AARoads Forum

Does anyone know if any stimulus money is going to be used to fill in the non-freeway gaps along US-31 in Michigan?  I know work was supposed to begin on M-231 (to be built as a 2 lane road along the future US-31 freeway ROW and later converted when funds are in place-sounds really stupid to me) from I-96 to M-45 next year I believe, but I was wondering if the stimulus package would allow for it to be built as a 4 lane freeway sooner.  Also it seems like the Napier Ave to I-94 connection should be about ready to be built one way or the other.  Actually it should have been built years, if not decades ago.  The MDOT site is of absolutely no use.  They haven't updated either of these pages in years and seem to be very guarded about any kind of information about future projects in general, kind of like the military and the government giving out info about UFO sightings.  It would really be nice to get these projects completed during my lifetime.   

Quote from: leifvanderwall on March 30, 2009, 11:59:00 AM
In my opinion, the stimulus money should be used for the existing road because I-196/ US 31 in Berrien and Van Buren Counties is not in good shape. Also US 31 freeway between US 12 and the Indiana Toll Road is in terrible shape as well. As far as making US 31 a complete freeway, you might as well as name it Interstate 67. You see this is why this country has to stay out of wars. The War In Iraq has cost this country at least 3 trillion dollars if not more and the money we gave to Haliburton could have been used to make US 31 from Indianapolis to Ludington and perhaps Traverse City the new I-67 freeway. We really need freeways and roads to rebuild the economy.

Yeah, but Obama's going to spend (waste) way more than that even if he eliminates a war.  But I guess as long as he's going to spend money I hope he throws some in our direction, and I hope Granholm and our legislature get their act together, but that's probably asking for the impossible.

Apparently, they're still in an environmental study for the US-31 connection between Napier and I-94.

Quote from: Hellfighter06 on March 30, 2009, 02:47:10 PM
Apparently, they're still in an environmental study for the US-31 connection between Napier and I-94.

No, both the FSEIS and the ROD were both given in 2004.  MDOT still hasn't updated the respective web pages but they now have this announcement on the Projects Under Study page:

Environmentally Cleared Projects

The following studies have completed the environmental clearance process, but have not been identified for construction.

I-94 Rehabilitation Study / East of the I-94/I-96 interchange to west of the Conner Avenue, Detroit
M-32 Spur Bridge
M-85/Fort Street Bridge
US-31 Connection to I-94 / Napier Avenue to I-94 in Berrien County
US-131 Improvement Study in St. Joseph County

So I guess after spending millions of dollars in the planning stages there are no current plans to get this last 2 and half mile stretch completed.  Unbelievable!

The MDOT site is a total farce. Nothing but useless un-updated pages. Look at other DOT sites from neighbouring states...much much better!

Quote from: roadgeek on April 05, 2009, 10:42:33 PM
The MDOT site is a total farce. Nothing but useless un-updated pages. Look at other DOT sites from neighbouring states...much much better!

I agree!  Indiana looks like they have a real nice site.  Then again look at our surrounding state governments.  They don't seem to levy as many taxes as they do here and yet they don't seem to run up the deficits we do. 

Maybe they should turn Napier into the rest of the US-31 freeway

Quote from: Hellfighter06 on April 07, 2009, 04:50:12 PM
Maybe they should turn Napier into the rest of the US-31 freeway

It would be too disruptive.  There are businesses and residences along the stretch and it would also make for a more indirect route.  The freeway has actually been built a mile or so north of Napier Ave and I believe all the necessary parcels of land have been bought, it's just a matter of waiting for funds to come in to go ahead with the construction.  This should have been completed decades ago but these wacko environmentalists were afraid a butterfly or 2 might be inconvenienced.

Ah... I think Napier Av should be made into a freeway from the current 31 freeway to I-94 . It wouldn't be disruptive, I mean the only business the exists on that stretch is the closed down Seeyle Wright dealership and the Honda dealership.  Maybe an interchange could be built as an access to Lake Michigan College (Yore Av). Imagination does wonders. Also major repaving needs to be done on I-196 from the Coloma exit to South Haven. I really think where the debate should be is the continuing US 31 freeway from Ludington to Traverse City. I have lived in Grand Haven back in the 70s  and  it would be great for vacationers going to Manistee, Frankfort, Sleeping Bear Dunes, and Leelanau communities like Leland, Northport, and Suttons Bay to have access to a freeway. In Berrien County,  I think the Britain Rd. and Highland Rd. bridges should be removed for a future interchange with the missing part of the 31 freeway. Everytime I go under those bridges I see absolutely no traffic on the old structures.

According to the street view images (taken last year), there are only a handful of homes on Napier Ave and a Honda dealership. There's enough unoccupied property for the state to buy and complete the St. Joseph Bypass.

Quote from: Hellfighter06 on June 17, 2009, 12:34:42 AM
According to the street view images (taken last year), there are only a handful of homes on Napier Ave and a Honda dealership. There's enough unoccupied property for the state to buy and complete the St. Joseph Bypass.

Okay guys, do you realize how ridiculous and costly this would be?  The ROD was issued on Aug. 31, 2004 to connect the new US-31 freeway to I-94 at the (relocated) Bus. I-94  interchange.  Land has no doubt already been acquired within this corridor.  In fact there is a nearly mile long stub where the freeway is to continue due north of Napier Ave.  I believe they also acquired land along the original ROW that was to connect at the I-94/I-196 interchange.  But hey, let's spend some more money and force some more people out of their homes so that we can have the freeway make a 90 degree turn to the west for 2 miles, then a more than 90 degree (130 degrees?) turn back to the east for a few miles as we multiplex it with an already overcrowded I-94, then another 90 degree turn back to the north as US-31 multiplexes with I-196.  Of course the existing US-31/Napier St. interchange that was just built (at considerable expense) a few years ago would have to be demolished, redesigned and replaced as would the Napier/I-94 interchange that was just redesigned about that same time (at considerable expense), I-94 would have to have it's widening extended from Bus I-94 to at least Napier Ave and/or aux. lanes would have be built/extended, and what would become of the nearly mile long freeway stub that is sitting there waiting to continue on?  Not to mention that Napier Ave itself was just rebuilt out to 5 lanes during this period.  Yeah, lets spend some more money and redo it again.  Michigan has all kinds of money to throw around.     :rolleyes:

Sorry, but extending the freeway along Napier Ave. makes no sense whatsoever.  Such a route would be extremely costly, have dangerous sharp turns and cause more congestion along an already overly congested I-94.  You'd be exiting and entering new freeway segments every couple of miles, changing directions and merging with other traffic.  The more direct the route and the less congested the route, the better, not to mention the disruption such a route would cause to the area by turning part of a through street into a limited access freeway for a few miles.

Quote from: froggie on June 17, 2009, 07:39:41 PM
As I recall, there are environmental issues why it's not planned to continue straight to 94/196, which is why the proposal to route it to 94/BUSINESS 94 is being pursued...

Right.  They found a few butterflies they didn't want to relocate.  No doubt environmental issues would pop up along the Napier Ave corridor too.  There's a car dealership along the road.  That's like the ultimate environmental evil.  :D

Quote from: froggie on June 18, 2009, 07:23:56 AM
You laugh at it, but you may not be far from the truth, depending on how much ground pollution has occured at that dealership.

Yeah, I was being serious.

Right now I'm betting that the entire US-31 freeway in Indiana from I-465 to US-20 just south of South Bend will be completed before work is even started on that 2.5 mile gap between Napier Ave and BUS I-94.  Anyone want to take me up on it?  :spin:

Considering it took many years to complete the I-69 and I-696 freeways in Michigan , you would probably win that bet. But do you really think Indiana is in a big hurry to convert US 31 to an interstate corridor? I think I-65 swerved towards Chicago because the feds did not think Kokomo, Rochester, the South Bend-Elkhart-Mishawka triplex, BH-St. Joesph, Holland, and Muskegon were not really worth a major 2di.

Using I-65-I-94 towards Benton Harbor is only 30-so miles longer than US 31. But US 31 is already a divided highway, and I guess it's a pretty fast route, depending on traffic signals.

Quote from: leifvanderwall on September 25, 2009, 04:11:39 PM
Considering it took many years to complete the I-69 and I-696 freeways in Michigan , you would probably win that bet. But do you really think Indiana is in a big hurry to convert US 31 to an interstate corridor? I think I-65 swerved towards Chicago because the feds did not think Kokomo, Rochester, the South Bend-Elkhart-Mishawka triplex, BH-St. Joesph, Holland, and Muskegon were not really worth a major 2di.

Uh, they're working furiously on constructing bypasses from South Bend to Plymouth and around Kokomo with construction from I-465 to SR 38 to begin in a year or so.  Much of the rest of the current alignment can easily be converted to an interstate grade freeway and plans are in the works to do so.

Quote from: Chris on September 25, 2009, 04:57:22 PM
Using I-65-I-94 towards Benton Harbor is only 30-so miles longer than US 31. But US 31 is already a divided highway, and I guess it's a pretty fast route, depending on traffic signals.

It might only be 30 some miles longer, but I-94 gets very congested throughout this entire corridor.  US-31 gets very congested thru Kokomo and north of I-465 and there really should be an Interstate running between Indianapolis and South Bend.  So turning the entire US-31 corridor into a freeway is the right thing to do.

Awright!!!! But Indiana is going to have a heckuva fight on its hands getting the I-67 moniker  because I guy named Murtha wants it in Pennsylvania

Quote from: leifvanderwall on September 25, 2009, 07:36:58 PM
Awright!!!! But Indiana is going to have a heckuva fight on its hands getting the I-67 moniker  because I guy named Murtha wants it in Pennsylvania

The only way they're going to get the I-67 designation is if they cheat and write it into another bill like they did with I-99.  Somebody needs to teach these Pennsylvania politicians how to count.  :happy:

Quote from: Terry Shea on September 25, 2009, 07:45:18 PM
Somebody needs to teach these Pennsylvania politicians how to count.  :happy:

Agreed.

But, there is one thing they do know how to count:

MONEY!  :pan:

I just saw an article that states the small gap in US 31 at I-94 will be filled soon, the enviromental issues have been resolved and the money is there to build it, it's on MDOTs 5 yr plan too. 

http://www.moodyonthemarket.com/Funding-to-Complete-US-31-Finally-Booked/22801825

Finally! Though it's too bad it can't connect directly into the I-94/I-196 interchange.

So they will build this as a freeway?

The last info I'm aware (circa about 2011 or so) of shows a full cloverleaf interchange, with C/D lanes on I-94, being built more or less on the footprint of the Biz 94-I-94 interchange south of the I-196 split.  Biz 94 will head west as it does currently, with US 31 heading ESE before turning south to the north end of the existing 31 freeway. 

I'm sure a lot of posters (myself included) would like to see a flyover from west 94 (or even an extended ramp from 196 west) to south 31, but apparently the budget isn't there to do that; from the limited info I've read, it was difficult enough for MI to scrape together the money to do the extension/interchange at all. 

Quote from: mvak36 on July 06, 2016, 04:32:29 PM
So they will build this as a freeway?

Yes, it will be built as a freeway. the preferred alternative has already been chosen. Here is the link to the 2011 study:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Section_3_96026_7.0_Alternatives_Considered.pdf

Great news!! I just wonder how much Indiana's rebuild of US 31 had to play in their decision.

Somehow, I feel skeptical instead of relieved. I'll believe it when I see it built.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 06, 2016, 08:12:37 PM
Somehow, I feel skeptical instead of relieved. I'll believe it when I see it built.

Race you with the Gordie Howe bridge.

And from what I can tell, there is nothing to say that as time passes and traffic warrants that a direct free-flowing flyover ramp for the southbound US 31 'through' turn can't be added at some time in the future.

OTOH, I'm kind of wondering about the long-term traffic projections on the business route and whether or not such a connection might be a bit of overkill.

I note, too, in the article a credit to a familiar name for the attached map.

Mike

Quote from: I-39 on July 06, 2016, 03:33:02 PM
Finally! Though it's too bad it can't connect directly into the I-94/I-196 interchange.

Thinking it through, the utility of a direct feed into I-196 is overall not as good as the final proposal in that it would cause US 31 to essentially 'miss' the Benton Harbor/Saint Joseph area.  It is also the most expensive of the alternatives.

Mike

In the article I just read earlier MDOT has divided the project into three phases. The first is to widen I-94 between I-196 and BL I-94. The second is to rebuild the BL I-94 interchange to accommodate the US 31 connection. Only the third phase actually involves completing the US 31 freeway to I-94. Also, MDOT has only identified funding for the first two phases, construction won't start until 2021, and it's a draft plan. As others have said, I'll believe it when I see it, but this is at least cause for some cautious optimism.

I'll believe it when they're laying pavement on the new alignment.  :-D

Quote from: bulldog1979 on July 06, 2016, 10:03:34 PM
In the article I just read earlier MDOT has divided the project into three phases. The first is to widen I-94 between I-196 and BL I-94. The second is to rebuild the BL I-94 interchange to accommodate the US 31 connection. Only the third phase actually involves completing the US 31 freeway to I-94. Also, MDOT has only identified funding for the first two phases, construction won't start until 2021, and it's a draft plan. As others have said, I'll believe it when I see it, but this is at least cause for some cautious optimism.

Quenticental Michigan, spend almost nothing on their roads and take 300 yrs to do anything remotely relevant.  the Holland gap will be completed in 2316 at this rate  :-D

I think they'll wait to do a flyover until when/if US 31 is designated as I-67 from Benton Harbor to Indianapolis (which will be years away, if ever, as Indiana still has a long way to go in upgrading US 31 to full freeway between South Bend and Indianapolis).

Give up on the Interstate 67 on the US 31 corridor dream. It is not going to happen!

Quote from: JREwing78 on July 06, 2016, 10:07:17 PM
I'll believe it when they're laying pavement on the new alignment.  :-D

I'll believe it when I am driving on it!

Am I missing something? I don't see any gap in US 31 either on Apple Maps or on Wikipedia. I also don't remember US 31 being listed as one of the discontinuous US routes (2, 9, 10, 422). Where is US 31 discontinuous?

Quote from: 1 on July 07, 2016, 06:55:45 PM
Am I missing something? I don't see any gap in US 31 either on Apple Maps or on Wikipedia. I also don't remember US 31 being listed as one of the discontinuous US routes (2, 9, 10, 422). Where is US 31 discontinuous?

Technically there isn't a gap in the route. But there is a freeway gap. US 31 just south of I-94 uses E Napier Ave to connect the US 31 freeway with I-94

the holland gap will never be filled

Big mistake to connect it to Exit 33. Should be a direct tie-in to I-196 at I-94's Exit 34. That route had been approved back in 1981, environmental clearances and everything. Thirty. Five. Years. Ago.

Ridiculous it's taken this long to build it, but it's even more ridiculous that it's being built along this alternate route. US-31 will have a nightmare routing for 3 miles over some stupid butterfly.

Quote from: blcamp on July 13, 2016, 08:10:32 AM
Big mistake to connect it to Exit 33. Should be a direct tie-in to I-196 at I-94's Exit 34. That route had been approved back in 1981, environmental clearances and everything. Thirty. Five. Years. Ago.

Ridiculous it's taken this long to build it, but it's even more ridiculous that it's being built along this alternate route. US-31 will have a nightmare routing for 3 miles over some stupid butterfly.

I think we all prefer a direct connection, but it's no worse than the I-94/US 127 concurrency or US 23/M-14.

My knee-jerk reaction was that a direct connection to 196 would be better, but reading the report (
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Section_3_96026_7.0_Alternatives_Considered.pdf (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Section_3_96026_7.0_Alternatives_Considered.pdf)) convinced me that they've selected the right route. There are many factors recommending the hook-up with Main Street, not least of which is the improved access to Benton Harbor and St. Joseph for travelers from the south. The inconvenience to through travelers of this routing is minimal, and a great improvement on current Napier Ave. connection.

While the direct connect to I-196 is preferred for me, it makes sense to bend the road to I-94 to finish the connection. This option allows drivers to have a "keep straight" option for heading into Benton Harbor or St. Joseph (via existing BL 94) and allows engineers to use existing high speed freeway to fill the gap (via I-94). I hope this does become a reality in my lifetime, and I would love to make the nonstop trek from Indianapolis to Grand Rapids using the link.

One thing they should do if/when the time comes to build the ramps connecting US 31 to I-94/BL 94 is to make sure they build high speed ramps for the "same direction" movements (in other words, a flyover ramp from I-94 west to US 31 South and a high speed link from US 31 North to I-94 East). I'll wait to see what happens.

I personally think hooking it up to Main St (Exit 33) is the best option. I just hope that an interstate to interstate interchange is put in and not a partial cloverleaf (or something else stupid) with stop lights.

EDIT: It looks like it is going to be a cloverleaf interchange which is awesome. I know most of you are cloverleaf haters, but I have no problem with them. They're also the cheapest interchange that allows traffic to constantly move.

Quote from: US 41 on July 15, 2016, 01:01:06 AM
I personally think hooking it up to Main St (Exit 33) is the best option. I just hope that an interstate to interstate interchange is put in and not a partial cloverleaf (or something else stupid) with stop lights.

EDIT: It looks like it is going to be a cloverleaf interchange which is awesome. I know most of you are cloverleaf haters, but I have no problem with them. They're also the cheapest interchange that allows traffic to constantly move.

i think cloverleaves are good in rural areas only.

Quote from: silverback1065 on July 15, 2016, 07:27:48 AM

Quote from: US 41 on July 15, 2016, 01:01:06 AM
I personally think hooking it up to Main St (Exit 33) is the best option. I just hope that an interstate to interstate interchange is put in and not a partial cloverleaf (or something else stupid) with stop lights.

EDIT: It looks like it is going to be a cloverleaf interchange which is awesome. I know most of you are cloverleaf haters, but I have no problem with them. They're also the cheapest interchange that allows traffic to constantly move.

i think cloverleaves are good in rural areas only.

Cloverleaves work in urban areas in some circumstances. See NJ 4 at NJ 93.

Quote from: Alps on July 15, 2016, 06:35:20 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on July 15, 2016, 07:27:48 AM

Quote from: US 41 on July 15, 2016, 01:01:06 AM
I personally think hooking it up to Main St (Exit 33) is the best option. I just hope that an interstate to interstate interchange is put in and not a partial cloverleaf (or something else stupid) with stop lights.

EDIT: It looks like it is going to be a cloverleaf interchange which is awesome. I know most of you are cloverleaf haters, but I have no problem with them. They're also the cheapest interchange that allows traffic to constantly move.

i think cloverleaves are good in rural areas only.

Cloverleaves work in urban areas in some circumstances. See NJ 4 at NJ 93.

Or M-6 at US 131, although that also has C-D lanes for both freeways to help out.

Quote from: silverback1065 on July 10, 2016, 04:37:32 PM
the holland gap will never be filled

The Holland gap will be a bypass, M231.  Plans do call for a freeway, at some point from I-96 to I-196.  Will take years to get that funding.

Quote from: northernmi on August 05, 2016, 11:17:37 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on July 10, 2016, 04:37:32 PM
the holland gap will never be filled

The Holland gap will be a bypass, M231.  Plans do call for a freeway, at some point from I-96 to I-196.  Will take years to get that funding.

300 Years to be exact  :-D

Wow what a huge waste of money.  That "gap" is nothing.  Put in a roundabout and call it a day.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 05, 2016, 01:28:06 PM
Wow what a huge waste of money.  That "gap" is nothing.  Put in a roundabout and call it a day.

The gap never should have been there in the first place.  Actually building a roundabout would be a huge waste of money.

I see the gap as smart use of money.  MI doesn't have money to throw around.

it would make absolutely no sense to slap a roundabout there.  filling the gap is necessary, and something the area has been begging for for years.  Michigan just sucks at infrastructure.

Quote from: northernmi on August 05, 2016, 11:17:37 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on July 10, 2016, 04:37:32 PM
the holland gap will never be filled

The Holland gap will be a bypass, M231.  Plans do call for a freeway, at some point from I-96 to I-196.  Will take years to get that funding.

Existing M-231 would also have to be upgraded as there's only one two-lane bridge over the Grand River. I do think existing US-31 through the Holland area was planned out well north of Chicago Drive with limited access (unlike Grand Haven). The only thing I could see there in my lifetime is a connection from M-231's southern end to existing US-31 around Port Sheldon St (and maybe the I-96/US-31 interchange improved slightly)

Quote from: ftballfan on September 21, 2016, 09:24:35 PM

Quote from: northernmi on August 05, 2016, 11:17:37 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on July 10, 2016, 04:37:32 PM
the holland gap will never be filled

The Holland gap will be a bypass, M231.  Plans do call for a freeway, at some point from I-96 to I-196.  Will take years to get that funding.

Existing M-231 would also have to be upgraded as there's only one two-lane bridge over the Grand River. I do think existing US-31 through the Holland area was planned out well north of Chicago Drive with limited access (unlike Grand Haven). The only thing I could see there in my lifetime is a connection from M-231's southern end to existing US-31 around Port Sheldon St (and maybe the I-96/US-31 interchange improved slightly)

The actual plan, if MDOT had the funding, would be to build a complete highway around Holland and Grand Haven.  M231 is just a small sliver to get it started.  Click on the link below

http://www.michiganhighways.org/maps/US-31Freeway_OttawaAlt_MDOT.gif

Excuse my ignorance, but what gap? I drove through there on US 31 last July and I don't recall a gap. I'm not sure what you're even referencing when I look on Google Maps.

Quote from: US 41 on October 28, 2016, 03:39:54 PM
Excuse my ignorance, but what gap? I drove through there on US 31 last July and I don't recall a gap. I'm not sure what you're even referencing when I look on Google Maps.

The thread title should say "US 31 Freeway Gap" since that is what it is talking about.  Not an actual gap in the signed route.

I think US 31 should have been completed to Interstate 94 long ago. Does the needs of a butterfly trump the needs to complete a needed freeway connection?

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 28, 2016, 04:23:07 PM
I think US 31 should have been completed to Interstate 94 long ago. Does the needs of a butterfly trump the needs to complete a needed freeway connection?

Heresy!   :bigass:

Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 28, 2016, 04:14:45 PM

Quote from: US 41 on October 28, 2016, 03:39:54 PM
Excuse my ignorance, but what gap? I drove through there on US 31 last July and I don't recall a gap. I'm not sure what you're even referencing when I look on Google Maps.

The thread title should say "US 31 Freeway Gap" since that is what it is talking about.  Not an actual gap in the signed route.

Got it. I was thinking that the Holland Gap and the freeway gap were two different gaps.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 28, 2016, 04:23:07 PM
I think US 31 should have been completed to Interstate 94 long ago. Does the needs of a butterfly trump the needs to complete a needed freeway connection?

apparently yes.

All this passion for cutting out two minutes of drive time between Grand Rapids and South Bend.  :meh:

Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 29, 2016, 11:54:31 AM
All this passion for cutting out two minutes of drive time between Grand Rapids and South Bend.  :meh:

And if the same freeway gap existed in any other major highway it would have been taken care of decades ago.

Quote from: Terry Shea on October 30, 2016, 10:23:51 AM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 29, 2016, 11:54:31 AM
All this passion for cutting out two minutes of drive time between Grand Rapids and South Bend.  :meh:

And if the same freeway gap existed in any other major highway it would have been taken care of decades ago.

it takes michigan decades to even ask themselves if they need to upgrade something.

Pick the best option you like for US-31 gap, to either I-94 or to I-94 / I-196.   Maybe they can talk about it for another 10 years.

http://www.michiganhighways.org/maps/US-31Freeway_BerrienAlts.pdf

I prefer PA-4 but wouldn't mind PA-3.  Definitely not PA-1.  I thought the Napier Ave interchange was built years ago?

13 years ago, if I'm not mistaken. At any rate, the sooner the gap between Napier Ave. and Interstate 94 is filled, the better.

i thought they picked one of the alignments connecting it to bus 94?

^^ Yes the preferred route was chosen in 2011, per this posting upthread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18276.msg2156336#msg2156336 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18276.msg2156336#msg2156336). A discussion of the alternatives follows that posting. I've not heard that any change is imminent, but feel free to debate again anyway.

https://wsbt.com/news/local/us-department-of-transportation-awards-m-dot-grant-to-finish-us-31-in-berrien-county

QuoteBERRIEN COUNTY – A major update Thursday on a project on one of the area's busiest roadways.

The U.S. Department of Transportation awarding M-DOT a $20 million grant to finish U.S. 31 in Berrien County.

The money will pay to extend the highway from Napier Avenue to I-94, a stretch of approximately two miles.

Work on the project could begin as soon as 2021.

Quote from: mvak36 on December 06, 2018, 06:04:07 PM
https://wsbt.com/news/local/us-department-of-transportation-awards-m-dot-grant-to-finish-us-31-in-berrien-county

QuoteBERRIEN COUNTY – A major update Thursday on a project on one of the area's busiest roadways.

The U.S. Department of Transportation awarding M-DOT a $20 million grant to finish U.S. 31 in Berrien County.

The money will pay to extend the highway from Napier Avenue to I-94, a stretch of approximately two miles.

Work on the project could begin as soon as 2021.

This, and the grant addressing the I-49 missing gap in AR/MO mentioned in another thread, is among the better news items to come down the pike in a long time in this era of incomplete corridors.  Glad to see such discrepancies prioritized for once! 

Quote from: sparker on December 06, 2018, 06:59:24 PM

Quote from: mvak36 on December 06, 2018, 06:04:07 PM
https://wsbt.com/news/local/us-department-of-transportation-awards-m-dot-grant-to-finish-us-31-in-berrien-county

QuoteBERRIEN COUNTY – A major update Thursday on a project on one of the area's busiest roadways.

The U.S. Department of Transportation awarding M-DOT a $20 million grant to finish U.S. 31 in Berrien County.

The money will pay to extend the highway from Napier Avenue to I-94, a stretch of approximately two miles.

Work on the project could begin as soon as 2021.

This, and the grant addressing the I-49 missing gap in AR/MO mentioned in another thread, is among the better news items to come down the pike in a long time in this era of incomplete corridors.  Glad to see such discrepancies prioritized for once!

Yes, today was really good news. There were a lot of important Interstate/US highway projects that got funding today. I'm looking forward to the next round of FASTLANE grants being awarded next year so we can see what major projects they will fund.


iPhone

Quote from: mvak36 on December 06, 2018, 07:27:30 PM
Yes, today was really good news. There were a lot of important Interstate/US highway projects that got funding today. I'm looking forward to the next round of FASTLANE grants being awarded next year so we can see what major projects they will fund.
iPhone

If anyone would have a complete list of the grants awarded in this round, it would be greatly appreciated if it were posted -- or at least a link supplied.  Might be some more decent tidbits in that particular litany!

Quote from: sparker on December 07, 2018, 02:01:49 AM

Quote from: mvak36 on December 06, 2018, 07:27:30 PM
Yes, today was really good news. There were a lot of important Interstate/US highway projects that got funding today. I'm looking forward to the next round of FASTLANE grants being awarded next year so we can see what major projects they will fund.
iPhone

If anyone would have a complete list of the grants awarded in this round, it would be greatly appreciated if it were posted -- or at least a link supplied.  Might be some more decent tidbits in that particular litany!

I have looked on the BUILD (https://www.transportation.gov/BUILDgrants) grant's website and haven't seen anything yet. Much like the INFRA grants back in June, all the states that won the grants are doing the announcements first.

https://www.heraldpalladium.com/news/local/a-long-road-ahead/article_30d9fee9-37c4-5fd9-aaae-826425a71798.html

QuoteMDOT spokesman Nick Schirripa said his agency will still need to chip in $10 million to complete the project. MDOT had already budgeted $60 million to rebuild the I-94 interchange. Most of the right-of-ways have been secured.

"We will find this money,"  he said in a phone interview Thursday.

The total cost will likely not exceed $100 million, Schirripa said.

He said the $20 million federal grant does not change the project schedule. MDOT anticipates completing the project in 2022. It will be done by 2023 at the latest, he said.

According to a 2016 MDOT report, construction for the interchange project will begin in the department's 2021 fiscal year.

There is no gap in US-31. There is just a gap between two freeways in the area. US-31 is signed on Napier Ave and I-94.

Quote from: Flint1979 on December 07, 2018, 10:52:31 AM
There is no gap in US-31. There is just a gap between two freeways in the area. US-31 is signed on Napier Ave and I-94.

that's what they mean. and there's another gap just north of that

Quote from: silverback1065 on December 07, 2018, 11:09:29 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on December 07, 2018, 10:52:31 AM
There is no gap in US-31. There is just a gap between two freeways in the area. US-31 is signed on Napier Ave and I-94.

that's what they mean. and there's another gap just north of that

US-31 all connects together from what I know. I've traveled that area quite often and US-31 runs with I-196 until exit 44. I know coming southbound on I-196 the westbound I-94 signs have US-31 on it and have Chicago and Niles for control cities. I almost think it's fine the way it is.

Quote from: Flint1979 on December 07, 2018, 12:18:31 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on December 07, 2018, 11:09:29 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on December 07, 2018, 10:52:31 AM
There is no gap in US-31. There is just a gap between two freeways in the area. US-31 is signed on Napier Ave and I-94.

that's what they mean. and there's another gap just north of that

US-31 all connects together from what I know. I've traveled that area quite often and US-31 runs with I-196 until exit 44. I know coming southbound on I-196 the westbound I-94 signs have US-31 on it and have Chicago and Niles for control cities. I almost think it's fine the way it is.

you're correct it's continuous, we're just saying there are gaps in the freeway portions of it, the title of the thread is a bit wrong i guess. 

I hope the US 31 gap is really built this time. No more excuses.

I was hoping that if they finished the freeway gap between Napier Avenue and I-196 that they could build a new I-67 to Indianapolis and run it up to Grand Rapids eliminating I-196 but I haven't heard anything regarding that in awhile. I-67 would be the only number you could use for a 2-di there.

There will be no Interstate 67. Not in Indiana, not in Michigan, not in Kentucky, nowhere.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2018, 04:41:43 PM
There will be no Interstate 67. Not in Indiana, not in Michigan, not in Kentucky, nowhere.

You never know what North Carolina will do.

Quote from: sparker on December 07, 2018, 02:01:49 AM

Quote from: mvak36 on December 06, 2018, 07:27:30 PM
Yes, today was really good news. There were a lot of important Interstate/US highway projects that got funding today. I'm looking forward to the next round of FASTLANE grants being awarded next year so we can see what major projects they will fund.
iPhone

If anyone would have a complete list of the grants awarded in this round, it would be greatly appreciated if it were posted -- or at least a link supplied.  Might be some more decent tidbits in that particular litany!

Here you go: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/policy-initiatives/327856/build-2018-fact-sheets.pdf

A thread specifically for those other BUILD grants (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24069.0).

Quote from: 1 on December 07, 2018, 10:36:29 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2018, 04:41:43 PM
There will be no Interstate 67. Not in Indiana, not in Michigan, not in Kentucky, nowhere.

You never know what North Carolina will do.

+1

Quote from: skluth on December 12, 2018, 12:58:21 PM

Quote from: 1 on December 07, 2018, 10:36:29 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2018, 04:41:43 PM
There will be no Interstate 67. Not in Indiana, not in Michigan, not in Kentucky, nowhere.

You never know what North Carolina will do.

+1

But we all can dream, right? I'll be glad when the missing link opens to traffic!

Quote from: Henry on December 12, 2018, 02:56:58 PM

Quote from: skluth on December 12, 2018, 12:58:21 PM

Quote from: 1 on December 07, 2018, 10:36:29 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2018, 04:41:43 PM
There will be no Interstate 67. Not in Indiana, not in Michigan, not in Kentucky, nowhere.

You never know what North Carolina will do.

+1

But we all can dream, right? I'll be glad when the missing link opens to traffic!

I-67 won't likely happen within the next 10 years; while some of the US 31 segments in IN are slated for upgrade (primarily Indy-Kokomo) beyond what's on the ground currently, quite a bit of what's left -- Kokomo north to US 24 and the substandard US 31/20 interchange south of South Bend -- is likely to remain as is for some time.  It would take a real push by regional backers to get a comprehensive upgrade of the US 31 corridor to Interstate standards; and such a proposal probably wouldn't even get an audience with INDOT at least until Segment 6 of I-69 was completed (like most DOT's, their plate has limited capacity at any given time!).  But OTOH, this MI project does increase the viability of a potential Indy-Grand Rapids corridor; for a while, it was looking like that short gap would never be filled.  Maybe by the late 2020's or early 2030's the concept of I-67 might be revisited; by that time it'll be freeway (albeit with that one substandard IN cloverleaf) all the way from US 30 to Benton Harbor and likely from I-465 north to the north end of Kokomo.  Tackling the intervening section would be like any other divided rural highway with private access -- problematic but not impossible. 

Quote from: skluth on December 12, 2018, 12:58:21 PM

Quote from: 1 on December 07, 2018, 10:36:29 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2018, 04:41:43 PM
There will be no Interstate 67. Not in Indiana, not in Michigan, not in Kentucky, nowhere.

You never know what North Carolina will do.

+1

FWIW, North Carolina's three BUILD grants have nothing to do with interstate or freeway projects. One project will replace inadequate bridges on rural highways, one will build a bikeway/greenway in Hickory, and one will further develop the new Amtrak station in Raleigh.

Quote from: wdcrft63 on December 12, 2018, 06:25:31 PM

Quote from: skluth on December 12, 2018, 12:58:21 PM

Quote from: 1 on December 07, 2018, 10:36:29 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2018, 04:41:43 PM
There will be no Interstate 67. Not in Indiana, not in Michigan, not in Kentucky, nowhere.

You never know what North Carolina will do.

+1

FWIW, North Carolina's three BUILD grants have nothing to do with interstate or freeway projects. One project will replace inadequate bridges on rural highways, one will build a bikeway/greenway in Hickory, and one will further develop the new Amtrak station in Raleigh.

Were any of NC's grant applications specifically directed to one of their future Interstate projects?  It would seem that those are chugging along quite well even without one or more of these grants; in fact the three selections underscore the notion that NC isn't just about expanding their in-state Interstate network but that their transportation program is a bit more versatile than that -- which might allay to some degree criticism of their priorities.

Quote from: sparker on December 12, 2018, 08:44:14 PM

Quote from: wdcrft63 on December 12, 2018, 06:25:31 PM

Quote from: skluth on December 12, 2018, 12:58:21 PM

Quote from: 1 on December 07, 2018, 10:36:29 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2018, 04:41:43 PM
There will be no Interstate 67. Not in Indiana, not in Michigan, not in Kentucky, nowhere.

You never know what North Carolina will do.

+1

FWIW, North Carolina's three BUILD grants have nothing to do with interstate or freeway projects. One project will replace inadequate bridges on rural highways, one will build a bikeway/greenway in Hickory, and one will further develop the new Amtrak station in Raleigh.

Were any of NC's grant applications specifically directed to one of their future Interstate projects?  It would seem that those are chugging along quite well even without one or more of these grants; in fact the three selections underscore the notion that NC isn't just about expanding their in-state Interstate network but that their transportation program is a bit more versatile than that -- which might allay to some degree criticism of their priorities.

This is really off subject for this forum, but NCDOT does have an active bikeway program and a major division, NCRail, for rail transportation. NCRail has spent plenty on upgrading tracks between Raleigh and Charlotte and rebuilding or upgrading all the stations along that route; it operates four round trips daily and plans to add a fifth next year, I believe. You can read about the rail operation at https://www.ncbytrain.org/.

^^^^^^^^
The state-owned North Carolina Railroad extends in a broad arc from Charlotte up to Greensboro essentially following I-85, then over to Durham and Raleigh following I-40, and finally east to Morehead City along US 70/future I-42.  The part of the arc from Charlotte over to Selma hosts both in-state and Amtrak services, while the entire length is also leased to NS for freight movement.  NS dispatches, operates, and maintains the entire line, while Amtrak provides the crews for the passenger movements (similar to the arrangements elsewhere between Amtrak and its host railroads).  While well-subsidized by NC (like with the in-state "Amtrak California" services in that state, the state agency actually owns the locomotives and the passenger cars), the "Carolina" service corridor seems to be one of the more successful regional passenger-rail operations in both financial and service terms. 

P.S.:  now that we've exhausted the "compound digression" from the OP, perhaps we can circle back to at least MI/IN-related topics.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2018, 04:41:43 PM
There will be no Interstate 67. Not in Indiana, not in Michigan, not in Kentucky, nowhere.

Better chance with that then WI-29 becoming an interstate.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 07, 2018, 04:41:43 PM
There will be no Interstate 67. Not in Indiana, not in Michigan, not in Kentucky, nowhere.

Do you have a crystal ball saying so or something? Because there is no way you can say that definitely. I agree its a moot point until US 31 is a full freeway between South Bend and Indianapolis, which will be quite a while, but you cannot state that I-67 will never ever happen. No one here knows.

Quote from: Terry Shea on September 25, 2009, 07:45:18 PM

Quote from: leifvanderwall on September 25, 2009, 07:36:58 PM
Awright!!!! But Indiana is going to have a heckuva fight on its hands getting the I-67 moniker  because I guy named Murtha wants it in Pennsylvania

The only way they're going to get the I-67 designation is if they cheat and write it into another bill like they did with I-99.  Somebody needs to teach these Pennsylvania politicians how to count.  :happy:

Not to mention that where PA wants I-67 along US 219 cannot happen as long as every new freeway alignment has interchanges with at grade intersections like the diamond interchange proposed at I-86 in Salamanca, NY

Quote from: Terry Shea on March 30, 2009, 01:47:36 PM

Quote from: leifvanderwall on March 30, 2009, 11:59:00 AM
In my opinion, the stimulus money should be used for the existing road because I-196/ US 31 in Berrien and Van Buren Counties is not in good shape. Also US 31 freeway between US 12 and the Indiana Toll Road is in terrible shape as well. As far as making US 31 a complete freeway, you might as well as name it Interstate 67. You see this is why this country has to stay out of wars. The War In Iraq has cost this country at least 3 trillion dollars if not more and the money we gave to Haliburton could have been used to make US 31 from Indianapolis to Ludington and perhaps Traverse City the new I-67 freeway. We really need freeways and roads to rebuild the economy.

Yeah, but Obama's going to spend (waste) way more than that even if he eliminates a war.  But I guess as long as he's going to spend money I hope he throws some in our direction, and I hope Granholm and our legislature get their act together, but that's probably asking for the impossible.

I-67 could follow US 31 through Indiana then take a jog eastward and use the US 131 freeway. 131 seems like a more important freeway to include into the interstate system

Quote from: I94RoadRunner on February 10, 2020, 11:11:03 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on March 30, 2009, 01:47:36 PM

Quote from: leifvanderwall on March 30, 2009, 11:59:00 AM
In my opinion, the stimulus money should be used for the existing road because I-196/ US 31 in Berrien and Van Buren Counties is not in good shape. Also US 31 freeway between US 12 and the Indiana Toll Road is in terrible shape as well. As far as making US 31 a complete freeway, you might as well as name it Interstate 67. You see this is why this country has to stay out of wars. The War In Iraq has cost this country at least 3 trillion dollars if not more and the money we gave to Haliburton could have been used to make US 31 from Indianapolis to Ludington and perhaps Traverse City the new I-67 freeway. We really need freeways and roads to rebuild the economy.

Yeah, but Obama's going to spend (waste) way more than that even if he eliminates a war.  But I guess as long as he's going to spend money I hope he throws some in our direction, and I hope Granholm and our legislature get their act together, but that's probably asking for the impossible.

I-67 could follow US 31 through Indiana then take a jog eastward and use the US 131 freeway. 131 seems like a more important freeway to include into the interstate system

Indiana has plans to remove the remaining traffic lights and railroad crossings on US 31 north of Indy to make the entire route free flowing, but there are no plans to make it all freeway.  Any potential interstate designation would have to end at US 30 near Plymouth.

I'm also not aware of any plans to convert US 131 to freeway south of Schoolcraft so I don't know how that would tie in either.

The US 31 freeway in southwestern Michigan should have been completed to Interstate 94 well before now. Was the butterfly concern legitimate, or was it an excuse to keep the freeway from being constructed?

Quote from: Terry Shea on September 25, 2009, 07:45:18 PM

Quote from: leifvanderwall on September 25, 2009, 07:36:58 PM
Awright!!!! But Indiana is going to have a heckuva fight on its hands getting the I-67 moniker  because I guy named Murtha wants it in Pennsylvania

The only way they're going to get the I-67 designation is if they cheat and write it into another bill like they did with I-99.  Somebody needs to teach these Pennsylvania politicians how to count.  :happy:

Last thing Pennsylvania needs is another interstate way out of place. If there is ever going to be an I-67 it should be in Indiana and Michigan. If they want US 219 as an interstate push for a 3 digit number.

Quote from: dvferyance on February 12, 2020, 06:47:01 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on September 25, 2009, 07:45:18 PM

Quote from: leifvanderwall on September 25, 2009, 07:36:58 PM
Awright!!!! But Indiana is going to have a heckuva fight on its hands getting the I-67 moniker  because I guy named Murtha wants it in Pennsylvania

The only way they're going to get the I-67 designation is if they cheat and write it into another bill like they did with I-99.  Somebody needs to teach these Pennsylvania politicians how to count.  :happy:

Last thing Pennsylvania needs is another interstate way out of place. If there is ever going to be an I-67 it should be in Indiana and Michigan. If they want US 219 as an interstate push for a 3 digit number.

Wow! Is 10 years 4 months the longest gap to get a topic bump here?

(https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_I-94-US31_RollPlot_FullLayout_656001_7.pdf)

https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9621_11008_92734---,00.html

It's happening.

Quote from: aboges26 on February 18, 2020, 08:30:24 PM
(https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_I-94-US31_RollPlot_FullLayout_656001_7.pdf)

https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9621_11008_92734---,00.html

It's happening.

Wow!  MDOT actually updated their website.  Did they get some new blood?

They're not delaying this any further. In two years, one of the most talked about freeway gaps will be filled.

Full freeway from Plymouth to Grand Rapids. It'll be nice when it is completed.

Quote from: nwi_navigator_1181 on February 18, 2020, 11:53:40 PM
They're not delaying this any further. In two years, one of the most talked about freeway gaps will be filled.

Full freeway from Plymouth to Grand Rapids. It'll be nice when it is completed.

Slightly disingenuous to call it a full freeway between those points due to the interchange design, but free-flowing nonetheless and it is a good thing!

Quote from: aboges26 on February 19, 2020, 03:54:10 PM

Quote from: nwi_navigator_1181 on February 18, 2020, 11:53:40 PM
They're not delaying this any further. In two years, one of the most talked about freeway gaps will be filled.

Full freeway from Plymouth to Grand Rapids. It'll be nice when it is completed.

Slightly disingenuous to call it a full freeway between those points due to the interchange design, but free-flowing nonetheless and it is a good thing!

Full freeway with a southbound TOTSO.

Also, the OpenStreetMap proposal lines still show a full cloverleaf for the I-94/I-94BL/US-31 interchange.

Quote from: X99 on February 19, 2020, 08:13:00 PM

Quote from: aboges26 on February 19, 2020, 03:54:10 PM

Quote from: nwi_navigator_1181 on February 18, 2020, 11:53:40 PM
They're not delaying this any further. In two years, one of the most talked about freeway gaps will be filled.

Full freeway from Plymouth to Grand Rapids. It'll be nice when it is completed.

Slightly disingenuous to call it a full freeway between those points due to the interchange design, but free-flowing nonetheless and it is a good thing!

Full freeway with a southbound TOTSO.

Also, the OpenStreetMap proposal lines still show a full cloverleaf for the I-94/I-94BL/US-31 interchange.

Question:  do the latest proposal schematics/maps still show C/D lanes on I-94 through the proposed US 31/BL94 cloverleaf?

Great to see this getting the go ahead  :clap:

Glad they got this going.  The earlier proposal to cap it at Napier was about as ridiculous as one could get.

I am not sure why it is important to eliminate the ramps on I-94BL and Crystal Ave. A stoplight? Really? Is the AADT on the loop (Main Street) that low? It was put there for access to SW Michigan Regional Airport (Ross Field). But if it is between a stoplight and a roundabout (the alternate) I would prefer the stoplight. I see too many accidents on roundabouts, and watching 40 foot semi-trailers negotiate them as of late has been even worse.

Still think it should have connected with I-196, but I am sure the politics of Benton Harbor and landowners didn't allow it.

Funny that they waited until I-94 was falling apart here so they could bundle the entire project as one.

Guess they did the best with what they had.

Quote from: edwaleni on February 22, 2020, 04:21:46 PM
Glad they got this going.  The earlier proposal to cap it at Napier was about as ridiculous as one could get.

I am not sure why it is important to eliminate the ramps on I-94BL and Crystal Ave. A stoplight? Really? Is the AADT on the loop (Main Street) that low? It was put there for access to SW Michigan Regional Airport (Ross Field). But if it is between a stoplight and a roundabout (the alternate) I would prefer the stoplight. I see too many accidents on roundabouts, and watching 40 foot semi-trailers negotiate them as of late has been even worse.

Still think it should have connected with I-196, but I am sure the politics of Benton Harbor and landowners didn't allow it.

Funny that they waited until I-94 was falling apart here so they could bundle the entire project as one.

Guess they did the best with what they had.

IIRC, it was an endangered species located in the wetlands south of the I-94/196 trumpet that put the kibosh on a direct connection more than Benton Harbor politics.  Still think they could conceivably have carved out room for a WB 94>SB 31 flyover, but it looks like a cookie-cutter loop.  Better than nothing, I suppose! :rolleyes:

Quote from: sparker on February 22, 2020, 04:26:50 PM

Quote from: edwaleni on February 22, 2020, 04:21:46 PM
Glad they got this going.  The earlier proposal to cap it at Napier was about as ridiculous as one could get.

I am not sure why it is important to eliminate the ramps on I-94BL and Crystal Ave. A stoplight? Really? Is the AADT on the loop (Main Street) that low? It was put there for access to SW Michigan Regional Airport (Ross Field). But if it is between a stoplight and a roundabout (the alternate) I would prefer the stoplight. I see too many accidents on roundabouts, and watching 40 foot semi-trailers negotiate them as of late has been even worse.

Still think it should have connected with I-196, but I am sure the politics of Benton Harbor and landowners didn't allow it.

Funny that they waited until I-94 was falling apart here so they could bundle the entire project as one.

Guess they did the best with what they had.

IIRC, it was an endangered species located in the wetlands south of the I-94/196 trumpet that put the kibosh on a direct connection more than Benton Harbor politics.  Still think they could conceivably have carved out room for a WB 94>SB 31 flyover, but it looks like a cookie-cutter loop.  Better than nothing, I suppose! :rolleyes:

One idea I thought they might propose was a side by side highway that ran along I-94 and I-196. Acting almost like express lanes so traffic to US-31 could segregate early and differentiate it. This would still permit access to I-94BL by all routes and not attempt to place all 3 routes on a single 4 lane ROW.

Quote from: edwaleni on February 22, 2020, 07:19:26 PM

Quote from: sparker on February 22, 2020, 04:26:50 PM

Quote from: edwaleni on February 22, 2020, 04:21:46 PM
Glad they got this going.  The earlier proposal to cap it at Napier was about as ridiculous as one could get.

I am not sure why it is important to eliminate the ramps on I-94BL and Crystal Ave. A stoplight? Really? Is the AADT on the loop (Main Street) that low? It was put there for access to SW Michigan Regional Airport (Ross Field). But if it is between a stoplight and a roundabout (the alternate) I would prefer the stoplight. I see too many accidents on roundabouts, and watching 40 foot semi-trailers negotiate them as of late has been even worse.

Still think it should have connected with I-196, but I am sure the politics of Benton Harbor and landowners didn't allow it.

Funny that they waited until I-94 was falling apart here so they could bundle the entire project as one.

Guess they did the best with what they had.

IIRC, it was an endangered species located in the wetlands south of the I-94/196 trumpet that put the kibosh on a direct connection more than Benton Harbor politics.  Still think they could conceivably have carved out room for a WB 94>SB 31 flyover, but it looks like a cookie-cutter loop.  Better than nothing, I suppose! :rolleyes:

One idea I thought they might propose was a side by side highway that ran along I-94 and I-196. Acting almost like express lanes so traffic to US-31 could segregate early and differentiate it. This would still permit access to I-94BL by all routes and not attempt to place all 3 routes on a single 4 lane ROW.

Apparently those wetlands cited as the reason for deleting the original connector are centered around the creek that passes under I-94 just to the SW of the I-196 interchange; widening the facility at that point in a fashion that would essentially double the ROW width would pose similar issues to the original problem.  A couple of lanes of additional width would be tolerable; much more than that and the project might evoke more opposition -- welcome to freeway design in the 21st century.   It's likely MDOT will simply stick to the already approved plans in order to avoid revisiting any strictures or limitations.   

Has construction on the final phase started or was it delayed due to Covid-19?

Umm. This is what they came up with for "completing the gap" of US 31? Christ. This is silly. They are tying it into Bus 94 Exit 33 as a parclo. NB 31 does not stop nor does SB 31. However, the NB 31 to WB 94 and EB Bus 94 to EB 94 ramps are left turns. They have enough ROW to make it a cloverleaf.
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_I-94-US31_RollPlot_FullLayout_656001_7.pdf

Quote from: hobsini2 on July 18, 2020, 12:26:54 AM
Umm. This is what they came up with for "completing the gap" of US 31? Christ. This is silly. They are tying it into Bus 94 Exit 33 as a parclo. NB 31 does not stop nor does SB 31. However, the NB 31 to WB 94 and EB Bus 94 to EB 94 ramps are left turns. They have enough ROW to make it a cloverleaf.
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_I-94-US31_RollPlot_FullLayout_656001_7.pdf

Looks like they further "modified" it (more like downgraded it) from the original full cloverleaf plans.  Unless the EB Biz 94>EB 94 left turn separates from the main lanes before the SB US 31 loop feeds traffic to those lanes there's no way this can be considered truly a freeway-freeway connection -- or even "free flowing".  Maybe MDOT is emulating recent Caltrans activities and just doesn't give a shit -- or the agency bean-counters stuck their necks (or private parts) into the process and sliced off one more feature. 

It's not awesome, but WBD I-94 to SBD US-31 will be free-flowing. The stoplight will be just for EBD BL I-94 traffic turning onto EBD I-94. It's still a vast improvement over the current detour on Napier Ave. If traffic levels ever rise far enough to warrant it, the ROW is there for a flyover movement.

Quote from: JREwing78 on July 19, 2020, 12:56:36 AM
It's not awesome, but WBD I-94 to SBD US-31 will be free-flowing. The stoplight will be just for EBD BL I-94 traffic turning onto EBD I-94. It's still a vast improvement over the current detour on Napier Ave. If traffic levels ever rise far enough to warrant it, the ROW is there for a flyover movement.

A cowpath along the proposed US 31 alignment would be an improvement over the Napier detour.  I for one would like to see some sort of official explanation why the interchange design was "downsized" from the one published only a couple of years ago.  Parclos simply aren't suitable for freeway-to-freeway interchanges regardless of lane configuration. 

Quote from: sparker on July 20, 2020, 05:02:20 AM

Quote from: JREwing78 on July 19, 2020, 12:56:36 AM
It's not awesome, but WBD I-94 to SBD US-31 will be free-flowing. The stoplight will be just for EBD BL I-94 traffic turning onto EBD I-94. It's still a vast improvement over the current detour on Napier Ave. If traffic levels ever rise far enough to warrant it, the ROW is there for a flyover movement.

A cowpath along the proposed US 31 alignment would be an improvement over the Napier detour.  I for one would like to see some sort of official explanation why the interchange design was "downsized" from the one published only a couple of years ago.  Parclos simply aren't suitable for freeway-to-freeway interchanges regardless of lane configuration.

It wasn't "a couple of years ago"; the original Selected Alternative (full eight-ramp cloverleaf) was specified in the FHWA's Record of Decision issued in August 2004.  C/D lanes weren't a thing back then; adding them now would not only increase cost but would require additional ROW that might not be available, especially along I-94.  Also changed since 2004:  BL I-94 to/from the west is being downgraded from a divided expressway so those connections really need not be freeway-to-freeway.

I'm not exactly defending MDOT; I would love to see a flyover for southbound US-31 traffic.  Bottom line is that the funding isn't there.  The US-31 movements at least will be free-flowing; albeit not ideally, but an improvement over what's there now.  It's certainly better than what's planned for the I-94/US-127 interchange in Jackson.  The southbound US-127 freeway-to-freeway connection is not free-flowing (not only a loop ramp but also a traffic signal) and that won't change when the planned diverging diamond is built.

Quote from: wanderer2575 on July 20, 2020, 09:20:31 AM
It wasn't "a couple of years ago"; the original Selected Alternative (full eight-ramp cloverleaf) was specified in the FHWA's Record of Decision issued in August 2004.  C/D lanes weren't a thing back then

Not a thing in this particular project or in general? C/D lanes have been a thing and used since the 1980s.

Quote from: wanderer2575 on July 20, 2020, 09:20:31 AM

Quote from: sparker on July 20, 2020, 05:02:20 AM

Quote from: JREwing78 on July 19, 2020, 12:56:36 AM
It's not awesome, but WBD I-94 to SBD US-31 will be free-flowing. The stoplight will be just for EBD BL I-94 traffic turning onto EBD I-94. It's still a vast improvement over the current detour on Napier Ave. If traffic levels ever rise far enough to warrant it, the ROW is there for a flyover movement.

A cowpath along the proposed US 31 alignment would be an improvement over the Napier detour.  I for one would like to see some sort of official explanation why the interchange design was "downsized" from the one published only a couple of years ago.  Parclos simply aren't suitable for freeway-to-freeway interchanges regardless of lane configuration.

It wasn't "a couple of years ago"; the original Selected Alternative (full eight-ramp cloverleaf) was specified in the FHWA's Record of Decision issued in August 2004.  C/D lanes weren't a thing back then; adding them now would not only increase cost but would require additional ROW that might not be available, especially along I-94.  Also changed since 2004:  BL I-94 to/from the west is being downgraded from a divided expressway so those connections really need not be freeway-to-freeway.

I'm not exactly defending MDOT; I would love to see a flyover for southbound US-31 traffic.  Bottom line is that the funding isn't there.  The US-31 movements at least will be free-flowing; albeit not ideally, but an improvement over what's there now.  It's certainly better than what's planned for the I-94/US-127 interchange in Jackson.  The southbound US-127 freeway-to-freeway connection is not free-flowing (not only a loop ramp but also a traffic signal) and that won't change when the planned diverging diamond is built.

I'd call this a semi-Breezewood, but at least they'll build the connection when the time is right.

https://www.fox17online.com/news/local-news/michigan/after-nearly-20-years-us-31-freeway-will-get-connected-to-i-94?fbclid=IwAR19c_sqzvrnPd8R0EavDhDyR71435M01RNL5YWh5K9QL22TiFGxdXH294E

BENTON TOWNSHIP, Mich. – Usually, when a freeway ends, it connects to another freeway or it becomes a city street. For US-31 in Berrien County, the freeway ends in woods and weeds.

That's about to change.

Work is already underway on I-94 in Benton Township on a project that will take three years — through 2022 — to connect the unfinished US-31 freeway to I-94.

The original vision for the US-31 freeway was to connect I-94 and I-196 with the I-90/I-80 Indiana Toll Road in South Bend. Construction began in 1981, but the freeway was never finished.

Today, the US-31 freeway stops a few miles short of the interchange where I-94 meets I-196. Drivers are required to use Napier Avenue to get between I-94 and the US-31 freeway.

Construction was halted in 2002 when it was determined that if the freeways were connected as originally planned, it would lead to the destruction of the habitat of the Mitchell's satyr butterfly, an endangered species that is only found in small areas of southern Michigan and northern Indiana. The same butterfly or one very closely related to the Mitchell's satyr butterfly is found in tiny areas of Alabama and Mississippi.

The Michigan Department of Transportation came up with an alternative plan, but the project hit another major snag.

"Before we could get the wheels turning again, Governor Granholm issued the Preserve First Program, which essentially ended all expansion of our transportation infrastructure,"  notes MDOT Southwest Region spokesperson Nick Schirrippa. "So, no new highways were to be built unless they got special permission. This one did not qualify for some time."

The wheels are turning again.

"This project is to finish that connection of US-31 to I-94,"  says Schirripa. "We're rebuilding two interchanges and reconstructing a little over three miles of I-94."

Big machines are currently working along I-94 near the place where the new freeway will connect and on E. Main Street. Beginning in spring 2021, the heavy lifting begins:

New pavement beginning on US-31.
New bridges begun for roads over the new section of freeway.
Realignment of the interchange where US-31 will meet I-94 and E. Main Street, with new ramps.
Reconstruct three miles of the westbound lanes of I-94.
Construction on local streets affected by the overall project.
Begin construction of new bridges over the new part of the US-31 freeway.
Rebuild bridges or build new bridges over I-94.
The project will be completed in 2022:

Finish the new section of US-31 and the interchange at I-94.
Rebuild eastbound lanes of I-94.
Add a new eastbound lane that will connect the new I-94/US-31 interchange with I-196.
The project will cost a total of $121.5 million over three years.

Can we get this merged into this thread? https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18276.msg2156265#msg2156265

They need to finish m231 too

Quote from: cabiness42 on September 29, 2020, 07:39:05 AM
Can we get this merged into this thread? https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18276.msg2156265#msg2156265

That thread is quite old.

i don't understand why they would make this interchange like this, why not make a proper freeway to freeway connection? mdot just half steps everything

Quote from: silverback1065 on September 29, 2020, 09:47:20 AM
i don't understand why they would make this interchange like this, why not make a proper freeway to freeway connection? mdot just half steps everything

Because that's how we roll.  Tax dollars being wasted so they can do it over in about ten years.

How many people are going from NB 31 to WB 94 though? Probably not enough to justify a full freeway connection.

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on September 29, 2020, 02:03:50 PM
How many people are going from NB 31 to WB 94 though? Probably not enough to justify a full freeway connection.

I'm more referring to the through movements for 31. Sb 31 may have to stop.

Quote from: cabiness42 on September 29, 2020, 07:39:05 AM
Can we get this merged into this thread? https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18276.msg2156265#msg2156265

Better to merge it with this thread, which has current comments:  https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=654.0

Quote from: silverback1065 on September 29, 2020, 09:47:20 AM
i don't understand why they would make this interchange like this, why not make a proper freeway to freeway connection? mdot just half steps everything

It *is* a freeway-to-freeway connection.  Yeah, it's a TOTSO parclo loop ramp, but it's free-flowing and won't have weave-merge issues.  (Certainly better than the planned diverging diamond for the I-94/US-127 interchange in Jackson, which will preserve the traffic signal in the southbound 127 freeway to eastbound 94 freeway connection.)  I'd like to see a southbound flyover here but maybe ROW and traffic volume don't justify the cost.  Lots of other road issues that are a higher priority.

Quote from: wanderer2575 on September 29, 2020, 02:09:35 PM

Quote from: cabiness42 on September 29, 2020, 07:39:05 AM
Can we get this merged into this thread? https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18276.msg2156265#msg2156265

Better to merge it with this thread, which has current comments:  https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=654.0

Quote from: silverback1065 on September 29, 2020, 09:47:20 AM
i don't understand why they would make this interchange like this, why not make a proper freeway to freeway connection? mdot just half steps everything

It *is* a freeway-to-freeway connection.  Yeah, it's a TOTSO parclo loop ramp, but it's free-flowing.  (Certainly better than the planned diverging diamond for the I-94/US-127 interchange in Jackson, which will preserve the traffic signal in the southbound 127 freeway to eastbound 94 freeway connection.)  I'd like to see a southbound flyover here but maybe ROW and traffic volume don't justify the cost.  Lots of other road issues that are a higher priority.

It's not a freeway to freeway connection, there's clearly going to be a left turn lane and opportunity to stop for southbound traffic. Partial cloverleaf's are not freeway to freeway connections.

I too would have liked the Interstate 94/US 31 interchange to have free-flow ramps in all directions, but it looks like a parclo interchange is the best we'll get. That, of course, would eliminate any chance of the US 31 freeway gaining an Interstate designation, even if the indications of that happening were very remote.

Quote from: silverback1065 on September 29, 2020, 02:11:28 PM
It's not a freeway to freeway connection, there's clearly going to be a left turn lane and opportunity to stop for southbound traffic. Partial cloverleaf's are not freeway to freeway connections.

The I-94 WB -> US-31 SB ramp will likely be a free-flowing merge. Why would there be a stop?

Quote from: sprjus4 on September 29, 2020, 03:32:25 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on September 29, 2020, 02:11:28 PM
It's not a freeway to freeway connection, there's clearly going to be a left turn lane and opportunity to stop for southbound traffic. Partial cloverleaf's are not freeway to freeway connections.

The I-94 WB -> US-31 SB ramp will likely be a free-flowing merge. Why would there be a stop?

I presume they meant a stop would be for the SB 31 to EB 94 movement. Whether it's all of the movement or just stopping the left turn lane it's still going to be introducing a stop condition there.

Also, based on the rendering it's only about 1400 m between the gore points of the 31 onramp entrance and 196 offramp exit... that's not going to be fun.

Quote from: cbeach40 on September 29, 2020, 04:59:06 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on September 29, 2020, 03:32:25 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on September 29, 2020, 02:11:28 PM
It's not a freeway to freeway connection, there's clearly going to be a left turn lane and opportunity to stop for southbound traffic. Partial cloverleaf's are not freeway to freeway connections.

The I-94 WB -> US-31 SB ramp will likely be a free-flowing merge. Why would there be a stop?

I presume they meant a stop would be for the SB 31 to EB 94 movement. Whether it's all of the movement or just stopping the left turn lane it's still going to be introducing a stop condition there.

Also, based on the rendering it's only about 1400 m between the gore points of the 31 onramp entrance and 196 offramp exit... that's not going to be fun.

I may be confused here, but as I see it the SB US 31 (which is also I-196) to EB I-94 movement won't change. The road coming into the south interchange from the west is Main St in Benton Harbor. Drivers using the cloverleaf ramp for SB US 31 shouldn't have to stop east of the I-94 viaduct as only left-turning traffic from Main St to EB I-94/NB US 31 would need to stop for oncoming traffic. This traffic could easily be separated from the main traffic lanes.

There is already an interchange for Main St even closer than the proposed new south interchange (which it is replacing). I have no idea what it's like now, but I don't remember traffic being a problem when I went through there 20 years ago.

Quote from: wanderer2575 on September 29, 2020, 02:09:35 PM

Quote from: cabiness42 on September 29, 2020, 07:39:05 AM
Can we get this merged into this thread? https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18276.msg2156265#msg2156265

Better to merge it with this thread, which has current comments:  https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=654.0

I'll merge all 3 together in a bit.

EDIT: Now done.

Quote from: skluth on September 29, 2020, 07:31:40 PM
I may be confused here, but as I see it the SB US 31 (which is also I-196) to EB I-94 movement won't change. The road coming into the south interchange from the west is Main St in Benton Harbor. Drivers using the cloverleaf ramp for SB US 31 shouldn't have to stop east of the I-94 viaduct as only left-turning traffic from Main St to EB I-94/NB US 31 would need to stop for oncoming traffic. This traffic could easily be separated from the main traffic lanes.

That's the movement I was meaning. And yes, they could put in a slotted left (ie, essentially an offramp within the median), but based on the way it's shown as undivided through there it looks like the slot wouldn't be long enough (or exist at all) to prevent spillback.

I don't think it's a bad solution per se since traffic will be coming out of an arterial roadway design (and only the LT being interrupted would help thru movement), but if the intention is to have it be truly free flowing this ain't it.

Quote from: dvferyance on February 12, 2020, 06:47:01 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on September 25, 2009, 07:45:18 PM

Quote from: leifvanderwall on September 25, 2009, 07:36:58 PM
Awright!!!! But Indiana is going to have a heckuva fight on its hands getting the I-67 moniker  because I guy named Murtha wants it in Pennsylvania

The only way they're going to get the I-67 designation is if they cheat and write it into another bill like they did with I-99.  Somebody needs to teach these Pennsylvania politicians how to count.  :happy:

Last thing Pennsylvania needs is another interstate way out of place. If there is ever going to be an I-67 it should be in Indiana and Michigan. If they want US 219 as an interstate push for a 3 digit number.

How about I-199?   :-D

Since I-99 is an oddball anyway, why not have a child that doesn't even connect to it?

If they're going to do this without a proper Freeway - Freeway interchange they might as well just upgrade Napier Ave between US 31 and I-94 and call it a day.

Quote from: cbeach40 on September 30, 2020, 10:23:37 AM

Quote from: skluth on September 29, 2020, 07:31:40 PM
I may be confused here, but as I see it the SB US 31 (which is also I-196) to EB I-94 movement won't change. The road coming into the south interchange from the west is Main St in Benton Harbor. Drivers using the cloverleaf ramp for SB US 31 shouldn't have to stop east of the I-94 viaduct as only left-turning traffic from Main St to EB I-94/NB US 31 would need to stop for oncoming traffic. This traffic could easily be separated from the main traffic lanes.

That's the movement I was meaning. And yes, they could put in a slotted left (ie, essentially an offramp within the median), but based on the way it's shown as undivided through there it looks like the slot wouldn't be long enough (or exist at all) to prevent spillback.

I don't think it's a bad solution per se since traffic will be coming out of an arterial roadway design (and only the LT being interrupted would help thru movement), but if the intention is to have it be truly free flowing this ain't it.

Would this interruption in the free flow prevent a future interstate designation?

Quote from: cabiness42 on September 30, 2020, 12:21:49 PM

Quote from: cbeach40 on September 30, 2020, 10:23:37 AM

Quote from: skluth on September 29, 2020, 07:31:40 PM
I may be confused here, but as I see it the SB US 31 (which is also I-196) to EB I-94 movement won't change. The road coming into the south interchange from the west is Main St in Benton Harbor. Drivers using the cloverleaf ramp for SB US 31 shouldn't have to stop east of the I-94 viaduct as only left-turning traffic from Main St to EB I-94/NB US 31 would need to stop for oncoming traffic. This traffic could easily be separated from the main traffic lanes.

That's the movement I was meaning. And yes, they could put in a slotted left (ie, essentially an offramp within the median), but based on the way it's shown as undivided through there it looks like the slot wouldn't be long enough (or exist at all) to prevent spillback.

I don't think it's a bad solution per se since traffic will be coming out of an arterial roadway design (and only the LT being interrupted would help thru movement), but if the intention is to have it be truly free flowing this ain't it.

Would this interruption in the free flow prevent a future interstate designation?

I'd say yes since the through movements aren't truly limited access.

Quote from: silverback1065 on September 30, 2020, 12:23:53 PM

Quote from: cabiness42 on September 30, 2020, 12:21:49 PM

Quote from: cbeach40 on September 30, 2020, 10:23:37 AM

Quote from: skluth on September 29, 2020, 07:31:40 PM
I may be confused here, but as I see it the SB US 31 (which is also I-196) to EB I-94 movement won't change. The road coming into the south interchange from the west is Main St in Benton Harbor. Drivers using the cloverleaf ramp for SB US 31 shouldn't have to stop east of the I-94 viaduct as only left-turning traffic from Main St to EB I-94/NB US 31 would need to stop for oncoming traffic. This traffic could easily be separated from the main traffic lanes.

That's the movement I was meaning. And yes, they could put in a slotted left (ie, essentially an offramp within the median), but based on the way it's shown as undivided through there it looks like the slot wouldn't be long enough (or exist at all) to prevent spillback.

I don't think it's a bad solution per se since traffic will be coming out of an arterial roadway design (and only the LT being interrupted would help thru movement), but if the intention is to have it be truly free flowing this ain't it.

Would this interruption in the free flow prevent a future interstate designation?

I'd say yes since the through movements aren't truly limited access.

There may be a "loophole" if the left-turn from Biz 94 to EB I-94 is physically separated (K-rail, etc.) from the through lanes to SB US 31 in such a way that the merge from the WB>SB loop (the through SB US 31 movement) occurs downstream from the point where the left-turn lane diverges from the main lanes.   That being said, it doesn't appear that pursuing Interstate designation for any of its facilities is a near- (or even mid-) term priority with MDOT; in this instance, funding shortfalls were likely the culprit responsible for the "cheapout" redesign.  If down the line SW MI boosters start clamoring for an Interstate over US 31, a flyover might be retrofitted for that purpose. 

Quote from: skluth on September 29, 2020, 07:31:40 PM

Quote from: cbeach40 on September 29, 2020, 04:59:06 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on September 29, 2020, 03:32:25 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on September 29, 2020, 02:11:28 PM
It's not a freeway to freeway connection, there's clearly going to be a left turn lane and opportunity to stop for southbound traffic. Partial cloverleaf's are not freeway to freeway connections.

The I-94 WB -> US-31 SB ramp will likely be a free-flowing merge. Why would there be a stop?

I presume they meant a stop would be for the SB 31 to EB 94 movement. Whether it's all of the movement or just stopping the left turn lane it's still going to be introducing a stop condition there.

Also, based on the rendering it's only about 1400 m between the gore points of the 31 onramp entrance and 196 offramp exit... that's not going to be fun.

I may be confused here, but as I see it the SB US 31 (which is also I-196) to EB I-94 movement won't change. The road coming into the south interchange from the west is Main St in Benton Harbor. Drivers using the cloverleaf ramp for SB US 31 shouldn't have to stop east of the I-94 viaduct as only left-turning traffic from Main St to EB I-94/NB US 31 would need to stop for oncoming traffic. This traffic could easily be separated from the main traffic lanes.

There is already an interchange for Main St even closer than the proposed new south interchange (which it is replacing). I have no idea what it's like now, but I don't remember traffic being a problem when I went through there 20 years ago.

To reiterate, no traffic will be required to stop on either freeway, going to or coming from any direction.  The only traffic that may be required to stop will be the traffic coming off from Business I-94, which is not a freeway.  Where are people getting the idea that freeway traffic would be required to stop?

Quote from: Terry Shea on September 30, 2020, 09:19:37 PM

Quote from: skluth on September 29, 2020, 07:31:40 PM

Quote from: cbeach40 on September 29, 2020, 04:59:06 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on September 29, 2020, 03:32:25 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on September 29, 2020, 02:11:28 PM
It's not a freeway to freeway connection, there's clearly going to be a left turn lane and opportunity to stop for southbound traffic. Partial cloverleaf's are not freeway to freeway connections.

The I-94 WB -> US-31 SB ramp will likely be a free-flowing merge. Why would there be a stop?

I presume they meant a stop would be for the SB 31 to EB 94 movement. Whether it's all of the movement or just stopping the left turn lane it's still going to be introducing a stop condition there.

Also, based on the rendering it's only about 1400 m between the gore points of the 31 onramp entrance and 196 offramp exit... that's not going to be fun.

I may be confused here, but as I see it the SB US 31 (which is also I-196) to EB I-94 movement won't change. The road coming into the south interchange from the west is Main St in Benton Harbor. Drivers using the cloverleaf ramp for SB US 31 shouldn't have to stop east of the I-94 viaduct as only left-turning traffic from Main St to EB I-94/NB US 31 would need to stop for oncoming traffic. This traffic could easily be separated from the main traffic lanes.

There is already an interchange for Main St even closer than the proposed new south interchange (which it is replacing). I have no idea what it's like now, but I don't remember traffic being a problem when I went through there 20 years ago.

To reiterate, no traffic will be required to stop on either freeway, going to or coming from any direction.  The only traffic that may be required to stop will be the traffic coming off from Business I-94, which is not a freeway.  Where are people getting the idea that freeway traffic would be required to stop?

You can slap a signal in to accommodate the left turn.

Quote from: Terry Shea on September 30, 2020, 09:19:37 PM

Quote from: skluth on September 29, 2020, 07:31:40 PM

Quote from: cbeach40 on September 29, 2020, 04:59:06 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on September 29, 2020, 03:32:25 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on September 29, 2020, 02:11:28 PM
It's not a freeway to freeway connection, there's clearly going to be a left turn lane and opportunity to stop for southbound traffic. Partial cloverleaf's are not freeway to freeway connections.

The I-94 WB -> US-31 SB ramp will likely be a free-flowing merge. Why would there be a stop?

I presume they meant a stop would be for the SB 31 to EB 94 movement. Whether it's all of the movement or just stopping the left turn lane it's still going to be introducing a stop condition there.

Also, based on the rendering it's only about 1400 m between the gore points of the 31 onramp entrance and 196 offramp exit... that's not going to be fun.

I may be confused here, but as I see it the SB US 31 (which is also I-196) to EB I-94 movement won't change. The road coming into the south interchange from the west is Main St in Benton Harbor. Drivers using the cloverleaf ramp for SB US 31 shouldn't have to stop east of the I-94 viaduct as only left-turning traffic from Main St to EB I-94/NB US 31 would need to stop for oncoming traffic. This traffic could easily be separated from the main traffic lanes.

There is already an interchange for Main St even closer than the proposed new south interchange (which it is replacing). I have no idea what it's like now, but I don't remember traffic being a problem when I went through there 20 years ago.

To reiterate, no traffic will be required to stop on either freeway, going to or coming from any direction.  The only traffic that may be required to stop will be the traffic coming off from Business I-94, which is not a freeway.  Where are people getting the idea that freeway traffic would be required to stop?

Unless the left-turn (from EB Biz 94 to EB 94) lane -- likely to be signalized -- is physically separated from the main "through" lanes from EB Biz 94 to SB 31 -- there's the possibility of some back-up occurring as drivers try to maneuver into that lane, which could affect the free-flow on the continuous SB 31 loop move.  Also, with that cross-traffic making a left at that point across the lanes from NB 31 to WB 94/Biz 94, it's no longer free-flow.  The only possible free-flow movements -- if the lane separation is effected -- are in fact the continuation US 31 moves in both directions (NB 31>EB 94/NB 31 & WB 94/SB 31>SB 31).  All other movements save WB 94>WB Biz 94 go through signals or stop signs at some point.   It would be a stretch to consider this facility a "system interchange" by any means.   

Quote from: sparker on September 30, 2020, 09:38:20 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on September 30, 2020, 09:19:37 PM

Quote from: skluth on September 29, 2020, 07:31:40 PM

Quote from: cbeach40 on September 29, 2020, 04:59:06 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on September 29, 2020, 03:32:25 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on September 29, 2020, 02:11:28 PM
It's not a freeway to freeway connection, there's clearly going to be a left turn lane and opportunity to stop for southbound traffic. Partial cloverleaf's are not freeway to freeway connections.

The I-94 WB -> US-31 SB ramp will likely be a free-flowing merge. Why would there be a stop?

I presume they meant a stop would be for the SB 31 to EB 94 movement. Whether it's all of the movement or just stopping the left turn lane it's still going to be introducing a stop condition there.

Also, based on the rendering it's only about 1400 m between the gore points of the 31 onramp entrance and 196 offramp exit... that's not going to be fun.

I may be confused here, but as I see it the SB US 31 (which is also I-196) to EB I-94 movement won't change. The road coming into the south interchange from the west is Main St in Benton Harbor. Drivers using the cloverleaf ramp for SB US 31 shouldn't have to stop east of the I-94 viaduct as only left-turning traffic from Main St to EB I-94/NB US 31 would need to stop for oncoming traffic. This traffic could easily be separated from the main traffic lanes.

There is already an interchange for Main St even closer than the proposed new south interchange (which it is replacing). I have no idea what it's like now, but I don't remember traffic being a problem when I went through there 20 years ago.

To reiterate, no traffic will be required to stop on either freeway, going to or coming from any direction.  The only traffic that may be required to stop will be the traffic coming off from Business I-94, which is not a freeway.  Where are people getting the idea that freeway traffic would be required to stop?

Unless the left-turn (from EB Biz 94 to EB 94) lane -- likely to be signalized -- is physically separated from the main "through" lanes from EB Biz 94 to SB 31 -- there's the possibility of some back-up occurring as drivers try to maneuver into that lane, which could affect the free-flow on the continuous SB 31 loop move.  Also, with that cross-traffic making a left at that point across the lanes from NB 31 to WB 94/Biz 94, it's no longer free-flow.  The only possible free-flow movements -- if the lane separation is effected -- are in fact the continuation US 31 moves in both directions (NB 31>EB 94/NB 31 & WB 94/SB 31>SB 31).  All other movements save WB 94>WB Biz 94 go through signals or stop signs at some point.   It would be a stretch to consider this facility a "system interchange" by any means.   

US-31 will be free flowing thru in both directions.  I-94 will be free flowing thru in both directions.  Any US-31/I-94 exits will be free flowing in any and all directions.  There will be no NB US-31 to WB I-94 exit.  Not the greatest design by any stretch of the imagination, but all thru movements and exiting movements between the freeways will be free flowing.

Quote from: Terry Shea on September 30, 2020, 10:01:55 PM
US-31 will be free flowing thru in both directions.  I-94 will be free flowing thru in both directions.  Any US-31/I-94 exits will be free flowing in any and all directions.  There will be no NB US-31 to WB I-94 exit. Not the greatest design by any stretch of the imagination, but all thru movements and exiting movements between the freeways will be free flowing.

Understatement of the month!  With apologies to the writers of Blue Thunder, the interchange is JAFP (just another fucking parclo)! -- with a minimal amount of "tweaking" to make it sort of free-flowing.  Maybe we should be lucky it wasn't a diamond -- or a "dogbone" roundabout configuration! 

I just drove on that highway last time I went to Indiana and don't even think it's needed. There isn't much traffic that uses the northern end of the St. Joseph Valley Parkway I'd say less than 10,000 VPD. I'd just leave it the way it is screw it.

they could have done something like 31 and 465 in carmel, the us 31 movements are limited access, the meridian st movements are not. but they fucked that one up too with incorrect lane drops for the movements that matter.

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 01, 2020, 09:49:20 AM
I just drove on that highway last time I went to Indiana and don't even think it's needed. There isn't much traffic that uses the northern end of the St. Joseph Valley Parkway I'd say less than 10,000 VPD. I'd just leave it the way it is screw it.

Doesn't matter, it's still a gap in the system. For freight and long haul traffic, it's an important connection.

About 12,000 AADT use the freeway south of Napier Ave, and about 15,000 AADT on Napier Ave.

It's beneficial to both local and through traffic to provide a proper connection to I-94 (regardless of interchange configuration) rather than continue to dump it onto local roadways.

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 01, 2020, 11:19:52 AM
they could have done something like 31 and 465 in carmel, the us 31 movements are limited access, the meridian st movements are not. but they fucked that one up too with incorrect lane drops for the movements that matter.

I-295 / I-95's northern interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1233533,-78.753173,1538m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1) outside Fayetteville, NC is similar. A flyover from I-95 North to I-295 South is going to be constructed apart of the upcoming 8 lane widening project along I-95 in the next few years. This movement carries relatively low volumes compared to the 2-lane I-295 to I-95 North flyover.
(https://i.ibb.co/pfVdSwk/I295-I95-Interchange-NC.png)

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 01, 2020, 02:48:31 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 01, 2020, 09:49:20 AM
I just drove on that highway last time I went to Indiana and don't even think it's needed. There isn't much traffic that uses the northern end of the St. Joseph Valley Parkway I'd say less than 10,000 VPD. I'd just leave it the way it is screw it.

Doesn't matter, it's still a gap in the system. For freight and long haul traffic, it's an important connection.

About 12,000 AADT use the freeway south of Napier Ave, and about 15,000 AADT on Napier Ave.

It's beneficial to both local and through traffic to provide a proper connection to I-94 (regardless of interchange configuration) rather than continue to dump it onto local roadways.

The only gap is that it's not a freeway which isn't a requirement for US highways so I don't get where this gap is at. US-31 is signed on all routes in the area that it travels on. And those numbers shouldn't require a freeway anyway. In my area of Michigan both M-58 and M-84 carry around 30,000 VPD and they are both multi lane roads just like Napier Avenue is. Napier is two lanes in each direction with a center turn lane in that area, it goes down to a two lane road east of Blue Creek Road.

Protecting some butterflies is their reason why they couldn't extend the freeway to connect to I-196. To me that's a ridiculous reason and all it would take is an S-curve to avoid some development between Highland Avenue and Territorial Road. A slight S curve would be needed anyway to connect the two freeways.


There is no gap. US-31 is signed on Napier, I-94 and I-196. If there was a gap then it would end somewhere and pick up again like IN-22 does in Kokomo and IN-25 does in Lafayette even though those are Indiana State Roads. The only gap is a freeway gap where it's not a freeway for about a mile or two.

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 01, 2020, 11:19:52 AM
they could have done something like 31 and 465 in carmel, the us 31 movements are limited access, the meridian st movements are not. but they fucked that one up too with incorrect lane drops for the movements that matter.

LMAO I used that interchange to turn around on I-465 one day and ended up getting flicked off by someone for what reason I really don't know I thought it was hilarious though. I was rolling SB on US-31 and this guy comes to a dead stop in the road and flicks me off.

I've looked at the US 31 North/Interstate 465 Loop interchange configuration, and I would agree that would be a better way to complete the Interstate 94/Business Route 94/US 31 interchange than what they have proposed. Alas, it is not meant to be.

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 01, 2020, 04:33:26 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 01, 2020, 02:48:31 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 01, 2020, 09:49:20 AM
I just drove on that highway last time I went to Indiana and don't even think it's needed. There isn't much traffic that uses the northern end of the St. Joseph Valley Parkway I'd say less than 10,000 VPD. I'd just leave it the way it is screw it.

Doesn't matter, it's still a gap in the system. For freight and long haul traffic, it's an important connection.

About 12,000 AADT use the freeway south of Napier Ave, and about 15,000 AADT on Napier Ave.

It's beneficial to both local and through traffic to provide a proper connection to I-94 (regardless of interchange configuration) rather than continue to dump it onto local roadways.

The only gap is that it's not a freeway which isn't a requirement for US highways so I don't get where this gap is at. US-31 is signed on all routes in the area that it travels on. And those numbers shouldn't require a freeway anyway. In my area of Michigan both M-58 and M-84 carry around 30,000 VPD and they are both multi lane roads just like Napier Avenue is. Napier is two lanes in each direction with a center turn lane in that area, it goes down to a two lane road east of Blue Creek Road.

Protecting some butterflies is their reason why they couldn't extend the freeway to connect to I-196. To me that's a ridiculous reason and all it would take is an S-curve to avoid some development between Highland Avenue and Territorial Road. A slight S curve would be needed anyway to connect the two freeways.


There is no gap. US-31 is signed on Napier, I-94 and I-196. If there was a gap then it would end somewhere and pick up again like IN-22 does in Kokomo and IN-25 does in Lafayette even though those are Indiana State Roads. The only gap is a freeway gap where it's not a freeway for about a mile or two.

It's a gap in over 140 miles of continuous freeway between Plymouth and Grand Rapids.

For through traffic, US-31 is not continuous. You're forced to exit at a freeway stub, travel down an arterial roadway, and re-enter I-96 at a diamond interchange. It would be slightly more acceptable if it was at least continuous, transitioning from freeway to arterial back to freeway.

Regionally, it's beneficial to fill this obvious gap in the freeway system, even if it does not have a red-and-blue shield. If it was a mostly arterial route, it would be more acceptable. But the ultimate build for US-31 was a full freeway, and using Napier Ave was a temporary setup.

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 01, 2020, 06:02:33 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 01, 2020, 04:33:26 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 01, 2020, 02:48:31 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 01, 2020, 09:49:20 AM
I just drove on that highway last time I went to Indiana and don't even think it's needed. There isn't much traffic that uses the northern end of the St. Joseph Valley Parkway I'd say less than 10,000 VPD. I'd just leave it the way it is screw it.

Doesn't matter, it's still a gap in the system. For freight and long haul traffic, it's an important connection.

About 12,000 AADT use the freeway south of Napier Ave, and about 15,000 AADT on Napier Ave.

It's beneficial to both local and through traffic to provide a proper connection to I-94 (regardless of interchange configuration) rather than continue to dump it onto local roadways.

The only gap is that it's not a freeway which isn't a requirement for US highways so I don't get where this gap is at. US-31 is signed on all routes in the area that it travels on. And those numbers shouldn't require a freeway anyway. In my area of Michigan both M-58 and M-84 carry around 30,000 VPD and they are both multi lane roads just like Napier Avenue is. Napier is two lanes in each direction with a center turn lane in that area, it goes down to a two lane road east of Blue Creek Road.

Protecting some butterflies is their reason why they couldn't extend the freeway to connect to I-196. To me that's a ridiculous reason and all it would take is an S-curve to avoid some development between Highland Avenue and Territorial Road. A slight S curve would be needed anyway to connect the two freeways.


There is no gap. US-31 is signed on Napier, I-94 and I-196. If there was a gap then it would end somewhere and pick up again like IN-22 does in Kokomo and IN-25 does in Lafayette even though those are Indiana State Roads. The only gap is a freeway gap where it's not a freeway for about a mile or two.

It's a gap in over 140 miles of continuous freeway between Plymouth and Grand Rapids.

For through traffic, US-31 is not continuous. You're forced to exit at a freeway stub, travel down an arterial roadway, and re-enter I-96 at a diamond interchange. It would be slightly more acceptable if it was at least continuous, transitioning from freeway to arterial back to freeway.

Regionally, it's beneficial to fill this obvious gap in the freeway system, even if it does not have a red-and-blue shield. If it was a mostly arterial route, it would be more acceptable. But the ultimate build for US-31 was a full freeway, and using Napier Ave was a temporary setup.

It's a US highway there's no requirement for it to be a freeway. US-31 doesn't even go through Grand Rapids it breaks off in Holland that's US-131 that goes through GR. You mean I-94 instead of 96? Napier is built to handle the volumes of traffic it gets.

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 05, 2020, 10:21:59 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 01, 2020, 06:02:33 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 01, 2020, 04:33:26 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 01, 2020, 02:48:31 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 01, 2020, 09:49:20 AM
I just drove on that highway last time I went to Indiana and don't even think it's needed. There isn't much traffic that uses the northern end of the St. Joseph Valley Parkway I'd say less than 10,000 VPD. I'd just leave it the way it is screw it.

Doesn't matter, it's still a gap in the system. For freight and long haul traffic, it's an important connection.

About 12,000 AADT use the freeway south of Napier Ave, and about 15,000 AADT on Napier Ave.

It's beneficial to both local and through traffic to provide a proper connection to I-94 (regardless of interchange configuration) rather than continue to dump it onto local roadways.

The only gap is that it's not a freeway which isn't a requirement for US highways so I don't get where this gap is at. US-31 is signed on all routes in the area that it travels on. And those numbers shouldn't require a freeway anyway. In my area of Michigan both M-58 and M-84 carry around 30,000 VPD and they are both multi lane roads just like Napier Avenue is. Napier is two lanes in each direction with a center turn lane in that area, it goes down to a two lane road east of Blue Creek Road.

Protecting some butterflies is their reason why they couldn't extend the freeway to connect to I-196. To me that's a ridiculous reason and all it would take is an S-curve to avoid some development between Highland Avenue and Territorial Road. A slight S curve would be needed anyway to connect the two freeways.


There is no gap. US-31 is signed on Napier, I-94 and I-196. If there was a gap then it would end somewhere and pick up again like IN-22 does in Kokomo and IN-25 does in Lafayette even though those are Indiana State Roads. The only gap is a freeway gap where it's not a freeway for about a mile or two.

It's a gap in over 140 miles of continuous freeway between Plymouth and Grand Rapids.

For through traffic, US-31 is not continuous. You're forced to exit at a freeway stub, travel down an arterial roadway, and re-enter I-96 at a diamond interchange. It would be slightly more acceptable if it was at least continuous, transitioning from freeway to arterial back to freeway.

Regionally, it's beneficial to fill this obvious gap in the freeway system, even if it does not have a red-and-blue shield. If it was a mostly arterial route, it would be more acceptable. But the ultimate build for US-31 was a full freeway, and using Napier Ave was a temporary setup.

It's a US highway there's no requirement for it to be a freeway. US-31 doesn't even go through Grand Rapids it breaks off in Holland that's US-131 that goes through GR. You mean I-94 instead of 96? Napier is built to handle the volumes of traffic it gets.

Since I-196 and US 31 are coincidental between I-94 and just south of Holland, filling the "gap" with a free-flowing interchange would provide a continuous freeway between Plymouth, IN and Grand Rapids (and, perhaps, all the way to the north end of the US 131 freeway at Manton) -- even though there would be the TOTSO's at the US 20/31 junction south of South Bend as well as the interchange that's the subject of this thread.  But this isn't the first rodeo for the speculative "I-67" concept; originally MI requested that number for what is now I-196 when the 96/196 "swap" occurred circa 1964, but AASHO (as it was known then) turned them down.

Quote from: sparker on October 06, 2020, 06:12:05 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 05, 2020, 10:21:59 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 01, 2020, 06:02:33 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 01, 2020, 04:33:26 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 01, 2020, 02:48:31 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 01, 2020, 09:49:20 AM
I just drove on that highway last time I went to Indiana and don't even think it's needed. There isn't much traffic that uses the northern end of the St. Joseph Valley Parkway I'd say less than 10,000 VPD. I'd just leave it the way it is screw it.

Doesn't matter, it's still a gap in the system. For freight and long haul traffic, it's an important connection.

About 12,000 AADT use the freeway south of Napier Ave, and about 15,000 AADT on Napier Ave.

It's beneficial to both local and through traffic to provide a proper connection to I-94 (regardless of interchange configuration) rather than continue to dump it onto local roadways.

The only gap is that it's not a freeway which isn't a requirement for US highways so I don't get where this gap is at. US-31 is signed on all routes in the area that it travels on. And those numbers shouldn't require a freeway anyway. In my area of Michigan both M-58 and M-84 carry around 30,000 VPD and they are both multi lane roads just like Napier Avenue is. Napier is two lanes in each direction with a center turn lane in that area, it goes down to a two lane road east of Blue Creek Road.

Protecting some butterflies is their reason why they couldn't extend the freeway to connect to I-196. To me that's a ridiculous reason and all it would take is an S-curve to avoid some development between Highland Avenue and Territorial Road. A slight S curve would be needed anyway to connect the two freeways.


There is no gap. US-31 is signed on Napier, I-94 and I-196. If there was a gap then it would end somewhere and pick up again like IN-22 does in Kokomo and IN-25 does in Lafayette even though those are Indiana State Roads. The only gap is a freeway gap where it's not a freeway for about a mile or two.

It's a gap in over 140 miles of continuous freeway between Plymouth and Grand Rapids.

For through traffic, US-31 is not continuous. You're forced to exit at a freeway stub, travel down an arterial roadway, and re-enter I-96 at a diamond interchange. It would be slightly more acceptable if it was at least continuous, transitioning from freeway to arterial back to freeway.

Regionally, it's beneficial to fill this obvious gap in the freeway system, even if it does not have a red-and-blue shield. If it was a mostly arterial route, it would be more acceptable. But the ultimate build for US-31 was a full freeway, and using Napier Ave was a temporary setup.

It's a US highway there's no requirement for it to be a freeway. US-31 doesn't even go through Grand Rapids it breaks off in Holland that's US-131 that goes through GR. You mean I-94 instead of 96? Napier is built to handle the volumes of traffic it gets.

Since I-196 and US 31 are coincidental between I-94 and just south of Holland, filling the "gap" with a free-flowing interchange would provide a continuous freeway between Plymouth, IN and Grand Rapids (and, perhaps, all the way to the north end of the US 131 freeway at Manton) -- even though there would be the TOTSO's at the US 20/31 junction south of South Bend as well as the interchange that's the subject of this thread.  But this isn't the first rodeo for the speculative "I-67" concept; originally MI requested that number for what is now I-196 when the 96/196 "swap" occurred circa 1964, but AASHO (as it was known then) turned them down.

the us 20/31 interchange is at least limited access, although the approach to it is substandard.

Quote from: Terry Shea on March 29, 2009, 07:14:20 PM
Does anyone know if any stimulus money is going to be used to fill in the non-freeway gaps along US-31 in Michigan?  I know work was supposed to begin on M-231 (to be built as a 2 lane road along the future US-31 freeway ROW and later converted when funds are in place-sounds really stupid to me) from I-96 to M-45 next year I believe, but I was wondering if the stimulus package would allow for it to be built as a 4 lane freeway sooner.  Also it seems like the Napier Ave to I-94 connection should be about ready to be built one way or the other.  Actually it should have been built years, if not decades ago.  The MDOT site is of absolutely no use.  They haven't updated either of these pages in years and seem to be very guarded about any kind of information about future projects in general, kind of like the military and the government giving out info about UFO sightings.  It would really be nice to get these projects completed during my lifetime.

What gap with US 31?  The travelling public should be lucky that even .01 miles of limited access highway was built.

This is not related to the new construction in SW Michigan, but at the northern end of the U.S. 31 freeway. Can someone summarize what was supposed to happen to the northern extension of the freeway. Now it ends at U.S. 10, with ghost ramps.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.9550273,-86.3841918,1556m/data=!3m1!1e3

Ghost ramps are not as common in Michigan as in other states. Usually highways are built to completion, not constructed or in a "holding pattern", like the southern U.S. 31 between Niles & Benton Harbor.

Quote from: Ryctor2018 on October 26, 2020, 04:48:30 PM
This is not related to the new construction in SW Michigan, but at the northern end of the U.S. 31 freeway. Can someone summarize what was supposed to happen to the northern extension of the freeway. Now it ends at U.S. 10, with ghost ramps.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.9550273,-86.3841918,1556m/data=!3m1!1e3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.9550273,-86.3841918,1556m/data=!3m1!1e3)

Ghost ramps are not as common in Michigan as in other states. Usually highways are built to completion, not constructed or in a "holding pattern", like the southern U.S. 31 between Niles & Benton Harbor.

It was eventually supposed to be built out as freeway all the way to Mackinac City. Due to a host of reasons (financial, NIMBY, etc), it hasn't been completed yet. It's not likely to anytime soon, short of a massive cash infusion at MDOT. There's a lot of higher-priority expansions, not least of which is the Holland/Grand Haven US-31 bypass.

Most folks currently headed for Traverse City from points south would follow I-196 to US-131 to north of Manton. If anything, MDOT would tie any roadway expansions for Traverse City-bound traffic to US-131 (and eventually I-75) before US-31 gets expanded northward.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on October 26, 2020, 02:05:05 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on March 29, 2009, 07:14:20 PM
Does anyone know if any stimulus money is going to be used to fill in the non-freeway gaps along US-31 in Michigan?  I know work was supposed to begin on M-231 (to be built as a 2 lane road along the future US-31 freeway ROW and later converted when funds are in place-sounds really stupid to me) from I-96 to M-45 next year I believe, but I was wondering if the stimulus package would allow for it to be built as a 4 lane freeway sooner.  Also it seems like the Napier Ave to I-94 connection should be about ready to be built one way or the other.  Actually it should have been built years, if not decades ago.  The MDOT site is of absolutely no use.  They haven't updated either of these pages in years and seem to be very guarded about any kind of information about future projects in general, kind of like the military and the government giving out info about UFO sightings.  It would really be nice to get these projects completed during my lifetime.

What gap with US 31?  The travelling public should be lucky that even .01 miles of limited access highway was built.

What are you talking about?

Quote from: Terry Shea on October 26, 2020, 09:57:48 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on October 26, 2020, 02:05:05 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on March 29, 2009, 07:14:20 PM
Does anyone know if any stimulus money is going to be used to fill in the non-freeway gaps along US-31 in Michigan?  I know work was supposed to begin on M-231 (to be built as a 2 lane road along the future US-31 freeway ROW and later converted when funds are in place-sounds really stupid to me) from I-96 to M-45 next year I believe, but I was wondering if the stimulus package would allow for it to be built as a 4 lane freeway sooner.  Also it seems like the Napier Ave to I-94 connection should be about ready to be built one way or the other.  Actually it should have been built years, if not decades ago.  The MDOT site is of absolutely no use.  They haven't updated either of these pages in years and seem to be very guarded about any kind of information about future projects in general, kind of like the military and the government giving out info about UFO sightings.  It would really be nice to get these projects completed during my lifetime.

What gap with US 31?  The travelling public should be lucky that even .01 miles of limited access highway was built.

What are you talking about?

Quoting a post of yours that's 11 years old.

Quote from: JREwing78 on October 26, 2020, 08:19:37 PM

Quote from: Ryctor2018 on October 26, 2020, 04:48:30 PM
This is not related to the new construction in SW Michigan, but at the northern end of the U.S. 31 freeway. Can someone summarize what was supposed to happen to the northern extension of the freeway. Now it ends at U.S. 10, with ghost ramps.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.9550273,-86.3841918,1556m/data=!3m1!1e3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.9550273,-86.3841918,1556m/data=!3m1!1e3)

Ghost ramps are not as common in Michigan as in other states. Usually highways are built to completion, not constructed or in a "holding pattern", like the southern U.S. 31 between Niles & Benton Harbor.

It was eventually supposed to be built out as freeway all the way to Mackinac City. Due to a host of reasons (financial, NIMBY, etc), it hasn't been completed yet. It's not likely to anytime soon, short of a massive cash infusion at MDOT. There's a lot of higher-priority expansions, not least of which is the Holland/Grand Haven US-31 bypass.

Most folks currently headed for Traverse City from points south would follow I-196 to US-131 to north of Manton. If anything, MDOT would tie any roadway expansions for Traverse City-bound traffic to US-131 (and eventually I-75) before US-31 gets expanded northward.

It'll never go all the way to Mackinaw City as a freeway. There just isn't enough traffic volumes to warrant it in the first place.

The gap in the holland area will be filled eventually i hope. north of us 10 doesn't seem needed.

Around 7,000 - 8,000 AADT.

Could warrant being at least a 4 lane divided highway.

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 27, 2020, 09:07:42 AM
The gap in the holland area will be filled eventually i hope. north of us 10 doesn't seem needed.

Doesn't warrant it there really either. US-31 is already a divided highway with 3 lanes in each direction in the Holland area then goes down to 2 lanes in each direction still as a divided highway until Grand Haven then north of there it becomes a freeway.

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 27, 2020, 09:09:03 AM
Around 7,000 - 8,000 AADT.

Could warrant being at least a 4 lane divided highway.

Massachusetts is considering a road diet (from two per direction to one per direction plus two-way left turn lane) on a road with a maximum of 19,000 AADT. Two-lane roads can handle over 20,000 AADT, as seen in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20217). Is 7,000-8,000 really enough to widen?

Quote from: 1 on October 27, 2020, 09:18:08 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 27, 2020, 09:09:03 AM
Around 7,000 - 8,000 AADT.

Could warrant being at least a 4 lane divided highway.

Massachusetts is considering a road diet (from two per direction to one per direction plus two-way left turn lane) on a road with a maximum of 19,000 AADT. Two-lane roads can handle over 20,000 AADT, as seen in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20217). Is 7,000-8,000 really enough to widen?

MDOT has done that in a couple of places, just the last two years on I-475 on the north end of Flint and not too far away from there M-54 south of Clio was dieted down to 1 lane in each direction with a center turning lane for a couple of miles. When I-475 starts out it's two lanes in each direction but as it gets into the city of Flint it's three lanes in each direction well they just reconstructed the north end from Clio Road to Carpenter and took out the third lane until south of Carpenter. It use to start at Saginaw Road.

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 27, 2020, 09:18:03 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 27, 2020, 09:07:42 AM
The gap in the holland area will be filled eventually i hope. north of us 10 doesn't seem needed.

Doesn't warrant it there really either. US-31 is already a divided highway with 3 lanes in each direction in the Holland area then goes down to 2 lanes in each direction still as a divided highway until Grand Haven then north of there it becomes a freeway.

it definitely does need it, crashes and the fact that it's 30 mph through the heart of grand haven is unacceptable. it wouldn't even be hard to do the conversion on top of existing in holland.

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 27, 2020, 09:20:52 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 27, 2020, 09:18:03 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 27, 2020, 09:07:42 AM
The gap in the holland area will be filled eventually i hope. north of us 10 doesn't seem needed.

Doesn't warrant it there really either. US-31 is already a divided highway with 3 lanes in each direction in the Holland area then goes down to 2 lanes in each direction still as a divided highway until Grand Haven then north of there it becomes a freeway.

it definitely does need it, crashes and the fact that it's 30 mph through the heart of grand haven is unacceptable. it wouldn't even be hard to do the conversion on top of existing in holland.

M-231 has already been built to supplement US-31 through Grand Haven. I don't know how a 30 mph speed limit on a US highway through the heart of a city is unacceptable.

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 27, 2020, 09:25:14 AM
M-231 has already been built to supplement US-31 through Grand Haven. I don't know how a 30 mph speed limit on a US highway through the heart of a city is unacceptable.

It's a major north-south highway with high traffic volumes - it warrants some sort of upgrades.

You seem to have this attitude that because it's not an interstate highway that it shouldn't be a freeway.

Quote from: 1 on October 27, 2020, 09:18:08 AM
Massachusetts is considering a road diet (from two per direction to one per direction plus two-way left turn lane) on a road with a maximum of 19,000 AADT. Two-lane roads can handle over 20,000 AADT, as seen in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20217). Is 7,000-8,000 really enough to widen?

Is the road an urban arterial, or a rural highway?

Higher speeds, long distance traffic, truck traffic, increased need for passing opportunities tend to warrant 4 lanes on rural corridors with lower AADT than on urban arterials.

Look at Virginia's 4 lane divided highway system - specifically US-58. Carries 5,000 AADT, even down to 3,000 AADT in areas, and is still being widened to 4 lanes closer to I-77 - with the bulk of the work between Stuart and South Hill complete in the last 20 years.

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 27, 2020, 10:14:36 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 27, 2020, 09:25:14 AM
M-231 has already been built to supplement US-31 through Grand Haven. I don't know how a 30 mph speed limit on a US highway through the heart of a city is unacceptable.

It's a major north-south highway with high traffic volumes - it warrants some sort of upgrades.

You seem to have this attitude that because it's not an interstate highway that it shouldn't be a freeway.

A bypass route has been built it shouldn't need an upgrade when the route passes through the downtown of a city most people will use the bypass route. Most places the bypass is the main route but in this case it's not.

No I have the attitude that if it's a freeway it doesn't automatically need to be an Interstate highway. All changing things around does is causes confusion. I don't see the need to make US-23 an Interstate like some people do, same with US-127, US-10 and US-131. M-53 is a freeway in Macomb County with no connections to an Interstate at either end nor does it intersect with an Interstate, does that need to be one?

M-231 isn't a freeway but it's a high speed two lane road with a 65 mph speed limit so it's not like there isn't an option to bypass downtown Grand Haven.

what is so confusing about changing the numbering to interstates? california did it years ago and no one seemed to have a problem with it. also 231 isnt a good bypass as it doesnt actually connect with 31 at all. but michigan loves half stepping everything on roads it's not surprising.

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 27, 2020, 12:25:49 PM
what is so confusing about changing the numbering to interstates? california did it years ago and no one seemed to have a problem with it. also 231 isnt a good bypass as it doesnt actually connect with 31 at all. but michigan loves half stepping everything on roads it's not surprising.

California didn't change most of their state routes to Interstates. They still have a whole bunch of state route freeways.

1, 2, 4, 13, 14, 15, 17, 22, 23, 24, 33, 37, 41, 47, 52, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 65, 67, 70, 71, 73, 75, 78, 84, 85, 87, 91, 92, 94, 99, 103, 110, 118, 120, 125, 126, 132, 133, 134, 160, 163, 168, 170, 180, 210, 237, 241, 242, 261, 905. I might be missing a few.

Quote from: 1 on October 27, 2020, 12:35:10 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 27, 2020, 12:25:49 PM
what is so confusing about changing the numbering to interstates? california did it years ago and no one seemed to have a problem with it. also 231 isnt a good bypass as it doesnt actually connect with 31 at all. but michigan loves half stepping everything on roads it's not surprising.

California didn't change most of their state routes to Interstates. They still have a whole bunch of state route freeways.

I'm referring to them changing the numbers at all. It's like you all think drivers are stupid and can't make out a change in numbers.

i guess i'm thinking like a road geek, the average driver will likely lose their mind  :-D

Quote from: 1 on October 27, 2020, 09:18:08 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 27, 2020, 09:09:03 AM
Around 7,000 - 8,000 AADT.

Could warrant being at least a 4 lane divided highway.

Massachusetts is considering a road diet (from two per direction to one per direction plus two-way left turn lane) on a road with a maximum of 19,000 AADT. Two-lane roads can handle over 20,000 AADT, as seen in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20217). Is 7,000-8,000 really enough to widen?

MDOT clearly doesn't think so. Even when it does, it's more likely to do what they did with M-20 between Mount Pleasant and Midland - a 5-lane (2 per direction plus two-way left turn lane) configuration. This isn't the MDOT of 60 years ago - they're not building new freeways anymore.

MDOT focused recent improvements (wisely) on an extension of the US-131 freeway to north of Manton. Any other work in and around Traverse City in the next 20-30 years, short of a wholesale change in local politics or MDOT receiving a truly massive cash infusion, will be limited to 4/5 laning existing surface routes (M-37, M-113, M-72, M-55). There's simply no appetite to punch a freeway/expressway to or around Traverse City.

Quote from: JREwing78 on October 27, 2020, 10:14:16 PM

Quote from: 1 on October 27, 2020, 09:18:08 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 27, 2020, 09:09:03 AM
Around 7,000 - 8,000 AADT.

Could warrant being at least a 4 lane divided highway.

Massachusetts is considering a road diet (from two per direction to one per direction plus two-way left turn lane) on a road with a maximum of 19,000 AADT. Two-lane roads can handle over 20,000 AADT, as seen in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20217). Is 7,000-8,000 really enough to widen?

MDOT clearly doesn't think so. Even when it does, it's more likely to do what they did with M-20 between Mount Pleasant and Midland - a 5-lane (2 per direction plus two-way left turn lane) configuration. This isn't the MDOT of 60 years ago - they're not building new freeways anymore.

MDOT focused recent improvements (wisely) on an extension of the US-131 freeway to north of Manton. Any other work in and around Traverse City in the next 20-30 years, short of a wholesale change in local politics or MDOT receiving a truly massive cash infusion, will be limited to 4/5 laning existing surface routes (M-37, M-113, M-72, M-55). There's simply no appetite to punch a freeway/expressway to or around Traverse City.

4 lane divided for 31 north of 10 is a good idea, but the way it currently is isn't really bad. i've made that drive a lot and traffic isnt bad, it's just fine. the freeway gap from 196 to 96 is the only thing that needs filling really.

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 29, 2020, 04:24:29 PM

Quote from: JREwing78 on October 27, 2020, 10:14:16 PM

Quote from: 1 on October 27, 2020, 09:18:08 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 27, 2020, 09:09:03 AM
Around 7,000 - 8,000 AADT.

Could warrant being at least a 4 lane divided highway.

Massachusetts is considering a road diet (from two per direction to one per direction plus two-way left turn lane) on a road with a maximum of 19,000 AADT. Two-lane roads can handle over 20,000 AADT, as seen in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20217). Is 7,000-8,000 really enough to widen?

MDOT clearly doesn't think so. Even when it does, it's more likely to do what they did with M-20 between Mount Pleasant and Midland - a 5-lane (2 per direction plus two-way left turn lane) configuration. This isn't the MDOT of 60 years ago - they're not building new freeways anymore.

MDOT focused recent improvements (wisely) on an extension of the US-131 freeway to north of Manton. Any other work in and around Traverse City in the next 20-30 years, short of a wholesale change in local politics or MDOT receiving a truly massive cash infusion, will be limited to 4/5 laning existing surface routes (M-37, M-113, M-72, M-55). There's simply no appetite to punch a freeway/expressway to or around Traverse City.

4 lane divided for 31 north of 10 is a good idea, but the way it currently is isn't really bad. i've made that drive a lot and traffic isnt bad, it's just fine. the freeway gap from 196 to 96 is the only thing that needs filling really.

Try it on a summer weekend or holiday weekend.  An 8 lane freeway wouldn't be enough!

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 29, 2020, 04:24:29 PM

Quote from: JREwing78 on October 27, 2020, 10:14:16 PM

Quote from: 1 on October 27, 2020, 09:18:08 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 27, 2020, 09:09:03 AM
Around 7,000 - 8,000 AADT.

Could warrant being at least a 4 lane divided highway.

Massachusetts is considering a road diet (from two per direction to one per direction plus two-way left turn lane) on a road with a maximum of 19,000 AADT. Two-lane roads can handle over 20,000 AADT, as seen in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20217). Is 7,000-8,000 really enough to widen?

MDOT clearly doesn't think so. Even when it does, it's more likely to do what they did with M-20 between Mount Pleasant and Midland - a 5-lane (2 per direction plus two-way left turn lane) configuration. This isn't the MDOT of 60 years ago - they're not building new freeways anymore.

MDOT focused recent improvements (wisely) on an extension of the US-131 freeway to north of Manton. Any other work in and around Traverse City in the next 20-30 years, short of a wholesale change in local politics or MDOT receiving a truly massive cash infusion, will be limited to 4/5 laning existing surface routes (M-37, M-113, M-72, M-55). There's simply no appetite to punch a freeway/expressway to or around Traverse City.

4 lane divided for 31 north of 10 is a good idea, but the way it currently is isn't really bad. i've made that drive a lot and traffic isnt bad, it's just fine. the freeway gap from 196 to 96 is the only thing that needs filling really.

I don't see the need to fill the freeway gap between 196 and 96. There's already M-231 there to bypass Grand Haven and M-231 is 65 mph. The only problem with Grand Haven is the drawbridge that opens quite often. Even though M-231 won't connect to US-31 it's still a viable bypass of Grand Haven. MDOT isn't going to just remove US-31 from the streets of Grand Haven but M-231 has been open for about 5 years now and serves as the Grand Haven bypass.

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 30, 2020, 07:17:26 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 29, 2020, 04:24:29 PM
4 lane divided for 31 north of 10 is a good idea, but the way it currently is isn't really bad. i've made that drive a lot and traffic isnt bad, it's just fine. the freeway gap from 196 to 96 is the only thing that needs filling really.

I don't see the need to fill the freeway gap between 196 and 96. There's already M-231 there to bypass Grand Haven and M-231 is 65 mph. The only problem with Grand Haven is the drawbridge that opens quite often. Even though M-231 won't connect to US-31 it's still a viable bypass of Grand Haven. MDOT isn't going to just remove US-31 from the streets of Grand Haven but M-231 has been open for about 5 years now and serves as the Grand Haven bypass.

MDOT isn't exactly in a hurry, but they did wisely realize their window for getting US-31 out of Holland and Grand Haven was closing and started buying right-of-way for it. It was necessary to get M-231 built because of the lack of other bridges over the Grand River bridge, but it's a stopgap until MDOT has funding to (ultimately) complete a full bypass.

MDOT could certainly keep US-31 on the same alignment through Holland - it would just be expensive to rebuild. But anything through Grand Haven is expensive and full of NIMBYs who (rightfully) would object to any kind of urban freeway punched through.

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 30, 2020, 07:17:26 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 29, 2020, 04:24:29 PM

Quote from: JREwing78 on October 27, 2020, 10:14:16 PM

Quote from: 1 on October 27, 2020, 09:18:08 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 27, 2020, 09:09:03 AM
Around 7,000 - 8,000 AADT.

Could warrant being at least a 4 lane divided highway.

Massachusetts is considering a road diet (from two per direction to one per direction plus two-way left turn lane) on a road with a maximum of 19,000 AADT. Two-lane roads can handle over 20,000 AADT, as seen in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20217). Is 7,000-8,000 really enough to widen?

MDOT clearly doesn't think so. Even when it does, it's more likely to do what they did with M-20 between Mount Pleasant and Midland - a 5-lane (2 per direction plus two-way left turn lane) configuration. This isn't the MDOT of 60 years ago - they're not building new freeways anymore.

MDOT focused recent improvements (wisely) on an extension of the US-131 freeway to north of Manton. Any other work in and around Traverse City in the next 20-30 years, short of a wholesale change in local politics or MDOT receiving a truly massive cash infusion, will be limited to 4/5 laning existing surface routes (M-37, M-113, M-72, M-55). There's simply no appetite to punch a freeway/expressway to or around Traverse City.

4 lane divided for 31 north of 10 is a good idea, but the way it currently is isn't really bad. i've made that drive a lot and traffic isnt bad, it's just fine. the freeway gap from 196 to 96 is the only thing that needs filling really.

I don't see the need to fill the freeway gap between 196 and 96. There's already M-231 there to bypass Grand Haven and M-231 is 65 mph. The only problem with Grand Haven is the drawbridge that opens quite often. Even though M-231 won't connect to US-31 it's still a viable bypass of Grand Haven. MDOT isn't going to just remove US-31 from the streets of Grand Haven but M-231 has been open for about 5 years now and serves as the Grand Haven bypass.

they removed it through countless other cities along the route and called it business 31, i dont see how they wouldnt do it there too.

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 30, 2020, 09:06:29 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 30, 2020, 07:17:26 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 29, 2020, 04:24:29 PM

Quote from: JREwing78 on October 27, 2020, 10:14:16 PM

Quote from: 1 on October 27, 2020, 09:18:08 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 27, 2020, 09:09:03 AM
Around 7,000 - 8,000 AADT.

Could warrant being at least a 4 lane divided highway.

Massachusetts is considering a road diet (from two per direction to one per direction plus two-way left turn lane) on a road with a maximum of 19,000 AADT. Two-lane roads can handle over 20,000 AADT, as seen in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20217). Is 7,000-8,000 really enough to widen?

MDOT clearly doesn't think so. Even when it does, it's more likely to do what they did with M-20 between Mount Pleasant and Midland - a 5-lane (2 per direction plus two-way left turn lane) configuration. This isn't the MDOT of 60 years ago - they're not building new freeways anymore.

MDOT focused recent improvements (wisely) on an extension of the US-131 freeway to north of Manton. Any other work in and around Traverse City in the next 20-30 years, short of a wholesale change in local politics or MDOT receiving a truly massive cash infusion, will be limited to 4/5 laning existing surface routes (M-37, M-113, M-72, M-55). There's simply no appetite to punch a freeway/expressway to or around Traverse City.

4 lane divided for 31 north of 10 is a good idea, but the way it currently is isn't really bad. i've made that drive a lot and traffic isnt bad, it's just fine. the freeway gap from 196 to 96 is the only thing that needs filling really.

I don't see the need to fill the freeway gap between 196 and 96. There's already M-231 there to bypass Grand Haven and M-231 is 65 mph. The only problem with Grand Haven is the drawbridge that opens quite often. Even though M-231 won't connect to US-31 it's still a viable bypass of Grand Haven. MDOT isn't going to just remove US-31 from the streets of Grand Haven but M-231 has been open for about 5 years now and serves as the Grand Haven bypass.

they removed it through countless other cities along the route and called it business 31, i dont see how they wouldnt do it there too.

There are more cities that US-31 goes through than goes around. There isn't much demand for it.

M-45 to M-231 to I-96 back to US-31 and vice versa is fine. And if you wanted to avoid stretches of US-31 you could always take two lane 120th Avenue between Holland and M-45.

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 30, 2020, 09:19:57 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 30, 2020, 09:06:29 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 30, 2020, 07:17:26 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 29, 2020, 04:24:29 PM

Quote from: JREwing78 on October 27, 2020, 10:14:16 PM

Quote from: 1 on October 27, 2020, 09:18:08 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 27, 2020, 09:09:03 AM
Around 7,000 - 8,000 AADT.

Could warrant being at least a 4 lane divided highway.

Massachusetts is considering a road diet (from two per direction to one per direction plus two-way left turn lane) on a road with a maximum of 19,000 AADT. Two-lane roads can handle over 20,000 AADT, as seen in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20217). Is 7,000-8,000 really enough to widen?

MDOT clearly doesn't think so. Even when it does, it's more likely to do what they did with M-20 between Mount Pleasant and Midland - a 5-lane (2 per direction plus two-way left turn lane) configuration. This isn't the MDOT of 60 years ago - they're not building new freeways anymore.

MDOT focused recent improvements (wisely) on an extension of the US-131 freeway to north of Manton. Any other work in and around Traverse City in the next 20-30 years, short of a wholesale change in local politics or MDOT receiving a truly massive cash infusion, will be limited to 4/5 laning existing surface routes (M-37, M-113, M-72, M-55). There's simply no appetite to punch a freeway/expressway to or around Traverse City.

4 lane divided for 31 north of 10 is a good idea, but the way it currently is isn't really bad. i've made that drive a lot and traffic isnt bad, it's just fine. the freeway gap from 196 to 96 is the only thing that needs filling really.

I don't see the need to fill the freeway gap between 196 and 96. There's already M-231 there to bypass Grand Haven and M-231 is 65 mph. The only problem with Grand Haven is the drawbridge that opens quite often. Even though M-231 won't connect to US-31 it's still a viable bypass of Grand Haven. MDOT isn't going to just remove US-31 from the streets of Grand Haven but M-231 has been open for about 5 years now and serves as the Grand Haven bypass.

they removed it through countless other cities along the route and called it business 31, i dont see how they wouldnt do it there too.

There are more cities that US-31 goes through than goes around. There isn't much demand for it.

M-45 to M-231 to I-96 back to US-31 and vice versa is fine. And if you wanted to avoid stretches of US-31 you could always take two lane 120th Avenue between Holland and M-45.

As is it's gotta be the dumbest bypass ever.  You're probably doubling the mileage to travel on mostly 2-lane roads.  What sense does that make?

Quote from: Terry Shea on October 30, 2020, 04:21:34 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 30, 2020, 09:19:57 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 30, 2020, 09:06:29 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 30, 2020, 07:17:26 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 29, 2020, 04:24:29 PM

Quote from: JREwing78 on October 27, 2020, 10:14:16 PM

Quote from: 1 on October 27, 2020, 09:18:08 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 27, 2020, 09:09:03 AM
Around 7,000 - 8,000 AADT.

Could warrant being at least a 4 lane divided highway.

Massachusetts is considering a road diet (from two per direction to one per direction plus two-way left turn lane) on a road with a maximum of 19,000 AADT. Two-lane roads can handle over 20,000 AADT, as seen in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20217). Is 7,000-8,000 really enough to widen?

MDOT clearly doesn't think so. Even when it does, it's more likely to do what they did with M-20 between Mount Pleasant and Midland - a 5-lane (2 per direction plus two-way left turn lane) configuration. This isn't the MDOT of 60 years ago - they're not building new freeways anymore.

MDOT focused recent improvements (wisely) on an extension of the US-131 freeway to north of Manton. Any other work in and around Traverse City in the next 20-30 years, short of a wholesale change in local politics or MDOT receiving a truly massive cash infusion, will be limited to 4/5 laning existing surface routes (M-37, M-113, M-72, M-55). There's simply no appetite to punch a freeway/expressway to or around Traverse City.

4 lane divided for 31 north of 10 is a good idea, but the way it currently is isn't really bad. i've made that drive a lot and traffic isnt bad, it's just fine. the freeway gap from 196 to 96 is the only thing that needs filling really.

I don't see the need to fill the freeway gap between 196 and 96. There's already M-231 there to bypass Grand Haven and M-231 is 65 mph. The only problem with Grand Haven is the drawbridge that opens quite often. Even though M-231 won't connect to US-31 it's still a viable bypass of Grand Haven. MDOT isn't going to just remove US-31 from the streets of Grand Haven but M-231 has been open for about 5 years now and serves as the Grand Haven bypass.

they removed it through countless other cities along the route and called it business 31, i dont see how they wouldnt do it there too.

There are more cities that US-31 goes through than goes around. There isn't much demand for it.

M-45 to M-231 to I-96 back to US-31 and vice versa is fine. And if you wanted to avoid stretches of US-31 you could always take two lane 120th Avenue between Holland and M-45.

As is it's gotta be the dumbest bypass ever.  You're probably doubling the mileage to travel on mostly 2-lane roads.  What sense does that make?

I just looked at a trip from South Haven to Whitehall on Google maps.  Same time using US-31 and M-231.  2.6 miles longer on M-231.  It uses New Holland to 120th to a jog on M-45 to M-231.

Quote from: Terry Shea on October 30, 2020, 04:21:34 PM
As is it's gotta be the dumbest bypass ever.  You're probably doubling the mileage to travel on mostly 2-lane roads.  What sense does that make?

Long-term, M-231 will add a 2nd set of travel lanes and become converted to a freeway bypass of both Grand Haven and Holland. MDOT has plans on the books and a Record of Decision on what that will look like. More: https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9621_11058_35076---,00.html (https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9621_11058_35076---,00.html)

If you haven't noticed, MDOT isn't exactly awash in money. What money it does have is mainly being directed to rebuilding and repairing existing highways, including I-75 in Oakland County and I-94 in Detroit. That work is being funded by a massive bond because Gov. Whitmer couldn't get the Republicans in the legislature to play along with raising the gas tax, but continuing to wait to fix the roads would've become substantially more expensive.

So yeah, M-231's basic function currently is a crossing of the Grand River. Next closest crossing is about 20 miles farther upstream. If the bridge for US-31 in Grand Haven acts up (not uncommon), that is the relief route for US-31 travelers. Locals have also found the crossing quite handy - last AADT numbers were around 8600 vpd. That's hardly an indication that building the roadway was "dumb".

Quote from: JREwing78 on October 30, 2020, 05:07:08 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on October 30, 2020, 04:21:34 PM
As is it's gotta be the dumbest bypass ever.  You're probably doubling the mileage to travel on mostly 2-lane roads.  What sense does that make?

Long-term, M-231 will add a 2nd set of travel lanes and become converted to a freeway bypass of both Grand Haven and Holland. MDOT has plans on the books and a Record of Decision on what that will look like. More: https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9621_11058_35076---,00.html (https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9621_11058_35076---,00.html)

If you haven't noticed, MDOT isn't exactly awash in money. What money it does have is mainly being directed to rebuilding and repairing existing highways, including I-75 in Oakland County and I-94 in Detroit. That work is being funded by a massive bond because Gov. Whitmer couldn't get the Republicans in the legislature to play along with raising the gas tax, but continuing to wait to fix the roads would've become substantially more expensive.

So yeah, M-231's basic function currently is a crossing of the Grand River. Next closest crossing is about 20 miles farther upstream. If the bridge for US-31 in Grand Haven acts up (not uncommon), that is the relief route for US-31 travelers. Locals have also found the crossing quite handy - last AADT numbers were around 8600 vpd. That's hardly an indication that building the roadway was "dumb".

As a resident of the area, I can confirm that M-231 is incredibly handy for traveling to local areas south and east of Grand Haven, and it's definitely handy for when the drawbridge acts up.

And if you're commuting long distance down US-31, it's pretty much about the same amount of time to bypass GH via 96/231/45 as it is to stay on 31 when traffic isn't super heavy. Not a perfect bypass, but better than nothing.

Quote from: GaryV on October 30, 2020, 04:33:01 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on October 30, 2020, 04:21:34 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 30, 2020, 09:19:57 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 30, 2020, 09:06:29 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 30, 2020, 07:17:26 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 29, 2020, 04:24:29 PM

Quote from: JREwing78 on October 27, 2020, 10:14:16 PM

Quote from: 1 on October 27, 2020, 09:18:08 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 27, 2020, 09:09:03 AM
Around 7,000 - 8,000 AADT.

Could warrant being at least a 4 lane divided highway.

Massachusetts is considering a road diet (from two per direction to one per direction plus two-way left turn lane) on a road with a maximum of 19,000 AADT. Two-lane roads can handle over 20,000 AADT, as seen in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20217). Is 7,000-8,000 really enough to widen?

MDOT clearly doesn't think so. Even when it does, it's more likely to do what they did with M-20 between Mount Pleasant and Midland - a 5-lane (2 per direction plus two-way left turn lane) configuration. This isn't the MDOT of 60 years ago - they're not building new freeways anymore.

MDOT focused recent improvements (wisely) on an extension of the US-131 freeway to north of Manton. Any other work in and around Traverse City in the next 20-30 years, short of a wholesale change in local politics or MDOT receiving a truly massive cash infusion, will be limited to 4/5 laning existing surface routes (M-37, M-113, M-72, M-55). There's simply no appetite to punch a freeway/expressway to or around Traverse City.

4 lane divided for 31 north of 10 is a good idea, but the way it currently is isn't really bad. i've made that drive a lot and traffic isnt bad, it's just fine. the freeway gap from 196 to 96 is the only thing that needs filling really.

I don't see the need to fill the freeway gap between 196 and 96. There's already M-231 there to bypass Grand Haven and M-231 is 65 mph. The only problem with Grand Haven is the drawbridge that opens quite often. Even though M-231 won't connect to US-31 it's still a viable bypass of Grand Haven. MDOT isn't going to just remove US-31 from the streets of Grand Haven but M-231 has been open for about 5 years now and serves as the Grand Haven bypass.

they removed it through countless other cities along the route and called it business 31, i dont see how they wouldnt do it there too.

There are more cities that US-31 goes through than goes around. There isn't much demand for it.

M-45 to M-231 to I-96 back to US-31 and vice versa is fine. And if you wanted to avoid stretches of US-31 you could always take two lane 120th Avenue between Holland and M-45.

As is it's gotta be the dumbest bypass ever.  You're probably doubling the mileage to travel on mostly 2-lane roads.  What sense does that make?

I just looked at a trip from South Haven to Whitehall on Google maps.  Same time using US-31 and M-231.  2.6 miles longer on M-231.  It uses New Holland to 120th to a jog on M-45 to M-231.

I was talking about US-31 to M-45 to M-231 to I-96 back to US-31, since that's supposed to be the "bypass."  It's probably 2.6 times longer, not 2.6 miles longer.  I find it hard to believe adding 120th into the mix would cut off any miles, although it would certainly cut off time bypassing Holland.  Problem is most people are unaware 120th Ave. exists.

Quote from: JREwing78 on October 30, 2020, 05:07:08 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on October 30, 2020, 04:21:34 PM
As is it's gotta be the dumbest bypass ever.  You're probably doubling the mileage to travel on mostly 2-lane roads.  What sense does that make?

Long-term, M-231 will add a 2nd set of travel lanes and become converted to a freeway bypass of both Grand Haven and Holland. MDOT has plans on the books and a Record of Decision on what that will look like. More: https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9621_11058_35076---,00.html (https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9621_11058_35076---,00.html)

If you haven't noticed, MDOT isn't exactly awash in money. What money it does have is mainly being directed to rebuilding and repairing existing highways, including I-75 in Oakland County and I-94 in Detroit. That work is being funded by a massive bond because Gov. Whitmer couldn't get the Republicans in the legislature to play along with raising the gas tax, but continuing to wait to fix the roads would've become substantially more expensive.

So yeah, M-231's basic function currently is a crossing of the Grand River. Next closest crossing is about 20 miles farther upstream. If the bridge for US-31 in Grand Haven acts up (not uncommon), that is the relief route for US-31 travelers. Locals have also found the crossing quite handy - last AADT numbers were around 8600 vpd. That's hardly an indication that building the roadway was "dumb".

That's not what I said.  I said "as is it's gotta be the dumbest bypass ever," and I'll stand by that.  I understand the need for the river crossing, for the bascule bridge back up and the fact that it may (or may not) be upgraded and extended in 3-4 centuries, but speaking strictly from a bypass standpoint for US-31 it doesn't really work, and won't until the entire original project is completed.

Quote from: Terry Shea on October 31, 2020, 09:27:07 PM

Quote from: GaryV on October 30, 2020, 04:33:01 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on October 30, 2020, 04:21:34 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 30, 2020, 09:19:57 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 30, 2020, 09:06:29 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 30, 2020, 07:17:26 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 29, 2020, 04:24:29 PM

Quote from: JREwing78 on October 27, 2020, 10:14:16 PM

Quote from: 1 on October 27, 2020, 09:18:08 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 27, 2020, 09:09:03 AM
Around 7,000 - 8,000 AADT.

Could warrant being at least a 4 lane divided highway.

Massachusetts is considering a road diet (from two per direction to one per direction plus two-way left turn lane) on a road with a maximum of 19,000 AADT. Two-lane roads can handle over 20,000 AADT, as seen in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20217). Is 7,000-8,000 really enough to widen?

MDOT clearly doesn't think so. Even when it does, it's more likely to do what they did with M-20 between Mount Pleasant and Midland - a 5-lane (2 per direction plus two-way left turn lane) configuration. This isn't the MDOT of 60 years ago - they're not building new freeways anymore.

MDOT focused recent improvements (wisely) on an extension of the US-131 freeway to north of Manton. Any other work in and around Traverse City in the next 20-30 years, short of a wholesale change in local politics or MDOT receiving a truly massive cash infusion, will be limited to 4/5 laning existing surface routes (M-37, M-113, M-72, M-55). There's simply no appetite to punch a freeway/expressway to or around Traverse City.

4 lane divided for 31 north of 10 is a good idea, but the way it currently is isn't really bad. i've made that drive a lot and traffic isnt bad, it's just fine. the freeway gap from 196 to 96 is the only thing that needs filling really.

I don't see the need to fill the freeway gap between 196 and 96. There's already M-231 there to bypass Grand Haven and M-231 is 65 mph. The only problem with Grand Haven is the drawbridge that opens quite often. Even though M-231 won't connect to US-31 it's still a viable bypass of Grand Haven. MDOT isn't going to just remove US-31 from the streets of Grand Haven but M-231 has been open for about 5 years now and serves as the Grand Haven bypass.

they removed it through countless other cities along the route and called it business 31, i dont see how they wouldnt do it there too.

There are more cities that US-31 goes through than goes around. There isn't much demand for it.

M-45 to M-231 to I-96 back to US-31 and vice versa is fine. And if you wanted to avoid stretches of US-31 you could always take two lane 120th Avenue between Holland and M-45.

As is it's gotta be the dumbest bypass ever.  You're probably doubling the mileage to travel on mostly 2-lane roads.  What sense does that make?

I just looked at a trip from South Haven to Whitehall on Google maps.  Same time using US-31 and M-231.  2.6 miles longer on M-231.  It uses New Holland to 120th to a jog on M-45 to M-231.

I was talking about US-31 to M-45 to M-231 to I-96 back to US-31, since that's supposed to be the "bypass."  It's probably 2.6 times longer, not 2.6 miles longer.  I find it hard to believe adding 120th into the mix would cut off any miles, although it would certainly cut off time bypassing Holland.  Problem is most people are unaware 120th Ave. exists.

OK, let's try a shorter route to bypass Grand Haven only.  Agnew (near the intersection of US-31 and M-45 to Muskegon Heights. Early on a Sunday morning, when there should be little traffic, so the difference in times should be greatest.
Via US-31: 18 miles, 21 minutes. 
Via M-45 and M-231: 24.5 miles, 25 minutes. 
That's not 2.6 times longer by any measure.

M-231 is a partial bypass it's not a full bypass.

Also Grand Haven is the seat of Ottawa County (I actually think Allendale should be the seat but oh well) and I really don't know how Grand Haven got to be the county seat because the jail and courthouse aren't even in Grand Haven they are in West Olive on 120th Avenue in the middle of nowhere pretty much.

Quote from: GaryV on November 01, 2020, 06:49:41 AM

Quote from: Terry Shea on October 31, 2020, 09:27:07 PM

Quote from: GaryV on October 30, 2020, 04:33:01 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on October 30, 2020, 04:21:34 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 30, 2020, 09:19:57 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 30, 2020, 09:06:29 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 30, 2020, 07:17:26 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 29, 2020, 04:24:29 PM

Quote from: JREwing78 on October 27, 2020, 10:14:16 PM

Quote from: 1 on October 27, 2020, 09:18:08 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 27, 2020, 09:09:03 AM
Around 7,000 - 8,000 AADT.

Could warrant being at least a 4 lane divided highway.

Massachusetts is considering a road diet (from two per direction to one per direction plus two-way left turn lane) on a road with a maximum of 19,000 AADT. Two-lane roads can handle over 20,000 AADT, as seen in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20217). Is 7,000-8,000 really enough to widen?

MDOT clearly doesn't think so. Even when it does, it's more likely to do what they did with M-20 between Mount Pleasant and Midland - a 5-lane (2 per direction plus two-way left turn lane) configuration. This isn't the MDOT of 60 years ago - they're not building new freeways anymore.

MDOT focused recent improvements (wisely) on an extension of the US-131 freeway to north of Manton. Any other work in and around Traverse City in the next 20-30 years, short of a wholesale change in local politics or MDOT receiving a truly massive cash infusion, will be limited to 4/5 laning existing surface routes (M-37, M-113, M-72, M-55). There's simply no appetite to punch a freeway/expressway to or around Traverse City.

4 lane divided for 31 north of 10 is a good idea, but the way it currently is isn't really bad. i've made that drive a lot and traffic isnt bad, it's just fine. the freeway gap from 196 to 96 is the only thing that needs filling really.

I don't see the need to fill the freeway gap between 196 and 96. There's already M-231 there to bypass Grand Haven and M-231 is 65 mph. The only problem with Grand Haven is the drawbridge that opens quite often. Even though M-231 won't connect to US-31 it's still a viable bypass of Grand Haven. MDOT isn't going to just remove US-31 from the streets of Grand Haven but M-231 has been open for about 5 years now and serves as the Grand Haven bypass.

they removed it through countless other cities along the route and called it business 31, i dont see how they wouldnt do it there too.

There are more cities that US-31 goes through than goes around. There isn't much demand for it.

M-45 to M-231 to I-96 back to US-31 and vice versa is fine. And if you wanted to avoid stretches of US-31 you could always take two lane 120th Avenue between Holland and M-45.

As is it's gotta be the dumbest bypass ever.  You're probably doubling the mileage to travel on mostly 2-lane roads.  What sense does that make?

I just looked at a trip from South Haven to Whitehall on Google maps.  Same time using US-31 and M-231.  2.6 miles longer on M-231.  It uses New Holland to 120th to a jog on M-45 to M-231.

I was talking about US-31 to M-45 to M-231 to I-96 back to US-31, since that's supposed to be the "bypass."  It's probably 2.6 times longer, not 2.6 miles longer.  I find it hard to believe adding 120th into the mix would cut off any miles, although it would certainly cut off time bypassing Holland.  Problem is most people are unaware 120th Ave. exists.

OK, let's try a shorter route to bypass Grand Haven only.  Agnew (near the intersection of US-31 and M-45 to Muskegon Heights. Early on a Sunday morning, when there should be little traffic, so the difference in times should be greatest.
Via US-31: 18 miles, 21 minutes. 
Via M-45 and M-231: 24.5 miles, 25 minutes. 
That's not 2.6 times longer by any measure.

Use the starting point where M-45 intersects US-31, and the I-96/US-31 interchange for the endpoint.  Or even use M-104/US-31 for the endpoint.  That has to be adding 13-15 miles using M-231.

Quote from: Terry Shea on November 01, 2020, 05:51:02 PM

Quote from: GaryV on November 01, 2020, 06:49:41 AM

Quote from: Terry Shea on October 31, 2020, 09:27:07 PM

Quote from: GaryV on October 30, 2020, 04:33:01 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on October 30, 2020, 04:21:34 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 30, 2020, 09:19:57 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 30, 2020, 09:06:29 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 30, 2020, 07:17:26 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 29, 2020, 04:24:29 PM

Quote from: JREwing78 on October 27, 2020, 10:14:16 PM

Quote from: 1 on October 27, 2020, 09:18:08 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 27, 2020, 09:09:03 AM
Around 7,000 - 8,000 AADT.

Could warrant being at least a 4 lane divided highway.

Massachusetts is considering a road diet (from two per direction to one per direction plus two-way left turn lane) on a road with a maximum of 19,000 AADT. Two-lane roads can handle over 20,000 AADT, as seen in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20217). Is 7,000-8,000 really enough to widen?

MDOT clearly doesn't think so. Even when it does, it's more likely to do what they did with M-20 between Mount Pleasant and Midland - a 5-lane (2 per direction plus two-way left turn lane) configuration. This isn't the MDOT of 60 years ago - they're not building new freeways anymore.

MDOT focused recent improvements (wisely) on an extension of the US-131 freeway to north of Manton. Any other work in and around Traverse City in the next 20-30 years, short of a wholesale change in local politics or MDOT receiving a truly massive cash infusion, will be limited to 4/5 laning existing surface routes (M-37, M-113, M-72, M-55). There's simply no appetite to punch a freeway/expressway to or around Traverse City.

4 lane divided for 31 north of 10 is a good idea, but the way it currently is isn't really bad. i've made that drive a lot and traffic isnt bad, it's just fine. the freeway gap from 196 to 96 is the only thing that needs filling really.

I don't see the need to fill the freeway gap between 196 and 96. There's already M-231 there to bypass Grand Haven and M-231 is 65 mph. The only problem with Grand Haven is the drawbridge that opens quite often. Even though M-231 won't connect to US-31 it's still a viable bypass of Grand Haven. MDOT isn't going to just remove US-31 from the streets of Grand Haven but M-231 has been open for about 5 years now and serves as the Grand Haven bypass.

they removed it through countless other cities along the route and called it business 31, i dont see how they wouldnt do it there too.

There are more cities that US-31 goes through than goes around. There isn't much demand for it.

M-45 to M-231 to I-96 back to US-31 and vice versa is fine. And if you wanted to avoid stretches of US-31 you could always take two lane 120th Avenue between Holland and M-45.

As is it's gotta be the dumbest bypass ever.  You're probably doubling the mileage to travel on mostly 2-lane roads.  What sense does that make?

I just looked at a trip from South Haven to Whitehall on Google maps.  Same time using US-31 and M-231.  2.6 miles longer on M-231.  It uses New Holland to 120th to a jog on M-45 to M-231.

I was talking about US-31 to M-45 to M-231 to I-96 back to US-31, since that's supposed to be the "bypass."  It's probably 2.6 times longer, not 2.6 miles longer.  I find it hard to believe adding 120th into the mix would cut off any miles, although it would certainly cut off time bypassing Holland.  Problem is most people are unaware 120th Ave. exists.

OK, let's try a shorter route to bypass Grand Haven only.  Agnew (near the intersection of US-31 and M-45 to Muskegon Heights. Early on a Sunday morning, when there should be little traffic, so the difference in times should be greatest.
Via US-31: 18 miles, 21 minutes. 
Via M-45 and M-231: 24.5 miles, 25 minutes. 
That's not 2.6 times longer by any measure.

Use the starting point where M-45 intersects US-31, and the I-96/US-31 interchange for the endpoint.  Or even use M-104/US-31 for the endpoint.  That has to be adding 13-15 miles using M-231.

Did you even look at my endpoints?  Agnew is less than 1/2 mile south of M-45.  And Muskegon Heights is 2 miles down US-31  Bus from the endpoint of I-96.  Both routings - through Grand Haven or via M-231 - would use those 2 1/2 miles.

And why in the world would you use M-104 instead of I-96 going to points north?  It only gets you back to Spring Lake, and if there was a jam because the US-31 drawbridge was up, you'd be heading right back into that traffic.

M-104 is there to serve as a connector between I-96 and US-31 connecting Grand Haven to Metro Grand Rapids. Originally it was part of US-16 before that highway was moved further north to run between Nunica and Muskegon.

Quote from: Flint1979 on November 01, 2020, 08:37:54 PM
M-104 is there to serve as a connector between I-96 and US-31 connecting Grand Haven to Metro Grand Rapids. Originally it was part of US-16 before that highway was moved further north to run between Nunica and Muskegon.

Quote from: GaryV on November 01, 2020, 06:50:52 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on November 01, 2020, 05:51:02 PM

Quote from: GaryV on November 01, 2020, 06:49:41 AMThat can't possibly be right.  Just by eyeballing a map you can tell

Quote from: Terry Shea on October 31, 2020, 09:27:07 PM

Quote from: GaryV on October 30, 2020, 04:33:01 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on October 30, 2020, 04:21:34 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 30, 2020, 09:19:57 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 30, 2020, 09:06:29 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on October 30, 2020, 07:17:26 AM

Quote from: silverback1065 on October 29, 2020, 04:24:29 PM

Quote from: JREwing78 on October 27, 2020, 10:14:16 PM

Quote from: 1 on October 27, 2020, 09:18:08 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 27, 2020, 09:09:03 AM
Around 7,000 - 8,000 AADT.

Could warrant being at least a 4 lane divided highway.

Massachusetts is considering a road diet (from two per direction to one per direction plus two-way left turn lane) on a road with a maximum of 19,000 AADT. Two-lane roads can handle over 20,000 AADT, as seen in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20217). Is 7,000-8,000 really enough to widen?

MDOT clearly doesn't think so. Even when it does, it's more likely to do what they did with M-20 between Mount Pleasant and Midland - a 5-lane (2 per direction plus two-way left turn lane) configuration. This isn't the MDOT of 60 years ago - they're not building new freeways anymore.

MDOT focused recent improvements (wisely) on an extension of the US-131 freeway to north of Manton. Any other work in and around Traverse City in the next 20-30 years, short of a wholesale change in local politics or MDOT receiving a truly massive cash infusion, will be limited to 4/5 laning existing surface routes (M-37, M-113, M-72, M-55). There's simply no appetite to punch a freeway/expressway to or around Traverse City.

4 lane divided for 31 north of 10 is a good idea, but the way it currently is isn't really bad. i've made that drive a lot and traffic isnt bad, it's just fine. the freeway gap from 196 to 96 is the only thing that needs filling really.

I don't see the need to fill the freeway gap between 196 and 96. There's already M-231 there to bypass Grand Haven and M-231 is 65 mph. The only problem with Grand Haven is the drawbridge that opens quite often. Even though M-231 won't connect to US-31 it's still a viable bypass of Grand Haven. MDOT isn't going to just remove US-31 from the streets of Grand Haven but M-231 has been open for about 5 years now and serves as the Grand Haven bypass.

they removed it through countless other cities along the route and called it business 31, i dont see how they wouldnt do it there too.

There are more cities that US-31 goes through than goes around. There isn't much demand for it.

M-45 to M-231 to I-96 back to US-31 and vice versa is fine. And if you wanted to avoid stretches of US-31 you could always take two lane 120th Avenue between Holland and M-45.

As is it's gotta be the dumbest bypass ever.  You're probably doubling the mileage to travel on mostly 2-lane roads.  What sense does that make?

I just looked at a trip from South Haven to Whitehall on Google maps.  Same time using US-31 and M-231.  2.6 miles longer on M-231.  It uses New Holland to 120th to a jog on M-45 to M-231.

I was talking about US-31 to M-45 to M-231 to I-96 back to US-31, since that's supposed to be the "bypass."  It's probably 2.6 times longer, not 2.6 miles longer.  I find it hard to believe adding 120th into the mix would cut off any miles, although it would certainly cut off time bypassing Holland.  Problem is most people are unaware 120th Ave. exists.

OK, let's try a shorter route to bypass Grand Haven only.  Agnew (near the intersection of US-31 and M-45 to Muskegon Heights. Early on a Sunday morning, when there should be little traffic, so the difference in times should be greatest.
Via US-31: 18 miles, 21 minutes. 
Via M-45 and M-231: 24.5 miles, 25 minutes. 
That's not 2.6 times longer by any measure.

Use the starting point where M-45 intersects US-31, and the I-96/US-31 interchange for the endpoint.  Or even use M-104/US-31 for the endpoint.  That has to be adding 13-15 miles using M-231.

Did you even look at my endpoints?  Agnew is less than 1/2 mile south of M-45.  And Muskegon Heights is 2 miles down US-31  Bus from the endpoint of I-96.  Both routings - through Grand Haven or via M-231 - would use those 2 1/2 miles.

And why in the world would you use M-104 instead of I-96 going to points north?  It only gets you back to Spring Lake, and if there was a jam because the US-31 drawbridge was up, you'd be heading right back into that traffic.

That can't possibly be right.  Just by eyeballing a map you can tell it's much, much, much greater than a 2 and a half mile difference!  The shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line.  I used M-104 because that's exactly what people have to do when the bascule bridge gets stuck open and they need to get to the other side.  It's about 6 miles back to US-31 along M-104 and probably about 4 miles from US-31 to M-231.

It's almost 5 miles between US-31 and M-231 along M-45.

From M-231 to US-31 along M-104 it's 6 and a half miles.

I've got a direction that's less than 2 miles difference between Holland and Muskegon and takes exactly 1 minute longer.

Coming from Holland, take US-31 to New Holland Street, make a right, then a left onto 120th Avenue, following that to M-45 make a left and then a right onto M-231. Take M-231 to I-96 west to US-31 north to M-46 west. That is going into downtown Muskegon.

It's 38.9 miles taking my directions and 36.2 miles to stay on US-31 through Grand Haven.

Why does this bridge get stuck open? sounds like you should replace the bridge rather than build a whole new road just in case this bridge fails.

How much would it cost to just tunnel US-31 under the Grand River where the drawbridge is? That drawbridge has been a problem since I was a kid and I'm talking back to the 80's. It's probably too old to fix anyway just replace the stupid thing.

Ironically if you zoom in on the satellite view on GSV the drawbridge is in the up position letting a boat through.

Quote from: silverback1065 on November 03, 2020, 12:11:10 PM
Why does this bridge get stuck open? sounds like you should replace the bridge rather than build a whole new road just in case this bridge fails.

You have your answer.  MDOT doesn't do things that make sense or spend money where it's needed.  They should replace the bridge and complete the bypass, but neither will happen for many millennia.

Quote from: Flint1979 on November 03, 2020, 12:19:18 PM
How much would it cost to just tunnel US-31 under the Grand River where the drawbridge is? That drawbridge has been a problem since I was a kid and I'm talking back to the 80's. It's probably too old to fix anyway just replace the stupid thing.

Ironically if you zoom in on the satellite view on GSV the drawbridge is in the up position letting a boat through.

It's not just that, but also the cost to punch a freeway through Grand Haven. At a minimum, it's 2 miles of urban depressed freeway, with frontage roads. Even if the NIMBYs let you do it, that's a big expense. And when it clogs again, you can't easily or cheaply widen it.

Then you have 12 miles of railroad jammed right up against the existing US-31 ROW, where you have 2 or 3 places that you have to either jog the roadway east (more ROW acquisition), or build expensive high overpasses to clear the railroad for the entrance and exit ramps. Also, no ROW width for future widening.

At Van Buren St, the railroad angles away, but now you're approaching Holland, and you have to jam in at least a couple interchanges and build out frontage or backage roads to serve local traffic. More ROW acquisition needed, because you only have 200' of ROW width to work with, sometimes less. It's going to look a lot like the US-131 south of the S-curve in Grand Rapids - possible, but very expensive to build out, and little room for future expansion.

Instead, MDOT is (wisely) choosing to leave existing US-31 for local traffic (which is significant), and build out about 25 miles of full-width freeway with plenty of room for future traffic growth. It will provide an important northern beltway around Holland and Zeeland. It will also take pressure off local N-S roads (there's not that many ways across the Grand River).

Look at M-6 as an example - generous ROW (400' or more) was purchased while it was still mostly rural area, and it allowed a relatively inexpensive buildout with plenty of room for future widening. Do it right, and you won't have to add lanes for at least 50 years - and when you do it's relatively cheap. The existing US-31, meanwhile, can remain more or less as it has been the past 50 years with only smaller updates for safety.

Are there any updates on this project? Still targeted for completion in early 2022?

I don't think it was ever planned for *early* 2022 completion - there's quite a lot left to do yet.
https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9621_11008_92734---,00.html (https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9621_11008_92734---,00.html)

It appears on-schedule for completion in 2022. EBD I-94 needs to be rebuilt yet. US-31 is being built up to the interchange, but it's not paved out yet. The ramps to and from EBD I-94 also need to be built out yet, as well as the interchange at I-196.

Construction on the WBD side appears to be mostly complete - I-94 is rebuilt and the entrance/exit to Business I-94 is done. There was still landscape restoration work being done (and probably into next year).

Pictures: [tweet]1453070264586092545[/tweet]
Video update:

But wait! There's more I-94 construction ahead in Benton Harbor/St. Joseph:

I can't wait to see the finished freeway next year! It's hard to believe it took this long to get it done, although I can see why it did, with the environmental concerns and all.

Quote from: Henry on December 09, 2021, 10:46:03 AM
I can't wait to see the finished freeway next year! It's hard to believe it took this long to get it done, although I can see why it did, with the environmental concerns and all.

Don't hold your breath.  I'd be very surprised if it was actually completed next year.

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 10, 2021, 01:15:38 AM

Quote from: Henry on December 09, 2021, 10:46:03 AM
I can't wait to see the finished freeway next year! It's hard to believe it took this long to get it done, although I can see why it did, with the environmental concerns and all.

Don't hold your breath.  I'd be very surprised if it was actually completed next year.

i still hate this interchange design. typical MDOT half stepping.

Was it too costly to connect I-196 to the US 31 freeway directly? Had assumed this would be the case, until looked up the project. Big $ property in the way?

Visit area in summers.

Quote from: US20IL64 on December 10, 2021, 11:08:21 AM
Was it too costly to connect I-196 to the US 31 freeway directly? Had assumed this would be the case, until looked up the project. Big $ property in the way?

Visit area in summers.

Others that are more familiar with project could confirm, but I believe there were environmental issues along the original routing, particularly the northern end of the gap, which the new routing connecting to BL I-94 avoids.

Quote from: US20IL64 on December 10, 2021, 11:08:21 AM
Was it too costly to connect I-196 to the US 31 freeway directly? Had assumed this would be the case, until looked up the project. Big $ property in the way?

butterflies

Quote from: SkyPesos on December 10, 2021, 11:32:08 AM

Quote from: US20IL64 on December 10, 2021, 11:08:21 AM
Was it too costly to connect I-196 to the US 31 freeway directly? Had assumed this would be the case, until looked up the project. Big $ property in the way?

butterflies

Yup, butterflies really are the reason why we can't have the direct connection. That was, is, and always will be dumb.

Quote from: JoePCool14 on December 10, 2021, 11:44:41 AM

Quote from: SkyPesos on December 10, 2021, 11:32:08 AM

Quote from: US20IL64 on December 10, 2021, 11:08:21 AM
Was it too costly to connect I-196 to the US 31 freeway directly? Had assumed this would be the case, until looked up the project. Big $ property in the way?

butterflies

Yup, butterflies really are the reason why we can't have the direct connection. That was, is, and always will be dumb.

But if a bunch of birds ate all of them instead of us building a road through there, would it really matter how the butterflies went out? I hate how we think we have to "save" species. If nature says it's their time to go, it's their time to go, don't interfere with it. How many other species go out of their way to save another species at their own expense? Up to 150 species go extinct every day (https://e360.yale.edu/features/global_extinction_rates_why_do_estimates_vary_so_wildly), let's allow nature to be nature.

Quote from: I-55 on December 10, 2021, 12:04:27 PM

Quote from: JoePCool14 on December 10, 2021, 11:44:41 AM

Quote from: SkyPesos on December 10, 2021, 11:32:08 AM

Quote from: US20IL64 on December 10, 2021, 11:08:21 AM
Was it too costly to connect I-196 to the US 31 freeway directly? Had assumed this would be the case, until looked up the project. Big $ property in the way?

butterflies

Yup, butterflies really are the reason why we can't have the direct connection. That was, is, and always will be dumb.

But if a bunch of birds ate all of them instead of us building a road through there, would it really matter how the butterflies went out? I hate how we think we have to "save" species. If nature says it's their time to go, it's their time to go, don't interfere with it. How many other species go out of their way to save another species at their own expense? Up to 150 species go extinct every day (https://e360.yale.edu/features/global_extinction_rates_why_do_estimates_vary_so_wildly), let's allow nature to be nature.

You do realize that there's a difference between letting nature do its thing and taking actions that push a species further towards extinction, right?  Think of it as similar to the difference between not driving an injured person to the hospital and parking your car in such a way that an ambulance or someone else would have a harder time getting that person to the hospital.

Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2021, 12:55:20 PM

Quote from: I-55 on December 10, 2021, 12:04:27 PM

Quote from: JoePCool14 on December 10, 2021, 11:44:41 AM

Quote from: SkyPesos on December 10, 2021, 11:32:08 AM

Quote from: US20IL64 on December 10, 2021, 11:08:21 AM
Was it too costly to connect I-196 to the US 31 freeway directly? Had assumed this would be the case, until looked up the project. Big $ property in the way?

butterflies

Yup, butterflies really are the reason why we can't have the direct connection. That was, is, and always will be dumb.

But if a bunch of birds ate all of them instead of us building a road through there, would it really matter how the butterflies went out? I hate how we think we have to "save" species. If nature says it's their time to go, it's their time to go, don't interfere with it. How many other species go out of their way to save another species at their own expense? Up to 150 species go extinct every day (https://e360.yale.edu/features/global_extinction_rates_why_do_estimates_vary_so_wildly), let's allow nature to be nature.

You do realize that there's a difference between letting nature do its thing and taking actions that push a species further towards extinction, right?  Think of it as similar to the difference between not driving an injured person to the hospital and parking your car in such a way that an ambulance or someone else would have a harder time getting that person to the hospital.

i agree, i would be nice to not be the reason these species die out. my only beef is this interchange is not technically limited access. they could have done this but of course they didn't and that angers me.

Quote from: silverback1065 on December 10, 2021, 12:58:04 PM
my only beef is this interchange is not technically limited access. they could have done this but of course they didn't and that angers me.

It would have been nice, but at least the I-94 WB to US 31 SB and US 31 NB to I-94 EB movements are completely free flowing. Those movements not having to stop or turn at an at-grade intersection is more important than the entire interchange being limited access IMO.

Quote from: webny99 on December 10, 2021, 01:17:21 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on December 10, 2021, 12:58:04 PM
my only beef is this interchange is not technically limited access. they could have done this but of course they didn't and that angers me.

It would have been nice, but at least the I-94 WB to US 31 SB and US 31 NB to I-94 EB movements are completely free flowing. Those movements not having to stop or turn at an at-grade intersection is more important than the entire interchange being limited access IMO.

I get that, what I am saying is they could have made those two movements limited access. NB technically is, but SB has a loop ramp that could potentially get tied up at a future signal placed for a left turn movement. should have been a flyover ramp. Kinda how 31 and 465 is. the 31 mainline ramps completely avoid any potential signal while the rest go to a signal.

Quote from: silverback1065 on December 10, 2021, 01:21:24 PM

Quote from: webny99 on December 10, 2021, 01:17:21 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on December 10, 2021, 12:58:04 PM
my only beef is this interchange is not technically limited access. they could have done this but of course they didn't and that angers me.

It would have been nice, but at least the I-94 WB to US 31 SB and US 31 NB to I-94 EB movements are completely free flowing. Those movements not having to stop or turn at an at-grade intersection is more important than the entire interchange being limited access IMO.

I get that, what I am saying is they could have made those two movements limited access. NB technically is, but SB has a loop ramp that could potentially get tied up at a future signal placed for a left turn movement. should have been a flyover ramp. Kinda how 31 and 465 is. the 31 mainline ramps completely avoid any potential signal while the rest go to a signal.

Yes, a flyover would have been preferred, but it's still a free-flowing movement as-is. US 31 SB is never going to have to stop for the left turn since there's no conflicting traffic. I don't see any point to installing a signal there, but if for some reason they do, it would be meaningless as it would be permanently green.

To be clear, the direct feed wasn't just about the Karner blue butterflies.  The freeway would have plowed through a remnant ecosystem along the steep valley walls of Blue Creek.  There would also be impacts to a cold water Lake Michigan tributary which is spawning habitat for economically significant fish.

All to save 60 seconds of driving at most?  Meh.

For a state that is perpetually crying poverty when it comes to roads, punching US 31 straight to I-196 would have been a much more expensive interchange.  So to me, laying all the blame on some butterflies is disingenuous.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 10, 2021, 04:17:31 PM
To be clear, the direct feed wasn't just about the Karner blue butterflies.  The freeway would have plowed through a remnant ecosystem along the steep valley walls of Blue Creek.  There would also be impacts to a cold water Lake Michigan tributary which is spawning habitat for economically significant fish.

All to save 60 seconds of driving at most?  Meh.

For a state that is perpetually crying poverty when it comes to roads, punching US 31 straight to I-196 would have been a much more expensive interchange.  So to me, laying all the blame on some butterflies is disingenuous.

NEPA is real...

Quote from: Rothman on December 10, 2021, 06:01:41 PM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 10, 2021, 04:17:31 PM
To be clear, the direct feed wasn't just about the Karner blue butterflies.  The freeway would have plowed through a remnant ecosystem along the steep valley walls of Blue Creek.  There would also be impacts to a cold water Lake Michigan tributary which is spawning habitat for economically significant fish.

All to save 60 seconds of driving at most?  Meh.

For a state that is perpetually crying poverty when it comes to roads, punching US 31 straight to I-196 would have been a much more expensive interchange.  So to me, laying all the blame on some butterflies is disingenuous.

NEPA is real...

I think he's saying that the direct connection wouldn't have happened even if it weren't for the butterflies because Michigan can't afford it, not that the butterflies weren't an issue.

Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2021, 09:40:16 PM

Quote from: Rothman on December 10, 2021, 06:01:41 PM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 10, 2021, 04:17:31 PM
To be clear, the direct feed wasn't just about the Karner blue butterflies.  The freeway would have plowed through a remnant ecosystem along the steep valley walls of Blue Creek.  There would also be impacts to a cold water Lake Michigan tributary which is spawning habitat for economically significant fish.

All to save 60 seconds of driving at most?  Meh.

For a state that is perpetually crying poverty when it comes to roads, punching US 31 straight to I-196 would have been a much more expensive interchange.  So to me, laying all the blame on some butterflies is disingenuous.

NEPA is real...

I think he's saying that the direct connection wouldn't have happened even if it weren't for the butterflies because Michigan can't afford it, not that the butterflies weren't an issue.

NEPA is real...

Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 10, 2021, 04:17:31 PM
To be clear, the direct feed wasn't just about the Karner blue butterflies.  The freeway would have plowed through a remnant ecosystem along the steep valley walls of Blue Creek.  There would also be impacts to a cold water Lake Michigan tributary which is spawning habitat for economically significant fish.

All to save 60 seconds of driving at most?  Meh.

For a state that is perpetually crying poverty when it comes to roads, punching US 31 straight to I-196 would have been a much more expensive interchange.  So to me, laying all the blame on some butterflies is disingenuous.

Well why build any road then?

Quote from: Rothman on December 10, 2021, 10:24:15 PM

Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2021, 09:40:16 PM

Quote from: Rothman on December 10, 2021, 06:01:41 PM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 10, 2021, 04:17:31 PM
To be clear, the direct feed wasn't just about the Karner blue butterflies.  The freeway would have plowed through a remnant ecosystem along the steep valley walls of Blue Creek.  There would also be impacts to a cold water Lake Michigan tributary which is spawning habitat for economically significant fish.

All to save 60 seconds of driving at most?  Meh.

For a state that is perpetually crying poverty when it comes to roads, punching US 31 straight to I-196 would have been a much more expensive interchange.  So to me, laying all the blame on some butterflies is disingenuous.

NEPA is real...

I think he's saying that the direct connection wouldn't have happened even if it weren't for the butterflies because Michigan can't afford it, not that the butterflies weren't an issue.

NEPA is real...

No one is saying it isn't!  :-D

Just that there are other important issues, including cost, that factored in as well.

Quote from: webny99 on December 10, 2021, 01:48:02 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on December 10, 2021, 01:21:24 PM

Quote from: webny99 on December 10, 2021, 01:17:21 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on December 10, 2021, 12:58:04 PM
my only beef is this interchange is not technically limited access. they could have done this but of course they didn't and that angers me.

It would have been nice, but at least the I-94 WB to US 31 SB and US 31 NB to I-94 EB movements are completely free flowing. Those movements not having to stop or turn at an at-grade intersection is more important than the entire interchange being limited access IMO.

I get that, what I am saying is they could have made those two movements limited access. NB technically is, but SB has a loop ramp that could potentially get tied up at a future signal placed for a left turn movement. should have been a flyover ramp. Kinda how 31 and 465 is. the 31 mainline ramps completely avoid any potential signal while the rest go to a signal.

Yes, a flyover would have been preferred, but it's still a free-flowing movement as-is. US 31 SB is never going to have to stop for the left turn since there's no conflicting traffic. I don't see any point to installing a signal there, but if for some reason they do, it would be meaningless as it would be permanently green.

There's nothing being done here that prevents MDOT from coming back later and building a WBD-SBD flyover ramp to replace the loop ramp. I suspect it's going to be a long time before that truly becomes necessary - traffic volumes choosing to stay on US-31 instead of following WBD I-94 are going to be quite low for the foreseeable future.

A challenge with a flyover ramp in the area is its location in the snow belt along Lake Michigan. Anything that involves curves on an elevated surface is asking for trouble, due to the potential for icing. It wouldn't shock me if, when a high-speed WBD-SBD movement is ultimately is built out, it ends up being a short tunnel underneath I-94. But that's not going to be for decades, if ever.

https://wsbt.com/news/local/construction-underway-for-us-31-connection-to-i-94

The gap will be filled with all lanes open to traffic possibly as soon as November 25th this year.

Quote from: ChimpOnTheWheel on May 27, 2022, 02:38:06 PM
https://wsbt.com/news/local/construction-underway-for-us-31-connection-to-i-94

The gap will be filled with all lanes open to traffic possibly as soon as November 25th this year.

Quote"By Thanksgiving right we will have all of these lanes open we will be able to drive on US-31 from Mackinac Bridge to all the way down to Lexington, Kentucky and never get off the highway. You will be able to go from South Bend, Indiana to Holland, Michigan and never leave US-31,"  said Nick Schirripa, MDOT Spokesperson.

Confusing US 31 with I-75, perhaps? US 31 doesn't go to Lexington. Doesn't go to Mackinac either but at least gets you really close.

Quote from: JREwing78 on December 11, 2021, 09:42:34 AM

Quote from: webny99 on December 10, 2021, 01:48:02 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on December 10, 2021, 01:21:24 PM

Quote from: webny99 on December 10, 2021, 01:17:21 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on December 10, 2021, 12:58:04 PM
my only beef is this interchange is not technically limited access. they could have done this but of course they didn't and that angers me.

It would have been nice, but at least the I-94 WB to US 31 SB and US 31 NB to I-94 EB movements are completely free flowing. Those movements not having to stop or turn at an at-grade intersection is more important than the entire interchange being limited access IMO.

I get that, what I am saying is they could have made those two movements limited access. NB technically is, but SB has a loop ramp that could potentially get tied up at a future signal placed for a left turn movement. should have been a flyover ramp. Kinda how 31 and 465 is. the 31 mainline ramps completely avoid any potential signal while the rest go to a signal.

Yes, a flyover would have been preferred, but it's still a free-flowing movement as-is. US 31 SB is never going to have to stop for the left turn since there's no conflicting traffic. I don't see any point to installing a signal there, but if for some reason they do, it would be meaningless as it would be permanently green.

There's nothing being done here that prevents MDOT from coming back later and building a WBD-SBD flyover ramp to replace the loop ramp. I suspect it's going to be a long time before that truly becomes necessary - traffic volumes choosing to stay on US-31 instead of following WBD I-94 are going to be quite low for the foreseeable future.

A challenge with a flyover ramp in the area is its location in the snow belt along Lake Michigan. Anything that involves curves on an elevated surface is asking for trouble, due to the potential for icing. It wouldn't shock me if, when a high-speed WBD-SBD movement is ultimately is built out, it ends up being a short tunnel underneath I-94. But that's not going to be for decades, if ever.

My two cents:

A proper high speed freeway to freeway connection at this location will only happen if/when I-67 becomes a reality. That is not going to happen until Indy finishes the US 31 freeway upgrades between South Bend and Indianapolis, which we all know is a never ending saga.

That said, I expect a bigger push to get it finished as soon as I-69 is finished.

I don't foresee major changes to the interchange once this current version is built for decades. Population isn't exactly booming in the area that would justify expansion. The only thing that could happen is if the design turns out to be way off the mark and needs expansion ASAP. I've never traveled US-31 south of I-94 here, so I don't know for certain. I think the current design will be okay.

Going back to the earlier comments, I agree that funding may have been problematic if the direct I-196 connection was built. As we can see, Michigan clearly doesn't have transportation funds to just throw around.

Maybe the whole butterflies thing was just a cover this whole time!

Quote from: cabiness42 on May 27, 2022, 02:40:59 PM

Quote from: ChimpOnTheWheel on May 27, 2022, 02:38:06 PM
https://wsbt.com/news/local/construction-underway-for-us-31-connection-to-i-94

The gap will be filled with all lanes open to traffic possibly as soon as November 25th this year.

Quote"By Thanksgiving right we will have all of these lanes open we will be able to drive on US-31 from Mackinac Bridge to all the way down to Lexington, Kentucky and never get off the highway. You will be able to go from South Bend, Indiana to Holland, Michigan and never leave US-31,"  said Nick Schirripa, MDOT Spokesperson.

Confusing US 31 with I-75, perhaps? US 31 doesn't go to Lexington. Doesn't go to Mackinac either but at least gets you really close.

I'm sure he meant Louisville, but it's still a weird, confusing, stupid statement.  Typical for someone associated with MDOT.

When did you ever get off US-31 anyway? There was never any gap in the highway it was all signed as US-31 so where exactly was the gap? Just because you had to shoot down I-196 to I-94 to Napier Avenue doesn't mean you left US-31 at any point.

Quote from: Flint1979 on May 27, 2022, 08:59:56 PM
When did you ever get off US-31 anyway? There was never any gap in the highway it was all signed as US-31 so where exactly was the gap? Just because you had to shoot down I-196 to I-94 to Napier Avenue doesn't mean you left US-31 at any point.

Yeah, and who would stay on US-31 from Indy to Louisville (assuming that's what he meant by Lexington) when I-65 runs right next to it for the entire stretch?  Nothing in that entire paragraph makes any sense!

^ Let alone US-31 the entire route. If you're going from the Mackinac Bridge to Louisville, the fastest route is going to take you down I-75, US-127, and I-69 through the central part of the state, not west.

And if you are following US-31 the whole way, the fact it being a freeway is irrelevant because most of that route is not freeway and is not filling any "gaps" .

Now, for filling a gap in the continuous freeway between Grand Rapids and South Bend, then yes, this project satisfies that.

Quote from: Terry Shea on May 28, 2022, 01:55:10 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on May 27, 2022, 08:59:56 PM
When did you ever get off US-31 anyway? There was never any gap in the highway it was all signed as US-31 so where exactly was the gap? Just because you had to shoot down I-196 to I-94 to Napier Avenue doesn't mean you left US-31 at any point.

Yeah, and who would stay on US-31 from Indy to Louisville (assuming that's what he meant by Lexington) when I-65 runs right next to it for the entire stretch?  Nothing in that entire paragraph makes any sense!

That's true too. You'd opt for I-65 south of Indy.

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 28, 2022, 02:05:06 AM
^ Let alone US-31 the entire route. If you're going from the Mackinac Bridge to Louisville, the fastest route is going to take you down I-75, US-127, and I-69 through the central part of the state, not west.

And if you are following US-31 the whole way, the fact it being a freeway is irrelevant because most of that route is not freeway and is not filling any "gaps" .

Now, for filling a gap in the continuous freeway between Grand Rapids and South Bend, then yes, this project satisfies that.

That obviously was the gap being that it went from freeway to surface street back to freeway. But it's a US highway not an Interstate so it isn't required to be a freeway that is my point. All of the routing that you mentioned (I-75 to US-127 to I-69 to I-65) is all freeway too except for the section of US-127 between Ithaca and St. Johns which is a divided highway with a 65 mph speed limit. Taking US-31 would be a major waste of time, might be more scenic but it's going to take a lot more time.

The point I think is the freeway gap, not the US route. For the short distance that lies between the two segment ends is worthy to note being filled in. 

IMO, I think it should tie directly into I-196, but to preserve a butterfly specify they opted to tie it in elsewhere, but still freeway and minor inconvenience. However still more maneuverable than Napier Avenue though. However, that's another story.

Then why say a short "gap" is being filled, when there are far longer gaps farther south to get to Kentucky (whichever city was meant). And why say it comes from Mackinaw (close) when there is a long non-freeway section from there to Ludington?

And if you're trying to emphasize the long distance-ness, why stop in Kentucky? Why not mention Mobile, AL?

Interesting: if you type US 31 into Google, a map shows up that ends in the Louisville area. Huh.

Quote from: Flint1979 on May 28, 2022, 08:42:14 AM
That obviously was the gap being that it went from freeway to surface street back to freeway. But it's a US highway not an Interstate so it isn't required to be a freeway that is my point.

I know it's not required to be freeway, I'm just saying it fills a gap on what would otherwise be an all freeway routing. Designation aside.

Quote from: GaryV on May 28, 2022, 12:47:59 PM
Interesting: if you type US 31 into Google, a map shows up that ends in the Louisville area. Huh.

I believe that is due to the E-W "split"  of US 31 heading south out of Louisville down into Nashville

When total mileage is figured for US 31, which branch between Louisville and Nashville is considered?


I know with I-35 in TX and MN the two East branches are the ones to carry hence I-35E in both the Metroplex and Twin Cities carry the mileposts in Texas and Minnesota for I-35 in their respective states.

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 28, 2022, 01:00:42 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on May 28, 2022, 08:42:14 AM
That obviously was the gap being that it went from freeway to surface street back to freeway. But it's a US highway not an Interstate so it isn't required to be a freeway that is my point.

I know it's not required to be freeway, I'm just saying it fills a gap on what would otherwise be an all freeway routing. Designation aside.

That would be true then.

Quote from: roadman65 on May 29, 2022, 07:12:57 AM
When total mileage is figured for US 31, which branch between Louisville and Nashville is considered?


I know with I-35 in TX and MN the two East branches are the ones to carry hence I-35E in both the Metroplex and Twin Cities carry the mileposts in Texas and Minnesota for I-35 in their respective states.

According to US ENDS.COM, US 31W is used , since US 31E is approximately 10 miles longer.

Quote from: amroad17 on May 31, 2022, 01:22:37 AM

Quote from: roadman65 on May 29, 2022, 07:12:57 AM
When total mileage is figured for US 31, which branch between Louisville and Nashville is considered?


I know with I-35 in TX and MN the two East branches are the ones to carry hence I-35E in both the Metroplex and Twin Cities carry the mileposts in Texas and Minnesota for I-35 in their respective states.

According to US ENDS.COM, US 31W is used , since US 31E is approximately 10 miles longer.

That explains why I-65 was built to follow US 31W south of Elizabethtown as well.  Even with the Kentucky Turnpike starting the way, they could still built the interstate to follow 31E directly from Louisville and made the former toll road and unnumbered route.

Quote from: roadman65 on May 31, 2022, 11:38:51 AM

Quote from: amroad17 on May 31, 2022, 01:22:37 AM

Quote from: roadman65 on May 29, 2022, 07:12:57 AM
When total mileage is figured for US 31, which branch between Louisville and Nashville is considered?


I know with I-35 in TX and MN the two East branches are the ones to carry hence I-35E in both the Metroplex and Twin Cities carry the mileposts in Texas and Minnesota for I-35 in their respective states.

According to US ENDS.COM, US 31W is used , since US 31E is approximately 10 miles longer.

That explains why I-65 was built to follow US 31W south of Elizabethtown as well.  Even with the Kentucky Turnpike starting the way, they could still built the interstate to follow 31E directly from Louisville and made the former toll road and unnumbered route.

Also, 31W serves more important towns (E-town and Bowling Green) and Mammoth Cave. I'd put 31W's towns above Bardstown, Hodgenville, and Glasgow in terms of significance.

Once this gap is completed, MDOT will probably pool resources to restart construction of the "gap" north of this location near Grand Haven. M-231 was built to serve as an alternate to US-31 and the drawbridge in Grand Haven. Other than I-94 widening in Kalamazoo, this is the highest profile (and probably most expensive) project in West Michigan. Completing M-231 south toward Holland/I-196 will assist traffic moving north toward Traverse City.

Quote from: Ryctor2018 on May 31, 2022, 01:57:27 PM
Once this gap is completed, MDOT will probably pool resources to restart construction of the "gap" north of this location near Grand Haven. M-231 was built to serve as an alternate to US-31 and the drawbridge in Grand Haven. Other than I-94 widening in Kalamazoo, this is the highest profile (and probably most expensive) project in West Michigan. Completing M-231 south toward Holland/I-196 will assist traffic moving north toward Traverse City.

Just about anyone going from Holland to Traverse City would take I-196 to US-131 to M-115 to M-37 then connecting back with US-31 south of Traverse City.

That's probably why US 131 was built to freeway standards further north than US 31 was.

However I think that US 31 and it's overlap with US 10 should be eliminated for at least an extension of the freeway northward to Manistee.  Heck a super two or build it to connect with existing US 31 like 5-10 miles north of US 10 might work.

Quote from: Flint1979 on May 31, 2022, 03:26:11 PM

Quote from: Ryctor2018 on May 31, 2022, 01:57:27 PM
Once this gap is completed, MDOT will probably pool resources to restart construction of the "gap" north of this location near Grand Haven. M-231 was built to serve as an alternate to US-31 and the drawbridge in Grand Haven. Other than I-94 widening in Kalamazoo, this is the highest profile (and probably most expensive) project in West Michigan. Completing M-231 south toward Holland/I-196 will assist traffic moving north toward Traverse City.

Just about anyone going from Holland to Traverse City would take I-196 to US-131 to M-115 to M-37 then connecting back with US-31 south of Traverse City.

Yeah, US 31 isn't for getting from Holland to Traverse City the fastest. It's for stopping to visit various lake towns on the way.

The guide in Traverse City at the US 31 and M-37 split directs motorists to Grand Rapids via M-37. Yeah, US 31 doesn't go to Grand ( or Gd) Rapids so it makes sense, but considering I-196 starts there to head south to Holland it might make more of a direct drive between the two. I've driven US 31 and it's not that direct north of Ludington with its two lane zig and zags.

i just wish they'd finish the gap between 196 and 96.

Quote from: cabiness42 on June 01, 2022, 09:34:26 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on May 31, 2022, 03:26:11 PM

Quote from: Ryctor2018 on May 31, 2022, 01:57:27 PM
Once this gap is completed, MDOT will probably pool resources to restart construction of the "gap" north of this location near Grand Haven. M-231 was built to serve as an alternate to US-31 and the drawbridge in Grand Haven. Other than I-94 widening in Kalamazoo, this is the highest profile (and probably most expensive) project in West Michigan. Completing M-231 south toward Holland/I-196 will assist traffic moving north toward Traverse City.

Just about anyone going from Holland to Traverse City would take I-196 to US-131 to M-115 to M-37 then connecting back with US-31 south of Traverse City.

Yeah, US 31 isn't for getting from Holland to Traverse City the fastest. It's for stopping to visit various lake towns on the way.

I just thought of that routing off the top of my head. I went and looked on Google Maps and taking US-31 the entire way isn't even a suggestion there.

Hopefully, M-231 can be built even as a Super-2 down to I-196. That will at least complete the route.

Quote from: Ryctor2018 on June 01, 2022, 12:36:30 PM
Hopefully, M-231 can be built even as a Super-2 down to I-196. That will at least complete the route.

there are at least plans to do that. when that will actually happen? who knows.

Wow going from GR to TC Google Maps suggests a strange route. It tells you to take I-96 to Muskegon, then follow US-31 north to Ludington, then US-10 back to M-37 north. Anyone care to explain why they would suggest that route when taking M-37 straight shot is quicker as well as taking US-131 to M-115 to M-37 to US-31 is also quicker? It would take you over 3 hours to drive this route, it would take just over 2 hours to drive the route I would take.

M-231 is basically there for an extra Grand River crossing that's about it in reality. It's a non direct bypass of Grand Haven.

Quote from: silverback1065 on June 01, 2022, 10:15:58 AM
i just wish they'd finish the gap between 196 and 96.

What gap is that?

Quote from: Flint1979 on June 01, 2022, 12:40:11 PM

Quote from: silverback1065 on June 01, 2022, 10:15:58 AM
i just wish they'd finish the gap between 196 and 96.

What gap is that?

the freeway gap.

US 31 between Holland and South Haven is a perfect expressway grade. Don't need freeway.

Quote from: roadman65 on June 01, 2022, 12:46:12 PM
US 31 between Holland and South Haven is a perfect expressway grade. Don't need freeway.

no it's not and it's particularly bad in Grand Haven.

Quote from: roadman65 on June 01, 2022, 12:46:12 PM
US 31 between Holland and South Haven is a perfect expressway grade. Don't need freeway.

US 31 between Holland and South Haven is I-196.

So you remove the at grades that are problematic and problem solved.

Quote from: kphoger on June 01, 2022, 01:43:41 PM

Quote from: roadman65 on June 01, 2022, 12:46:12 PM
US 31 between Holland and South Haven is a perfect expressway grade. Don't need freeway.

US 31 between Holland and South Haven is I-196.

I meant Grand Haven.  Sorry. Wrong Haven.

M-231 is a parallel alternate to US-31 to cross the Grand River, since the drawbridge on US-31 in Grand Haven is notorious for backups. I don't think the route needs to be a freeway either (right now). However, M-231 has a 4-lane ROW and can later be upgraded if necessary. I believe the route should be completed south to I-196 even as a Super-2. US-31 can stay as an expressway, while M-231 will be limited/controlled access.

Quote from: Ryctor2018 on June 01, 2022, 01:49:11 PM
M-231 is a parallel alternate to US-31 to cross the Grand River, since the drawbridge on US-31 in Grand Haven is notorious for backups. I don't think the route needs to be a freeway either (right now). However, M-231 has a 4-lane ROW and can later be upgraded if necessary. I believe the route should be completed south to I-196 even as a Super-2. US-31 can stay as an expressway, while M-231 will be limited/controlled access.

Is there a ROW for M-231 south of M-45? I don't see a way south to I-196 without taking a lot of property until east of Zeeland.

Quote from: skluth on June 01, 2022, 02:41:32 PM
Is there a ROW for M-231 south of M-45? I don't see a way south to I-196 without taking a lot of property until east of Zeeland.

Yeah, which is why the proposed route swings way east of Zeeland in a less-than-direct manner.
Such that only under peak conditions on US 31 will it be faster then just dealing with the lights and cross traffic.

Just how many signals exist between the split from I-196 to the Grand River anyhow?

I saw many for a semi rural roadway to have in 2008.

The map I saw had a feeder that would connect US-31 north of Holland to M-231. M-231 would still swing around Zeeland to I-196. So, you can drive through Holland then connect to M-231 on the other side; or stay on I-196 past Zeeland to the new route. Of course all this is still in planning. The route is still many years away. Maybe MDOT can use the Infrastructure money to accelerate the timeline.

I saw where you're talking about but not on a planning map though. On Google I traced by guessing. M-231 would  follow a path to interchange  then somewhere between BL I-169 and M-6 whenever they get to it.

Quote from: roadman65 on June 01, 2022, 04:40:28 PM
Just how many signals exist between the split from I-196 to the Grand River anyhow?

I saw many for a semi rural roadway to have in 2008.

Depending on how you count Michigan lefts, approximately two dozen.

Yes I remember some lefts had an extra signal in addition to the main one. Most had open median uncontrolled, but few had a u turn signal.

Quote from: roadman65 on June 01, 2022, 09:24:05 PM
I saw where you're talking about but not on a planning map though. On Google I traced by guessing. M-231 would  follow a path to interchange  then somewhere between BL I-169 and M-6 whenever they get to it.

I saw it on the Michigan Highways page for M-231. http://www.michiganhighways.org/indepth/US-31Freeway_Ottawa.html
All credit to Chris Bessert, of course. A few years ago during the start of the pandemic there was an article about the State talking to folks about land in Ottawa co. But, like I said this is probably years away.

Quote from: kphoger on June 01, 2022, 09:44:57 PM

Quote from: roadman65 on June 01, 2022, 04:40:28 PM
Just how many signals exist between the split from I-196 to the Grand River anyhow?

I saw many for a semi rural roadway to have in 2008.

Depending on how you count Michigan lefts, approximately two dozen.

Extremely close! :thumbsup: Northbound on US-31 between I-196 south of Holland and M-104 at Spring Lake, you encounter 26 traffic signals, but that includes the traffic signals on the Grand River bascule bridge itself as well, so 25 signalized intersections and one "signalized bridge," if you will. There is also one at-grade railroad crossing in Holland as well, but it's on a spur line that isn't very highly used, thankfully.

Someone above seemed to believe that all one would need to do is eliminate the grade crossings and, voila, you have a freeway. While I'd love for the stretch of US-31 through Holland to be converted to a depressed urban freeway with continuous service drives (if at all possible–I haven't done the sketches myself to see how much room there is and how many takings would be necessary and, therefore, what the price tag would be on this), but the "theoretical" "division of Holland" by a freeway would be a non-starter with locals and civic leaders, even if, by depressing the freeway, you'd be able to improve pedestrian connections across what is now an otherwise formidable "barrier" cutting through the east side of Holland. I think with properly designed overpasses and pedestrian accommodations and other non-motorized options, such a facility would not only much preferable to the existing US-31 route through Holland, it would be much better than the proposed US-31 "wide-swing" route around Zeeland as well in so many ways. One issue I don't know about is how high the water table is in the area between Central Ave and 8th St, though, so that might be an additional issue to a depressed freeway through there as well.

Most people unfamiliar with the Holland-to-Ferrysburg "freeway gap" also don't realize that US-31 runs right through Grand Haven and there's no way to slam a freeway through that city. Period. MDOT actually studied that as one of their options in the run-up to choosing the alternative that gave us the existing M-231. I can't remember the dollar amount and the sheer number of acres and number of residences and commercial structures that would be taken, but it was astronomical. It would've been like wiping out a third of the city of Grand Haven to plow a freeway through there. It would also require a high-level crossing for the Grand River to replace the existing bascule span, because we're not going to have another (original) Zilwaukee Bridge-on-a-freeway situation again in this state!

In the end, barring physical constraints (e.g. high water table), financial constraints (e.g. too many structural takings), and pissed-off citizenry constraints (e.g. the "divided Holland" argument), my perfect solution is the "US-31 Recommended Alternative" map from MDOT on my website from I-96 down to Port Sheldon Rd, then following the presumed Business Connection to the existing route and the freewayization of the existing route through Holland (as per above):  http://www.michiganhighways.org/indepth/US-31Freeway_Ottawa.html (http://www.michiganhighways.org/indepth/US-31Freeway_Ottawa.html)

The depressed freeway idea sounds depressing.  I didn't realize that there was a gap in Michigan for US 31.   :hmmm:

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 09, 2022, 01:53:49 AM
The depressed freeway idea sounds depressing.  I didn't realize that there was a gap in Michigan for US 31.   :hmmm:

it's a very annoying one too  :-D

To clarify: US 31 is continuous in Michigan. It's not like US 422 in Pennsylvania where there are two disconnected segments. There's just a gap in the freeway.

Someone should really modify the thread title to say "Freeway Gap" because I swear we've had the same exchange 17 times where people read the title and nothing else to immediately post about "there's no 'gap' in US 31!"  It's getting super annoying.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 09, 2022, 11:29:21 AM
Someone should really modify the thread title to say "Freeway Gap" because I swear we've had the same exchange 17 times where people read the title and nothing else to immediately post about "there's no 'gap' in US 31!"  It's getting super annoying.

I feel like it's that those people know this, they're just using it as an excuse to add their two cents to the thread.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 09, 2022, 11:29:21 AM
Someone should really modify the thread title to say "Freeway Gap" because I swear we've had the same exchange 17 times where people read the title and nothing else to immediately post about "there's no 'gap' in US 31!"  It's getting super annoying.

All anyone has to do is to read my opening blurb and there will be no mistake.

Quote from: Terry Shea on June 09, 2022, 09:50:09 PM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 09, 2022, 11:29:21 AM
Someone should really modify the thread title to say "Freeway Gap" because I swear we've had the same exchange 17 times where people read the title and nothing else to immediately post about "there's no 'gap' in US 31!"  It's getting super annoying.

All anyone has to do is to read my opening blurb and there will be no mistake.

Furthermore, I believe this was the merger between 2 separate threads that probably shouldn't have been merged without explanation.  Nonetheless I've modified the title.

Quote from: Terry Shea on June 09, 2022, 09:50:09 PM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 09, 2022, 11:29:21 AM
Someone should really modify the thread title to say "Freeway Gap" because I swear we've had the same exchange 17 times where people read the title and nothing else to immediately post about "there's no 'gap' in US 31!"  It's getting super annoying.

All anyone has to do is to read my opening blurb and there will be no mistake.

Again, those posters know what it means, but they'll still use it to make a post.

Although, I see it's been changed now.

"TROLL! IN THE FORUM! Thought you ought to know." Professor Quirrell faints.

Am I the only person who didn't find that short freeway gap in US 31 not to be that terribly annoying? Granted, I only drove it once, but i was expecting a horrible route with equally horrible traffic. The experience getting from the northern end of the freeway from Indiana over to I-94 probably took two minutes or less.

Quote from: hbelkins on June 10, 2022, 06:19:11 PM
Am I the only person who didn't find that short freeway gap in US 31 not to be that terribly annoying? Granted, I only drove it once, but i was expecting a horrible route with equally horrible traffic. The experience getting from the northern end of the freeway from Indiana over to I-94 probably took two minutes or less.

Granted, it's not as annoying as driving the previous 2-lane US-31 route down present day M-139 for several miles, with virtually no place to pass a lot of slow moving trucks.  But you have to understand that this entire project should have been wrapped up decades ago, and there should have been a straight, direct tie in with I-196.  When that last segment was built, there was no good reason for leaving it a couple of miles short of 2 major freeways.  The original FEIS for the entire freeway project was completed in 1981.  Here's more information on the project from Chris Bessert's site:  http://www.michiganhighways.org/indepth/US-31Freeway_Berrien.html

its not awful. just annoying.

Quote from: hbelkins on June 10, 2022, 06:19:11 PM
Am I the only person who didn't find that short freeway gap in US 31 not to be that terribly annoying?

MDOT widened Napier Ave to a 5-lane arrangement and made upgrades at its interchange with I-94 about 20 years ago when the section of US-31 up to Napier Ave was opened.  It was functional - which was the point of the upgrades. But it was a band-aid, one that probably was never intended to remain 20 years later.

US 31 should have been completed as a freeway between South Bend and Interstate 94 in Benton Harbor long ago. They should not have used a stupid butterfly as an excuse to delay the road!

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 13, 2022, 02:00:24 PM
US 31 should have been completed as a freeway between South Bend and Interstate 94 in Benton Harbor long ago. They should not have used a stupid butterfly as an excuse to delay the road!

There's no point in still being upset about this. It's done with and the road is now being built mostly as intended.

And it's not an "excuse". There was all kinds of legal bullshit they could have run into for just ramming the road through an endangered species. An excuse would be because they couldn't/wouldn't tear down a McDonald's that was in the way or something.

You're right. My apologies, TheHighwayMan394.

From what I read the whole Blue Creek area was environmentally sensitive, not just the butterfly habitat.

Quote from: roadman65 on June 21, 2022, 10:08:37 PM
From what I read the whole Blue Creek area was environmentally sensitive, not just the butterfly habitat.

This highway crosses The St. Joseph river 3 times along with other creeks.  How much more environmentally sensitive could the Blue Creek area be?

Quote from: Terry Shea on June 23, 2022, 10:00:49 PM

Quote from: roadman65 on June 21, 2022, 10:08:37 PM
From what I read the whole Blue Creek area was environmentally sensitive, not just the butterfly habitat.

This highway crosses The St. Joseph river 3 times along with other creeks.  How much more environmentally sensitive could the Blue Creek area be?

Read the study on MDOT's website!

Quote from: roadman65 on June 23, 2022, 11:10:09 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on June 23, 2022, 10:00:49 PM

Quote from: roadman65 on June 21, 2022, 10:08:37 PM
From what I read the whole Blue Creek area was environmentally sensitive, not just the butterfly habitat.

This highway crosses The St. Joseph river 3 times along with other creeks.  How much more environmentally sensitive could the Blue Creek area be?

Read the study on MDOT's website!

It doesn't really say anything specific.

Fixed quote. (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4000.0) - rmf67

Quote from: Terry Shea on June 23, 2022, 10:00:49 PM

Quote from: roadman65 on June 21, 2022, 10:08:37 PM
From what I read the whole Blue Creek area was environmentally sensitive, not just the butterfly habitat.

This highway crosses The St. Joseph river 3 times along with other creeks.  How much more environmentally sensitive could the Blue Creek area be?

Reading material: http://michiganhighways.org/indepth/US-31Freeway_Berrien.html

I'm still waiting for the US 31 Petoskey Bypass (http://www.michiganhighways.org/indepth/US-31Bypass_Petoskey.html) and the Traverse City Bypass (http://www.michiganhighways.org/indepth/US-31Bypass_TraverseCity.html) pages to bear fruit. Hopefully, the full details of both will added to the Michigan Highways webpages someday.

I believe both have been canceled.  The Petosky bypass page clearly says "Map of canceled US-31 Bypass."  The language and links on the Traverse City bypass page seem to indicate that everyone and every group imaginable was against it.  I'd like to know if the US-127 freeway study/project between St. Johns and Ithaca has been officially canceled.  It would seem so.  They sure seem to be spending a lot of money to upgrade it w/o making it a freeway after spending a lot of money getting the freeway approved.  I don't get that.  It would seem to be a fairly easy conversion. 

I would have to say that priority of US-127 between St. Johns and Ithaca is pretty low at this point. MDOT doesn't seem too interested in filling the freeway gap there. There was an accident yesterday at the Gratiot/Clinton county line on SB 127.

One of the biggest landmarks on Michigan's stretch of US-127 is at the Gratiot/Clinton county line. Uncle John's Cider Mill, I wonder if that would be  effected if they made it a freeway.

Quote from: Terry Shea on June 24, 2022, 10:27:09 PM
I'd like to know if the US-127 freeway study/project between St. Johns and Ithaca has been officially canceled.  It would seem so.  They sure seem to be spending a lot of money to upgrade it w/o making it a freeway after spending a lot of money getting the freeway approved.  I don't get that.  It would seem to be a fairly easy conversion.

It won't be a conversion; it will be a fully new build, although requiring a little less ROW acquisition because the land where the southbound lanes currently exist will be used.  Relatively easy compared to an urban freeway, but it will still cost big $$.  What has been spent on maintaining the current pavement and eliminating full crossroad intersections is a drop in the bucket compared to a new freeway.  As has previously been noted, the pavement is in decent (if not pristine) condition, there are no traffic signals, and there is generally little truck traffic.  Might be tough to maintain a consistent 20+ mph over the speed limit, but I'm guessing that's not a factor MDOT takes into consideration when assigning priorities.

Quote from: Flint1979 on June 24, 2022, 11:37:56 PM
One of the biggest landmarks on Michigan's stretch of US-127 is at the Gratiot/Clinton county line. Uncle John's Cider Mill, I wonder if that would be  effected if they made it a freeway.

What are now the northbound lanes will become a two-way frontage road (similar to what was done to Old M-78 between East Lansing and Perry when I-69 was built), and access to/from that frontage road will be at whatever interchanges MDOT decides to construct.

As frustrating as it is to have that 15 mile stretch of non-freeway US-127 between Ithaca and St. Johns, MDOT has done quite a bit to make it safer and smoother to drive. Getting rid of the infernal stoplight at M-57 was probably the biggest step, but the J-turns (or Michigan Lefts) south of the county line were no less important. Bumping the speed limit to 65 evened out the difference between the slowest and fastest drivers. MDOT has also actively removed driveway and side road access wherever possible within budgetary constraints.

Obviously, in a state with a properly-funded highway system, this stretch of US-127 should've been rebuilt or converted to freeway decades ago. But MDOT has areas where the money to convert this to freeway would save more lives and be more productively spent elsewhere. I respect that decision.

I expect as soon as the road requires a full-depth rebuild, that is the point that MDOT will pursue freeway construction. Not sure when that point will be, but clearly it must still have life in it after 70 years.

Courtesy of Matt Rudkin on Twitter, I found a photo indicating the exit number of I-94 WB from US-31 NB.

It is exit 27. The exit will be two miles north of Napier Avenue.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52335364205_6e2fc2cba3_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nJGqrB) (https://flic.kr/p/2nJGqrB)

https://www.harborcountry-news.com/news/extended-u-s-31-could-open-in-mid-october/article_2e08408c-3b04-567c-bab9-ac107186cf3a.html

Possible opening of the US 31 gap in Benton Harbor by mid-October.
Expect road closure for the I-94 EB -> I-196 NB movement ramp soon.

Quote from: ChimpOnTheWheel on September 09, 2022, 06:17:19 PM
https://www.harborcountry-news.com/news/extended-u-s-31-could-open-in-mid-october/article_2e08408c-3b04-567c-bab9-ac107186cf3a.html

Possible opening of the US 31 gap in Benton Harbor by mid-October.
Expect road closure for the I-94 EB -> I-196 NB movement ramp soon.

Hopefully that closure is after the 16th.

https://www.wsjm.com/2022/09/15/eastbound-i-94-ramp-to-i-196-to-close-sunday/

Ramp from I-94 EB to I-196 NB closing September 18 - September 30.

The official detour is to go I-94 EB -> Exit 41 -> I-94 WB -> I-196 NB. Why that's the detour is beyond me since Exit 39 comes two miles before, and using I-94 straight to US-131 is not that much longer if you're headed up to Grand Rapids.

Quote from: ChimpOnTheWheel on September 15, 2022, 07:01:13 PM
https://www.wsjm.com/2022/09/15/eastbound-i-94-ramp-to-i-196-to-close-sunday/

Ramp from I-94 EB to I-196 NB closing September 18 - September 30.

The official detour is to go I-94 EB -> Exit 41 -> I-94 WB -> I-196 NB. Why that's the detour is beyond me since Exit 39 comes two miles before, and using I-94 straight to US-131 is not that much longer if you're headed up to Grand Rapids.

State detours can only be routed along state-maintained corridors; they're mainly in place for trucks, to point out suitable truck routes that can serve as adequate alternatives.  DOTs know that car traffic will likely use lower-profile roads as their detour, but they post a detour that everyone, including trucks, can use.  Even though many Interstate interchanges will meet non-state surface roads, the surface road and the interchange ramps will still be maintained by the state right at the interchange.  Thus, MDOT has domain over the side road between the ramp junctions, and they can sign a state detour along that short section of side road at exit 39.

All they have to do is exit at exit 41, then take M-140 north back to I-196. No need to double-back.

There's (probably) good reason for MDOT to not sign it that way, but that's a better option than the signed detour and it's a truck route.

Quote from: JREwing78 on September 15, 2022, 10:41:22 PM
All they have to do is exit at exit 41, then take M-140 north back to I-196. No need to double-back.

There's (probably) good reason for MDOT to not sign it that way, but that's a better option than the signed detour and it's a truck route.

It's MDOT, so there probably is no good reason.  If you're on Airport Road @ I-69 north of Lansing, the ramp to WB I-69 is closed.  You would think that the posted detour would be to continue south on Airport Road to Grand River Ave. and follow it to I-96/I-69, especially since that is the posted detour for traffic presently on WB I-69 wishing to exit at WB I-96, since that ramp is also closed.  But instead, the posted detour for WB I-69 sends you down the ramp onto EB I-69 to SB US-127 to WB-I-96 to SB (at that point) I-69.  That detour involves making about a 3/4 circle around Lansing, assuming the driver wants to continue on I-69 south of Lansing, and almost a full circle if they want to exit further north on I-69.  Now, as bad as that sounds, until about a week ago signage was in place on Airport Rd. for WB I-69 traffic to detour onto EB I-69, but there was no signage once you go onto I-69 itself!  I wonder how many people flew into Capital City Airport, went north on Airport Road, took the posted WB I-69 detour via EB I-69, and ended up in Flint or Port Huron...or even Canada because all detour signage on I-69 was non-existent!  They've also made numerous errors on the electronic signage regarding detours in the area citing wrong exit numbers, wrong directions and even wrong freeways!

Quote from: JREwing78 on September 15, 2022, 10:41:22 PM
All they have to do is exit at exit 41, then take M-140 north back to I-196. No need to double-back.

There's (probably) good reason for MDOT to not sign it that way, but that's a better option than the signed detour and it's a truck route.

Ah, NOW it's clear. Didn't realize this was happening:
M-140 bridge in Watervliet reopens today, ahead of schedule
https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/news-outreach/pressreleases/2022/09/02/m140-bridge-in-watervliet-reopens-todayKALAMAZOO, Mich. ­- The Michigan Department of Transportation will be wrapping up its $800,000 investment to repair the M-140 bridge over the Paw Paw Lake Outlet near Watervliet in Berrien County almost two months ahead of schedule.
The bridge will be reopened to traffic this afternoon. It originally was scheduled for completion by Oct. 30.

The project included rebuilding the bridge deck and repairing the abutments and piers. There still is some work to complete off the roadway, such as turf establishment and silt fence removal, but nothing that will require lane or bridge closures.

Quote from: JREwing78 on September 15, 2022, 10:41:22 PM
All they have to do is exit at exit 41, then take M-140 north back to I-196. No need to double-back.

There's (probably) good reason for MDOT to not sign it that way, but that's a better option than the signed detour and it's a truck route.

M-140 is closed north of Watervliet until the end of October, it's been like that all summer.

Quote from: Flint1979 on September 17, 2022, 09:57:51 PM

Quote from: JREwing78 on September 15, 2022, 10:41:22 PM
All they have to do is exit at exit 41, then take M-140 north back to I-196. No need to double-back.

There's (probably) good reason for MDOT to not sign it that way, but that's a better option than the signed detour and it's a truck route.

M-140 is closed north of Watervliet until the end of October, it's been like that all summer.

Formerly closed. Now reopened (per the press release in my previous post). So now, you CAN use M-140 to get back to I-196/US-31.
https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/news-outreach/pressreleases/2022/09/02/m140-bridge-in-watervliet-reopens-today

Quote from: JREwing78 on September 17, 2022, 01:12:33 PM

Quote from: JREwing78 on September 15, 2022, 10:41:22 PM
All they have to do is exit at exit 41, then take M-140 north back to I-196. No need to double-back.

There's (probably) good reason for MDOT to not sign it that way, but that's a better option than the signed detour and it's a truck route.

Ah, NOW it's clear. Didn't realize this was happening:
M-140 bridge in Watervliet reopens today, ahead of schedule
https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/news-outreach/pressreleases/2022/09/02/m140-bridge-in-watervliet-reopens-todayKALAMAZOO, Mich. ­- The Michigan Department of Transportation will be wrapping up its $800,000 investment to repair the M-140 bridge over the Paw Paw Lake Outlet near Watervliet in Berrien County almost two months ahead of schedule.
The bridge will be reopened to traffic this afternoon. It originally was scheduled for completion by Oct. 30.

The project included rebuilding the bridge deck and repairing the abutments and piers. There still is some work to complete off the roadway, such as turf establishment and silt fence removal, but nothing that will require lane or bridge closures.

Ha, went that way this weekend and went around because the road closed and detour signs were still up. How hard is it to take those signs down when the road reopens?

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on September 18, 2022, 02:36:48 PM

Quote from: JREwing78 on September 17, 2022, 01:12:33 PM

Quote from: JREwing78 on September 15, 2022, 10:41:22 PM
All they have to do is exit at exit 41, then take M-140 north back to I-196. No need to double-back.

There's (probably) good reason for MDOT to not sign it that way, but that's a better option than the signed detour and it's a truck route.

Ah, NOW it's clear. Didn't realize this was happening:
M-140 bridge in Watervliet reopens today, ahead of schedule
https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/news-outreach/pressreleases/2022/09/02/m140-bridge-in-watervliet-reopens-todayKALAMAZOO, Mich. ­- The Michigan Department of Transportation will be wrapping up its $800,000 investment to repair the M-140 bridge over the Paw Paw Lake Outlet near Watervliet in Berrien County almost two months ahead of schedule.
The bridge will be reopened to traffic this afternoon. It originally was scheduled for completion by Oct. 30.

The project included rebuilding the bridge deck and repairing the abutments and piers. There still is some work to complete off the roadway, such as turf establishment and silt fence removal, but nothing that will require lane or bridge closures.

Ha, went that way this weekend and went around because the road closed and detour signs were still up. How hard is it to take those signs down when the road reopens?

See my comments about MDOT signage and such, 5 posts up.

It'd be nice for them to take them down that's why I figured it was still closed when I went through that area last weekend. But anyway they still have construction barrels up on I-75 in Saginaw County and they've been done with that project for about three months now.

Quote from: Flint1979 on September 19, 2022, 02:35:11 PM
It'd be nice for them to take them down that's why I figured it was still closed when I went through that area last weekend. But anyway they still have construction barrels up on I-75 in Saginaw County and they've been done with that project for about three months now.

And that bridge they're rebuilding is still going at a snail's pace.

Quote from: Terry Shea on September 20, 2022, 12:02:44 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on September 19, 2022, 02:35:11 PM
It'd be nice for them to take them down that's why I figured it was still closed when I went through that area last weekend. But anyway they still have construction barrels up on I-75 in Saginaw County and they've been done with that project for about three months now.

And that bridge they're rebuilding is still going at a snail's pace.

The Parrish Road bridge? I don't know why they are taking so long with that bridge. Now it's saying it'll be closed until next June.

Quote from: Flint1979 on September 20, 2022, 07:57:18 AM

Quote from: Terry Shea on September 20, 2022, 12:02:44 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on September 19, 2022, 02:35:11 PM
It'd be nice for them to take them down that's why I figured it was still closed when I went through that area last weekend. But anyway they still have construction barrels up on I-75 in Saginaw County and they've been done with that project for about three months now.

And that bridge they're rebuilding is still going at a snail's pace.

The Parrish Road bridge? I don't know why they are taking so long with that bridge. Now it's saying it'll be closed until next June.

At the pace they're going it won't be done before 2035!

Quote from: ChimpOnTheWheel on September 15, 2022, 07:01:13 PM
https://www.wsjm.com/2022/09/15/eastbound-i-94-ramp-to-i-196-to-close-sunday/

Ramp from I-94 EB to I-196 NB closing September 18 - September 30.

The official detour is to go I-94 EB -> Exit 41 -> I-94 WB -> I-196 NB. Why that's the detour is beyond me since Exit 39 comes two miles before, and using I-94 straight to US-131 is not that much longer if you're headed up to Grand Rapids.

But if your heading to Holland or continuing on US 31, it makes sense.

MDOT is hosting an event on Monday 09/26 for the public to see the new freeway before it opens to traffic.  The event begins at 3:00pm and participants will have about an hour to walk, run, or bike (nonmotorized) a 2.5 mile loop between Britain Avenue and I-94.

https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/news-outreach/pressreleases/2022/09/19/walk-run-or-bike-us-31-event-on-sept-26-in-berrien-county

NOAA currently forecasts a high temperature of 65 degrees and a 30% chance of rain.

Quote from: wanderer2575 on September 22, 2022, 10:03:48 PM
MDOT is hosting an event on Monday 09/26 for the public to see the new freeway before it opens to traffic.  The event begins at 3:00pm and participants will have about an hour to walk, run, or bike (nonmotorized) a 2.5 mile loop between Britain Avenue and I-94.

https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/news-outreach/pressreleases/2022/09/19/walk-run-or-bike-us-31-event-on-sept-26-in-berrien-county

NOAA currently forecasts a high temperature of 65 degrees and a 30% chance of rain.

Will there be a side trip to see the rare butterflies?

Quote from: Terry Shea on September 22, 2022, 10:59:21 PM

Quote from: wanderer2575 on September 22, 2022, 10:03:48 PM
MDOT is hosting an event on Monday 09/26 for the public to see the new freeway before it opens to traffic.  The event begins at 3:00pm and participants will have about an hour to walk, run, or bike (nonmotorized) a 2.5 mile loop between Britain Avenue and I-94.

https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/news-outreach/pressreleases/2022/09/19/walk-run-or-bike-us-31-event-on-sept-26-in-berrien-county

NOAA currently forecasts a high temperature of 65 degrees and a 30% chance of rain.

Will there be a side trip to see the rare butterflies?

Dang it, that would've been fun on my birthday (if only it didn't happen while I am on my trip out in Las Vegas)!

so the main movements open soon?

Quote from: Terry Shea on September 21, 2022, 11:16:03 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on September 20, 2022, 07:57:18 AM

Quote from: Terry Shea on September 20, 2022, 12:02:44 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on September 19, 2022, 02:35:11 PM
It'd be nice for them to take them down that's why I figured it was still closed when I went through that area last weekend. But anyway they still have construction barrels up on I-75 in Saginaw County and they've been done with that project for about three months now.

And that bridge they're rebuilding is still going at a snail's pace.

The Parrish Road bridge? I don't know why they are taking so long with that bridge. Now it's saying it'll be closed until next June.

At the pace they're going it won't be done before 2035!

I went past it today. It looks like they are working on it now.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52391978184_a71fe8e3c3_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nPGzNG)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52392094480_26628586ed_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nPHbnN)

Screenshots taken from a news report September 26, 2022.
https://wwmt.com/news/local/new-interchange-between-us-31-and-i-94-coming-to-berrien-county

Wikipedia states the US 31 freeway connection with Interstate 94 may be completed by mid-November. Is this accurate, or is this too optimistic? In any event, this connection should have been completed years ago, but now that it is finally being connected, perhaps that is simply neither here nor there.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 29, 2022, 12:00:14 PM
Wikipedia states the US 31 freeway connection with Interstate 94 may be completed by mid-November. Is this accurate, or is this too optimistic? In any event, this connection should have been completed years ago, but now that it is finally being connected, perhaps that is simply neither here nor there.

Yes, that's correct, as per this: https://wwmt.com/news/local/new-interchange-between-us-31-and-i-94-coming-to-berrien-county

"MDOT says they're finishing up some final construction work and the interchange should be open to drivers by mid-November."

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on September 29, 2022, 12:14:39 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 29, 2022, 12:00:14 PM
Wikipedia states the US 31 freeway connection with Interstate 94 may be completed by mid-November. Is this accurate, or is this too optimistic? In any event, this connection should have been completed years ago, but now that it is finally being connected, perhaps that is simply neither here nor there.

Yes, that's correct, as per this: https://wwmt.com/news/local/new-interchange-between-us-31-and-i-94-coming-to-berrien-county (https://wwmt.com/news/local/new-interchange-between-us-31-and-i-94-coming-to-berrien-county)

"MDOT says they're finishing up some final construction work and the interchange should be open to drivers by mid-November."

That's interesting.  A couple of weeks ago they were saying mid-October.

It appears I overlooked the completion date in the article when I read it. I look forward to US 31's long-awaited completion in mid November!

Last I checked US 31 was completed years ago.  So will the old section become US 31 SPUR?

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on October 06, 2022, 10:12:30 PM
Last I checked US 31 was completed years ago.  So will the old section become US 31 SPUR?

Completion of the freeway near Benton Harbor, which should have been done decades ago.  They left a 2-and-a-half-mile gap and rerouted the connection to I-94 because they didn't want to disturb some butterflies.
http://www.michiganhighways.org/indepth/US-31Freeway_Berrien.html

Quote from: Terry Shea on October 06, 2022, 10:43:13 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on October 06, 2022, 10:12:30 PM
Last I checked US 31 was completed years ago.  So will the old section become US 31 SPUR?

Completion of the freeway near Benton Harbor, which should have been done decades ago.  They left a 2-and-a-half-mile gap and rerouted the connection to I-94 because they didn't want to disturb some butterflies.
http://www.michiganhighways.org/indepth/US-31Freeway_Berrien.html

I know that.  It is unbelievable that so much money is spent of just 2 miles of non controlled access highway that translated into an additional nine miles.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on October 06, 2022, 10:47:47 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on October 06, 2022, 10:43:13 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on October 06, 2022, 10:12:30 PM
Last I checked US 31 was completed years ago.  So will the old section become US 31 SPUR?

Completion of the freeway near Benton Harbor, which should have been done decades ago.  They left a 2-and-a-half-mile gap and rerouted the connection to I-94 because they didn't want to disturb some butterflies.
http://www.michiganhighways.org/indepth/US-31Freeway_Berrien.html

I know that.  It is unbelievable that so much money is spent of just 2 miles of non controlled access highway that translated into an additional nine miles.

What are you talking about?  Please start making some sense.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on October 06, 2022, 10:47:47 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on October 06, 2022, 10:43:13 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on October 06, 2022, 10:12:30 PM
Last I checked US 31 was completed years ago.  So will the old section become US 31 SPUR?

Completion of the freeway near Benton Harbor, which should have been done decades ago.  They left a 2-and-a-half-mile gap and rerouted the connection to I-94 because they didn't want to disturb some butterflies.
http://www.michiganhighways.org/indepth/US-31Freeway_Berrien.html

I know that.  It is unbelievable that so much money is spent of just 2 miles of non controlled access highway that translated into an additional nine miles.

Huh?

it's not limited access due to the 94 interchange. but it's good enough because it is unlikely to need a signal in the future. not sure why they didn't just make the main 31 movements limited access. the SB 31 ramp could have been a flyover but i am sure cost is why we got this. picture how 69 swings on and off it's alignment to join i-24 in kentucky. (yes the full interchange is limited access in that example, i am just referring to how the main movements avoid the minor ones)

^ I'm still trying to understand the 9 additional miles part claimed by Avalanchez71.

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 07, 2022, 01:09:35 PM
^ I'm still trying to understand the 9 additional miles part claimed by Avalanchez71.

I'm glad you are asking because I thought I was going crazy there.  I know that the revised connection to I-94  is sooner than later to it.  I too was wondering how seven miles got added to it.

^ Lane miles, perhaps? 2 centerline miles x 4 lanes + 1 mile of ramps = 9 lane miles

https://wwmt.com/news/local/benton-township-us-31-i-94-construction-michigan-department-transportation-west-berrien-county

U.S. 31 opening this weekend, creating a continuous freeway from U.S. 30 in Plymouth, Indiana, to I-94 in Benton Harbor, Michigan.

While not particularly helpful for my trips between Kalamazoo and Chicagoland, very nice to see the construction wrap up!

Drove by Benton Harbor yesterday. Signs referencing US-31 at the Napier Avenue exit (Exit 30) on I-94 have been replaced.

Google Maps has not been updated. Someone keep us posted on when it is updated. Hopefully, it won't be too long (although I wouldn't hold my breath).

I love reading 13 year old posts.  I wonder what the oldest post on here is.

Quote from: texaskdog on November 08, 2022, 02:26:07 AM
I wonder what the oldest post on here is.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 07, 2022, 07:31:34 PM
Google Maps has not been updated. Someone keep us posted on when it is updated. Hopefully, it won't be too long (although I wouldn't hold my breath).

I wonder how long until MDOT's online mapping tools show the new routing.

That means waze will show you being off road while driving the new extension. :sombrero:

Quote from: bulldog1979 on November 08, 2022, 06:46:24 PM

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 07, 2022, 07:31:34 PM
Google Maps has not been updated. Someone keep us posted on when it is updated. Hopefully, it won't be too long (although I wouldn't hold my breath).

I wonder how long until MDOT's online mapping tools show the new routing.

It is showing on the mi.gov/drive interactive traffic map.  That also still shows the former Napier Avenue routing as a state trunkline, so I assume it has not been turned back.

(https://i.imgur.com/60vSkkR.jpg)

i wonder if it has a new number...

Quote from: texaskdog on November 08, 2022, 02:26:07 AM
I love reading 13 year old posts.  I wonder what the oldest post on here is.

It's because moderators merged 2 posts.

Quote from: wanderer2575 on November 09, 2022, 02:37:45 PM
It is showing on the mi.gov/drive interactive traffic map.  That also still shows the former Napier Avenue routing as a state trunkline, so I assume it has not been turned back.

(https://i.imgur.com/60vSkkR.jpg)

I'm pretty sure that's an ESRI basemap, and the colors have nothing to do with state maintenance.

Quote from: NE2 on November 09, 2022, 06:15:42 PM

Quote from: wanderer2575 on November 09, 2022, 02:37:45 PM
It is showing on the mi.gov/drive interactive traffic map.  That also still shows the former Napier Avenue routing as a state trunkline, so I assume it has not been turned back.

(https://i.imgur.com/60vSkkR.jpg)

I'm pretty sure that's an ESRI basemap, and the colors have nothing to do with state maintenance.

Agreed. Red Arrow Highway on the northern edge of that map used to be US 12, but it was turned back to local control decades ago when I-94 was built there.

It may be a while before Napier Avenue is turned over to local control. MDOT can't force the Berrien County Road Commission to re-assume jurisdiction once the freeway opens, and MDOT will probably have to repave or rebuilt the roadway segment before BCRC agrees to take the road back if recent decommissioning/transfers are any guide. That section of Napier Avenue will end up internally designated "Old US 31" and marked as an unsigned state trunkline on the next edition of the Truck Operator's Map.

Quote from: 1 on November 08, 2022, 05:06:55 AM

Quote from: texaskdog on November 08, 2022, 02:26:07 AM
I wonder what the oldest post on here is.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3

I wanted it to be Fritzowl :P

Fritzowl is probably busy planning a new Interstate connection between North America and Europe or Asia; or an Interstate connecting South America with Africa. Maybe he should go smaller, and build an Interstate connecting Australia with New Zealand.

Quote from: texaskdog on November 10, 2022, 01:33:11 AM

Quote from: 1 on November 08, 2022, 05:06:55 AM

Quote from: texaskdog on November 08, 2022, 02:26:07 AM
I wonder what the oldest post on here is.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3

I wanted it to be Fritzowl :P

His first post was on March 4, 2011.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on October 06, 2022, 10:47:47 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on October 06, 2022, 10:43:13 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on October 06, 2022, 10:12:30 PM
Last I checked US 31 was completed years ago.  So will the old section become US 31 SPUR?

Completion of the freeway near Benton Harbor, which should have been done decades ago.  They left a 2-and-a-half-mile gap and rerouted the connection to I-94 because they didn't want to disturb some butterflies.
http://www.michiganhighways.org/indepth/US-31Freeway_Berrien.html

I know that.  It is unbelievable that so much money is spent of just 2 miles of non controlled access highway that translated into an additional nine miles.

I suggest you both take some courses in biology.  The butterflies here are likely also an indicator of unique habitat that houses other rare species. 

The rate of species decline is appalling.  Even the American robin's population is declining rapidly.  Species are interdependent.  There will be a point where once we lose enough species, the jenga tower that is our planet will collapse.  Heaven forbid that a invasive/alien pathogen/predator like the varroa mite or murder hornet succeeds in killing off crop-pollinating honeybees. 

Rerouting a road to preserve a pollinator species seems like a small price to pay. MDOT did the right thing. 

Quote from: midwesternroadguy on November 22, 2022, 06:16:48 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on October 06, 2022, 10:47:47 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on October 06, 2022, 10:43:13 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on October 06, 2022, 10:12:30 PM
Last I checked US 31 was completed years ago.  So will the old section become US 31 SPUR?

Completion of the freeway near Benton Harbor, which should have been done decades ago.  They left a 2-and-a-half-mile gap and rerouted the connection to I-94 because they didn't want to disturb some butterflies.
http://www.michiganhighways.org/indepth/US-31Freeway_Berrien.html

I know that.  It is unbelievable that so much money is spent of just 2 miles of non controlled access highway that translated into an additional nine miles.

I suggest you both take some courses in biology.  The butterflies here are likely also an indicator of unique habitat that houses other rare species. 

The rate of species decline is appalling.  Even the American robin's population is declining rapidly.  Species are interdependent.  There will be a point where once we lose enough species, the jenga tower that is our planet will collapse.  Heaven forbid that a invasive/alien pathogen/predator like the varroa mite or murder hornet succeeds in killing off crop-pollinating honeybees. 

Rerouting a road to preserve a pollinator species seems like a small price to pay. MDOT did the right thing. 

The brainwashing is strong in this one. ;)

Quote from: Terry Shea on November 23, 2022, 05:24:39 PM

Quote from: midwesternroadguy on November 22, 2022, 06:16:48 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on October 06, 2022, 10:47:47 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on October 06, 2022, 10:43:13 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on October 06, 2022, 10:12:30 PM
Last I checked US 31 was completed years ago.  So will the old section become US 31 SPUR?

Completion of the freeway near Benton Harbor, which should have been done decades ago.  They left a 2-and-a-half-mile gap and rerouted the connection to I-94 because they didn't want to disturb some butterflies.
http://www.michiganhighways.org/indepth/US-31Freeway_Berrien.html

I know that.  It is unbelievable that so much money is spent of just 2 miles of non controlled access highway that translated into an additional nine miles.

I suggest you both take some courses in biology.  The butterflies here are likely also an indicator of unique habitat that houses other rare species. 

The rate of species decline is appalling.  Even the American robin's population is declining rapidly.  Species are interdependent.  There will be a point where once we lose enough species, the jenga tower that is our planet will collapse.  Heaven forbid that a invasive/alien pathogen/predator like the varroa mite or murder hornet succeeds in killing off crop-pollinating honeybees. 

Rerouting a road to preserve a pollinator species seems like a small price to pay. MDOT did the right thing. 

The brainwashing is strong in this one. ;)

Nah.  Although the statement's a little exaggerated, environmental protections are indeed warranted.

And as I said earlier in the thread, if these are federal protections, it's not like Michigan can just say F that and build the road without consequences.

I drove it last night. The WBD I-94 to SBD US-31 curve is more forgiving than the 30 mph suggested speed suggests, which should help. There seems to be enough runoff room to keep the inevitable folks who misjudge the corner from sliding onto the WBD on-ramp back to I-94.

On the I-94 overpass itself, it's begging for some kind of guardrail or reflective markers to better delineate the lanes merging from Bus I-94 to US-31 and I-94 to US-31, the lane for the left-turn to EBD I-94, and the on-coming WBD Bus I-94 lane. In the rain or damp pavement, it's a sea of (unlit) black asphalt (or, in winter, unplowed snow) without a lot of obvious cues what goes where. Once past the overpass the location of the lanes become clearer and all is well.

It's considerably simpler headed on NBD US-31. It's obvious I need to keep left to either continue into Benton Harbor or to head onto WBD I-94. The lack of delineators/barriers while crossing the I-94 overpass again is initially confusing, but the lane locations become clearer once west of the I-94 overpass.

Most of the expense here, as should be obvious, was not to build the US-31 mainline north from Napier Ave. It went into rebuilding the I-94 mainline and replacing overpasses along I-94. US-31's path between the I-94/I-196 interchange and Napier Ave is built in the cheapest way possible for MDOT to call it a freeway-to-freeway interchange with a straight face. But it does the job, and MDOT has room to build a WBD I-94 to SBD US-31 flyover if and when it becomes warranted.

If not already mentioned, Google Maps now shows the current I-94/Bus I-94/US-31 interchange layout. I also noticed the old speed limit and "must exit" signage is gone on NBD US-31 approaching Napier Ave.

Quote from: JREwing78 on November 27, 2022, 02:40:07 PM
I drove it last night. The WBD I-94 to SBD US-31 curve is more forgiving than the 30 mph suggested speed suggests, which should help. There seems to be enough runoff room to keep the inevitable folks who misjudge the corner from sliding onto the WBD on-ramp back to I-94.

On the I-94 overpass itself, it's begging for some kind of guardrail or reflective markers to better delineate the lanes merging from Bus I-94 to US-31 and I-94 to US-31, the lane for the left-turn to EBD I-94, and the on-coming WBD Bus I-94 lane. In the rain or damp pavement, it's a sea of (unlit) black asphalt (or, in winter, unplowed snow) without a lot of obvious cues what goes where. Once past the overpass the location of the lanes become clearer and all is well.

It's considerably simpler headed on NBD US-31. It's obvious I need to keep left to either continue into Benton Harbor or to head onto WBD I-94. The lack of delineators/barriers while crossing the I-94 overpass again is initially confusing, but the lane locations become clearer once west of the I-94 overpass.

Most of the expense here, as should be obvious, was not to build the US-31 mainline north from Napier Ave. It went into rebuilding the I-94 mainline and replacing overpasses along I-94. US-31's path between the I-94/I-196 interchange and Napier Ave is built in the cheapest way possible for MDOT to call it a freeway-to-freeway interchange with a straight face. But it does the job, and MDOT has room to build a WBD I-94 to SBD US-31 flyover if and when it becomes warranted.

If not already mentioned, Google Maps now shows the current I-94/Bus I-94/US-31 interchange layout. I also noticed the old speed limit and "must exit" signage is gone on NBD US-31 approaching Napier Ave.

I have a dumb question but is it really a freeway-to-freeway interchange if when you're coming from WB I-94 to SB US-31 and people can make a regular left turn to get onto EB I-94? (yes I know they are crossing over the NB US-31 lanes after the exit to get onto EB I-94)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZKfTj_m0vBn8eXILUznffu9dMlUgA_vl/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZKfTj_m0vBn8eXILUznffu9dMlUgA_vl/view?usp=sharing)

My question is regarding Highland Avenue. I thought that the bridge there carrying Highland over I-94 was fairly new. I would think that Highland would dead end on both sides of the new interchange there but with the bridge being new is that bridge even still there? I haven't been in that area in awhile.

Quote from: dlovechio on December 06, 2022, 02:26:34 PM

Quote from: JREwing78 on November 27, 2022, 02:40:07 PM
I drove it last night. The WBD I-94 to SBD US-31 curve is more forgiving than the 30 mph suggested speed suggests, which should help. There seems to be enough runoff room to keep the inevitable folks who misjudge the corner from sliding onto the WBD on-ramp back to I-94.

On the I-94 overpass itself, it's begging for some kind of guardrail or reflective markers to better delineate the lanes merging from Bus I-94 to US-31 and I-94 to US-31, the lane for the left-turn to EBD I-94, and the on-coming WBD Bus I-94 lane. In the rain or damp pavement, it's a sea of (unlit) black asphalt (or, in winter, unplowed snow) without a lot of obvious cues what goes where. Once past the overpass the location of the lanes become clearer and all is well.

It's considerably simpler headed on NBD US-31. It's obvious I need to keep left to either continue into Benton Harbor or to head onto WBD I-94. The lack of delineators/barriers while crossing the I-94 overpass again is initially confusing, but the lane locations become clearer once west of the I-94 overpass.

Most of the expense here, as should be obvious, was not to build the US-31 mainline north from Napier Ave. It went into rebuilding the I-94 mainline and replacing overpasses along I-94. US-31's path between the I-94/I-196 interchange and Napier Ave is built in the cheapest way possible for MDOT to call it a freeway-to-freeway interchange with a straight face. But it does the job, and MDOT has room to build a WBD I-94 to SBD US-31 flyover if and when it becomes warranted.

If not already mentioned, Google Maps now shows the current I-94/Bus I-94/US-31 interchange layout. I also noticed the old speed limit and "must exit" signage is gone on NBD US-31 approaching Napier Ave.

I have a dumb question but is it really a freeway-to-freeway interchange if when you're coming from WB I-94 to SB US-31 and people can make a regular left turn to get onto EB I-94? (yes I know they are crossing over the NB US-31 lanes after the exit to get onto EB I-94)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZKfTj_m0vBn8eXILUznffu9dMlUgA_vl/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZKfTj_m0vBn8eXILUznffu9dMlUgA_vl/view?usp=sharing)

SB traffic on US 31 shouldn't have to stop. The only light needed is for those turning left onto EB I-94/ NB US 31. Traffic not turning left shouldn't need to stop for a light.

Quote from: skluth on December 06, 2022, 03:06:12 PM

Quote from: dlovechio on December 06, 2022, 02:26:34 PM

Quote from: JREwing78 on November 27, 2022, 02:40:07 PM
I drove it last night. The WBD I-94 to SBD US-31 curve is more forgiving than the 30 mph suggested speed suggests, which should help. There seems to be enough runoff room to keep the inevitable folks who misjudge the corner from sliding onto the WBD on-ramp back to I-94.

On the I-94 overpass itself, it's begging for some kind of guardrail or reflective markers to better delineate the lanes merging from Bus I-94 to US-31 and I-94 to US-31, the lane for the left-turn to EBD I-94, and the on-coming WBD Bus I-94 lane. In the rain or damp pavement, it's a sea of (unlit) black asphalt (or, in winter, unplowed snow) without a lot of obvious cues what goes where. Once past the overpass the location of the lanes become clearer and all is well.

It's considerably simpler headed on NBD US-31. It's obvious I need to keep left to either continue into Benton Harbor or to head onto WBD I-94. The lack of delineators/barriers while crossing the I-94 overpass again is initially confusing, but the lane locations become clearer once west of the I-94 overpass.

Most of the expense here, as should be obvious, was not to build the US-31 mainline north from Napier Ave. It went into rebuilding the I-94 mainline and replacing overpasses along I-94. US-31's path between the I-94/I-196 interchange and Napier Ave is built in the cheapest way possible for MDOT to call it a freeway-to-freeway interchange with a straight face. But it does the job, and MDOT has room to build a WBD I-94 to SBD US-31 flyover if and when it becomes warranted.

If not already mentioned, Google Maps now shows the current I-94/Bus I-94/US-31 interchange layout. I also noticed the old speed limit and "must exit" signage is gone on NBD US-31 approaching Napier Ave.

I have a dumb question but is it really a freeway-to-freeway interchange if when you're coming from WB I-94 to SB US-31 and people can make a regular left turn to get onto EB I-94? (yes I know they are crossing over the NB US-31 lanes after the exit to get onto EB I-94)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZKfTj_m0vBn8eXILUznffu9dMlUgA_vl/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZKfTj_m0vBn8eXILUznffu9dMlUgA_vl/view?usp=sharing)

SB traffic on US 31 shouldn't have to stop. The only light needed is for those turning left onto EB I-94/ NB US 31. Traffic not turning left shouldn't need to stop for a light.

So it would be fine for a freeway to freeway interchange since the northbound traffic would have already used the ramp to get on eastbound I-94 at that point.

it is NOT a freeway to freeway interchange. full stop.

Quote from: Flint1979 on December 06, 2022, 04:04:39 PM

Quote from: skluth on December 06, 2022, 03:06:12 PM

Quote from: dlovechio on December 06, 2022, 02:26:34 PM

Quote from: JREwing78 on November 27, 2022, 02:40:07 PM
I drove it last night. The WBD I-94 to SBD US-31 curve is more forgiving than the 30 mph suggested speed suggests, which should help. There seems to be enough runoff room to keep the inevitable folks who misjudge the corner from sliding onto the WBD on-ramp back to I-94.

On the I-94 overpass itself, it's begging for some kind of guardrail or reflective markers to better delineate the lanes merging from Bus I-94 to US-31 and I-94 to US-31, the lane for the left-turn to EBD I-94, and the on-coming WBD Bus I-94 lane. In the rain or damp pavement, it's a sea of (unlit) black asphalt (or, in winter, unplowed snow) without a lot of obvious cues what goes where. Once past the overpass the location of the lanes become clearer and all is well.

It's considerably simpler headed on NBD US-31. It's obvious I need to keep left to either continue into Benton Harbor or to head onto WBD I-94. The lack of delineators/barriers while crossing the I-94 overpass again is initially confusing, but the lane locations become clearer once west of the I-94 overpass.

Most of the expense here, as should be obvious, was not to build the US-31 mainline north from Napier Ave. It went into rebuilding the I-94 mainline and replacing overpasses along I-94. US-31's path between the I-94/I-196 interchange and Napier Ave is built in the cheapest way possible for MDOT to call it a freeway-to-freeway interchange with a straight face. But it does the job, and MDOT has room to build a WBD I-94 to SBD US-31 flyover if and when it becomes warranted.

If not already mentioned, Google Maps now shows the current I-94/Bus I-94/US-31 interchange layout. I also noticed the old speed limit and "must exit" signage is gone on NBD US-31 approaching Napier Ave.

I have a dumb question but is it really a freeway-to-freeway interchange if when you're coming from WB I-94 to SB US-31 and people can make a regular left turn to get onto EB I-94? (yes I know they are crossing over the NB US-31 lanes after the exit to get onto EB I-94)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZKfTj_m0vBn8eXILUznffu9dMlUgA_vl/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZKfTj_m0vBn8eXILUznffu9dMlUgA_vl/view?usp=sharing)

SB traffic on US 31 shouldn't have to stop. The only light needed is for those turning left onto EB I-94/ NB US 31. Traffic not turning left shouldn't need to stop for a light.

So it would be fine for a freeway to freeway interchange since the northbound traffic would have already used the ramp to get on eastbound I-94 at that point.

Yes but what about WB I-94 going south on US-31 (like the people coming south on I-196 trying to continue south to South Bend on US-31) once they complete the curve and merge with Main St. (94 Bus) traffic they will probably continue at highway speeds but there are people who could slow down and get into a left turn lane. Doesn't seem very freeway-like to me.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gR-dFi32PmD5I5EZGzkzguPrg1nGk2Af/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gR-dFi32PmD5I5EZGzkzguPrg1nGk2Af/view?usp=sharing)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.michiganhighways.org%2Fphotos%2FUS-31_LastSegment1.jpg&hash=a5755e5b3becc3f168694aaa57052a4237b4bdb0)

This image looks west at US-31, over the southbound lanes, from east of the I-94 interchange.

In the distance, you can see where the southbound cloverleaf comes on, and where the lane from I-94 Business comes in from the left. The area that left turn lane / median cut is located is separated from the southbound loop coming on by a double solid line and space in between.

Nothing is impeding the southbound movement, so I would say it's a full freeway connection. The single left turn is separated from that lane, and does not cross it.

US 31 NB --> I-94 WB is the movement that isn't freeway to freeway, and may prevent US 31 from ever being designated as an interstate if that were so desired.

First of all the big thing making US 31 a full freeway south an interstate lies mainly in IN. US 31 has lots of at grades.  The only improvement INDOT will make is to build some interchanges and leave the rural parts a rural arterial.  They see no need to implement a red, white, and blue banner for this century.

Basically INDOT is copying Caltrans with US 101 and just making it more expressway than going full interstate standards, as the primary purpose is to go one hundred plus miles without stopping for a signal.

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 07, 2022, 07:22:40 AM
US 31 NB --> I-94 WB is the movement that isn't freeway to freeway, and may prevent US 31 from ever being designated as an interstate if that were so desired.

If that were to ever happen, you could simply construct a flyover to address the movement.

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 07, 2022, 07:22:40 AM
US 31 NB --> I-94 WB is the movement that isn't freeway to freeway, and may prevent US 31 from ever being designated as an interstate if that were so desired.

Right now, MDOT is about as concerned with that as they are with preparing for a hurricane.

But, just to play along, note that neither direction of 31 is on the roadway at the point of the wbd 94 onramp.  The turns onto that ramp are from BL 94, which is not a freeway.

Quote from: wanderer2575 on December 07, 2022, 09:43:42 AM

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 07, 2022, 07:22:40 AM
US 31 NB --> I-94 WB is the movement that isn't freeway to freeway, and may prevent US 31 from ever being designated as an interstate if that were so desired.

Right now, MDOT is about as concerned with that as they are with preparing for a hurricane.

But, just to play along, note that neither direction of 31 is on the roadway at the point of the wbd 94 onramp.  The turns onto that ramp are from BL 94, which is not a freeway.

I get that, but if you wanted to designate US 31 as I-67 from I-94 down to US 30 (or farther if Indiana makes more improvements), you'd have the I-67 NB to I-94 WB movement crossing that turn at grade, which would be problematic, even if I-67 itself is exiting the roadway before that point.

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 07, 2022, 09:50:39 AM

Quote from: wanderer2575 on December 07, 2022, 09:43:42 AM

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 07, 2022, 07:22:40 AM
US 31 NB --> I-94 WB is the movement that isn't freeway to freeway, and may prevent US 31 from ever being designated as an interstate if that were so desired.

Right now, MDOT is about as concerned with that as they are with preparing for a hurricane.

But, just to play along, note that neither direction of 31 is on the roadway at the point of the wbd 94 onramp.  The turns onto that ramp are from BL 94, which is not a freeway.

I get that, but if you wanted to designate US 31 as I-67 from I-94 down to US 30 (or farther if Indiana makes more improvements), you'd have the I-67 NB to I-94 WB movement crossing that turn at grade, which would be problematic, even if I-67 itself is exiting the roadway before that point.

Not necessarily. There are numerous interstates across the country that have partial interchanges with the other movements performed via surface streets.

Quote from: zzcarp on December 07, 2022, 09:56:36 AM

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 07, 2022, 09:50:39 AM

Quote from: wanderer2575 on December 07, 2022, 09:43:42 AM

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 07, 2022, 07:22:40 AM
US 31 NB --> I-94 WB is the movement that isn't freeway to freeway, and may prevent US 31 from ever being designated as an interstate if that were so desired.

Right now, MDOT is about as concerned with that as they are with preparing for a hurricane.

But, just to play along, note that neither direction of 31 is on the roadway at the point of the wbd 94 onramp.  The turns onto that ramp are from BL 94, which is not a freeway.

I get that, but if you wanted to designate US 31 as I-67 from I-94 down to US 30 (or farther if Indiana makes more improvements), you'd have the I-67 NB to I-94 WB movement crossing that turn at grade, which would be problematic, even if I-67 itself is exiting the roadway before that point.

Not necessarily. There are numerous interstates across the country that have partial interchanges with the other movements performed via surface streets.

I-81 and I-690 in Syracuse using Bear Street.

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 07, 2022, 09:50:39 AM

Quote from: wanderer2575 on December 07, 2022, 09:43:42 AM

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 07, 2022, 07:22:40 AM
US 31 NB --> I-94 WB is the movement that isn't freeway to freeway, and may prevent US 31 from ever being designated as an interstate if that were so desired.

Right now, MDOT is about as concerned with that as they are with preparing for a hurricane.

But, just to play along, note that neither direction of 31 is on the roadway at the point of the wbd 94 onramp.  The turns onto that ramp are from BL 94, which is not a freeway.

I get that, but if you wanted to designate US 31 as I-67 from I-94 down to US 30 (or farther if Indiana makes more improvements), you'd have the I-67 NB to I-94 WB movement crossing that turn at grade, which would be problematic, even if I-67 itself is exiting the roadway before that point.

By the time this portion of US-31 where it meets I-94 becomes a factor in any discussion about an I-67 designation, I predict a few things:

- Many of us will likely be either dead or in a nursing home. This is at least 40 years away from fruition, absent a radical change in politics spurring a massive Interstate construction boom.
- INDOT will have to complete all access management and freeway conversion activities south of the state line, then apply for Interstate designation. MDOT's doesn't care enough to push an Interstate designation.
- If the above happens, MDOT will be in a position to cough up $$$ for a flyover for the WBD I-94/SBD US-31 movement>

I'll go out on a limb and say that 6-laning the remaining 4-lane sections of I-94 west of Ann Arbor happens before I-67 does.

if the main movements aren't limited access, it is NOT a limited access facility. full stop. those substandard interchanges are violations. if SB 31 had a flyover then, yes it would be a limited access freeway to freeway interchange.

Quote from: silverback1065 on December 07, 2022, 02:47:04 PM
if the main movements aren't limited access, it is NOT a limited access facility. full stop. those substandard interchanges are violations. if SB 31 had a flyover then, yes it would be a limited access freeway to freeway interchange.

The main movements are limited access: US 31 NB to I-94 EB/US 31 NB and I-94 WB/US 31 SB to US 31 SB. From the picture, the left turn from the EB business loop to EB I-94/NB US 31 is before the merge point, so it likely qualifies.

Quote from: silverback1065 on December 07, 2022, 02:47:04 PM
if the main movements aren't limited access, it is NOT a limited access facility. full stop. those substandard interchanges are violations. if SB 31 had a flyover then, yes it would be a limited access freeway to freeway interchange.

Did you read anything posted above?

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 06, 2022, 11:28:59 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.michiganhighways.org%2Fphotos%2FUS-31_LastSegment1.jpg&hash=a5755e5b3becc3f168694aaa57052a4237b4bdb0)

This image looks west at US-31, over the southbound lanes, from east of the I-94 interchange.

In the distance, you can see where the southbound cloverleaf comes on, and where the lane from I-94 Business comes in from the left. The area that left turn lane / median cut is located is separated from the southbound loop coming on by a double solid line and space in between.

Nothing is impeding the southbound movement, so I would say it's a full freeway connection. The single left turn is separated from that lane, and does not cross it.

I would characterize this new interchange as "free-flowing" for the freeway-to-freeway movements, but not fully "freeway-to-freeway" because of the left turns. But it doesn't need to be. I think just "free flowing" is perfectly acceptable for this situation.

Quote from: zzcarp on December 07, 2022, 09:56:36 AM
Not necessarily. There are numerous interstates across the country that have partial interchanges with the other movements performed via surface streets.

Yes, but those are mostly in situations where the ramps aren't actually carrying an interstate designation. If US 31 was to become an interstate starting at or north of I-94, the southbound roadway with the left turn would be part of the interstate mainline, which wouldn't meet interstate standards unless it was grade-separated.

Either way, the prospect of US 31 becoming an interstate seems like a distant reality at best, but it is a distinction worth making.

Quote from: webny99 on December 07, 2022, 06:39:29 PM
If US 31 was to become an interstate starting at or north of I-94, the southbound roadway with the left turn would be part of the interstate mainline, which wouldn't meet interstate standards unless it was grade-separated.

It's already separated from the single-lane ramp by a double solid line and space in between... put a physical barrier there if you must.

Look at the picture.

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 07, 2022, 07:53:16 PM

Quote from: webny99 on December 07, 2022, 06:39:29 PM
If US 31 was to become an interstate starting at or north of I-94, the southbound roadway with the left turn would be part of the interstate mainline, which wouldn't meet interstate standards unless it was grade-separated.

It's already separated from the single-lane ramp by a double solid line and space in between... put a physical barrier there if you must.

Look at the picture.

The picture was not loading until I opened it in a new tab. I'm not sure if that's technically passable or not, but it's less egregious than I thought.

30 years of re-planning and this was the best design they could come up with?  Oh, that's right, it's MDOT!

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 07, 2022, 09:59:10 PM
30 years of re-planning and this was the best design they could come up with?  Oh, that's right, it's MDOT!

In all honesty, I don't really see much issues with it. The major movements are free-flowing and limited access, and the highway itself is a 70 mph controlled access freeway facility.

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 07, 2022, 10:20:29 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 07, 2022, 09:59:10 PM
30 years of re-planning and this was the best design they could come up with?  Oh, that's right, it's MDOT!

In all honesty, I don't really see much issues with it. The major movements are free-flowing and limited access, and the highway itself is a 70 mph controlled access freeway facility.

Yeah, and one could substitute "bowel movements are free flowing" for "major movements are free flowing." and it wouldn't be any different.  Either way it's a an ugly, messy pain in the a$$. :)

I don't understand... northbound is free-flowing at 50-55 mph, and southbound is a 30-35 mph loop ramp which is common on freeways...

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 07, 2022, 10:47:58 PM
I don't understand... northbound is free-flowing at 50-55 mph, and southbound is a 30-35 mph loop ramp which is common on freeways...

If you're going NB on 31 and want to go WB on 94, you cross an at-grade intersection where traffic from BL 94 turns left onto EB 94. I thought that would disqualify 31 from later being made an interstate but others have pointed out similar situations that already exist.

Well if US-31 ever does become an Interstate which I doubt it will they will have to reconstruct the ramps again. I don't see US-31 ever becoming an Interstate though.

Quote from: Flint1979 on December 08, 2022, 07:27:07 AM
Well if US-31 ever does become an Interstate which I doubt it will they will have to reconstruct the ramps again. I don't see US-31 ever becoming an Interstate though.

It's going to be quite a while, anywhere from 20-50 years, but I think 31 will eventually be freeway from Indy all the way to St. Joseph. Why would Indiana and Michigan not want an interstate designation at that point?

I imagine that South Bend in particular would see the benefits of getting it designated as an interstate right now.

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 08, 2022, 07:24:59 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 07, 2022, 10:47:58 PM
I don't understand... northbound is free-flowing at 50-55 mph, and southbound is a 30-35 mph loop ramp which is common on freeways...

If you're going NB on 31 and want to go WB on 94, you cross an at-grade intersection where traffic from BL 94 turns left onto EB 94. I thought that would disqualify 31 from later being made an interstate but others have pointed out similar situations that already exist.

US-31 is not an interstate though... the current bypass constructed is adequate for traffic volumes and provides free-flow on the major movements. The amount of traffic going from US-31 north to I-94 west is likely minimal enough having the at-grade crossing is not an issue.

From a traffic standpoint, the interchange seems fine.

The interchange is fine. If you don't like it, don't use it. I'm sure locals and US 31 travelers will be happy with the improvements and won't miss the omission of a NB US 31 to WB I-94 ramp as they will probably be exiting at Napier Avenue or an earlier exit so they don't have to backtrack on I-94 WB which goes SSW from the interchange.

Quote from: Flint1979 on December 08, 2022, 07:27:07 AM
Well if US-31 ever does become an Interstate which I doubt it will they will have to reconstruct the ramps again. I don't see US-31 ever becoming an Interstate though.

I don't see where that would be a problem.  In fact, MDOT seems to delight in doing things like re-constructing the same exit ramps several times.  I know in the last 15-20 years or so, the Cascade Road ramps over I-96 have been reconstructed at least 2-3 times.

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 08, 2022, 08:26:16 AM

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 08, 2022, 07:24:59 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 07, 2022, 10:47:58 PM
I don't understand... northbound is free-flowing at 50-55 mph, and southbound is a 30-35 mph loop ramp which is common on freeways...

If you're going NB on 31 and want to go WB on 94, you cross an at-grade intersection where traffic from BL 94 turns left onto EB 94. I thought that would disqualify 31 from later being made an interstate but others have pointed out similar situations that already exist.

US-31 is not an interstate though... the current bypass constructed is adequate for traffic volumes and provides free-flow on the major movements. The amount of traffic going from US-31 north to I-94 west is likely minimal enough having the at-grade crossing is not an issue.

From a traffic standpoint, the interchange seems fine.

From a safety standpoint, it's a big issue!  Traffic will likely still be in excess of 70 MPH no matter what the posted speed limit is through the at grade intersection.  Like I said earlier, MDOT had about 30 years to design this and came up with something dangerous and stupid!

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 08, 2022, 03:49:46 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 08, 2022, 08:26:16 AM

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 08, 2022, 07:24:59 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 07, 2022, 10:47:58 PM
I don't understand... northbound is free-flowing at 50-55 mph, and southbound is a 30-35 mph loop ramp which is common on freeways...

If you're going NB on 31 and want to go WB on 94, you cross an at-grade intersection where traffic from BL 94 turns left onto EB 94. I thought that would disqualify 31 from later being made an interstate but others have pointed out similar situations that already exist.

US-31 is not an interstate though... the current bypass constructed is adequate for traffic volumes and provides free-flow on the major movements. The amount of traffic going from US-31 north to I-94 west is likely minimal enough having the at-grade crossing is not an issue.

From a traffic standpoint, the interchange seems fine.

From a safety standpoint, it's a big issue!  Traffic will likely still be in excess of 70 MPH no matter what the posted speed limit is through the at grade intersection.  Like I said earlier, MDOT had about 30 years to design this and came up with something dangerous and stupid!

It seems like there will be pretty good sight distance for anyone on I-94B eastbound making that left turn. And as others have said, the ramp from US 31 NB to the I-94B WB movement likely won't be used much. So I disagree with your assertion that it's dangerous or stupid. However, if it does become dangerous, it could easily have a two-phase signal installed for EB left turns along with additional lower speed limit signs.

http://www.michiganhighways.org/photos/US-31_LastSegment1.jpg
Here's another big safety concern: There appears to be no acceleration lane from EB I-94 exit ramp merging with SB US-31.  What's up with that?

Quote from: zzcarp on December 08, 2022, 03:58:28 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 08, 2022, 03:49:46 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 08, 2022, 08:26:16 AM

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 08, 2022, 07:24:59 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 07, 2022, 10:47:58 PM
I don't understand... northbound is free-flowing at 50-55 mph, and southbound is a 30-35 mph loop ramp which is common on freeways...

If you're going NB on 31 and want to go WB on 94, you cross an at-grade intersection where traffic from BL 94 turns left onto EB 94. I thought that would disqualify 31 from later being made an interstate but others have pointed out similar situations that already exist.

US-31 is not an interstate though... the current bypass constructed is adequate for traffic volumes and provides free-flow on the major movements. The amount of traffic going from US-31 north to I-94 west is likely minimal enough having the at-grade crossing is not an issue.

From a traffic standpoint, the interchange seems fine.

From a safety standpoint, it's a big issue!  Traffic will likely still be in excess of 70 MPH no matter what the posted speed limit is through the at grade intersection.  Like I said earlier, MDOT had about 30 years to design this and came up with something dangerous and stupid!

It seems like there will be pretty good sight distance for anyone on I-94B eastbound making that left turn. And as others have said, the ramp from US 31 NB to the I-94B WB movement likely won't be used much. So I disagree with your assertion that it's dangerous or stupid. However, if it does become dangerous, it could easily have a two-phase signal installed for EB left turns along with additional lower speed limit signs.

Once again, an extremely poor, stupid and dangerous design!  "Oh, we can waste a lot of money changing it after several people get killed in accidents" just doesn't cut it!

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 08, 2022, 04:00:57 PM

Quote from: zzcarp on December 08, 2022, 03:58:28 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 08, 2022, 03:49:46 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 08, 2022, 08:26:16 AM

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 08, 2022, 07:24:59 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 07, 2022, 10:47:58 PM
I don't understand... northbound is free-flowing at 50-55 mph, and southbound is a 30-35 mph loop ramp which is common on freeways...

If you're going NB on 31 and want to go WB on 94, you cross an at-grade intersection where traffic from BL 94 turns left onto EB 94. I thought that would disqualify 31 from later being made an interstate but others have pointed out similar situations that already exist.

US-31 is not an interstate though... the current bypass constructed is adequate for traffic volumes and provides free-flow on the major movements. The amount of traffic going from US-31 north to I-94 west is likely minimal enough having the at-grade crossing is not an issue.

From a traffic standpoint, the interchange seems fine.

From a safety standpoint, it's a big issue!  Traffic will likely still be in excess of 70 MPH no matter what the posted speed limit is through the at grade intersection.  Like I said earlier, MDOT had about 30 years to design this and came up with something dangerous and stupid!

It seems like there will be pretty good sight distance for anyone on I-94B eastbound making that left turn. And as others have said, the ramp from US 31 NB to the I-94B WB movement likely won't be used much. So I disagree with your assertion that it's dangerous or stupid. However, if it does become dangerous, it could easily have a two-phase signal installed for EB left turns along with additional lower speed limit signs.

Once again, an extremely poor, stupid and dangerous design!  "Oh, we can waste a lot of money changing it after several people get killed in accidents" just doesn't cut it!

How do you think this works? Traffic engineers analyze the movements and traffic to see what works and if a signal is warranted. If it's not warranted, there's no light. Now if, as you assert, this will be dangerous or have people killed in accidents, and enforcement and other mitigations don't work, you get a crash warrant for a traffic light (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2003r1/part4/part4c.htm).

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 08, 2022, 04:00:57 PM

Quote from: zzcarp on December 08, 2022, 03:58:28 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 08, 2022, 03:49:46 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 08, 2022, 08:26:16 AM

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 08, 2022, 07:24:59 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 07, 2022, 10:47:58 PM
I don't understand... northbound is free-flowing at 50-55 mph, and southbound is a 30-35 mph loop ramp which is common on freeways...

If you're going NB on 31 and want to go WB on 94, you cross an at-grade intersection where traffic from BL 94 turns left onto EB 94. I thought that would disqualify 31 from later being made an interstate but others have pointed out similar situations that already exist.

US-31 is not an interstate though... the current bypass constructed is adequate for traffic volumes and provides free-flow on the major movements. The amount of traffic going from US-31 north to I-94 west is likely minimal enough having the at-grade crossing is not an issue.

From a traffic standpoint, the interchange seems fine.

From a safety standpoint, it's a big issue!  Traffic will likely still be in excess of 70 MPH no matter what the posted speed limit is through the at grade intersection.  Like I said earlier, MDOT had about 30 years to design this and came up with something dangerous and stupid!

It seems like there will be pretty good sight distance for anyone on I-94B eastbound making that left turn. And as others have said, the ramp from US 31 NB to the I-94B WB movement likely won't be used much. So I disagree with your assertion that it's dangerous or stupid. However, if it does become dangerous, it could easily have a two-phase signal installed for EB left turns along with additional lower speed limit signs.

Once again, an extremely poor, stupid and dangerous design!  "Oh, we can waste a lot of money changing it after several people get killed in accidents" just doesn't cut it!

So, they put in a left turn lane for a minor movement that crosses a singular carriageway that is a single lane wide of traffic, and it's "dangerous" ?

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 08, 2022, 03:58:49 PM
http://www.michiganhighways.org/photos/US-31_LastSegment1.jpg
Here's another big safety concern: There appears to be no acceleration lane from EB I-94 exit ramp merging with SB US-31.  What's up with that?

It's merging with the traffic exiting WB I-94 which is coming out of a cloverleaf ramp. That traffic won't be very fast. I doubt the merge there will be difficult. I prefer longer merge distances but I see similar all over California.

Quote from: skluth on December 08, 2022, 06:00:16 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 08, 2022, 03:58:49 PM
http://www.michiganhighways.org/photos/US-31_LastSegment1.jpg
Here's another big safety concern: There appears to be no acceleration lane from EB I-94 exit ramp merging with SB US-31.  What's up with that?

It's merging with the traffic exiting WB I-94 which is coming out of a cloverleaf ramp. That traffic won't be very fast. I doubt the merge there will be difficult. I prefer longer merge distances but I see similar all over California.

No offense, but who wants to be like California?

Quote from: skluth on December 08, 2022, 06:00:16 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 08, 2022, 03:58:49 PM
http://www.michiganhighways.org/photos/US-31_LastSegment1.jpg
Here's another big safety concern: There appears to be no acceleration lane from EB I-94 exit ramp merging with SB US-31.  What's up with that?

It's merging with the traffic exiting WB I-94 which is coming out of a cloverleaf ramp. That traffic won't be very fast. I doubt the merge there will be difficult. I prefer longer merge distances but I see similar all over California.

It's merging with accelerating traffic trying to get up to freeway speed.  There is absolutely no excuse for this!

Quote from: zzcarp on December 08, 2022, 04:20:13 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 08, 2022, 04:00:57 PM

Quote from: zzcarp on December 08, 2022, 03:58:28 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 08, 2022, 03:49:46 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 08, 2022, 08:26:16 AM

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 08, 2022, 07:24:59 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 07, 2022, 10:47:58 PM
I don't understand... northbound is free-flowing at 50-55 mph, and southbound is a 30-35 mph loop ramp which is common on freeways...

If you're going NB on 31 and want to go WB on 94, you cross an at-grade intersection where traffic from BL 94 turns left onto EB 94. I thought that would disqualify 31 from later being made an interstate but others have pointed out similar situations that already exist.

US-31 is not an interstate though... the current bypass constructed is adequate for traffic volumes and provides free-flow on the major movements. The amount of traffic going from US-31 north to I-94 west is likely minimal enough having the at-grade crossing is not an issue.

From a traffic standpoint, the interchange seems fine.

From a safety standpoint, it's a big issue!  Traffic will likely still be in excess of 70 MPH no matter what the posted speed limit is through the at grade intersection.  Like I said earlier, MDOT had about 30 years to design this and came up with something dangerous and stupid!

It seems like there will be pretty good sight distance for anyone on I-94B eastbound making that left turn. And as others have said, the ramp from US 31 NB to the I-94B WB movement likely won't be used much. So I disagree with your assertion that it's dangerous or stupid. However, if it does become dangerous, it could easily have a two-phase signal installed for EB left turns along with additional lower speed limit signs.

Once again, an extremely poor, stupid and dangerous design!  "Oh, we can waste a lot of money changing it after several people get killed in accidents" just doesn't cut it!

How do you think this works? Traffic engineers analyze the movements and traffic to see what works and if a signal is warranted. If it's not warranted, there's no light. Now if, as you assert, this will be dangerous or have people killed in accidents, and enforcement and other mitigations don't work, you get a crash warrant for a traffic light (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2003r1/part4/part4c.htm).

What could be stupider or more dangerous than an at grade intersection in the middle of an interchange?  Adding a traffic light at an at grade intersection in the middle of an interchange!

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 08, 2022, 06:09:06 PM

Quote from: skluth on December 08, 2022, 06:00:16 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 08, 2022, 03:58:49 PM
http://www.michiganhighways.org/photos/US-31_LastSegment1.jpg
Here's another big safety concern: There appears to be no acceleration lane from EB I-94 exit ramp merging with SB US-31.  What's up with that?

It's merging with the traffic exiting WB I-94 which is coming out of a cloverleaf ramp. That traffic won't be very fast. I doubt the merge there will be difficult. I prefer longer merge distances but I see similar all over California.

It's merging with accelerating traffic trying to get up to freeway speed.  There is absolutely no excuse for this!

The merging traffic there will probably be going faster than the traffic accelerating out of a cloverleaf. The camera angle isn't very helpful but I think it's longer than it looks. The stripes between the lanes in that picture are almost squares; a rough estimation with lines of 10 feet and spacing between lines of 35 feet (based on GE measurements of US 31 and I-94) means the ramp is probably has at least 450 feet for acceleration. That's not much it should be enough at those speeds barring wannabe NASCAR drivers.

^ If we wanna talk about short to non-existent acceleration lanes, look no further than Texas.

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 08, 2022, 06:11:26 PM

Quote from: zzcarp on December 08, 2022, 04:20:13 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 08, 2022, 04:00:57 PM

Quote from: zzcarp on December 08, 2022, 03:58:28 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 08, 2022, 03:49:46 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 08, 2022, 08:26:16 AM

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 08, 2022, 07:24:59 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 07, 2022, 10:47:58 PM
I don't understand... northbound is free-flowing at 50-55 mph, and southbound is a 30-35 mph loop ramp which is common on freeways...

If you're going NB on 31 and want to go WB on 94, you cross an at-grade intersection where traffic from BL 94 turns left onto EB 94. I thought that would disqualify 31 from later being made an interstate but others have pointed out similar situations that already exist.

US-31 is not an interstate though... the current bypass constructed is adequate for traffic volumes and provides free-flow on the major movements. The amount of traffic going from US-31 north to I-94 west is likely minimal enough having the at-grade crossing is not an issue.

From a traffic standpoint, the interchange seems fine.

From a safety standpoint, it's a big issue!  Traffic will likely still be in excess of 70 MPH no matter what the posted speed limit is through the at grade intersection.  Like I said earlier, MDOT had about 30 years to design this and came up with something dangerous and stupid!

It seems like there will be pretty good sight distance for anyone on I-94B eastbound making that left turn. And as others have said, the ramp from US 31 NB to the I-94B WB movement likely won't be used much. So I disagree with your assertion that it's dangerous or stupid. However, if it does become dangerous, it could easily have a two-phase signal installed for EB left turns along with additional lower speed limit signs.

Once again, an extremely poor, stupid and dangerous design!  "Oh, we can waste a lot of money changing it after several people get killed in accidents" just doesn't cut it!

How do you think this works? Traffic engineers analyze the movements and traffic to see what works and if a signal is warranted. If it's not warranted, there's no light. Now if, as you assert, this will be dangerous or have people killed in accidents, and enforcement and other mitigations don't work, you get a crash warrant for a traffic light (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2003r1/part4/part4c.htm).

What could be stupider or more dangerous than an at grade intersection in the middle of an interchange?  Adding a traffic light at an at grade intersection in the middle of an interchange!

So no signals or at-grades should exist at an interchange? So every single interchange in the country should be a cloverleaf or flyover? Even at a farm road?

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 08, 2022, 07:20:32 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 08, 2022, 06:11:26 PM

Quote from: zzcarp on December 08, 2022, 04:20:13 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 08, 2022, 04:00:57 PM

Quote from: zzcarp on December 08, 2022, 03:58:28 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 08, 2022, 03:49:46 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 08, 2022, 08:26:16 AM

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 08, 2022, 07:24:59 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 07, 2022, 10:47:58 PM
I don't understand... northbound is free-flowing at 50-55 mph, and southbound is a 30-35 mph loop ramp which is common on freeways...

If you're going NB on 31 and want to go WB on 94, you cross an at-grade intersection where traffic from BL 94 turns left onto EB 94. I thought that would disqualify 31 from later being made an interstate but others have pointed out similar situations that already exist.

US-31 is not an interstate though... the current bypass constructed is adequate for traffic volumes and provides free-flow on the major movements. The amount of traffic going from US-31 north to I-94 west is likely minimal enough having the at-grade crossing is not an issue.

From a traffic standpoint, the interchange seems fine.

From a safety standpoint, it's a big issue!  Traffic will likely still be in excess of 70 MPH no matter what the posted speed limit is through the at grade intersection.  Like I said earlier, MDOT had about 30 years to design this and came up with something dangerous and stupid!

It seems like there will be pretty good sight distance for anyone on I-94B eastbound making that left turn. And as others have said, the ramp from US 31 NB to the I-94B WB movement likely won't be used much. So I disagree with your assertion that it's dangerous or stupid. However, if it does become dangerous, it could easily have a two-phase signal installed for EB left turns along with additional lower speed limit signs.

Once again, an extremely poor, stupid and dangerous design!  "Oh, we can waste a lot of money changing it after several people get killed in accidents" just doesn't cut it!

How do you think this works? Traffic engineers analyze the movements and traffic to see what works and if a signal is warranted. If it's not warranted, there's no light. Now if, as you assert, this will be dangerous or have people killed in accidents, and enforcement and other mitigations don't work, you get a crash warrant for a traffic light (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2003r1/part4/part4c.htm).

What could be stupider or more dangerous than an at grade intersection in the middle of an interchange?  Adding a traffic light at an at grade intersection in the middle of an interchange!

So no signals or at-grades should exist at an interchange? So every single interchange in the country should be a cloverleaf or flyover? Even at a farm road?

This is freeway to freeway.  Or at least it was supposed to be.

^ The freeway ends at I-94. It is an arterial surface / business route to the west.

The freeway-to-freeway portion is all free-flowing / limited-access except the US-31 north to I-94 west movement which is low volume to non-existent. They could have omitted that movement altogether and likely have little impact on traffic.

I'm still not seeing any problems with the interchange functionally.

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 08, 2022, 09:57:26 PM
^ The freeway ends at I-94. It is an arterial surface / business route to the west.

The freeway-to-freeway portion is all free-flowing / limited-access except the US-31 north to I-94 west movement which is low volume to non-existent. They could have omitted that movement altogether and likely have little impact on traffic.

I'm still not seeing any problems with the interchange functionally.

From Chris Bessert's Michigan Highways site:
"... BL I-94 itself was reduced from a four-lane, limited-access expressway to a three-lane undivided highway that bends southeasterly east of Euclid Ave to the new I-94 interchange. One major change, however, was the "downgrading" of the proposed full cloverleaf interchange between US-31 and I-94 into a partial cloverleaf. This means the two freeways intersect at a non-freeway interchange. Northbound US-31 traffic ostensibly remains on a controlled-access route, while southbound US-31 traffic must use non-freeway-quality roadway and pass through an at-grade interection (the northbond I-94 on-ramp) to remain on US-31. While the originally-approved full cloverleaf interchange design would have preserved full freeway-to-freeway connectivity, it is assumed this "downgraded" design was substituted to save money, although it remains to be seen if a similar "downgrade" in the level of safety will also accompany the design change."
http://www.michiganhighways.org/indepth/US-31Freeway_Berrien.html

They should have removed all doubt and built the thing properly and safely in the first place!  Within 10 years they'll probably have to redo the entire interchange at considerable cost!

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 09, 2022, 01:02:12 AM
while southbound US-31 traffic must use non-freeway-quality roadway and pass through an at-grade interection (the northbond I-94 on-ramp) to remain on US-31.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

False.

Quote
They should have removed all doubt and built the thing properly and safely in the first place!  Within 10 years they'll probably have to redo the entire interchange at considerable cost!

We'll have to look at this again in 10 years I suppose.

Look, the current interchange design is good enough for the time being. I guess a WB 94 to SB 31 flyover would be nice, but a loop ramp is better than a signalized left turn.

The perfect solution will always be tying it in with I-196, which is absolutely what should've been done, full stop. The bats thing is just bullshit.

On a different note, will I-94 be 8-laned from US 31 to I-196 as part of this project?

^ It appears so, with an auxiliary lane between the new US-31 freeway and I-196, alongside 3 general purpose lanes in each direction.

Quote from: JoePCool14 on December 09, 2022, 10:50:31 AM
Look, the current interchange design is good enough for the time being. I guess a WB 94 to SB 31 flyover would be nice, but a loop ramp is better than a signalized left turn.

The perfect solution will always be tying it in with I-196, which is absolutely what should've been done, full stop. The bats thing is just bullshit.

at least the gap is filled. i dont think the loop will ever be a problem for through traffic. unless development increases in the area.

Quote from: silverback1065 on December 09, 2022, 02:17:00 PM

Quote from: JoePCool14 on December 09, 2022, 10:50:31 AM
Look, the current interchange design is good enough for the time being. I guess a WB 94 to SB 31 flyover would be nice, but a loop ramp is better than a signalized left turn.

The perfect solution will always be tying it in with I-196, which is absolutely what should've been done, full stop. The bats thing is just bullshit.

at least the gap is filled. i dont think the loop will ever be a problem for through traffic. unless development increases in the area.

Yes. Without a doubt, it's still an improvement.

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 09, 2022, 10:26:16 AM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 09, 2022, 01:02:12 AM
while southbound US-31 traffic must use non-freeway-quality roadway and pass through an at-grade interection (the northbond I-94 on-ramp) to remain on US-31.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

False.

Quote
They should have removed all doubt and built the thing properly and safely in the first place!  Within 10 years they'll probably have to redo the entire interchange at considerable cost!

We'll have to look at this again in 10 years I suppose.

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 09, 2022, 10:26:16 AM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 09, 2022, 01:02:12 AM
while southbound US-31 traffic must use non-freeway-quality roadway and pass through an at-grade interection (the northbond I-94 on-ramp) to remain on US-31.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

False.

Quote
They should have removed all doubt and built the thing properly and safely in the first place!  Within 10 years they'll probably have to redo the entire interchange at considerable cost!

We'll have to look at this again in 10 years I suppose.

False?  Take it up with Chris Bessert then.  I believe him to be an expert.  I have no idea what your credentials are, and I haven't driven it yet, so I'm trusting what he's posted on his website.  If you have evidence to the contrary, then please present it.

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 11, 2022, 01:56:20 AM
If you have evidence to the contrary, then please present it.

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 06, 2022, 11:28:59 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.michiganhighways.org%2Fphotos%2FUS-31_LastSegment1.jpg&hash=a5755e5b3becc3f168694aaa57052a4237b4bdb0)

This image looks west at US-31, over the southbound lanes, from east of the I-94 interchange.

In the distance, you can see where the southbound cloverleaf comes on, and where the lane from I-94 Business comes in from the left. The area that left turn lane / median cut is located is separated from the southbound loop coming on by a double solid line and space in between.

Nothing is impeding the southbound movement, so I would say it's a full freeway connection. The single left turn is separated from that lane, and does not cross it.

Please point out in the picture, which was posted on that website, where southbound US-31 traffic passes through (implying US-31 southbound has cross traffic) an at-grade intersection.

The left turn lane is barrier separated, and 2 lanes over along with another double line separation, and no cross traffic impedes US-31 southbound.

EDIT: Here is a better shot. The left side is the southbound roadway. There is very clearly a separation here.
(https://i.ibb.co/8PvPPNG/US31I94.jpg)

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 11, 2022, 02:39:39 AM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 11, 2022, 01:56:20 AM
If you have evidence to the contrary, then please present it.

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 06, 2022, 11:28:59 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.michiganhighways.org%2Fphotos%2FUS-31_LastSegment1.jpg&hash=a5755e5b3becc3f168694aaa57052a4237b4bdb0)

This image looks west at US-31, over the southbound lanes, from east of the I-94 interchange.

In the distance, you can see where the southbound cloverleaf comes on, and where the lane from I-94 Business comes in from the left. The area that left turn lane / median cut is located is separated from the southbound loop coming on by a double solid line and space in between.

Nothing is impeding the southbound movement, so I would say it's a full freeway connection. The single left turn is separated from that lane, and does not cross it.

Please point out in the picture, which was posted on that website, where southbound US-31 traffic passes through (implying US-31 southbound has cross traffic) an at-grade intersection.

The left turn lane is barrier separated, and 2 lanes over along with another double line separation, and no cross traffic impedes US-31 southbound.

EDIT: Here is a better shot. The left side is the southbound roadway. There is very clearly a separation here.
(https://i.ibb.co/8PvPPNG/US31I94.jpg)

I don't see a barrier or any real separation.  And those white and yellow lines become quite a non-factor this time of year as they're often covered in snow.  This are is subject to a lot of snow and a lot of lake effect snow being very close to Lake Michigan. That's another safety concern.  People driving this stretch may be fooled into thinking they're actually still on a real freeway, not facing 2-way traffic for no apparent reason and end up driving down what they think to be the left lane.  At any rate, the pic you posted doesn't show most of the interchange, or even appear to cover the area in question.  Once again, I'll trust Chris and his research before relying on someone from Virginia who won't tell me what his credentials are.  It's possible, but very unlikely, that Chris made a mistake, but he is an expert with solid credentials and I'm going to go with what he says until evidence to the contrary is presented.  That being said, even if Chris did err on this matter, it's still a rather inefficient and unsafe interchange that MDOT should be ashamed of.

https://goo.gl/maps/pJJ7ndAqdmQbJho97
See the Googlecar hasn't made it here yet.

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 12, 2022, 02:18:22 AM
At any rate, the pic you posted doesn't show most of the interchange, or even appear to cover the area in question.

How does it not, exactly? The turn lane and intersection in question are both quite visible.

Quote
Once again, I'll trust Chris and his research before relying on someone from Virginia who won't tell me what his credentials are.  It's possible, but very unlikely, that Chris made a mistake, but he is an expert with solid credentials and I'm going to go with what he says until evidence to the contrary is presented.

I suppose if that is your desire, you're more than welcome to believe as you wish.

QuoteThat being said, even if Chris did err on this matter, it's still a rather inefficient and unsafe interchange that MDOT should be ashamed of.

Put up a barrier over the double solid yellow and white line separations. Minor cost, and would give the US-31 southbound ramp a channelized and barrier separated lane until the divided part, with zero at grade crossings.

How would that not address this issue safety wise?

---

At any rate, I am not going to continue this back-and-forth. I have presented my evidence of why it is a controlled access movement (and if it's not good enough, very easily fixable by a barrier without any actual new construction). If you see differently, we can agree to disagree.

Quote from: bulldog1979 on November 09, 2022, 09:11:57 PM
It may be a while before Napier Avenue is turned over to local control. MDOT can't force the Berrien County Road Commission to re-assume jurisdiction once the freeway opens, and MDOT will probably have to repave or rebuilt the roadway segment before BCRC agrees to take the road back if recent decommissioning/transfers are any guide. That section of Napier Avenue will end up internally designated "Old US 31" and marked as an unsigned state trunkline on the next edition of the Truck Operator's Map.

Sorry for the late response on this, but unless something changed and absolutely no one made any kind of announcement about it (which is quite doubtful), Napier Ave between I-94 and the US-31/St Joseph Valley Pkwy was never actually determined as a state trunkline route and transferred to state jurisdiction. It's what's called a "marked-and-maintained" route. There have been quite a few of them over the decades and it was a device used often when a freeway temporarily ended and traffic was shuttled back to the former route via one of these "marked-and-maintained" roads. Thus, once the state has ceased marking and maintaining it, said maintenance automatically reverts back to the original agency without any need for a jurisdictional transfer. Thus, on my site, you won't see it end up in the "OLD US-31" category or anything similar.

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 11, 2022, 02:39:39 AM
Please point out in the picture, which was posted on that website, where southbound US-31 traffic passes through (implying US-31 southbound has cross traffic) an at-grade intersection.

First, why all of a sudden is my website "that website"... like as in The Website That Shall Not Be Named^TM or some such? I'm not the friggin' Voldemort of Michigan Highways for crap's sake...

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 11, 2022, 02:39:39 AM
The left turn lane is barrier separated, and 2 lanes over along with another double line separation, and no cross traffic impedes US-31 southbound.

First of all, there is NO barrier ANYWHERE on the overpass spanning I-94. Here's a snippet of a quick video I shot out on Saturday (12/10/2022) coming from ebd BL I-94 through to US-31 sbd:

Yes, there is a painted white line "separating" the traffic coming on from wbd I-94/sbd US-31 to sbd US-31, but absolutely no barrier of any kind. While no one is supposed to make a left turn from the sbd US-31 stream of traffic onto ebd I-94/nbd US-31, the lack of any kind of barrier doesn't stop anyone from doing so and it will likely happen every so often by people who missed the I-196 exit or by any one of the hundreds of thousands of idiots who traverse our roads daily. Is there anything to prohibit that white SUV/crossover in my video from making a left turn from the US-31 sbd ramp back onto I-94 ebd? Nope. So, while one could argue the sbd US-31 movement is still ever-so-slightly "limited-access" in nature, that "limited-access" is only provided through the auspices of some white lines painted onto the pavement... which, in most anyone's book, doesn't really make something a "limited-access" freeway facility. If you paint white lines across every crossroad between Plymouth and Westfield, Indiana along US-31, does that make US-31 a freeway between South Bend and Indianapolis (or similarly between Holland and Ferrysburg, Michigan)? No. It means you've wasted a lot of white paint.

In the end, is the present I-94, US-31 & BL I-94 interchange at Benton Harbor "sufficient"? I guess so. Is it as safe as it could be? Definitely not. Would it be worthwhile spending the extra dollars to have made it a truly freeway-to-freeway interchange, at least for the US-31 through movements? Well ask anyone injured or killed there by people driving across the painted white lines or being confused by where to go, especially when it's snow-covered and/or dimly-lit (or just being an idiot behind the wheel). You might have your answer to that.

I'm VERY happy MDOT was able to "finish" the US-31 freeway. I'm even one that would've been thrilled if they had retained the original full cloverleaf design at Exit 33 on I-94 and left the Mitchell's satyr butterflies have their own realm. But am I thrilled by the new interchange? No. It's... sufficient. I guess.  :-/

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 12, 2022, 03:17:06 AM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 12, 2022, 02:18:22 AM
At any rate, the pic you posted doesn't show most of the interchange, or even appear to cover the area in question.

How does it not, exactly? The turn lane and intersection in question are both quite visible.

Quote
Once again, I'll trust Chris and his research before relying on someone from Virginia who won't tell me what his credentials are.  It's possible, but very unlikely, that Chris made a mistake, but he is an expert with solid credentials and I'm going to go with what he says until evidence to the contrary is presented.

I suppose if that is your desire, you're more than welcome to believe as you wish.

First, I've now posted a video to this thread I took on Saturday (12/10/2022) on my way to Chicago heading from ebd BL I-94 onto sbd US-31. Everyone can see exactly how this thing is configured–and from the eye-level of the motorist, too, which is, by far, the most pertinent point-of-view. I mean I appreciate everyone using the photo I took from the Benton Center Rd overpass, but that was from a long way out and not at eye-level.

Second, as Terry mentioned, I'm the undisputed expert here. Period. Just take a look at the banner on most pages of my website. It says it's been online for a quarter century now (which is a lot more impressive sounding than just "25 years"). A percentage of my site visitors weren't even born yet when my website first went online! And that doesn't make me feel old, no matter how much my daughter keeps telling me I am. Anyway, with MDOT sending people to my website and County Road Commissions constantly linking to it and even the Michigan Attorney General using it in legal opinions, that pretty much says I'm a friggin' expert. And the video I took I did at my own expense... meaning it kept me from enjoying a Lou Malnati's deep dish for an extra 15 minutes that day. So that should tell you something. (And anyone that can't enjoy the humor from this preceding paragraph needs to lighten up.) (But I'm still the expert. Terry said so...)

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 12, 2022, 03:17:06 AM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 12, 2022, 02:18:22 AM
That being said, even if Chris did err on this matter, it's still a rather inefficient and unsafe interchange that MDOT should be ashamed of.

Put up a barrier over the double solid yellow and white line separations. Minor cost, and would give the US-31 southbound ramp a channelized and barrier separated lane until the divided part, with zero at grade crossings.

How would that not address this issue safety wise?

A "barrier" here would not allow for sufficient shoulder or escape room, making it dangerous in a different way. That's assuming a "permanent" barrier, like a jersey barrier. If you installed some of those flimsy Carsonite posts in the white-striped area, it wouldn't offer any actual protection–a vehicle can plow through those like they don't exist as they're mostly a visual obstruction–and they would be gone each year with the first snowplowing and have to be reinstalled each spring, leaving no "barrier" all winter, when it may actually be needed the most. That's how it would not address the issue safety-wise. By a long shot.

Basically, the way the interchange is currently configured is safer than a.) the old configuration using Napier Ave. to shuttle traffic between I-94 and US-31 and b.) if the loop ramp from I-94 wbd to US-31 sbd (the "US-31 sbd through movement") merged directly into the traffic coming off BL I-94 before the left-turn movement for the I-94 ebd ramp. However, the current configuration is less safe than a truly physically separated movement or than the originally-proposed full-cloverleaf design for this interchange. Like I said in my other post, it's "sufficient" but "sufficient" and "safe" aren't really the same thing.

Quote from: bessertc on December 12, 2022, 04:28:09 AM
First, why all of a sudden is my website "that website"... like as in The Website That Shall Not Be Named^TM or some such? I'm not the friggin' Voldemort of Michigan Highways for crap's sake...

Because it's a website that was referenced?

QuoteIs it as safe as it could be? Definitely not. Would it be worthwhile spending the extra dollars to have made it a truly freeway-to-freeway interchange, at least for the US-31 through movements? Well ask anyone injured or killed there by people driving across the painted white lines or being confused by where to go, especially when it's snow-covered and/or dimly-lit (or just being an idiot behind the wheel). You might have your answer to that.

Place a barrier over the double solid white line.

QuoteIt's... sufficient. I guess.  :-/

I agree, it's a sufficient interchange that operates adequately for the traffic served.

Quote from: bessertc on December 12, 2022, 04:55:14 AM
Second, as Terry mentioned, I'm the undisputed expert here. Period. Just take a look at the banner on most pages of my website. It says it's been online for a quarter century now (which is a lot more impressive sounding than just "25 years"). A percentage of my site visitors weren't even born yet when my website first went online! And that doesn't make me feel old, no matter how much my daughter keeps telling me I am. Anyway, with MDOT sending people to my website and County Road Commissions constantly linking to it and even the Michigan Attorney General using it in legal opinions, that pretty much says I'm a friggin' expert. And the video I took I did at my own expense... meaning it kept me from enjoying a Lou Malnati's deep dish for an extra 15 minutes that day. So that should tell you something. (And anyone that can't enjoy the humor from this preceding paragraph needs to lighten up.) (But I'm still the expert. Terry said so...)

Nice?

Quote
A "barrier" here would not allow for sufficient shoulder or escape room, making it dangerous in a different way. That's assuming a "permanent" barrier, like a jersey barrier.

There's a full right paved shoulder, and a barrier installed would allow a 2-3 ft left shoulder. How is this any different than say, an overpass bridge, with a 8-10 foot right shoulder and a bridge wall?

A barrier address all of the alleged safety problems without any issues.

Quote
However, the current configuration is less safe than a truly physically separated movement or than the originally-proposed full-cloverleaf design for this interchange. Like I said in my other post, it's "sufficient" but "sufficient" and "safe" aren't really the same thing.

A physical separated barrier can easily be installed, with adequate shoulder remaining. A cloverleaf interchange would introduce weaving movements for southbound US-31 traffic. Having a channelized lane, and if you installed a barrier, would actually be safer for southbound traffic.

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 12, 2022, 10:10:40 AM

Quote from: bessertc on December 12, 2022, 04:28:09 AM
First, why all of a sudden is my website "that website"... like as in The Website That Shall Not Be Named^TM or some such? I'm not the friggin' Voldemort of Michigan Highways for crap's sake...

Because it's a website that was referenced?

Well, you had put it in boldface and referenced it as "that website" for some reason. It was like we couldn't say the name of it, but needed to highlight the fact that we were calling it "that website." Maybe I misinterpreted why you were stating it like that. It was just weird.

Quote

QuoteIs it as safe as it could be? Definitely not. Would it be worthwhile spending the extra dollars to have made it a truly freeway-to-freeway interchange, at least for the US-31 through movements? Well ask anyone injured or killed there by people driving across the painted white lines or being confused by where to go, especially when it's snow-covered and/or dimly-lit (or just being an idiot behind the wheel). You might have your answer to that.

Place a barrier over the double solid white line.

Which, as has been stated, creates other dangers. Then we're to the point of spending money to swap out Danger No.1 for Danger No.2, which may not be a wise use of taxpayer dollars.

Quote

QuoteIt's... sufficient. I guess.  :-/

I agree, it's a sufficient interchange that operates adequately for the traffic served.

But, again, sufficient and safe aren't the same. The former set-up with traffic using Napier Ave. to shuttle between I-94 at Exit 31 and US-31 at Exit 24 was "sufficient" to create continuity in the route of US-31, but was it safe? Was it the appropriate configuration, especially long-term, for the traffic served? No.  The old two-lane US-31/33 route the entire St. Joseph Valley Parkway replaced was "sufficient" to get traffic between South Bend and Benton Harbor, but it was also a death trap, hence the freeway we now have. Sufficient isn't what we should settle for if there's a better solution is what many here are saying. Why build a vastly superior freeway to replace the old death trap highway only to end it with an interchange that's marginally "safer" than its predecessor?

Quote

Quote from: bessertc on December 12, 2022, 04:55:14 AM
Second, as Terry mentioned, I'm the undisputed expert here. Period. Just take a look at the banner on most pages of my website. It says it's been online for a quarter century now (which is a lot more impressive sounding than just "25 years"). A percentage of my site visitors weren't even born yet when my website first went online! And that doesn't make me feel old, no matter how much my daughter keeps telling me I am. Anyway, with MDOT sending people to my website and County Road Commissions constantly linking to it and even the Michigan Attorney General using it in legal opinions, that pretty much says I'm a friggin' expert. And the video I took I did at my own expense... meaning it kept me from enjoying a Lou Malnati's deep dish for an extra 15 minutes that day. So that should tell you something. (And anyone that can't enjoy the humor from this preceding paragraph needs to lighten up.) (But I'm still the expert. Terry said so...)

Nice?

Indeed. Anyone who has met me will verify that I am definitely nice. Just look at all the Michigan highway-related stuff I put on the Interwebs for free! And my maps are pretty nice, too, ya gotta admit. So, there's really no need for the question mark. Maybe an exclamation point would be more appropriate for the situation...  :nod:  (e.g. lighten up!)

Quote

Quote
A "barrier" here would not allow for sufficient shoulder or escape room, making it dangerous in a different way. That's assuming a "permanent" barrier, like a jersey barrier.

There's a full right paved shoulder, and a barrier installed would allow a 2-3 ft left shoulder. How is this any different than say, an overpass bridge, with a 8-10 foot right shoulder and a bridge wall?

First, modern standards (from the past several decades) mandate shoulders on both sides of a lane of travel, not having traffic up against a jersey barrier, especially on the outside edge of a loop ramp just a couple feet from said jersey barrier. Throw a little ice or snow into the mix (we get a sh*t-ton of that here in the Lake Effect Snow Belt where this interchange is located) and there would be absolutely no room for error with zero left-hand shoulder. A vehicle bouncing off that jersey barrier coming to rest in the lane of travel at the top of a blind loop ramp in snowy conditions or the dark would really cause problems without a full left shoulder that would/should otherwise be present here.

Quote
A barrier address all of the alleged safety problems without any issues.

Actually, it would not. In addition to the issue of the zero left-hand shoulder on the outside edge of a loop ramp as noted above, a permanent barrier would leave the other lanes with zero shoulders, period. You'd have: ONCOMING LANE || LEFT-TURN LANE | THRU-LANE |B| LOOP-RAMP LANE (where |B| = jersey barrier), so you can see, there would be no out for any of the eastbound-to-southbound traffic at all. It's either swerve into the oncoming traffic and hit them head-on or swerve into the jersey barrier (with zero shoulder, remember) and come to rest in the travel lane. So, you've now replaced a serious safety issue with an even more egregious one. Please don't forget the sheer amount of snow we get around here. We have to drive it in daily for several months, plus it also has to get plowed somewhere, too, so that's a major factor.

Quote

Quote
However, the current configuration is less safe than a truly physically separated movement or than the originally-proposed full-cloverleaf design for this interchange. Like I said in my other post, it's "sufficient" but "sufficient" and "safe" aren't really the same thing.

A physical separated barrier can easily be installed, with adequate shoulder remaining. A cloverleaf interchange would introduce weaving movements for southbound US-31 traffic. Having a channelized lane, and if you installed a barrier, would actually be safer for southbound traffic.

I have no idea where all this "shoulder" is coming from. We've already noted that the painted separation lines are only a couple feet wide. How wide is a jersey barrier installation? A couple feet? Where would you get two full shoulders out of any of that in addition to the jersey barrier?

As for the weave-merge issue, my contacts at MDOT and FHWA have told me the much larger loops in the SW and SE quadrants were designed to leave room for weave-merge LANES to limit the amount of possible conflicting movements: http://www.michiganhighways.org/maps/US-31Freeway_BerrienAlts.pdf (http://www.michiganhighways.org/maps/US-31Freeway_BerrienAlts.pdf). Thus, you would have two full shoulders on the through (ebd BL I-94 to sbd US-31) movement and two full shoulders on the weave-merge section adjacent to it as well. That's a lot more safety than you have in the current configuration! Just sayin'...

A self proclaimed expert just because another user said so. Woohoo.

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 08, 2022, 03:58:49 PM
http://www.michiganhighways.org/photos/US-31_LastSegment1.jpg
Here's another big safety concern: There appears to be no acceleration lane from EB I-94 exit ramp merging with SB US-31.  What's up with that?

I don't see why anyone would take the EB I-94 to SB US-31 ramp in the first place. All they would be doing is back tracking because getting off at Napier Avenue and using that to get to SB US-31 would be quicker. The stupid thing should have been linked right into the south end of I-196, fuck them butterflies.

Quote from: Flint1979 on December 12, 2022, 02:30:25 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 08, 2022, 03:58:49 PM
http://www.michiganhighways.org/photos/US-31_LastSegment1.jpg
Here's another big safety concern: There appears to be no acceleration lane from EB I-94 exit ramp merging with SB US-31.  What's up with that?

I don't see why anyone would take the EB I-94 to SB US-31 ramp in the first place. All they would be doing is back tracking because getting off at Napier Avenue and using that to get to SB US-31 would be quicker. The stupid thing should have been linked right into the south end of I-196, fuck them butterflies.

Trucks? Oversize-loads? Hazardous-cargo haulers? Due to weight limits or other factors, not all vehicles can use all routes...

Quote from: Flint1979 on December 12, 2022, 02:25:44 PM
A self proclaimed expert just because another user said so. Woohoo.

You failed to get both the humor and note where I stated, "And anyone that can't enjoy the humor from this preceding paragraph needs to lighten up," apparently. I won't say I'm an expert, but, then again, with over 2,500 pages, maps, photos and documents amounting to hundreds of megabytes on my website that's been online for "A Quarter Century!" :D, I kinda know something about Michigan's highways by this point...

I predict 50 years from now roadgeeks will still be cursing the Mitchell-Satyr butterfly every time they pass through Benton Harbor on US-31 or I-94. Also, that US-127 between Ithaca and St. Johns will STILL be a divided highway and not a freeway. But at least I-94 will probably be 6-laned to I-69 - and we'll all be pissed because it needed to be 8 lanes instead.

Also, FFS, still no freaking flying cars!?!?!  :banghead:

Quote from: Flint1979 on December 12, 2022, 02:25:44 PM
A self proclaimed expert just because another user said so. Woohoo.

As opposed to you, who is a self-proclaimed expert just because.

Quote from: bessertc on December 12, 2022, 03:35:27 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on December 12, 2022, 02:25:44 PM
A self proclaimed expert just because another user said so. Woohoo.

You failed to get both the humor and note where I stated, "And anyone that can't enjoy the humor from this preceding paragraph needs to lighten up," apparently. I won't say I'm an expert, but, then again, with over 2,500 pages, maps, photos and documents amounting to hundreds of megabytes on my website that's been online for "A Quarter Century!" :D, I kinda know something about Michigan's highways by this point...

Humor and sarcasm are foreign concepts to some people apparently. :) But even if you were being dead serious, I don't know of anyone who can match your level of expertise.  Apparently, some people here with no apparent credentials think they can, but in reality, only their egos can match yours! :) Sorry, I couldn't resist! :)  Thanks for posting and clearing some things up.

Quote from: Flint1979 on December 12, 2022, 02:30:25 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 08, 2022, 03:58:49 PM
http://www.michiganhighways.org/photos/US-31_LastSegment1.jpg
Here's another big safety concern: There appears to be no acceleration lane from EB I-94 exit ramp merging with SB US-31.  What's up with that?

I don't see why anyone would take the EB I-94 to SB US-31 ramp in the first place. All they would be doing is back tracking because getting off at Napier Avenue and using that to get to SB US-31 would be quicker. The stupid thing should have been linked right into the south end of I-196, fuck them butterflies.

While I agree that linking up directly at I-196 would have been better, it would still be the same situation for EB I-94 traffic using Napier Ave to access SB US-31.  But the fact is that people are going to use the freeway-to-freeway connection even if Napier Avenue is shorter and faster.   In fact, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if 10 or so years down the road, MDOT decides to do a study for a connector route somewhere south (perhaps well south) of Napier Ave for EB I-94 traffic to cut over on.  Of course, they'll never find the funding for it and may find some rare grasshoppers in the area or something, but at least they'll have wasted money on a study.

Quote from: wanderer2575 on December 12, 2022, 11:47:53 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on December 12, 2022, 02:25:44 PM
A self proclaimed expert just because another user said so. Woohoo.

As opposed to you, who is a self-proclaimed expert just because.

Yet I've never claimed to be an expert at anything.

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 13, 2022, 02:15:39 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on December 12, 2022, 02:30:25 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 08, 2022, 03:58:49 PM
http://www.michiganhighways.org/photos/US-31_LastSegment1.jpg
Here's another big safety concern: There appears to be no acceleration lane from EB I-94 exit ramp merging with SB US-31.  What's up with that?

I don't see why anyone would take the EB I-94 to SB US-31 ramp in the first place. All they would be doing is back tracking because getting off at Napier Avenue and using that to get to SB US-31 would be quicker. The stupid thing should have been linked right into the south end of I-196, fuck them butterflies.

While I agree that linking up directly at I-196 would have been better, it would still be the same situation for EB I-94 traffic using Napier Ave to access SB US-31.  But the fact is that people are going to use the freeway-to-freeway connection even if Napier Avenue is shorter and faster.   In fact, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if 10 or so years down the road, MDOT decides to do a study for a connector route somewhere south (perhaps well south) of Napier Ave for EB I-94 traffic to cut over on.  Of course, they'll never find the funding for it and may find some rare grasshoppers in the area or something, but at least they'll have wasted money on a study.

I'm not sure where they would do that at. It might be a little out of the way but taking M-139 would probably solve that. The problem is that I-94 doesn't really go east and west in that area and both highways pretty much go the same direction except I-94 runs along the lakeshore in a NE-SW direction and US-31 goes more directly north and south.

Quote from: Flint1979 on December 12, 2022, 02:30:25 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 08, 2022, 03:58:49 PM
http://www.michiganhighways.org/photos/US-31_LastSegment1.jpg
Here's another big safety concern: There appears to be no acceleration lane from EB I-94 exit ramp merging with SB US-31.  What's up with that?

I don't see why anyone would take the EB I-94 to SB US-31 ramp in the first place. All they would be doing is back tracking because getting off at Napier Avenue and using that to get to SB US-31 would be quicker. The stupid thing should have been linked right into the south end of I-196, fuck them butterflies.

How many people are actually going to go EB I-94 to SB US-31?  It seems to me that any local traffic is just going to use local roads to bypass I-94 and cut over to US-31, and non-local traffic isn't going to take I-94 that far north (east) anyway. 

Playing around on Google Maps pretty much verifies that any traffic that is going toward South Bend isn't using Napier (unless it is local) or the ramp from I-94 to US-31.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 13, 2022, 08:48:07 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on December 12, 2022, 02:30:25 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 08, 2022, 03:58:49 PM
http://www.michiganhighways.org/photos/US-31_LastSegment1.jpg
Here's another big safety concern: There appears to be no acceleration lane from EB I-94 exit ramp merging with SB US-31.  What's up with that?

I don't see why anyone would take the EB I-94 to SB US-31 ramp in the first place. All they would be doing is back tracking because getting off at Napier Avenue and using that to get to SB US-31 would be quicker. The stupid thing should have been linked right into the south end of I-196, fuck them butterflies.

How many people are actually going to go EB I-94 to SB US-31?  It seems to me that any local traffic is just going to use local roads to bypass I-94 and cut over to US-31, and non-local traffic isn't going to take I-94 that far north (east) anyway. 

Playing around on Google Maps pretty much verifies that any traffic that is going toward South Bend isn't using Napier (unless it is local) or the ramp from I-94 to US-31.

Using US-12 or M-139 would accomplish that.

Quote from: Flint1979 on December 13, 2022, 10:26:32 AM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 13, 2022, 08:48:07 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on December 12, 2022, 02:30:25 PM

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 08, 2022, 03:58:49 PM
http://www.michiganhighways.org/photos/US-31_LastSegment1.jpg
Here's another big safety concern: There appears to be no acceleration lane from EB I-94 exit ramp merging with SB US-31.  What's up with that?

I don't see why anyone would take the EB I-94 to SB US-31 ramp in the first place. All they would be doing is back tracking because getting off at Napier Avenue and using that to get to SB US-31 would be quicker. The stupid thing should have been linked right into the south end of I-196, fuck them butterflies.

How many people are actually going to go EB I-94 to SB US-31?  It seems to me that any local traffic is just going to use local roads to bypass I-94 and cut over to US-31, and non-local traffic isn't going to take I-94 that far north (east) anyway. 

Playing around on Google Maps pretty much verifies that any traffic that is going toward South Bend isn't using Napier (unless it is local) or the ramp from I-94 to US-31.

Using US-12 or M-139 would accomplish that.

Right. So your statement "because getting off at Napier Avenue and using that to get to SB US-31 would be quicker" isn't all that relevant because I doubt many people heading east on I-94 are then going south on US-31. Sure, SOME people might, and they might use Napier to do so. But it doesn't seem like a lot.

I'll defer to the highway engineers who designed the interchange and believe it's adequate unless the horrific accidents predicted by someone here actually happen. I think an accident on the EB I-94 to SB US 31 ramp is more likely to be caused by some idiot trying to take the ramp's curve to fast than any merge. The interchange's location in lake effect snow land means all those ramps will be experiencing a lot of slick and icy conditions. My opinion and others here means squat since (I believe) only one person here has even seen the interchange and has deemed it sufficient but flawed. Others have only seen incomplete photos, some taken at angles that don't show the interchange properly. Could it be better? Yes. Is it good enough that most drivers who drove that segment pre-construction will appreciate the improvements. Yes.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 13, 2022, 11:28:16 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on December 13, 2022, 10:26:32 AM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 13, 2022, 08:48:07 AM
How many people are actually going to go EB I-94 to SB US-31?  It seems to me that any local traffic is just going to use local roads to bypass I-94 and cut over to US-31, and non-local traffic isn't going to take I-94 that far north (east) anyway. 

Playing around on Google Maps pretty much verifies that any traffic that is going toward South Bend isn't using Napier (unless it is local) or the ramp from I-94 to US-31.

Using US-12 or M-139 would accomplish that.

Right. So your statement "because getting off at Napier Avenue and using that to get to SB US-31 would be quicker" isn't all that relevant because I doubt many people heading east on I-94 are then going south on US-31. Sure, SOME people might, and they might use Napier to do so. But it doesn't seem like a lot.

Again, I think people are missing the whole trucking, overweight (with regard to local roads), oversize, and hazardous cargo angle here. There are a lot of these types of vehicles on the highways and if no options are given for these vehicles, they'd have to go dozens or hundreds of miles out of the way to get from A to B. Yes, the Average Joe/Jane in a Buick or Toyota won't use I-94 ebd to US-31 sbd, but plenty of trucks and larger vehicles will.

Plus, using the various online map services that include the new US-31 freeway, it's 2.6 miles out-of-the-way to stay on the freeway vs. using the "Napier Cutoff" route, but only one (1) minute longer. Imagine getting any of the lights along Napier Ave and, especially if you're in a big rig or similar vehicle, that immediately negates that one minute, so the time evens out. For automobile drivers who "sometimes don't adhere to the speed limit  :biggrin:",  you may be able to even that out regardless.

And using US-12 or M-139 isn't also the best if you're coming from the Twin Cities (BJ/SJ) and heading toward Niles, South Bend, Indianapolis, etc. US-12 is out of the way and a lot of miles on two-lane highway when a freeway already exists between those points and M-139 is even worse–it's the reason the US-31 freeway was built to begin with: to get through trucks and cars OFF that highway that made it so dangerous to begin with.

Quote from: bessertc on December 13, 2022, 01:04:15 PM
And using US-12 or M-139 isn't also the best if you're coming from the Twin Cities (BJ/SJ) and heading toward Niles, South Bend, Indianapolis, etc. US-12 is out of the way and a lot of miles on two-lane highway when a freeway already exists between those points and M-139 is even worse–it's the reason the US-31 freeway was built to begin with: to get through trucks and cars OFF that highway that made it so dangerous to begin with.

M-139 is the route suggested via Google Maps, and the signage on US-31 even lists "Benton Harbor"  as a control city for the northbound exit.

I don't think US-12 was suggested for Benton Harbor / St. Joseph traffic, it was for traffic on I-94 near the Illinois border.

As far as Napier Ave... did they recently install new traffic signals on that route? Because looking at satellite imagery, there doesn't appear to be any traffic signals between I-94 and US-31.

US-12 was mentioned as a route between US-31 and I-94. Not a route to or from Benton Harbor.

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 13, 2022, 02:21:32 PM

Quote from: bessertc on December 13, 2022, 01:04:15 PM
And using US-12 or M-139 isn't also the best if you're coming from the Twin Cities (BJ/SJ) and heading toward Niles, South Bend, Indianapolis, etc. US-12 is out of the way and a lot of miles on two-lane highway when a freeway already exists between those points and M-139 is even worse–it's the reason the US-31 freeway was built to begin with: to get through trucks and cars OFF that highway that made it so dangerous to begin with.

M-139 is the route suggested via Google Maps, and the signage on US-31 even lists "Benton Harbor"  as a control city for the northbound exit.

You're confused. We're talking about the amount of traffic using the ramp from I-94 ebd to US-31 sbd.

Quote
I don't think US-12 was suggested for Benton Harbor / St. Joseph traffic, it was for traffic on I-94 near the Illinois border.

Again, someone suggested using US-12 as a connection between I-94 and US-31 sbd heading toward Niles, South Bend, etc. (in addition to Napier Ave or M-139) instead of using the I-94 ebd to US-31 sbd ramp. Essentially, the discussion is about Greater Benton Harbor/St Joseph area traffic heading toward Niles and beyond and how they would access US-31 sbd, not heading north. The original question was: "How many people are actually going to go EB I-94 to SB US-31?"

Quote
As far as Napier Ave... did they recently install new traffic signals on that route? Because looking at satellite imagery, there doesn't appear to be any traffic signals between I-94 and US-31.

I was primarily thinking of the traffic signals at both ramp terminals at the I-94 interchange. I also mentally misplaced the traffic signal from the nbd US-31 off-ramp over at the sbd US-31 off-ramp instead. In any event, there are traffic signals, several road intersections, businesses, copious private driveways, a well-posted 50 mph speed limit for two-thirds of the distance between the two freeways, and a mixture of local, regional and this 'would-be' long-distance traffic that would make Napier less attractive as a cut-across, if one was even able to use that route (e.g. if you're a truck, oversize load, hazardous cargo, etc.).

Another point that needs to be raised and cannot be overlooked but is hard to quantify on engineering drawings is traffic heading from ebd BL I-94 onto the sbd US-31 freeway is accelerating to 70 mph through the interchange, if not already doing 70+ (trust me–in the several times I've been through it, that's what is actually happening, even though the 70 mph sign isn't until the Benton Center Rd overpass). Similarly, while the 55 mph speed sign is posted nbd on US-31 at the same overpass, traffic heading through the interchange onto BL I-94 will often be going in the 65—75—80 mph range. This is really not the kind of speeds you want people making left turns across. You have a mixture of people wanting to maintain a fast rate of travel with those needing to slow way down. This works fine at the Napier Ave overpass, since the posted limit is 40 west of the interchange and 50 to the east, you have a set of traffic signals, and there is a high volume of turning vehicles (ramp traffic, truck stops, fast food, county office facility, etc., etc.), whereas BL I-94 is limited-access east of the Crystal Ave roundabout and US-31 is a freeway from Plymouth, Indiana to the south, so speeds through the new interchange are clearly much higher, hence the safety factor decreases considerably.

I know my way around Michigan I've crisscrossed the state my entire life. Using M-139 which is a state highway to get from Benton Harbor to points south on US-31 is a good way and besides if you are starting in Benton Harbor or somewhere around there you are going to take local roads to get to US-31 anyway. If trucks are going from eastbound I-94 to southbound US-31 what are they doing that far north in the first place? Let's keep in mind that I-94 does not run in an east and west direction in this area as it bends to avoid Lake Michigan. Anyone that is already on I-94 eastbound that far north isn't going to be switching to southbound US-31. And keep in mind that M-139 is also part of Emergency I-94 in that area as well so I believe it can handle truck traffic. It's also on the National Highway System as well.

Quote from: skluth on December 13, 2022, 11:57:47 AM
I'll defer to the highway engineers who designed the interchange and believe it's adequate unless the horrific accidents predicted by someone here actually happen.

You know, the specific highway engineers designing something might be wrong. They're not infallible. Especially as a budding transportation engineer himself, I think I can at least question certain decisions. And even if I wasn't, I refuse to be one of those "trust the experts" people.

Quote from: JoePCool14 on December 14, 2022, 09:49:20 AM

Quote from: skluth on December 13, 2022, 11:57:47 AM
I'll defer to the highway engineers who designed the interchange and believe it's adequate unless the horrific accidents predicted by someone here actually happen.

You know, the specific highway engineers designing something might be wrong. They're not infallible. Especially as a budding transportation engineer himself, I think I can at least question certain decisions. And even if I wasn't, I refuse to be one of those "trust the experts" people.

I don't trust the experts on everything. But when something also looks fine in my opinion, I'll trust the experts more than a couple road geeks. This interchange is fine. It's flawed because the imaginary heavy interstate truck traffic between New Buffalo and Berrien Springs needs a slightly longer merge at the end of the EB I-94 to SB US 31 ramp.

Quote from: skluth on December 14, 2022, 12:11:40 PM

Quote from: JoePCool14 on December 14, 2022, 09:49:20 AM

Quote from: skluth on December 13, 2022, 11:57:47 AM
I'll defer to the highway engineers who designed the interchange and believe it's adequate unless the horrific accidents predicted by someone here actually happen.

You know, the specific highway engineers designing something might be wrong. They're not infallible. Especially as a budding transportation engineer himself, I think I can at least question certain decisions. And even if I wasn't, I refuse to be one of those "trust the experts" people.

I don't trust the experts on everything. But when something also looks fine in my opinion, I'll trust the experts more than a couple road geeks. This interchange is fine. It's flawed because the imaginary heavy interstate truck traffic between New Buffalo and Berrien Springs needs a slightly longer merge at the end of the EB I-94 to SB US 31 ramp.

You do realize the Twin Cities of Benton Harbor and St. Joseph do generate a certain amount of truck traffic in and of themselves, right? Any regional retail and commercial hub would, as well as one with some level of manufacturing. Trucks and other motor carriers need to come to BH/SJ and also need to bring goods from BH/SJ. Why do you think that ramp is only for traffic driving along I-94 ebd from Indiana and heading back toward Indiana? Did you ever think we also need to have infrastructure redundancy in addition to all the points that have been brought up to this point. The I-94 ebd to US-31 sbd ramp is NOT meant for traffic originating in New Buffalo or anywhere in that area and headed for Niles or South Bend–it is nothing short of ridiculous to state anything of the sort. Who said every ramp between freeways is reserved only for "interstate truck traffic"? That is patently ludicrous.

Quote from: Flint1979 on December 13, 2022, 06:13:24 PM
I know my way around Michigan I've crisscrossed the state my entire life. Using M-139 which is a state highway to get from Benton Harbor to points south on US-31 is a good way and besides if you are starting in Benton Harbor or somewhere around there you are going to take local roads to get to US-31 anyway. If trucks are going from eastbound I-94 to southbound US-31 what are they doing that far north in the first place? Let's keep in mind that I-94 does not run in an east and west direction in this area as it bends to avoid Lake Michigan. Anyone that is already on I-94 eastbound that far north isn't going to be switching to southbound US-31. And keep in mind that M-139 is also part of Emergency I-94 in that area as well so I believe it can handle truck traffic. It's also on the National Highway System as well.

As I noted in another response, why is everyone assuming this I-94 ebd to US-31 sbd ramp is for interstate truck traffic coming from Chicago or Milwaukee and heading for South Bend? That is a ludicrous statement out of the box. What about truck traffic generated within the Greater Twin Cities (Benton Harbor/St. Joseph) area that gets onto I-94 at Napier, Pipestone, or even at M-139 or M-63? Sure, they could use M-139, but the freeway is often a much more desirable route for trucks and is often the only route for those needing permits which constrain them to only very few, specific routes (e.g. NOT Napier or M-139, for example) for a variety of reasons, including lane widths, clearance issues, etc.

Quote from: bessertc on December 14, 2022, 04:05:34 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on December 13, 2022, 06:13:24 PM
I know my way around Michigan I've crisscrossed the state my entire life. Using M-139 which is a state highway to get from Benton Harbor to points south on US-31 is a good way and besides if you are starting in Benton Harbor or somewhere around there you are going to take local roads to get to US-31 anyway. If trucks are going from eastbound I-94 to southbound US-31 what are they doing that far north in the first place? Let's keep in mind that I-94 does not run in an east and west direction in this area as it bends to avoid Lake Michigan. Anyone that is already on I-94 eastbound that far north isn't going to be switching to southbound US-31. And keep in mind that M-139 is also part of Emergency I-94 in that area as well so I believe it can handle truck traffic. It's also on the National Highway System as well.

As I noted in another response, why is everyone assuming this I-94 ebd to US-31 sbd ramp is for interstate truck traffic coming from Chicago or Milwaukee and heading for South Bend? That is a ludicrous statement out of the box. What about truck traffic generated within the Greater Twin Cities (Benton Harbor/St. Joseph) area that gets onto I-94 at Napier, Pipestone, or even at M-139 or M-63? Sure, they could use M-139, but the freeway is often a much more desirable route for trucks and is often the only route for those needing permits which constrain them to only very few, specific routes (e.g. NOT Napier or M-139, for example) for a variety of reasons, including lane widths, clearance issues, etc.

I'm sure there will be a few local trucks. I'm just surprised that Michigan drivers are so unskilled that this much improved layout is still inadequate.

Quote from: skluth on December 14, 2022, 05:15:06 PM

Quote from: bessertc on December 14, 2022, 04:05:34 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on December 13, 2022, 06:13:24 PM
I know my way around Michigan I've crisscrossed the state my entire life. Using M-139 which is a state highway to get from Benton Harbor to points south on US-31 is a good way and besides if you are starting in Benton Harbor or somewhere around there you are going to take local roads to get to US-31 anyway. If trucks are going from eastbound I-94 to southbound US-31 what are they doing that far north in the first place? Let's keep in mind that I-94 does not run in an east and west direction in this area as it bends to avoid Lake Michigan. Anyone that is already on I-94 eastbound that far north isn't going to be switching to southbound US-31. And keep in mind that M-139 is also part of Emergency I-94 in that area as well so I believe it can handle truck traffic. It's also on the National Highway System as well.

As I noted in another response, why is everyone assuming this I-94 ebd to US-31 sbd ramp is for interstate truck traffic coming from Chicago or Milwaukee and heading for South Bend? That is a ludicrous statement out of the box. What about truck traffic generated within the Greater Twin Cities (Benton Harbor/St. Joseph) area that gets onto I-94 at Napier, Pipestone, or even at M-139 or M-63? Sure, they could use M-139, but the freeway is often a much more desirable route for trucks and is often the only route for those needing permits which constrain them to only very few, specific routes (e.g. NOT Napier or M-139, for example) for a variety of reasons, including lane widths, clearance issues, etc.

I'm sure there will be a few local trucks. I'm just surprised that Michigan drivers are so unskilled that this much improved layout is still inadequate.

You'd be surprised but I don't see the problem at all. I think people just need something to complain about.

Quote from: skluth on December 14, 2022, 05:15:06 PM

Quote from: bessertc on December 14, 2022, 04:05:34 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on December 13, 2022, 06:13:24 PM
I know my way around Michigan I've crisscrossed the state my entire life. Using M-139 which is a state highway to get from Benton Harbor to points south on US-31 is a good way and besides if you are starting in Benton Harbor or somewhere around there you are going to take local roads to get to US-31 anyway. If trucks are going from eastbound I-94 to southbound US-31 what are they doing that far north in the first place? Let's keep in mind that I-94 does not run in an east and west direction in this area as it bends to avoid Lake Michigan. Anyone that is already on I-94 eastbound that far north isn't going to be switching to southbound US-31. And keep in mind that M-139 is also part of Emergency I-94 in that area as well so I believe it can handle truck traffic. It's also on the National Highway System as well.

As I noted in another response, why is everyone assuming this I-94 ebd to US-31 sbd ramp is for interstate truck traffic coming from Chicago or Milwaukee and heading for South Bend? That is a ludicrous statement out of the box. What about truck traffic generated within the Greater Twin Cities (Benton Harbor/St. Joseph) area that gets onto I-94 at Napier, Pipestone, or even at M-139 or M-63? Sure, they could use M-139, but the freeway is often a much more desirable route for trucks and is often the only route for those needing permits which constrain them to only very few, specific routes (e.g. NOT Napier or M-139, for example) for a variety of reasons, including lane widths, clearance issues, etc.

I'm sure there will be a few local trucks. I'm just surprised that Michigan drivers are so unskilled that this much improved layout is still inadequate.

Well, the fact that you've resorted to ad hominem attacks shows you aren't willing to have a substantive discussion. No one has said the new interchange in inadequate, rather it is substandard. Those are two different things (hence the different terms). If Michiganders and non-Michiganders navigated the Napier Ave route connecting I-94 and US-31 for nearly twenty years, no one is stating they cannot navigate this new interchange. I and others have offered numerous items for consideration in this discussion, yet you have either not responded, like in this instance, or you have issued attacks or made off-color statements. It's clear you have nothing to offer to this discussion and engaging with you is definitely a waste of time.

Quote from: bessertc on December 14, 2022, 07:36:27 PM
No one has said the new interchange in inadequate, rather it is substandard. Those are two different things (hence the different terms).

The argument about whether this interchange is even "substandard" is based on whether US-31 has to meet Interstate highway standards. There's nothing inherent to a US Highway designation that requires a specific roadway design. In particular, there's nothing forcing MDOT to build a US Highway to Interstate standards (unless there's specific Federal funding tied to the road design).

The fact that 99.9% of the US-31 roadway in Berrien County meets Interstate highway standards doesn't mean that all of it has to. As "substandard" elements go, this isn't even bad enough to surpass I-70 in Breezewood or I-180 in Cheyenne. It's one funky ramp that doesn't require a full stop, and that merges directly back into a freeway. Other than not having substantive markers to delineate the merge point with EBD Bus I-94 traffic, there's nothing wrong with the ramp from a safety standpoint.

"But but but... I-67!" Pffft! Not happening before 2050, if ever. Michigan doesn't care about pushing that designation. Indiana has 80+ miles of US-31 to convert to Interstate standards before a logical I-67 routing can happen, and despite considerable public support isn't going to happen quickly. So, at a minimum, Michigan saved itself 40 years of maintenance costs on a flyover ramp in a lake effect snowbelt. That's not sexy, but it'll fill more than a few potholes.

Quote from: Flint1979 on December 13, 2022, 06:13:24 PM
I know my way around Michigan I've crisscrossed the state my entire life. Using M-139 which is a state highway to get from Benton Harbor to points south on US-31 is a good way and besides if you are starting in Benton Harbor or somewhere around there you are going to take local roads to get to US-31 anyway. If trucks are going from eastbound I-94 to southbound US-31 what are they doing that far north in the first place? Let's keep in mind that I-94 does not run in an east and west direction in this area as it bends to avoid Lake Michigan. Anyone that is already on I-94 eastbound that far north isn't going to be switching to southbound US-31. And keep in mind that M-139 is also part of Emergency I-94 in that area as well so I believe it can handle truck traffic. It's also on the National Highway System as well.

Wow!  I used to travel that stretch a bunch when M-139 was signed as US-31, and it was horrific!  There were all kinds of slow trucks and absolutely nowhere to pass.  There were a lot of dump trucks, cement trucks, etc.  I believe there may be a gravel pit or 2 or maybe a dozen along or very close to that route.  That roadway was basically a 2-lane I-94 with limited sight distances, slow speed limits, slower traffic, at grade intersections, driveways, etc.  I would never again travel that stretch of road unless I absolutely had to. And there will plenty of people that far north on EB I-94 opting to use the SB US-31 exit.  Some people just stick to freeways.  Some people, no wait, probably a majority of people aren't very bright and have no idea where they're going.  Some might want to exit earlier and miss their exit(s).  I'd dare say most people under 40 have no clue how to read a map, and if they rely on GPS they may end up in the middle of Lake Michigan!  And if there's construction in the area and MDOT does their usual fine job signing detour routes, like they did north of Lansing this past year, everyone may end up on the wrong route.

Quote from: JREwing78 on December 14, 2022, 10:21:11 PM

Quote from: bessertc on December 14, 2022, 07:36:27 PM
No one has said the new interchange in inadequate, rather it is substandard. Those are two different things (hence the different terms).

The argument about whether this interchange is even "substandard" is based on whether US-31 has to meet Interstate highway standards. There's nothing inherent to a US Highway designation that requires a specific roadway design. In particular, there's nothing forcing MDOT to build a US Highway to Interstate standards (unless there's specific Federal funding tied to the road design).

The fact that 99.9% of the US-31 roadway in Berrien County meets Interstate highway standards doesn't mean that all of it has to. As "substandard" elements go, this isn't even bad enough to surpass I-70 in Breezewood or I-180 in Cheyenne. It's one funky ramp that doesn't require a full stop, and that merges directly back into a freeway. Other than not having substantive markers to delineate the merge point with EBD Bus I-94 traffic, there's nothing wrong with the ramp from a safety standpoint.

"But but but... I-67!" Pffft! Not happening before 2050, if ever. Michigan doesn't care about pushing that designation. Indiana has 80+ miles of US-31 to convert to Interstate standards before a logical I-67 routing can happen, and despite considerable public support isn't going to happen quickly. So, at a minimum, Michigan saved itself 40 years of maintenance costs on a flyover ramp in a lake effect snowbelt. That's not sexy, but it'll fill more than a few potholes.

From a safety standpoint there are numerous things wrong with this design.  I believe MDOT loves to deliberately build substandard interchanges, roadways etc., so they can go back in 10-20 years and fix what they did wrong the first time.  This keeps everyone gainfully employed.

Quote from: Terry Shea on December 15, 2022, 04:27:40 PM

Quote from: JREwing78 on December 14, 2022, 10:21:11 PM

Quote from: bessertc on December 14, 2022, 07:36:27 PM
No one has said the new interchange in inadequate, rather it is substandard. Those are two different things (hence the different terms).

The argument about whether this interchange is even "substandard" is based on whether US-31 has to meet Interstate highway standards. There's nothing inherent to a US Highway designation that requires a specific roadway design. In particular, there's nothing forcing MDOT to build a US Highway to Interstate standards (unless there's specific Federal funding tied to the road design).

The fact that 99.9% of the US-31 roadway in Berrien County meets Interstate highway standards doesn't mean that all of it has to. As "substandard" elements go, this isn't even bad enough to surpass I-70 in Breezewood or I-180 in Cheyenne. It's one funky ramp that doesn't require a full stop, and that merges directly back into a freeway. Other than not having substantive markers to delineate the merge point with EBD Bus I-94 traffic, there's nothing wrong with the ramp from a safety standpoint.

"But but but... I-67!" Pffft! Not happening before 2050, if ever. Michigan doesn't care about pushing that designation. Indiana has 80+ miles of US-31 to convert to Interstate standards before a logical I-67 routing can happen, and despite considerable public support isn't going to happen quickly. So, at a minimum, Michigan saved itself 40 years of maintenance costs on a flyover ramp in a lake effect snowbelt. That's not sexy, but it'll fill more than a few potholes.

From a safety standpoint there are numerous things wrong with this design.  I believe MDOT loves to deliberately build substandard interchanges, roadways etc., so they can go back in 10-20 years and fix what they did wrong the first time.  This keeps everyone gainfully employed.

:-D :-D :-D

Yeah, cuz otherwise there's such a shortage of sorely needed road repairs in Michigan. :poke: