Highway and Road Construction Updates

[Raildude's dad]

It's not buckling, the joints are deteriorating. The black stuff is called mastic and is an a tempt to seal the joints to keep the water out during the winter freeze thaw cycles.

[EastCoaster93]

I don’t know if this was already mentioned earlier in the chat, but does anyone have any insight into why 131 was built as a raised highway and not built below ground level? Especially south of downtown, building below ground would have seemed to make way more sense and more appropriate for the density in that part of GR. 

Edited July 3, 2018 by EastCoaster93

[walker]

1 hour ago, EastCoaster93 said:

I don’t know if this was already mentioned earlier in the chat, but does anyone have any insight into why 131 was built as a raised highway and not built below ground level? Especially south of downtown, building below ground would have seemed to make way more sense and more appropriate for the density in that part of GR. 

I’m only guessing but I’d guess elevating it was easier than running it under the extensive rail yards that existed then just south of downtown and elevating it was also easier than building tunnels under the river.  Going north out of downtown you’d also have drainage and flooding problem running it below ground level parallel and about the same level as the river (where would it drain and what would you do about the creeks and storm sewers that emptied into the river – you’d need extensive and very dependable pumps.)  May not have been thought of at the time because I-196 came several years later but how would a junction work of an expressway coming down from the top of a valley meeting 131 below the level of the river?  

Besides, when I was a kid which was around the time it was designed, all the renderings in newspapers and magazines showed the highways in the futuristic cities of tomorrow as being elevated up in the air.  The designers likely read the same magazines that we did.  

  Raildude's dad is the civil engineer around here and I think he’s almost as old as me.  Maybe he knows. 
 

Edited July 3, 2018 by walker

[EastownLeo]

Reconfigured I-96 I-196  Beltline proposal.

https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2018/08/reconfiguring_i-96_i-196_at_ea.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=grandrapidspress_sf

[kwl]

2 hours ago, EastownLeo said:

Reconfigured I-96 I-196  Beltline proposal.

https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2018/08/reconfiguring_i-96_i-196_at_ea.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=grandrapidspress_sf

Looks good, although IMO they're reconfiguring the wrong side. 

Biggest problem with the interchanges are people from Beltline onto WB 196 which creates congestion from traffic continuing onto WB 96. This usually backs up the 96 from Beltline to 28th street daily. 

Edited August 13, 2018 by kwl

[MJLO]

5 minutes ago, kwl said:

Looks good, although IMO they're reconfiguring the wrong side. 

Biggest problem with the interchanges is people from Beltline onto WB 196 which creates congestion from traffic continuing onto WB 96. This usually backs up the 96 from Beltline to 28th street daily. 

Are you saying you've never experienced the game of  East Beltline Frogger  when having to intersect the 2 lanes of incoming traffic from the Ford Freeway to exit the EBL from  EB 96?  Tis down right dangerous.  

MDOT built dozens of enter left/exit right interchanges into metro GR's freeway network.  It creates a situation where you have 1/4-1/2 mile to cross 3-4 lanes of traffic to exit.  Tis where the term "Grand Rapids lane change" comes from.  It turns timid drivers into dangerous obstacles 

[GRDadof3]

21 minutes ago, kwl said:

Looks good, although IMO they're reconfiguring the wrong side. 

Biggest problem with the interchanges is people from Beltline onto WB 196 which creates congestion from traffic continuing onto WB 96. This usually backs up the 96 from Beltline to 28th street daily. 

I agree, this mainly just addresses the Eastbound issues. Maybe they have long-term plans to address the Westbound side. I would try to go to the open house tomorrow at MDOT but I have a prior commitment at that time. 

 

[Guest]

So it says they're doing work b/w EB and Fulton, but they're not widening it at all?  What a joke.

[getemngo]

1 hour ago, kwl said:

Looks good, although IMO they're reconfiguring the wrong side. 

Biggest problem with the interchanges are people from Beltline onto WB 196 which creates congestion from traffic continuing onto WB 96. This usually backs up the 96 from Beltline to 28th street daily. 

This problem westbound is because I-96 isn't 3 lanes, not because of the Beltline interchange. As soon as you pass Fulton and the third lane merges in, things immediately get better.

 

35 minutes ago, Floyd_Z said:

So it says they're doing work b/w EB and Fulton, but they're not widening it at all?  What a joke.

This is bizarre because when they last rebuilt the bridge over the railroad track, they made it wide enough to accomodate an additional left lane.

Edited August 13, 2018 by getemngo

[Raildude's dad]

Here's the scoop right from an engineer working on the project. Adding a lane WB from the bridge over the RR all the way to the 3 lane at Fuller. There will be 3 lanes for I-196 and 2 lanes for I-96 at the split. No 3rd lane EB from Fuller but there will be 2 lanes to merge into EB I-96.

[crinzema]

Is this where they are going to widen the highway?

[Raildude's dad]

The south side will be given a breakdown shoulder as will the north side. That is the widening. Still will only be 2 thru lanes.

[ChevalierNoir]

1 minute ago, Raildude's dad said:

The south side will be given a breakdown shoulder as will the north side. That is the widening. Still will only be 2 thru lanes.

They're going through the whole process of this project and not putting another thru lane in? Seems awfully short sighted....

[cutlervillegr]

This may not be possible, but it would be great to see the I-196 bridge over the Grand River turned into a "signature" bridge.  I'm guessing with the interchange with US-131 right after, it wouldn't be possible, but doing something to make that bridge more aesthetically pleasing would be neat.  Especially with the rapids restoration occurring right underneath.  

As an example, in Rochester, NY, the I-490 bridge over the Genesee River was re-built 10-15 years ago.  Went from a simple concrete bridge (like the current I-196 bridge) to  an arched bridge, which really looks nice in downtown pictures.  I'd post pictures, but unfortunately I don't know how -- a google image of Troup-Howell bridge (before) to Anthony-Douglass bridge (after) will show the difference.

I think this would be a nice addition to the cityscape of downtown GR.  Has something like this been considered?  Does MDOT not have money to consider building something like this?

[jonrapley]

I live close to 196 and I received a letter from MDOT stating they will be working on 196 from 96 to Fuller Ave.  Its basically stating they applied for a noise variance and will be working 75 intermittent nights in 2019 and 60 in 2020. I imagine this is in regards to wideining the highway to 3 lanes. 

[joeDowntown]

9 hours ago, cutlervillegr said:

This may not be possible, but it would be great to see the I-196 bridge over the Grand River turned into a "signature" bridge.  I'm guessing with the interchange with US-131 right after, it wouldn't be possible, but doing something to make that bridge more aesthetically pleasing would be neat.  Especially with the rapids restoration occurring right underneath.  

As an example, in Rochester, NY, the I-490 bridge over the Genesee River was re-built 10-15 years ago.  Went from a simple concrete bridge (like the current I-196 bridge) to  an arched bridge, which really looks nice in downtown pictures.  I'd post pictures, but unfortunately I don't know how -- a google image of Troup-Howell bridge (before) to Anthony-Douglass bridge (after) will show the difference.

I think this would be a nice addition to the cityscape of downtown GR.  Has something like this been considered?  Does MDOT not have money to consider building something like this?

We’ve talked about it a lot on this forum, but MDOT didn’t take our advice. LOL

Joe

[GR8scott]

11 hours ago, cutlervillegr said:

This may not be possible, but it would be great to see the I-196 bridge over the Grand River turned into a "signature" bridge.  I'm guessing with the interchange with US-131 right after, it wouldn't be possible, but doing something to make that bridge more aesthetically pleasing would be neat.  Especially with the rapids restoration occurring right underneath.  

As an example, in Rochester, NY, the I-490 bridge over the Genesee River was re-built 10-15 years ago.  Went from a simple concrete bridge (like the current I-196 bridge) to  an arched bridge, which really looks nice in downtown pictures.  I'd post pictures, but unfortunately I don't know how -- a google image of Troup-Howell bridge (before) to Anthony-Douglass bridge (after) will show the difference.

I think this would be a nice addition to the cityscape of downtown GR.  Has something like this been considered?  Does MDOT not have money to consider building something like this?

I wrote mdot about this same thing and they basically said they have no extra money for asthetics, they also said they were the least funded state dep of transportation per capita, hard to believe with the harsh winters here. I would hope the city could pitch in for something like this but they don’t think about these kind of things.

 

13 hours ago, ChevalierNoir said:

They're going through the whole process of this project and not putting another thru lane in? Seems awfully short sighted....

Welcome to mdot son...

[MJLO]

Yeah I wouldn't put any hopes into Mdot investing in aestetics or adding lane miles.  They can barely keep up with pot holes.  

Why is it so hard to fix the archaic way roads are funded in this state?  I can't be the only person willing to pay more for better roads

[GRLaker]

36 minutes ago, MJLO said:

Yeah I wouldn't put any hopes into Mdot investing in aestetics or adding lane miles.  They can barely keep up with pot holes.  

Why is it so hard to fix the archaic way roads are funded in this state?  I can't be the only person willing to pay more for better roads

Same way they can fix school funding...Do away with the general fund and actually have specific funds that can't be touched for anything other than what that money was budgeted for.

[Guest]

MDOT is pathetic.  I even wonder if they would invest more in GR if they had more money.  I feel like 95% of the improvements would be on the east side like they currently help.

Lack of funding is due to legislature always looking to cut taxes.  Not to mention Michigan is ranked the most corrupt govt in the US.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/11/09/center-integrity-corruption-grades-interactive/75033060/

Don't worry Jill will fix the damn roads.

[GVSUChris]

25 minutes ago, Floyd_Z said:

MDOT is pathetic.  I even wonder if they would invest more in GR if they had more money.  I feel like 95% of the improvements would be on the east side like they currently help.

Lack of funding is due to legislature always looking to cut taxes.  Not to mention Michigan is ranked the most corrupt govt in the US.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/11/09/center-integrity-corruption-grades-interactive/75033060/

Don't worry Jill will fix the damn roads.

Jill? 

[GRDadof3]

1 hour ago, Floyd_Z said:

MDOT is pathetic.  I even wonder if they would invest more in GR if they had more money.  I feel like 95% of the improvements would be on the east side like they currently help.

Lack of funding is due to legislature always looking to cut taxes.  Not to mention Michigan is ranked the most corrupt govt in the US.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/11/09/center-integrity-corruption-grades-interactive/75033060/

Don't worry Jill will fix the damn roads.

I think you mean Gretchen. lol. 

I continually hear that MDOT and the State should do more with less when it comes to roads, for at least the last 10 years. In that time period, in my experience and line of work, infrastructure has pretty much doubled in cost in that time period, and the state's roads budget has gone up how much?  Not a lot. 

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, GRDadof3 said:

I think you mean Gretchen. lol. 

I continually hear that MDOT and the State should do more with less when it comes to roads, for at least the last 10 years. In that time period, in my experience and line of work, infrastructure has pretty much doubled in cost in that time period, and the state's roads budget has gone up how much?  Not a lot. 

haha yes sorry, Gretchen.

Just raise the damn gas tax already!

[GRDadof3]

It's starting. 

JN 45790, 127354 & 118558

During 2019 and 2020, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) will be reconstructing and realigning I-196 eastbound (EB) and westbound (WB) from Fuller Avenue east to the I-96. This project includes construction of a third lane on I-196 WB from I-96 to Fuller Avenue, extension of the on-ramp acceleration lane from Fuller to I-196 EB, separating I196 EB through traffic and traffic exiting at M-37/M-44 (East Beltline) and construction of a new ramp from I-96 eastbound to the East Beltline. The project also includes the replacement and widening of both I-196 bridges over Plymouth Avenue to accommodate the City of Grand Rapids multi-modal roadway.

 

MDOT is seeking a approval to do night work during the construction process, from the City Commission, for work starting in March 2019.  Coming this Fall though, which I've noticed they've already got construction barrels up and weave lanes:

This construction will be closely coordinated with JN 126499 which is scheduled to begin in the Fall of 2018 with completion in 2019. JN 126499 includes the construction of a new I-96 EB bridge over I-196 WB, raising the I-96 EB roadway profile and lowering the I-196 WB roadway profile, construction a new bridge carrying the I-96 EB off-ramp to the East Beltline, construction of an extra lane from the GRE railroad to the I-196 WB split and maintaining traffic modifications.

[Guest]

Might as well make it four while they're at it.  It should have been three lanes 10 years ago.  Would it really cost that much more?  I guess it would kind of bottleneck.  

I wonder if they will make the new bridges long enough so they will be able to accommodate a future lane like they have been doing with most projects.

Wouldn't they have to redo the Maryland bridge too?