Get rid of the S-Curve?

[Jippy]

Do you all remember when the traffic during the S-Curve reconstruction? My recollection was that it wasn't that bad. People adapt. If the highway was modified per GRdad's recommendation, it would be successful. Many of the trips would just disappear, others would find different routes, others would modify the mode they choose (Silver Line), and trucks may decide to alter their schedule. 

[RegalTDP]

What about the S-Curve itself?  That actually seems to me the trickiest stretch of this highway to bring down to grade.  131 crosses Cherry, Grandville, and Market in rapid succession at different angles.  As "hostile" as the elevated freeway is, I don't see how we could realign those streets in a way that wouldn't make the boulevard even more hostile.

[SupercityGR]

There are to many cars that go through the s curve every day. To bring it down to grade would be horrible.

[John E]

I think all that should be done is to bring Wealthy down to grade with the freeway going over top.

Developments under the freeway could be done anytime.

[GRDadof3]

What about the S-Curve itself?  That actually seems to me the trickiest stretch of this highway to bring down to grade.  131 crosses Cherry, Grandville, and Market in rapid succession at different angles.  As "hostile" as the elevated freeway is, I don't see how we could realign those streets in a way that wouldn't make the boulevard even more hostile.

 

I haven't figured that part out yet. And closing off those streets so that they don't cross 131 is out of the question.

[MJLO]

If anything 131 should be upgraded to interstate standards to the south and connect with 80/90 and renamed I-67 which would further improve business along the corridor, after that would be an extension up north.   

 

They are actually in the process of upgrading US 31 from Indianapolis to South Bend to full standard freeway.  Pretty much all we'd need to do is finish the connection/interchange of US-31 and the 196 in Berrien County.  The talk would be to designate that as I-67, which would then continue north on131 at the junction downtown.  It would be a much easier economically to execute since the infrastructure is almost entirely in place anyway.  Which would then connect us to the toll road and  the crap loads of interstates already going through Indianapolis.  That way you could still get rid of the s-curves

[trongrr]

@MJLO - This is slightly OT, but what's the story with the US-31 dead end at Napier Road?  I'm assuming that MDOT ran out of money, or couldn't get the land. 

 

Also, I'd love to see a real US131 someday.  I travel that way quite often, and that stretch from Schoolcraft to 80/90 is a pain.  But then again, it's lot's of money that is not there.

 

If the tough nerd wants Michigan to not be a cul-de-sac, then we need to make a couple of key connections.

[MJLO]

So the Story with 31 not being completed has to do with a protected environmental area sitting between I-196 and Napier.  In order not to disturb the area the estimated cost of construcion was pegged at $100 million(2004 dollars).     There have been a couple proposed changes. The first would be to spend the money to protect the land in front of it which would be the most expensive. The second would be to curve the freeway to the west and connect it with business 94 and create an extra weave/merge lane between that exit and the entrance to the 196.   This sounds like the most logical and cost effective alternative.    Bear in mind these solutions were thought up and proposed 9 years ago and the state has yet to take action.  

 

I am hoping that with Indiana working around the clock to finish the bypasses and upgrades on 31 that maybe this 2 miles of unfinished road will get a little love from the nerd now that revenues are up.  However with all the doom and gloom press about the current state of Michigans roads,  my faith is not real strong about it getting remembered.

[trongrr]

Thanks - I just did my best Google-Fu and found a nice map of the proposal down there.  Looks like quite the mess:

 

Plans - MAP (PDF)

[VNG]

I admit that I don’t know much about traffic engineering, but this discussion raises three questions for me.

 

1)      Who uses 131? It is mainly commuters coming in and out of the City to work, or is it mostly traffic just passing through?

2)      If it is going to be relocated why not also relocate all of it between the section between M-6 and I-96?

3)      Can realistic changes be made to keep it where it is but still get the east/west connectivity that has been discussed here?

 

Personally, I would rather see 131 get moved west of Wilson Avenue and be a connection to I-96 and turn the existing 131 from M-6 to I-96 into a regular street. This will slow the traffic down, disburse it onto the other collector streets and encourage the development of rail and RBT. Why we are at it, the same thing should happen to I-196 to have it start at M-6. Why bother with this bits and pieces approach. Dream Big

 

Otherwise, I think they should just upgrade the existing 131 in place. 

 

Personally we find it easier to just take local streets. It might take a little bit longer to get into downtown, but there is so much more to do/see/and experience. 

[Allison Slater]

Only one amongst thousands, but at least when I was young my parents (from Wayland) would use 131 downtown primarily to get to Alpine (for some reason Star was their theater of choice over the much closer Studio 28), to reach Muskegon, to go to the zoo, or for my dad to get to work (Fremont, then later off of Leonard).  This was before M6, although I imagine for Muskegon travel 131 would still be used, as M6-196-96 would just be a pointless detour.

 

I'm not really in favour of complete removal of the highway, but IF it were to be done, I'd imagine a limited access highway would need to be created along Wilson first.  Otherwise, the highway west and north of River House would need to remain.

[GRDadof3]

Discussion about 131 and the s-curve has come up again on the Salon. Got me thinking of some of the ideas that have been kicked around here. Someone brought up Klyde Warren Park in Dallas, which is a 3 block long capped freeway in downtown. Could be interesting to duplicate on 131 between I-196 and Fulton, with 131 coming out of the "tunnel" and going up over the river. Would make for a fun grade/drive in that section.

 

Just preliminary, would connect GVSU's campus better and create a huge park near the Ford Museum, connecting to new water uses when the rapids are restored on the Grand. New exit ramp onto Turner for downtown bound traffic. Would create about a 20 acre park.

 

[john_denver]

GRDadof 3: I like the idea, can you get that scheduled for this fall?  

[GRDadof3]

The elevation changes would be dramatic, to say the least, in that section. And because of how "recent" the new s-curve is, I'm very doubtful that would happen in the next 30 years.

 

The best candidate, in my opinion, for a tunnel / overhead park is 96 between Eastern and Diamond.

 

Actually, the elevation would only need to go from about 20 feet underground up to about 20 feet above ground from Fulton to the opposite bank of the Grand River near Charley's Crab. It could clear the river basically at grade, about the same elevation above the river as Fulton Street. Then it has to be up over Market Ave.

 

My rough math puts it at a 40' climb in 825 feet, or a 5% grade.

GRDadof 3: I like the idea, can you get that scheduled for this fall?  

 

Yes.

 

Oops, forgot to keep a Northbound exit to Pearl Street. Could come up out of the tunnel by the hotel.

 

 

 

I'll just keep tweaking this. All that greenspace might make for a great "real" amphitheater? Or soccer fields?

 

[GRDadof3]

Insert West Michigan Science Center and Aquarium, small lake with a beach and sand volleyball courts, and a soccer complex with stadium near GVSU.

 

 

 

Feel free to tell me if I'm headed in the wrong direction.

[GRDadof3]

With amenities: running track, children's park, The Great Green Lawn, new development along Mt Vernon with grocery store.

 

[MJLO]

Could a freeway bypass be built in that wealthy ave area to connect to the Ford Fwy so that it could be seemless?   I'm sure it'd be expensive as hell, but if you routed traffic the 1.5 miles on that part of the west side near the land fill to the Ford Freeway and then widened it to accomodate traffic it would seem practical.   In our pipe dream scenario.

[RegalTDP]

With amenities: running track, children's park, The Great Green Lawn, new development along Mt Vernon with grocery store.

 

 

Ooh, I like this.  Not the biggest fan of the boulevard idea, but I like this.

 

But, as you pointed out in the Salon, 131 isn't a sunken freeway.  So I don't think this is analogous to Klyde Warren Park.  This would be a miniature Boston Big Dig.  Of course that project was way larger in scope, but it's the same thing: Removing an elevated freeway and burying it.  On the one hand, I've seen the greenway it created; it's awesome, and you can't put a price on how much it's benefited the North End.  On the other hand, that project was a big mess, some of the people involved are still serving time, and IIRC they were still fixing faults as late as 2012.  At the very least, it set a precedent that no planners want to go through that ever again.

 

By the way, back to 131, wouldn't you have to redesign the 131/196 interchange?  I'm skeptical that you can bring both NB and SB 131 down to have them coming out from underneath Bridge Street without affecting the interchange.  Not that it would be too difficult, but I'm sure that would add to the cost/scope of the project.

 

Anyways, whether it's this or a boulevard, I think the big question is who is the constituency directly affected.  For instance, with I-696 in Oak Park, you had an Orthodox Jewish community with a vested interest in being able to cross the freeway safely on the Sabbath.  In Dallas, you have a freeway that cuts off acres of new upscale high-rise development from the rest of downtown, so the developers along with the new residents were able form a constituency.  Does this dynamic exist on the West Side?  That stretch of 131, besides GVSU and Holiday Inn, is bordered by city-owned property (Dash lots and the park).  It's hard to argue the highway is stifling development or impeding its neighbors.

 

I like talking about freeway removal and making big plans too, but in order for it to work we need to (a) actually make the case and (b) have an identifiable group of proponents with the stamina to push the issue for 10-20 years, like they had in Oak Park.  It's easy to get frustrated with MDOT's archaic thinking, but their first question is always going to be "Who actually needs this?", and you can't blame them for shrugging it off when nobody answers.

[GRDadof3]

Ooh, I like this.  I don't like the boulevard idea, but I like this.

 

But, as you pointed out in the Salon, 131 isn't a sunken freeway.  So I don't think this is analogous to Klyde Warren Park.  This would be a miniature Boston Big Dig.  Of course that project was way larger in scope, but it's the same thing: Removing an elevated freeway and burying it.  On the one hand, I've seen the greenway it created; it's awesome, and you can't put a price on how much it's benefited the North End.  On the other hand, that project was a big mess, some of the people involved are still serving time, and IIRC they were still fixing faults as late as 2012.  At the very least, it set a precedent that no planners want to go through that ever again.

 

By the way, back to 131, wouldn't you have to redesign the 131/196 interchange?  I'm skeptical that you can bring both NB and SB 131 down to have them coming out from underneath Bridge Street without affecting the interchange.  Not that it would be too difficult, but I'm sure that would add to the cost/scope of the project.

 

Anyways, whether it's this (which would be great) or a boulevard (which I would hate), I think the big question is who is the constituency directly affected.  For instance, with I-696 in Oak Park, you had an Orthodox Jewish community with a vested interest in being able to cross the freeway safely on the Sabbath.  In Dallas, you have a freeway that cuts off acres of new upscale high-rise development from the rest of downtown, so the developers along with the new residents were able form a constituency.  Does this dynamic exist on the West Side?  That stretch of 131, besides GVSU and Holiday Inn, is bordered by city-owned property (Dash lots and the park).  It's hard to argue the highway is stifling development or impeding its neighbors.

 

I like talking about freeway removal and making big plans too, but in order for it to work we need to (a) actually make the case and (b) have an identifiable group of proponents with the stamina to push the issue for 10-20 years, like they had in Oak Park.  It's easy to get frustrated with MDOT's archaic thinking, but their first question is always going to be "Who actually needs this?", and you can't blame them for shrugging it off when nobody answers.

 

 

Obviously it's a big push. I know a lot of people involved on the West Side who think that the elevated 131 destroyed the neighborhood and would love to see it gone. Perhaps even Rockford Construction would be a big champion of the cause. I think the boulevard idea has been bandied about, and I may have been in support of it at times, but I'm not sure an 8 lane boulevard would aesthetically make a difference.

 

The intersection of I-196 and 131 is original to when the highway was built in the 1960's. You'll notice that lately all MDOT has been doing is refurbishing the bridges from time to time, but it's got to be on their radar to rebuild it all in the next 10 - 20 years.

 

I just don't see how you can add all that traffic to I-196 from 131 up the hill to connect by the landfill. You'd have to create a 10 lane superhighway in a very tight hillside area, with an already sharp turn at the bottom of the hill not really conducive for 75 mph traffic.

 

It's certainly a big pipe dream. It's time to start thinking big (again).

[john_denver]

If this ever got traction, who would be able to make the call?  I assume MDOT but would they have to get approval from a higher source?

[grandrollerz]

But, as you pointed out in the Salon,...

 

 I've heard this mentioned a couple of times, what is "the Salon"? 

[MJLO]

 

I just don't see how you can add all that traffic to I-196 from 131 up the hill to connect by the landfill. You'd have to create a 10 lane superhighway in a very tight hillside area, with an already sharp turn at the bottom of the hill not really conducive for 75 mph traffic.

 

It's certainly a big pipe dream. It's time to start thinking big (again).

 

 

Dad according to the 2013 average daily volume for 131 and 196 You're looking at a combined total of about 180k vehicles on average if those to freeway segments were combined to bypass the S-curve. That would put the average daily volume on that stretch of freeway on par with what you see in major markets.    With some widening of the Ford Freeways undersized bridges and reconfiguring the junction north of downtown It could be done. 

 

http://mdotcf.state.mi.us/public/maps_adtmaparchive/pdf/2013adt/Grand_Rapids.pdf

[jonathan.jam]

I would rather see 196 removed between its start at I-96 until M-6 merges with it near Hudsonville before this. Then, rebrand M-6 to carry 196. Doing something with 131 wouldn't be bad either, though.

[GRDadof3]

 I've heard this mentioned a couple of times, what is "the Salon"? 

 

It's a FB group page. Started off as a series of "speaker events" in small venues around downtown and then moved onto FB when the two founders got too busy to do them (I believe).

Dad according to the 2013 average daily volume for 131 and 196 You're looking at a combined total of about 180k vehicles on average if those to freeway segments were combined to bypass the S-curve. That would put the average daily volume on that stretch of freeway on par with what you see in major markets.    With some widening of the Ford Freeways undersized bridges and reconfiguring the junction north of downtown It could be done. 

 

http://mdotcf.state.mi.us/public/maps_adtmaparchive/pdf/2013adt/Grand_Rapids.pdf

 

 

In one of these discussions, seems like someone laid out a pretty good reason why it couldn't be done. The highway would be so wide, and the lanes going from I-196 to go Northbound 131 would have to be so large that Union Square would have to be torn down, or half of it.

[RegalTDP]

 

In one of these discussions, seems like someone laid out a pretty good reason why it couldn't be done. The highway would be so wide, and the lanes going from I-196 to go Northbound 131 would have to be so large that Union Square would have to be torn down, or half of it.

 

Yep, it was earlier in this thread.