While we understand and agree with the sentiment of the Record-Eagle’s March 12 editorial, “Loop in local input – early and often – on state, federal projects,” we were puzzled as to why our US-31 Interlochen project was used as the prime example.
While our latest public meeting for the project on March 24 was scheduled for a day after tree-clearing was to begin, with minor traffic implications, engagement for the US-31 Interlochen project began as early as July 2022 through a road safety audit that included multiple meetings, field reviews, and input from local agencies and community stakeholders. That was followed by public meetings on July 18, 2023, June 18, 2024, and Feb. 18, 2025, covering early concepts, design development, and construction planning. Those three meetings were in addition to, and many months, even years, in advance of the latest public meeting.
Beyond those public meetings, the Michigan Department Of Transportation team encouraged participation through direct outreach — including coordination with local townships and the library, door-to-door visits to corridor businesses ahead of the first meeting, and message boards along US-31. There were also numerous one-on-one meetings with property owners and stakeholders throughout design.
Those earlier meetings covered the early concepts for the project, shared preliminary designs for feedback, and then unveiled final plans developed with input from the community. We would also note that public comments received at those meetings supported a key aspect of the project that will be built: a new roundabout at the intersection of US-31 and J. Maddy Parkway/South Long Lake Road. Overall, this was a multi-year effort to gather input and incorporate it into the project well before construction began.
We have maintained a project website online with details of the project since before that first public meeting, and requested community input from the very beginning with our public meeting in 2023.
Aside from the Record-Eagle’s coverage of our very first meeting on July 18, 2023, its reporters did not attend or cover the rest of the meetings. The Record-Eagle has published briefs noting our upcoming public meetings, so editors should have been aware that they occurred prior to writing the editorial on public input for state projects.
For this latest public meeting, we focused on sharing the construction schedule for the project in greater detail, as well as maps of detours drivers will encounter during construction. While tree-clearing and preparatory work may have some minor implications for travelers, the public meeting was held more than three weeks before the anticipated start of construction in mid-April, which is the portion that will necessitate detours. Additionally, our latest meeting notice we sent March 9 provided a link to our project page, including all of the information reviewed at the meeting, two weeks before the meeting itself.
The Record-Eagle’s editorial also cited two other examples of “projects” that are not MDOT projects, but are actually those of other agencies or businesses that would require an MDOT permit: the Michigan DNR’s pedestrian bridge replacement with an at-grade crossing and the Acme Taco Bell. The Record-Eagle’s past coverage has included the two public meetings regarding the DNR’s state park projects, Nov. 6, 2023, and Feb. 25, 2025, so the editors are certainly aware that those meetings also occurred well in advance of construction.
We are aware that the Acme Taco Bell has been discussed during at least two or three public township-level meetings that were public. MDOT does not have a decision-making role in new business locations, but will have a role in permitting new access on the state highway, if that is needed.
To address the Record-Eagle’s assertion that “state and federal engineers should spend a year driving these roads before designing them,” the engineers in our Traverse City Transportation Service Center (TSC) do live here and do drive these roads. Suggesting that, somehow, these design decisions are made elsewhere by people unfamiliar with the community is just incorrect.
Again, we understand the editorial’s sentiment and agree with the importance of early public input, but it inaccurately labeled MDOT’s work on this project as emblematic of the editor’s concern.
By failing to identify any other state or federal agency, the editorial also improperly grouped decision-making processes for other projects and, by that omission, laid them at MDOT’s feet alone. On the contrary, we would say our public input process for the Interlochen project, in particular, represents exactly the kind of robust public input process the Record-Eagle is advocating for.