Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Terry Shea]

^ 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!

[sprjus4]

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.

False.

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.

[JoePCool14]

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.

[webny99]

On a different note, will I-94 be 8-laned from US 31 to I-196 as part of this project?

[sprjus4]

^ It appears so, with an auxiliary lane between the new US-31 freeway and I-196, alongside 3 general purpose lanes in each direction.

[silverback1065]

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.

[JoePCool14]

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.

[Terry Shea]

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.

False.

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.

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.

False.

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.

[sprjus4]

If you have evidence to the contrary, then please present it.

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.

[Terry Shea]

If you have evidence to the contrary, then please present it.

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.

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.

[roadman65]

https://goo.gl/maps/pJJ7ndAqdmQbJho97
See the Googlecar hasn’t made it here yet.

[sprjus4]

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.

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.

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?
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.

[bessertc]

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.

[bessertc]

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...

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. 

[bessertc]

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.

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...)

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.

[sprjus4]

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?

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.

Place a barrier over the double solid white line.

It's... sufficient. I guess. 

I agree, it’s a sufficient interchange that operates adequately for the traffic served.

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?

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.

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.

[bessertc]

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.

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.

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.

It'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?

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...    (e.g. lighten up!)

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.

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.

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. 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'...

[Flint1979]

A self proclaimed expert just because another user said so. Woohoo.

[Flint1979]

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.

[bessertc]

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...

[bessertc]

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!" , I kinda know something about Michigan's highways by this point...

[JREwing78]

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!?!?! 

[wanderer2575]

A self proclaimed expert just because another user said so. Woohoo.

As opposed to you, who is a self-proclaimed expert just because.

[Terry Shea]

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!" , 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.

[Terry Shea]

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.