound M-3 ENDS signage has been missing for years, and M-3 has never been signed from Jefferson Avenue, I think MDOT/Wayne County/Detroit need do nothing to reflect this turnback.

I also reiterate the pathetic signing of these spur trunklines.  The termini of US-12, M-10, and now M-3 are unsigned, and very little trailblazer signage for any of the routes on Chris' map exists anywhere on surface streets downtown (save for the TO M-1 trailblazer on the eastbound I-75 service drive that incorrectly directs such traffic south/east on M-5).  If MDOT has contracted for Wayne County to maintain signage, they are paying to receive nothing.

[Flint1979]

MDOT has done a poor job of signage in downtown Detroit for years. Remember US-10 signs still being present up until about 15 years ago? US-10 had been scaled back to end at I-75 in Bay City in the 1980s.

[bessertc]

MDOT has done a poor job of signage in downtown Detroit for years. Remember US-10 signs still being present up until about 15 years ago? US-10 had been scaled back to end at I-75 in Bay City in the 1980s.

I believe most of the old Detroit US-10 signs were from when the City of Detroit maintained the city's surface trunklines for many years under contract with MDOT. IIRC, the state took back over direct maintenance of its Detroit trunklines during the whole Detroit Budget Crisis situation and signage (and maintenance, snow plowing, traffic signal quality, etc) improved GREATLY.

Another problem is, generally, Michigan's trunkline signage is pretty stellar. Not perfect, of course, but I've been to many states and provinces in North America and Michigan is one of the best in terms of trunkline signage in general and route marker signage in particular. So, those "less-than-stellar" situations (e.g. downtown Detroit and the new termini of other recent jurisdictional transfers, like BS I-94 Kalamazoo, BUS US-131 Kalamazoo, M-343 Kalamazoo, BS/BL I-196 Wyoming, etc.) become more obvious than they otherwise would be. In some jurisdictions I've been to, even basic signage indicating route turns can be missing, let alone signing route termini.

[JREwing78]

Without the I-375 heritage, one could argue it would be an excellent Business Loop/Spur for I-75. But not sure that would be any clearer for anyone.

There's also precedent for a special route designation, the Capitol Loop in Lansing being one example.

[skluth]

I would hope they don't sign it any number. MDOT would be smart to turn control over to the city.

That would be my preferred solution too. No point in assigning a state highway number to what is essentially a city street.

[JREwing78]

MDOT begins adding more Flex to US-23 by extending the "Flex Lanes" section north to I-96.
https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/news-outreach/pressreleases/2023/04/27/us-23-flex-project-to-begin-in-livingston-county-on-friday-with-lane-closures
https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/-/media/Project/Websites/MDOT/Projects-Studies/US-Route/US-23-Flex/Phase-Two-Final-Alternatives-Analysis-Report.pdf?rev=cd8df06a872346c38890747daffd2aaf&hash=888FDE0DCA88CEC8303440E1508BCD06

The median width on this section is about 20' wider than the section south of 8 Mile. In theory, there's enough space to go with full-width lanes and inside shoulders without having to replace any overpasses crossing US-23 (except the CSX railroad), but for continuity with the southern Flex Lanes section and cost reasons it makes more sense to add the 3rd set of lanes as temporary lanes. It also appears from the study plans that MDOT is getting a design exception for the shoulder widths under the CSX railroad bridge, which narrow to as little as 5'9" northbound and 7' southbound.

[JREwing78]

US-131 rebuilding in Kalamazoo County starts Monday
https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/news-outreach/pressreleases/2023/04/25/us-131-rebuilding-in-kalamazoo-county-starts-monday

Highlights: every intersection outside of the Village of Schoolcraft, and south of Shaver Rd, are to be converted to Michigan Lefts (according to the press release). Also, no bypass of Schoolcraft, though new streetscape, curbs and gutters are included within Schoolcraft.

[sprjus4]

MDOT begins adding more Flex to US-23 by extending the "Flex Lanes" section north to I-96.
https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/news-outreach/pressreleases/2023/04/27/us-23-flex-project-to-begin-in-livingston-county-on-friday-with-lane-closures
https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/-/media/Project/Websites/MDOT/Projects-Studies/US-Route/US-23-Flex/Phase-Two-Final-Alternatives-Analysis-Report.pdf?rev=cd8df06a872346c38890747daffd2aaf&hash=888FDE0DCA88CEC8303440E1508BCD06

The median width on this section is about 20' wider than the section south of 8 Mile. In theory, there's enough space to go with full-width lanes and inside shoulders without having to replace any overpasses crossing US-23 (except the CSX railroad), but for continuity with the southern Flex Lanes section and cost reasons it makes more sense to add the 3rd set of lanes as temporary lanes. It also appears from the study plans that MDOT is getting a design exception for the shoulder widths under the CSX railroad bridge, which narrow to as little as 5'9" northbound and 7' southbound.

Would design exceptions even be needed? US-23 is not an interstate highway, and therefore does not need to meet interstate standards.

It should be built to them, but there's nothing requiring it.

[Flint1979]

US-23 has needed attention for over 20 years now. It's a pain in the ass to drive on and in fact I hate that freeway especially between Flint and Ann Arbor. Two lanes in each direction with traffic volumes that warrant 3-4 lanes in each direction. That whole split in Flint is undersized, I-75 is also two lanes in each direction but for only 4 miles. Totally undersized highways and the flex lanes are going to solve nothing. MDOT is insane for even considering the flex lanes. And let's not forget to mention that the pavement quality on US-23 is in poor condition for most of the stretch between Flint and the Ohio line.  I'll say one thing though, at least Old US-23 is there for most of the stretch that road is nice when the freeway backs up with traffic.

[JREwing78]

It also appears from the study plans that MDOT is getting a design exception for the shoulder widths under the CSX railroad bridge, which narrow to as little as 5'9" northbound and 7' southbound.

Would design exceptions even be needed? US-23 is not an interstate highway, and therefore does not need to meet interstate standards.

It should be built to them, but there's nothing requiring it.

All I know is that MDOT specifically stated they had to get design exceptions for the CSX bridge in the study documentation. Probably a federal funding requirement?

[Terry Shea]

Does anyone know when the Fulton St (M-21) entrance ramp to EB I-96 is going to be completed, or why they started a new project on I-96, closing down a lane in each direction between Cascade Rd and 28th St, before completing the ramp?  I believe an extra lane of travel between Fulton St and Cascade Rd is also being included in the Fulton St ramp project, and it could really be used right now with.  That area could really get backed up before either project started, and it's really a mess now.  I drove by there today and there are no signs of completing the ramp/extra lane anytime soon. 

[Flint1979]

Does anyone know when the Fulton St (M-21) entrance ramp to EB I-96 is going to be completed, or why they started a new project on I-96, closing down a lane in each direction between Cascade Rd and 28th St, before completing the ramp?  I believe an extra lane of travel between Fulton St and Cascade Rd is also being included in the Fulton St ramp project, and it could really be used right now with.  That area could really get backed up before either project started, and it's really a mess now.  I drove by there today and there are no signs of completing the ramp/extra lane anytime soon.

Things didn't go as planned for MDOT and the work was suspended until sometime this year. The location of the planned ramp contains areas of unstable soil so they need more time for planning and getting more materials needed to stabilize the ramp area. There never was a ramp there so this is all new construction for MDOT. They will be resuming construction there sometime this Spring if they haven't already started.

[Terry Shea]

Does anyone know when the Fulton St (M-21) entrance ramp to EB I-96 is going to be completed, or why they started a new project on I-96, closing down a lane in each direction between Cascade Rd and 28th St, before completing the ramp?  I believe an extra lane of travel between Fulton St and Cascade Rd is also being included in the Fulton St ramp project, and it could really be used right now with.  That area could really get backed up before either project started, and it's really a mess now.  I drove by there today and there are no signs of completing the ramp/extra lane anytime soon.

Things didn't go as planned for MDOT and the work was suspended until sometime this year. The location of the planned ramp contains areas of unstable soil so they need more time for planning and getting more materials needed to stabilize the ramp area. There never was a ramp there so this is all new construction for MDOT. They will be resuming construction there sometime this Spring if they haven't already started.

They haven't and there is no sign that they're going to resume anytime soon.  I don't see any construction vehicles/equipment in the area.  Everything has been removed and the project looks like it's been totally abandoned.  The ramp itself looks virtually complete except for the paving.  I hope this isn't some new MDOT cost-cutting plan to have unpaved freeway entrance ramps.

[Flint1979]

Does anyone know when the Fulton St (M-21) entrance ramp to EB I-96 is going to be completed, or why they started a new project on I-96, closing down a lane in each direction between Cascade Rd and 28th St, before completing the ramp?  I believe an extra lane of travel between Fulton St and Cascade Rd is also being included in the Fulton St ramp project, and it could really be used right now with.  That area could really get backed up before either project started, and it's really a mess now.  I drove by there today and there are no signs of completing the ramp/extra lane anytime soon.

Things didn't go as planned for MDOT and the work was suspended until sometime this year. The location of the planned ramp contains areas of unstable soil so they need more time for planning and getting more materials needed to stabilize the ramp area. There never was a ramp there so this is all new construction for MDOT. They will be resuming construction there sometime this Spring if they haven't already started.

They haven't and there is no sign that they're going to resume anytime soon.  I don't see any construction vehicles/equipment in the area.  Everything has been removed and the project looks like it's been totally abandoned.  The ramp itself looks virtually complete except for the paving.  I hope this isn't some new MDOT cost-cutting plan to have unpaved freeway entrance ramps.

They could still finish it this year. The unstable soil issue has to be thrown in the plans now as soon as they can get the materials they need I'm sure they'll resume working on it.