MI: I-296

Alex · February 08, 2009, 04:09:26 PM

Was Interstate 296 in Grand Rapids ever signed in the field?

Hellfighter · February 08, 2009, 06:33:36 PM

No. It only exists on paper, and that's in question now that it's never been used.

Alex · February 09, 2009, 11:05:28 AM

Some early Rand McNally national road atlases feature it on the Grand Rapids insets. I know that mapmakers have been known to jump the gun, but they did better research back then too. Interstate 580 was actually signed in Reno at one point, but it was later removed in favor of just numbering the fwy U.S. 395. I figured that may have been what happened in Grand Rapids, if it was ever signed as Interstate 296 in the first place.

Hellfighter · February 09, 2009, 04:00:36 PM

Nope. And with MDOT replacing all the signs out there with clearview ones that don't show I-296, I don't think we'll ever see it.

mukade · February 10, 2009, 06:54:01 PM

I lived in the Grand Rapids area in the late 1960s and visited there regularly until 1984. I am pretty sure it was signed in the late '60s.

Terry Shea · March 01, 2009, 07:12:03 PM

Yes it was signed at one time. I believe the signs were removed in the late '70's or thereabouts. At one time this stretch of freeway included 3 highway designations: Int 296, US 131 and M37. That was a bit redundant.

leifvanderwall · October 07, 2009, 06:43:28 PM

If MDOT ran its roads like Pennsylvania, I-296 would be from I-196 all the way to Manton or strectched all the way down to Portage.

Terry Shea · October 08, 2009, 12:07:06 AM

Quote from: leifvanderwall on October 07, 2009, 06:43:28 PM
If MDOT ran its roads like Pennsylvania, I-296 would be from I-196 all the way to Manton or strectched all the way down to Portage.

And they'd slap a heavy toll on it too.

leifvanderwall · October 08, 2009, 09:53:19 AM

Maybe there needs to be a toll on that highway. There are so many bridges on 131 that need to be replaced or fixed that it's not even funny.

getemngo · October 11, 2009, 01:24:15 PM

As I showed a couple people at the Grand Rapids meet, I-296 was still marked on Kent County Road Commission maps until at least 1994. Heck, it still might be today.

Edit: The jurisdictional map, at least, does in fact label it.

Terry Shea · October 11, 2009, 04:45:12 PM

Quote from: getemngo on October 11, 2009, 01:24:15 PM
As I showed a couple people at the Grand Rapids meet, I-296 was still marked on Kent County Road Commission maps until at least 1994. Heck, it still might be today.

Edit: The jurisdictional map, at least, does in fact label it.

I really don't understand why the signage was removed. I mean it probably didn't make much sense to give this section 2 route numbers in the first place (well 3 actually since M-37 was also signed along this portion at one time), but once it was signed why not leave it? I mean why spend money for signage and then spend more money to remove signage? And since signage has been removed, why not transfer the I-296 designation along M-6? That would make a lot more sense at this point.

leifvanderwall · October 11, 2009, 06:37:44 PM

Well if I was in charge of the MDOT I would put I-296 on M-6, but I think the logic of the Great Lake State is just leave I-296 as a phantom of US 131. Also another thing, if it were a real bypass the Paul Brown Freeway would meet I-96 again over by Marne. I really think the purpose of labeling M-6 is it was meant to be a shortcut to I-196 and the Holland area, not a bypass to Muskegon.

agentsteel53 · October 11, 2009, 06:41:18 PM

it was on the official Michigan state map from 1963 to 1980. Indeed, the signs were abruptly taken down in 1980.

Terry Shea · October 12, 2009, 01:15:51 AM

Quote from: leifvanderwall on October 11, 2009, 06:37:44 PM
Well if I was in charge of the MDOT I would put I-296 on M-6, but I think the logic of the Great Lake State is just leave I-296 as a phantom of US 131. Also another thing, if it were a real bypass the Paul Brown Freeway would meet I-96 again over by Marne. I really think the purpose of labeling M-6 is it was meant to be a shortcut to I-196 and the Holland area, not a bypass to Muskegon.

Paul Brown? And the present unsigned I-296 isn't a bypass by any stretch of the imagination. Actually M-296 would make more sense than M-6 does.

Tom · September 04, 2011, 04:43:52 PM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 11, 2009, 06:41:18 PM
it was on the official Michigan state map from 1963 to 1980. Indeed, the signs were abruptly taken down in 1980.

I remember I-296 being shown on AAA Michigan road maps in the 1960's, also.

ftballfan · September 04, 2011, 05:19:58 PM

Both ends of unsigned I-296 are unusual. At its southern end, the lanes are reversed. At its northern end, I-96 exits off of it or becomes the two left lanes of I-96 (I-96 is a single lane for a very short segment), depending on what direction you are heading.

News:

MI: I-296