St. Joseph Valle Parkway Connection: Can/Will it Ever Happen?

[nwi_navigator_1181]

In the "Unbuilt Evidence" thread, someone mentioned the stub where the St. Joseph Valley Parkway (currently designated as U.S. 31) currently ends, although it's designed to connect to the current interchange with I-94/196.

For those in the know, are there any plans to move forward with that project in the foreseeable future, even if there is no feasible approach for a direct connect? Seeing that U.S. 31 is being upgraded into a full freeway here in Indiana, it would make sense to have a nonstop Grand Rapids to Indianapolis connection.

Thanks for your responses.

[mukade]

The Michigan people probably know best, but I thought the direct connection through to I-196 was stopped because of a supposed rare butterfly along the proposed route. There were plans to somehow connect it another way (not sure whether or not freeway) via either Napier Avenue or Main Street, but I don't think MDOT has funding for that.

As far as Indiana goes, only the US 20-US 30 (South Bend-Plymouth), Kokomo, and SR 38-I-465 (Hamilton County) sections are funded. Those should all be open by 2015. With I-69 from Bloomington to Indy probably at a higher priority, it will be interesting to see if more of US 31 is upgraded in Indiana.

Yes, the Grand Rapids to Indianapolis freeway connection certainly makes sense.

[rickmeck]

I think mukade is right. I lived in South Bend for 15 years until recently, and I heard something about butterflies. However, interesting note: When I was commuting between South Bend and Grand Rapids for a while before I moved to Grand Rapids, there was more than one occasion in which I noticed MDOT trucks working on the unopened section of U.S. 31 (north of the current end of the freeway). I wasn't able to tell what they were doing.

Agreed, having that small portion finished would be ideal.

[bulldog1979]

The current plans are to curve the US 31 freeway to tie into I-94 at the BL I-94 interchange. US 31 would then follow I-94 up to the next interchange to turn onto the southern end of the I-196 freeway. The previously approved plans (from 1981) to tie directly into the south end of I-196 are still possible, if MDOT elevated the freeway over a fen in the area, but given the cost, the new plan would curve away from it. Michigan just hasn't been building new freeways though since the last sections of US 31 were finished along with the Cadillac and Manton bypasses or M-6.

[hobsini2]

I think mukade is right. I lived in South Bend for 15 years until recently, and I heard something about butterflies. However, interesting note: When I was commuting between South Bend and Grand Rapids for a while before I moved to Grand Rapids, there was more than one occasion in which I noticed MDOT trucks working on the unopened section of U.S. 31 (north of the current end of the freeway). I wasn't able to tell what they were doing.

Agreed, having that small portion finished would be ideal.

"Rare butterflies" seem to be the new NIMBY trick. That happened with the extension of I-355 to 80.

[bulldog1979]

For more information, the proposed new routing, the affected butterfly and other details are all in the Wikipedia article on the St. Joseph Valley Parkway.

[JREwing78]

MDOT is currently so underfunded they're having to resort to tricks to stay solvent (one example: counting the $500 million Canada is putting up for the DRIC as their match for federal highway funds). There's going to be very little in the way of new highways until that issue is solved.

At this rate, if I'm still alive by the time the US-31 direct freeway-to-freeway connection is made, it'll be astonishing. And, I'm only 33.

[silverback1065]

it's a shame that they have no money to finish 31, it's a total nightmare driving on the non interstate standard parts i can't believe it's still not going to be fixed, the M-231 bypass isn't enough to solve the problem in my opinion

[silverback1065]

 no one gives a crap about butterflies

[bulldog1979]

MDOT is currently so underfunded they're having to resort to tricks to stay solvent (one example: counting the $500 million Canada is putting up for the DRIC as their match for federal highway funds). There's going to be very little in the way of new highways until that issue is solved.

Well, I wouldn't cite the DRIC situation as "proof" of MDOT insolvency. MDOT and the governor can't pony up state money for DRIC without legislative approval. A bill to approve the bridge was denied in committee in the Legislature last year and hasn't been resurrected. (Neither MDOT nor Snyder can magically conjure up highway funding without approval by the Legislature.) Snyder's "approved" the bridge without the Legislature, but MDOT still can't spend any of its money on the project, because they don't have the authority to do so.

Of course that last new freeway in Michigan, M-6, was proposed back in the 1960s (one source I found said the 1940s!), a gas tax increase for it and other projects like the I-275 northern extension was one was approved in the 1970s, and it still took until 2001 to get the first segment opened. These things can take time, even when there is money around.

As for finishing US 31 in Michigan, we have two competing issues at play here. The Holland—Grand Haven freeway gap is a case where that was one of the earlier segments of two-lane highway upgraded to a divided highway. As time marched on, other segments were upgraded to full freeway standards, leaving a section in the middle that is of a lower standard. Of course in the interim, property along that section of the highway has developed, so any solution involves bypassing it. The bypass also has the added benefits of getting traffic away from the drawbridge in Grand Haven and providing another crossing of the Grand River. The bridge is currently under construction now.

With the St. Joseph Valley Parkway, as it's now called, had MDOT started at the I-196 interchange and worked southward, they'd have built the connection as desired and as approved. Instead, they continued Indiana's work northward, leaving the previously approved connection for last. In the interim, a rare and endangered species was discovered, prompting an alteration of the plans. Either they spend more money to elevate the freeway over the fen, or the steer clear of it.

[mukade]

Hindsight is 20-20, but you can't second guess the decision to build US 31 from Indiana northward. Also, the new Grand Rapids south beltline has been sorely needed since the 1960s.

What I do wonder about, though is the slowness to rebuild some key roads. For example, I-94 in Detroit (and other places) is really obsolete. US 131 seemed narrow and dangerous in places last time I was in GR as well - maybe its fixed now. It is those roads in addition to the Grand Haven situation (which is akin to US 31 in Kokomo) that seem to put MDOT in a bad situation. Filling the Benton Harbor area gap on US 31 would be great, but there are probably higher priorities, IMO.

All this brings me back to a pet peeve: why did MDOT replace all those signs just to bring in Clearview? That seemed like a collosal waste of money.

[bulldog1979]

MDOT is also actively acquiring the ROW needed to finish US 127 between Ithaca and St. Johns. I do believe they're in the acquisition phase for M-231. They're building the bridge over the Grand River now. According to the Grand Haven Tribune, "the M-231 bypass is projected to be completed by 2015 if federal and state funds come through as anticipated, according to MDOT Transportation Service Manager Art Green. He said the entire cost of the bypass, right down to the traffic signals, is estimated at $300 million."

[rawmustard]

What I do wonder about, though is the slowness to rebuild some key roads. For example, I-94 in Detroit (and other places) is really obsolete. US 131 seemed narrow and dangerous in places last time I was in GR as well - maybe its fixed now.

The portions of freeway in Kent and Allegan counties are the earliest segments and were built on narrower ROW than later portions.

All this brings me back to a pet peeve: why did MDOT replace all those signs just to bring in Clearview? That seemed like a collosal waste of money.

There's that myth again. Clearview signs have gone up during normal replacement cycles. For example, there are still significant portions of I-94 which haven't seen it yet except in cases of spot replacements (e.g., within the project limit of the expansion in Portage completed last year and other isolated locations).

[bulldog1979]

All this brings me back to a pet peeve: why did MDOT replace all those signs just to bring in Clearview? That seemed like a collosal waste of money.

There's that myth again. Clearview signs have gone up during normal replacement cycles. For example, there are still significant portions of I-94 which haven't seen it yet except in cases of spot replacements (e.g., within the project limit of the expansion in Portage completed last year and other isolated locations).

Agreed on the "myth". In other cases where MDOT may have accelerated scheduled replacements, they had specifically programmed funding to do so. You can't just shuffle money dedicated for sign replacement into potholes or reconstruction work. Also, if the budget has $X of general funding left over after the big projects, and that money has to be spend or lost, that money can be used to manufacture new signage. Let's face it, you can buy a lot more signs than pavement miles with the same amount of cash.

[mukade]

There's that myth again. Clearview signs have gone up during normal replacement cycles. For example, there are still significant portions of I-94 which haven't seen it yet except in cases of spot replacements (e.g., within the project limit of the expansion in Portage completed last year and other isolated locations).

As I was working in Troy back then, I can say with certainty that perfectly good signs were replaced. Perhaps they ran out of money or had an age threshold to prevent a full conversion, but a lot of money was wasted. Same for Illinois. I took pictures of signs in both states as the Clearview conversions were happening. I will try to find some.

[InterstateNG]

Still a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of the improvements mentioned, particularly the I-94 modernization.

[bulldog1979]

There's that myth again. Clearview signs have gone up during normal replacement cycles. For example, there are still significant portions of I-94 which haven't seen it yet except in cases of spot replacements (e.g., within the project limit of the expansion in Portage completed last year and other isolated locations).

As I was working in Troy back then, I can say with certainty that perfectly good signs were replaced. Perhaps they ran out of money or had an age threshold to prevent a full conversion, but a lot of money was wasted. Same for Illinois. I took pictures of signs in both states as the Clearview conversions were happening. I will try to find some.

A sign could look "perfectly good" during the day and not meet reflectivity standards at night. DOTs tend to replace everything along a section of highway, rather than leave the few signs that are still "perfectly good" so they can keep an entire segment on the same replacement schedule to simplify tracking.

[mukade]

I think many people commented about the way it was done at the time.  I seem to remember people say 2 or 3 year old signs were sometimes replaced in the GLR or MTR forums back then. Do you have evidence that reflectivity was substandard on the replaced signs? I have driven in Michigan at night many times, and I guess I never noticed an issue on the roads I drove.

[JREwing78]

MDOT is currently so underfunded they're having to resort to tricks to stay solvent (one example: counting the $500 million Canada is putting up for the DRIC as their match for federal highway funds). There's going to be very little in the way of new highways until that issue is solved.

Well, I wouldn't cite the DRIC situation as "proof" of MDOT insolvency. MDOT and the governor can't pony up state money for DRIC without legislative approval. A bill to approve the bridge was denied in committee in the Legislature last year and hasn't been resurrected. (Neither MDOT nor Snyder can magically conjure up highway funding without approval by the Legislature.) Snyder's "approved" the bridge without the Legislature, but MDOT still can't spend any of its money on the project, because they don't have the authority to do so.

The only thing the bridge has to do with it is that the feds allowed MDOT to count the $500 million Canada put up as Michigan's federal match for OTHER highway projects in the state (sorry, didn't make that clear earlier).

Had they not been allowed to do so, MDOT would have been in the position of losing federal highway funds because they couldn't come up with enough local funds for their match. This is not a new development either - MDOT has had to seriously scale back their work since at least 2006 because the gas tax revenues have not kept up with the rise in construction costs.

MDOT has historically been pretty aggressive about replacing signs. This is one area where MDOT consistently outperforms other state DOTs - they actually replace signs when it's time to replace them. Other states let the old signs go far too long, well after their reflectivity has been lost.

MDOT doesn't habitually replace recently-installed signs. There ARE a couple instances where they replaced 2-3 year old signs with Clearview versions (say, in Grand Rapids). It seems unlikely that the old signs didn't get refaced and reused elsewhere though.