Forum Discussion
SidecarFlip
Oct 31, 2017Explorer III
valhalla360 wrote:SidecarFlip wrote:
They aren't all bad. Under the Michigan Lane Mile formula (that needs to be abolished btw), counties with the most lane miles get the most highway funding so, roads in the Upper get more funding (but less population) than roads in the lower. Should be based on population density not lane miles. Oh well, Lansing is backwards in many respects.
First, lane miles is only part of the formula. Vehicle registrations and population are also accounted for in the formula.
Also it's not nearly as bad as you think. Yeah, rural counties have a lot of area but a square mile of the UP might average 1-2 lane miles. A square mile of Metro Detroit might average 20-30 lane miles. Keep in mind 4-8 lane roads are common in urban areas but most rural areas are 2 lane roads.
Example: Keweenaw county has 350 lane miles of roadway. The 3 Metro Detroit counties have a total of 5500 lane miles of Trunkline roadway. That's only the freeways and major arterials which are less than 10% of all roads.
In the end, rural areas do get a bit more funding per person but it's not that dramatic of a difference and those urban dwellers want nice roads when they head north in their RV's.
If you made it straight up based on population, the rural areas would quickly go back to unkempt dirt roads.
Not sure of all the aspects. My wife is, she's a Township Official and a member of MTA. I only know what she tells me and I haven't studied it in depth. In as much as we live on a dirt road, we are already there....
'Nice roads' are pretty non-existent in Michigan anyway, but then the entire country's infrastructure is falling apart, not just here....
About Technical Issues
Having RV issues? Connect with others who have been in your shoes.24,337 PostsLatest Activity: Nov 21, 2025