Road projects that didn't meet your expectations

[Mergingtraffic]

Are there any road projects in your state that didn't meet your expectations? 

Such as:
having a worse impact on traffic flow
a misplaced ramp
leaving out a turn lane where there should be one
expanded lane not as far as you would've thought
or the scope of the project not as big as you figured it would be?

[JREwing78]

The recent ground-up rebuild of I-96 east of US-127 in Lansing, MI. There is no logical reason it should remain at 2 lanes each way with the traffic it gets.

[kurumi]

The Merritt Parkway / US 7 interchange. This was in the days before I was online (not to mention ConnDOT or Google Maps) and the only way to check out what the new interchange looked like was to drive down and see it.

What I pictured: something like the 15/8 or 15/25 interchange, with modern semi-direction ramps, and complete (since there were no other freeways to provide redundant movements like the 8/15/25 triangle)
What I saw: see for yourself         

Other projects that were mildly disappointing:
- CT 2 in Ledyard, undivided "Super 4" instead of divided highway (mitigating factor: it's the only such road in the state, and pretty rare nationwide)
- CT 9 / Berlin Turnpike interchange (could have reconfigured to require no grade crossing on 5/15 south of CT 9)
- I-291: a skinny four lanes, but better than nothing at all; and the interchange with I-84 is well done
- CT 2/3: a semidirectional 3-way (even with single-lane ramps) would have been nice. Instead we have a trumpet whose loop could encircle Rhode Island.

[Laura]

Nothing makes me angrier than when a road like MD 43 (newest section opened in 2006) is labeled an "expressway", marked at 45 mph, and open to commercial development and at-grade intersections. Like we needed another business district and soon-to-be overcrowded straightaway. Ugh. It's so disappointing because 43 was originallyplanned to be limited access, but now is an overcrowded mess. We wouldn't have needed the express toll lanes as badly if they has built this road properly because it would have alleived so much of the traffic problem from Towson to Harford County. Even worse, the 1.5 or so mile section that is limited access will have traffic lights once they finish the new 43/95 interchange with the new toll lanes (facepalm)

[Revive 755]

Quite a few.  Yes, I'm aware there are funding and environmental constraints, but sometimes DOT's just simply screw up.

Missouri

The I-64 rebuild
1) Needed SPUI's at Brentwood and Hanley, not compact diamonds
2) Needed to maintain at least C-D lane access at Brentwood and Hanley, instead of requiring drivers to exit the freeway completely and go through at least one at stoplight before arriving at their intended road
3) Did not maintain somewhat direct access from SB I-170 to Hanley Road; post rebuild, SB I-170 drivers wishing to continue south on Hanley Road must now take stoplight infested Eager Road.
4) Did not widen I-64 between I-170 and Skinker to four through lanes
5) Backed up again from day one in in the evening WB at Skinker (where the fourth lane is dropped) - should have gotten at least some time before the backups returned.

I-44 auxiliary lane at Rolla between US 63 and Rte
Might have improved traffic somewhat, but not enough to justify the now almost non-existent shoulder:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=37.960163,-91.774239&spn=0.014296,0.033023&t=m&z=16&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=37.960163,-91.774239&panoid=6usXVH8OgKZeYWo98MX8kQ&cbp=12,73.21,,0,1.35

MO 141 expressway between Valley Park and Clayton Road
1) Too many stoplights - should have been more consolidation of access points and outer roads.
2) Designed for way too low of speed for a brand new road- should have been designed for posting at 55 or 60, not a lousy 45 that is being used as a revenue source for Twin Oaks and Manchester
3) Not the alternative for I-270 it could have been with a better design speed and fewer stoplights

Maryland Heights Expressway between MO 364 and the Earth City area
1) Too many stoplights
2) No reason it could not have been designed for 55 mph instead of becoming a 45 mph speedtrap

Truman Parkway in St. Louis City
1) Does not provide an easier but still at grade connection between I-55 and I-64
2) Has a lower speed of 30 mph, while parallel 14th Street (subjected to traffic calming after completion of the Truman Speedtrap) had a 35 mph limit (baring one schoolzone) with no access control
3) Features a crappy SB lane drop at the start of the connection to I-55 on a badly designed curve
4) Does not have coordinated stoplights

I-70 rehab in St. Louis, late 1990's-early 2000's
1) Kept the almost always closed reversible lanes instead of removing them and at least bringing I-70 up to four through lanes each way
2) Kept the defective intersection design at the west end of the McKinley Bridge
3) Kept the tight loops at the Lucas and Hunt interchange instead of converting this interchange to a diamond or a SPUI

Missouri and Illinois
The I-70 Great Lemon Bridge
* Does not have needed access to I-55 and I-44 on the Missouri side, so it will not properly relieve the PSB

McKinley Bridge rehab
* Narrowed the bridge from four lanes to two

Illinois
IL 3 bypass of Waterloo
1) Not built wide enough to start - now D8 is looking at fixing this mistake
2) Not built with enough ROW to support a future freeway conversion, which could be needed if Red Bud keeps growing

IL 3 widening between East St. Louis and the McKinley Bridge
* Did not fix the poorly designed intersection where IL 3 diverges from the McKinely Bridge approach (which was designed for an unbuilt IL 3 closer to the river)

I-270 Chain of Rocks Canal Bridge and IL 3 interchange redesign
1) Replaces the cloverleaf at IL 3 with a half cloverleaf (loops on the east side of IL 3) - should have looked into CD lanes on I-270, or at least keeping the geometrically superior exit loops from I-270
2) Bridge is built with obsolete shoulders from the start on the eastern end
3) New bridge does not allow for future widening of I-270 while maintaining adequate shoulders - should have been consideration of at least going for a twin span later on

[Brandon]

Where to start????

I-80 from US-30 to US-45, 1997.  IDiOT chose to rebuild the freeway as 2 lanes in each direction even with known traffic growth.  Now they're back widening it a mere 14 years later.

I-55 from the Tri-State to the Ryan, late 1990s.  IDiOT and Dickhead Daley decided it would be better to rebuild as 3 lanes in each direction instead of widening to 4.

I-55 from Weber Rd to I-80, 2007-8.  IDiOT used substandard materials to widen to 3 lanes in each direction.  Now it is filled with potholes less than 3 years after completion.

IL-59 widening from 75th St to I-55.  IDiOT chose not to learn about superstreets and proper roadbuilding using channelization and Michigan Lefts.  Now a clusterfuck of left turn signals just after completion.

[sandwalk]

The Cherry Valley interchange on I-90/I-39 in Rockford could have been reworked better.  WB I-90 to SB I-39 (and WB US 20) has a ridiculously tight exit ramp radius (you have to slow to 35mph) and merges from the left onto the southbound/westbound freeway.  You have to risk your life sometimes if you want to exit to Harrison Avenue immediately after that left merge.

[agentsteel53]

the new I-805 at Mira Mesa Boulevard construction.  It is providing a new HOV lane access from one of the side streets to Mira Mesa to 805 southbound, but this will not alleviate most of the traffic concerns:

* no convenient way to get from Mira Mesa Blvd west to I-5 - the route just randomly dead-ends at 805 instead of continuing another mile or so

and worse:

* main Mira Mesa Blvd to 805 traffic still has that nasty 4 down to 1 lane merge, which causes backups of as much as 30 minutes to travel the 3/4 mile or so from, say, Mira Mesa at Scranton to 805 southbound.

[roadfro]

A Nevada one that comes to mind is the Las Vegas Beltway (Clark County 215) interchange at Summerlin Parkway and Far Hills Ave. (Google Map)

Both of these were originally split intersections with two traffic signals (one northbound and one southbound) before the beltway was constructed to freeway standards. All the ramps were put in a few years ago. I was disappointed that there really is only one freeway-to-freeway ramp here in what should be closer to a major system interchange. My issues with the interchange:

* Westbound drivers on Summerlin Parkway heading southbound have to go through a signal before reaching the loop. I would have expected a better ramp without a stop, possibly a flyover.

* Westbound drivers on Summerlin Parkway heading northbound have to make the a hard right turn at the signal. There was clearly enough room available to put in a ramp and eliminate the slow right turn and possible stop.

* Drivers entering from Far Hills to head northbound on the beltway first merge onto the northbound ramp to Summerlin Parkway. The geometry requires merging across the north-to-eastbound traffic, then passing through the signal before being able to get on the beltway. The better design would have been to braid the Far Hills onramp with a slip ramp to eastbound Summerlin Pkwy.


I understand part of the reason for this design is because if Summerlin Parkway is ever extended west of the 215, it will be as an arterial street and not a freeway. But at the same time, the freeway to freeway connection could've been much better designed. When I finally saw this finished product, I was rather disapopointed...

[vdeane]

The Robert Moses State Parkway conversion in Niagara Falls (OK, a stretch, since I didn't know about it until it was done).  All they did was set up construction crossovers and then never removed them.  It still looks like a construction zone to this day, and the old road sits there unused.  If they didn't want to actually convert it into a super-2 and build the bike/ped lanes that the road was theoretically changed for, they should have just left well enough alone.

[codyg1985]

Here locally, I was not impressed with the widening of Winchester Road in Huntsville from 2 lanes to 5 lanes.  This aerial from Bing maps shows the intersection under construction: http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=34.79813711210906~-86.53645384483345&lvl=19&dir=0&sty=a&form=LMLTCC (Google Maps is a little older so I linked to Bing instead).

One of the major intersections included in this project was the intersection with Moores Mill Rd. Winchester Rd serves as a regional route that connects NE Madison County, SE Lincoln County, TN, and Franklin County, TN with Huntsville, AL. A lot of traffic headed west on Winchester Rd turns left to go south on Moores Mill Rd since it connects with US 72 and I-565.  There is also a UPS shipping facility located off of Winchester Rd west of this intersection (closer to Memorial Pkwy/US 231/431). Moores Mill Rd is five lanes south of Winchester Rd and two lanes north of Winchester Rd.

Before the widening project, there were two lanes at the WB approach to the Winchester/Moores Mill intersection. The leftmost lane turned left, and the right lane there was the option of turning left, going straight, or turning right. I would have expected the widening to include a double left turn lane, two through lanes, and a right turn ramp (no turn lane really necessary, but would have been nice). Instead. what we have now is one left turn lane, one turn left or through lane, and one through lane.  This forces there to be two signal phases for Winchester Rd (one for traffic from the west and then one for traffic from the east). I know that since most of the traffic is going to be turning left from Winchester WB to Moores Mill SB this isn't as big of an issue, but later on I can see this intersection continuing to be a bottleneck, especially if traffic volumes increase on Winchester Rd west of Moores Mill Rd. Maybe acquiring the ROW necessary for the extra lane would have cost too much, but I still think it was done cheaply.

[Bryant5493]

The HOT lanes in DeKalb and Gwinnett counties (GA).


Be well,

Bryant

[codyg1985]

^ You mean you didn't expect those to be a flop?

[Mergingtraffic]

McKinley Bridge rehab
* Narrowed the bridge from four lanes to two

Why would they ever take away lanes?!??!?!

- CT 2 in Ledyard, undivided "Super 4" instead of divided highway (mitigating factor: it's the only such road in the state, and pretty rare nationwide)

CT DOT doesn't like their divided roads.  Most of the 4-lanings that have been done recently have been at the end of expressways where traffic is still at interstate speeds regardless of the posted speed limit.  And these 4-lanings are in basically wooded areas so there is no reason for a divider.  I think NIMBYism comes into play here.  People I think freaked out when they saw a divider and so the DOT took it out.  Of course, you know at some point there will be some serious head on crashes and there will be talk of a divider.  Of course, it could all be avoided if one was put in to begin with!!

[Coelacanth]

A couple from the North Metro

To access the new segment of MN-610 from SB CSAH 81, you need to go through the stoplight at Elm Creek Blvd. The whole point of having the freeway is so that you can avoid all the stoplights on 81.

Further along 81, at the Triangle reconstruction there is no direct connection from SB 81 to SB 169. You need to make a signal-controlled left turn on 85th. Given that one of the goals of the project was to facilitate these SB-SB and NB-NB movements without affecting EW traffic on 85th, this is disappointing.

[rte66man]

(1) ANY intersection widening in OKC. For unknown reasons, they NEVER include right turn only lanes. For example, the City of Warr Acres widened MacArthur Blvd from NW 50th to NW 63rd. This included a rebuild of the 63rd and MacArthur intersection.  They had to do a utility relocation, but they STILL didn't put in right turn only lanes in any direction, despite a large number of the actions in that intersection being righ turns.

(2) The I35 rebuild from downtown OKC south to Moore. Took 20+ years to complete. Replaced all overpasses, but only widened to 6 lanes, even though they left enough ROW under the bridges to go to 8 lanes.  Traffic certainly justified going to 8 lanes.


rte66man

[D-Dey65]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; New York State Route 112, between Coram and Port Jefferson Station. I have a feeling Portion Road between Lake Ronkonkoma and Farmingville has turned out just as crappy.

The Rocky Point Bypass for New York State Route 25A.

Of course there are plenty of others.

[Super Mateo]

Best road destruction project:  The US 45/I 80 interchange.  Once a cloverleaf, IDOT decided to change this to a diamond/cloverleaf hybrid that really didn't solve anything.  I 80 traffic still has to deal with two ramps merging onto the road and LaGrange now has two extra stoplights to slow everyone down.  The roads needed a repaving at the time, but I don't see why a ramp reconfiguring was necessary.

[3467]

US 67 between Monmouth and the Quad Cities. IDOT promised more passing lanes than they delivered. They never finsihed the upgrade in Warren County. Only now(Oct 26) is IDOT holding a hearing on fixing this very poor strech of roadway.

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

Helton Drive Extension/Expressway here in Florence.  It was supposed to have cloverleaf ramps originally, so I heard, but that would've required the demolition of the Cherry Hill Homes housing project which, needless to say, didn't fly.  Failing that, ALDOT could've at least given us an SPUI.  Instead we got  a standard diamond and 2 more traffic lights in addition to the entirely too many we already have - and worse still, they are not tied together to function as one intersection like they should.

[shadyjay]

The Merritt Parkway / US 7 interchange. This was in the days before I was online (not to mention ConnDOT or Google Maps) and the only way to check out what the new interchange looked like was to drive down and see it.

What I pictured: something like the 15/8 or 15/25 interchange, with modern semi-direction ramps, and complete (since there were no other freeways to provide redundant movements like the 8/15/25 triangle)
What I saw: see for yourself         

Other projects that were mildly disappointing:
- CT 2 in Ledyard, undivided "Super 4" instead of divided highway (mitigating factor: it's the only such road in the state, and pretty rare nationwide)
- CT 9 / Berlin Turnpike interchange (could have reconfigured to require no grade crossing on 5/15 south of CT 9)
- I-291: a skinny four lanes, but better than nothing at all; and the interchange with I-84 is well done
- CT 2/3: a semidirectional 3-way (even with single-lane ramps) would have been nice. Instead we have a trumpet whose loop could encircle Rhode Island.

The CT 66 widening from end of the expressway east to Middletown should've been divided, at least to Jackson Hill Road in Middlefield - where there's nothing.  At least they did close the School Street intersection (though the neighbors were trying to keep it open, for some reason).  The speed limit of 40 is a joke.  Average speed is more like 50-60. 

Any road in CT where an expressway was proposed, but an in-place non-divided widening has taken place can be added to this list as well.

[Revive 755]

McKinley Bridge rehab
* Narrowed the bridge from four lanes to two

Why would they ever take away lanes?!??!?!

Official excuse I've heard from MoDOT is that the intersection at the western end of the bridge with I-70 and surface streets couldn't handle the traffic of a four lane bridge.  Otherwise,  two  theories (not mutually exclusive:

1) The desire to add a bike lane/path to the bridge.
2) Issues with the need to split lanes in the same direction due to the center truss spans and cantilevered outer roadways.  Streetviews:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=38.663397,-90.184579&spn=0.028316,0.066047&t=m&z=15&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=38.664932,-90.183664&panoid=AMAGYPXvMn0W525UXRGO6Q&cbp=12,259.91,,0,2.05
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=38.664436,-90.186853&spn=0.028449,0.066047&t=h&z=15&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=38.66452,-90.186398&panoid=XDnvzfqV4YnjKlHxyKE7KQ&cbp=12,98.77,,0,6.37
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=38.665432,-90.18031&spn=0.007112,0.016512&t=h&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=38.665432,-90.18031&panoid=EMk4p3UmD10T1hWAUFOXLA&cbp=12,102.83,,0,0

[Brandon]

Best road destruction project:  The US 45/I 80 interchange.  Once a cloverleaf, IDOT decided to change this to a diamond/cloverleaf hybrid that really didn't solve anything.  I 80 traffic still has to deal with two ramps merging onto the road and LaGrange now has two extra stoplights to slow everyone down.  The roads needed a repaving at the time, but I don't see why a ramp reconfiguring was necessary.

Most agreed.  Another boneheaded move by IDiOT.

[Revive 755]

More for Missouri

The Chouteau/MO 100 viaduct replacement in St. Louis City
* The original bridge had a freeway connection between MO 100 and I-64 with a 3/4 diamond at Vandeventer.  The replacement removed this connection and features a lousy lane allotment on WB Chouteau at Vandeventer consisting of dual right turn lanes and a shared left and through lane. Now if MoDOT wanted to save money, they could have at least directly aligned Chouteau with the I-64 exit

Manchester/MO 100 streetscape between Kingshighway and Vandeventer in St. Louis
* Traffic calming project that reduced the number of lanes on MO 100 and screwed up traffic.  Actually this project met my expectations of screwing up traffic, but not my expectations of the quality of service that should be provided on a road in the state highway system

Grand Avenue Great Streets project, St. Louis MO
* Another traffic screwing, lane reduction project that has attempted to make St. Louis as pleasant to drive as Chicago.

US 60 expressway, Willow Springs to Sikeston
* The express part ends badly at Mountain Grove, and is reduced at almost every other town along the route.  Should have been built to maintain a 65 mph speed limit.

[NE2]

Grand Avenue Great Streets project, St. Louis MO
* Another traffic screwing, lane reduction project that has attempted to make St. Louis as pleasant to drive as Chicago.

Were your expectations different? If you want a pleasant drive, stay out of the city.