Mackinac Bridge congestion

[Terry Shea]

Okay, how many Michigan residents even know what EZPass is?  I'm guessing 5-10% tops.  Virtually, nobody here knows what it is, because there is no need for it and virtually nobody uses it.  Other than the Mackinac Bridge, all other tolls are for border crossings into Canada, where you're going to have backups with or without EZPass. 

[Molandfreak]

Even the MBA admits that 5% of the MacPass customer base has at least one other transponder. Considering the $88 upfront cost for MacPass that makes adopting it impractical for all but daily or semi-daily crossers, I don't think this figure is insignificant. After all, it is a little over 300 miles from the nearest E-ZPass toll plaza.
https://x.com/mackinacbridge/status/1330860808050511872

Since Yoopers and other locals are more than likely overrepresented, I would say that the further south you go, the more people will have E-ZPass for out-of-state travel. Of course it is also true that the further south you go, the less people will cross the bridge on a regular basis outside of these holidays where congestion is more frequent. But obviously, the MBA did not have infrequent crossers in mind when they created the MacPass. At the very least, they should require significantly less for a balance payment.

[vdeane]

Congestion is a problem because the bridge is two lanes in each direction and almost always has a lane closed for one reason or another. Trucks exceeding 30 tons the speed limit is 20 mph, how is the toll plaza the reason for the congestion? You stop for about 5 seconds and then go at the toll booth. Every time I cross the bridge there is truck traffic holding the flow up. The lack of EZPass is not the reason for congestion on the Mackinac Bridge.

As noted upthread, the AADT on the Mac is about 20k.  Assuming traffic triples on peak travel days, and we're looking at around 60k.  Plenty of four-lane roads handle that just fine.  They could stand to raise the truck speed limit, but really, what do you expect to happen if everyone needs to stop for 30 seconds to pay the toll?  That delay adds up.  When you have people stopping, the delay always increases for the car behind, as they need to wait not just 30 seconds to pay the toll, but 30 seconds for everyone ahead of them as well.

The old Williamsville toll barrier on the Thruway was probably comparable to peak days on the Mac.  In the direction that paid cash, it had 7 lanes, 5 cash, two E-ZPass.  So if MacPass and E-ZPass became interoperable, they switched to one-way tolling, and they opened up the "emergency" lanes, we could probably get the same 7 lanes in one direction (I'm assuming we'd need three of the existing ten, including emergency, for the two lanes of the other direction, including shoulders), though I'd only have one MacPass/E-ZPass lane initially until adoption is higher.

In 2023 (the last year with full year stats) the Mackinac Bridge had 4,456,148 crossings. That's 12,208 crossings a day, nowhere near the 20,000 you said. The month of July had 638,241 crossings to make July the busiest month at the bridge. That's 20,588 crossings a day in the month of July also nowhere near the 60,000 you said. The Mackinac Bridge has never averaged 60,000 crossings a day not even in a single month. The truck speed limit should stay exactly where it is, you are carrying over 30,000 tons of weight across the bridge why should the truck speed limit be any higher? And it's not 30 seconds, it's about 5 seconds that you are stopped to pay the toll.

I was just using the numbers other people threw out.  If anything, using your figures only further proves my point.  If we assume the volumes on the peak travel days are double the 12k, that would be 24k on those days, very comfortable with two lanes each way on the bridge.  Therefore, the bridge can't be the cause of the congestion, it must be the toll booth.

Even a 5 second stop adds up quickly with enough volume, but I'm betting that for many people it's more than 5 seconds.  5 seconds assumes you have four $1 bills set out beforehand.  I don't even have $1 bills in my wallet; I'd need to use a credit card or break a $20.  Or see if they happen to take any of the Canadian cash I have around; I have better bill variety in CAD than USD due to buying a roll from AAA prior to my Montréal trip this year.

And why should the truck speed limit be that low?  I can't even think of any other bridges that even have a truck speed limit.  And quite frankly, I don't understand why many major bridges have lower limits than the roadway on either side despite the roadway geometry not demanding a lower limit.

And now that you're using monthly averages for everything makes me think that your position is essentially "backups across the bridge on the summer holiday weekends are perfectly acceptable".  And like others said, you seem to be finding every reason possible for it to not be interoperable.  Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I would figure that your position boils down to "I need a good reason to support interoperability" while the rest of us are "I need a good reason to be OK with it not being interoperable", but with how vehemently you've been digging your heels in, that might be too generous.

Even the MBA admits that 5% of the MacPass customer base has at least one other transponder. Considering the $88 upfront cost for MacPass that makes adopting it impractical for all but daily or semi-daily crossers, I don't think this figure is insignificant. After all, it is a little over 300 miles from the nearest E-ZPass toll plaza.
https://x.com/mackinacbridge/status/1330860808050511872

Since Yoopers and other locals are more than likely overrepresented, I would say that the further south you go, the more people will have E-ZPass for out-of-state travel. Of course it is also true that the further south you go, the less people will cross the bridge on a regular basis outside of these holidays where congestion is more frequent. But obviously, the MBA did not have infrequent crossers in mind when they created the MacPass. At the very least, they should require significantly less for a balance payment.

I'd be very curious why they think it would cost that much and require additional staff.  Makes me wonder if they're running a patronage operation like a certain bridge near NYC that resisted E-ZPass for many years.  They're basically a clone of Flint1979.

[Flint1979]

Congestion is a problem because the bridge is two lanes in each direction and almost always has a lane closed for one reason or another. Trucks exceeding 30 tons the speed limit is 20 mph, how is the toll plaza the reason for the congestion? You stop for about 5 seconds and then go at the toll booth. Every time I cross the bridge there is truck traffic holding the flow up. The lack of EZPass is not the reason for congestion on the Mackinac Bridge.

As noted upthread, the AADT on the Mac is about 20k.  Assuming traffic triples on peak travel days, and we're looking at around 60k.  Plenty of four-lane roads handle that just fine.  They could stand to raise the truck speed limit, but really, what do you expect to happen if everyone needs to stop for 30 seconds to pay the toll?  That delay adds up.  When you have people stopping, the delay always increases for the car behind, as they need to wait not just 30 seconds to pay the toll, but 30 seconds for everyone ahead of them as well.

The old Williamsville toll barrier on the Thruway was probably comparable to peak days on the Mac.  In the direction that paid cash, it had 7 lanes, 5 cash, two E-ZPass.  So if MacPass and E-ZPass became interoperable, they switched to one-way tolling, and they opened up the "emergency" lanes, we could probably get the same 7 lanes in one direction (I'm assuming we'd need three of the existing ten, including emergency, for the two lanes of the other direction, including shoulders), though I'd only have one MacPass/E-ZPass lane initially until adoption is higher.

In 2023 (the last year with full year stats) the Mackinac Bridge had 4,456,148 crossings. That's 12,208 crossings a day, nowhere near the 20,000 you said. The month of July had 638,241 crossings to make July the busiest month at the bridge. That's 20,588 crossings a day in the month of July also nowhere near the 60,000 you said. The Mackinac Bridge has never averaged 60,000 crossings a day not even in a single month. The truck speed limit should stay exactly where it is, you are carrying over 30,000 tons of weight across the bridge why should the truck speed limit be any higher? And it's not 30 seconds, it's about 5 seconds that you are stopped to pay the toll.

I was just using the numbers other people threw out.  If anything, using your figures only further proves my point.  If we assume the volumes on the peak travel days are double the 12k, that would be 24k on those days, very comfortable with two lanes each way on the bridge.  Therefore, the bridge can't be the cause of the congestion, it must be the toll booth.

Even a 5 second stop adds up quickly with enough volume, but I'm betting that for many people it's more than 5 seconds.  5 seconds assumes you have four $1 bills set out beforehand.  I don't even have $1 bills in my wallet; I'd need to use a credit card or break a $20.  Or see if they happen to take any of the Canadian cash I have around; I have better bill variety in CAD than USD due to buying a roll from AAA prior to my Montréal trip this year.

And why should the truck speed limit be that low?  I can't even think of any other bridges that even have a truck speed limit.  And quite frankly, I don't understand why many major bridges have lower limits than the roadway on either side despite the roadway geometry not demanding a lower limit.

And now that you're using monthly averages for everything makes me think that your position is essentially "backups across the bridge on the summer holiday weekends are perfectly acceptable".  And like others said, you seem to be finding every reason possible for it to not be interoperable.  Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I would figure that your position boils down to "I need a good reason to support interoperability" while the rest of us are "I need a good reason to be OK with it not being interoperable", but with how vehemently you've been digging your heels in, that might be too generous.

Even the MBA admits that 5% of the MacPass customer base has at least one other transponder. Considering the $88 upfront cost for MacPass that makes adopting it impractical for all but daily or semi-daily crossers, I don't think this figure is insignificant. After all, it is a little over 300 miles from the nearest E-ZPass toll plaza.
https://x.com/mackinacbridge/status/1330860808050511872

Since Yoopers and other locals are more than likely overrepresented, I would say that the further south you go, the more people will have E-ZPass for out-of-state travel. Of course it is also true that the further south you go, the less people will cross the bridge on a regular basis outside of these holidays where congestion is more frequent. But obviously, the MBA did not have infrequent crossers in mind when they created the MacPass. At the very least, they should require significantly less for a balance payment.

I'd be very curious why they think it would cost that much and require additional staff.  Makes me wonder if they're running a patronage operation like a certain bridge near NYC that resisted E-ZPass for many years.  They're basically a clone of Flint1979.

Good luck getting both lanes open for the entire length of the bridge when on going construction is always happening on the bridge, the MBA almost always has a lane closed for maintenance or construction. So when you are behind a 20 mph moving truck in a single lane there is going to be congestion. Truck speed is 20 mph because they are carrying 60,000 pounds or more and the wind is a factor as well. This is a bridge that is almost 70 years old that is not up to Interstate highway standards and never will be we are talking about.

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^ with that attitude, you're certainly correct.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I'd be very curious why they think it would cost that much and require additional staff.  Makes me wonder if they're running a patronage operation like a certain bridge near NYC that resisted E-ZPass for many years.  They're basically a clone of Flint1979.

Is it possible they looked at it through the lens of supplementing EZPass with MacPass and not simply eliminating MacPass altogether? That could be why that cost seems high if they have to install a whole bunch of new equipment. There would be at least still IT costs involved to link the softwares. I don't know.

The one thing I will say is keep in mind you're not dealing with a toll authority the size of NYS, PTC, ISTHA, etc. The 2022 figures showed the bridge made $23 million, with a $94 million multi-year maintenance project kicking off this year. Dropping a million bucks on something that would be nice-to-have but hardly essential or critical to the bridge's operation is going to be a tough sell for any industry.

I'm not anti-interoperability, I'm just suggesting why it may not be a priority for them. Should it be? A lot of people here think so. I don't know. I'm not in charge.

[vdeane]

I'd be very curious why they think it would cost that much and require additional staff.  Makes me wonder if they're running a patronage operation like a certain bridge near NYC that resisted E-ZPass for many years.  They're basically a clone of Flint1979.

Is it possible they looked at it through the lens of supplementing EZPass with MacPass and not simply eliminating MacPass altogether? That could be why that cost seems high if they have to install a whole bunch of new equipment. There would be at least still IT costs involved to link the softwares. I don't know.

The one thing I will say is keep in mind you're not dealing with a toll authority the size of NYS, PTC, ISTHA, etc. The 2022 figures showed the bridge made $23 million, with a $94 million multi-year maintenance project kicking off this year. Dropping a million bucks on something that would be nice-to-have but hardly essential or critical to the bridge's operation is going to be a tough sell for any industry.

I'm not anti-interoperability, I'm just suggesting why it may not be a priority for them. Should it be? A lot of people here think so. I don't know. I'm not in charge.

The Thousand Islands Bridge Authority managed to join, and while they don't have a separate RFID sticker, multiple E-ZPass agencies now issue stickers (Illinois exclusively now), so I can't imagine they don't have both types of equipment.

[Flint1979]

Another thing is in high winds the speed limit is 20 mph for every vehicle and high winds in the Straits area is not uncommon at all. In fact it's very common for high winds. You are 200 feet above the water at the midpoint of the bridge, the bridge is 5 miles long and two narrow lanes in each direction. I can't believe that anyone would question the 20 mph speed limit for trucks carrying over 60,000 pounds on the bridge.

[Flint1979]

I'd be very curious why they think it would cost that much and require additional staff.  Makes me wonder if they're running a patronage operation like a certain bridge near NYC that resisted E-ZPass for many years.  They're basically a clone of Flint1979.

Is it possible they looked at it through the lens of supplementing EZPass with MacPass and not simply eliminating MacPass altogether? That could be why that cost seems high if they have to install a whole bunch of new equipment. There would be at least still IT costs involved to link the softwares. I don't know.

The one thing I will say is keep in mind you're not dealing with a toll authority the size of NYS, PTC, ISTHA, etc. The 2022 figures showed the bridge made $23 million, with a $94 million multi-year maintenance project kicking off this year. Dropping a million bucks on something that would be nice-to-have but hardly essential or critical to the bridge's operation is going to be a tough sell for any industry.

I'm not anti-interoperability, I'm just suggesting why it may not be a priority for them. Should it be? A lot of people here think so. I don't know. I'm not in charge.

The Thousand Islands Bridge Authority managed to join, and while they don't have a separate RFID sticker, multiple E-ZPass agencies now issue stickers (Illinois exclusively now), so I can't imagine they don't have both types of equipment.

And the Thousand Islands area is in New York where more people have EZPass. The Mackinac Bridge Authority has explained their reason and it's a valid reason.

[Molandfreak]

I'd be very curious why they think it would cost that much and require additional staff.  Makes me wonder if they're running a patronage operation like a certain bridge near NYC that resisted E-ZPass for many years.  They're basically a clone of Flint1979.

Is it possible they looked at it through the lens of supplementing EZPass with MacPass and not simply eliminating MacPass altogether? That could be why that cost seems high if they have to install a whole bunch of new equipment. There would be at least still IT costs involved to link the softwares. I don't know.

The one thing I will say is keep in mind you're not dealing with a toll authority the size of NYS, PTC, ISTHA, etc. The 2022 figures showed the bridge made $23 million, with a $94 million multi-year maintenance project kicking off this year. Dropping a million bucks on something that would be nice-to-have but hardly essential or critical to the bridge's operation is going to be a tough sell for any industry.

I'm not anti-interoperability, I'm just suggesting why it may not be a priority for them. Should it be? A lot of people here think so. I don't know. I'm not in charge.

The Thousand Islands Bridge Authority managed to join, and while they don't have a separate RFID sticker, multiple E-ZPass agencies now issue stickers (Illinois exclusively now), so I can't imagine they don't have both types of equipment.

And the Thousand Islands area is in New York where more people have EZPass. The Mackinac Bridge Authority has explained their reason and it's a valid reason.

From the perspective of having just spent the money to upgrade from the card system, yes. But the figures I'm more interested in are what it would have cost to implement E-ZPass from the beginning instead of creating their own separate system. The answer is not likely much, and this was more about corporate greed and control than actually saving money.

[hobsini2]

We don't support EZ Pass because we don't have toll roads. What difference does it make it any of you if Michigan has EZ Pass or not? And how many people on here actually use the Mackinac Bridge? They aren't getting EZ Pass no matter how much people bicker about it. It's not happening.

What difference would it make to you if they did add support for EZ-Pass?  You're so adamant that they shouldn't add it but you haven't given any good reason why not other than "I personally don't like it."  I'm sure there are a couple other old grumpy people that hate change and would be angry that other people would gain the option to just drive through the toll barrier instead of being forced to stop and hand over $4, but I would bet most normal people would be elated, and pick up an EZ-Pass for themselves if they don't already have one (which many Michiganders do).

They aren't going to be adding EZPass so it doesn't make any difference. It's not going to benefit anyone by adding it, first of all they would need to rebuild the toll plaza, secondly it's not going to stop congestion ON the bridge. I'm talking from knowledge not just what I think. People already do drive through the toll plaza instead of being forced to stop and hand over $4 it's called MacPass. Nobody is upset over having to stop for less than 30 seconds to pay a toll and then move on. Having EZPass on the Mackinac Bridge would compete with their own MacPass. The Mackinac Bridge Authority isn't out to screw themselves over.

"Nobody is upset over having to stop for less than 30 seconds" but congestion is a problem.

Claiming that your experience driving over the bridge means that AET or even adding AET lanes and keeping cash lanes would be useless towards mitigating congestion is a non sequitur.

Congestion is a problem because the bridge is two lanes in each direction and almost always has a lane closed for one reason or another. Trucks exceeding 30 tons the speed limit is 20 mph, how is the toll plaza the reason for the congestion? You stop for about 5 seconds and then go at the toll booth. Every time I cross the bridge there is truck traffic holding the flow up. The lack of EZPass is not the reason for congestion on the Mackinac Bridge.

So do you think there is enough reason to have a twin span bridge?

[Rothman]

I still don't see the harm in implementing AET, MacPass/E-ZPass compatible, if not even more systems.

The maintenance program is certainly an intriguing one.  Still, with congestion on the bridge, raising tolls modestly could pay for the conversion and maintenance.

[Terry Shea]

We don't support EZ Pass because we don't have toll roads. What difference does it make it any of you if Michigan has EZ Pass or not? And how many people on here actually use the Mackinac Bridge? They aren't getting EZ Pass no matter how much people bicker about it. It's not happening.

What difference would it make to you if they did add support for EZ-Pass?  You're so adamant that they shouldn't add it but you haven't given any good reason why not other than "I personally don't like it."  I'm sure there are a couple other old grumpy people that hate change and would be angry that other people would gain the option to just drive through the toll barrier instead of being forced to stop and hand over $4, but I would bet most normal people would be elated, and pick up an EZ-Pass for themselves if they don't already have one (which many Michiganders do).

They aren't going to be adding EZPass so it doesn't make any difference. It's not going to benefit anyone by adding it, first of all they would need to rebuild the toll plaza, secondly it's not going to stop congestion ON the bridge. I'm talking from knowledge not just what I think. People already do drive through the toll plaza instead of being forced to stop and hand over $4 it's called MacPass. Nobody is upset over having to stop for less than 30 seconds to pay a toll and then move on. Having EZPass on the Mackinac Bridge would compete with their own MacPass. The Mackinac Bridge Authority isn't out to screw themselves over.

"Nobody is upset over having to stop for less than 30 seconds" but congestion is a problem.

Claiming that your experience driving over the bridge means that AET or even adding AET lanes and keeping cash lanes would be useless towards mitigating congestion is a non sequitur.

Congestion is a problem because the bridge is two lanes in each direction and almost always has a lane closed for one reason or another. Trucks exceeding 30 tons the speed limit is 20 mph, how is the toll plaza the reason for the congestion? You stop for about 5 seconds and then go at the toll booth. Every time I cross the bridge there is truck traffic holding the flow up. The lack of EZPass is not the reason for congestion on the Mackinac Bridge.

So do you think there is enough reason to have a twin span bridge?

How many billions would that cost and where would you put it?

[Molandfreak]

I still don't see the harm in implementing AET, MacPass/E-ZPass compatible, if not even more systems.

The maintenance program is certainly an intriguing one.  Still, with congestion on the bridge, raising tolls modestly could pay for the conversion and maintenance.

Plus they could offer a discounted rate for those using MacPasses (beyond the current return trip within 36 hours discount) to encourage a continued revenue stream from that.

[hobsini2]

We don't support EZ Pass because we don't have toll roads. What difference does it make it any of you if Michigan has EZ Pass or not? And how many people on here actually use the Mackinac Bridge? They aren't getting EZ Pass no matter how much people bicker about it. It's not happening.

What difference would it make to you if they did add support for EZ-Pass?  You're so adamant that they shouldn't add it but you haven't given any good reason why not other than "I personally don't like it."  I'm sure there are a couple other old grumpy people that hate change and would be angry that other people would gain the option to just drive through the toll barrier instead of being forced to stop and hand over $4, but I would bet most normal people would be elated, and pick up an EZ-Pass for themselves if they don't already have one (which many Michiganders do).

They aren't going to be adding EZPass so it doesn't make any difference. It's not going to benefit anyone by adding it, first of all they would need to rebuild the toll plaza, secondly it's not going to stop congestion ON the bridge. I'm talking from knowledge not just what I think. People already do drive through the toll plaza instead of being forced to stop and hand over $4 it's called MacPass. Nobody is upset over having to stop for less than 30 seconds to pay a toll and then move on. Having EZPass on the Mackinac Bridge would compete with their own MacPass. The Mackinac Bridge Authority isn't out to screw themselves over.

"Nobody is upset over having to stop for less than 30 seconds" but congestion is a problem.

Claiming that your experience driving over the bridge means that AET or even adding AET lanes and keeping cash lanes would be useless towards mitigating congestion is a non sequitur.

Congestion is a problem because the bridge is two lanes in each direction and almost always has a lane closed for one reason or another. Trucks exceeding 30 tons the speed limit is 20 mph, how is the toll plaza the reason for the congestion? You stop for about 5 seconds and then go at the toll booth. Every time I cross the bridge there is truck traffic holding the flow up. The lack of EZPass is not the reason for congestion on the Mackinac Bridge.

So do you think there is enough reason to have a twin span bridge?

How many billions would that cost and where would you put it?

If you go upthread, I did post about this before. Put the twin span east of the current one. It cost $99.8 Million for the originial span. That is $828 Million in 2023 money.

[JREwing78]

Congestion is a problem because the bridge is two lanes in each direction and almost always has a lane closed for one reason or another. Trucks exceeding 30 tons the speed limit is 20 mph, how is the toll plaza the reason for the congestion? You stop for about 5 seconds and then go at the toll booth. Every time I cross the bridge there is truck traffic holding the flow up. The lack of EZPass is not the reason for congestion on the Mackinac Bridge.

Poor weather is outside of our (or the Bridge Authority's) control. Ditto for construction, though the Authority can at least try to keep major work outside the heavy travel days during the Memorial Day -> Labor Day period.

As for trucks, the State Police should enforce the truck restriction to the right lane only. Of course, if a convoy of double-wide trailer homes decides to choose a random Monday evening to make the crossing and block both lanes (as I'm watching right now on the Bridge cam), not much they can do with that one.

As noted upthread, the AADT on the Mac is about 20k.  Assuming traffic triples on peak travel days, and we're looking at around 60k.  Plenty of four-lane roads handle that just fine.  They could stand to raise the truck speed limit, but really, what do you expect to happen if everyone needs to stop for 30 seconds to pay the toll?  That delay adds up.

That 20K AADT is during the peak summer travel period (extrapolated from the monthly crossing figures). On peak days, I wouldn't be surprised to see it crack 40,000 vpd, but that's at the absolute limits of the tolling infrastructure. Unfortunately the Bridge only publishes montly figures.

60K AADT is pure fantasy unless they simply waived tolls altogether.

They're not moving trucks (and RVs and travel trailers) any faster over the bridge than they are already. The Bridge is not Interstate-spec. The lanes are narrow. The guardrails are precariously low. The Bridge isn't built to handle the added weight of taller guardrails.

I'd be very curious why they think it would cost that much and require additional staff.  Makes me wonder if they're running a patronage operation like a certain bridge near NYC that resisted E-ZPass for many years.  They're basically a clone of Flint1979.

Is it possible they looked at it through the lens of supplementing EZPass with MacPass and not simply eliminating MacPass altogether? That could be why that cost seems high if they have to install a whole bunch of new equipment. There would be at least still IT costs involved to link the softwares. I don't know.

The one thing I will say is keep in mind you're not dealing with a toll authority the size of NYS, PTC, ISTHA, etc. The 2022 figures showed the bridge made $23 million, with a $94 million multi-year maintenance project kicking off this year. Dropping a million bucks on something that would be nice-to-have but hardly essential or critical to the bridge's operation is going to be a tough sell for any industry.

That's one reason I haven't really pushed E-ZPass as *the* answer. Limited users, a lot of upfront costs and ongoing costs, and it's not clear it would markedly improve the Authority's finances without including a hike in tolls.

So do you think there is enough reason to have a twin span bridge?

How many billions would that cost and where would you put it?

If you go upthread, I did post about this before. Put the twin span east of the current one. It cost $99.8 Million for the originial span. That is $828 Million in 2023 money.

That's assuming they build a clone of the existing bridge. They would have to build to modern specs today, so you can easily double or triple that figure. If we're talking about things that AIN'T EVER GONNA HAPPEN, it's twinning the Mackinac Bridge.

The Bridge Authority's going to keep the existing Bridge going as long as they possibly can. Short of a cataclysmic failure of one of the two towers, there's no reason they couldn't get another 75 years out of it. If the Mouron family's half-assed maintenance on the Ambassador Bridge was enough to get it to 100, no reason the Mackinac Bridge couldn't live to 150. 

When they're forced to build a new span, it'll most likely be a replacement span - and maybe at that point it'll be 6 lanes with full inner and outer shoulders.

[Flint1979]

We don't support EZ Pass because we don't have toll roads. What difference does it make it any of you if Michigan has EZ Pass or not? And how many people on here actually use the Mackinac Bridge? They aren't getting EZ Pass no matter how much people bicker about it. It's not happening.

What difference would it make to you if they did add support for EZ-Pass?  You're so adamant that they shouldn't add it but you haven't given any good reason why not other than "I personally don't like it."  I'm sure there are a couple other old grumpy people that hate change and would be angry that other people would gain the option to just drive through the toll barrier instead of being forced to stop and hand over $4, but I would bet most normal people would be elated, and pick up an EZ-Pass for themselves if they don't already have one (which many Michiganders do).

They aren't going to be adding EZPass so it doesn't make any difference. It's not going to benefit anyone by adding it, first of all they would need to rebuild the toll plaza, secondly it's not going to stop congestion ON the bridge. I'm talking from knowledge not just what I think. People already do drive through the toll plaza instead of being forced to stop and hand over $4 it's called MacPass. Nobody is upset over having to stop for less than 30 seconds to pay a toll and then move on. Having EZPass on the Mackinac Bridge would compete with their own MacPass. The Mackinac Bridge Authority isn't out to screw themselves over.

"Nobody is upset over having to stop for less than 30 seconds" but congestion is a problem.

Claiming that your experience driving over the bridge means that AET or even adding AET lanes and keeping cash lanes would be useless towards mitigating congestion is a non sequitur.

Congestion is a problem because the bridge is two lanes in each direction and almost always has a lane closed for one reason or another. Trucks exceeding 30 tons the speed limit is 20 mph, how is the toll plaza the reason for the congestion? You stop for about 5 seconds and then go at the toll booth. Every time I cross the bridge there is truck traffic holding the flow up. The lack of EZPass is not the reason for congestion on the Mackinac Bridge.

So do you think there is enough reason to have a twin span bridge?

No

[Molandfreak]

That's one reason I haven't really pushed E-ZPass as *the* answer. Limited users, a lot of upfront costs and ongoing costs, and it's not clear it would markedly improve the Authority's finances without including a hike in tolls.

I really think the MBA had tunnel vision during the decision making process for the switch to transponder technology, opting to just continue the business model that only works for locals and not looking closer into business models for MacPass that would be more attractive to weekenders or occasional crossers in order to speed up some of the traffic at the toll booths. Even a $48 pricetag for the MacPass, plus a better deal on all crossings rather than just return trips within 36 hours would make it more attractive for occasional users--especially if they know they will be crossing on these high-traffic holidays.

[KelleyCook]

When they're forced to build a new span, it'll most likely be a replacement span - and maybe at that point it'll be 6 lanes with full inner and outer shoulders.

We'll have flying cars before the bridge will be replaced.

[vdeane]

That's one reason I haven't really pushed E-ZPass as *the* answer. Limited users, a lot of upfront costs and ongoing costs, and it's not clear it would markedly improve the Authority's finances without including a hike in tolls.

I really think the MBA had tunnel vision during the decision making process for the switch to transponder technology, opting to just continue the business model that only works for locals and not looking closer into business models for MacPass that would be more attractive to weekenders or occasional crossers in order to speed up some of the traffic at the toll booths. Even a $48 pricetag for the MacPass, plus a better deal on all crossings rather than just return trips within 36 hours would make it more attractive for occasional users--especially if they know they will be crossing on these high-traffic holidays.

It is amazing how often organizations will go for "replace in kind" when "modernizing" something rather than looking at what actually makes sense in the present day.

[Moose]

I need to find where I saw it.. it was a study. Michigan did it as a worst case if some sort of catastrophe would befall the Mackinac Bridge. 

A replacement span would be not the preferred option. Mostly due to the risks of construction in the weather there. The study (if I remember right) recommended a series of tunnels and causeways using Bois Blanc island and the various shoals in the straights.. with tunnels on ether side of the island.

It was still stupidly expensive even in the 18 to 20 years ago money it quoted. And this included money to divert I-75 much farther eastward.

From memory, and this is foogy..
Tunnel from the lower Peninsula to Pine Reef Light
A causeway from the light to the island.
Road across the island.
Tunnel from the north end of the island to Majors Shoal where a artificial island would be built.
It would dip back down into a third tunnel to Graham Shoal there it would connect via a causeway to the existing north side toll Plaza.

Mackinac island was absolutely to be avoided at all costs, it would shorten the tunnels, but at the cost of destroying the character of the no cars allowed island.

And yes.. the bridge gets just nasty to try and cross in the winter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44T958q1y-s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcjj3-v0jB4

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I see the chances being about zero that Michigan could theoretically build that route now in today's fiscal and environmental climates.

[Moose]

I see the chances being about zero that Michigan could theoretically build that route now in today's fiscal and environmental climates.

To be honest, I think that would go for absolutely any replacement, even a new span next to it.

Which is why they maintain the heck out of the existing bridge. I mean they spend a good bit of money on it.

In 2017 they spent $6.7 million on operations, and 8 million dollars on "Infrastructure Preservation"

[rhen_var]

The Mackinac Bridge is such a major icon of Michigan, I'd have to believe if it were suddenly destroyed it would have to be replaced in kind just for that reason alone.

[SEWIGuy]

Of course it would be replaced. The economic health of the UP depends on it for tourism and access to the border, the universities up there, etc.