|
Grex > Aaypsi > #59: Dangerous freeway ramps at M-14 and Barton Drive | |
|
| Author |
Message |
kaplan
|
|
Dangerous freeway ramps at M-14 and Barton Drive
| 
May 19 22:38 UTC 1997 |
I heard on the radio today that there's a plan to replace the Barton Drive
ramp to M-14 with something north. Maybe they are talking about putting the
new ramp at Pontiac Trail?
Just how did that ramp get that way? Why not replace the bridge over the
river at Whitmore Lake Road so that people in the Barton Drive neighborhood
could use the Main Street freeway ramp?
|
| 11 responses total. |
omni
|
|
response 1 of 11:
|
May 20 17:19 UTC 1997 |
The entrance ramp on Barton, before the freeway is highly controversial
because of it's design. It forces you to come to a complete stop, then you
bolt out on to a short accelleration lane where you hopefully can get up to
freeway speeds. If that weren't bad enough, it's a two way ramp and there are
cars exiting at freeway speeds that have to slow down quickly to make the
sharp turn. Whoever designed that exit had his head up his ass.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 2 of 11:
|
May 20 17:28 UTC 1997 |
I never had any trouble with it, or even concern, when I lived out that way
and used it a lot. But then, I'm not a nit-picker.
|
rickyb
|
|
response 3 of 11:
|
May 20 19:02 UTC 1997 |
I don't have too much trouble with it either, unless someone is hot on my tail
as I exit there and I fear being rear-ended. If you're in a can without
enough power, that entrance from a dead stop, in a short lane, is also
_uphill_, and could pose problems.
I like the idea of making the Main Street entrance available for Barton Drive
ppl by improving the bridge. Still, I don't really like the exit onto Barton
anyway. Oh well. At least we'll have a few new construction jobs for awhile
(at our expense!) ;-)
|
scg
|
|
response 4 of 11:
|
May 20 23:53 UTC 1997 |
I don't have trouble with that ramp either, but that was the first freeway
exit I ever drove on in driver's ed, so I'm well aware of the design. It does
seem to me to be quite dangerous to have people slowing down to 15mph so
quickly as they get off the freeway, with traffic behind them still going at
freeway speeds, and there does look to me to be a real danger of people who
aren't expecting the curve flying off the corner.
That's the off ram I'm talking about. I wouldn't even think of using the on
ramp there.
|
mary
|
|
response 5 of 11:
|
May 21 14:01 UTC 1997 |
That is indeed a poorly designed access ramp. It was never meant
to be permanent but it was used for so long that those who live along
the easement assumed (and were even told) that the improved ramp
wasn't in the plans for what they consider their green belt.
I feel inserting an expressway ramp into a developed neighborhood
is a pretty nasty thing to do. But there are some very serious
accidents at that location. I'd rather they just closed the
thing and let folks travel a little out of the way to access
the freeway.
|
scg
|
|
response 6 of 11:
|
May 22 05:51 UTC 1997 |
Having seen maps of the route they are planning for the new ramp, it looks
incredibly inconvenient, so I'm not entirely sure what would be gained by
having it as planned. I don't spend enough time in that neighborhood to
figure out whether it needs a freeway ramp at all, but some sort of bridge
across the river there (currently provided by the freeway) probably would be
very useful.
I drove past that ramp today and took another look at it. I realized that
if anybody took that turn just slightly too wide (easy to do if people don't
realize just how much they have to slow down, they'd end up in the oncoming
traffic on the on ramp. The more I look at it, the more dangerous it looks.
|
scott
|
|
response 7 of 11:
|
May 24 00:30 UTC 1997 |
This is a big deal for the people in the current and future locations. One
of my coworkers is in the proposed future location area, and is big into the
organizing to prevent the move. The debate is starting to sound a bit nasty.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 8 of 11:
|
May 24 04:01 UTC 1997 |
I don't think it is important enough to have an interchange in the river
valley there, on that side of the river, to disrupt the neighborhood
so drastically. Have it at where Pontiac Trail crosses M14.
|
srw
|
|
response 9 of 11:
|
May 24 05:15 UTC 1997 |
The ramp has long been a source of problems. Yes, it is very dangerous.
It doesn't come even close to meeting the specs used to build modern highways.
They have wanted to replace it for years, and even acquired a substantial
right-of-way years ago.
The recent controversy started because without any public review some city
employees made some kind of petition to (I think ) MDOT. Local residents
picked up on this and wrote to Lynn Rivers. She in turn contacted the City
Council, and Council voted to revoke the petition and open up a study of
alternative locations for the replacement ramp.
Issues: (1) If they put the replacement ramp into the location of the already
purchased right-of-way, it goes right into a residential area, and offends
the local residents. Some argue that they are justifiably offended, others
claim that the right-of-way has been there with this in mind for years. Few
would argue that the location is a great location though. It really would
disrupt the greenbelt runnning between Bandemer and Argo.
(2) If they closed it and didn't replace it, it would be most awkward to
get on or off the highways from that side of the river. People going north
would drive up Whitmore Lake Road to N. Territorial. Eastbound cars would
take Barton to Plymouth. South and westbound cars would have to drive
right through the city.
(3) Alternate locations for a ramp would be between there and Plymouth road.
There are only two I can imagine -- Pontiac and Nixon. Pontiac seems to me
like a much better choice, but Pontiac crosses 23/14 very close to the
westerly 23/14 interchange. I think that can be addressed though.
The Pontiac interchange area is not developed, and that is a real plus.
I have noted that a lot of people also use that on/off ramp in the
following manner. Starting on North Main, they enter M 14 Eastbound
(there is no WB entrance) cross the bridge, use the ramp in question to exit
and circle under the highway to re-enter westbound. I consider this to
be abuse, but it is legal, and adds to the traffic and danger of the ramp.
Moving the turnaround point farther away would discourage this behavior.
|
scg
|
|
response 10 of 11:
|
May 24 06:02 UTC 1997 |
I don't consider it to be abuse, but rather bad design. Other than by doing
that, there is no way to get onto Westbound 14 from Main street, or to get
to Main street from Eastbound 14. Also, since the M-14 bridge was used to
replace the old Main Street bridge that used to cross the river, people trying
to get across teh river there are now forced to do the quick on and off the
highway thing.
|
srw
|
|
response 11 of 11:
|
May 25 15:03 UTC 1997 |
OK. I won't deny that it's bad design, and I won't argue with shifting
the blame to the highway deisgners. It shouldn't have taken a crystal
ball to see what the removal of the N.Main Street to Whitmore Lake Road
bridgs would do to the traffic patterms, when M-14 first was built.
The original bridge has been restoredto use as the entrance to Bandemer
Park. Perhaps they should connect it through (by crossing conrail at
grade) to H.R. Drive. I know there are some goof reasons against this,
but it would solve more traffic problems than it would create, and would
make things a lot more like they were in the really good old days before
M-14.
The ramp could then be placed far far away. Folks who wanted to get onto
M-14 EB or off WB could use Main Street's ramps and the low bridge. You
still would have to go somewhere else to get on WB or get off EB, since
that is not an option at Main Street.
Bandemer's entrance would be a little shorter, that's all.
Actually the intersection on HRD and the RR grade crossing are both
costs and safety hazards that would have to be minimized by some good
road design, to make this work
(I have other random ideas, too)
|