Michigan Notes

[skluth]

^ Nobody implied that toll roads encourage more tourism. What is implied is that toll roads don't impact or have minimal impact on tourism.

Now, you are implying that toll roads decrease tourism, but haven't provided any credible sources. No one is forcing you to, as you seem to think, but it helps to make your argument more credible and belivable.

I think MDOT is a pretty relevant, credible source, despite my usual disdain for the organization.  At any rate, my opinion was and is that tourism would suffer in Michigan, even if the impact may be minimal.  That is my opinion and it doesn't need any citation.  I didn't state or imply that tourism would fall off the map if toll roads were enacted.  But if you were to poll tourist destinations in say northern Michigan, I'm quite certain they'd be close to 100% against introducing toll roads in Michigan. 

Meanwhile, this statement by Rothman is ridiculous and absolutely seems to be implying that toll roads will bring in more tourism.  If that isn't what he's stating than why make the statement?

Interesting that they made the statement about how tolls MAY discourage tourism...but hardly an extensive discussion on the subject, especially with the counterexamples we've brought up here of states with extensive toll roads that yet pull in more tourists than MI.

I'll answer anyway.  It's an apples to oranges comparison.  There is a myriad of factors involved in tourism numbers.  For one thing Michigan doesn't have the great year-round weather states like Florida, Texas, California and Hawaii have.  It doesn't have a great number of National Parks like Utah, Arizona and California have.  But you can't simply say that Michigan does less tourism than New York because New York imposes tolls on a few roadways and Michigan doesn't.  I have no doubt that New York would have even a FEW more visitors if they removed the tolls from their roadways.  So I have no idea why Rothman went down this road except to use it as a smokescreen, because that's all it is.  But since he did go down that road, let's continue down it.  Vivid Maps lists the following 10 states as the most visited:  https://vividmaps.com/most-visited-us-states/

1. California
2. Florida
3. Nevada
4. Texas
5. New York
6. Virginia
7. South Carolina
8. Arizona
9. Georgia
10. Hawaii

Now some of these states have toll bridges like Michigan does, but I believe only Florida and New York have actual toll roads out of these 10 states.  So, it would seem reasonable that these tourist friendly states, along with the tourism industry in these states are wary of chasing away visitors and discouraging tourists from visiting these states.  That is my opinion, and frankly I don't care much at this point whether you agree with it or not.  It is a reasonable opinion and it is my opinion.

Southern California has a bunch of toll roads and I have the transponder receipts to prove it. Texas has several toll roads, especially around Dallas and Houston along with that thing around Austin that few use. Virginia has a few toll roads, notably around Richmond and DC. So that's five out of ten with those five in the top six.

Eyeballing my atlas I'm not seeing any that you mentioned.  They must be very short in length.  The point is you can easily transverse these states without paying tolls.

Here's a list of US toll roads including hybrids like HOT lanes. Your point was certain states have no tolls, not that you can cross them while avoiding tolls. You don't get to change what you originally claimed once proven wrong. I've crossed New York state on NY 17/I-86 to avoid the toll so it's not like those cross-state toll roads can't be shunpiked. Also, most of those toll roads are where the most people are driving, not in sparsely populated areas like I-40 through the Mojave or I-10 through West Texas.

[sprjus4]

Here's a little one. The Chesapeake Expressway (VA-168) is a 16 mile freeway through Chesapeake connecting I-64 to the North Carolina state line, a major thoroughfare for travelers and tourist bound to the Outer Banks during the summer months.

The southern 6 miles is tolled, and during the summer, has tolls as high as $9 one-way on the weekends. It's easily avoidable by the parallel rural two-lane VA-168 Business, and many locals do shunpike it to avoid the $4 off-peak toll. But during the summer months, while a number do choke up VA-168 Business, the toll road still remains fairly busy with out of state plates happily paying $9 to remain on an underposted 55 mph rural freeway (should be 65 or 70 mph and the local police love setting up shop during the summer, because the $9 for each vehicle already being paid isn't enough) for a few more miles, that still dumps you onto a choked 5 lane undivided arterial south of there.

Clearly no discouragement to head to the Outer Banks due to it. I certainly don't care for the road (actually - the road is very nice. I don't care for the high toll and low speed limit), but I can't deny it brings in a significant amount of revenue for the city each summer.

[Terry Shea]

^ Nobody implied that toll roads encourage more tourism. What is implied is that toll roads don't impact or have minimal impact on tourism.

Now, you are implying that toll roads decrease tourism, but haven't provided any credible sources. No one is forcing you to, as you seem to think, but it helps to make your argument more credible and belivable.

I think MDOT is a pretty relevant, credible source, despite my usual disdain for the organization.  At any rate, my opinion was and is that tourism would suffer in Michigan, even if the impact may be minimal.  That is my opinion and it doesn't need any citation.  I didn't state or imply that tourism would fall off the map if toll roads were enacted.  But if you were to poll tourist destinations in say northern Michigan, I'm quite certain they'd be close to 100% against introducing toll roads in Michigan. 

Meanwhile, this statement by Rothman is ridiculous and absolutely seems to be implying that toll roads will bring in more tourism.  If that isn't what he's stating than why make the statement?

Interesting that they made the statement about how tolls MAY discourage tourism...but hardly an extensive discussion on the subject, especially with the counterexamples we've brought up here of states with extensive toll roads that yet pull in more tourists than MI.

I'll answer anyway.  It's an apples to oranges comparison.  There is a myriad of factors involved in tourism numbers.  For one thing Michigan doesn't have the great year-round weather states like Florida, Texas, California and Hawaii have.  It doesn't have a great number of National Parks like Utah, Arizona and California have.  But you can't simply say that Michigan does less tourism than New York because New York imposes tolls on a few roadways and Michigan doesn't.  I have no doubt that New York would have even a FEW more visitors if they removed the tolls from their roadways.  So I have no idea why Rothman went down this road except to use it as a smokescreen, because that's all it is.  But since he did go down that road, let's continue down it.  Vivid Maps lists the following 10 states as the most visited:  https://vividmaps.com/most-visited-us-states/

1. California
2. Florida
3. Nevada
4. Texas
5. New York
6. Virginia
7. South Carolina
8. Arizona
9. Georgia
10. Hawaii

Now some of these states have toll bridges like Michigan does, but I believe only Florida and New York have actual toll roads out of these 10 states.  So, it would seem reasonable that these tourist friendly states, along with the tourism industry in these states are wary of chasing away visitors and discouraging tourists from visiting these states.  That is my opinion, and frankly I don't care much at this point whether you agree with it or not.  It is a reasonable opinion and it is my opinion.

Southern California has a bunch of toll roads and I have the transponder receipts to prove it. Texas has several toll roads, especially around Dallas and Houston along with that thing around Austin that few use. Virginia has a few toll roads, notably around Richmond and DC. So that's five out of ten with those five in the top six.

Eyeballing my atlas I'm not seeing any that you mentioned.  They must be very short in length.  The point is you can easily transverse these states without paying tolls.

Here's a list of US toll roads including hybrids like HOT lanes. Your point was certain states have no tolls, not that you can cross them while avoiding tolls. You don't get to change what you originally claimed once proven wrong. I've crossed New York state on NY 17/I-86 to avoid the toll so it's not like those cross-state toll roads can't be shunpiked. Also, most of those toll roads are where the most people are driving, not in sparsely populated areas like I-40 through the Mojave or I-10 through West Texas.

If you're going to attempt to speak for me then make sure you speak accurately and include all the information!

^ Nobody implied that toll roads encourage more tourism. What is implied is that toll roads don't impact or have minimal impact on tourism.

Now, you are implying that toll roads decrease tourism, but haven't provided any credible sources. No one is forcing you to, as you seem to think, but it helps to make your argument more credible and belivable.

I think MDOT is a pretty relevant, credible source, despite my usual disdain for the organization.  At any rate, my opinion was and is that tourism would suffer in Michigan, even if the impact may be minimal.  That is my opinion and it doesn't need any citation.  I didn't state or imply that tourism would fall off the map if toll roads were enacted.  But if you were to poll tourist destinations in say northern Michigan, I'm quite certain they'd be close to 100% against introducing toll roads in Michigan. 

Meanwhile, this statement by Rothman is ridiculous and absolutely seems to be implying that toll roads will bring in more tourism.  If that isn't what he's stating than why make the statement?

Interesting that they made the statement about how tolls MAY discourage tourism...but hardly an extensive discussion on the subject, especially with the counterexamples we've brought up here of states with extensive toll roads that yet pull in more tourists than MI.

I'll answer anyway.  It's an apples to oranges comparison.  There is a myriad of factors involved in tourism numbers.  For one thing Michigan doesn't have the great year-round weather states like Florida, Texas, California and Hawaii have.  It doesn't have a great number of National Parks like Utah, Arizona and California have.  But you can't simply say that Michigan does less tourism than New York because New York imposes tolls on a few roadways and Michigan doesn't.  I have no doubt that New York would have even a FEW more visitors if they removed the tolls from their roadways.  So I have no idea why Rothman went down this road except to use it as a smokescreen, because that's all it is.  But since he did go down that road, let's continue down it.  Vivid Maps lists the following 10 states as the most visited:  https://vividmaps.com/most-visited-us-states/

1. California
2. Florida
3. Nevada
4. Texas
5. New York
6. Virginia
7. South Carolina
8. Arizona
9. Georgia
10. Hawaii

Now some of these states have toll bridges like Michigan does, but I believe only Florida and New York have actual toll roads out of these 10 states.  So, it would seem reasonable that these tourist friendly states, along with the tourism industry in these states are wary of chasing away visitors and discouraging tourists from visiting these states.  That is my opinion, and frankly I don't care much at this point whether you agree with it or not.  It is a reasonable opinion and it is my opinion. 

I already stated that I was technically wrong about that, but so what?  Yeah, Texas and California do have a few miles of toll roads that you have to strain to see and look diligently for on a state road atlas.  I don't see any on the interstates or leading to any tourist attractions such as Six Flags or ballparks.  I don't see upon entering these states.  I don't see any long ones like The New York State Thruway or The Florida Turnpike.  I don't see any tolls along any route that would chase off tourists.  I see them in metro areas that would affect almost exclusively locals.  And once again, that being said, it doesn't make a bit of difference what other states do, or what their reasons are for doing or not doing something.  Yeah, New York state has the New York State Thruway and does a lot of tourism, but they don't do tourism because of The New York State Thruway- they do tourism in spite of this barrier.  Why?  Because New York has Niagara Falls, New York City, the Statue of Liberty, The Catskills and so on and so forth.  There are a lot of attractions in every part of the state.  New York can get away with it, but I have no doubt that they'd do more tourism without requiring visitors to pay tolls.  They can get away with charging high city, state and business taxes too.  Does that mean Michigan should charge high city, state and business taxes so we can become a populated state like New York?  It didn't work too well for Granholm, now did it?   People fled the state in droves.

I have no idea why a few of you insist on conducting and continuing this witch hunt and deliberately altering what I've stated and/or what I obviously meant. 

[Terry Shea]

Here's a little one. The Chesapeake Expressway (VA-168) is a 16 mile freeway through Chesapeake connecting I-64 to the North Carolina state line, a major thoroughfare for travelers and tourist bound to the Outer Banks during the summer months.

The southern 6 miles is tolled, and during the summer, has tolls as high as $9 one-way on the weekends. It's easily avoidable by the parallel rural two-lane VA-168 Business, and many locals do shunpike it to avoid the $4 off-peak toll. But during the summer months, while a number do choke up VA-168 Business, the toll road still remains fairly busy with out of state plates happily paying $9 to remain on an underposted 55 mph rural freeway (should be 65 or 70 mph and the local police love setting up shop during the summer, because the $9 for each vehicle already being paid isn't enough) for a few more miles, that still dumps you onto a choked 5 lane undivided arterial south of there.

Clearly no discouragement to head to the Outer Banks due to it. I certainly don't care for the road (actually - the road is very nice. I don't care for the high toll and low speed limit), but I can't deny it brings in a significant amount of revenue for the city each summer.

And your point is?

[sprjus4]

Here's a little one. The Chesapeake Expressway (VA-168) is a 16 mile freeway through Chesapeake connecting I-64 to the North Carolina state line, a major thoroughfare for travelers and tourist bound to the Outer Banks during the summer months.

The southern 6 miles is tolled, and during the summer, has tolls as high as $9 one-way on the weekends. It's easily avoidable by the parallel rural two-lane VA-168 Business, and many locals do shunpike it to avoid the $4 off-peak toll. But during the summer months, while a number do choke up VA-168 Business, the toll road still remains fairly busy with out of state plates happily paying $9 to remain on an underposted 55 mph rural freeway (should be 65 or 70 mph and the local police love setting up shop during the summer, because the $9 for each vehicle already being paid isn't enough) for a few more miles, that still dumps you onto a choked 5 lane undivided arterial south of there.

Clearly no discouragement to head to the Outer Banks due to it. I certainly don't care for the road (actually - the road is very nice. I don't care for the high toll and low speed limit), but I can't deny it brings in a significant amount of revenue for the city each summer.

And your point is?

You said tolls discourage tourism... this one hasn't seemed to.

[Flint1979]

The State of Michigan says that toll roads may discourage tourism.

https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/-/media/Project/Websites/MDOT/Programs/Planning/Tolling/MDOT-Toll-Roads.pdf

[Rothman]

It's time to stop talking in circles and toll I-75 from the border to Detroit.

[sprjus4]

The State of Michigan says that toll roads may discourage tourism.

https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/-/media/Project/Websites/MDOT/Programs/Planning/Tolling/MDOT-Toll-Roads.pdf

It says may discourage. Is there any concrete proof? Study?

[Flint1979]

The State of Michigan says that toll roads may discourage tourism.

https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/-/media/Project/Websites/MDOT/Programs/Planning/Tolling/MDOT-Toll-Roads.pdf

It says may discourage. Is there any concrete proof? Study?

What makes you think that paying money to ride on a highway isn't going to discourage people from riding on it? Especially when Michigan has never had a toll road.

[wanderer2575]

The State of Michigan says that toll roads may discourage tourism.

https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/-/media/Project/Websites/MDOT/Programs/Planning/Tolling/MDOT-Toll-Roads.pdf

It says may discourage. Is there any concrete proof? Study?

What makes you think that paying money to ride on a highway isn't going to discourage people from riding on it? Especially when Michigan has never had a toll road.

I've no doubt it will discourage some people from driving it.  But then, the toll roads in Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. are hardly empty even though they can be shunpiked.  That point has already been made.

What might make Michigan unique is that it's a peninsula, and therefore presumably it doesn't get as much border-to-border thru traffic as the other states.  I wonder if that's been considered as I think that somehow would result in a higher rate of shunpiking, especially if Michigan is the destination state for the trip.  But that's just a gut feeling; I have nothing to back it up.

[sprjus4]

The State of Michigan says that toll roads may discourage tourism.

https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/-/media/Project/Websites/MDOT/Programs/Planning/Tolling/MDOT-Toll-Roads.pdf

It says may discourage. Is there any concrete proof? Study?

What makes you think that paying money to ride on a highway isn't going to discourage people from riding on it? Especially when Michigan has never had a toll road.

It might discourage a few to avoid it, but any other states with toll roads will show you that they can be quite busy. The previous comment about the Turnpikes is certainly true.

And even if someone avoids a toll road, it doesn't mean they'll avoid going to Michigan all together.

[Flint1979]

The State of Michigan says that toll roads may discourage tourism.

https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/-/media/Project/Websites/MDOT/Programs/Planning/Tolling/MDOT-Toll-Roads.pdf

It says may discourage. Is there any concrete proof? Study?

What makes you think that paying money to ride on a highway isn't going to discourage people from riding on it? Especially when Michigan has never had a toll road.

It might discourage a few to avoid it, but any other states with toll roads will show you that they can be quite busy. The previous comment about the Turnpikes is certainly true.

And even if someone avoids a toll road, it doesn't mean they'll avoid going to Michigan all together.

Those other states have had toll roads for decades, Michigan has never had a toll road so with the tourism that we already have here in Michigan it could very easily have an effect on tourism. It wouldn't matter to me anyway because I'd just shunpike whatever the toll road is.

I-75 between Bay City and Standish is pretty easy to bypass along with other interstates in the state.

[sprjus4]

Pretty easy to bypass if you're willing to add travel time, deal with two lane roads and slower speed limits, etc.

If any other toll roads show, some may divert, but the vast majority will remain on the interstates, especially if the tolls are relatively inexpensive.

[Flint1979]

Pretty easy to bypass if you're willing to add travel time, deal with two lane roads and slower speed limits, etc.

If any other toll roads show, some may divert, but the vast majority will remain on the interstates, especially if the tolls are relatively inexpensive.

I am willing to add travel time, deal with two lane roads and slower speed limits. Although in the example that I am giving for I-75 between Standish and Bay City I wouldn't be dealing with no two lane roads at all, just a slower speed limit.

Like when I'm going to Cleveland or other points East I don't take the Ohio Turnpike. I'll take OH-2 and I-90 between Toledo and Cleveland that's just one example right there.

But if you're on like the Pennsylvania Turnpike which is very expensive I think I may just stay on I-80 and work my way across Pennsylvania that way.

You might be right if it's an inexpensive toll but I still think that the locals are going to shunpike.

[Rothman]

Pretty easy to bypass if you're willing to add travel time, deal with two lane roads and slower speed limits, etc.

If any other toll roads show, some may divert, but the vast majority will remain on the interstates, especially if the tolls are relatively inexpensive.

I am willing to add travel time, deal with two lane roads and slower speed limits. Although in the example that I am giving for I-75 between Standish and Bay City I wouldn't be dealing with no two lane roads at all, just a slower speed limit.

Like when I'm going to Cleveland or other points East I don't take the Ohio Turnpike. I'll take OH-2 and I-90 between Toledo and Cleveland that's just one example right there.

But if you're on like the Pennsylvania Turnpike which is very expensive I think I may just stay on I-80 and work my way across Pennsylvania that way.

You might be right if it's an inexpensive toll but I still think that the locals are going to shunpike.

Given traffic volumes on the major toll roads, I am not persuaded that you are representative of the broader driving population.

Time to bring tolls to MI.

[Flint1979]

Pretty easy to bypass if you're willing to add travel time, deal with two lane roads and slower speed limits, etc.

If any other toll roads show, some may divert, but the vast majority will remain on the interstates, especially if the tolls are relatively inexpensive.

I am willing to add travel time, deal with two lane roads and slower speed limits. Although in the example that I am giving for I-75 between Standish and Bay City I wouldn't be dealing with no two lane roads at all, just a slower speed limit.

Like when I'm going to Cleveland or other points East I don't take the Ohio Turnpike. I'll take OH-2 and I-90 between Toledo and Cleveland that's just one example right there.

But if you're on like the Pennsylvania Turnpike which is very expensive I think I may just stay on I-80 and work my way across Pennsylvania that way.

You might be right if it's an inexpensive toll but I still think that the locals are going to shunpike.

Given traffic volumes on the major toll roads, I am not persuaded that you are representative of the broader driving population.

Time to bring tolls to MI.

Nope. We don't need rolls here.

[GaryV]

Nope. We don't need rolls here.

Sticky buns would be nice, though. Or next week, paczki.

In all seriousness, passing a bill to make toll roads in MI will suffer the same fate as the "fix the damn roads" proposed gas tax.

[Flint1979]

Nope. We don't need rolls here.

Sticky buns would be nice, though. Or next week, paczki.

In all seriousness, passing a bill to make toll roads in MI will suffer the same fate as the "fix the damn roads" proposed gas tax.

LMAO stupid auto correct, I obviously meant tolls but that's hilarious.

[sprjus4]

Pretty easy to bypass if you're willing to add travel time, deal with two lane roads and slower speed limits, etc.

If any other toll roads show, some may divert, but the vast majority will remain on the interstates, especially if the tolls are relatively inexpensive.

I am willing to add travel time, deal with two lane roads and slower speed limits. Although in the example that I am giving for I-75 between Standish and Bay City I wouldn't be dealing with no two lane roads at all, just a slower speed limit.

Like when I'm going to Cleveland or other points East I don't take the Ohio Turnpike. I'll take OH-2 and I-90 between Toledo and Cleveland that's just one example right there.

But if you're on like the Pennsylvania Turnpike which is very expensive I think I may just stay on I-80 and work my way across Pennsylvania that way.

You might be right if it's an inexpensive toll but I still think that the locals are going to shunpike.

Given traffic volumes on the major toll roads, I am not persuaded that you are representative of the broader driving population.

Time to bring tolls to MI.

Nope. We don't need rolls here.

I wont give an opinion on whether Michigan needs tolls or not, but he does have a point. The vast majority of traffic isn't going to change course due to a toll.

I'll give another "local"  example. They widened and replaced the 2 lane Dominion Blvd (US-17) here in Chesapeake with a 4 lane freeway and high level bridge over the Elizabeth River a few years ago, and charged a toll on a previously free route. Despite a lot of local opposition (I can't say that I supported tolling it either, but I understand why it was necessary), the traffic volumes only dropped from around 31-33k vehicles a day to about 27-28k a day. While around 3-4k may have diverted to other routes, 27-28k remained on the route. And since then, I believe the volumes have increased back to pre-toll volumes.

I avoid the road when traffic is light (the non toll route for me is less mileage and only a couple minutes slower), but will gladly take the toll road during peak hours and there's more congestion on the arterial / free route since it's only $1.30 or something. If I'm heading to I-64 or I-464 though, I will take it without question because the arterial alternatives for heading north add 10+ minutes and miles, and ultimately waste a good amount of time.

Bottom line: tolling was opposed locally, but ultimately did not result in much diversion, and allowed the city to construct a $400 million project and complete the 4 lane US-17 between North Carolina and I-64 / I-464 as a limited access (with intersections) highway.

[JREwing78]

I've advocated in the past for tolls for new freeway routes, where they could help relieve the load on existing freeways. A toll connection from the Indiana Toll Road to Detroit would pull traffic off I-94 and roll back the need for 6-laning, for example.

It could allow for a Jackson -> Toledo tollway and finally give Adrian a limited-access highway, most welcome during events at Michigan International Speedway. Extend it up M-50 through Charlotte to I-96 outside Grand Rapids, and that traffic now has another way to get across the state.

A tollway connecting Muskegon to Holland and Kalamazoo via Allegan would allow the M-231 corridor to go to 4 lanes and fully limited access. It could also extend along US-131 south of Portage to connect to the Indiana Toll Road and get the truck traffic out of Schoolcraft. 

Another potential option would be to complete the M-59 expressway from I-96 to I-94 through Pontiac, or to complete the M-53/Mound Rd expressway between Imlay City and M-8 in Detroit.

This may be sketchier in terms of getting enough tolls for financing, but tolling could also allow limited-access expressway to finally reach Traverse City and Petoskey.

Assuming the numbers work, tolling can get much-needed capacity improvements without having to push a tax increase. The struggle is that in many of the places that would warrant it, they're already established "free" roads. But if played correctly, new tollways could ease pressure on existing freeways.

[afguy]

Traverse City-
Officials have finally decided to build a new bridge across the Boardman River Valley which will create a new east-west bypass of Traverse City. The bridge has been a hot topic for many years in the area. Traverse City is one of the fastest growing areas in the state and needs more east-west corridors to help move traffic in the area. When complete, it will be the fourth longest span in the state.

A $100M bridge: Traverse City bypass plan emerges from 30-year debate

In Grand Traverse County, officials have finally decided to embark on a multi-year project to build a controversial piece of infrastructure that would alleviate traffic congestion in one of the fastest growing communities in Michigan.In 2022, the county Road Commission voted unanimously to pave way for advance work on a 2,200-foot-long bridge across the Boardman River Valley, which, when finished, will create a new east-west corridor for drivers to bypass Traverse City.

Officials estimate the arching span will last 120 years and cost $100 million to build. Much of that is expected to come from federal infrastructure grants. Not counting international spans, it would be Michigan's fourth longest bridge.

The July 28 decision marked a turning point in the long-successful effort by environmental and development opponents to keep the bridge at bay due to concern about potential negative impacts on valley wetlands and wildlife.

Opposition remains to the bridge, but project supporters say it has dwindled as the Traverse City area population swells and the few corridors which drivers can use to transit east or west across town have undergone reconstruction.
"It shouldn't take me 40 minutes to get from one side of Traverse City to the other,"  said Kevin Endres, chairman of the Grand Traverse County Economic Development Corporation. "It's just five miles. It's not a city with a million people."

"There's a demand. There's a need for it. I see it every day,"  said Endres, who works in commercial real estate. "We're probably behind the eight ball in having this built already."

"It's well overdue."

https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2023/02/in-traverse-city-a-bypass-bridge-plan-emerges-from-30-year-debate.html

[The Ghostbuster]

They are just proposing to build the bridge and not revive the whole bypass, right? Something tells me the opposition will prevail, and the bridge will ultimately not be built. Call it pessimistic, but I feel my prediction has history on my side.

[JREwing78]

They are just proposing to build the bridge and not revive the whole bypass, right?

This is *just* to build the bridge. Now, obviously, we both know once the bridge is built, it unlocks a whole array of possibilities to build out Hammond/Harmon Rd to a 5-lane divided or boulevard-type roadway. But it's not ever going to be high-speed 70 mph freeway - think 35 to 45 mph surface street.

Also, given local politics, I would expect this would never get uploaded to MDOT as a state roadway. That's the kind of move that would freak residents out about "paving over paradise" or something. I suspect any significant roadway expansion would be to county-owned roadways connecting south to M-113 and southeast to US-131, though you might see small extensions of 5-lane roadway (4-lanes with TWLTL) south along M-37 and east along M-72.

[Flint1979]

This bridge in Traverse City was proposed last year.

[Terry Shea]

Pretty easy to bypass if you're willing to add travel time, deal with two lane roads and slower speed limits, etc.

If any other toll roads show, some may divert, but the vast majority will remain on the interstates, especially if the tolls are relatively inexpensive.

I am willing to add travel time, deal with two lane roads and slower speed limits. Although in the example that I am giving for I-75 between Standish and Bay City I wouldn't be dealing with no two lane roads at all, just a slower speed limit.

Like when I'm going to Cleveland or other points East I don't take the Ohio Turnpike. I'll take OH-2 and I-90 between Toledo and Cleveland that's just one example right there.

But if you're on like the Pennsylvania Turnpike which is very expensive I think I may just stay on I-80 and work my way across Pennsylvania that way.

You might be right if it's an inexpensive toll but I still think that the locals are going to shunpike.

Given traffic volumes on the major toll roads, I am not persuaded that you are representative of the broader driving population.

Time to bring tolls to MI.

Nope. We don't need rolls here.

I wont give an opinion on whether Michigan needs tolls or not, but he does have a point. The vast majority of traffic isn't going to change course due to a toll.

I'll give another "local"  example. They widened and replaced the 2 lane Dominion Blvd (US-17) here in Chesapeake with a 4 lane freeway and high level bridge over the Elizabeth River a few years ago, and charged a toll on a previously free route. Despite a lot of local opposition (I can't say that I supported tolling it either, but I understand why it was necessary), the traffic volumes only dropped from around 31-33k vehicles a day to about 27-28k a day. While around 3-4k may have diverted to other routes, 27-28k remained on the route. And since then, I believe the volumes have increased back to pre-toll volumes.

I avoid the road when traffic is light (the non toll route for me is less mileage and only a couple minutes slower), but will gladly take the toll road during peak hours and there's more congestion on the arterial / free route since it's only $1.30 or something. If I'm heading to I-64 or I-464 though, I will take it without question because the arterial alternatives for heading north add 10+ minutes and miles, and ultimately waste a good amount of time.

Bottom line: tolling was opposed locally, but ultimately did not result in much diversion, and allowed the city to construct a $400 million project and complete the 4 lane US-17 between North Carolina and I-64 / I-464 as a limited access (with intersections) highway.

Nobody said anything about "the vast majority of traffic" changing course, but in the example you just gave, according to your own figures, traffic dropped off by about 12%, which seems rather significant to me.  And even if that is merely a temporary situation, that's still enough of a drop-off to cause some, and perhaps many, businesses to fail.  And you're talking about southern Virginia, which has pretty nice weather year-round.  In Michigan, much of the tourism business is seasonal, and businesses which may only be open for a few months, or do little business during the off-season, sure aren't going to be able to deal with a 12% traffic avoidance, or any traffic reduction for that matter.