NILES — It’s hard not to notice the wear and tear on the US-12 bridges over the M-51 interchange.

Deteriorating pavement conditions, cracking concrete, exposed rebar and minor rusting are among the visible damages seen on and near the bridge. According to Kyle Rudlaff, the MDOT project manager, the bridges were constructed in 1955 and are considered to be in “poor” condition.

“It could be repaired indefinitely, but it is not cost effective anymore,” Rudlaff said.

Because of this, MDOT is working with the consultant firm AECOM to determine alternatives for repairing and replacing the aging bridges.

These ideas were presented Wednesday night during an open house at Southwestern Michigan College’s Niles campus, with the aim to garner public feedback on the proposed alternatives.

Mike DeVries, an AECOM representative, addressed the more than 70 people who attended the presentation. He detailed the options that project officials will consider for implementation in 2023, when the bridge will either be repaired or replaced all together. 

• The first option is to rebuild the existing interchange, repairing and replacing the infrastructure. Estimated cost: $16.2 million.

• Alternative one is a grade-separated diamond interchange, which would replace the bridges and eliminate the loop ramps leading on and off on US-12. A standard diagonal ramp would be constructed for entering and exiting the highway. Estimated cost: $15 million.

• Alternative two is an at-grade signal with indirect left turns. This would remove the bridge and install traffic signals and construct directional median crossovers for left turn traffic. Estimated cost: $8.7 million. 

• Alternative three, an at-grade roundabout, would remove and replace the bridge with a “high capacity” roundabout, made up of two circulating lanes. Estimated cost: $8.7 million.

• Alternative four is an at-grade signal with direct left turn lanes. This design is similar to the intersection at US-12 and Third Street. Estimated cost: $8.5 million.

MDOT initiated a feasibility study which will evaluate traffic operations and provide insight on how to best configure the interchange. The study will also include a pavement improvement analysis on M-51 from the state line to M-60BR.

Work on the project began in the spring. Another public meeting is expected to take place in the late fall, with a finalized report expected by February 2019.

DeVries pointed out several things that that the study has so far indicated including, a need for more pedestrian accessibility, made apparent by worn footpaths that are apparent along the interchange.

“Some of the comments that we are starting to get from stakeholders like yourself is the walkability of the M-51 corridor is a concern,” DeVries said.

Walkability is among the issues Devries said project engineers will look to address as they seek to create an ideal interchange. 

Following the presentation, residents were given the opportunity to ask questions and express feedback. MDOT also encouraged those who attended to write down their questions, concerns and reactions to the proposed ideas.

Some who spoke said they opposed the idea of a roundabout. In fact, when DeVries pulled up a slide to talk about the roundabout, one man in the audience shouted “No!”

Others who spoke up said they could see the roundabout being troublesome for truck drivers and that they feared that drivers would not understand how to use the roundabout. Still others said a roundabout would likely influence truck drivers to find an alternative route, thus wearing down side streets like Redfield Road.

Some opposition was also expressed to alternative two’s use of indirect left turn lanes. Much like the roundabout, those in attendance said they could see people getting confused about how to go left and that it could be cumbersome for truck drivers with heavy loads.

DeVries thanked those in attendance for sharing their feedback and said it would be an important part of the project’s process.

“The department would really like your comments,” DeVries said. “We would love to hear from you in terms of what works good in terms of the interchange [and] what you are concerned about.”

Comments will be compiled and project facilitators hope to narrow down the alternatives before the next public meeting.

Those who cannot attend scheduled meetings, but would like to comment, should contact Rudlaff at rudlaff@michigan.gov.

DeVries presentation, which shows illustrative diagrams of the proposed alternatives, is available online at michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9621_11058-470518–,00.html.