Highway and Road Construction Updates

[AlexPKeaton]

And yes, I would propose to let it rot...if this is the only solution (and I suspect it is, from MDOT's point of view). We could indeed rip it out and at least make it more contextual. And why precisely would that not be realistic? We are already throwing substantial gobs of money at this and closing it for a substantial amount of time. The short answer is that doing this would not meet their one size fits all design solution.

As far as becoming part of the process, let's get real. That only works when all parties are willing to collaborate and they are not willing. I have been there, done that, and it doesn't work with MDOT and it doesn't even work with the city traffic machine.

I think you just answered the question as to why it wouldn't be realistic. Until you sell the general population on urbanist principles and they vote accordingly, what you're suggesting just isn't going to happen. If my choices are a highway that's crumbing, or building new highway, I'll choose the new highway. The third option doesn't even exist yet.

This is the frustrating thing. I assume you read Kunstler's blog and agree with his central theme: Electric cars will not save us. Alternative sources of energy will NEVER yield enough power to replace oil. Never. And, even if they could (say we invest a ton in nuclear) it won't be nearly as cheap as oil. It's not that I think single-passenger vehicles will go away, but that their importance will be greatly diminished over the next 20, 30, or 50 years. That's what we should be planning for now. But, until it's completely obvious to the masses, we'll keep doing what we've been doing: building highways.

[John E]

They are haulin butt on the 96 rebuild.

I drove by today and they already have a few support columns up for the Coit street bridge. They look pretty good at 45mph.

I really think they should just put a roof on it from College to Fuller and have a few parks occupy the new space.

Or even just a roof from Eastern to Diamond right here:

The fix on196 was planned to be a fast build.

They have a park on I-696 in Oakland County and it has had all kinds of problems. Think Cherry Street Pocket Park. The below ground freeway has had a lot of problems also.

~John

[John E]

I don't think location is the issue. It's the type of park that invites trouble.

~John

[droonus2000]

I'd be more worried about the height difference from one side to the other. Not saying it couldn't work though, and would there be enough visitors too warrant the cost?

John, could you explain how a park over a highway draws trouble, theres got to be more then one park like this in the US, surely they don't all have the same problem.

[droonus2000]

After driving by, It's not as steep as I thought, but I still wonder about how many people would use it. But a little further down I think expanding Spectrums parking ramp over the highway someday wouldn't be a bad idea, except blocking the great view. Maybe then they could get rid of that large employee lot between the McDonalds, and GVSU building and provide parking space for more Medical Mile buildings.

Edited April 25, 2010 by droonus2000

[Veloise]

The fix on196 was planned to be a fast build.

They have a park on I-696 in Oakland County and it has had all kinds of problems. Think Cherry Street Pocket Park. The below ground freeway has had a lot of problems also.

Yes, all those Saturday pedestrians cause lots of trouble walking to their sabbath activities.

Seriously, M-DOT's freeway crossings near the Oak Park orthodox communities were a first for the agency. There have been leaks, and they've been fixed.

Most of the freeways in metro Detroit are below grade.

HTH

[RegalTDP]

I don't think it'd be worth the cost. It would cost a lot to build, then more to fix the inevitable leaks.

It'd be really nice for the adjacent neighborhoods, but not enough bang for all that buck. Maybe the next time MDOT has money burning a hole in its pocket...

Edited April 25, 2010 by RegalTDP

[walker]

Yes, all those Saturday pedestrians cause lots of trouble walking to their sabbath activities.

Seriously, M-DOT's freeway crossings near the Oak Park orthodox communities were a first for the agency. There have been leaks, and they've been fixed.

Most of the freeways in metro Detroit are below grade.

HTH

For those of you unfamiliar with the history and demographics of I-696 and find Veloise’s post abstruse, this link explains what’s she’s talking about and how the landscape decks over I-696 came about:

link I696

Edited April 25, 2010 by walker

[trongrr]

...this link explains what’s she’s talking about and how the landscape decks over I-696 came about: link I696

Thanks for posting that. I was very interested in that idea, and looked up the sat view via Google Earth. It's too bad our MDOT people didn't plan something like that for I-196.

Linky

[John E]

The freeway deck park was designed for easy pedestrian traffic across the freeway. The problem was that it did not allow for easy patrol of the area and gangsters quickly took control of the deck park.

~John

ROAR

[Veloise]

The freeway deck park was designed for easy pedestrian traffic across the freeway. The problem was that it did not allow for easy patrol of the area and gangsters quickly took control of the deck park.

~John

ROAR

John, as you are aware, I am a power user of internet search protocols.

I have looked for a report regarding these statements, and it is eluding me.

Please post a link, thanks.

ETA: A friend who lives in Oak Park sent this message:

"Don't know what your buddy's been smoking. Crime incidents in the two "parks" over I-696 on Oak Park are no higher than the other parks in the city.

There is a smaller deck over it in Southfield. I haven't heard of any abnormally high crime rates there but it might be higher than Oak Park's decks.

(After all, the OP decks are both within a stone's throw of the State Police post)."

Edited April 26, 2010 by Veloise

[Veloise]

But wait, there's more:

Dear Ms. Veloise;

The pedestrian decks and park over I-696 in Oak Park have not been overrun by gangs or criminal activity. I have worked as a sworn Public Safety officer here for 28 years and served as Director of Public Safety for the past four years. We have had very little criminal activity reported in that area over the years. The pedestrian decks were created to avoid the creation of a barrier between the neighborhoods to the south and the churches / synagogues to the north. The concept has proven successful and criminal activity is a non-factor.

Regards,

John M. McNeilance

Director

Oak Park Dept. of Public Safety

[wingbert]

But wait, there's more:

Dear Ms. Veloise;

The pedestrian decks and park over I-696 in Oak Park have not been overrun by gangs or criminal activity. I have worked as a sworn Public Safety officer here for 28 years and served as Director of Public Safety for the past four years. We have had very little criminal activity reported in that area over the years. The pedestrian decks were created to avoid the creation of a barrier between the neighborhoods to the south and the churches / synagogues to the north. The concept has proven successful and criminal activity is a non-factor.

Regards,

John M. McNeilance

Director

Oak Park Dept. of Public Safety

BOOM! Roasted.

[suydam]

But wait, there's more:

Dear Ms. Veloise;

The pedestrian decks and park over I-696 in Oak Park have not been overrun by gangs or criminal activity. I have worked as a sworn Public Safety officer here for 28 years and served as Director of Public Safety for the past four years. We have had very little criminal activity reported in that area over the years. The pedestrian decks were created to avoid the creation of a barrier between the neighborhoods to the south and the churches / synagogues to the north. The concept has proven successful and criminal activity is a non-factor.

Regards,

John M. McNeilance

Director

Oak Park Dept. of Public Safety

Veloise,

Great sleuthing! I used to live in Oakland County and didn't recall any issues with those parks in the 1980s. Glad to hear they're still not problematic.

[Veloise]

Bittersweet. I really don't enjoy checking Snopes, googling up a municipality in the 313, etc. In the best of all possible worlds, folks would check their own facts before posting, and reduce the fiction. (It's perfectly acceptable to write, "I had heard that...anyone know?")

Then again, this affects the credibility of A Certain Political Thread (recently moved off the GR forum).

Edited April 27, 2010 by Veloise

[RegalTDP]

Seward Ave. on GR SW Side will get $3.4 million expansion - Mlive

...

Is there really a need for this? It seems like such an inefficient use of land. They're paving through a lot we could use. And how does another cul-de-sac make the neighborhood more navigable?

Edited May 14, 2010 by RegalTDP

[fotoman311]

Seward Ave. on GR SW Side will get $3.4 million expansion - Mlive

...

Is there really a need for this? It seems like such an inefficient use of land. They're paving through a lot we could use. And how does another cul-de-sac make the neighborhood more navigable?

I don't think this particular stretch by itself is justified. However, the eventual plan to continue Seward south to Wealthy along the abandoned rail right of way (which Padnos currently owns) is not a bad idea. It would provide a better connection from GVSU/downtown to the Butterworth Landfill that will eventually become a park when they get the money to carry out the Park Specific Plan from Green Grand Rapids. It also would provide a more direct route to get to Millennium Park from Downtown.

The road is to have 5' bike lanes according to the plans in the DDA meeting packet (page 51)

http://www.ci.grand-rapids.mi.us/download_upload/meeting/packets/77947b63e642dc8ce4b5a488ab134e24.pdf

You can also view the proposed connector to Wealthy on the next page and see the minor railroad readjustments they are planning to make. If this means they fill in the two terrible, terrible RR crossings on Butterworth near Front, that would make me a happier bicyclist.

[GRDadof3]

Seward Ave. on GR SW Side will get $3.4 million expansion - Mlive

...

Is there really a need for this? It seems like such an inefficient use of land. They're paving through a lot we could use. And how does another cul-de-sac make the neighborhood more navigable?

I agree. They're talking about raising taxes to pay for STREETLIGHTS (further driving businesses and people out of the city), yet they have $1.9 Million to extend a street that very few cars will drive on??

[fotoman311]

I agree. They're talking about raising taxes to pay for STREETLIGHTS (further driving businesses and people out of the city), yet they have $1.9 Million to extend a street that very few cars will drive on??

I should clarify my statement as well. I am in favor of this extension in theory, but I too would rather see the money spent elsewhere, even if it means losing out on the federal dollars. Have you seen the nice, unsigned bike lane on Lake Dr? I've no doubt it will see tons of bicycle traffic and just $250,000 would put those all over the city based the route input gathered at Green Grand Rapids.

Edited May 16, 2010 by fotoman311

[GRDadof3]

I should clarify my statement as well. I am in favor of this extension in theory, but I too would rather see the money spent elsewhere, even if it means losing out on the federal dollars. Have you seen the nice, unsigned bike lane on Lake Dr? I've no doubt it will see tons of bicycle traffic and just $250,000 would put those all over the city based the route input gathered at Green Grand Rapids.

I understand this is probably DDA money going toward the Seward extension, but you're totally right. Adding additional bike lanes throughout the city for 1/8th the costs seems to make a lot more sense. Plus, they're talking about not opening the pools again this Summer..

[Veloise]

Page 49 starts a memo explaining the project, costs, and funding sources.

As a reminder, the DDA can't spend its money on projects outside the downtown district; that would include all the pools.

[fotoman311]

Page 49 starts a memo explaining the project, costs, and funding sources.

As a reminder, the DDA can't spend its money on projects outside the downtown district; that would include all the pools.

Yes, but I should think the 2009 Capital improvement fund could pay for design and installation of bicycle lanes.

The letter in that document states that of the $1.9 million local share, $700,000 will come from the DDA, with the other $1.2 million coming from the sewer fund, water fund, and the 2009 Capital Improvement fund, without saying how much comes from each of those three sources.

I go back and forth on projects like this one, because most of those funds are paying for the types of improvements that they were designed to pay for. And it's not like this is a spur of the moment project. This is the fourth installment of a long term plan to extend Seward Avenue to Wealthy Street. And with investments like the Goei Center and GVSU's presence, there are other opportunities for future redevelopment and job creation in that area with better access.

I've seen similar comments for other projects, like when Holland Township spends $1 million dollars from it's recreational trail millage (passed specifically to build recreational trails) to build a bridge over I-196, and all the comments on Mlive say they should be using that money to repave such and such road because it's in terrible shape.

[Raildudes dad]

I've seen similar comments for other projects, like when Holland Township spends $1 million dollars from it's recreational trail millage (passed specifically to build recreational trails) to build a bridge over I-196, and all the comments on Mlive say they should be using that money to repave such and such road because it's in terrible shape.

Same way with Transportation Enhancement funds. The Federal regs say the fuel tax dollars assigned to Enhancement projects MUST be spent on quality of life projects. The federal regs are pretty specific on what the money can be spent on. It really irritates me when Pete Hoekstra condemns Granholm for allowing the "turtle fence" to be built instead of "road projects". I'm not a fan of Jenny but Pete approved the regs that required the money to be spent on the fence or another similar project. He's either another politician that doesn't know what he's voting on or he's playing politics. Either way, he's lost my respect

As for the Seward project, the area south of Fulton, west of the river and east of the old tracks to the plaster mills could use some strategic planning. The existing uses and roadways are a patchwork. I think there's a better route that the lines they drew on paper for this project.

[Explorer55]

Same way with Transportation Enhancement funds. The Federal regs say the fuel tax dollars assigned to Enhancement projects MUST be spent on quality of life projects. The federal regs are pretty specific on what the money can be spent on. It really irritates me when Pete Hoekstra condemns Granholm for allowing the "turtle fence" to be built instead of "road projects". I'm not a fan of Jenny but Pete approved the regs that required the money to be spent on the fence or another similar project. He's either another politician that doesn't know what he's voting on or he's playing politics. Either way, he's lost my respect

As for the Seward project, the area south of Fulton, west of the river and east of the old tracks to the plaster mills could use some strategic planning. The existing uses and roadways are a patchwork. I think there's a better route that the lines they drew on paper for this project.

Well, Mr. Hoekstra himself probably didn't vote for the original law that requires TE funds to be spent on things like 'turtle" fences or other eligible activities. He probably wasn't even in Congress when the program was first created, I believe back in 1991. And he didn't vote for the regs since that's not something Congress votes on. Those are developed by the responsibile federal agencies through the federal administrative process (based on the laws passed by Congress and signed by the President), but I"m being nit-picky.

Anyway, you are right, a certain amount of federal highway funds must be spent on transportation enhancement activities, and beyond that, the environmental review process often results in required environmental mitigation that can use a wide variety of highway project funds, including mitigation to protect wildlife. If Mr. Hoekstra doesn't support environmental protection and attempts to alleviate the adverse impacts of highway building, I guess he can vote against it all he wants and rant against Governor Granholm if it makes him feel better. But compared to the total cost of most major highway projects, the amounts spent on most TE elements and/or environmental mitigation would be sucked up in half a day or less of construction work! Same goes for adding bike facilities or sidewalks. And besides, transportation should never be just about those who drive in single occupant vehicles.

[Raildudes dad]

Well, Mr. Hoekstra himself probably didn't vote for the original law that requires TE funds to be spent on things like 'turtle" fences or other eligible activities. He probably wasn't even in Congress when the program was first created, I believe back in 1991. And he didn't vote for the regs since that's not something Congress votes on. Those are developed by the responsibile federal agencies through the federal administrative process (based on the laws passed by Congress and signed by the President), but I"m being nit-picky.

Anyway, you are right, a certain amount of federal highway funds must be spent on transportation enhancement activities, and beyond that, the environmental review process often results in required environmental mitigation that can use a wide variety of highway project funds, including mitigation to protect wildlife. If Mr. Hoekstra doesn't support environmental protection and attempts to alleviate the adverse impacts of highway building, I guess he can vote against it all he wants and rant against Governor Granholm if it makes him feel better. But compared to the total cost of most major highway projects, the amounts spent on most TE elements and/or environmental mitigation would be sucked up in half a day or less of construction work! Same goes for adding bike facilities or sidewalks. And besides, transportation should never be just about those who drive in single occupant vehicles.

You're right, Pete didn't get elected until 93. I guess I'll I'll have to educate him on what TE funds can be used for . I agree that Congress doesn't vote on the regs but I hold them completely responsible for the regs that get implemented.