Michigan Notes

[Flint1979]

I don't see any reason to do with anything with Bagley Road there unless they are finally going to fill in the gap in the freeway. They at least have it 65 mph through there now. Uncle John's Cedar Mill is a major landmark on that highway too. I'd leave US-127 the way it is and worry about other highways in this state.

[ftballfan]

I see where Michigan permanently closed the I-275 rest area near Westland. Wonder which ones will be next. MDOT has closed a few rest areas in recent years (EB I-94 near Coloma, both US-127 rest areas in Roscommon County, WB I-96 near Howell). I also noticed that the seasonal Hart rest area closed earlier than normal (when I went through that area a couple of weeks ago, the Hart rest area was closed but the also-seasonal Ludington rest area was open).

[wanderer2575]

MDOT keeps chipping away at US-127 between Ithaca and St. Johns. Now the Y-intersection with Bagley Rd is slated to be cul-de-sac'ed in December with barriers, with a permanent reconfiguration in 2020.

https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9620-482820--,00.html

Map of location: https://goo.gl/maps/Ebzs2A4YoqR2

I just wonder if this is because too many vehicles heading from Bagley Road to southbound US-127 were getting T-boned while crossing the northbound lanes.  The press release specifies "closing access to US-127 from Bagley Road" but isn't clear about the reverse:  Whether northbound US-127 traffic will still be able to exit to Bagley.

[The Ghostbuster]

I would love for all of US 127 between St. John's and Ithaca to be 100% up to freeway stanards, like the rest of the corridor between Lansing and Grayling. I, of course, know that is very far from being a priority of Michigan's DOT, and will likely only happen incrementally.

[pianocello]

I would love for all of US 127 between St. John's and Ithaca to be 100% up to freeway stanards, like the rest of the corridor between Lansing and Grayling. I, of course, know that is very far from being a priority of Michigan's DOT, and will likely only happen incrementally.

Even more unlikely since they added a handful of J-turns north of St. Johns a couple years ago. I'm honestly surprised that they're closing the intersection at Bagley Rd, but I understand if it's from a safety perspective.

[Flint1979]

I would love for all of US 127 between St. John's and Ithaca to be 100% up to freeway stanards, like the rest of the corridor between Lansing and Grayling. I, of course, know that is very far from being a priority of Michigan's DOT, and will likely only happen incrementally.

Actually it's a freeway between Jackson and Lansing too. It starts being a freeway a little south of Jackson then runs with I-94 for a few miles and runs as a freeway straight to Grayling with the exception of the St. Johns to Ithaca gap. I would rather see them widen both I-94 and US-23 both of which are in dire need to be widened. I-94 is a disaster between Benton Harbor and Ann Arbor and US-23 is a disaster between Flint and Ann Arbor, south of Ann Arbor it's not too bad.

[JREwing78]

MDOT keeps chipping away at US-127 between Ithaca and St. Johns. Now the Y-intersection with Bagley Rd is slated to be cul-de-sac'ed in December with barriers, with a permanent reconfiguration in 2020.

https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9620-482820--,00.html

Map of location: https://goo.gl/maps/Ebzs2A4YoqR2

I just wonder if this is because too many vehicles heading from Bagley Road to southbound US-127 were getting T-boned while crossing the northbound lanes.  The press release specifies "closing access to US-127 from Bagley Road" but isn't clear about the reverse:  Whether northbound US-127 traffic will still be able to exit to Bagley.

Seems unlikely that they would preserve an exit onto Bagley, given that the detour via US-127 and E Washington Rd is only another mile or so, and there's still currently access via other local roads. Also note the still-active railroad tracks - traffic waiting for the train could back up onto NBD US-127.

I would love for all of US 127 between St. John's and Ithaca to be 100% up to freeway stanards, like the rest of the corridor between Lansing and Grayling. I, of course, know that is very far from being a priority of Michigan's DOT, and will likely only happen incrementally.

Even more unlikely since they added a handful of J-turns north of St. Johns a couple years ago. I'm honestly surprised that they're closing the intersection at Bagley Rd, but I understand if it's from a safety perspective.

It's the "we have no money approach - do a bunch of cheap things to limit cross-traffic and remove driveway access until such time that they have funding for larger improvements.

[JREwing78]

And now for some local road ranting:

Just south of Lansing, MI, a local road, Columbia Road, had its bridge over the Grand River replaced this fall. Photos here:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1729056883811157&id=1083529628363889
and
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1726116400771872&id=1083529628363889

Google map: https://goo.gl/maps/WZb4P6fZzeJ2

To the surprise of utterly no one, there's been a fatal wreck at the Columbia Rd/S. Waverly Rd intersection north of Eaton Rapids, immediately adjacent to the new Columbia Rd. bridge over the Grand River. This bridge opened at the end of last year with a two-lane design that placed the beams above the road surface. Northbound travelers on S. Waverly Rd (which intersects with Columbia Rd at the eastern end of the bridge) had poor visibility because the bridge beams were blocking their view of traffic on Columbia Rd.

Ingham County Road Commission (which maintains the bridge and Columbia Rd, but not S. Waverly Rd - which is maintained by Eaton County) attempted to remedy this with a stop line on S. Waverly Rd painted far back to allow people to view cars in-between the bridge beams. But that stop line was largely ignored, and traffic on NBD Waverly Rd frequently pulled out when traffic on Columbia Rd was present. That's what happened with this latest accident.

UPDATE: 1 dead in accident on Columbia Road in Aurelius Township
https://www.wilx.com/content/news/1-dead-in-accident-on-Columbia-Road-in-Aurelius-Township-500769012.html

The fix: New traffic signals, with possibly additional improvements to the intersection. For some reason, the road closure of S. Waverly Rd at the bridge is going to drag out most of the winter. ICRC has not specified exactly what is involved beyond the erection of the signals.

Had the bridge been widened to provide a turning lane and full-width shoulders/bike lanes when originally constructed, the obstruction would likely have been eliminated and the traffic signals unnecessary. However, with 4,500 vpd on Columbia Rd and 2000 vpd on S. Waverly Rd, the traffic signals were probably inevitable.

Dangerous intersection closed, will get traffic signal installment
https://www.wilx.com/content/news/Dangerous-intersection-closed-will-get-traffic-signal-installment-501673942.html

Drivers react to Waverly Road Closure
https://www.wilx.com/content/news/Drivers-react-to-Waverly-Road-Closure-501682681.html

[Flint1979]

And now for some local road ranting:

Just south of Lansing, MI, a local road, Columbia Road, had its bridge over the Grand River replaced this fall. Photos here:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1729056883811157&id=1083529628363889
and
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1726116400771872&id=1083529628363889

Google map: https://goo.gl/maps/WZb4P6fZzeJ2

To the surprise of utterly no one, there's been a fatal wreck at the Columbia Rd/S. Waverly Rd intersection north of Eaton Rapids, immediately adjacent to the new Columbia Rd. bridge over the Grand River. This bridge opened at the end of last year with a two-lane design that placed the beams above the road surface. Northbound travelers on S. Waverly Rd (which intersects with Columbia Rd at the eastern end of the bridge) had poor visibility because the bridge beams were blocking their view of traffic on Columbia Rd.

Ingham County Road Commission (which maintains the bridge and Columbia Rd, but not S. Waverly Rd - which is maintained by Eaton County) attempted to remedy this with a stop line on S. Waverly Rd painted far back to allow people to view cars in-between the bridge beams. But that stop line was largely ignored, and traffic on NBD Waverly Rd frequently pulled out when traffic on Columbia Rd was present. That's what happened with this latest accident.

UPDATE: 1 dead in accident on Columbia Road in Aurelius Township
https://www.wilx.com/content/news/1-dead-in-accident-on-Columbia-Road-in-Aurelius-Township-500769012.html

The fix: New traffic signals, with possibly additional improvements to the intersection. For some reason, the road closure of S. Waverly Rd at the bridge is going to drag out most of the winter. ICRC has not specified exactly what is involved beyond the erection of the signals.

Had the bridge been widened to provide a turning lane and full-width shoulders/bike lanes when originally constructed, the obstruction would likely have been eliminated and the traffic signals unnecessary. However, with 4,500 vpd on Columbia Rd and 2000 vpd on S. Waverly Rd, the traffic signals were probably inevitable.

Dangerous intersection closed, will get traffic signal installment
https://www.wilx.com/content/news/Dangerous-intersection-closed-will-get-traffic-signal-installment-501673942.html

Drivers react to Waverly Road Closure
https://www.wilx.com/content/news/Drivers-react-to-Waverly-Road-Closure-501682681.html

I think the best thing to do would be to make it a three way stop, or put in a traffic light. I know the area doesn't see a ton of traffic so a three way stop would probably be the best thing to do.

[JREwing78]

I think the best thing to do would be to make it a three way stop, or put in a traffic light. I know the area doesn't see a ton of traffic so a three way stop would probably be the best thing to do.

The way the bridge and the intersection are positioned, there's very little space to make a stop sign visible, and it would more than likely get a blinker light anyway.

My suspicion is that ICRC is growing weary of dealing with the public sentiment about the bridge and figure a stop light will shut people up, or at least shift blame back to the drivers causing the wrecks.

[JREwing78]

I finally had occasion to drive the section of US-23 that has the flex lanes north of Ann Arbor (although not while they were in operation). And, honestly, I wasn't that impressed.

The section immediately north of the western US-23/M-14 interchange was nicely done with LED median lighting and concrete barrier, but after Territorial Rd the lighting went away and steel guardrail replaced the concrete barrier.

The traffic information system looks like a scaled-down version of the one in use on I-90 west of O'Hare - maybe TOO scaled-down. Instead of making the gantries wide enough for when US-23 is redone with full-width lanes, they are just barely wide enough to accommodate the existing roadway.

I didn't see a lot of obvious exit ramp improvements north of Territorial Rd - no extensions of deceleration lanes, for example. However, the on-ramp acceleration lanes did appear to have been brought up to modern standards.

Just shy of the M-36 Whitmore Lake exit the flex lanes unceremoniously disappear; I realize the M-36 overpass would've been $$$ to replace, but that seems to be a nasty chokepoint for NBD traffic when the flex lanes are in operation. Continuing on past M-36 a half-mile or so would've been helpful. At least SBD there's a long weave/merge lane between M-36 and Eight Mile Rd.

Hopefully before this stretch needs to be redone, MDOT can get proper funding to do a proper 6-laning through and past I-96 at Brighton, as well as 6-laning the section of US-23 on the east side of Ann Arbor. The flex lanes are a crutch until that funding appears.

[wanderer2575]

Hopefully before this stretch needs to be redone, MDOT can get proper funding to do a proper 6-laning through and past I-96 at Brighton, as well as 6-laning the section of US-23 on the east side of Ann Arbor. The flex lanes are a crutch until that funding appears.

MDOT has said that a proper widening of US-23 between Ann Arbor and Flint will cost a couple billion $$.  That may be chump change in North Carolina or Virginia, but in Michigan don't hold your breath.

[Revive 755]

And now for some local road ranting:

Just south of Lansing, MI, a local road, Columbia Road, had its bridge over the Grand River replaced this fall. Photos here:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1729056883811157&id=1083529628363889
and
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1726116400771872&id=1083529628363889

Google map: https://goo.gl/maps/WZb4P6fZzeJ2

To the surprise of utterly no one, there's been a fatal wreck at the Columbia Rd/S. Waverly Rd intersection north of Eaton Rapids, immediately adjacent to the new Columbia Rd. bridge over the Grand River. This bridge opened at the end of last year with a two-lane design that placed the beams above the road surface.

Interesting - except for prefab pedestrian bridges, I didn't think anyone else still used pony trusses.

[AsphaltPlanet]

I'm curious if anyone has an information about what's going on through I-94 through Central Detroit.  The MDOT website indicates that a number of new bridges are being planned for the corridor, but that the freeway footprint is no longer being widened.  I had thought that a new eight-lane cross-section was proposed for I-94.  Is that no longer the case?  On previous trips through the area, it looked like a few of the bridges in the western part of the city had been built long enough for a widened highway.

Apologies if there is a thread for this I missed.  I didn't notice one, but I don't always read this section of the forum.

[Flint1979]

I'm curious if anyone has an information about what's going on through I-94 through Central Detroit.  The MDOT website indicates that a number of new bridges are being planned for the corridor, but that the freeway footprint is no longer being widened.  I had thought that a new eight-lane cross-section was proposed for I-94.  Is that no longer the case?  On previous trips through the area, it looked like a few of the bridges in the western part of the city had been built long enough for a widened highway.

Apologies if there is a thread for this I missed.  I didn't notice one, but I don't always read this section of the forum.

According to information from about 3-4 years ago 2019 is the year they're suppose to start working on I-94 and it'll last until 2036. The project extends from the I-96 interchange to Conner, about 7 miles and that will include expansion and repair of the highway along with replacement or repair of 67 aging bridges and six railroad overpasses. MDOT has said the plan includes removing the grass slopes along I-94 and replacing them with vertical retaining walls so that another lane can be added in each direction without actually widening the highway. Ten bridges, all built in the 1950s and categorized in poor or critical condition were replaced between 2016 and 2018. One major thing that will be done is the left lane exits and on ramps will all be eliminated because they are dangerous.

These are the ten bridges that were replaced between 2016 and 2018:

Trumbull (built in 1954): 2016
Gratiot Ave. (1958): 2017
Mt. Elliott St. (1955): 2017
Second Ave. (1954): 2017
Cass Ave. (1955): 2017
Chene St. (1956): 2017
Cadillac Ave. (1957): 2018
Brush St. (1955): 2018
French Road (1957): 2018
Concord Ave. (1958): 2018

[AsphaltPlanet]

^ Thanks.

So, I'm guessing when they talk about not increasing the freeway's footprint, it has more to do with the service roads that were once envisioned along the corridor.

[Flint1979]

^ Thanks.

So, I'm guessing when they talk about not increasing the freeway's footprint, it has more to do with the service roads that were once envisioned along the corridor.

No problem. It looks like they aren't actually going to widen the footprint so I don't think many buildings will need to be demolished. The service drives should be through routed, right now they are discontinuous. There are stretches that are called Edsel Ford Service Dr but aren't even really a part of the service drive because they don't connect to the highway at all. Two back to back examples of that are right here https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3312466,-83.1487234,18.28z

[dvferyance]

I see where Michigan permanently closed the I-275 rest area near Westland. Wonder which ones will be next. MDOT has closed a few rest areas in recent years (EB I-94 near Coloma, both US-127 rest areas in Roscommon County, WB I-96 near Howell). I also noticed that the seasonal Hart rest area closed earlier than normal (when I went through that area a couple of weeks ago, the Hart rest area was closed but the also-seasonal Ludington rest area was open).

There appears to be an abandoned one on SB I-196 by MM 14.

[Flint1979]

I think the best thing to do would be to make it a three way stop, or put in a traffic light. I know the area doesn't see a ton of traffic so a three way stop would probably be the best thing to do.

The way the bridge and the intersection are positioned, there's very little space to make a stop sign visible, and it would more than likely get a blinker light anyway.

My suspicion is that ICRC is growing weary of dealing with the public sentiment about the bridge and figure a stop light will shut people up, or at least shift blame back to the drivers causing the wrecks.

I was down in that area the other day and actually happened to be on M-99 so I turned onto Columbia Road because I remembered about the intersection with Waverly. Well I went east on Columbia, crossed the Grand River and came upon the southern leg of Waverly which is currently closed south to Curtice Road. I'm assuming that maybe it's closed because of this. I looked on Google Maps and they confirmed that it's closed and said it'll be closed until late April. Putting a blinker light there would probably help with putting a three way stop sign in and then putting stop ahead signs on all sides would help as well.

[JREwing78]

I think the best thing to do would be to make it a three way stop, or put in a traffic light. I know the area doesn't see a ton of traffic so a three way stop would probably be the best thing to do.

The way the bridge and the intersection are positioned, there's very little space to make a stop sign visible, and it would more than likely get a blinker light anyway.

My suspicion is that ICRC is growing weary of dealing with the public sentiment about the bridge and figure a stop light will shut people up, or at least shift blame back to the drivers causing the wrecks.

I was down in that area the other day and actually happened to be on M-99 so I turned onto Columbia Road because I remembered about the intersection with Waverly. Well I went east on Columbia, crossed the Grand River and came upon the southern leg of Waverly which is currently closed south to Curtice Road. I'm assuming that maybe it's closed because of this. I looked on Google Maps and they confirmed that it's closed and said it'll be closed until late April. Putting a blinker light there would probably help with putting a three way stop sign in and then putting stop ahead signs on all sides would help as well.

Ingham County Road Commission is already on the record stating they're installing a full traffic signal at the intersection.
http://rc.ingham.org/RoadClosures.aspx

[Flint1979]

I think the best thing to do would be to make it a three way stop, or put in a traffic light. I know the area doesn't see a ton of traffic so a three way stop would probably be the best thing to do.

The way the bridge and the intersection are positioned, there's very little space to make a stop sign visible, and it would more than likely get a blinker light anyway.

My suspicion is that ICRC is growing weary of dealing with the public sentiment about the bridge and figure a stop light will shut people up, or at least shift blame back to the drivers causing the wrecks.

I was down in that area the other day and actually happened to be on M-99 so I turned onto Columbia Road because I remembered about the intersection with Waverly. Well I went east on Columbia, crossed the Grand River and came upon the southern leg of Waverly which is currently closed south to Curtice Road. I'm assuming that maybe it's closed because of this. I looked on Google Maps and they confirmed that it's closed and said it'll be closed until late April. Putting a blinker light there would probably help with putting a three way stop sign in and then putting stop ahead signs on all sides would help as well.

Ingham County Road Commission is already on the record stating they're installing a full traffic signal at the intersection.
http://rc.ingham.org/RoadClosures.aspx

That's good. The other (northern) leg of Waverly is further away from the bridge so there isn't much of a problem there. That other intersection is in Eaton County though so Ingham wouldn't have anything to do with that intersection.

[JREwing78]

That's good. The other (northern) leg of Waverly is further away from the bridge so there isn't much of a problem there. That other intersection is in Eaton County though so Ingham wouldn't have anything to do with that intersection.

This is true, but Waverly Rd north of Columbia is maintained by Ingham County, and it also maintains the section of Columbia Rd east of the N. Waverly Rd intersection (including the Grand River bridge).  N. Waverly Rd has signage and pavement consistent with other Ingham County roads.

Eaton County maintains Waverly Rd south of Columbia, a fact that becomes obvious when you notice the differences in pavement condition and signage. S. Waverly Rd pavement and signage are consistent with other Eaton County roads. S. Waverly Rd follows the terrain more closely, with more dips and humps - sections of it are difficult to travel at the (unposted) 55 mph speed limit. This is consistent with other Eaton County roads.

It's not intuitive - Waverly Rd curves into the adjacent county at each side of the bridge. But Ingham County has the larger tax base, and it has a total of four Grand River crossings along its section of Waverly Rd (counting the Columbia Rd bridge) to maintain to Eaton County's one. My suspicion is that, way back in the day, the decision about who maintained what section of Waverly Rd came down to who had the bigger road budget.

Oddly enough, MDOT maintains about a mile of Waverly Rd near Eaton Rapids as part of M-188, which connects Eaton Rapids to the VFW National Home for Children.

[JREwing78]

A blast from the past, a video about highway safety from 1938:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5C-14PPPxw

[Flint1979]

That's good. The other (northern) leg of Waverly is further away from the bridge so there isn't much of a problem there. That other intersection is in Eaton County though so Ingham wouldn't have anything to do with that intersection.

This is true, but Waverly Rd north of Columbia is maintained by Ingham County, and it also maintains the section of Columbia Rd east of the N. Waverly Rd intersection (including the Grand River bridge).  N. Waverly Rd has signage and pavement consistent with other Ingham County roads.

Eaton County maintains Waverly Rd south of Columbia, a fact that becomes obvious when you notice the differences in pavement condition and signage. S. Waverly Rd pavement and signage are consistent with other Eaton County roads. S. Waverly Rd follows the terrain more closely, with more dips and humps - sections of it are difficult to travel at the (unposted) 55 mph speed limit. This is consistent with other Eaton County roads.

It's not intuitive - Waverly Rd curves into the adjacent county at each side of the bridge. But Ingham County has the larger tax base, and it has a total of four Grand River crossings along its section of Waverly Rd (counting the Columbia Rd bridge) to maintain to Eaton County's one. My suspicion is that, way back in the day, the decision about who maintained what section of Waverly Rd came down to who had the bigger road budget.

Oddly enough, MDOT maintains about a mile of Waverly Rd near Eaton Rapids as part of M-188, which connects Eaton Rapids to the VFW National Home for Children.

Waverly goes out of it's grid a tad bit to avoid the Grand River. Columbia switches from Columbia Road in Ingham County to Columbia Highway in Eaton County. There are some Michigan counties that call any type of road a Highway like this. I never did quite understand the need to call every single road a Highway though like Eaton County does, Lenawee County does this too.

Waverly ends at a dead end right at the tri-point of the Ingham, Eaton and Jackson County lines so the more south you go the least important Waverly becomes too. I knew about M-188 because I went to find the end sign on that route one time and made my clinch of that highway at that time. There really don't seem to be too many state highways that connect to locations rather than another highway or a street. M-247 just ends and the road keeps going too. That's the highway that goes to the Bay City State Park and if you look at M-247 Google Maps for some reason has it signed north of Beaver Road on a dead end street which is not where it goes it turns to the right to head into the State Park the M-247 ends sign is right at the campground and park headquarters.

[wanderer2575]

MDOT apparently plans in 2023 to remove the US-12/M-51 bridges and interchange near Niles and replace them with an at-grade intersection with traffic signals and Michigan Left turns.  Some other repaving and reconstruction in the area is planned at the same time.

https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151--488768--,00.html