Should the M-6 have been built?

[OneSweetWorld]

Your points are wrong for several reason. #1 a bypass by very definition allows easier travel through a area. people do not intend to stop, that is why they are using the bypass. probably less than one in a thousand (number comes from personal experience - how many times i've passed through a town that is not my destination before stopping randomly) before the bypass when people were forced to travel through downtown grand rapids. this contributes very little to the local economy but does add considerably to the congestion that you experience. your point about it being the same as every other freeway in the country is spot on. I do not know if it is relevant though.

#2. is a little more accurate but you cannot blame M6 for it exclusively. expansion southward was already well underway. Metro was going to move down there regardless. they were being crushed competitively in their EGR location. while M-6 does make it easier to spread east and west from 131 it does not prevent southward expansion. as was mentioned earlier by wmrharris, expansion is happening with or without the highway. this is a phenomenon not specific to grand rapids. developers only care a little bit if a highway exists. all they care about is that there is cheap, abundant land, of which southern kent county has.

as to the costs, this has been one of my biggest complaints for a long time. the cost/benefit ratio for highway projects usually sucks. most of them should never have been built and if you use this critera there is no way that M-6 is beneficial. how much through traffic from lansing to holland is there to justify a bypass that costs 700 million dollars. the payback is probably measured in hundreds of years. looking around the state and the waste of highway dollars though this project is no exception. 4 or so years ago I watched them tear up a perfectly good stretch of 69 (30 miles +/-) and rebuild it. there was NOTHING wrong with what they were tearing up. no potholes, very few cracks. the highway was not expanded, rerouted or any other appreciable change made. While I am no a insider, I can only assume that it was some sort of job creation thing, or maybe a use it or lose it budget thing. total waste of money which is what I would also say M-6 is. I don't think that it harms the city that much but It is not justifiable either.

Thanks for pointing out that the primary purpose of a bypass is to make traveling through an area easier. In that sense, M6 serves its intended purpose. The problem is that it goes beyond that purpose. If it was only meant to serve as a bypass, there would only be three exits: 196, 131, and 96. Clearly, it's purpose is much greater than simply to provide a bypass; it also provides a government subsidy for those who choose to lead vehicle-dependent lifestyles.

You are also very correct in your second paragraph. My argument most assuredly refers to all development and use of freeway systems. M6 alone did not lead to the sprawling growth of southern KC, it merely magnified it.

Your last paragraph most directly mirrors my sentiments, only you managed to turn the argument into a more measurable notion (cost-benefit ratio). Thank you.

@arcturus: Nothing to say really. Can't argue with made-up statistics and ancient philosophical quotes.

[arcturus]

Why is a road with fewer cars on it better than a road with more cars on it? And are you sure that fewer cars = fewer accidents? Maybe more cars equals slower speeds which equals fewer accidents? Why are all the nightly news segments filled with deadly accidents out on deserted country roads? I hardly ever see or hear about deadly accidents in the city.

Are you one who also advocates for empty buses? Are empty buses better than full buses? How about 1 passenger cars? Is carpooling better or worse from an efficiency standpoint? Empty parking lots are better than full ones? Shall I go on? So the key to economic success is to have empty roads?

I totally agree, I don't see what's so hard for you to understand?

Why yes, a road with fewer cars is generally safer than one with more cars.

Re: deadly accidents. I'm surprised you asked the question ... you should certainly know a bit about media sensationalizing to get viewers. Death is always more newsworthy but if it' *only* results in permanent disability it isn't. How many serious accidents go unreported in the city? Maybe the fact that fatal rural accidents are rare contributes to headline reporting. The segments certainly aren't that 'filled'. Maybe slower speeds add to motorist frustration and road rage. How many ignore slower speeds anyway?

Of course the bus system has its benefits. Ditto for carpooling. The more who take mass transit the fewer the cars or slower increase in their numbers. It's great to get a few % off the roads. They don't need to be mutually exclusive but please tell, what is your solution? Get rid of M6? Reduce the speed limit to 45 perhaps? Have everyone move back to the city? Penalize the state for their poor decision making? The highway is here and there's nothing we can do about it. Live with it.

@arcturus: Nothing to say really. Can't argue with made-up statistics and ancient philosophical quotes.

Then it's probably best not to say anything, made up or otherwise.

[arcturus]

Yes, the population in those areas grew, but it was displaced from other areas of the county and other areas of Michigan. Did county revenues go up? No, they are way down. Did state or county sales tax go up? No. It was just population shifted around from other areas.

We really need to redefine metrics for growth in Michigan or we're REALLY going to be left behind.

Well then by your viewpoint the state should seriously look at retiring or cutting back funding to those less traveled, displaced region's roadways and focus more on areas that are growing. Like the M6 area.

[arcturus]

Damn I'm having fun today!

[jas49503]

Road building is expensive but it still represents the best bang for the buck. That's something that won't change for a long time. Yes it's costly.

Is the cost as bad as portrayed when looking at the bigger picture? How many jobs have been created by those new businesses nearby? How much of that developed land is now being taxed at higher rates? Now that it provides a more efficient route for many, how much less in gasoline and air pollution serving an ever growing population per the latest census? With easier access and land still cheaper (than developed downtown areas) does this not offer inducements for new businesses to start, relocate, or expand? Cities are losing population virtually everywhere to suburbs.

This is a circular argument that could be used for any government expenditure. but how many jobs are lost by the taxation needed to provide for those roads. how much is lost in tax revenue due to declining tax dollars in the city due to decreased demand and population. the route is more efficent for some but only marginally. how much air pollution and natural resources were used to build a highway. the question is not what it offers, but is the benefit worth the cost. I think that the answer here is a resounding no. if we could have got it for free or for a couple of million dollars, maybe it would be worth it. but not for 700 million dollars.

[jas49503]

Road building is expensive but it still represents the best bang for the buck.

that's like calling some the tallest midget.

[GRDadof3]

Well then by your viewpoint the state should seriously look at retiring or cutting back funding to those less traveled, displaced region's roadways and focus more on areas that are growing. Like the M6 area.

I do think that MDOT should cut back funding for roads that get very little traffic, maybe less than 10,000 cars/day, and should institute a no-build policy not to add any more additional lanes or new highways as long as population is not growing. Let counties pick up the burden for roads less traveled. If they can't afford them, grind them up into gravel or close them.

Still waiting for you (and all the other talking heads) to show how the $700 Million of state money was money well spent. Any kind of ROI would be fine. Keep in mind that we're at a net job loss of about 40,000 for the GR MSA since it was built, less sales tax revenue, less property tax revenue, and two large manufacturers near the South Belt have cut about 9000 jobs.

[GRDadof3]

Why yes, a road with fewer cars is generally safer than one with more cars.

Re: deadly accidents. I'm surprised you asked the question ... you should certainly know a bit about media sensationalizing to get viewers. Death is always more newsworthy but if it' *only* results in permanent disability it isn't. How many serious accidents go unreported in the city? Maybe the fact that fatal rural accidents are rare contributes to headline reporting. The segments certainly aren't that 'filled'. Maybe slower speeds add to motorist frustration and road rage. How many ignore slower speeds anyway?

Of course the bus system has its benefits. Ditto for carpooling. The more who take mass transit the fewer the cars or slower increase in their numbers. It's great to get a few % off the roads. They don't need to be mutually exclusive but please tell, what is your solution? Get rid of M6? Reduce the speed limit to 45 perhaps? Have everyone move back to the city? Penalize the state for their poor decision making? The highway is here and there's nothing we can do about it. Live with it.

Then it's probably best not to say anything, made up or otherwise.

Penalize MDOT for making a poor decision, and restrict their powers going forward.

We are all living with decades of poor decision making. $700 Million could have repaired quite a few bridges and roadways. $700 Million, $700 Million, $700 Million, $700 Million, $700 Million, $700 Million, $700 Million, $700 Million, $700 Million, $700 Million, $700 Million, $700 Million, $700 Million, $700 Million, $700 Million, $700 Million, $700 Million, $700 Million, $700 Million, $700 Million, $700 Million, $700 Million, $700 Million, $700 Million (just making sure you realize how much money that is).

[francishsu]

Anyone arguing in favor for roads/highways on this forum is probably going to feel like wading against the current - at least I do. I do wonder who might be out there who favors certain new highway projects, but not M-6.

I think there was a question of whether certain roads were indeed at capacity or above. Unfortunately I can no longer find the study/traffic map analysis, but there was one I remember reading some years ago. In fact, it was back around the time when there was a long discussion on this forum about M-6 during/around its construction. In that study, there were certain stretches on 28th/44th (and perhaps other roads like 52nd and even Byron Road) that were already being quantified as at or above capacity as early as 2000, with estimates of greatly increased traffic by 2005 or so due to an anticipated growth which turned out to be the case. As some others have argued, this was happening before M-6 was constructed, and would have continued regardless of M-6.

Someone questioned the # of exits on M-6, and I personally do agree there could have been less on the west side at least. I remember wondering about the 8th Ave. exit in particular, but I guess the planners were anticipating future growth in that area. It does seem that, in general, highways have too many exit ramps. That's one area I would agree is an area for improvement.

[x99]

You can't just blame declining revenue on a new highway. County revenues are way down because land prices have fallen to at or below where they were a decade ago. That's drastically impacting property tax revenue along with the impact the recession is having on sales tax revenue, not to mention "lost" use tax from undeclared out of state purchases.

Growth metrics did and do indicate that this area was growing more rapidly than any other and needed additional highway capacity. If you can't see that this highway was needed, you'd have to be willfully ignoring reality. Granted, there's a part of me that would have much preferred to bulldoze all of the highways, but that sentiment is about as backward as some 1890s Chicagoan yelping and griping about all of the new railways coming into town. Despite all of its detractors, M6 has kept an enormous amount of semi traffic off of I96, along with reducing significant amounts of traffic that otherwise would have been deadlocked on surface streets.

Now, was it worth the cost? That's a little harder to determine. If it only ever sees 10k car per day, over 30 years that's more than $6 per car per trip. If they turned it into a toll road at that price, I suspect you could use it for a racetrack and not hit a thing.

Yes, the population in those areas grew, but it was displaced from other areas of the county and other areas of Michigan. Did county revenues go up? No, they are way down. Did state or county sales tax go up? No. It was just population shifted around from other areas.

We really need to redefine metrics for growth in Michigan or we're REALLY going to be left behind.

[GRDadof3]

You can't just blame declining revenue on a new highway. County revenues are way down because land prices have fallen to at or below where they were a decade ago. That's drastically impacting property tax revenue along with the impact the recession is having on sales tax revenue, not to mention "lost" use tax from undeclared out of state purchases.

Growth metrics did and do indicate that this area was growing more rapidly than any other and needed additional highway capacity. If you can't see that this highway was needed, you'd have to be willfully ignoring reality. Granted, there's a part of me that would have much preferred to bulldoze all of the highways, but that sentiment is about as backward as some 1890s Chicagoan yelping and griping about all of the new railways coming into town. Despite all of its detractors, M6 has kept an enormous amount of semi traffic off of I96, along with reducing significant amounts of traffic that otherwise would have been deadlocked on surface streets.

Now, was it worth the cost? That's a little harder to determine. If it only ever sees 10k car per day, over 30 years that's more than $6 per car per trip. If they turned it into a toll road at that price, I suspect you could use it for a racetrack and not hit a thing.

I never "blamed" the highway for declining revenues. I said that there has been no net gain in revenues "because" of the highway, as some are claiming. In fact, sales tax revenues may have gone up a bit.

There's a reason why the townships along the corridor fought HARD for more interchanges, because they knew there would be resulting development at the interchanges (gas stations, strip malls, Meijer). But the point of all this (and the editorial) is that added economic activity for one little township like Gaines sucks resources from other parts of the county and state. Growth would have happened in that area regardless, but probably not at the same clip. Local realtors consistently steer people to those school systems. Putting down a new highway is a major policy decision at the State level. Its comparable to central planning, because of the repercussions it has on surrounding communities, and should not be taken lightly (and should be reviewed continuously).

The argument that the M-6 lightened trucking loads seems a bit specious to me, and only looks at the here and now. We're obviously seeing a huge decline in manufacturing in the U.S., and particularly in Michigan and West Michigan. That's probably going to continue. I don't know how many trucks Steelcase used to run out of Kentwood daily, but I imagine that has been cut drastically with 7000 manufacturing jobs cut. Several of the large trucking and logistics companies locally have gone belly up in the last 5 years. Farmers Insurance doesn't use that many trucks. Neither does Metro Health. I'm hard pressed to think of any large trucking operation along the South Beltline (some along 131 near Bryon Center, but they've been there long before the M-6). Spartan Stores runs most of its trucks North and South along 131, from what I hear. Trucks headed from Holland to Lansing and Detroit probably shaved 5 - 7 minutes off of their drive. Worth the cost to taxpayers so companies could save a little money?

If you're arguing that people who live in Gaines Township and in Bryon Township have it easier now? That I can't counter. But we need to start thinking and working together as a region, and not as individual burgs. We will all go down collectively if we don't think regionally.

[jas49503]

for comparision sake you could have built 20 of the new UICA for what M-6 cost. or 20 miles of light rail which pretty much would have covered the entire city. or you probably could have built the trump tower in chicago

[Jippy]

For a academic perspective on the discussions swirling around the wisdom of M6, I would encourage you to read Still Stuck in Traffic by Anthony Downs. The book asserts that transportation investments lead to seemingly paradoxical outcomes based on empirical review of transportation data. One of those outcomes is that new road construction actually increases congestion overtime. This occurs because roadway transportation expansion shifts mode choice, time choice, route choice, and land use decisions surrounding that investment. Over time more people will flock to the new road capacity and degrade its level of service. This can be witnessed adjacent to M6 as more people relocated to the new investment and hollowed out other areas such as 28th Street.

The fact that people moved to the "M6 Six" does not necessarily reflect pent up demand to move to those locations. Rather, it reflects resident and business rational and emotional investment decision-making. Humans (rightly) desire to invest where other investment is occurring. If the $700 million dollars was instead invested in Grand Rapids and the other previously developed suburbs, greater reinvestment and population gain would have occurred in those existing areas. Macro personal investment choices follow public investment choices, and there is no surprise that private money followed the public investment. Metro Hospital, who first attempted to expand in G.R., and Davenport College would have likely remained in a closer-in location, in addition to the many of the individuals who moved to southern Kent County. Again, this is not a denunciation of their individual decisions; rather it is a critique of the public investment decision.

The pertinent discussion point, in my view, is the wisdom of reappropriating massive amounts of federal earmark and gas tax revenue generated by the residents and businesses of Grand Rapids and inner-ring suburbs for the construction of an exurban transportation investment. In short, those urban residents were forced to invest their tax funds into their own (partial) demise.

When one further considers this generation's largest transportation infrastructure investment within G.R. (i.e. the S-Curve), it was still to the primary benefit of the suburban resident. What if S-Curve was instead rebuilt as a tree-lined boulevard like Chicago's Lake Shore Drive? A much more attractive option which accommodates many more trips than 131.

Consider for a moment if those collective $800+ million (M6 and S-Curve) were invested instead in urban transportation solutions -- bus and light-rail construction, reconstruction of previously-built roads and bridges, and better timed-lights. The net result would have accommodated far greater trips than the 25,000 utilizing M6, and would have likely facilitated greater spin-off reinvestment through synergistic redevelopment opportunities. Almost axiomatically recognized, the urban growth model becomes more successful with greater numbers of residents and businesses. Conversely, the suburban growth model brings a lower quality of service as more people are attracted to that location. In sum, urbanity feeds on growth and suburbanity chokes on growth.

The County and State experienced a structural reallignment of its economy, and many of fiscal difficulties are the result of global changes. However, the challenges this community faces could have been mitigated by a more concentrated focus of those limited public investments. There is no question that the revenue gains the townships adjacent to M6 occurred due to the highway's placement; and since West Michigan experienced such limited growth in the last decade, the M6 Six certainly benefited at the expense of inner-ring and urban neighborhoods. Moving forward, I hope that we place greater emphasis on (re)investing in our existing communities...especially since it is the gas tax revenue generated by those users. That is why the BRT line is such a critical first step for West Michigan, as it will begin to finally refocus our public investments back into existing areas.

[GRDadof3]

for comparision sake you could have built 20 of the new UICA for what M-6 cost. or 20 miles of light rail which pretty much would have covered the entire city. or you probably could have built the trump tower in chicago

$700 Million is also half the budget shortfall for Michigan this year. $700 Million is creating more than 3000 high paying jobs downtown.

[AlexPKeaton]

I submit that, as much of a boondoggle as the M-6 might be, an equivalent investment in light rails would also be a huge boondoggle no matter how much most of us here (including myself) would love to see it. We just don't have a traffic problem in this town.

[RegalTDP]

I've enjoyed this thread a lot, and I don't have planning expertise, just a few anecdotes to add, FWIW, from a Kentwood native's perspective...

The trend of southward growth was already underway in the 80s and 90s. Again, I only have anecdotal evidence to back me up. All my years growing up were spent in the same house near 52nd and K'zoo... When I started school, most of my friends lived north of me. When I graduated high school, almost all of them had moved south of 68th street. Most of the new families in my neighborhood were up-and-comers from GR. After graduation, many parents who no longer had kids in school packed up and moved out even further to Hudsonville or Ada. This was all before 2000, and before Phase 1 of M-6 was completed.

Some here have been lamenting the demise of 28th Street, but from my perspective that wasn't because of the South Beltline. I'm sure traffic studies exist that tend to show reduced traffic after 2005, but as far as businesses go? I highly doubt that was M-6. We Kentwoodites, as well as people I knew in GR's Millbrook and Ken-O-Sha Park neighborhoods, avoided 28th Street whenever possible, because of the congestion. 29th Street went from a 2-lane back road in the woods to a wide road with lots of businesses around it because it allowed people not to use 28th Street. And keep in mind some parts of 28th street are still thriving, like around Cascade and East Paris, because those areas are still growing. Woodland Mall is still kicking. Even Centerpointe(Eastbrook), while not thriving, is doing better than it was in 2000. A lot of dead space out there is taken up by closed car dealerships, which obviously had everything to do with the economy and not M-6. 28th Street in Wyoming, including Rogers, was already DOA before M-6, and even before Rivertown was built. In fact, I would argue the only thing keeping that area alive for so long was Studio 28, which pretty much had a monopoly on movies in Southern GR. It was rather inconvenient to get to from Kentwood, and once other cineplexes sprung up, it's no surprise people went to those places instead.

I think the businesses that were directly affected by M-6 were the ones located closer to it, around 52nd and 44th, as well as some north-south streets in between, like Eastern, Division, and Clyde Park. I've noticed a few strips in those areas 10 years ago that are empty now.

I use M-6 a lot, and it hasn't just made getting around easier for Gaines and Byron, but all the southern region, including as far as Cascade and Ottawa County. And it hasn't hurt downtown or any northern neighborhoods, it's actually made them more accessible. BUT, I also agree with a lot of what GRDad's saying, there was no ROI. There was a little effort (a flurry of new buildings around Broadmoor), but the sagging economy overpowered those investments into losses.

I certainly can't argue with the fact that $700 million was costly and wasteful. I die a little inside every time I span that shameful cloverleaf interchange at 131. You could build a damn particle accelerator underneath it. Think about some other costs on top of that - millions more spent on massive campaigns to widen streets like 44th, 52nd, and Gezon Parkway; those were all pretty much done for nothing. I also certainly agree that anyone who's willing to drop serious bank on a new highway shouldn't complain about having to pony up for the Rapid.

I just feel the South Beltline was inevitable - wherever the growth is, people will start clamoring for a freeway to go through there. People will always support less congestion, whether in the city or the suburbs. You could argue it's up to city leaders and planners to know better, but hey, they all own cars too.

Sorry I went on for so long.

[MJLO]

Wow good debate. Not gonna throw myself into the fire here, save to point out that Metropolitan Grand Rapids has a less extensive freeway system (even with M-6) than many, if not most metropolitan areas of like size. Both Flint and Lansing have more exstensive freeway systems. Flint having more lane miles. Congestion on both 131 and 196 thru downtown has eased a bit from where it was since the late 90's / early 00's. Even tree hugging cities and states still have intricate freeway systems. It was planned during the 1990's (and before) when the economy was on fire, when money was less an issue. Human beings are naturally lazy and will use the easiest means possible to achieve and end. The automobile while perhaps not the most ethical, still in most cases remains the most practical, and $10/gal gas prices withstanding, is here to stay. Not all growth in the southern part of the county has come from people moving from the core.

and of course, no matter how much we bitch about it, the Southbelt has been open now for 7 years, so I guess my bigger question is how do we make the best of it.

[Mark Miller]

For a academic perspective on the discussions swirling around the wisdom of M6, I would encourage you to read Still Stuck in Traffic by Anthony Downs. The book asserts that transportation investments lead to seemingly paradoxical outcomes based on empirical review of transportation data. One of those outcomes is that new road construction actually increases congestion overtime. This occurs because roadway transportation expansion shifts mode choice, time choice, route choice, and land use decisions surrounding that investment. Over time more people will flock to the new road capacity and degrade its level of service. This can be witnessed adjacent to M6 as more people relocated to the new investment and hollowed out other areas such as 28th Street.

The fact that people moved to the "M6 Six" does not necessarily reflect pent up demand to move to those locations. Rather, it reflects resident and business rational and emotional investment decision-making. Humans (rightly) desire to invest where other investment is occurring. If the $700 million dollars was instead invested in Grand Rapids and the other previously developed suburbs, greater reinvestment and population gain would have occurred in those existing areas. Macro personal investment choices follow public investment choices, and there is no surprise that private money followed the public investment. Metro Hospital, who first attempted to expand in G.R., and Davenport College would have likely remained in a closer-in location, in addition to the many of the individuals who moved to southern Kent County. Again, this is not a denunciation of their individual decisions; rather it is a critique of the public investment decision.

The pertinent discussion point, in my view, is the wisdom of reappropriating massive amounts of federal earmark and gas tax revenue generated by the residents and businesses of Grand Rapids and inner-ring suburbs for the construction of an exurban transportation investment. In short, those urban residents were forced to invest their tax funds into their own (partial) demise.

When one further considers this generation's largest transportation infrastructure investment within G.R. (i.e. the S-Curve), it was still to the primary benefit of the suburban resident. What if S-Curve was instead rebuilt as a tree-lined boulevard like Chicago's Lake Shore Drive? A much more attractive option which accommodates many more trips than 131.

Consider for a moment if those collective $800+ million (M6 and S-Curve) were invested instead in urban transportation solutions -- bus and light-rail construction, reconstruction of previously-built roads and bridges, and better timed-lights. The net result would have accommodated far greater trips than the 25,000 utilizing M6, and would have likely facilitated greater spin-off reinvestment through synergistic redevelopment opportunities. Almost axiomatically recognized, the urban growth model becomes more successful with greater numbers of residents and businesses. Conversely, the suburban growth model brings a lower quality of service as more people are attracted to that location. In sum, urbanity feeds on growth and suburbanity chokes on growth.

The County and State experienced a structural reallignment of its economy, and many of fiscal difficulties are the result of global changes. However, the challenges this community faces could have been mitigated by a more concentrated focus of those limited public investments. There is no question that the revenue gains the townships adjacent to M6 occurred due to the highway's placement; and since West Michigan experienced such limited growth in the last decade, the M6 Six certainly benefited at the expense of inner-ring and urban neighborhoods. Moving forward, I hope that we place greater emphasis on (re)investing in our existing communities...especially since it is the gas tax revenue generated by those users. That is why the BRT line is such a critical first step for West Michigan, as it will begin to finally refocus our public investments back into existing areas.

I would encourage all to read and then re-read this post. And then read "Still Stuck in Traffic".

This is spot on and one of the most thoughtful posts on UP in a long time.

[Veloise]

Wow good debate. ...

and of course, no matter how much we beotch about it, the Southbelt has been open now for 7 years, so I guess my bigger question is how do we make the best of it.

Learning from previous mistakes, and using them to reformulate policies.

The major industry eggs-in-one-basket scenario of Three Oaks comes to mind.

[x99]

Turn M-6 into a tollway that costs $.25 per tire, along with a chunk of 96 just east of town and again west of town (to make sure the east-west truck traffic can't skip over it). Not that it will ever happen, but it would certainly fix some of the claimed problems and generate a nice chuck of change.

Learning from previous mistakes, and using them to reformulate policies.

[Ted]

Turn M-6 into a tollway that costs $.25 per tire, along with a chunk of 96 just east of town and again west of town (to make sure the east-west truck traffic can't skip over it). Not that it will ever happen, but it would certainly fix some of the claimed problems and generate a nice chuck of change.

Agreed.

[Raildudes dad]

Just for some clarification, it cost $650 million, $50 million less than the $700 million estimate.

The traffic count between US 131 and Kalamazoo is over 50,000 vehicles per day, twice the number repeatedly mentioned in this thread. It's one of the busier segments of freeway.

The M-6 /US 131 interchange is "sprawling" as it's designed for future traffic. It has merge weave lanes for the future entering / exiting traffic volumes so it will not be a malfunction junction in the future like US131/I96, US131/I196, and East Beltline/I96 are today for example. Those interchanges malfunction because the design traffic counts of the early 60's were about 10% of today's traffic volumes.

Not sure why it needs to be a toll road, the users are paying for it when they fill up at the pump and buy plates. Michigan roads are built and maintained with the fuel tax and vehicle registration fees. Check the state budget if you don't believe me, there are $0 general fund monies in the transportation fund.

One of the growth generators to the SE is the airport. If the airport had been built near Coopersville (one of the alternate locations), the growth would have been NW.

No one would have believed anyone that would have predicted in the late 90's that MI would be in a recession for the next 10 years and the only state to lose population by 2010. If anyone had said in the next decade that Steelcase would be selling and closing factory buildings and the 36th Stamping plant would be closed and demolished, you would have been accused of smoking wacky tabaky.

[GRDadof3]

Just for some clarification, it cost $650 million, $50 million less than the $700 million estimate.

The traffic count between US 131 and Kalamazoo is over 50,000 vehicles per day, twice the number repeatedly mentioned in this thread. It's one of the busier segments of freeway.

The M-6 /US 131 interchange is "sprawling" as it's designed for future traffic. It has merge weave lanes for the future entering / exiting traffic volumes so it will not be a malfunction junction in the future like US131/I96, US131/I196, and East Beltline/I96 are today for example. Those interchanges malfunction because the design traffic counts of the early 60's were about 10% of today's traffic volumes.

Not sure why it needs to be a toll road, the users are paying for it when they fill up at the pump and buy plates. Michigan roads are built and maintained with the fuel tax and vehicle registration fees. Check the state budget if you don't believe me, there are $0 general fund monies in the transportation fund.

One of the growth generators to the SE is the airport. If the airport had been built near Coopersville (one of the alternate locations), the growth would have been NW.

No one would have believed anyone that would have predicted in the late 90's that MI would be in a recession for the next 10 years and the only state to lose population by 2010. If anyone had said in the next decade that Steelcase would be selling and closing factory buildings and the 36th Stamping plant would be closed and demolished, you would have been accused of smoking wacky tabaky.

25,000 people per day. 50,000 cars divided by 2, assuming that just about everyone using it makes a round trip to and from their destination.

The State has been having budget issues and suffering job losses going all the way back almost a decade.

[jas49503]

Not sure why it needs to be a toll road, the users are paying for it when they fill up at the pump and buy plates. Michigan roads are built and maintained with the fuel tax and vehicle registration fees. Check the state budget if you don't believe me, there are $0 general fund monies in the transportation fund.

they obviously don't pay enough because,while the roads are maintained (poorly) funding for public transportation is very lacking. while you may say that the fuel tax and vehicle registration isn't to be used for this I think that it should and maybe a change needs to be made. if you spend wastefully on excess highways then that takes away from money available for even maintenence, which is a point that isn't open for debate since michigan ranks around the worst roads in country pretty much every year.

[trongrr]

I've enjoyed the conversation in this thread, and thought you might want to know about an upcoming talk at Wealthy Theatre along the same lines:

VIA GR Now -Not Your Average Speaker Series: Transporting the Economy on April 14. - Our mobility as a community is vital to our economy. Where are investments being made in transit and transportation in Michigan? What do the next 5, 10, 20 years look like for Michigan's transit and transportation future? And what transit issues are on the near horizon locally that deserve attention?

EDI: The link isnt working inline -- http://events.grnow.com/events/index.php?com=detail&eID=161471