US 31 freeway gap in Michigan finally will be filled (well 1 of them anyway)

[renegade]

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.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

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

[silverback1065]

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.

[wanderer2575]

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 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.

[silverback1065]

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 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.

[The Ghostbuster]

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.

[sprjus4]

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?

[cbeach40]

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.

[skluth]

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.

[rickmastfan67]

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.

[cbeach40]

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.

[GaryV]

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. 

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?   

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

[ztonyg]

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.

[NWI_Irish96]

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?

[silverback1065]

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.

[sparker]

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. 

[Terry Shea]

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?

[silverback1065]

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.

[sparker]

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.   

[Terry Shea]

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.

[sparker]

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! 

[Flint1979]

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.

[silverback1065]

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.

[sprjus4]

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.

[sprjus4]

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 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.