M29 Corridor-Study 2018 Draft

M‐29 Corridor Study
City of St. Clair
Michigan Department of Transportation – Bay Region
DRAFT – March 29, 2018
CS 77052, JN 131491
Prepared By:

M‐29 Corridor Study – DRAFT MDOT – Bay Region
TABLE OF CONTENTS
References .................................................................................................................................................. vii
ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................................. vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ vii
I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1
II. PREVIOUS STUDIES ................................................................................................................................ 1
A. Background ....................................................................................................................................... 1
B. M‐29 Corridor Study (2005) ‐ Spalding DeDecker Associates, Inc. ................................................... 1
C. M‐29 Corridor Analysis (2010) ‐ Spalding DeDecker Associates, Inc. ............................................... 2
D. M‐29 and Clinton Intersection Analysis (2010) ‐ Spalding DeDecker Associates, Inc. ...................... 2
III. STUDY OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................ 3
IV. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................ 3
A. Public Agency and Stakeholder Coordination ................................................................................... 3
B. Public Participation ........................................................................................................................... 4
Public Input Meetings and Workshops ......................................................................................... 4
Survey Distribution and Results .................................................................................................... 4
V. EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS.......................................................................................................... 4
A. History ............................................................................................................................................... 4
B. Non‐Motorized Plans ........................................................................................................................ 6
St. Clair County Nonmotorized Guidelines (2005) ........................................................................ 6
St. Clair County Trails and Routes Master Plan (2008) ................................................................. 7
C. Land‐Use and Zoning ......................................................................................................................... 7
D. Traffic Operations ............................................................................................................................. 7
Field Traffic Data Collection and Observation .............................................................................. 7
Inventory ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Redevelopment ............................................................................................................................. 7
E. Safety Evaluation .............................................................................................................................. 8
Crash Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 8
Conflicts with roadways ................................................................................................................ 9
Conflicts with road‐users .............................................................................................................. 9
F. Right‐of‐Way Constraints .................................................................................................................. 9
G. Environmental Issues ........................................................................................................................ 9
Page i
H. Accessibility Issues .......................................................................................................................... 10
I. Future User Experience ................................................................................................................... 11
VI. USER NEEDS ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 12
A. Public Input ..................................................................................................................................... 12
B. Online Survey .................................................................................................................................. 12
C. Future Traffic Operations ................................................................................................................ 12
D. Future Needs ................................................................................................................................... 12
VII. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 12
A. Option 1 – Traditional Road Diet .................................................................................................... 12
Description .................................................................................................................................. 12
Safety .......................................................................................................................................... 13
Accessibility ................................................................................................................................. 13
Functionality ............................................................................................................................... 13
Neighborhood Impacts ............................................................................................................... 13
Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................................... 13
Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................... 13
Cost ............................................................................................................................................. 13
Right‐of‐way Availability ............................................................................................................. 14
Consistency with Local Plans ................................................................................................... 14
Multiple Use Opportunities .................................................................................................... 14
B. Option 2 – Protected Bike Lanes ..................................................................................................... 14
Description .................................................................................................................................. 14
Safety .......................................................................................................................................... 14
Accessibility ................................................................................................................................. 14
Functionality ............................................................................................................................... 15
Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................... 15
Cost ............................................................................................................................................. 15
Right‐of‐Way Availability ............................................................................................................ 15
C. Option 3 – Angled Parking with Two Lanes .................................................................................... 16

Page ii
Description .................................................................................................................................. 16
Safety .......................................................................................................................................... 16
Accessibility ................................................................................................................................. 16
Functionality ............................................................................................................................... 16
Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................... 17
Cost ............................................................................................................................................. 17
D. Option 4 – Angled Parking with Three Lanes .................................................................................. 17
Description .................................................................................................................................. 17
Safety .......................................................................................................................................... 17
Accessibility ................................................................................................................................. 18
Functionality ............................................................................................................................... 18
Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................... 18
Cost ............................................................................................................................................. 18
Right‐of‐way Availability ............................................................................................................. 18
E. Option 5 – Clinton Avenue Intersection Improvements ................................................................. 18
Description .................................................................................................................................. 18
Safety .......................................................................................................................................... 18
Accessibility ................................................................................................................................. 19
Functionality ............................................................................................................................... 19
Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................... 19
Cost ............................................................................................................................................. 19

Page iii
VIII. DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................... 20
A. Potential Improvements ................................................................................................................. 21
Special Emphasis Crosswalks ...................................................................................................... 21
Decorative Crosswalks ................................................................................................................ 22
Pedestrian Refuge Islands ........................................................................................................... 23
Staggered Crosswalk ................................................................................................................... 24
Enhanced Crosswalk Lighting ...................................................................................................... 24
Improved Corridor Lighting ......................................................................................................... 25
Contrasting Pavement................................................................................................................. 26
Pedestrian‐Activated Flashing LEDs in the Border of a Warning Sign ........................................ 27
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK Signal) .................................................................................. 28
Temporary Pedestrian Island .................................................................................................. 29
Extended Pedestrian Refuge Island ........................................................................................ 29
Curb Extensions at Intersections and Mid‐Block .................................................................... 30
Landscaping and Landscaped Boulevards ............................................................................... 31
IX. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ................................................................................................................. 31
A. Option 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 31
Short Term .................................................................................................................................. 31
Medium Term ............................................................................................................................. 32
Long Term ................................................................................................................................... 32
B. Option 2 .......................................................................................................................................... 32
Short Term .................................................................................................................................. 32
Medium Term ............................................................................................................................. 32
Long Term ................................................................................................................................... 32
C. Option 3 .......................................................................................................................................... 32
Short Term .................................................................................................................................. 32
Medium Term ............................................................................................................................. 32
Long Term ................................................................................................................................... 32
D. Option 4 .......................................................................................................................................... 32
Short Term .................................................................................................................................. 32
Medium Term ............................................................................................................................. 32

Page iv
Long Term ................................................................................................................................... 32
X. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 32

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Speed Limit Variations Along M‐29 ................................................................................................. 4
Table 2. Proposed Improvements and Related Crash Reductions per Crash Type (MDOT) ......................... 8
Table 3. Implementation Plan Matrix ......................................................................................................... 20
Table 4. List of Proposed Treatments and Associated Cost ........................................................................ 31
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location Map ................................................................................................................................. 5
Figure 2. ADA Ramp Opening Along Palmer Park 325 feet North of Jay Street Intersection without a
Receiving Ramp on the Opposite Side of the Street ................................................................................... 10
Figure 3. Non‐Compliant ADA Ramp Opening 245 feet North of Jay Street Intersection Without a Receiving
Ramp on the Opposite Side of the Street. .................................................................................................. 11
Figure 4. Proposed view of Option 1 at Jay Street looking north ............................................................... 13
Figure 5. Proposed View of Option 2 at the Riverfront Pavilion ................................................................. 14
Figure 8. Example of Special Emphasis Crosswalk ...................................................................................... 21
Figure 9. Example of a Pedestrian Refuge Island ........................................................................................ 23
Figure 10. Example of a Contrasting Pavement Crosswalk and Intersection ............................................. 26
Figure 11. Example of a Crosswalk with a Flashing LED in the Border of a Warning Sign .......................... 27
Figure 12. An Example of a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK) Signal ...................................................... 28
Figure 13. An Example of a Temporary Pedestrian Island .......................................................................... 29
Figure 14. Example of a Mid‐Block Crossing with Bump Out ..................................................................... 30

Page v
LIST OF APPENDICES
A. Steering Committee Meeting Minutes
1. August 24, 2017
B. Conceptual Layouts

Page vi
REFERENCES
Spalding DeDecker Associates, Inc. (2005). M‐29 Corridor Study . St. Clair: Michigan Department of
Transportation.
Spalding DeDecker Associates, Inc. (2010). M‐29 and Clinton Intersection Analysis. St. Clair: City of St. Clair.
Spalding DeDecker Associates, Inc. (2010). M‐29 Corridor Analysis. St. Clair: City of St. Clair.
The Greenway Collaborative, Inc. (2008). St. Clair County Trails and Routes Master Plan. St. Clair County
Parks and Recreation Commission.
The Greenway Collaborative, Inc. and Midwestern Consulting. (2005). St. Clair County Nonmotorized
Guidelines. Michigan Department of Transportation.
ACRONYMS
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ADT Average Daily Traffic
MDOT Michigan Department of Transportation
RRFB Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
SCCOTS St. Clair County Transportation Study
SEMCOG Southeast Michigan Council of Governments
TSC Transportation Service Center
vpd vehicles per day
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To be completed later.
Page vii
I. INTRODUCTION
The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) Bay Region has commissioned this study to
evaluate roadway improvements along the M‐29 corridor that will increase safety for pedestrians and
bicyclists, increase mobility, provide traffic calming, and be easily implemented. These improvements
will be implementable in single locations or throughout the entire corridor. Additionally, low‐, mid‐,
and high‐range cost options will be evaluated for potential future implementation.
II. PREVIOUS STUDIES
A. Background
Several previous studies have been completed for the M‐29 corridor in the City of St. Clair. These
studies have looked at several potential options for improvements, such as reducing the number
of lanes from four to three, placing boulevards, and non‐motorized improvements along the
corridor. The studies presented comprehensive alternatives for the whole corridor that were high
cost and therefore have not been implemented. Below is a summary of the previous studies
completed.
B. M‐29 Corridor Study (2005) ‐ Spalding DeDecker Associates, Inc.
In 2005, MDOT worked with the City of St. Clair and volunteers who composed the M‐29 Corridor
Planning Committee to develop a plan that included a long‐term vision for the corridor. The study
focused on safety, capacity, and ride quality while offering the following goals.
 Plan for a continuous non‐motorized path
 Reduce roadway noise
 Encourage motorists to obey posted speeds
 Improve safety at pedestrian crossings
 Improve turning movements, especially at Clinton Street
 Provide adequate on‐street parking
 Improve aesthetics and suggest wayfinding signage and strategic placement of signs
The objectives identified in this study were intended to provide recommendations for several
desirable corridor improvements along M‐29 to be incorporated into future projects. Due to the
size and scope of the projects, none of the following alternatives presented in the study were
implemented.
The following were the options identified in this study:
1. A boulevard with two lanes in each direction, 10‐foot parking lanes, and decorative median
street lighting ‐ $1.8M
2. Three lanes, one in each direction with CLTL and 10‐foot parking lanes on both sides with 10‐
foot non‐motorized path on east side ‐ $1.55M

Page 1
3. Three lanes, one in each direction with CLTL and angled parking on east side, and 10‐foot non‐
motorized path on east side ‐ $1.66M
4. North and south of downtown – road diet to three lanes, one in each direction with CLTL and
6‐foot bike lanes on each side. Achieved by re‐paving to match joint lines with lane lines ‐
$230K
C. M‐29 Corridor Analysis (2010) ‐ Spalding DeDecker Associates, Inc.
In 2010, the City of St. Clair commissioned a study to evaluate and compare the existing roadway
operations to a proposed alternative which replaced the center left turn lane with a proposed
boulevard with street lights. The two travel lanes in each direction would remain along with
adjacent parallel parking on both sides.
The existing and proposed cross‐section was evaluated from Clinton to Vine. For the proposed
alternative, left turns were allowed only at Trumbull, Jay, and Vine; therefore, these were the only
intersections evaluated for existing and proposed conditions. The level of service for the through
movements along the corridor was an A for both existing and proposed cross‐sections. The left
turns ranged from level of service A to B for both Jay and Trumbull AM and PM peak hours but
fell to a level of service C to F for AM and PM peak hours at Vine.
This evaluation concluded that the corridor would continue to operate at a high level of service if
a boulevard was added and left turns limited; however, a traffic signal would likely be warranted
at the intersection at Vine to accommodate the increase in left turns from eastbound to
northbound.
D. M‐29 and Clinton Intersection Analysis (2010) ‐ Spalding DeDecker Associates, Inc.
In 2010, the City of St. Clair contracted for a study of the intersection at M‐29 and Clinton Avenue.
The study was to provide alternatives for improving the intersection operations, including the
ingress and egress to the driveway of the Voyageur (east leg). The alternatives studied were as
follows:
 Addition of an actuated driveway signal phase for the westbound driveway approach
 Addition of a left turn phase for southbound M‐29 traffic turning into the driveway
 Addition of both options above
 Reconstruction of the intersection with a roundabout
The results of the analysis showed that the intersection operated at a level of service C or above
through both the AM and PM peak hours under existing conditions and future volumes projected
only a slight increase in delay. The first three alternatives remained at an acceptable level of
service for the overall intersection. It was determined that the roundabout would not be feasible
without the acquisition of considerable right of way and would still require a signal for the bridge.
It was concluded that the first option of adding an actuated driveway signal phase was most
desirable.
Page 2
III. STUDY OBJECTIVES
This study looks to build upon the recommendations identified in the previous studies along the M‐
29 corridor that focus on pedestrian, bicycle safety, and mobility. By expanding on the potential
improvements identified in previous plans, this study will produce a set of implementable investments
that will improve bicycle and pedestrian safety and mobility along the M‐29 corridor in the City of St.
Clair. The objective is to identify feasible improvements that will improve mobility and safety for all
modes of traffic.
The study will identify and evaluate short‐, medium‐ and long‐term transportation system needs to
enhance bike and pedestrian mobility while maintaining vehicular and bus transit operations. Costs
for these enhancements will range from low‐to‐high to allow implementation over time.
All existing and proposed pedestrian and bicycle paths, transit stops/routes, and activity centers such
as schools, businesses, and parks/open space should be considered to transform the corridor into a
multi‐modal environment that balances the needs of all modes and is sensitive to evolving land use
and land development plans.
IV. METHODOLOGY
A. Public Agency and Stakeholder Coordination
To assure public buy‐in for the proposed alternatives, a steering committee was created,
comprising of representatives from the City of St. Clair, St. Clair County Transportation Study
(SCCOTS), Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), St. Clair County, and MDOT.
The committee was responsible for providing initial comments, reviewing technical data,
reviewing the draft plan, reviewing workshop material, and reviewing the final plan.
Following is a list of the representatives invited to participate on the Steering Committee
 Jay Reithel – MDOT Bay Region
 Erik Tamlyn – MDOT Huron Transportation Service Center (TSC)
 Trevor Block – MDOT Huron TSC
 Brian Pawlik – SEMCOG
 Mike Booth – City of St. Clair
 Davis Struck – St. Clair County Planning
 Lindsay Wallace – SCCOTS
 Jeff Bohm – St. Clair County Board of Commissioners
 Kirk Weston – St. Clair County Road Commission
 William Hazelton – St. Clair County Road Commission
 Randy Maiers – Community Foundation of St. Clair County
 Dan Casey – Economic Development Alliance of St. Clair County
Page 3
B. Public Participation
Public Input Meetings and Workshops
Survey Distribution and Results
V. EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS
A. History
M‐29 is a state trunkline that begins at I‐94 in Chesterfield Township in Macomb County, and runs
easterly along the northern shore of Lake St. Clair into St. Clair County. At Algonac, M‐29 turns
northerly and runs along the St. Clair River through Marine City, St. Clair, and Marysville to its
terminus at Business Loop I‐94, just south of Port Huron. Within the City of St. Clair, M‐29 is a
four‐lane roadway between Palmer Road and just south of the northern city limits, where it
transitions to the two‐lane roadway section that continues northerly to Marysville. Between the
southern city limits and Palmer Road, M‐29 is a two‐lane roadway. It is known locally as Oakland
Avenue at the south end of the city, and Riverside Avenue in the business district and north end
of the city. Sidewalk is located along the west side of M‐29 between the South Riverside Drive
and Oakland Avenue intersection and the northern city limits. From just south of the Pine River
to just south of Vine Street, this sidewalk is located adjacent to the back of curb. Along the east
side of M‐29, sidewalk is limited to between Clinton Avenue and approximately 1,000 feet north
of Vine Street. This sidewalk is primarily located adjacent to the back of curb as well. In this same
area, from the Pine River to the St. Clair Inn, there is a boardwalk located adjacent to the St. Clair
River. A location map of the study area can be found in Figure 1 on the following page.
The segment of M‐29 for this study is the 0.7‐mile‐long section between Clinton Avenue and
Brown Street. Within this segment, M‐29 is a four‐lane roadway with on‐street parallel parking
in both the northbound and southbound directions. The average daily traffic (ADT) for this
segment of M‐29 is 11,550 vehicles per day. There are currently four pedestrian crosswalks within
this segment, located at Clinton Avenue, Jay Street, Riverview Plaza, and the St. Clair Inn. The
intersection of M‐29 and Clinton Avenue is signalized and located immediately north of the M‐29
over the Pine River Bascule Bridge. Speeding has been identified as a concern throughout the
study limits, with an emphasis on the northern end due, in part, to the steep roadway grade for
southbound traffic from Brown Street to Vine Street which increases vehicular speeds heading
into the business district. Table 1 shows the speed variations along M‐29 in the City of St. Clair.
Table 1. Speed Limit Variations Along M‐29
Speed (MPH) From To
35 Southern City Limits Clinton Avenue
30 Clint Avenue Brown Street
40 Brown Street Northern City Limits
Page 4

Figure 1. Location Map

Page 5
At the northern end of the corridor, on the east side of M‐29, immediately north of Vine Street,
is the St. Clair Inn. Opened in 1926, the St. Clair Inn was a prominent vacation spot for boaters
and travelers from out of town. The St. Clair Inn had 78 rooms and was a full‐service hotel to
accommodate business and personal events. In 1995, the English Tudor‐style hotel was put on
the National Registers of Historic Places. However, the St. Clair Inn has been vacant since February
2014 when it was foreclosed on. In January 2016, Jeff Katofsky purchased the St. Clair Inn and, in
September 2017, announced that work on the historic building would begin. This renovation is
projected to be complete and the inn open for business in the spring of 2019.
In the central portion of the corridor is the St. Clair Riverview Plaza on the west side of M‐29.
Enhancements were completed at the plaza in 2014 which included outdoor seating, green space,
and an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)‐compliant mid‐block crossing. The plaza houses
several restaurants and shops with parking behind the building. This plaza is a destination for
visitors and residents year‐round. Palmer Park is located on the east side of the corridor between
M‐29 and the St. Clair River and is a destination for residents and visitors during the spring,
summer, and fall. The park is accessible from the adjacent northbound on street parking and from
the southbound on street parking by using the crosswalks.
At the southern end of the corridor is intersection of Clinton Avenue and M‐29, the Voyageur

restaurant, and the Pine River Bascule Bridge. The Voyageur is located on the east side, with two
driveway entrances onto M‐29, one for employees and patrons and one for deliveries. The Pine
River Bascule Bridge is located immediately south of the intersection and opens on the half hour
and hour during boating months. Drivers on northbound M‐29 must stop behind the Voyageur
driveway approach. Drivers on Clinton Avenue are only allowed left and right turns, but entering
the Voyageur requires a through movement, sometimes causing confusion. Drivers on
southbound M‐29, who wish to turn left into the Voyageur, must wait for traffic in the opposite
direction to clear in addition to northbound drivers waiting to turn left and people exiting the
Voyageur by turning right.
On street parallel parking is available on the east side of M‐29 from just north of the Voyageur
service driveway and continues to the northerly driveway for the St. Clair Inn. On street parking
in the southbound direction begins just after Trumbull Street and continues until the Riverview
Plaza parking lot. There are currently no bike lanes within the corridor, so bikers use the street
or sidewalks.
B. Non‐Motorized Plans
St. Clair County Nonmotorized Guidelines (2005)
The study looked at various MDOT design guidelines to determine if they met guidelines for
bicycle facilities. The study developed a recommended general policy statement which states
bicycle and pedestrian ways shall be established in new construction and reconstruction
projects in all urbanized areas unless bicycles and pedestrians are prohibited by law from
using the roadway, the cost of establishing bikeways or walkways exceeds 25 percent of the
cost of the overall project, or if there is absence of need. Additionally, the recommended
general policy states that sidewalks, shared use paths, street crossings, pedestrian signals,
transit stops and facilities, and all connecting pathways shall be designed and constructed so

Page 6
that all pedestrians, including those with disabilities, can travel safely and independently. The
study highlights the M‐29 corridor in the City of St. Clair for planned nonmotorized roadway
improvements. Examples are given of roadway layouts with bike lanes and how to transition
from/to the bike lane on the roadway. The layouts include the use of the shared‐use arrow
(sharrow) where road widths will not accommodate a full bike lane.
St. Clair County Trails and Routes Master Plan (2008)
The study evaluated the existing trail system, identified gaps, and prioritized the
implementation of proposed improvements. M‐29 through St. Clair is identified for a
proposed on‐road bike route as a part of the Bridge to Bay Trail. This trail has existing off‐
road facilities along Carney Drive in the City. The priority identified for this implementation
is to upgrade the existing facilities.
C. Land‐Use and Zoning
From the 2012 City of St. Clair Community Comprehensive Plan, the current land use along the M‐
29 corridor within the study limits is commercial on the west side with a small area of multiple‐
family residential just north of Clinton and parks, recreation, and open space on the east side
within the limits of Palmer Park. Outside of the park, the east side is also commercial. North of
the St. Clair Inn, both the east and west side of M‐29 is single‐family residential. The zoning plan
included as a part of the comprehensive plans identifies this commercial area as the Downtown
Redevelopment Area and discusses the desire to implement complete streets through the
corridor for convenient access between the downtown buildings and Palmer Park.
D. Traffic Operations
Field Traffic Data Collection and Observation
Traffic volumes were taken from hose counts between 2003 and 2017 for the corridor. In
2017, the ADT was 11,550 vehicles with AM and PM peak hour volumes of about 400 vehicles.
A growth rate of 0.5 percent was used to model for 2025 and 2045 traffic volumes and
projected an ADT of 12,025 vehicles and 13,300 vehicles, respectively. From observation,
volumes may grow further due to the reopening of the St. Clair Inn.
Pedestrian crosswalk counts were collected over an 8‐hour period, on Friday, August 25, 2017
at the three crosswalk locations: Jay Street, Riverview Plaza, and the St. Clair Inn. The counts
show that more people travel westbound at Jay Street and more people travel eastbound at
the Riverview Plaza. Pedestrian traffic at the St. Clair Inn crosswalk is significantly lower than
the others. Bicycle traffic was 11 percent and 15 percent for Jay Street and Riverview Plaza,
individually.
Inventory
Redevelopment
Page 7
E. Safety Evaluation
Crash Analysis
A crash analysis was completed for the corridor. Crash reports (UD‐10s) were collected over
a five‐year period from 2012‐2016 and show 67 crashes. Nineteen of the crashes resulted in
injures, both major and minor. Listed below are the number of crashes per crash type
reported.
 Three (3) were head‐on left turn crashes
 Twenty (20) were sideswipe crashes
 Fifteen (15) were angle crashes
 Twenty‐four (24) were rear end crashes
 Five (5) were single motor vehicle or other crashes
For the types of crashes experienced along the corridor, potential roadway improvements to
mitigate each crash type can be found in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Proposed Improvements and Related Crash Reductions per Crash Type (MDOT)
Proposed Improvement % Reduction Associated Crash Types
80% Rear‐End Left‐Turn
50% Head‐On Left‐Turn
Center Left‐Turn Lane ‐ Install
20% Head‐On, Sideswipe Opposite, Angle
15% Non Left‐Turn Rear‐End
50% Suburban ‐ All Crash Types
Road Diet (4‐3 Lane Conversion) ‐ Install
30% Urban ‐ All Crash Types
Box Span Signal ‐ Upgrade from Diagonal Span 10% All Applicable Crashes+
Protected Left‐Turn Signal Phase ‐ Add 30% Left‐Turn
Signal Head Size ‐ Increase to 12 " 10% All Applicable Crashes+
Signal Optimization & Timing Updates 10% All Applicable Crashes+
30% Angle
Intersection Improvements (Realignment, Sight‐
15% Rear‐End
Distance Improvements, Radii Improvements,
Etc.) 10% Head‐On, Sideswipe, Pedestrian, Bicycle,
Left‐Turn Related
Ten crashes occurred due to a driver turning left. The most notable intersections are Vine
Street, Jay Street, and Brown Street. There was a crash a Brown Street which resulted in a
serious personal injury. These crashes may be mitigated with a road diet which will allow for
the addition of a center left turn lane.
There were also multiple accidents due to cars utilizing the on‐street parking and drivers
changing lanes. These crashes may be mitigated with cross‐sectional improvements to the
roadway through restriping or permanent roadway modifications.
Thirty‐three crashes occurred at the intersection of Clinton Avenue and M‐29. Of these
crashes, six occurred from vehicles entering or exiting The Voyageur restaurant. Only one
resulted in personal injury; however, these crashes could potentially be mitigated through
Page 8
cross‐sectional improvements. MDOT is currently analyzing different options to improve
safety and operations at this intersection.
Although none of the reported crashes involved pedestrians or bikers, there may have been
near miss crashes that occurred.
Conflicts with roadways
Conflicts with road‐users
F. Right‐of‐Way Constraints
The existing road right‐of‐way is 100 feet through the limits of the corridor being studied. The
roadway width varies from 48 feet in areas without parking to 68 feet in areas where parking is
present on both sides of M‐29. The only constraints are with the building locations at the right‐
of‐way which will limit the potential to complete sidewalk improvements along the west side of
the street.
G. Environmental Issues
Page 9
H. Accessibility Issues
While there are four crosswalks within the corridor, there are also two locations in which there
are ADA ramps with no ramp opening on the other side of the street. Pictures of these locations
are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

Figure 2. ADA Ramp Opening Along Palmer Park 325 feet North of Jay Street Intersection
without a Receiving Ramp on the Opposite Side of the Street
Page 10

Figure 3. Non‐Compliant ADA Ramp Opening 245 feet North of Jay Street Intersection Without
a Receiving Ramp on the Opposite Side of the Street.
These locations can cause confusion for pedestrians looking to cross the road, especially since one
location leads to an entrance for Palmer Park on the east side. The ramp on the west side is just
south of the Palmer Park location.
I. Future User Experience
Work to restore the St. Clair Inn began Monday, September 11th and is expected to continue
through May 2019. The St. Clair Inn has been vacant since 2014 but is set to reopen after
construction is completed. The inn is looking to bring significant business back to the City of St.
Clair, becoming a resort hotel and providing facilities for various events. The proposed
improvements will utilize not only the existing building on the eastern side of M‐29, but includes
a proposed building on the west side of M‐29 which will house meeting rooms and hotel services.
It is anticipated that this redevelopment will bring additional pedestrian traffic along the M‐29
corridor, increasing the use of crosswalks and sidewalks through downtown St. Clair.
Page 11
VI. USER NEEDS ANALYSIS
A. Public Input
B. Online Survey
C. Future Traffic Operations
D. Future Needs
VII. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS
A review of the existing pavement widths, existing and future estimated traffic volumes, and safety
evaluation promote a road diet along the corridor. Several options exist which provide a reduction in
the through lanes from two in each direction to one, while providing auxiliary left and right turn lanes
where needed. Each option offers a low, medium, and high cost treatment option to allow for
immediate and future roadway treatments to occur. These options are intended to be constructed
over time utilizing the alternatives presented in Section VIII. Layouts vary in the location of proposed
parking, the type of parking proposed, the location of bike lanes, and pedestrian crossing treatments.
Each option is detailed below.
A. Option 1 – Traditional Road Diet
Description
Option 1 is a traditional four‐ to three‐lane conversion with one lane in each direction, a
center left turn lane, a 5‐foot bike lane in each direction, and parallel parking. A conceptual
layout of this option can be seen in Figure 4.
Page 12

Figure 4. Proposed view of Option 1 at Jay Street looking north
Safety
A standard four‐lane to three‐lane conversion would mitigate crashes that occurred when
drivers were turning left into either the westbound side streets or businesses. It would also
force drivers to travel at slower speeds as there would be no opportunity to pass slower
moving vehicles.
Accessibility
Functionality
The current ADT for M‐29 along the study section is 11,550 with a future ADT in 2045 of
13,300 vehicles per day (vpd). A three‐lane roadway has been shown to operate at the same
capacity as a four‐lane roadway at ADTs less than 15,000 vpd. The proposed Option 1 layout
will allow the existing on street parking to be retained with 126 spaces, add bike facilities, and
increase safety with the addition of a left turn lane through the study segment.
Neighborhood Impacts
Environmental Impacts
Aesthetics
Cost
Page 13
Right‐of‐way Availability
Consistency with Local Plans
Multiple Use Opportunities
B. Option 2 – Protected Bike Lanes
Description
Option 2 is similar to Option 1 in that it is a road diet with a lane in each direction, a center
left turn lane, and parking on both sides of the roadway. Additionally, this option offers
protected bike lanes by placing a 10‐foot‐wide bi‐directional bike lane along the eastern curb
line. The roadway width allows for a 4‐foot buffer separating the bike lanes from the parallel
parking along the east side of M‐29. This buffer would be marked and contain delineators to
make the buffer more visible and highlight the separation of vehicles from bikes. A conceptual
layout of this option can be seen in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Proposed View of Option 2 at the Riverfront Pavilion
Safety
This option offers the same overall safety benefits of Option 1 with increased safety for the
bicyclists due to the buffered area between the parked cars and the bike lanes. When bike
lanes are adjacent to parking lanes, there is a potential for injury to bicyclists due to
interaction with the vehicles while the vehicle is entering or exiting the parking area and/or
when a driver enters or exits their car.
Accessibility

Page 14
Functionality
13,300 vpd. A three‐lane roadway has been shown to operate at the same capacity as a four‐
lane roadway at ADTs less than 15,000 vpd. The proposed Option 2 layout will operate in a
similar fashion to the Option 1 layout by allowing the existing on street parking to be retained
with 114 spaces, adding bike facilities, and increasing safety with the addition of a left turn
lane through the study segment.
Aesthetics
Cost
Right‐of‐Way Availability
Page 15
C. Option 3 – Angled Parking with Two Lanes
Description
Option 3 incorporates the use of reverse angle parking along the eastern curb line. This
parking maneuver is considered easier to complete than parallel parking. The remaining
cross‐section is composed of a parallel parking lane along the western curb line, a 6‐foot bike
lane, 2‐ to 12‐foot vehicular lanes (one in each direction), a 6‐foot bike lane, and a 4‐foot
buffer area between the bike lane and the reverse angle parking. A conceptual layout of this
option can be seen in Figure 6.

Safety
Reverse angle parking is considered safer than traditional pull in parking because the driver is
able to see traffic and bicyclists as they pull out of the parking stall. Additionally, the driver
and passengers can exit the vehicle away from passing traffic and eliminates the “door zone”
for passing bicyclists.
Accessibility
Functionality
13,300 vpd. The proposed Option 3 layout accommodates on street parking with 135 spaces
and adds bike facilities but the reduction from four to two lanes through the study section is
anticipated to cause delays for through traffic due to left turns onto Trumbull Street, Jay
Street, and Vine Street. This decrease in capacity could lead to an increase in crashes through
the corridor.

Page 16
Aesthetics
Cost
D. Option 4 – Angled Parking with Three Lanes
Description
This option also includes the use of reverse angle parking along the eastern curb line. The
remaining cross‐section includes a 6‐foot bike lane, two vehicular lanes, one in each direction,
with a left turn lane, and a 6‐foot bike lane adjacent to the reverse angle parking. A
conceptual layout of this option can be seen in Figure 7.

Safety
In this option the parallel parking is removed leaving only the safer reverse angle parking and
the added capacity and safety of a left turn lane.
Page 17
Accessibility
Functionality
13,300 vpd. A three‐lane roadway has been shown to operate at the same capacity as a four‐
lane roadway at ADTs less than 15,000 vpd. The proposed Option 4 layout will allow for on
street parking with 89 spaces along the eastern side of the road, adds bike facilities, and will
increase safety with the addition of a left turn lane through the study segment.
Aesthetics
Cost
Right‐of‐way Availability
E. Option 5 – Clinton Avenue Intersection Improvements
Description
A proposed improvement for the intersection of Clinton Ave. & M‐29 would be to update the
signal timing to have a phase that allows those to enter and exit The Voyager driveway approach
along with the addition of a left turn only lane on northbound and southbound M‐29. The
addition of the left turn lane on southbound M‐29 would give drivers entering the driveway
approach a designated lane while waiting for a green arrow to turn left. Due to there being a left
turn only lane on southbound, a left turn only lane would be needed for northbound as well.
The green arrow would come from updating the signal. An update to the signal would have to
have green arrows for left turns on northbound and southbound M‐29, a whole cycle for the
driveway approach, and a cycle for Clinton Ave. Separating the signal cycle for each individual
direction will significantly decrease the crashes at this intersection. This intersection is currently
being analyzed separated by the MDOT Bay Region office.
Safety
Page 18
Accessibility
Functionality
Aesthetics
Cost
Page 19
VIII. DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
Previously completed studies have offered several options for corridor improvements, but they have
not been implemented due to their entire corridor impacts and the high cost of proposed
enhancements. Following, we present several options for traffic calming and improved pedestrian
and bicycle safety. These options can be implemented in one location or throughout the corridor.
Initially pavement markings will be utilized to alter the corridor cross‐section with permanent changes
implemented over time. Each of the following potential improvements are not compatible with the
proposed final roadway cross sections in Section VII. An implementation chart is included in Table 3
to better illustrate how the improvements can be included in the proposed roadway design
alternatives presented in Section VII.
Table 3. Implementation Plan Matrix
Medium Cost High Cost
Option Low Cost Improvements
Improvements Improvements
Improved Corridor Lighting Curb Extensions at Extended Pedestrian

Special Emphasis Crosswalk Intersections and Mid‐ Islands
Decorative Crosswalk Block Pedestrian Hybrid
1 Enhanced Crosswalk Lighting Pedestrian Refuge Islands Beacon
Temporary Pedestrian Island Staggered Crosswalks Landscaping and
Contrasting Pavement Warning Signs with Flasing Landscaped
Raised Crosswalks LEDS Boulevards
Improved Corridor Lighting
Special Emphasis Crosswalk
Pedestrian Refuge Islands
Decorative Crosswalk Pedestrian Hybrid
2 Warning Signs with Flasing
Enhanced Crosswalk Lighting Beacon
LEDS
Temporary Pedestrian Island
Contrasting Pavement
Curb Extensions at
Intersections and Mid‐
3 Block
Warning Signs with Flasing
LEDS
Raised Crosswalks
Curb Extensions at
Intersections and Mid‐
4 Block
Warning Signs with Flasing
LEDS
Raised Crosswalks
Page 20
A. Potential Improvements
Special Emphasis Crosswalks
Existing crosswalks along M‐29 are both mid‐block and at intersections. To enhance driver
awareness of the crosswalk locations, special emphasis crosswalk markings can be used. The
markings are 12‐inch white longitudinal lines that are spaced 2 feet apart the length of the
crosswalk. These crosswalks are already marked at the intersection of M‐29 and Jay Street
and in front of the Riverview Plaza. The existing markings are worn and should be restriped.
These markings can be added to the intersection at M‐29 and Clinton Avenue, in front of the
St. Clair Inn, and any additional locations that crosswalks are proposed. This cost for this
treatment is approximately $1,500 per crosswalk location.

Figure 8. Example of Special Emphasis Crosswalk
Page 21
Decorative Crosswalks
To enhance the crosswalks further, after placement of the special emphasis crosswalk,
decorative paint may be added to further highlight the crosswalk. This could be in the form
of a city logo or colorful paint applied to the pavement surface. The cost for this treatment is
approximately $2,500 per crosswalk location.

Page 22
Pedestrian Refuge Islands
Pedestrian refuge islands allow pedestrians to cross one direction of traffic at a time. This
decreases the complexity of the crossing for the pedestrian. The presence of the island can
also have a calming effect on vehicular traffic. Studies have shown that the installation of
pedestrian refuge islands have decreased pedestrian and vehicular crashes and decreased
vehicular speeds on the roadway. This treatment is only applicable if the chosen cross‐section
includes a left turn lane that will allow for placement of the pedestrian refuge island without
compromising required stacking length for left turn vehicles. The cost for this treatment
averages $13,500 per location.

Figure 9. Example of a Pedestrian Refuge Island
Page 23
Staggered Crosswalk
The design of the staggered crosswalk is such that it forces pedestrians to cross one direction
of traffic and then turn and face oncoming traffic in the opposite direction before crossing the
other half of the street. The crossing utilizes a pedestrian refuge island to protect the
pedestrian from the roadway traffic with openings on each side offset from one another. This
treatment is intended to be used at midblock crossing locations. The cost for this type of
treatment averages $15,000 per location.

Enhanced Crosswalk Lighting
To better illuminate the pedestrian crossings, proper street lighting should be considered at
each crossing location. Overhead lighting should be placed on each side of the crosswalk to
properly light the crossing for the pedestrian and to illuminate the pedestrian for the
approaching vehicles. The cost for this treatment averages $2,500 per crosswalk.

Page 24
Currently, there are overhead cobra lights along the east side of the roadway. It is suggested
that a luminescence survey be completed to determine if and where street lighting is needed
along the west side of the street to better illuminate the corridor for both pedestrians and
vehicles. If bike lanes are to be added, this will help to light the roadway for bicyclists and to
help drivers identify when the bike lane is in use. The cost for this treatment, including labor,
averages $1,000 per additional street light.

Page 25
While it does not replace the requirement for pavement markings, a decorative concrete
crosswalk is one way to further enhance the crosswalks along M‐29. This visual difference in
pavement materials will further alert the driver to the potential presence of a pedestrian
traversing the roadway. Unlike pavement markings, the contrasting color will not fade. The
cost for this treatment averages $10,000 per crosswalk.

Figure 10. Example of a Contrasting Pavement Crosswalk and Intersection
Page 26
Pedestrian‐Activated Flashing LEDs in the Border of a Warning Sign
Flashing LEDs in the border of a warning sign are user‐actuated supplemental flashing white
or yellow LEDs in the border of the pedestrian crossing warning sign. The flashing LEDs make
the crossing sign more conspicuous when a pedestrian desires to cross the roadway. The cost
for installing a pedestrian crossing warning sign with LED lights in the border averages $20,000
per crosswalk location.

Figure 11. Example of a Crosswalk with a Flashing LED in the Border of a Warning Sign
Page 27
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK Signal)
The pedestrian hybrid beacon or more commonly known HAWK signal, is a special signal that
remains dark until activated by a pedestrian. The signal head consists of two red signal lenses
above one yellow signal lens. Once activated, a steady yellow indication illuminates prior to
a solid red indication for both red lenses. These remain solid for the duration of the walk
signal for the pedestrian and then flash for the duration of the flashing do not walk indication.
Once the pedestrian signal becomes a solid do not walk, the vehicular signals go dark again.
The cost for installing a pedestrian hybrid beacon averages $80,000.
A HAWK signal may by installed only after meeting the warrant described in Section 4F.01 of
the MMUTCD. The warrant looks at vehicular volume, pedestrian volume, and the length of
the crosswalk for one hour (peak volume) of an average day. It is anticipated that this
treatment will be desirable for pedestrians crossing from the parking lot on the west side of
M‐29 to the St. Clair Inn.

Figure 12. An Example of a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK) Signal
Page 28
Temporary Pedestrian Island
Prior to installing a permanent pedestrian island, a temporary island can be placed. The
islands can be removed during the winter months to not inhibit snow removal. The placement
of the temporary islands allows communities to experience the benefit of installing an island
without the expense of placing a permanent island. This treatment is only applicable if the
chosen cross‐section includes a left turn lane that will allow for placement of the pedestrian
refuge island without compromising required stacking length for left turn vehicles. The cost
for this treatment is $8,000 per location.

Figure 13. An Example of a Temporary Pedestrian Island
Extended Pedestrian Refuge Island
An extended pedestrian island creates additional area at the pedestrian crossing to potentially
install additional street lighting or decorative plantings to further enhance the corridor. This
treatment is only applicable if the chosen cross‐section includes a left turn lane that will allow
for placement of the pedestrian refuge island without compromising required stacking length
for left turn vehicles. The cost for these enhancements can be up to $40,000.

Page 29
Curb Extensions at Intersections and Mid‐Block
To shorten the distance a pedestrian has to cross in order to reach the opposite side of the
street, the curb at the intersection can be bumped out. The bump outs can be installed in
areas where there is on street parking and occupy the area between the curb and the edge of
the parking lane. They can be installed at both the intersection and mid‐block crossings. The
average cost for this treatment is approximately $13,000 for each location.

Figure 14. Example of a Mid‐Block Crossing with Bump Out
Page 30
Landscaping and Landscaped Boulevards
In situations where a left turn lane is not needed, the full length of a corridor due to the lack
of driveways or cross‐streets, a landscaped boulevard works well as a traffic calming roadway
enhancement and can serve as a pedestrian refuge island at the location of pedestrian
crosswalks. This would be a long‐term option to be considered when the roadway is
reconstructed. The cost for this treatment will be over $100,000 and will only be considered
when the roadway is reconstructed.

Table 4. List of Proposed Treatments and Associated Cost
Treatment Cost
Improved Corridor Lighting $ 1,000.00
Special Emphasis Crosswalk $ 1,500.00
Low Cost
Decorative Crosswalks $ 2,500.00
Enhanced Crosswalk Lighting $ 2,500.00
Temporary Pedestrian Island $ 8,000.00
Contrasting Pavement $ 10,000.00
Raised Crosswalks $ 10,000.00
Curb Extensions at intersections and mid‐block $ 13,000.00
Medium
Pedestrian refuge islands $ 13,500.00
Cost
Staggered crosswalks $ 15,000.00
RRFBs $ 20,000.00
Extended Pedestrian Island $ 40,000.00
High
Cost
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK Signal) $ 80,000.00
Landscaping and landscaped boulevards $ 100,000.00
IX. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
A. Option 1
Short Term
Page 31
Medium Term
Long Term
B. Option 2
Short Term
Medium Term
Long Term
C. Option 3
Short Term
Medium Term
Long Term
D. Option 4
Short Term
Medium Term
Long Term
X. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 32
Appendix A – Steering Committee Meeting Minutes
1. August 24, 2017

Appendix

Project M-29 Corridor Study
Brown to Clinton
City of St. Clair
MDOT JN 131491 – CS 77052
RE 8/24/2017 – Steering Committee Meeting #1 Minutes
• Attendees
o See attached sign-in sheet
• Meeting began with introduction of attendees
• Matthew Seitz, Project Manager from ROWE, began with an overview of previous studies and
discussion of project objectives.
o Previous studies overview
▪ M-29 Corridor Study (2005) – Spalding DeDecker
➢ Planning for a non-motorized path
➢ Laneage and operational features of M-29 for geometric modifications
➢ Optimize transportation and aesthetic features benefitting motorists,
pedestrians, and bicyclists
➢ Corridor Study Goals
• Plan for a continuous non-motorized path
• Reduce roadway noise
• Encourage motorists to obey posted speeds
• Improve safety at pedestrian crossings
• Improve turning movements, especially at Clinton Street
• Provide adequate on-street parking
• Improve aesthetics and suggest wayfinding signage and
strategic placement of signs
➢ The objectives identified in this study were intended to provide
recommendations for several desirable corridor improvements along M-
29 which may be incorporated into future projects
➢ Identified alternatives
• No build
• Boulevard - $1.8M (2 lanes in each direction with 10’ parking
lanes and decorative median street lighting)
• Three lanes, one in each direction with CLTL and 10’ parking
lanes on both sides with 10’ non-motorized path on east side –
$1.55M
• Three lanes, one in each direction with CLTL and angled parking
on east side, and 10’ non-motorized path on east side - $1.66M
• North and south of downtown – road diet to three lanes, one in
each direction with CLTL and 6’ bike lanes on each side.
Achieved by re-paving to match joint lines with lane lines -
$230K
▪ M-29 Corridor Analysis (2010) – Spalding DeDecker
➢ Level-of-service for through traffic between Clinton and Vine
➢ Intersection operations at Trumbull, Jay, and Vine
➢ Analyzed boulevard cross section from previous study
• Left turns to only be allowed at Trumbull, Jay, and Vine
• LOS C-F at Vine, A-B at Trumbull and Jay
➢ Current and future expected high level of service, except at Vine due to
redirected left turns.
▪ M-29 and Clinton Intersection Analysis (2010) – Spalding DeDecker
➢ Level-of-service at intersection for three different alternatives
• No-build – Existing C, Future C
• Actuated driveway phase for restaurant – Intersection C,
Driveway D
• Left turn phase for SB into restaurant – intersection C, SB LT C
• Combination of two – Intersection D, Driveway – E
➢ Also looked at feasibility of roundabout
• Insufficient ROW, still need signal at bridge
▪ Was informed there is an additional 2008 study that was not formally provided
by MDOT or the City of St. Clair
o Objectives of this study

▪ Identify bicycle and pedestrian improvements, including various design
alternatives, along the corridor
▪ Identify improvements that will increase the frequency of biking and walking as
a transportation mode
▪ Short, medium, and long-term transportation system needs to enhance bike and
pedestrian mobility while maintaining vehicular and bus transit operation
▪ All existing and proposed connecting pedestrian and bicycle paths, transit
stops/routes, and activity centers such as schools, businesses and parks/open
space should be considered to transform the corridor into a multi-modal
environment that balances the needs of all modes and is sensitive to evolving
land use and development plans
▪ Build upon previous recommendations that focus on pedestrian, bicycle safety,
and mobility
▪ Set of implementable investments
▪ Develop reasonable improvements of varying costs, that can be phased
o After background of the previous studies was given, an outline of study objectives was
provided, remainder of the meeting was spent in a roundtable format discussing the
various stakeholders goals and concerns. A summary of which follows:
▪ Proposed project at the former St. Clair Inn is driving the need for an updated
study
▪ Location of and length of crosswalks is a significant concern
▪ Increasing pedestrian safety is of utmost importance
▪ A road diet, with no loss of number of on-street parking spaces seems like the
logical solution
▪ It would be desirable to increase the amount of available on-street parking
➢ However, cannot impact park
▪ Consider reverse angle parking
➢ Preferred to have parking adjacent to park
▪ Survey was distributed to residents regarding changes on M-29
➢ Over 1000 responses, comments have been consistent
➢ Don’t want to see much change, but 80% want to see some kind of
change, with slower speeds being a primary goal
➢ This preceded St. Clair Inn redevelopment
▪ Balance community goals with what’s feasible
▪ Consider roundabout at Vine
➢ Slow traffic?
➢ ROW available?
▪ Concern with speed limits
➢ 33.5 mph average speed
➢ North of Vine speeds increase. Difficult to get out of driveways
➢ Look at speed limits and laneage in Algonac
➢ Slow traffic and crosswalk safety was again emphasized
➢ Coming from North, downhill at high speed
▪ Discussion regarding funding and funding sources
➢ A minimum 20% local match will likely be required
➢ SEMCOG – Projects in St. Clair County likely to be funded
➢ State funding? TAP funding? DNR Trust Fund?
▪ Re-striping is a cheap, potentially temporary solution/trial
➢ Interest in similar communities in which this has been imp
▪ Gold route for trucks which requires 12’ lane widths
▪ 76 feet of existing pavement
▪ Open to any ideas, selling potential projects will not be an issue
▪ Traffic impact study/traffic impact assessment encouraged for St. Clair Inn
▪ MDNR Grant for Boardwalk improvements
➢ Bike path connectivity?
➢ Leveraging funds, phased approach discussed
▪ Work with MEDC
▪ Related to St. Clair Inn, parking will be across the street. Safe, visible, crosswalk
important
➢ Special emphasis (lighting, markings, signing)
▪ Extensive discussion on HAWK signals
➢ Wadhams Road – south of Lapeer (St. Clair County Road Commission)
➢ Marysville
➢ Estimated 80k cost
➢ Education with HAWK signals is critical
▪ Consider urban roundabouts
▪ Consider pedestrian refuge islands
▪ Currently free-for-all for pedestrians, need to better “channelize” and force
crossing locations
➢ Trumbull intersection important
▪ Architect for St. Clair Inn discussed desire for clearly defined crosswalks that
stand out
➢ Visibility related to hill is a concern
➢ Warning signs for signal ahead if HAWK?
▪ Discussed special events
➢ Jazz Festival
▪ Flexible bollards at crosswalks?
▪ Sidewalk at Brown?
▪ Look at safety funding
▪ Marysville doing road diet on Huron
▪ Concerns with Clinton intersection
➢ Temp signal timing during recent bridge work seems to function the
best
➢ MDOT currently looking at intersection and potential CMAQ funding.
R:\Projects\17C0160\Docs\Meetings\Steering Committee Meeting #1 Minutes.docx

ROWE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMPANY
CORPORATE OFFICE UPEER MT. PLEASANT MYRTLE BEACH, SC TRI-C?TIES AIR-LAND SURVEYS FARMINGTON HILLS GUYLING
(810)341-7500 (810)664-9411 (989)772-2138 (843) 444-] 020 (989) 894-4001 (810) 762-6800 1248) 675-1096 (989) 348-4036
CALCuLATED BY JOB NUMBER
DATE SHEET
WEATHER
ffi
%Q-lTh S'-*ce,,fslry.=, 4r,;h:'? @l

'jL7 9?; (?' i l,-,1
ptaa+ -'z s 'ti ].w-t,- 6l0-'3'tl"l<,C>O h s e s'Q e r? '8< = ("'
i.
'-7-c? ? 810 -126-S;-[37 hMk:) rm-ef9-.
J 2.'x T'0-e- ?) hbos o?8'l (gzt ?4rl4 ees'?c'l

a !a!il'l:5
T?vo.g %toc! H '?ov -Huhursc 9m2q-ha bl?oa'ZGu:C)oi/
(E<}K T4MLIJ MC5-Htix! 9(- IE?'> 13?'?tZ8 faJayvzs0m;cA,ys, g
Va?f# &-a? ? C #'l ,? ng2
fl - '3;' /i'Y-t-'f Y , ,(/ '?i? D
t,f[C!'C!)y'-COy'4Pr%0?)
81L(,- llkLeLTCJ sT CcsiL (2-i??Y 8tQ 3Ff" S'CZu @yz25ctrc4(!,
Lh> Cc*4srusss'oy 6rcuixl e o t o v v y c:i a
A;;':,! ?-],, eckt-I Cv-=4ay 91(1-3e8-?'ID?LI 3v-r*s4-b-D'a*(6i
(?vac/ cr>mth i*'ioi< l
(.?l,,J5z s*k"e- '>+ ck,,r cr>s*xy XwsShJ7 FlCi-H (o'i50 lwqiis-cells
/?4 },! s..ce (5i 'stc%'r<>x* (?
ts.. !z %? 54 ? C.lo,.-, < gcb-5Z'i.Jg'Th(,, M?c{j%s-kal
-,J .Cs
%tltCeJl
t,'t (,4q(5R
?
J
'r< Bto i-t3([-7/'i'(,i tutela@7osxu
pAt) P4tV)gV 9w? p/g"<yi-1aa;iJl f%i*!; 'fiv%bV

k'k
17?
!?) s 11 C=xct '? OP sgcwC r?0-?t'H-sril- !b-5m'>gg@e;.%,,:), -,, ,l,,

%llSOe Cf?r>o (lsf31 52,,2'fS7(iA mvziJ.,lecsaci,-rr.+
iii.'qclcu-v' 9,xc gD-a=*i-irbo .;yw.revbtt(:gr.4w
l((15-eq?O%lqsec
DvhCA'jX5 CDn fio-9?=2-?5rl?a3')j
Project – DRAFT Owner
Appendix B – Conceptual Layouts

Appendix
Project
PINE RIVER CLINTON AVE
N
M-29 (S RIVERSIDE AVE)

12'
6'
7 PARALLEL PARKING SPOTS
12'12'12'12'
12'12'12'
6'
8'
VOYAGEUR RESTAURANT
OPTION 1A - TRADITIONAL ROAD DIET
PINE RIVER
PINE RIVER CLINTON AVE
N

12'
6'
12'12'12'
12'12'12'
6'
8'
VOYAGEUR RESTAURANT
OPTION 1B - TRADITIONAL ROAD DIET
PINE RIVER
FINAL ROW PLAN REVISIONS (SUBMITTAL DATE: ) SHEET

DATE:12/15/17 CS:77052 M-29 CORRIDOR STUDY DRAWING
NO. DATE AUTH DESCRIPTION NO. DATE AUTH DESCRIPTION
SECT
Michigan Department of Transportation
NO SCALE DESIGN UNIT:REITHEL JN: 131491 OPTION 1 - TRADITIONAL ROAD DIET
FILE: TSC:BAY REGION

CLINTON AVE CASS ST TRUMBULL ST
N

12'
6'
7 PARALLEL PARKING SPOTS 4 PARALLEL PARKING SPOTS 3 PARALLEL PARKING SPOTS
12'12'12'
6'
8'
VOYAGEUR RESTAURANT
OPTION 1 - TRADITIONAL ROAD DIET
JAY ST
N
RIVERVIEW PLAZA
M-29 (N RIVERSIDE AVE)

12'
6'
12 PARALLEL PARKING SPOTS 13 PARALLEL PARKING SPOTS
12'12'12'
26 PARALLEL PARKING SPOTS 3 PARALLEL PARKING SPOTS 2 PARALLEL PARKING SPOTS 5 PARALLEL PARKING SPOTS
6'
10'

SECT

VINE ST
N

6'
12'12'12'
10'
6'
ST. CLAIR INN
OPTIONAL 1 - TRADITIONAL ROAD DIET
BROWN ST
N

6'
12'12'12'
6'

SECT

N

12'
12'12'12'
10'
5'
5'
VOYAGEUR RESTAURANT
OPTION 2 - PROTECTED BIKE LANES
JAY ST
N
RIVERVIEW PLAZA

12'
12'12'12'
10'
5'
5'
2' BUFFER

SECT
NO SCALE DESIGN UNIT:REITHEL JN: 131491 OPTION 2 - PROTECTED BIKE LANES

VINE ST
N

12'12'12'
10'
5'
5'
2' BUFFER
ST. CLAIR INN
BROWN ST
N

12'12'12'
5'
5'
2' BUFFER
s)
ent
em
El
ton
i
ruc
nst
Co
P(
EO
20°

SECT
NO SCALE DESIGN UNIT:REITHEL JN: 131491 OPTION 2 - PROTECTED BIKE LANES

N

12'
6'
12'12'
20'
22 PARKING SPOTS
6'
VOYAGEUR RESTAURANT
OPTION 3 - REVERSE ANGLE PARKING 2 LANES
JAY ST
N
RIVERVIEW PLAZA

12'
6'
12'12'
20'
4 HANDICAP PARKING SPOTS
5 PARKING SPOTS 4 PARKING SPOTS 7 PARKING SPOTS
37 TOTAL PARKING SPOTS
6'

SECT
NO SCALE DESIGN UNIT:REITHEL JN: 131491 OPTION 3 - REVERSE ANGLE PARKING 2 LANES

VINE ST
N

6'
12'12'
20'
6'
ST. CLAIR INN
BROWN ST
N

6'
12'12'12'
6'

SECT

N

6'
12'12'12'
20'
22 PARKING SPOTS
6'
VOYAGEUR RESTAURANT
JAY ST
N
SB LANE SHIFT BUMP OUT SB LANE SHIFT
RIVERVIEW PLAZA

6'
12'12'12'
20'
4 HANDICAP PARKING SPOTS
37 TOTAL PARKING SPOTS
6'

SECT

VINE ST
N

6'
12'12'12'
4 PARKING SPOTS
6'
10'
ST. CLAIR INN
BROWN ST
N

6'
12'12'12'
6'

SECT

M29 Corridor-Study 2018 Draft

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

M29 Corridor-Study 2018 Draft

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

35 Southern City Limits Clinton Avenue

30 Clint Avenue Brown Street

40 Brown Street Northern City Limits

At the southern end of the corridor is intersection of Clinton Avenue and M‐29, the Voyageur

Improved Corridor Lighting Curb Extensions at Extended Pedestrian

• Meeting began with introduction of attendees

o Objectives of this study

R:\Projects\17C0160\Docs\Meetings\Steering Committee Meeting #1 Minutes.docx

CALCuLATED BY JOB NUMBER

%Q-lTh S'-*ce,,fslry.=, 4r,;h:'? @l

'-7-c? ? 810 -126-S;-[37 hMk:) rm-ef9-.

J 2.'x T'0-e- ?) hbos o?8'l (gzt ?4rl4 ees'?c'l

pAt) P4tV)gV 9w? p/g"<yi-1aa;iJl f%i*!; 'fiv%bV

!?) s 11 C=xct '? OP sgcwC r?0-?t'H-sril- !b-5m'>gg@e;.%,,:), -,, ,l,,

M-29 (S RIVERSIDE AVE)

OPTION 1A - TRADITIONAL ROAD DIET

PINE RIVER CLINTON AVE

M-29 (S RIVERSIDE AVE)

OPTION 1B - TRADITIONAL ROAD DIET

FINAL ROW PLAN REVISIONS (SUBMITTAL DATE: ) SHEET

FILE: TSC:BAY REGION

M-29 (S RIVERSIDE AVE)

OPTION 1 - TRADITIONAL ROAD DIET

M-29 (N RIVERSIDE AVE)

OPTION 1 - TRADITIONAL ROAD DIET

FINAL ROW PLAN REVISIONS (SUBMITTAL DATE: ) SHEET

FILE: TSC:BAY REGION

M-29 (N RIVERSIDE AVE)

OPTIONAL 1 - TRADITIONAL ROAD DIET

M-29 (N RIVERSIDE AVE)

OPTION 1 - TRADITIONAL ROAD DIET

FINAL ROW PLAN REVISIONS (SUBMITTAL DATE: ) SHEET

FILE: TSC:BAY REGION

M-29 (S RIVERSIDE AVE)

OPTION 2 - PROTECTED BIKE LANES

M-29 (N RIVERSIDE AVE)

OPTION 2 - PROTECTED BIKE LANES

FINAL ROW PLAN REVISIONS (SUBMITTAL DATE: ) SHEET

FILE: TSC:BAY REGION

M-29 (N RIVERSIDE AVE)

ST. CLAIR INN

OPTION 2 - PROTECTED BIKE LANES

M-29 (N RIVERSIDE AVE)

FINAL ROW PLAN REVISIONS (SUBMITTAL DATE: ) SHEET

FILE: TSC:BAY REGION

M-29 (S RIVERSIDE AVE)

OPTION 3 - REVERSE ANGLE PARKING 2 LANES

M-29 (N RIVERSIDE AVE)

OPTION 3 - REVERSE ANGLE PARKING 2 LANES

FINAL ROW PLAN REVISIONS (SUBMITTAL DATE: ) SHEET

FILE: TSC:BAY REGION

M-29 (N RIVERSIDE AVE)

ST. CLAIR INN

OPTION 3 - REVERSE ANGLE PARKING 2 LANES

M-29 (N RIVERSIDE AVE)

OPTION 3 - REVERSE ANGLE PARKING 2 LANES

FINAL ROW PLAN REVISIONS (SUBMITTAL DATE: ) SHEET

FILE: TSC:BAY REGION

M-29 (S RIVERSIDE AVE)

OPTION 4 - REVERSE ANGLE PARKING 3 LANES

M-29 (N RIVERSIDE AVE)

OPTION 4 - REVERSE ANGLE PARKING 3 LANES

FINAL ROW PLAN REVISIONS (SUBMITTAL DATE: ) SHEET