STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE 86TH DISTRICT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF GRAND TRAVERSE

_____________________________________________________________________________
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Plaintiff,

CASE NO.: 15-0919-ST

v
ALYSSA GOCH,

HON: Thomas J. Phillips

Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Robert A. Cooney (P47454)
Grand Traverse County Prosecuting Attorney
324 Court St
Traverse City, MI 49684
Tel: (231) 922-4600 / Fax: (231) 922-4698
e-mail: rcooney@grandtraverse.org

Jesse L. Williams (P69264)

JESSE L. WILLIAMS, PLLC
Attorney for Defendant
2899 Benzie Hwy P.O. Box 30
Benzonia, MI 49616-0030
Tel: (231) 929-8340 / Fax: (231) 929 8341
e-mail: jlwdefense@gmail.com
_____________________________________________________________________________
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PEOPLES MOTION IN LIMINIE TO PRECLUDE
EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO MRE 402
NOW COMES, Defendant, by and through her attorney of record, Jesse L. Williams,
PLLC and pursuant to the Michigan Rules Of Evidence, MCL 257.642, MCL 257.601d and
relevant Michigan case law and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny The
Peoples Motion in Limine To Preclude Evidence Pursuant to MRE 402, for these reasons:
STATEMENT OF FACT
Defendant is charged with two counts of Moving Violation Causing Death after she was
involved in an accident on August 2, 2015 on a very hazardous corner located along M-37, near
the corner at Center Road. Prior to Defendants August 2, 2015 accident, Michigans

Department of Transportation (MDOT) was well aware of the hazardous conditions of the
roadway in that area and MDOT had already contracted with a company to fix the defective road
with a High Friction Surface. Said High Friction Surface was applied by the MDOT contractor
on said hazardous M-37 corner shortly after Defendants August 2, 2015 accident.
A February 4, 1986 MDOT Office Memorandum stated, in part:
Although this analysis does not reveal extraordinary numbers of accidents,
the severity and uncommon number of loss-of-control type accidents warrants
consideration of safety improvements. (EXHIBIT 1)
A February 13, 1986 MDOT Memorandum in response to said February 4, 1986 memo:
I have conferred with the Cadillac Design Squad regarding a recommended
realignment of one or both of the sharp curves within the subject area. We
completed a preliminary cost estimate for the northeastern most 10 degree curve
on the basis of a proposed 5 degree curvature and arrived at a cost of $311,000,
including right of way. The southwestern most 7 degree curve could be similarly
reconstructed to 5 degrees for approximately $250,000. The latter curve does not
appear to be contributing to the accident and injury record to the same degree
as the 10 degree curve, and might possibly be omitted from further consideration.
(EXHIBIT 2)
A December 16, 1986 MDOT Office Memorandum states, in part:
The Route Location Section of the Design Division was requested to do a
feasibility study for alignment corrections on M-37, 3.0 miles north of the
south Grand Traverse line. At this location M-37 has a one mile east-west jog
in alignment. Preliminary investigation indicates no affected properties are
enrolled in the 116 Farmland Preservation Act. Very little of the properties
affected have prime farmlands. Two different alignments were developed. The
first consisted of flattening the two right-angle curves. The eastern right-angle
quadrant has an active gas well that the realignment took into account. The second
alignment is a relocation crossing section 17 diagonal from the southwest corner
to the northeast corner. This alignment provides superior horizontal and vertical
alignment. No buildings are needed for right-of-way on either alignment.
[emphasis added] (EXHIBIT 3)
A December 19, 1986 MDOT memorandum stated, in part:
SUBJECT: M-37 AT BARTLETT AND CENTER ROADS: M 28051 /26095

YOUR MEMO OF DECEMBER 16, 1986, INDICATES A MAJOR

EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS TO CORRECT THE SHARP CURVES IN
THESE LOCATIONS. THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATES PLACE THIS
PROPOSED PROJECT IN THE IMPROVE/EXPAND CATEGORY AND AS
SUCH, THIS PROPOSAL SHOULD BE REVIEWED BY THE
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BUREAU FOR WHATEVER ACTION
THEY DEEM NECESSARY. THE FEASIBILITY STUDY WILL BE CLOSED
OUT AND NO FURTHER FUNDING WILL BE CONSIDERED UNTIL A
DECISION IS MACE THROUGH THE IMPROVE/EXPAND PROJECT
SELECTION PROCESS. [emphasis added] (EXHIBIT 4)
An April 10, 1991 MDOT memorandum (EXHIBIT 5) stated, in part:
SUBJECT: C.S. 28051 M-37 at Bartlett and Center Roads
The referenced location is a 10 degree curve north of the Village of Buckley and
south of M-113. In 1986 a study was conducted by Robert Russell, Route
Location Engineer, which estimated the cost for two alternate improvements for
this curve and another curve one mile west. One alternate would have realigned
approximately 2.12 miles of M-37 to greatly reduce the curvature of both curves.
The second alternate would have flattened both curves while generally retaining
the existing alignment.
In your reply to John Kazenko's letter of December 16, 1986, advising you of
the estimates for the two alternate proposals you advised him that the major
expenditure of funds to correct the curves put this project into the
Improve/Expand category and the proposal would have to be reviewed by the
Transportation Planning Bureau for further action.
We are now preparing a preservation project for the next call for projects for M37 from the south Grand Traverse County line northerly to M-113. We can not
include the Improve/Expand project in our job, but we would like to have this
curve problem reactivated and evaluated as an Improve/Expand project.
Since 1986, MDOT has paid out $195,000 in settlements for accidents that
occurred on this curve. Of the several Improve/Expand projects in District 3,
this one has the greatest potential for reducing serious accidents. [emphasis
added]
A 1993 MDOT document entitled PROJECT CONCEPT STATEMENT states that:
PROPOSED WORK:

RELOCATE M-37 TO IMPROVE THE

ALIGNMENT AT TUO SHARP CURVES. IN
1986 A STUDY WAS DONE BY ROUTE
LOCATION AND ONE OF TWO ALTERNATES

PROJECT JUSTIFICATION:

WOULD HAVE REALIGNED 2.12 MILES OF M37 TO GREATLY REDUCE THE CURVATURE
ON THE CURVES. OF THESE CURVES THE
EASTERLY ONE IS THE SHARPER (10
DEGREES) AND THE ONE THE DISTRICT IS
MOST INTERESTED IN HAVING IMPROVED.
*
*
*
THE CURVE AT CENTER ROAD HAS BEEN
THE LOCATION OF SEVERAL ACCIDENTS
RESULTING IN FOUR DEATHS IN 1985.
SOUTHBOUND THERE IS A DOWNGRADE
WHICH CAUSES EXCESSIVE SPEED FOR
THE 10 DEGREE CURVE. REALIGNMENT
IS NEEDED. [emphasis added] (EXHIBIT 6)

An April 15, 1991 MDOT Office Memorandum regarding M-37 at Bartlet and Center
Roads (EXHIBIT 7) states, in part:
The Highway Steering Committee ruled recently that safety projects are viewed
differently than other projects and are not subject to the improve/expand $500,000
0.5 mile limitation. Therefore, please work with Traffic & Safety and if they
approve it for inclusion as part of the 1993 Safety Program, we will be glad to add
it to the construction program as soon as you have a commitment from T&S.
A February 27, 1992 MDOT memorandum (EXHIBIT 8) stated, in part:
SUBJECT: M-37 from Bartlett to Center Road Grand Traverse County
As you will note from the attached memo of 5-22-91 the Safety Programs Unit
signaled an interest in funding an improvement at the subject location. No action
to initiate such a project has apparently taken place in the interim. It would appear
we are in need of proposed alternatives for improvement along with estimates
of cost.
Route Location completed such a study about 6 years ago. Alternatives ranged
from a total relocation of M-37 to a more modest plan to reduce the degree of
curvatures. various cost estimates for curve flattening have been advanced
ranging from $950,000 down to $561,000.
Attached are copies of correspondence describing the alternatives along with cost
estimates which were included in a request for funding back in 1986. No funding
under the improve/expand category was approved at that time.
In the interim we have been involved in two separate court of claims actions
involving the easterly curve. These were the Noeff and Scorey cases. I believe

both cases were settled for substantial sums of money.

All things considered it is time to review the merits of funding a project that could
be expected to produce a degree of benefit in comparison to costs.
An April 8, 1992 MDOT memorandum stated, in part:
SUBJECT: M-37 at Bartlett and Center Roads Grand Traverse County
We have updated our cost benefit analysis for these sections of M-37 per your
request. The evaluation completed in May of 1991 covered a ten year study period
(1981-90) and included accidents occurring in the tangent section between these
two curves. This analysis evaluates data for a five year study period (1986-1990)
and only includes accidents occurring in the areas of M-37 where the accident
reductions would occur (within the curves). This most recent five year data and
adjusted study limits more accurately reflects the present situation and proposed
improvements since previous safety enhancements (Chevron Signing) were
implemented, and because only accidents within the curves will realize
reductions.
Accidents occurring within the two curves during the five year study period
(1986-90) totaled 22 with 11 injuries. Accident types included overturn (10), rearend (4), head-on (2), fixed object (3), and miscellaneous (3) collisions. The curve
at Center Road accounted for 73% of the accident total within both curves.
Recent studies by the Transportation Research Board and the State of Alabama
Highway Department were used in determining the 65% and 50% accident
reduction used for Alternatives 1 and 2 respectively. An obvious perception is the
flatter the curve, the greater the reduction. The anticipated annual benefit for both
curves for alternative 1 is $33,100 ($26,300 at Center Road and $6,800 at Bartlett
Road). The anticipated annual benefit for both curves for Alternative 2 is $23,620
($20,200 at Center and $3420 at Bartlett Road). Based on these anticipated
accident reductions and the cost estimates for Alternative 1 ($1,160,000) and
Alternative 2 ($950,000) indicated in the Route Location Report completed
in 1986, a cost benefit analysis was calculated. A 35 year time-of-return (T.O.R.)
for Alternative 1 (diagonal curve relocation) and a 40.2 year T.O.R. for
Alternative 2 (curve flattening) was the result. We then calculated a T.O.R. using
the reduced estimates of $950,000 and 561,000 you provided in your February 27,
1992 request. The results were a 28.7 year and a 23.8 year time of return
respectively.
In summary, accidents have decreased significantly in the most recent five years
compared to the previous five years, possibly as a result of chevron signs
placement. While it may still be desirable to flatten these two curves so that they
are more in-line with the prevailing alignment of M-37 in this area, such a project
does not appear eligible for safety funds intended for an estimated T.O.R. of ten
years or less. Attached for your information are the cost/benefit analysis
calculations broken down for each curve location. (EXHIBIT 9)
An August 6, 1992 MDOT memorandum stated, in part:

 M-37 from the south county line northerly to M-113. Within the limits of this
project are the curves at Bartlett and Center Road which have been addressed in
past correspondence. We have forwarded, to you, the most recent accident review,
cost benefit analysis, and proposed alignments for your review. It is possible
safety funds could be used if the curve(s) could be upgraded for the cost(s)
indicated in that correspondence. Please advise as soon as possible. (EXHIBIT 10)
An August 2, 2013 MLive article indicated, in part, that:
A Canadian semi truck driver was arrested Friday after a crash that killed two
people in Grand Traverse County, authorities said.
Sheriff's deputies said a pickup truck carrying two Benzie County brothers, ages
43 and 49, was traveling northbound on M-37 near Center Road in Mayfield
Township when the crash occurred about 9:38 a.m. on Aug. 2.
Investigation showed an oncoming semi truck driven by a 29-year-old Ontario
man crossed the center line and struck the pickup, deputies said. He was not
injured.
Deputies arrested the semi truck driver for two counts of committing a moving
violation causing death.
The roadway was closed until about 3:40 p.m. while deputies investigated.
(See: http://www.mlive.com/news/grandrapids/index.ssf/2013/08/semi_truck_driver_arrested_aft.html)
An August 5, 2013 Record Eagle article indicated, in part, that:
A Canadian semi-truck driver involved in a crash that killed two Thompsonville
men is scheduled to appear in court Tuesday.
Brothers Jeffery Mitchell Toole, 49, and Joel Willard Toole, 43, died Friday when
their pickup truck was struck by the trailer of a semi-truck that drifted into the
northbound lane of M-37.
The driver of the semi, Kuldeep Singh Khangura, 28, of Markham, Ontario, was
not injured. Grand Traverse County sheriff's Capt. Randy Fewless said Khangura
was arrested on two counts of a moving violation causing death, a misdemeanor
punishable by up to a year in jail. He said investigators believe Khangura did not
exhibit caution considering existing road conditions as the semi-truck approached
the first portion of a sharp "S"-turn near Center Road.
"The road conditions were wet, but as far as a speed determination, we're waiting
on an accident reconstruction," Fewless said.
Sheriff's deputies closed M-37 and rerouted traffic for about six hours on Friday
as they investigated the crash.
Khangura was released from jail on a 10 percent $50,000 bond and is scheduled
to appear in court at 9:45 a.m. Grand Traverse County Prosecutor Bob Cooney
said Monday he's waiting for a police report in order to officially file the charges,
but he did receive a probable cause arrest form.
Fewless said the driver is originally from India, holds a Canadian drivers license,

and has a current U.S. visa.

"On Friday, when the accident occurred, we did run a full criminal history," he
said. "It appears everything was valid and nothing was showing on his driver's
license."
A vehicle inspection report shows the Canada Inc. semi-truck was inspected in
Brampton, Ontario, near Toronto. Canada Inc. representatives couldn't be reached
for comment.
Fewless said a portable breathalyzer test showed no sign the driver was drinking
alcohol. (See: http://www.record-eagle.com/news/local_news/driver-in-doublefatal-crash-due-in-court/article_fa32337c-557a-59b8-8ad3-a9d9cdc499ce.html)
An August 7, 2013 Record Eagle article indicated, in part, that:
A Canadian semi-truck driver charged in a Mayfield Township crash that left two
dead cant return to his home country before the case is resolved in Grand
Traverse County court.
Kuldeep Singh Khangura, 28, of Markham, Ontario, was arraigned Tuesday in
86th District Court on two counts of a moving violation causing death, a
misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail. On Friday his semi-trucks
trailer drifted into the northbound lane of M-37 and struck a pickup truck
occupied by Jeffery Mitchell Toole, 49, and Joel Willard Toole, 43, both of
Thompsonville, who died in the collision.
Khangura plead not guilty and his attorney, Robert Whims, said the accident was
a sad situation.
My client is incredibly sorry about what occurred no matter the fault, he said.
Eighty-sixth District Court Judge Thomas J. Phillips upheld bond conditions that
Khangura surrender his passport and stay in Michigan until trial. Khangura is
originally from India and a Punjabi translator participated in the arraignment over
a telephone.
Whims argued Khangura should be allowed his passport so he could go back to
work in Canada. He said his client already posted a $5,000 bond and retained
legal counsel. He also said Khangura was unlikely to receive jail time even if
convicted on the misdemeanors, but took the charges seriously and promised to
return. Phillips said he wanted more of a guarantee.
The problem with misdemeanors is we may not get him back from Canada, he
said. Although theyre misdemeanors they involved deaths. Theyre serious
misdemeanors.
Phillips did set a pretrial hearing for Thursday at 9 a.m at Whims request in order
to speed up the court process.
Authorities believe Khangura did not use enough caution for wet road conditions
as he took a sharp S-turn on M-37 near Center Road. Whims said he still
awaited an accident report from the Grand Traverse County sheriffs department
that spelled out the basis for the charges.
Weve got to figure that out as soon as we reasonably can, he said.
Grand Traverse County Prosecutor Bob Cooney said he was also waiting for the
same report. He said he authorized charges after he spoke with the accident

investigator and arresting officer.

We certainly want to have a police report to provide to the defendant so they
know what the allegation is about, he said. Im sure well have a basic report
soon. (See: http://www.record-eagle.com/news/local_news/judge-canadiandriver-stays-in-michigan/article_599152b5-4212-5ee3-bb4a-198dfc070d3f.html)
A March 22, 2014 Record Eagle article indicated, in part, that:
A Grand Traverse County jury acquitted a Canadian semi-truck driver charged in
a Mayfield Township crash that killed two Thompsonville men. Kuldeep Singh
Khangura, 28, of Markham, Ont., stood trial in 86th District Court for two days
on two counts of a moving violation causing death, a misdemeanor.
Brothers Jeffery Mitchell Toole, 49, and Joel Willard Toole, 43, died Aug. 2 when
their pickup truck and Khangura's semi-truck collided on M-37. Authorities
believed Khangura's trailer drifted into the Tooles' path, but Khagura's attorney
Robert Whims argued eyewitness testimony and the evidence showed otherwise.
Jurors spent about an hour to hand down a "not guilty" verdict on both counts.
"I think the jury just realized that it didn't happen like they said it did," Whims
said.
Grand Traverse County Prosecutor Bob Cooney said he respected the jury's
decision. "We had a lot of confidence in the accident investigation, but there was
a lot of information for the jury to consider," he said. "Ultimately, they found
reasonable doubt."
The trial and verdict came after months of delays spurred by a unique request
from prosecutors: that the defense's crash investigation be shared in "discovery"
before trial. Cooney said Michigan prosecutors typically don't get access to
defense witnesses or evidence in misdemeanor cases as they do with felonies.
"It's a matter of practicality that never set right by me that you would have trial by
ambush," he said.
Eighty-sixth District Court Judge Thomas Phillips and 13th Circuit Court Judge
Thomas Power both denied the request and set the stage for trial.
Whims never ended up putting his own crash reconstruction expert on the witness
stand. He said eyewitness testimony and evidence made clear that Khangura's
truck didn't stray over the road's center line -- the moving violation at issue.
"Obviously, justice was done and the right thing happened," he said.
Whims said Khangura, who drives trucks to support his family, humbly accepted
the verdict. (See: http://www.record-eagle.com/news/local_news/jury-acquitstruck-driver-charged-in-fatal-mayfield-crash/article_69afd4f0-2834-519e-a32421ee1a4caebc.html)
A September 10, 2014 9&10 article indicated, in part, that:
Propane Tanker Crash Closes Section of M-37 Wednesday, Victims in Fair
Condition
"This corner is always a hazard in the rain," said Theo Webber, Chief for
Grand Traverse Rural Fire Department.

A crash involving a propane tanker truck closed down part of M-37 for much of
the day Wednesday.
Two people, from Buckley, were taken to the hospital with injuries. They are in
fair condition. The driver of the tanker was treated and released from the hospital.
The tanker rollover happened around one this afternoon at M-37/Center Road in
Mayfield Township.
"Right on the corner it's always bad, they need to change that corner," said
Chris Finch, a resident of Mayfield Township.
Wednesday's crash on this corner involved the propane tanker and a truck and
people who live near the scene say it's especially dangerous here in wet
conditions.
"It was raining heavily right before the accident and to speculate how the
accident happened I don't know know, it appears one or the other vehicles
crossed the center line," said Chief Webber.
Because the accident involved a propane tanker ending up on its side, it caused
some alarm.
"Normally up right and when a vehicle like that gets on its side and rolls over,
many of the safety devices are compromised and so we were very concerned
about a propane leak or a fire explosion in this case," said Chief Webber.
Crews setup a quarter mile safe zone around the area, meaning people who live
near by couldn't go outside for safety reasons.
"We didn't know initially the truck had just delivered its load in Traverse City, so
it was empty of liquid, however it was full of vapor so still a potential hazard,"
said Chief Webber.
The propane company showed up to help get the vehicle up-right and off the road
in the safest way possible and at about four o'clock Wednesday afternoon M-37
re-opened. (See: http://www.9and10news.com/story/26497796/tanker-truckaccident-prompts-need-to-shelter-in-southern-gt-county) [emphasis added]
An October 23, 2014 MDOT memorandum stated, in part:
SUBJECT: 2015 Safety Discretionary Candidates M-37 High Friction Surface
We are proposing to place a High Friction Surface on M-37 in the horizontal
curve at Center Rd. Recently there have been crashes that have occurred during
wet conditions that could be improved by placing a High Friction Surface. One of
the crashes resulted in two fatalities. The other crash resulted in M-37 being
closed for several hours. The semi-trucks involved in these crashes had the back
tires of the vehicle slide over into the incoming lane. Attached is an estimate and
crash information for this location.
The proposed cost for this improvement is $131,002.46 (EXHIBIT 11)
A May 27, 2015 internal MDOT email indicated, in part, that:
Subject: RE: 126551 High Friction Surface Application M-37
Gary,

Send me a justification and a request as to why you shouldn't follow the QA/QC
Process. I will approve or deny and we can go from there.
Thanks, Larry (EXHIBIT 12)
A May 27, 2015 internal MDOT reply email indicated, in part, that:
Subject: RE: 126551 High Friction Surface Applicaton M-37
Hi Larry:
Thanks for the opportunity to justify:
We request to use the following for this project:
1) Use CPM Certification form Type 2
2) Use Lump Sum Traffic Control
We request this consideration based on the following factors;
The ISC and North Region Traffic and Safety Engineer feel that using the 'Traffic
Control' item is justified for this project. Although the project is not in the CPM
template, the high friction surface treatment is very comparable to a chip seal
which falls under CPM. The only reason that this is being funded through the
safety template is because of the enhanced friction that will be achieved. The
construction/application methods are very similar to a CPM or maintenance
project.
The project has a very short length (1000 ft) and duration. Separating the traffic
control items would muddle the project pay items unnecessarily. Also, it is likely
that the contractor will request to use traffic cones, which are better covered under
the 'Traffic Control' item as they don't have a pay item for their separate use.
Please advise if you have any additional concerns.
Thank You. Gary (EXHIBIT 13)
Another May 27, 2015 internal MDOT reply email from Larry Strzalka indicated that the
High Friction Surface Application M-37 project was Approved. (EXHIBIT 13)
A July 23, 2015 internal MDOT reply email indicated, in part, that:
Gary,
I see the subject project made it through the letting process. I'm highly interested
in knowing when the HES goes in on M-37 to come observe. Can you let me
know when the actual work gets scheduled for?
Thank you!!
Tracie Leix, P.E. (EXHIBIT 14)
A July 31, 2015 MDOT memorandum indicates, in part, that:
NOTICE OF PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING
0.19 miles of high friction surface application and pavement marking
on M-37 from south of Center Road to north of Center Road, Grand
Traverse County. (EXHIBIT 15)

10

An August 2, 2015 Record Eagle article indicated, in part, that:

A Williamsburg man and woman died in a Mayfield Township crash after a car
crossed into the path of their motorcycle. Medical personnel declared Anthony
Erving, 57, dead Sunday afternoon at the scene of a crash along M-37 near Center
Road. An ambulance took his passenger, Deanna Erving, 50, to a hospital, where
doctors pronounced her dead.
Grand Traverse County sheriff's crash investigators believe the crash occurred at
2:27 p.m. when an Armada woman, 26, headed south on M-37, crossed the center
line on a curve, and collided with the Ervings' motorcycle.
Deputies believe speed could have contributed to the crash. The car's driver didn't
suffer injuries in the crash. (See: http://www.recordeagle.com/news/local_news/williamsburg-man-and-woman-die-in-m-crash/article_efb6cd8e-b5db-5ce9-af1b-ecfb1edf05ec.html)
A comment from Deanna Sinclair regarding the above article was submitted on the
Record Eagles website on August 3, 2015. Ms. Sinclairs comment indicates that:
We live a mile south of this extremely dangerous curve, locally known as
DEADMAN'S CURVE, how many more people will have to die before the State
of Michigan Road Commission decides to change the angle of this curve???!!!
We have brought this up at the Mayfield Township meetings. It is a STATE road!
The STATE has to change it! I for one an tired of hearing sirens, and seeing
bodies strewn on the grounds at the curve!!!! I for one, and I'm sure the families
of those who have lost loved one are demanding that this curve be
reconfigured!!!! NOW BEFORE another person loses their life!!!!
An August 4, 2015 internal MDOT email indicated, in part, that:
James,
Project notification... As always, let me know what else you need.
MDOTJN 126551
Grand Traverse County
M-37
Project is located between Buckley and Chum's Corner at the intersection of M37 and Center Road.
Scheduled Start 8/17/15.
Scheduled End 8/21/15 (estimated)
This project provides for 1000 feet of High Friction Surface application of the
existing traveled lanes.
The project begins on M-37 approximately 500 feet west of Center Road.
The project continues along M-37 around the curve to 500 feet north of Center
Road.
Traffic will be maintained utilizing single lane closures with flag control.

11

 See attached title sheet.

$95,000
Hope all's well, thank you. -Dave Mc. (EXHIBIT 16)
An August 5, 2015 internal MDOT email (EXHIBIT 16) from James Lake indicated:
Thanks, Dave. Is there a crash history we're looking to address at this location?
MDOTs David McCaws August 5, 2015 reply email to James Lake indicates:
Unfortunately yes. I can get you more specifics but the crashes are centerline
cross, head-on type crashes. There was a recent double fatal (after this project was
already let). The thought being additional friction would prevent future
crossovers. (EXHIBIT 16)
MDOTs James Lakes August 5, 2015 reply email to David McCaw indicates:
Thought that might have been the same intersection. Even though we were
already planning this project, the inference will be made. No specifics necessary
right now, but I'd expect this one to prompt some media calls. (EXHIBIT 16)
An August 6, 2015 internal MDOT email from James Lake to David McCaw indicated:
Thanks for heads up. I seen skids and ground tore up where car left road. Actually
on the leaving end of the curve headed south (EXHIBIT 17)
A few days after Defendants accident, an August 10, 2015 MDOT press release
indicated that:
Subject: NEWS - High-friction surface installation on M-37 curve starts Aug. 17
north of Buckley
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 2015
CONTACT: James Lake, MDOT Office of Communications, 989-732-3832, ext.
343
High-friction surface installation on M-37 curve starts Aug. 17 north of Buckley
*
*
*
ESTIMATED STARTING DATE: Monday, Aug. 17, 2015
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: Friday, Aug. 21, 2015 (weather
permitting)
PROJECT: The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) will be
installing a high-friction surface material to 1,000 feet of M-37 near the
Center Road intersection to improve traction for vehicles on this curve.
[emphasis added] (EXHIBIT 18)
An August 10, 2015 internal MDOT email from Margaret Szajner to James Lake states:

12

Just want to touch base about this. I saw the press release go out for this work. In
light of the recent fatalities in this area should any phone calls we receive be
directed to you or should I just take them here in the office? (EXHIBIT 19)
MDOTs James Lakes August 10, 2015 reply email indicated that:
Subject: RE: M-37 Friction Surface
I'd say media calls route to me first, though I will likely need to have
someone from TC do interviews discussing the engineering reason behind
this fix. We should be prepared to discuss:
- There is a history of crashes at this location, and while the cause of those crashes
has varied, we are making this change to help improve traction for motorist to cut
eliminate that as a cause. Our first priority is safety, and we make changes
whenever possible to help avoid crashes.
- Other crashes at this location have been attributed to excessive speed or drivers
leaving their lane. Motorists play a significant role and have a shared
responsibility for safety on every roadway.
- Be prepared to answer the question as to why we haven't changed the alignment
of the curve. I know we've done that in other locations would we consider
doing that here?
Calls from the public I'd think should be handled by TC staff, like usual inquiries
and complaints. [emphasis added[ (EXHIBIT 19)
An August 11, 2015 internal MDOT email from Dave Pax to Rick Liptak indicated:
It is my preference, as has been the case historically in this office, that questions
regarding active construction projects be handled by construction. I am not
comfortable with others disseminating information about projects, contractors,
schedules, etc. (EXHIBIT 19)
MDOTs Rick Liptaks August 11, 2015 reply email to Dave Pax indicated that:
Understand and agree to a point. James is the primary contact for media above the
TSC, so that is why he responded back to Margaret's S's inquiry like he did which
is appropriate. I looped you guys in only so you knew what James advise was in
case a call comes.
Margaret, any inquiries to this office should go to me or Pax, particularly with
regards to questions about why we are doing this work. I already had a call
yesterday from the Cadillac Evening News on this. Primarily asking why we were
doing it. (EXHIBIT 19)
An August 12, 2015 Up North Live article indicated that:
MDOT fixing dangerous curve to improve safety conditions
The Michigan Department of Transportation has been looking to improve

13

the safety conditions of the curve at M37 and Center Rd. since the 1980s.
Wed, 12 Aug 2015 22:43:27 GMT The curve on M37 and Center Rd. in Grand
Traverse County is getting a facelift next week.
The Michigan Department of Transportation has been looking to improve the
safety conditions of this area since the 1980s.
The curve has been the site of 27 crashes including four fatalities in the last five
years.
"The curve is a challenging curve because of the speed and the severity of the
curve, said Rick Liptak, Manager of Michigan Department of Transportations
Traverse City Service Center. It's a challenge for drivers. Particularly in
inclement weather, we noticed that when you look at a lot of the crashes that
occurred there most of them occur when the road is not dry."
Liptak said an average of 5,500 vehicles drive along this Grand Traverse County
curve daily.
"The recommended curve speed limit on the area in question, M37 and Center
Rd., there is a sign that says 40 miles per hour, said Deputy Sarah
Metdepenningen, Grand Traverse County Sheriffs Office. However, that's just a
recommended curve speed for safety reasons. The only enforceable speed is a
prima facie speed limit, which is 55."
Road crews will be putting a high friction surface on the roadway, which is a
layer of epoxy and small stones.
The surface has been used elsewhere in the state, but this will be the first time it
will be applied in this part of northern Michigan.
"Primarily from what we can tell people leaving the roadway basically
because they come into curve too fast, or they lose control going through the
curve,?? said Liptak, thats what we're hoping this high friction surface
will help mitigate."
"Certainly when the weather is bad that contributes with icy roads, visibility, and
weather conditions, but it's still the driver's responsibility at that point to slow
down and drive appropriately," said Deputy Metdepenningen.
Liptak said there's talk about realigning the curve in the future but that project
could cost three or four million dollars.
In the meantime, the hope is that this new surface will make the road safer.
Crews will start working on the road on Monday and hope to wrap up by the end
of next week.
During the work, only one lane will be open. [emphasis added]
(See: http://upnorthlive.com/news/local/mdot-fixing-dangerous-curve-to-improvesafety-conditions?id=1242757)
A September 2, 2015 MLive article indicated that:
Charges issued in Northern Michigan crash that killed couple on motorcycle
GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY, MI -- Prosecutors in Grand Traverse County
have authorized charges against a woman accused of causing a crash that killed
two people on a motorcycle in August.
Alyssa Goch, 26, faces two counts of moving violation causing death, a

14

misdemeanor, for the Aug. 2 crash that killed a Williamsburg couple. A warrant
has been issued for Goch, of Armada.
The Mayfield Township crash killed Anthony Erving, 57, and Deanna Erving, 50,
sheriff's deputies said. They were traveling north on M-37 near Center Road when
a southbound car crossed the center line on a curve and hit their motorcycle.
The crash occurred about 2:30 p.m.
Anthony Erving died at the scene. His wife died at a hospital later that day.
The Ervings were wearing helmets. Goch was not injured.
At the time of the crash, deputies said alcohol and drugs were not believed to be
factors but that speed could have played a role. (See: www.mlive.com/news/grandrapids/index.ssf/2015/09/charges_issued_in_grand_traver.html)

On October 30, 2015, defense counsel emailed MDOT a Freedom of Information Request
for information regarding the M-37 curve near Center Rd (EXHIBIT 20)
An October 30, 2015 internal MDOT email from Dave Pax indicated:
Margaret just gave me a copy of the letter. It looks like it could be quite
voluminous, but we should all discuss what he's really asking for. Most of the
historic stuff would be in Lansing, we would have our project records here (econstruction job), and that's about it from the construction side. (EXHIBIT 21)
An October 30, 2015 internal MDOT reply email from Rick Liptak indicated, in part:
Yep, agree. But remember we have to give him all that he is asking for.
Maybe a pickup load by the time we are done [emphasis added] (EXHIBIT 21)
LAW AND ARGUMENT
MCL 257.601(d)(1) states that [a] person that commits a moving violation that causes
the death of another person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more
than one year or a fine of not more than $2,000, or both.
"Moving violation" is defined as: "an act or omission prohibited under this act or a local
ordinance substantially corresponding to this act that involves the operation of a motor vehicle,
and for which a fine may be assessed." MCL 257.601(d)(4).
Defendant is entitled to present evidence at trial demonstrating that MDOTs gross
negligence was the superseding and proximate cause of the accident at issue in this case.

15

Defendant is also entitled to present evidence at trial that a sudden emergency and/or act of God
occurred and was the superseding and proximate cause of the accident. Further, Defendant is
entitled to present evidence at trial that she operated her vehicle as nearly as practicable entirely
within a single lane.
I. MCL 257.601d strict liability does not preclude introduction of evidence regarding the
predicate moving violation because The People are still required to prove the predicate moving
violation beyond a reasonable doubt.
While the Court of Appeals has concluded in an unpublished opinion that the legislature
impliedly intended to make MCL 257.601(d)(1) a strict liability offense, they did not thereby
conclude that all moving violations are also strict liability offenses. Further, the Court of Appeals
did not dispense with the requirement that the prosecution must carry the burden of proving the
elements of any and all charged offenses.
Defendant does not oppose The Peoples motion on the basis of Defendants mens rea but
on her right to defend herself within the means of the law against any alleged moving violation
which is the predicate for the alleged violation of MCL 257.601(d)(1). The People have alleged
Defendant committed a moving violation but have not proven one, nor has Defendant been
afforded an opportunity to defend herself against those allegations. While [c]ourts in this
country have almost universally held that traffic violations are strict liability offenses, in which
the motorist's negligence or lack of intent to commit the infraction is irrelevant, the same courts
have not obliterated the need for a factual determination by a factfinder regarding whether a
moving violation occurred or whether Defendant was the legal and proximate cause of the
unfortunate deaths. People v Jones, 132 Mich App 368 (1984).
The Peoples argument puts the cart before the horse. This Court is asked to exclude
evidence offered by Defendant because mens rea is not an element in a violation of MCL

16

257.601(d)(1). However, none of the evidence which The People have divined that Defendant
will introduce pertains to mens rea. The above evidence The People seek to preclude at trial is
highly relevant as it pertains directly to the language of MCL 275.642(1): i.e. whether or not
Defendant operated the vehicle as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane. Further,
this evidence would be relevant to the inquiry under the third element of MCL 257.601(d)(1) as
to whether Defendants driving was the cause of death.
Strict liability does not preclude introduction of evidence regarding predicate moving
violation because The People are still required to prove each element of the predicate moving
violation beyond a reasonable doubt. The People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, (1)
a moving violation was committed by Defendant; (2) a death occurred and (3) the moving
violation was the proximate cause of the death of another person, before the strict liability
provisions of MCL 257.601(d)(1) apply.
The People are required to prove all of the elements of the charged offense. This
obligation remains with regard to the instant offense with Defendant is charged. The unpublished
Court of Appeals opinion relied upon by the People, People v Pacethough dealing with a
slightly different portion of the same statuteaffirms this principle:
Thus, MCL 257.601d(2) clearly requires the prosecutor to prove (1) the commission of
a moving violation; (2) another person suffered a serious impairment of a body
function; and (3) a causal link between the bodily injury and the moving violation,
i.e., factual and proximate causation. People v Pace, ---- NW2d--- (2015). Docket No.
322808, Pg 2.
The Pace Court continued:
These offenses, called strict liability offenses, are ones "in which the prosecution need
only prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the prohibited act,
regardless of the defendant's intent and regardless of what the defendant actually knew or
did not know." Janes, 302 Mich.App at 41-42 (internal quotation marks omitted). The
distinction between a strict-liability crime and a general-intent crime is that, for a

17

general-intent crime, the people must prove that the defendant purposefully or voluntarily
performed the wrongful act, whereas, for a strict-liability crime, the people merely need
to prove that the defendant performed the wrongful act, irrespective of whether he
intended to perform it. People v. Lardie, 452 Mich. 231, 241; 551 NW2d 656, 660 61
(1996), overruled on other grounds by People v. Schaefer, 473 Mich. 418; 703 NW2d
774 (2005). (See: People v Pace, ---- NW2d--- (2015). Docket No. 322808, Pg 3-4)
Even reading this jurisprudence in the manner most favorable to The Peoples position
regarding the strict liability of MCL 257.601(d)(1)which is not conceded herethe
requirements on the prosecuting attorney are not curtailed. Even if The People are attempting to
exclude evidence relevant to a defense against a charged violation of MCL 257.601(d)(1), they
cannot use that same legal reasoning to exclude evidence relevant to proximate cause and the
predicate moving violation which underlies any conviction of a violation of that statute.
The evidence which the People are asking this Honorable Court to exclude is relevant to
Defendants defense to any underlying moving violations which the People have alleged. The
documents obtained by defense counsel from MDOT specifically address the hazardous curve on
M-37 where Defendants accident took place.
By its plain language the statute clearly makes whether or not a violation MCL
257.642(a) occurred an inquiry that hinges on the fact finders interpretation of what is
practicable under the circumstances of a particular road way at a particular time as well as the
actual behavior of a driver. As part of this inquiry, MCL 257.642 makes relevant any evidence
regarding what qualifies as driving as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane. MCL
257.642(a). The language of the statute reads:
When a roadway has been divided into 2 or more clearly marked lanes for traffic, the
following rules in addition to all others consistent with this act apply: (a) A vehicle shall
be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved
from the lane until the operator has first ascertained that the movement can be made with
safety. Id.

18

II. Crossing the center line of a roadway does not create a per se violation of MCL
257.642(1)(a) and the issue of whether Defendant committed a moving violation is a question
of fact to be determined by the jury.
Whether Defendant committed a moving violation is a question of fact to be determined
by the jury. It is a well-recognized principle in Michigan that generally, questions of fact in
criminal cases are to be decided by a jury. People v. Artman, 218 Mich.App 236, 239; 553
NW2d 673 (1996); People v. Wright, 161 Mich.App 682, 685; 411 NW2d 826 (1987).
It is the Peoples burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element in order to
convict Defendant of the charged offenses. The Peoples brief recklessly substitutes eye witness
testimony, law enforcement and Peoples experts opinion for the constitutionally mandated
factual determination by a jury to which Defendant is entitled.
Michigan Rule of Evidence 402 is a rule of inclusion not exclusion. The rule is explicit
[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided [] MRE 402. Justice
Rehnquist, speaking of Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402after which MRE 401 and 402
are modeledstated in Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) that:
Rules 401 and 402 establish the broad principle that relevant evidence -- evidence that
makes the existence of any fact at issue more or less probable -- is admissible unless the
Rules provide otherwise. Id at 485 U.S. 688.
It is well established in Michigan that all elements of a criminal offense are "in issue"
when a defendant enters a plea of not guilty. People v. Mills, 450 Mich. 61, 69, 537 N.W.2d 909
(1995). Because the prosecution must carry the burden of proving every element beyond a
reasonable doubt, regardless of whether the defendant specifically disputes or offers to stipulate
any of the elements, the elements of the offense are always "in issue" and, thus, material. See Old
Chief, supra. People v Crawford, 458 Mich. 376, 582 N.W.2d 785 (1998).
The probative force inquiry asks whether the proffered evidence tends "to make the

19

existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or
less probable than it would be without the evidence." The threshold is minimal: "any" tendency
is sufficient probative force. MRE 401. See Beaubien v. Cicotte, 12 Mich. 459, 484 (1864), and
Collins v. Beecher & Marquette & Pacific Rolling Mill. Co., 45 Mich. 436, 438, 8 N.W. 97
(1881).
III. Defendants establishment of the Sudden Emergency Defense further makes relevant any
evidence regarding the MDOT correspondence and work orders specifically discussing the
hazardous curve where Defendants accident took place.
This Honorable Court should also deny The Peoples motion because it seeks to exclude
evidence relevant to Defendants planned invocation of the sudden emergency defense. The
sudden-emergency doctrine applies when a collision is shown to have occurred as the result of a
sudden emergency not of the defendants own making. White v Taylor Distributing Co, Inc,
482 Mich 136, 139-140; 753 NW2d 591 (2008).
The People have no legal basis for attempting to exclude this evidence. Michigans Court
of Appeals have given broad leeway to a Defendant asserting a sudden emergency defense
stating:
A party who invokes the sudden emergency doctrine is entitled to a proper instruction if
any evidence exists which would allow a jury to conclude that an emergency existed
within the meaning of the doctrine. Farris v Bui, 147 Mich App 477, 480; 382 NW2d 802
(1985).
In reviewing a trial courts decision regarding the giving of a sudden emergency
instruction, a Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant. Id.; Spillers v
Simons, 42 Mich App 101, 105; 201 NW2d 374 (1972). The language quoted from Farris
affords a certain breadth to Defendants asserting this defense. The use of the phrase if any
evidence exists which would allow a jury to conclude that an emergency existed is reminiscent
of the inclusive spirit of MRE 402 discussed supra.

20

The sudden emergency doctrine requires the circumstances of an accident to present an

"unusual or unsuspected" situation. Vander Laan v Miedema, 385 Mich. 226, 232; 188 N.W.2d
564 (1971). In the case at bar, the parties agree that the accident's circumstances did not present
an unusual situation as defined by the doctrine. The parties argue over whether the accident
presented a situation that is unsuspected.
The Vander Laan Court described "unsuspected" as a potential peril within the everyday
movement of traffic, and applied a two-prong test. First, it is essential that the potential peril had
not been in clear view for any significant length of time. Second, it is essential that the potential
peril was totally unexpected. Id.
A party who invokes the sudden emergency doctrine is entitled to a proper instruction if
any evidence exists which would allow a jury to conclude that an emergency existed within the
meaning of the doctrine. McKinney v Anderson, 373 Mich. 414, 419-420; 129 N.W.2d 851
(1964); Ivy v Binger, 39 Mich.App. 59; 197 N.W.2d 133 (1972); Wright v Marzolf, 34
Mich.App. 612, 613-614; 192 N.W.2d 56 (1971). In reviewing a trial court's instruction, trial
testimony must be viewed in a light most favorable to a defendant. Id.
IV. Defendants establishment of MDOTs gross negligence in relation to the hazardous curve
where Defendants accident took place is relevant and Defendant is entitled to have the factfinder (her jury) determine whether MDOTs gross negligence was the superseding, proximate
cause of Defendants accident.
MCL 257.601d(1) provides that A person who commits a moving violation that causes
the death of another person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not
more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both. [emphasis added]
In the context of OUIL causing death, our Supreme Court, in People v Schaefer, 473
Mich 418, 438-439; 703 NW2d 774 (2005), interpreted the causation element of MCL
257.625(4) as follows:

21

... in examining the causation element of OUIL causing death, it must first
be determined whether the defendants operation of the vehicle was a factual
cause of the victims death. If factual causation is established, it must then be
determined whether the defendants operation of the vehicle was a proximate
cause. In doing so, one must inquire whether the victims death was a direct
and natural result of the defendants operation of the vehicle and whether an
intervening cause may have superseded and thus severed the causal link.
While an act of God or the gross negligence or intentional misconduct by
the victim or a third party will generally be considered a superseding cause,
ordinary negligence by the victim or a third party will not be regarded as a
superseding cause because ordinary negligence is reasonably foreseeable.
[emphasis added]
Footnote 67 in Schaefer emphasizes that [h]ad the Legislature intended to require only
factual causation and not proximate causation as well, the Legislature would have instead used
the words results in death rather than causes the death.
CONCLUSION
In this case, Defendant is entitled to present to the jury evidence to demonstrate an act of
God created and/or a sudden emergency was the superseding, proximate cause of her accident.
Defendant is also entitled to present to the jury evidence to demonstrate that a third partys
(MDOTs) gross negligence was the superseding, proximate cause of her accident. Finally,
Defendant is entitled to present to the jury evidence to demonstrate that her vehicle was driven as
nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that this Honorable Court deny Peoples
Motion in Limine To Preclude Evidence Pursuant to MRE 402 for the foregoing reasons.

Respectfully submitted,
December 4, 2015
/s/ Jesse L. Williams_____________
Jesse L. Williams (P69264)
Attorney for Defendant

22

EXHIBIT I

OFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE:

February 4, 1986

TO.

Bruce A. Conradson
District 3 Operations Engineer

FROM:

Rah :CT:

L.._

Richard L. 3lost, Supervising Engineer

Safety Programs Unit
Traffic and Safety Division
M-37 in the vicinity of Center and Bartlett Roa
Mayfield Township, Grand Traverse County

" Ns

es

We have completed our accident analysis of the subject location as your

December 4, 1985 memorandum requested. The following data should aid you in
deciding which type of safety improvement should be pursued.
A nine-year six month accident history (1976 - June of 1935) revealed this 11/2
mile length of M-37 experienced 71 total accidents resulting in 71 injuries and
four fatalities. Two 90 degree curves, one at each end of this segment, are
the only significant horizontal alignment changes along the entire 12 mile
control section.

Fifty accidents occurred in the areas of the two curves. Eighteen of these
occurred on snowy or icy pavement conditions, 12 on wet surfaces, and 20 during
dark conditions. Three accident types accounted for 40 of the 50 curve related
accidents. They were: overturned (17), fixed object (13), and head-on (10).
These three accident types were responsible for 83 percent of the total number
of injuries and all the fatalities during the period studied.
Benefit analyses were calculated and are attached for your review for both a
major realignment type improvement and low cost operational improvements.
Realignment of M-37 to flatten the two curves could realize an estimated annual
accident reduction benefit of $52,000. Low cost operational improvements could
reflect an estimated annual accident reduction benefit of $26,000.
Operational improvements which could be considered include: adding flashers to
the curve/advisory speed signs, checking the existing advisory speed panels for
possible lower speed reduction, and/or checking the superelevation to see if it
warrants revisions. Further delineation of the curves could be considered,
such as pavement markings, delineator posts, Chevron signs, etc. Advanced
warning rumble strips might increase awareness of the curves and reduce speeds.
Althoug this analysis does not reveal extraordinary numbers of accidents, the
severit and uncommon number of loss-of-control typo accidents warrants
conside ation of safety improvements. We suggest operational Improvements
(edditic lal signing, possible sign flashers, etc.) at this time as an interim
treatmer.t. If you wish to pursue realignment you should request the Geometries
Coordination Unit to prepare a schema and cost estimate. If the project is

15$1.:2n,:a

3r-ace A. Conradson
Page 2
February 4, /9g6

cost-effective, we will request programming in a future call for projects. If

you have any questions concerning our analysis or if we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.

rs~rvising
Attachment
aLB:KLS:r.kg(SP-2-146)-4
cc

I. V. Bartha
S. R. Blackledge
W. T. Lebel
Safety Programs Unit

/3 4/
neneer

EXHIBIT 2

OFFICE MEMOI?ANDUM
DATE:

February 13, 1986

70

Richard L. Blast, Supervising Engineer

Safety Programs Unit
Traffic and Safety Division
Bruce A. Conradson
District Operations Engineer

]DSJEC7

M-37 in the Vicinity of Center and Bartlett Roads,

Hayfield Township, Grand Traverse County

This is in response to your memo of February 4, 1986, and will confirm mY followup telephone conversation with Ken Slee, of your office, and yourself.
I have conferred with the Cadillac Design Squad regarding a recommended realignment of on or both of the sharp curves within the subject area. We completed
a preliminary cost estimate for the northeastern most 10 degree curve on the
basis of a proposed 5 degree curvature and arrived at a cost of $311,000, including right of way. The southwestern most 7 degree curve could be similarly reconstructed to 5 degrees for approximately $250,000. The latter curve does not
appear to be contributing to the accident and injury record to the same degree
as the 10 degree curve, and might possibly be omitted from further consideration.

In order to properly evaluate a variety of realignment alternatives of this type,

a proper topographic base is needed. Mr. Larry Christenson, of Photogrammetry,

advises that this section of roadway can be flown this spring for a cost of $700.
Follow-up preparation of a topographic map with two foot contour intervals would
cost another $3,500. I would suggest a sum of perhaps $10,000 be programmed to
fund this work and to allow cur design squad to then examine a variety of alternatives. Any decision to proceed could then be based upon a 1988 letting date.
Please be advised that requests for flights must be received by Photogrammetry
prior to March 30th of this year.

C.
District Operations Engineer
3AC/bz

F.

Irn

r-

833;

.
`a E L. E N
INTERL.0i..'HEPT

A .,

'-

B
rs- rs

dtt

0.1 :419
ACX .. Mar

--

H.Ai_

fl
3.3

173

2I

.213.71.7 ACT._L-17-1M1. CIF/ y=

28
3D

;
R1

TO NEL (

MONROE

CENTER '
\

qCC

31

-.,

34

:2

11.

:_

c. -em-..e.r.,1.7f. tat

,,:yr_rx

11,

,,

rc,107...1
.s.
ran-X=7-.4-.77mm

I
_g
._' 0

2_1,T

11
r

,I .:.I 21

:.1.3. ..c....1.3=4,
--r,="tri ..1-

,3

-.1:N eli7.1701-41
-1,E 1.E. 1

so.- 2-1

---.'

szr

.......2.:

,:

: - '.
., .-,:i...,..g
1r..... - .. ,-.-,-..- ...e.4r.,4:9,ms...-:..17,m2w1-,,., . ...n.,.........rx.t

I
' I

1
=,--3-s ,
e.. C.,....,:,

If

fr
!I

.
2r.123 31..121
12,

I .

I :

. e

:',
o

.7,,,..,,

1
.1

lii

..

E...'ul
M._11:1- XT . PM 4._
7. r
33

3.

- -_ _.-- -1_13,
-.1..-_,

,,t

ane

,.
L 0
0

,-,=,_...,.._
,rtm-

i..--.."
-

.,k:r IG,..,-Srl

i
1
.......:..! =-- 7.12 -.1C1'.:2fga 7

...f. s'..-,

"..---

..:a

23

.:,,,....

23

7 -:

L
1

......._...._
:

\-.....--,

\ ...-e

i
.1

i 21 k I-

x F6TE".

R. I I W.

r
ki

0
V
0

.c.

r>
C
-.1

c',.
g

\ ..

V
0

e,

..,

..-

, 1
'-')
._ :,:(,) )
.:
.2

1,

'L

u ad
13

.I

F.

e!ii

1 , :---, "rf -.

He'jiii

13:, I

XiaCrjred32.
2-.
- ..70......2,
4

1
1

EXHIBIT 3

CH

OFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 16, 1986
TO:

Pascual E. Torn
Er.gineer of Program Administration
Program Administration Division

FROM, John KnzPrko

Supervising Engineer of Route Location

:JO

5UBJECT:m_37, Control Section: 28051

Job Numhez: 26095
The Route Location Section of the Design Division was requested to do a
feasibility study for alignment corrections cn M-37, 3.0 miles north of the
south Grand Traverse line. At this location M-37 has a one mile east-west jcg
in alignment. Preliminary investigation indicates no affected properties are
enrolled in the 116 Farmland Preservation Act. Very little of the properties
affected have prime farmlands. TWo different alignments were developed. The
first consisted of flattening the two right-angle curves. The eastern
right-angle quadrant has an active gas well that the realignment took into
account. The second alignment is a relocation crossing section 17 diagonal
from, the southwest corner to the northeast corner. This alignment provides
superior horizontal and vertical alignment. No buildings are needed for rightof-day on either alignment.

Cost
Alternate 1 - Flattening Existing Curves 1.67 Miles
Construction
Right-of-Way

$ 900,000
$ 50,000
TOPAL $ 950,000

Alternate 2 -7. Diagonal Relocation 2.12 Miles

Construction
Right-of-Way

$1,110,000

$ 50,000
TOTAL

$1,160,000

.
-(2
?
-7--,-Ld-le"
f---

Supervising/vnclneer of Rote Location

JK:FTR:di-d
co: R. Merrill
R. E. Russell

EXHIBIT 4

(74.
_

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

")
GATE:

CECEMBER 19. Ices

TO.

JOHN KAZENKO
SUPERVISING ENGINEER OF ROUTE LOCATION

FROA:

PASCPAL E_ ',AWN
PRaiRAm ADMINISTRATION ENGINEER

SUBJECT:

M-37 A7 BARTLETT AND CENTER ROACS: M

2a01

gr

/25095

YCuR MEMO OF CECEMEER It. 1986, INDICATES A MAJOR EXFENDITUAE OF FUNDS TO CORRECT THE SHARP

THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATES PLACE THIS PROPOSED PROJECT IN THE

IMPROVE/EXPAND CATEGORY AND AS SUCH, THIS PROPOSAL SHOULD SE REV/EWED BY THE TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING EUREAU FOR WHATEVER ACTICM THEY DEEM NECESSARY.

CURVES IN THESE LOCATIONS.

ThE FEASIBILITY STUDY WILL BE CLOSED OUT AND NO FURTHER FUNDING WILL BE CONSIDERED UNTIL A
DECISION IS MACE MORMON 71-E IMPROVE/EXPAND PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS.

.--Ro.cR.42,11Nx
ENG iNiEgti, p
PET:JA:414i

CC:

W. J. MAC CREERY
G. R, ADAMS

D. E. OR
J. SEWARD
S. MORTEL
R. MERRILL
R. RUSSELL
R. BLOST
J. ADAMS

EXHIBIT 5

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

DATE:

April 10, 1991

TO:

Pascuel E. Tormen
Engineer of Program Administration

FROM:

Thomas A_ Coleman
District Engineer - District 3

SUBJECT:

C.S. 28051 M-37 at Bartlett and Center Roads

The referenced location is a 10 degree curve north of the Village of Buckley and south
of M-113. In 1986 a study was conducted by Robert Russell, Route Location Engineer,
which estimated the cost for two alternate improvements for this curve and another curve
one mile west One alternate would have realigned approximately 2.12 miles of M-37
to greatly reduce the curvature of both curves. The second alternate would have flattened
both curves while generally retaining the existing alignment.
In your reply to John Kazenko's letter of December 16, 1986, advising you of the
estimates for the two alternate proposals you advised him that the major expenditure of
funds to correct the curves put this project into the Improve/Expand category and the
proposal would have to be reviewed by the Transportation Planning Bureau for further
action.
We are now preparing a preservation project for the next call for projects for M-37 from
the south Grand Traverse County line northerly to M-113. We can not include the
Improve;Expand project in our job, but we would like to have this curve problem
reactivated and evaluated as an Improve/Expand project.
Since 1986, MDOT has paid out $ 195,000 in settlements for accidents that occurred on
this curve. Of the several Improve/Expand projects in District 3, this one has the greatest
potential for reducing serious accidents.

District Engineer - District 3

EXHIBIT 6

PROJECT CONCEPT STATEMENT

YEAR

1993

DISTRICT

PRIORITY

JOB NUMSER

ROUTE

LENGTH
2.1

M37

PROJECT LOCATION: FZCM ScuTH OF GART:ET7 RCA) TO NORTH CF CENTER RoAD,

coHIROL SECTION

ODEC MSiE Rom

28051

Eva MILE Fond'

2.500

4.500

BEG MILE POINT

cokTRoL SECTION

ROW REQUIREMENTS: FEE Y GRO.PERmIT H

BEG MILE POINT

WORKTYPE COOS: 320

a.000

AEG MILE POINT

CONTROL SECTION

0.009

END MILE Pu:RT

0.000

ENO MILE PO/NT

C.009

CONTROL SECTION

ENO MILE POINT

0.000

0.000

Retocaticn

PROPOSED WOR IT : RELOCATE 11-37 TO IMPROVE THE ALIGNMENT AT TWO SHARP CURVES.
IN 1984 A STUDY WAS DONE BY ROUTE LOCATION MD ONE OF TWO
ALTERNATES =ILO HAVE REALIGNED 2.12 MILES OF M-37 TO
GREATLY REDUCE THE CURVATURE OR THE CURVES_ OF THESE CURVES
THE EASTERLY ONE IS THE SY4ARPEE (10 DEGREES) AND THE ONE THE
DISTRICT :s MOST INTERESTED IN HAVING EmPRovE0.

STRUCTURES
STRUCTURE

NUMBER

STRUCTURE COST

OF
STRUCTURE
OF
STRUCTURE
OF

STRUCTURE

0
HumBER

STRUCTURE COST

0
NUMsER

or
STRUCTURE

STRUcluRE cost
a

0
NUMBER

STRUCTURE COST

OF

STRUCTURE COST

NUMSER

STRUCTURE

OF

0
xumBER

STRUCTURE COST

COSTS
1 -SAFETY RELATED WORK

a
5-IMPROVE ALIGNMENTIVERT/h0T)
0
9.0ETOURS/MAiNTAIN TRAFFIC

a
A-RIGIT OF WAY
0

2 -BASE, SURFACE & ShOuLoER

0
6-EREDCE REPAIR
0
10-PERM PAVT MARX/SIGN/SIGNAL

0
CONTINGENCIES

3-N0N MOTORIZED
0
7-ORAINAGE ADJUST & IMPROVE
0
11-MISCELLANEOUS
0
PRELIMINARY ENCiNEERING

4-GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS

a
8-JOINT REPAIR, PAVT PATCHING
0
12-CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
0
TOTAL PROJECT COST

SUFFICIENCY RATING
SURFACE: 16

eALE: 9

:,- 1-7SE41 FAVEXPIT wIDTA

22.0

PAVEMENT TYPE

RIDE QUALITY

3.0

PRWEhr C3HHERCIAL

24.0

70TAL:

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC

4300

BASE CONDITION

0.0

DRAINAGE CCNDITICN

3.0

NEW NLVBER OF LANES

75

8/3

PHS RATING

'NEW PAvEHENT i:cri

CAPACI- rY: 30

PRESENT 1UM3ER OF LAWZS :PRESENT SHOULDER WINN

FLEXIBLE

SURFACE CONDITION

SAFETY: 20

NEU SNCOLDER W1DIN

Fix SERVICE LIFE

0

8/3

ROAD AY SYSTEM; INTERSTATE

PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: NE CUR'yE AT CENTER ROAD HAS BEEN ThE LOCATION QF SEVERAL
ACCIDENTS RESULTING IN FOUR DEATHS IN 1985. SCjTNTOUHD

THERE IS A OCulACRADE WHECH CAUSES EXCESSIVE SPEED FOR THE 10

DEGREE CURVE_ REALIGNMENT IS NEEDED.

PROJECT INFORMATION
Survey Required - Y

Change in Business Access/Parking - N

A DESIGN SURVEY WILL BE REGUIRED.

llF

Grading Permits Required 4

Tree Remove - /
TREES MAY NAVE TO BE REMOVED.

Other Permits Required - U

Naturat Ferures/Landr-garks - N

morasses Publizly Owned Land - N

Controversial - N

Crosses Farm Land - Y

High Impact Project - N

REAL(GMENT MAY INVOLVE FARMLAND.

Crosses Wet Lands - g

Reduced Traffic Fou - N

Crosses Lakes or Rivers/Streams/Drains - N

Traffic Generators - N

Work Outside Existing Shoulders/Curbs - Y

Adjacent Projects N

REALIGNMENT WILL SE OUTSIDE THE EXISTING SHOULDERS.

Displacement (ResidentiaI/Commercia() - N

High Tourist Ratites - Y

i-37 CARRIES TOURIST AND RECREATIONAL TRAFFIC.

Detours/Temperary Rands/Ramp CLosLrg - N

CCFPLETED BY: OTTO W. KALNBACA

YEAR:

1993 Hsi:Ho:

PRIORITY: Aar' r. f

Other - N

TITLE! PROD. DEV. EHGR. DIST. 3

L-

DATE: 04/09/W91

eek ,

EXHIBIT 7

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

DATE:

April 15, 1991

TO:

Thomas Coleman, District Engineer

District #3

FROM:

Pascual E. Tormen, Engineer

Program Administration Division

SUBJECT: CS 28051 -

at BartIet and Center Roads

The Highway Steering Committee ruled recently that safety projects are viewed
differently than other projects and are not subject to the improve/expand $500,000 0.5 mile limitation. Therefore, please work with Traffic & Safety and if they approve it
for inclusion as part of the 1993 Safety Program, we will be glad to add it to the
construction program as soon as you have a commitment from T&S.

Engineer of Programming
attachments
FET:st
cc:
C. Roberts
3. Adams
(1 PR

17 199!

EXHIBIT 8

Oi.- FICE MEMORANDUM

Nichiaan

DATE

February 2 7 , 1992

TO:

Kurt. Zunde r SuPervisor

Safety I-=rograms Unit

FROM:

B. :A. Conradson ?
Operations Encineer

SUBJECT: M-37 from. Bartlett to Oenter Road

Grand Traverse Count ;r
C. S. 28051

As You will note from the attached memo of 5-22-91 the Safety
1'rocrams Unit signaled an interest in funding an improvement at the
sub fact location.
No action to initiate such a prot has
apparently taken place in the interim.
It would appear we are in
need of proposed alternatives for improvement along with estimates
of cost.
aouze Location completed such a study about 6 =fears ago.
Alternatives ranced from a total reiccatcn of M-37 to a more
modest plan to reduce the degree of curvatures.
various cost
estimates for curve flattenina have !:sen advanced ranging from
S950,000 down no 8561,000.
Attached a.re copies of correspondence describinc tha alternatives
alonc with cost estimates which were included in a request for
fundincr back in 1985. No funding under the -.
.tprove/e:cpead cat.egory
was approved at that time.
In the interim we have been involved 'n Two separate court of
claims actions involving the easterly curve.
These were the Noeff
and Scorey cases.
I believe both cases were settled for
substantial sums of, money.
All things considered it is time co review the mei-its of funding a
project that could be expected to produce a degree of benefit in
comPariscn to costs.

B. A. Conadson.
Operations Er:gine:elBAC/mr
T. A. Coleman
O. W. Kalmbach-

EXHIBIT 9

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

DATE:

April 8, 1992

TO:

Brace Conradson
Operations Engineer
District 3

FROM:

Kurt L. Kunde, Supervising Engineer

Safety Programs Unit
Traffic and Safety Division

File No. 28051

SUBJECT: M-37 at Bartlett and Center Roads

Grand Traverse County
C.S. 28051 M.P. 2.81-3.23 and 3_74-4.05

We have updated our cost benefit analysis for these sections of M-37 per your request. The
evaluation completed in May of 1991 covered a ten year study period (1981-90) and included
accidents occurring in the tangent section between these two curves. This analysis evaluates
data for a five year study period (1986-1990) and only includes accidents occurring in the
areas of M-37 where the accident reductions would occur (within the curves). This most
recent five year data and adjusted study limits more accurately reflects the present situation
and proposed improvements since previous safety enhancements (Chevron Signing) were
implemented, and because only accidents within the curves will realize reductions.
Accidents occurring within the two curves during the five year study period (1986-90) totaled
22 with 11 injuries. Accident types included overturn (10), rear-end (4), head-on (2), fixedobject (3), and miscellaneous (3) collisions. The curve at Center Road accounted for 73%
of the accident total within both curves.
Recent studies by the Transportation Research Board and the State of Alabama Highway
Department were used in determining the 65% and 50% accident reduction used for
Alternatives 1 and 2 respectively. An obvious perception is the flatter the curve, the greater
the reduction. The anticipated annual benefit for both curves for alternative 1 is $33,100
($26,300 at Center Road and $6,800 at Bartlett Road). The anticipated annual benefit for
both curves for Alternative 2 is $23,620 ($20,200 at Center and $3420 at Bartlett Road).
Based on these anticipated accident reductions and the cost estimates for Alternative 1
($1,160,000) and Alternative 2 ($950,000) indicated in the Route Location Report completed
in 1986, a cost benefit analysis was calculated. A 35 year time-of-return (T.O.R.) for
Alternative 1 (diagonal curve relocation) and a 40.2 year T.O.R. for Alternative 2 (curve
flattening) was the result. We then calculated a T.O.R. using the reduced estimates of
$950,000 and 561,000 you provided in your February 27, 1992 request. The results were a
28.7 year and a 23.3 year time of return respectively.

Bruce Conradson

-2-

April 8, 1992

In summary, accidents have decreased significantly in the most recent Eve years compared
to the previous five years, possibly as a result of chevron signs placement. While it may still
be desirable to flatten these two curves so that they are more in-line with the prevailing
alignment of M-37 in this area, such a project does not appear eligible for safety funds
intended for an estimated T.O.R. of ten years or less. Attached for your information are
the cost/benefit analysis calculations broken down for each curve location.
If vou have any questions concerning our analysis, please contact me at your convenience.

S pervising En eer
Attacjnnents

cc: L Bartha
S. Blackledge
R. Blast
Cr. Walker
C. Overton
Safety Programs Unit

CM,IPLT7-7.D 8EN-EL-(Th DPREVED TT--.TROLTG'rT ACCIDE T REDUCTION;

Ciryfrwp.
ccation !4-37 at
"6artlett, Alt. IT

County Grand Trave-,

:p

znethcd of evaluating .3.m..idcat costs, used bccw, is Teen ort page 67 of Roy
krzeosen's rcocr. a( :--Eic.-hway Safer anorovernent Criterizi. 1965 ef..Tittdrc. This 57..ime
is given in the Bur .-...au of Public Reds E.:1421-1-67.
In the foilovri.ag analysis the cos:5 grovided Sy the National Safer! Cour.ca

19S0 values

Death - 3-=10,C00
Injuri - S17,4C0
Da_maG-e A.cr.'.dent
3 = ADT.x (Q
ADT,

S3, CO

4- 3500 R-1)

where
3
---AD T, =
RI
R.

BeneEt tt dollars
Average tra:fc volume after the ituiprove7zeat
Average traffic volume before the improvement
Reduction in Eatailtias and injuries combined .5
2.5
R.v.tuc:ioa in propt-.-7.:( damage: ac; Benz
17,4C0 if no fatal accidents ocr.urvec.r, and
(PE 17.100)
110.CC0
21,600 if at least one fataliry cc:tun-ed.
(1) (VP)

Cih Cr

lid

Ratio of injures
1590.

1.15.264 92.64
1,5643

TiTne of Rerun 17.0.R.) based on

{(17,400 or ran)

(( 8700)

A.-Lnuai 3 --=

3,420

(641git

Eatalides that occur:T.:1' Itate-mide durng the year

years cf data.

.5
5

(3,500) 2.5

yrs. =

3r 420

dollars

Total Costs of Project:

C
C

Rcvr..s.tc.'. (9191)

vears

Ys.

?7272,74.-ii:v

Ken sloe

Datf. 4-8-92

M-37 at Bartlett. Alt. TX

coucc.i Grand Traverse

Concrci Sdc:'.on 28051

Ty7.2 oE iznprevezcac

cinrs 2.31-1.23
Minor Curve Flattening

Overturn
4
4
fga-1-z?

Misc.

Fixed Cbj.
1

"f T.

1 ---1

Ea'd.

[so I Red.

!SO' ?c.
,/.

Rt..77-ark.j:

?:ojcvs Cc,s74
Ar.rtual 3aeEt
(T,0.R.)

/ I/

Rec.

150%
I

k Fe.c.

CONS?=0 3EN-E.= DERIvED 17-TROUVri ACCIDENT REDucTr.a.NT

11-37 at
Cicyfrwu.
County Grand Traverse
Bacclecc. Alt. I
metcd of dvaluating accident costs, used be!cw, is r;,.er, on page 67 of Roy
lorzeasen's reper: of F.ighw-a! Safety 1.:n.:rovenie7tc Cricv.la, 1966 eci.itiort. This same
me:hod is &ea in the Bureau of Public Roads ar21-3-61.

r
....-caLlon

in -.he following ana[ysis :h costs provided by, the Nadonai Safer! Council are 1990 walues
Death - S-1-1C,OCO
Mori atai Injury - 517,4C0
?rocercv Dazlave Accident - 534CO
3 = ADT, c (Q R./ 3500 RA
ADTs
where
3
=
AD-ri =
ADTs
=
RI
R.
=

.._.
=

Q
Q

3eneEt in dollars
Average zaffic voiurne after the improvement
Avtrage tr,-,tEic volu=e 1-,efcre the improvement
Reduc:ion in fatali:ies and injuries combined i 39
3.25
Rez.lac:ion in orccer' damage accident
17,4C0 if rto fatal accidents ocrIrced, and
.T.o.Coo ri/F x 15.-tem = 21,6C0 if at !east one fatality occurred_
(1) (1/F)

wheTe
Ra.zio of inures to fatalities that occurred statewide during the ycar
1990.
145.264 92.64
1,563
Time of Retlim (T.O.R.) based on

3=

((1774C0 or ZZINEEV)

3=

[( 22629

(11375)J/

6,8J0

dollars

.A.-tnual 3 =

C = Total Costs of ?reject

=C=
3

Revised (MI)

1.30

years of data.,

(x,500) 3-_25

5 _ yrs.

7qci

yrs-

Ken
Lccaica

sloe

Dai:d

4-8-92

M-37 at Bart:le.tt, Alt. I.

arlr,7f Grand Traverse

Czn:rai 9z SR

Malei:cims 2.81-3.23

051

of

major curve Flattening/Relocation

Oerturn
If56-547

Fixed Obj.

Mir

1
F

I/ V /

4
/

Lac .

63

|65t

:65 is F-1:1.

t Rec.
.65

2-6
_65
Rza.-ark-s:

iaU2 ?:ajec:s asScad.

Aanual 3er.e5:

?:cicc:

(T.03)

DERIIIED THROUGH ACCIDENT REDUCTION

CO4(PUTE..0

County Grand Traverse

Location Fi-37 at center Cityrfwp.
Alt- II
The method of evaluating accident costs, used be!ow, is ziven on page 67 of Roy
Jorgensen's report of .r-tiehway Safecy Enoroventent Criteria, 1966 edition. This same
rnecIiod is.ven in the Bureau of Public Roads LM21-3-67.
In tc following analysis the costs provided by the National Safety Council are 1990 values
Death - S410,000
Not-Li: am! Injury - S17,400
Property Damage Accident - 53.500
B

ADT (Q R1 + 3500 R:)

A.DT

where
B
---A.DTa =
A1; --,
R1
-=
R: ---

Iry

Benefic in dollars
Average rafic volume after the improvement
Average traffic volume before the improvement
Reduction in fatalities and injures combined 5
4
Reduction in property damage accident
17,400 if no fatal accidents occurred, and
410-000 4- (I/F x- t7.2oco --.- 21,600 if at !east one fatality occurred(1) (1/F)

where
Rano of injuries to fatalities that occurred statewide during the year
1990.
145./64 ---- 9/.64
1,568
5

Time of Return rr.o.R.) based on

3=

1.0.7,4co

3=

(07,000

Aszual 3 -,-- 20,200

or 21;f:eg)

(14, Q00) I/ 5

years of data.

(3,500)

yrs. 7--." _Pa, 700

dollars

C = Total Costs of Project

T.O.R_ = C
3

Revised (9191)

years

yrs-

Ken Slee
cca:iec,

Date 4-8-92

M-37 at Center Alt- IT

Co'unnr Grand Traverse

control se':::.4.00.

28051

Nifie-ccirics 3.74-4.050

Minor Curve Flattening

Ty-3e. of 1.1=crovement

;d
2

Misc.

Fixed Cbl.
1

nr

2
in:C.

Z.
V
1

7-7.11,:'

l/// 3

50% Red.
11.5

50% P.ed.

F 50k Rte-

I sot Re::-

I
1

1.51
R-z=ftrk_s:

Eszi=a:f.d. ?rojects Costs

.Annual 3er-efEt
C
cion

OUGH ACCIDENT REDUCTION

D BENEFE i DERIvED
CONCPUTE

Grand Traverse
Lcca:icti M-37 at Center cizyi-rwp,
County
A1t. I
The method of evaluating accident costs, used below, is ziven on cage 67 of Roy
Jor,:cnsea's report of -r:isr.hway Safety L-noroYernent Criteria, 1966 edition. Tis sane
method is :riven in the Sureau of Public Roads D121-3-57.
Iii

the roLicwing altalysis the costs provided by the National Safety Council are. 1990 values
Death - S-110,000
Nen:gat-al Injury - S1:7,4C0
Prooem! Darnazt Accident - S3,SC0
3 --T, x (Q Rt 3500 R-J

where
3
=
ADT, =
A1D-i; =
=
RI
Rz
=
=
Q
=
Q

BeneEc in dollars
Average traffic volume after the improvement
Average traffic volume before the improvement
6.5
Reduction in fatalities and injuries combined
5.2
Reduction in property damage aCtident
17,400 if no fatal accidents occurred, and
i143.0(;0 4- (liF 7t 17.40) = 21,600 ir: at least one fatality occurred.
(1) + (1fP.)

I/F

Ratio of injuries to fatalities that occurred statewide during the year

1990.

where,

115.264 92.64
1,36,3
5

Time of Return (T.O.R.) based on

3=

[(17,400 or 346fa)

6.3

B=

[(11310)) (1820V

Annual 3 =

26, 300

years of data.

(3,5C0) 5 . 2
'ITS. 7z 2.1. 266

dollars

C = Total Costs of Project

T.O-R.

C
B

Revised (9191)

years

Yr5-

Ken Slee

Dore.

4-8-92

M-37 at Center, Alt

COlunCy Grand Traverse
28051

C.7.T.trci

of L=.:vezze

Miidccints 3.74-4.050

Major Curve Flattening/Relocation

Overturn

Rear-End
2 -

Head On

2 L-71.3-1

Misc.

Fixed Obi.
1 Dd

VI

I
?:zjec:

(35

1 65t

1.9
1.91

?zajects Costs
Arinuzi,1 BencEt
(T.0.1)

65

1.3
.95

65

Red.-

65

1 0

1- i

Jul
,)1/1

1,.,7-,-g----7.;:. -

6. .

0-1

2-

r,2T

rE
--;' 1
-.'- 111L1'. .. l'- ',E'
-11
_
,, \
----F.
`"\'
-,...,
;
,,_).....
...----:
I

f's

'

Lel

p.
..4
-. .L___42.._,.,

-HA-U..r.:z.
) fi,Ali.D
I
='=

r=._-_."

-7-

e-...t,

1"---...-

I
j('1
'\--80,4Cr
1 J
---..",. 1,, ,.

.. . .

/"":,/

("7

'

'

Jr

177,

-.I

, .1.../ ....",.....,_
,-. - -!---_ .r5 ,-- f.' . ''i ' I

:.

..,/?...,-,..,,:. \[...,',..,-::,,.... (- I,/ (r ,._ ,...,.._,

'---,_,/

.-- :,..:,_.. i.,...-,k.,..,,,\ -,......,

-) i i C c --.
r ,C:.%) id , (r kJ\ I ir-(''_/,' ''
'i. :, ".. i
''.
1 ,
1 '( 1"

,.L., ,

--;-,, 11 ;

11

,
fy
7 (311.

(
,I
Crf r"

- 7,-

7;1z r.

IC\

.
-}

..

t ,/, ..f- .
2
.
,1 \.. ]...,. . 1
!,
(' i,...''7Eir..... )
-- --- --,f;

it

1.

.1-.1 c)/

"---

3E-10
,
ris

i....-----., '

EXHIBIT 10

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

DATE:

August 6, 1992

TO:

Otto W. Kalmbach
District 3 Design Division

FROM:

Kurt L. Kunde, Supervising Engineer

Safety Programs Unit
Traffic and Safety Division

SUBJECT:

1994 Call For Projects - Safety Candidates

File No. 28012

28013, 28051, 51011
53022, 67022

We have reviewed the list of potential safety projects in your July 10, 1992 memorandum.
Following is a brief description of the results of our review for each project:
28012

US-31 from the south junction of M-37 northerly to S. Airport Road. This
widening project is 3.7 miles long and beyond the scope of a safety project.
This project will not be programmed as a safety project.

28012

US-31 from Townhall Road northerly to Silver Lake Road. This $182,000
resurfacing project meets the guidelines set for skidproofing projects. We plan
to submit the project in our 1994 Call For Projects using safety funds.

28013

Three widening projects (from 4 to 5 lanes) along US-31 in Traverse City.

These projects were products of our Traverse City TOPICS report. The cost
and scope are beyond that of a safety project. Therefore, these projects were
put into the Improve/Expand category. These projects will not be funded with
safety funds.

28051

M-37 from the south county line northerly to M-113. Within the limits of this
project are the curves at Bartlett and Center Road which have been addressed
in past correspondence. We have forwarded, to you, the most recent accident
review, cost benefit analysis, and proposed alignments for your review. It is
possible safety funds could be used if the curve(s) could be upgraded for the
cost(s) indicated in that correspondence. Please advise as soon as possible.

51011

US-31 from south of 12th to Ninth Street in Manistee. We plan to submit this
widening project in our 1994 Call For Projects using safety funds.

53022

US-10 in Custer. A review of the accident history for the project did not
reveal collisions related to roadside, driveway, or parking control sufficient to
qualify for safety funds. This project will not be funded using safety funds.

Otto W. Kalmbach

67022

August 7, 1992

. -2-

The accident history for this 2-3 lane widening project revealed some left turn
related collisions. A cosi benefit analysis was calculated with a 12.5 year
T.O.R. which falls outside the guidelines for a safety project. Therefore, this
project will not be funded with safety funds.

If you have any questions, please contact me at your convenience.

pervising gineer

KLK:KLS:mik
cc: I. Bartha
S. Blackledge
Conradson
A. Slabosky
G. Walker
C. Overton
Safety Programs Unit

EXHIBIT 11

14MDOT
Michigan Department of Transportation

OFFICE MEMORANDUM.

DATE:

10/23/2014

TO:

Garrett Dawe, Region Operations Engineer

FROM:

Margaret Szajner, Traverse City TSC

SUBJECT:

2015 Safety Discretionary Candidates M-37 High Friction Surface

We arc proposing to place a High Friction Surface on M-37 in the horii.ontal

curve at Center Rd. Recently there have been crashes that have occurred
during wet conditions that could be improved by placing a High Friction
Surface. One of the crashes resulted in two Fatalities. The other crash resulted
in M-37 being closed km several hours. The semi-trucks involved in these
crashes had the back tires of the vehicle slide over into the incoming lane.
Attached is an estimate and crash iniormation for this location.
The proposed cost km- this improvement is $131,002.46

EXHIBIT 12

Strzalka, Larry (MDOT)

Wednesday, May 27, 2015 9:10 AM
Niemi, Gary (MDOT)
Pax, Dave (MDOT); Shulick, Mark (MOOT); Smith, Carl (M DOT)
RE: 126551 High Friction Surface Applicaton M-37

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Gary,
Send me a justification and a request as to why you shouldn't follow the QA/QC Process.
I will approve or deny and we can go from there.
Thanks,
Larry
From: Smith, Carl (MDOT)
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 7:50 AM
To: Niemi, Gary (MDOT)
Cc: Pax, Dave (MDOT); Shulick, Mark (MDOT)
Subject: 126551 High Friction Surface Applicaton M-37
Hi Gary,
I am having a problem with this Project. This project is not a Maintenance or CPM project.
This project has a Template in MPINS for Traffic and Safety--Safety Program,
Pay item in Transport "Traffic Control" Lump Sum is only used for Maintenance Projects or CPM's.
You are using "CPM" Cert. Form Type 2.

I am thinking you need to remove Traffic Control in Transport and add the Regular Pay items for Maintaining Traffic
And use the Cert. Form for I raffic and Safety, Type 3 form.
Let me know.

Carl L. Smith
Bid Letting Document Specialist
MDOT Design Division Quality Assurance
Specifications & Estimates
425 West Ottawa Street
P.O. Box 30050
Lansing, Michigan 48909
(517) 241-3120
smithc2@michigan.gov

11)( )11-

EXHIBIT 13

From;
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Strzalka, Larry (MDOT)

Wednesday, May 27, 2015 10:40 AM
Niemi, Gary (MDOI)
Pax, Dave (MDOT); Shulick, Mark (MOOT); Smith, Carl (MDOT); Dawe, Garrett (MOOT);
Brettschneider, Michael (MDOT)
RE: 126551 High Friction Surface Applicaton M-37

Approved.
From: Nierni, Gary (MOOT)
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 9:3R AM
To: Strzalka, I arry (MOOT)
Cc: Pax, Dave (MOOT); Shulick, Mark (MDOT); Smith, Carl (MOOT); Dawe, Garrett (mcon Brettschneider, Michael
(MOOT)
Subject: RE: 176551 High Friction Surface Applicaton M-37
Hi Larry:
Thanks for the opportunity to justify:
We request to use the following for this project:
1) Use CPM Certification form Type 2
2) Use Lump Sum Traffic Control
We request this consideration based on the following factors;
The TSC and North Region Traffic and Safety Engineer feel that using the 'Traffic Control' item is justified for this
project. Although the project is not in the CPM template, the high friction surface treatment is very comparable to a
chip seal which falls under CPM. The only reason that this is being funded through the safety template is because of the
enhanced friction that will be achieved. The construction/application methods are very similar to a CPM or maintenance
project.
The project has a very short length (1000 ft) and duration. Separating the traffic control items would muddle the project
pay items unnecessarily. Also, it is likely that the contractor will request to use traffic cones, which are better covered
under the 'Traffic Control' item as they don't have a pay item for their separate use.
Please advise if you have any additional concerns.
Thank You.
Gary

From: Strzalka, Larry (MOOT)

Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 9:10 AM
To: Niem Gary (MOOT)

EXHIBIT 14

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Nierni, Gary (MDOT)

Thursday, July 23, 2015 2:59 PM
Pax, Dave (MOOT)
Fwd: HFS on M-37

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:
From: "Leix, Tracie (MDOT)" <1..pixfqmichigan,gov>
Date: July 23, 2015 at 2:48:21 PM EDT
To: "Niemi, Gary (MDOT)" <Nierniciemichigansov>
Subject: EfFS on M-37
Gary,
I see the subject project made it through the letting process. I'm highly interested in knowing when the
HFS goes in on M-37 to come observe. Can you let me know when the actual work gets scheduled for?
Thank you!!
Tracie Leix, P.E.
Safely Programs Unit Manager
Michigan Department of Transportation
0: 517-373-8950
C. 517-243-0088
I .eix74')nlichinan.crov

TZD Toward Zero Deaths

EXHIBIT 15

STATE. O.
RICK SNYDER
[3,if-RNQR

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

KIRK T. STEUDLE

Tit At Li:SE CITY 1.144.451.0n. I ION SUM( CLN1 tK

.luly 31, 2015

NOTICE. OF PRECONSTRIJCTION MEETING

Project:
Type of NVorli:

IISIP 28051 126551A

0.19 miles of high friction surface application and pavement. marking
on N1-37 from south of Center Road to north of Center Road, Grand
Traverse County.

Contractor:

Brandon Smith
Smith's Waterproofing, 1,1,C
P. O. Box 428
Almont, MI 48003 th428

Da le:

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

Time:

9:00 a.m.

Place:

Traverse City TSC

2084 US-31 S., Suite 13
Traverse City, MI 49685

Remarks:

Please bring your completed Construction Safely Program, proposed

Progress Schedule, and completed Material Source List(s).

David L. Pax
David Pax, Construction Engineer
Traverse City Transportation Service Center
DP:dp
cc:

B. Solak

R. Liptak

1. Mautbrt

S. Solak

G. tiicmi

J. Wiest

tile

TRAVERSE Y

TRANSPORTATION SERVICE CENTER 2001 U.S 31 S., SUITE E - TRAVERSE CITY. MICHIGAN 49685
www.rnichigan.gov PHONE (231) 9411986 FAX (231) 941-3397

DIRC C.7;,-JR

EXHIBIT 16

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Lake, James (MOOT)

Wednesday, August 05, 7015 3-17 PM
McCaw, David (MOOT)
Pax, Dave (MOOT)
RE: Upcoming project notification

Thought thin. might have been the same intersection. Even though we were already planning this project, the inference
will be made. No specifics necessary right now, but I'd expect this one to prompt some media calls.

From: McCaw, David (MOOT)

Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 3:09 PM
To: Lake, James (MDOT)
Cc: Pax, Dave (MDOT)
Subject: Re: Upcoming project notification
Unfortunately yes. I can get you more specifics but the crashes are centerline cross, head-on type crashes. There was a
recent double fatal (after this project was already let). The thought being additional friction would prevent future crossovers.

On Aug 5, 2015, at 2:58 PM, Lake, James (MDOT) qakell.(iihnichjp_ri.gov> wrote:

Thanks, Dave. Is there a crash history we're looking to address at this location?

From: McCaw, David (MOOT)

Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 11:03 AM
To: Lake, James (MDOT)
Cc: Pax, Dave (MDOT)
Subject: Upcoming project notification
James,
Project notification... As always, let me know what else you need.

IVIDOTJN 126551

Grand Traverse County

M-37

Project is located between Buckley and Chum's Corner at the intersection of M-37 and Center Road.

Scheduled Start 8/17/15.

Scheduled End 8/21/15 (estimated)

This project provides for 1000 feet of High Friction Surface application of the existing traveled lanes.
The project begins on M-37 approximately 500 feet west of Center Road.

The project continues along M-37 around the curve to 500 feet north of Center Road.

Traffic will be maintained utilizing single lane closures with flag control.

See attached title sheet.

$95,000

Hope all's well, thank you.

-Dave Mc.

EXHIBIT 17

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Liptak, Rick (MOOT)

Thursday, August 06, 2015 730 AM
McCaw. David (MDOT)
RE: Upcoming project notification

Thanks for heads up. I seen skids and ground tore up where car left road. Actually on the leaving end of the curve
Treaded south

From: McCaw, David (MOOT)

Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 7:17 AM
To: Liptak, Rick (MDOT)
Subject: FW: Upcoming project notification

Just a heads up about our safety project. James confirmed what I was thinking about this...
-Dave
From: Lake, James (MOOT)
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 3:17 PM
To: McCaw, David (MOOT)
Cc: Pax, Dave (MDOT)
Subject: RE: Upcoming project notification
Thought that might !lave been the same intersection. Even though we were already planning this project, the inference
will be made. No specifics necessary right now, but I'd expect this one to prompt some media calls.
from: McCaw, David (MOO I)
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 3:09 PM
To: Lake, James (MOOT)
Cc: Pax, Dave (MOOT)
Subject: Re: Upcoming project notification
Unfortunately yes. I can get you more specifics but the crashes are centerline cross, head-on type crashes. There was a
recent double fatal (after this project was already let). The thought being additional friction would prevent future crossovers.

On Aug 5, 2015, at 2:58 PM, Lake, James (MOOT) <LakeJl@roichigap.gov> wrote:

Thanks, Dave. Is there a crash history we're looking 10 address at this location?
From: McCaw, David (MOOT)
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 11:03 AM
To: Lake, James (MOOT)

EXHIBIT 18

L; L

fit
1

r.1!
.1

43

un dt`

MONDAY, AUGUsT 10,2015

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: James Lake, MDOT Office of Communications, 989-732-3832, ext. 343

Lake31@miehigan.gov

High-friction surface installation on M-37 Cur\ e

starts Aug. 17 north of Buckley
COUNTY:
Grand Traverse
IIICIIWAY:
M-37
CLOSEST CITY:
Buckley
ESTIMATED spurn NG DATE:
Monday. Aug. 17, 2015
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
Friday, Aug. 21. 2015 (weather permitting)
PROJECT:
The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) will be installing a high-friction surface
material to 1,000 feet of M-37 near the Center Road intersection to improve traction for vehicles
on this curve.
Project map: littp://bit.ly/I KSV4t1p
TRAFFIC RESTRICTIONS:
This work tvill require single-lane closures under flag control.
Wilt
Download MOOT's Mi Drive traffic information app:

AV1V. 1/11.011":11.1.t4 /11d 01 I"

WWW. Mid] 11."fiVid riVe I WWW.twi ttencom/N1 ith iva n DOT t w ww. facebook_co ni/N1

n DOT

EXHIBIT 19

From:
Sent:

Widrig, Margaret (MOOT)

Tuesday, August 11, 2015 1:16 PM

To:

Liptak, Rick (MOOT); Pax, Dave (MOOT); McCaw, David (MOOT)

Cc:
Subject:

Bailey, La one (MOOT)

RE: M-37 Friction Surface

No problem. Laurie and I will forward calls to you and Pax_

From: Liptak, Rick (MOOT)
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 1:14 PM
To: Pax, Dave (MDOT); McCaw, David (MOOT)
Cc: Widrig, Margaret (MOOT)
Subject: RE: M-37 Friction Surface
Understand and agree to a point. James is the primary contact for media above the TSC, so that is why he responded
hack to Margaret's S's inquiry like he did which is appropriate. I looped you guys in only so you knew what James advise
was incase a call conies.
Margaret, any inquiries to this office should go to me or Pax, particularly with regards to questions about why we are
doing this work. I already had a call yesterday from the Cadillac Evening News on this. Primarily asking why we were
doing it.

From: Pax, Dave (MDOT)

Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 1:10 PM
To: Liptak, Rick (MOOT); McCaw, David (MOOT)
Cc: Widrig, Margaret (MOOT)
Subject: RE: M-37 Friction Surface
It is my prderence, as has been the case historically in this office, that questions regarding active construction projects
be 11311(1[0 by construction. i am not comfortable with others disseminating information about projects, contractors,
schedules, etc.
Pax.

From: Liptak, Rick (MDOT)

Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 12:51 PM
To: Pax, Dave (MOOT) <pa::1..!ii'ilitir.hip,in.r;ov>; McCaw, David (MOOT) <McCawDq!)michigrin.gov >
Cc: Widrig, Margaret (MOOT) <WiiIr
;an.gov>
Subject: FW: M-37 Friction Surface
Just so your aware.

From: Lake, James (MDOT)

Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 9:24 AM
To: Szajner, Margaret (MOOT)
Cc: Liptak, Rick (MOOT); Widrig, Margaret (MOOT)
Subject: RE: M-37 Friction Surface
1

I'd say media calls route to me first, though I will likely need to have someone from TC do interviews discussing the
engineering reason behind this fix. We should be prepared to discuss:
- There is a history of crashes at this location, and while the cause of those crashes has varied, we are making this
change to help improve traction for motorist to cut eliminate that as a cause. Our first priority is safety, and we make
changes whenever possible to help avoid crashes.
- Other crushes at this location have been attributed to excessive speed or drivers leaving their lane. Motorists play a
significant role and have a shared responsibility for safety on every roadway.
- Re prepared to answer the question as to why we haven't changed the alignment of the curve. I know we've done that
in other locations would we consider doing that here?
Calls from the public I'd think should be handled by IC staff, like usual inquiries and complaints.

From: Szajner, Margaret (MOOT)

Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 9:08 AM

To: Lake, James (MOOT)

Cc: Liptak, Rick (MOOT); Widrig, Margaret (MOOT)

Subject: M-37 Friction Surface

James,

Just want to touch base about this. I saw the press release go out for this work. In light of the
recent fatalities in this area should any phone calls we receive be directed to you or should I
just take them here in the office?

Sincerely,

JU~argart't Szainer,
(Pronounced "Shiner")
North Region - Traverse City TSC
Traffic & Safety Engineer
2034 U5-31 South Suite
Traverse City, MI 49685
Phone: 231-941-1094 Ext 318
Toll Free: 1-888-457-6368
Fax: 231-9'11-3397
,s2Dinerin(grnichigan.gov
www.michigan.gov/MDOT
vp.vwmichvorDzov/olisp

EXHIBIT 20

JESSE L. WILLIAMS
JESSE L. WILLIAMS, PLLC
2899 Benzie Hwy P.O. Box 30
Benzonia, MI 49616-0030
231-929-8340 Office / 231-944-49 II Cellular
231-929-8341 Facsimile
Iwde fenseki1e mail , corn
October 30, 2015
To: Michigan Department of Transportation's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Coordinator
Attn: Richard E. Liptak. Manager
Sent via fax : 231-941-1512
Attn: James Lake, Communications Representative
Sent via c-mail: lakcj 1 qi1michigangov
I am hereby requesting under Michigan's FOIA the following:
1. All public records, writings, emails_ communications and invoices related to the curve
on M37 and Center Rd. in Grand Traverse County where road crews recently applied
a high friction surface on the roadway, which is a layer of epoxy and small stones.
For reference, see: UpNorthLive article: http://upnorthlive.cominews/local/mdotfix inu-dantterous-eurvc-to-improve-saletv-conditions.
2. Al! public records, writings, entails, communications and invoices regarding
Michigan's Department of Transportation looking to improve the safety conditions of
said curve on M37 since the 1980s.
3. All public records, writings, emails, communications and invoices regarding the 27
crashes including four fatalities that occurred in the vicinity of said curve on M37 that
occurred within the last five years.
4. Ali public records, writings. entails, communications and invoices regarding any
discussions or plans to realign said curve on M37 in the future.
1 am requesting that, whenever possible, all responsive materials be provided in scanned,
digital format (i.e. PDFs) and entailed to me at: jJwdelenscagmaiI.com. Any responsive
materials that cannot be provided in digital lormat can be mailed to my above address.

Thank you,

EXHIBIT 21

Liptak, Rick (MDOT)

Friday, October 30, 2015 2:11 PM
Pax, Dave (MOOT)
Re: FOIA re: M-37 curve near Center Rd. in Grand Traverse County

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Yep, auce. Rut remember we have to give him all that he is asking for. Maybe a pickup load by the time we
arc done
Have a good weekend.
Sent from my il'hone
On Oct 30, 2015, at 2:09 PM, Pax, Dave (MDOT) _Paid( michigan.mw> wrote:
Margaret just gave me a copy of the letter. It looks like it could be quite voluminous, but we should all
discuss what he's really asking for. Most of the historic stuff would be in Lansing, we would have our
project records here (e-coustruction job), and that's about it from the construction side.

From: Liptak, Rick (MOOT)

Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 7:06 PM
To: Pax, Dave (MOOT) <Paxd@michigan.gov>
Cc: Szajner, Margaret (M DOT) <SzainerM@michigan.gov; Hunt, Jeff (MOOT) <Hunti2@rnichigan.gov>;
Widrig, Margaret (MOOT) <Widrig_M@michigan.gov.; Brettschneider, Michael (MDOT)
<Brettschneiderm@michigan.gov; Dawe, Garrett (MOOT) <DaweG@michigan.gov>
Subject: Re: FOIA re: M-37 curve near Center Rd. in Grand Traverse County

Ok. I gave Mike 13 a hard copy. Can send out a scan of it on Monday.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 30, 2015, at 1:59 PM, Pax, Dave (MDOT) <Paxd(iPmiehivan.gov> wrote:
Something is funky with it. The first message you sent has a .htni file that gets me
nowhere, the rest of them have nothing but a file name for a pdf that isn't there.

From: Liptak, Rick (MOOT)

Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 12:43 PM
To: Pax, Dave (MDOT) <PaxdPmichigan.gov>
Cc: Szajner, Margaret (MOOT) <SzajnerM@enichigan.gov>; Hunt, Jeff (MOOT)
<Huntj2@michigan.gov>; Widrig, Margaret (MDOT) <1111g
lri M@rnichigan.gov>;
Brettschneider, Michael (MDOT)<Brettschneiderm@nnichigan.gov); Dawe, Garrett
(MDOT) <DaweG(Ornichigan.gov>
Subject: Re: FOIA re: M-37 curve near Center Rd. in Grand Traverse County

Did I fori4e1 to attach?

Sent from my iPhone