Should the M-6 have been built?

[RegalTDP]

I'm not saying anything original if I say that a major problem with the M-6 type sprawl is that its lack of density and central point destinations makes any kind of future efficient user friendly mass transit just that much more unlikely. So for non-poor people who are in favor of a strong mass transit system, the current system is just too inconvenient. I suspect that most of us here rarely take the bus. For me personally, it rarely makes sense for me to take a bus in Grand Rapids, while when I travel to cities with good public transit systems, I seldom use anything else.

As long as we're talking about what will motivate future mass transit investment, I believe it will have most to do with the downtown parking situation. As long as downtown develops and jobs in that area increase, commuter parking will become more and more scarce. A few added buildings and a few more downtown residents won't help. As long as this continues, downtown is destined for an eventual parking crisis.

We're a ways off from this, but it's closer than it appears. There's no room to widen any streets, and we're running out of buildings to tear down. As long as the area grows, a DASH collapse is inevitable.

I've always envisioned additional BRT and/or streetcar lines as the eventual citywide-scale replacement of DASH; commuters would park at the ends of lines and ride on in. That's how some cities with what's considered "good" transit function. To use Boston's MBTA as an example, many of the anchor stations of the subway lines - Alewife, Braintree, Forest Hills, Riverside come to mind - aren't located in particularly interesting places, they're just giant parking ramps. People drive to a T station just outside of the city limit, and head downtown from there. I predict GR's future network will look similar.

Overall, regardless of what nonsense the MLive Peanut Gallery spouts, the community supports the Rapid, but is going to be slow to make major improvements until there's a good crisis. Personally, I still think ITP should count itself lucky if a millage with BRT passes this year.

[wingbert]

A lot of this conversation seems to be from the perspective that M6 is somehow at fault for the growth of Caledonia, et al. But seriously, if life around M6 were awful and 196 was a joy to drive and the inner city was just the bee's knees, would people still move out there? Is the suggestion here that the laws of supply and demand don't apply to individual's decisions about where they live or where businesses locate themselves? In other words, step up your game Grand Rapids and compete with Byron Center rather than complain that the M6 somehow brainwashed people into moving there.

I remember having a professor once condemn the state and the highway planners because he insisted that 94 and 96 were redundant and a waste of money to maintain. Now, looking at a map that might make sense superficially but dig a little deeper and it's clear they both serve a need that the other simply couldn't provide for without a great deal of inconvenience. In many ways, the same principle applies to M6. If I'm going to take M6, it's because it is convenient and helps me avoid driving through an area that doesn't meet my needs. Forcing me to go through downtown GR isn't going to turn me into a fan of GR by any means - especially if I'm stuck in traffic.

[Jippy]

Re: wingbert (quote reply not working properly) "A lot of this conversation seems to be from the perspective that M6 is somehow at fault for the growth of Caledonia, et al. But seriously, if life around M6 were awful and 196 was a joy to drive and the inner city was just the bee's knees, would people still move out there? Is the suggestion here that the laws of supply and demand don't apply to individual's decisions about where they live or where businesses locate themselves? In other words, step up your game Grand Rapids and compete with Byron Center rather than complain that the M6 somehow brainwashed people into moving there."

Quite the opposite. As I stated in an earlier post, the fact that people moved to Caledonia et. al is entirely a decision based on rational investment choices. Private investment will usually occur wherever public investment occurs. That is the purpose of the M6-alternative thought exercise. Using the same finite financial resource ($800 million in the above exercise) could have generated significantly different real estate investment decisions over the last decade. I don't blame Caledonia and its neighbors, the people that chose to move near M6, or the businesses. I fault the policy-making process that used our extremely limited transportation dollars to invest in a project that has limited utility and macro economic benefit to the community as a whole.

This discussion should never be framed in a manner that is Grand Rapids vs. Suburb. It should be framed in what brings the greatest benefit to the metro Grand Rapids community. These funds were collected, in-part, by the gas tax revenue of Kent County. Thus, we should ensure that proper mode and locational decisions are made when the next investment opportunity occurs. That is the same discussion Ottawa County is facing. Some want to build an eastern beltway around Holland to avoid US31. The preferred alternative would be to use finite resources to improve existing infrastructure within Holland. If the beltway were built, would I blame the townships that benefited from the greater population growth? No. Would I blame Holland for population loss? No. I would question the policy decision to invest the finite resources in a project that has limited improvement to the existing population.

Lastly, the era in which previous highways were built will no never reappear. Massive regional transportation investments will occur once a generation, if that, so we better make darn sure that our leaders are investing in a project that yields the greatest benefits.

[GRDadof3]

I think highways, or any government spending for that matter, are the only areas where I don't believe they should "plan" for growth. They should be expanded when the existing infrastructure is stretched to the max.

Otherwise, you get situations like we're in now, where we have expansion going on and can't afford to maintain what we have. Doh!

A lot of this conversation seems to be from the perspective that M6 is somehow at fault for the growth of Caledonia, et al. But seriously, if life around M6 were awful and 196 was a joy to drive and the inner city was just the bee's knees, would people still move out there? Is the suggestion here that the laws of supply and demand don't apply to individual's decisions about where they live or where businesses locate themselves? In other words, step up your game Grand Rapids and compete with Byron Center rather than complain that the M6 somehow brainwashed people into moving there.

I remember having a professor once condemn the state and the highway planners because he insisted that 94 and 96 were redundant and a waste of money to maintain. Now, looking at a map that might make sense superficially but dig a little deeper and it's clear they both serve a need that the other simply couldn't provide for without a great deal of inconvenience. In many ways, the same principle applies to M6. If I'm going to take M6, it's because it is convenient and helps me avoid driving through an area that doesn't meet my needs. Forcing me to go through downtown GR isn't going to turn me into a fan of GR by any means - especially if I'm stuck in traffic.

Actually, I'm still compiling the data, but downtown Grand Rapids WAS the bees knees in the last decade. It had two of the 15 fastest growing census tracts in the county, and had the most employment growth of any area in the county.

[torgo]

I think highways, or any government spending for that matter, are the only areas where I don't believe they should "plan" for growth. They should be expanded when the existing infrastructure is stretched to the max.

Really? So we should just wing it?

I guess we shouldn't expand wastewater systems either until there is raw sewage in people's basements. That sounds like a great way to handle things. Gotta stretch what we have to the max, after all!

When supply is low and demand is highest, the cost is going to be highest. And you're going to end up with something ridiculous because you had no other choice.

[GRDadof3]

Really? So we should just wing it?

I guess we shouldn't expand wastewater systems either until there is raw sewage in people's basements. That sounds like a great way to handle things. Gotta stretch what we have to the max, after all!

When supply is low and demand is highest, the cost is going to be highest. And you're going to end up with something ridiculous because you had no other choice.

No, not "wing it." Expand when the capacity is nearly full would be a nice place to start. I don't think we should be adding capacity that won't be needed for 20 years, particularly when we have 0 population growth.

[jas49503]

... especially if I'm stuck in traffic.

this is pretty unlikely at any time of the day.

[francishsu]

No, not "wing it." Expand when the capacity is nearly full would be a nice place to start. I don't think we should be adding capacity that won't be needed for 20 years, particularly when we have 0 population growth.

0 population growth during what time period? During the decades of planning and securing financing leading up to the construction of M-6? And capacity being full by what definition? Yours or MDOT's? We could have added lanes to 196 and 131 instead, but M-6 made more sense as an alternate and more direct east-west route.

And M-6 benefits more than the 25000+ people who use it everyday. It also decreases travel time on the roads/highways that the drivers were having to take beforehand.

[jas49503]

0 population growth during what time period? During the decades of planning and securing financing leading up to the construction of M-6? And capacity being full by what definition? Yours or MDOT's? We could have added lanes to 196 and 131 instead, but M-6 made more sense as an alternate and more direct east-west route.

And M-6 benefits more than the 25000+ people who use it everyday. It also decreases travel time on the roads/highways that the drivers were having to take beforehand.

traveling east to west (or west to east) saves 5 minutes off your trip according to bing maps. I don't know if M-6 was really a good use of tax payer dollars, just so people could shave just a few minutes off thier trip to the airport which they take 2 times a year or so maybe 5000 (just guess) people who actually use it as a bypass can get to holland 5 minutes faster when traveling from lansing. .this is especially true when considering they were able to add an extra lane downtown for only 40 million dollars which eliminated probably any concerns regarding congestion that there might have been.

[francishsu]

5 minutes is the minimum time saved. Ironically, because M-6 has reduced traffic on 196, especially at the 131/196 interchange, it doesn't take as much longer as it would have without M-6. Yes, adding lanes could have helped a bit, and perhaps was the low hanging fruit. But M-6 is the superior longer term solution in my opinion, and is far more effective at getting people to take the most efficient route based on where they actually want to go. And the benefits will increase over time.

[GRDadof3]

0 population growth during what time period? During the decades of planning and securing financing leading up to the construction of M-6? And capacity being full by what definition? Yours or MDOT's? We could have added lanes to 196 and 131 instead, but M-6 made more sense as an alternate and more direct east-west route.

And M-6 benefits more than the 25000+ people who use it everyday. It also decreases travel time on the roads/highways that the drivers were having to take beforehand.

0 population growth over the last decade. And it was pretty clear by mid-decade in the 2000's that Michigan's population and job growth had slowed to a halt, and wasn't predicted to change any time soon.

Did it decrease travel times on other roads? Has MDOT done any studies? I travel I-196 several times daily, and I didn't notice any change in my travel time. There wasn't really that much traffic to begin with.

[GRDadof3]

5 minutes is the minimum time saved. Ironically, because M-6 has reduced traffic on 196, especially at the 131/196 interchange, it doesn't take as much longer as it would have without M-6. Yes, adding lanes could have helped a bit, and perhaps was the low hanging fruit. But M-6 is the superior longer term solution in my opinion, and is far more effective at getting people to take the most efficient route based on where they actually want to go. And the benefits will increase over time.

Are you sure about that? I'm calling you to show your hand on that one.

[francishsu]

Are you sure about that? I'm calling you to show your hand on that one.

MDOT Average Daily Traffic web site

http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-151-9622_11033_11149---,00.html

At the bottom are links to their archive of traffic data. It's clear that traffic on 196 increased through 2003. After that, it started declining the next few years before settling down. That's for total vehicle counts and commercial. 28th Street shows an even more dramatic decline in traffic. The counts reflect what you would expect. Add a major east-west corridor, and it should reduce traffic counts on the other major E-W routes. I also read another traffic study done by GVMC which specifically site M-6 as having reducing traffic on sections of E-W roads that were approaching or exceeding capacity.

[OneSweetWorld]

Are you sure about that? I'm calling you to show your hand on that one.

I-196 traffic counts

Between Chicago Dr. and 28th

2003: 61,900

2005: 64,400

2007: 63,400

2009: 55,000

Between College and Fuller

2003: 78,500

2005: 69,200

2007: 62,100

2009: 53,400

Between 36th and M6

2003: 27,100

2005: 34,500

2007: 32,500

2009: 30,700

Of course, correlation doesn't necessarily reflect causation. Until formal studies are done to assess all the variables, this is pretty much a crap shoot, so make your own conclusions.

Either way, stop using traffic counts as a justification.

Continue.

---

2003

2005

2007

2009

[francishsu]

0 population growth over the last decade. And it was pretty clear by mid-decade in the 2000's that Michigan's population and job growth had slowed to a halt, and wasn't predicted to change any time soon.

M-6 was planned/conceived when the population was growing rapidly, construction was started in the late 90's when the population was continuing to grow. By the mid-decade 2000s, where you state it was evident that population/job growth was stagnant, it had already been completed. And in the long run, I expect population growth to resume and hopefully many more jobs for the region.

[jas49503]

the problem with M-6 is not that it doesn't help take some of the load off 196 (notice I didn't say alleviate congestion), but that by expanding 196 they could have accomplished the same thing for 1/10 of the cost. saving 5 minutes off a trip through the city is not significant. that is collectively around 2000 hours per year. it is not justifiable to spend $336,000 dollars per hour saved (over one year, but go ahead and spread it out over twenty years, it won't look any better). maybe there will be growth in the future, maybe there won't there are many other solutions though that wouldn't have cost nearly as much.

[torgo]

0 population growth over the last decade. And it was pretty clear by mid-decade in the 2000's that Michigan's population and job growth had slowed to a halt, and wasn't predicted to change any time soon.

While we're picking on the esteemed Mr. Dadof3...

Allegan County added 6,000 residents (5.5%) from 2000-2010. Kent County added 27,000 residents (5%). Ottawa County added 25,000 residents (10%). Barry County added 2,500 residents (4%).

That's about 60,000 new residents over ten years in the 4 counties most highly impacted by M-6.

It's not explosive growth, but its a lot more than zero.

[francishsu]

the problem with M-6 is not that it doesn't help take some of the load off 196 (notice I didn't say alleviate congestion), but that by expanding 196 they could have accomplished the same thing for 1/10 of the cost.

Taking load off of 196 is just a single aspect of M-6. And I'm not sure how you get the 1/10 of the cost. To expand a less than 2 mile stretch of 196 was $40 million, or more than $20m per mile. If you're talking adding a lane for 20 miles, the it's much more than a tenth of the cost.

[fotoman311]

Taking load off of 196 is just a single aspect of M-6. And I'm not sure how you get the 1/10 of the cost. To expand a less than 2 mile stretch of 196 was $40 million, or more than $20m per mile. If you're talking adding a lane for 20 miles, the it's much more than a tenth of the cost.

That's comparing apples to oranges though. At some point in the next 20 years (might be much sooner than that, I'm just being conservative), 196 is going to need to be rebuilt anyways, or the bridges are going to fall down. The marginal cost of adding an additional lane when doing necessary rebuilding of existing infrastructure reaching the end of its lifecycle is way smaller than the cost of building new, which also comes with it's own additional maintenance (every 5-10 years) and rebuilding costs 40-60 years down the line.I don't know the exact numbers. It might be more than 1/10, but I'd guess it's between 10-30% of the $650 million for M-6 or $65-195 million to add that extra capacity throughout the corridor when sections that need to be rebuilt anyway are redone.

Also, the section that they did replace involved rebuilding 3 bridges within that two mile stretch for the $40 million. It also involved building giant retaining walls against the existing terrain. I'd imagine that shipping in some fill to raise the ground above the flood plain (Grand River to ~the Baldwin exit) is cheaper than building retaining walls. The per mile cost of most of the rest of that 20 miles would be lower because there aren't nearly as many bridges to rebuild or ramps and retaining walls to construct.

[francishsu]

I see the bridge and some intersection rebuilding as tied together with adding a lane, because in reality you are not going to add a lane to 196 without the bridge and intersection work. If you wait a couple of decades and then say "since the bridges are on verge of collapse, let's add a lane and improve the intersections at the same time as a bonus", the only difference is that you can sell the idea easier.

[Khorasaurus1]

Taking load off of 196 is just a single aspect of M-6. And I'm not sure how you get the 1/10 of the cost. To expand a less than 2 mile stretch of 196 was $40 million, or more than $20m per mile. If you're talking adding a lane for 20 miles, the it's much more than a tenth of the cost.

To be fair, you probably wouldn't need to expand 96/196 throughout the entire stretch 36th and Hudsonville, and even if you did it wouldn't cost that much in most areas. The expansions have already been done between 44th and Chicago Drive, between LMD and Fuller, and between the 96/196 split and Fulton. I'm not convinced expansion is necessary between Chicago Dr and LMD, and expansion between 36th and Cascade would be inexpensive as the freeway is at-grade through most of that stretch and only the overpass at 28th would need to be rebuilt.

[GRDadof3]

While we're picking on the esteemed Mr. Dadof3...

Allegan County added 6,000 residents (5.5%) from 2000-2010. Kent County added 27,000 residents (5%). Ottawa County added 25,000 residents (10%). Barry County added 2,500 residents (4%).

That's about 60,000 new residents over ten years in the 4 counties most highly impacted by M-6.

It's not explosive growth, but its a lot more than zero.

The state saw 0 growth, and MDOT is a state agency (not a local one).

[jas49503]

Taking load off of 196 is just a single aspect of M-6. And I'm not sure how you get the 1/10 of the cost. To expand a less than 2 mile stretch of 196 was $40 million, or more than $20m per mile. If you're talking adding a lane for 20 miles, the it's much more than a tenth of the cost.

4 lanes of 196 = 40 million dollars.

4 lanes of M-6 = 700 million dollars

doing a cost per mile calculation is not appropriate as we are talking about the cost to fix a "problem" of congestion. one choice was to rebuild a 2 mile section of 196, the other choice was to build a 20 mile highway. one choice happened to be actually 17.5 times the cost of the other. I came up with 1/10 because if they would have expanded the project to go to the 96/196 interchange (where there actually is congestion for about 15 min per day) and added another lane downtown to accommodate even more future traffic, there would of course be more expense.

[GRDadof3]

I-196 traffic counts

Between Chicago Dr. and 28th

2003: 61,900

2005: 64,400

2007: 63,400

2009: 55,000

Between College and Fuller

2003: 78,500

2005: 69,200

2007: 62,100

2009: 53,400

Between 36th and M6

2003: 27,100

2005: 34,500

2007: 32,500

2009: 30,700

Of course, correlation doesn't necessarily reflect causation. Until formal studies are done to assess all the variables, this is pretty much a crap shoot, so make your own conclusions.

Either way, stop using traffic counts as a justification.

Continue.

---

2003

2005

2007

2009

Hard to say how much of that was due to the economic downturn as well.

I would like to see too how much truck traffic was really taken off of 44th Street. Many of those businesses along 44th still have to use it to GET to M-6.

I was in Detroit for two days this week. ROFL we do not have a congestion problem anywhere in Grand Rapids.

[Raildudes dad]

Hard to say how much of that was due to the economic downturn as well.

I would like to see too how much truck traffic was really taken off of 44th Street. Many of those businesses along 44th still have to use it to GET to M-6.

I was in Detroit for two days this week. ROFL we do not have a congestion problem anywhere in Grand Rapids.

I will look for hard numbers but my observation of 44th is it has virtually no trucks any more. Part of it is due to the closing of several Steelcase plants, GM Stamping, Bosch etc. etc. etc. . The Gordon Food service fleet jumps right on M-6 at 131, Steelcase jumps on at M-37.

You're absolutely correct, there is very little congestion at rush hour here in GR. That's why the BRT and commuter rail are not necessary here. (More comments to follow later )