Overbuilt Interchanges

[tolbs17]

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6804046,-77.9547874,16z - Can do well with just a simple diamond interchange.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.476409,-77.4488977,16.17z - They modified it from a simple diamond to a half parclo (which has 5 ramps).

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7671095,-77.861179,15.79z - Here's another one!

[JoePCool14]

I think we've already had this thread.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10939.0

[tolbs17]

I think we've already had this thread.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10939.0

Unless it's too old to bump?

[SkyPesos]

I think we've already had this thread.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10939.0

Unless it's too old to bump?

I think 2018 threads are ok to bump provided you have content for it. I bumped threads from as early as 2015 before here.

[Ned Weasel]

This has been mentioned before, but every time I drive through this interchange, I can't help but wonder whether it was really necessary to build a very large, high-speed freeway-to-freeway-style interchange for K-10 and 23rd Street in Kansas: https://goo.gl/maps/kwphPRucrTkRBeZV7

Another forum member commented that a simple trumpet for the end of 23rd Street probably would have sufficed.  I agree, but I'd go even further and suggest that it would have at least been worth considering whether it would have been feasible to have 23rd Street meet Noria Road at a simple four-way intersection, having 23rd Street continue as CR 442 on the other side of the intersection, and then build an interchange for Noria Road/E 1750 Road and K-10 as either a standard diamond or diverging diamond.  Yeah, that would put 23rd Street traffic through a couple of extra turns and probably traffic signals, but with so much traffic using the new K-10 freeway instead, would that really be a problem?  Plus, this concept would have made it easier to develop 23rd Street/CR 442 as an east-west corridor serving Lawrence and Eudora.  But we're in Fictional Highways territory once again now!

[TheHighwayMan3561]

The eastern I-35/US 2 interchange in Duluth that features a sweeping flyover ramp from SB 35 to EB 2. Most traffic coming from the northeast would have used I-535 to cross to Superior.

Now that said, that flyover will probably get a lot heavier use the next three years while the I-35/I-535 interchange mess is rebuilt, and probably again whenever the I-535 Blatnik Bridge is rebuilt in the next decade.

[JoePCool14]

I think we've already had this thread.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10939.0

Unless it's too old to bump?

I think 2018 threads are ok to bump provided you have content for it. I bumped threads from as early as 2015 before here.

I believe so. I think it's better to bump an old thread instead of creating a new one that covers exactly the same topic. It just ends up being redundant and covers the same beats.

[tolbs17]

I think we've already had this thread.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10939.0

Unless it's too old to bump?

I think 2018 threads are ok to bump provided you have content for it. I bumped threads from as early as 2015 before here.

I believe so. I think it's better to bump an old thread instead of creating a new one that covers exactly the same topic. It just ends up being redundant and covers the same beats.

Then an admin should merge it I guess.

[tolbs17]

For the US 301 one, I think they do that cause most traffic there will go north. That's why they add loops.

[epzik8]

I think we've already had this thread.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10939.0

Unless it's too old to bump?

I think 2018 threads are ok to bump provided you have content for it. I bumped threads from as early as 2015 before here.

People bump threads here from 2009 sometimes. Anyhow, I've never seen a large interchange that didn't have a low enough traffic level to warrant it.

[kphoger]

I've never seen a large interchange that didn't have a low enough traffic level to warrant it.

high enough, you mean?   

[mgk920]

Here in Wisconsin, besides the US 151/WI 26 interchange on the NE corner of Waupun that should be a simple straight across bridge overcrossing with no highway connection that I have mentioned elsewhere, IMHO the US 12/53/WI 93 interchange complex in Eau Claire (built in the early 00s) is waaaay more complex, overpowered and expensive than it should have been.  If I were the benevolent dictator there and then, I would have done a simple diamond/SPUI at US 12 and 53, favoring US 53, fed WI 93 to the south directly into 'old' US 53 (Hastings Way) to the north, curving it around the east side of the former London Square Mall, and removed the old US 12/53 (Clairemont Ave/Hastings Way) interchange, replacing it with a standard intersection.

https://goo.gl/maps/C23C3trsbXztPphq9

Mike

[tolbs17]

I-74 at I-40 when the Northern Beltway gets extended. A 3-level stack is proposed.

[on_wisconsin]

Here in Wisconsin, besides the US 151/WI 26 interchange on the NE corner of Waupun that should be a simple straight across bridge overcrossing with no highway connection that I have mentioned elsewhere, IMHO the US 12/53/WI 93 interchange complex in Eau Claire (built in the early 00s) is waaaay more complex, overpowered and expensive than it should have been.  If I were the benevolent dictator there and then, I would have done a simple diamond/SPUI at US 12 and 53, favoring US 53, fed WI 93 to the south directly into 'old' US 53 (Hastings Way) to the north, curving it around the east side of the former London Square Mall, and removed the old US 12/53 (Clairemont Ave/Hastings Way) interchange, replacing it with a standard intersection.

Actually, one could make a strong argument the complex was under built. When the US 53 bypass was still in the planning stage the state had wanted to build a free flow design for the Clairemont Ave interchange but it was dropped due to funding and lack of space.

With the explosive growth the area has seen in the subsequent decades (especially in Altoona) traffic frequently backs up onto the travel lanes of US 53 during peak periods. The WIS 93 flyover/ tunnel can also get crowded although not as often as US 12.  It has gotten to the point WisDOT was forced to place wig-wag signs warning of said back ups and overhead VMS a few years ago: https://goo.gl/maps/xYMB1V5NFonsG9dw8, https://goo.gl/maps/sBXERu5vyKaatGrm6.

[andrepoiy]

the Toronto area has a few overbuilt interchanges.

The first one is the Highway 401/Allen Road interchange. It's overbuilt because Allen Road is only a 7-km long freeway. It was supposed to be longer but public opposition led to its current length.



Second, the interchanges of 412/401, 412/407, 418/401, and 418/407. Shown below is 418/401. The reason is that these interchanges have very low traffic volumes, yet they are fucking huge.

[oscar]

In San Diego, the 43rd St. exit from I-805 looks seriously overbuilt at first glance:

https://goo.gl/maps/Rv8ivL9fYj3tnA1r7

Thing is, this interchange was to connect to the doomed CA 252 freeway (a victim of California's freeway revolts). But that project was still alive when I-805 was under construction. It made sense to build the interchange before I-805 was opened to traffic.

[tolbs17]

The CF Harvey Parkway. Many turn lanes, signalized and AADT is roughly 5,000.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3128,-77.651625,3a,75y,298.08h,70.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6I6E7An0R3ph-AjN2XVrzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[jakeroot]

The CF Harvey Parkway. Many turn lanes, signalized and AADT is roughly 5,000.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3128,-77.651625,3a,75y,298.08h,70.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6I6E7An0R3ph-AjN2XVrzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This isn't really too overbuilt. Ramp configuration is pretty standard (folded diamond, aka parclo). Most interchanges of the same design in California would likely have the same lane setup too. I'd probably swap in a permissive left turn for the on-ramps. Otherwise I think this is fine.

[LilianaUwU]

Second, the interchanges of 412/401, 412/407, 418/401, and 418/407. Shown below is 418/401. The reason is that these interchanges have very low traffic volumes, yet they are fucking huge.

The fact that 407, 412 and 418 are tolled doesn't help much.

[tolbs17]

The CF Harvey Parkway. Many turn lanes, signalized and AADT is roughly 5,000.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3128,-77.651625,3a,75y,298.08h,70.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6I6E7An0R3ph-AjN2XVrzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This isn't really too overbuilt. Ramp configuration is pretty standard (folded diamond, aka parclo). Most interchanges of the same design in California would likely have the same lane setup too. I'd probably swap in a permissive left turn for the on-ramps. Otherwise I think this is fine.

http://prntscr.com/156bgsa

[crispy93]

I-84 in East Fishkill, NY at Exit 50 (Lime Kiln Rd/CR 27) is pretty overbuilt. Even on CR 27, there are long, generous turn lanes and some unnecessary protected left turns at one of the old IBM gates. Probably overbuilt since it's the closest exit to IBM East Fishkill?

[machias]

Junction of NY 49 and I-790/NY 5/8/12 north of Utica, New York is way overbuilt for traffic counts

[MCRoads]

Junction of NY 49 and I-790/NY 5/8/12 north of Utica, New York is way overbuilt for traffic counts

Let's just all appreciate how I-790 isn't connected to I-90 directly, even though it has an interchange with a road with I-90 in the median. I'm pretty sure that is a pretty unique situation.

[skluth]

The CF Harvey Parkway. Many turn lanes, signalized and AADT is roughly 5,000.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3128,-77.651625,3a,75y,298.08h,70.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6I6E7An0R3ph-AjN2XVrzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This isn't really too overbuilt. Ramp configuration is pretty standard (folded diamond, aka parclo). Most interchanges of the same design in California would likely have the same lane setup too. I'd probably swap in a permissive left turn for the on-ramps. Otherwise I think this is fine.

It also looks like the bypass was built with further expansion in mind if you look at the interchange at the west end of the CF Harvey Parkway. I don't know if there was once a plan to extend it south and east to connect to US 258 south of Kinston, but it wouldn't surprise me given North Carolina's ambitious highway planning.

[tolbs17]

The CF Harvey Parkway. Many turn lanes, signalized and AADT is roughly 5,000.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3128,-77.651625,3a,75y,298.08h,70.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6I6E7An0R3ph-AjN2XVrzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This isn't really too overbuilt. Ramp configuration is pretty standard (folded diamond, aka parclo). Most interchanges of the same design in California would likely have the same lane setup too. I'd probably swap in a permissive left turn for the on-ramps. Otherwise I think this is fine.

It also looks like the bypass was built with further expansion in mind if you look at the interchange at the west end of the CF Harvey Parkway. I don't know if there was once a plan to extend it south and east to connect to US 258 south of Kinston, but it wouldn't surprise me given North Carolina's ambitious highway planning.

I think it was planned as a beltway one time but that plan was scrapped.