Post the worst, most cringey, most gut-wrenching freeway designs in your area here!
I'll start with the cancelled atrocity known as the Taft Expressway.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cincinnati-transit.net%2Fztaftexpressway-map2.jpg&hash=f3637c47e1871cb7fd5691c1f18d459e9d27420c)
The freeway would have started at an incomplete interchange at I-75. You'll see a lot of incomplete interchanges on this actually. It then curves around a hill in the same area as McMillan Street currently is. After that it passes very close to University of Cincinnati and intersects a few roads to the university with incomplete interchanges.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cincinnati-transit.net%2Fztaftexpressway-map3.jpg&hash=a815bc5a2e74a30cc784fe57b69575eabd35ebac)
It doesn't get any better after that last section. In this section we see a very strange left exit jumble that has access to Burnet Avenue, US 42, and I-71. The one good side to this section is that a few spots on the map are marked for "possible replacement park" so at least ODOT wanted to make a few parks along the road.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cincinnati-transit.net%2Fztaftexpressway-map4.jpg&hash=7ce1ad34103bee078a24a2adc269d4dcab9b5c61)
This section is probably the least eventful section. It mainly has a left exit to Victoria Parkway and an incomplete interchange with both Victoria Parkway and Woodburn Avenue.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cincinnati-transit.net%2Fztaftexpressway-map5.jpg&hash=a2cdecb8bfa221da98ec47574cb6b25922aa76af)
At the end of this road we see an interchange that marks the terminus of the Taft Expressway with Columbia Parkway. This also includes another interchange with Torrence Parkway. I bet that being on the ramp from eastbound Taft Expressway to Columbia Parkway would have had a nice view of the Ohio River though.
So all in all, the Taft Expressway was one of the worst freeway designs that I've ever seen, and I'm pretty sure a lot of people were happy it was cancelled, as well as the people who owned the 660 properties that would have been destroyed at the time!
The Schuylkill Expressway wins this hands down. Too many left lane exits and on ramps, on ramps that have little to no speed up lanes, 4 lanes for most of the route which not even close to enough to handle the volume it carries, and sharp curves that can flip over even the most slightly unbalanced truck. Need I say more?
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on April 13, 2017, 08:56:58 AM
So all in all, the Taft Expressway was one of the worst freeway designs that I've ever seen, and I'm pretty sure a lot of people were cancelled, as well as the people who owned the 660 properties that would have been destroyed at the time!
I'm not quite sure what you mean here.
I'd have to vote for the Gowanus/Brooklyn-Queens Expressway segments of I-278.
Proposed interchange for I-95, CT 9, and freeway to Long Island, in 1965. If that's to scale, it would have carved up a huge amount of land for an ugly, confusing, low-capacity mess.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Frf7KzMO.jpg&hash=356eccf2b8ce99691ec5ba0f821ff31180e7a84a)
CA 60 east of I-215 through the Moreno Valley badlands is a pretty out there design in a not really good way. There is a crap load of truck traffic, the curves are all over the place, and there is a insufficient number of lanes in the city of Moreno Valley itself. Oddly though it can be a hell of a lot of fun on an early morning when no traffic is out.
Quote from: ekt8750 on April 13, 2017, 10:58:50 AM
The Schuylkill Expressway wins this hands down. Too many left lane exits and on ramps, on ramps that have little to no speed up lanes, 4 lanes for most of the route which not even close to enough to handle the volume it carries, and sharp curves that can flip over even the most slightly unbalanced truck. Need I say more?
I completely agree. It's an absolute nightmare. (Like most of PennDOT's roads)
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on April 13, 2017, 08:56:58 AM
Post the worst, most cringey, most gut-wrenching freeway designs in your area here!
I'll start with the cancelled atrocity known as the Taft Expressway.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cincinnati-transit.net%2Fztaftexpressway-map2.jpg&hash=f3637c47e1871cb7fd5691c1f18d459e9d27420c)
The freeway would have started at an incomplete interchange at I-75. You'll see a lot of incomplete interchanges on this actually. It then curves around a hill in the same area as McMillan Street currently is. After that it passes very close to University of Cincinnati and intersects a few roads to the university with incomplete interchanges.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cincinnati-transit.net%2Fztaftexpressway-map3.jpg&hash=a815bc5a2e74a30cc784fe57b69575eabd35ebac)
It doesn't get any better after that last section. In this section we see a very strange left exit jumble that has access to Burnet Avenue, US 42, and I-71. The one good side to this section is that a few spots on the map are marked for "possible replacement park" so at least ODOT wanted to make a few parks along the road.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cincinnati-transit.net%2Fztaftexpressway-map4.jpg&hash=7ce1ad34103bee078a24a2adc269d4dcab9b5c61)
This section is probably the least eventful section. It mainly has a left exit to Victoria Parkway and an incomplete interchange with both Victoria Parkway and Woodburn Avenue.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cincinnati-transit.net%2Fztaftexpressway-map5.jpg&hash=a2cdecb8bfa221da98ec47574cb6b25922aa76af)
At the end of this road we see an interchange that marks the terminus of the Taft Expressway with Columbia Parkway. This also includes another interchange with Torrence Parkway. I bet that being on the ramp from eastbound Taft Expressway to Columbia Parkway would have had a nice view of the Ohio River though.
So all in all, the Taft Expressway was one of the worst freeway designs that I've ever seen, and I'm pretty sure a lot of people were cancelled, as well as the people who owned the 660 properties that would have been destroyed at the time!
Uptown still got ruined by the the high-speed modern Taft and MLK routes if you ask me.
the design of i-65 and 70 in downtown Indianapolis, the cancellation of 69 makes for a bizarre north split where both interstates make hard right/lefts in alignment. i-70 on the southern side of downtown should have been moved further south, and had less exits. also, i don't know who the genius was that thought it was a good idea to have 70 come in at the south split from the left, and leave on the right at the north split. the south split totally fucked up fountain square, and the Virginia ave exit has no merge area. I would have liked a cross formation, somewhat like Albuquerque.
Quote from: ekt8750 on April 13, 2017, 10:58:50 AM
The Schuylkill Expressway wins this hands down. Too many left lane exits and on ramps, on ramps that have little to no speed up lanes, 4 lanes for most of the route which not even close to enough to handle the volume it carries, and sharp curves that can flip over even the most slightly unbalanced truck. Need I say more?
My favorite part of the Schuylkill is the merge or die ramps at South Street. PENNDOT just replaced the whole South Street bridge several years back, and the best they could muster for the Schuylkill connection was still the merge or die left hand ramps.. (the river, the train station, and the other nearby ramps didn't leave much of an option I guess.) It is what it is..
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on April 13, 2017, 08:56:58 AM
Post the worst, most cringey, most gut-wrenching freeway designs in your area here!
I'll start with the cancelled atrocity known as the Taft Expressway.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cincinnati-transit.net%2Fztaftexpressway-map2.jpg&hash=f3637c47e1871cb7fd5691c1f18d459e9d27420c)
The freeway would have started at an incomplete interchange at I-75. You'll see a lot of incomplete interchanges on this actually. It then curves around a hill in the same area as McMillan Street currently is. After that it passes very close to University of Cincinnati and intersects a few roads to the university with incomplete interchanges.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cincinnati-transit.net%2Fztaftexpressway-map3.jpg&hash=a815bc5a2e74a30cc784fe57b69575eabd35ebac)
It doesn't get any better after that last section. In this section we see a very strange left exit jumble that has access to Burnet Avenue, US 42, and I-71. The one good side to this section is that a few spots on the map are marked for "possible replacement park" so at least ODOT wanted to make a few parks along the road.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cincinnati-transit.net%2Fztaftexpressway-map4.jpg&hash=7ce1ad34103bee078a24a2adc269d4dcab9b5c61)
This section is probably the least eventful section. It mainly has a left exit to Victoria Parkway and an incomplete interchange with both Victoria Parkway and Woodburn Avenue.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cincinnati-transit.net%2Fztaftexpressway-map5.jpg&hash=a2cdecb8bfa221da98ec47574cb6b25922aa76af)
At the end of this road we see an interchange that marks the terminus of the Taft Expressway with Columbia Parkway. This also includes another interchange with Torrence Parkway. I bet that being on the ramp from eastbound Taft Expressway to Columbia Parkway would have had a nice view of the Ohio River though.
So all in all, the Taft Expressway was one of the worst freeway designs that I've ever seen, and I'm pretty sure a lot of people were cancelled, as well as the people who owned the 660 properties that would have been destroyed at the time!
i'm not sure what they were thinking with that weird ass hump in the road in your first picture. on a different note, why the hell did they put i-676 where they did? it ends up creating that gap in downtown philly. also, i feel like a lot of Pennsylvania's highways will make this list, 376 and 279 are a hot mess too.
The Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike had a somewhat poor design in several spots, probably owning to the highway planners of the 1950's having not yet came up with the vison that led to today's standards. In Richmond there were several ramps with no acceleration or deceleration lanes (some of these issues are fixed but even most of that didn't occur until long after the tolls were removed). There were also several interchanges very close to each other (especially after I-64 was added to the turnpike in the late 1960's and VA 195 was built in 1976), which leads to obvious problems. These issues are worse today, especially at the ramp from I-64 WB & I-195 NB to I-95 NB. No capacity was added to the I-95/I-64 duplex.. it's still the same 6 lanes today as it was when opened in 1958. The median north of the James River was built with a small cross section of probably about 4 feet and originally had curbs, like the curbs you would find on a typical street, with no guardrail. Eventually the curbs were gutted and thin railing were added instead (today it's jersey barrier). Much of this stretch lacks an adequate left shoulder, typical of most old freeways through cities. There was a very short ramp from the Turnpike NB directly to Broad St EB that existed until the 1976 building of the interchange with VA-195 Downtown Expwy. The replacement for this is the ramp from Exit 74 C (formally Exit 10 to Broad St WB only) to Oliver Hill Way (17th St, a one-way street)... this has led to some weaving issues and accidents in recent years on OHW, particularly during the morning rush. VDOT has a plan to fix this issue.
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 13, 2017, 01:01:22 PM
i'm not sure what they were thinking with that weird ass hump in the road in your first picture. on a different note, why the hell did they put i-676 where they did? it ends up creating that gap in downtown philly. also, i feel like a lot of Pennsylvania's highways will make this list, 376 and 279 are a hot mess too.
The hump is because the road goes up a hill. McMillan Avenue's current alingment goes up a fairly steep hill.
Quote from: Chris19001 on April 13, 2017, 12:47:58 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on April 13, 2017, 10:58:50 AM
The Schuylkill Expressway wins this hands down. Too many left lane exits and on ramps, on ramps that have little to no speed up lanes, 4 lanes for most of the route which not even close to enough to handle the volume it carries, and sharp curves that can flip over even the most slightly unbalanced truck. Need I say more?
My favorite part of the Schuylkill is the merge or die ramps at South Street. PENNDOT just replaced the whole South Street bridge several years back, and the best they could muster for the Schuylkill connection was still the merge or die left hand ramps.. (the river, the train station, and the other nearby ramps didn't leave much of an option I guess.) It is what it is..
And they're a major choke point for traffic in both directions with the horrendous and dangerous weaving that goes on with the on ramps from Schuylkill Av coming in eastbound and University Av westbound literally hundreds of feet from the South St ramps. I think had they extended Schuylkill Av to South St when they replaced the bridge and eliminated those subsequent ramps, traffic in that area would do a lot better.
Pretty much the entire BQE/I-278 in Brooklyn & Queens. Essentially a piecemeal facility cobbled out of several other components, it's narrow, winding, with little in the way of merging lanes -- lines of sight are at times nonexistent! I was born & raised about ten miles from L.A.'s Arroyo Seco Parkway and thought that was an obsolescent relic -- but my first encounter with the BQE in the early '80's reminded me of that parkway -- only with less attractive surroundings coupled with heavy traffic, merges, lane drops, and numerous TOTSO's! The first time I took it I was exploring the area, so I slugged it out from the Verrazano all the way to the Triborough; subsequent times where I was on business that took me into Manhattan I only took it as far north as the Brooklyn Bridge, where I shunted across the river to the NB FDR. Believe me when I tell you I was never as glad to get off a particular road as that one! I'd venture a guess that it's more or less unexpandable -- at least beyond marginal spot "fixes" -- for both physical and political reasons. Haven't needed to use it for the last 16 years or so -- no big loss by any means! I'll stick with the description I supply to friends -- an alley with ramps!
Regarding the BQE (not to mention most other NYC freeways), the Surekill, and the Parkways in Pittsburgh: keep in mind when all of those were built (most of them pre-Interstate), and also keep in mind that it's very time-consuming, very land-invasive, and VERY expen$$$ive to upgrade such urban freeways.
Quote from: froggie on April 14, 2017, 07:42:57 AM
Regarding the BQE (not to mention most other NYC freeways), the Surekill, and the Parkways in Pittsburgh: keep in mind when all of those were built (most of them pre-Interstate), and also keep in mind that it's very time-consuming, very land-invasive, and VERY expen$$$ive to upgrade such urban freeways.
i know, but 279 and 376 still suck
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 14, 2017, 09:07:21 AM
Quote from: froggie on April 14, 2017, 07:42:57 AM
Regarding the BQE (not to mention most other NYC freeways), the Surekill, and the Parkways in Pittsburgh: keep in mind when all of those were built (most of them pre-Interstate), and also keep in mind that it's very time-consuming, very land-invasive, and VERY expen$$$ive to upgrade such urban freeways.
i know, but 279 and 376 still suck
Even though I agree, at least 279 has reversible HOV lanes that help somewhat. But 376 is just too thin especially with the tunnel portions.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FWBwBkij.jpg&hash=3d7ce17e055094c1d24e8d1733f1f78b9fb960fd)
This is the interchange of I-695 and MD-702 in the area of Essex, Maryland, just east of Baltimore. I don't think I-695, AKA the Baltimore Beltway, was supposed to be a full loop, and Route 702 was all that was built of the cancelled Windlass Freeway, or something like that. But eventually, the Beltway became a full loop linked by the Francis Scott Key Bridge, resulting in this crazy interchange.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fu9L0fFx.png&hash=1fa2c3f938f1955c2cccb6a6f50d149090342dd3)
Quote from: epzik8 on April 14, 2017, 01:09:17 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FWBwBkij.jpg&hash=3d7ce17e055094c1d24e8d1733f1f78b9fb960fd)
This is the interchange of I-695 and MD-702 in the area of Essex, Maryland, just east of Baltimore. I don't think I-695, AKA the Baltimore Beltway, was supposed to be a full loop, and Route 702 was all that was built of the cancelled Windlass Freeway, or something like that. But eventually, the Beltway became a full loop linked by the Francis Scott Key Bridge, resulting in this crazy interchange.
Does anyone know what this ramp to nowhere is all about?
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3240118,-76.4792116,3a,66.3y,182.07h,93.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWZyBy3uZEksgQrrHKO2IBg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: NE2 on April 14, 2017, 02:40:31 PM
(Hypotenuse)
:rofl:
Also, does Breezewood count? :sombrero:
In this part of the world I nominate the so-called first generation
autovias. Some of them have been rebuilt to full freeway standards.
Quote from: ajlynch91 on April 13, 2017, 11:12:29 AM
I'd have to vote for the Gowanus/Brooklyn-Queens Expressway segments of I-278.
The Gowanus/BQE is an awful freeway, but hey, it's "our awful freeway". I have a soft spot for it.
I recall reading about the original Gowanus parkway and its associated controversy in Caro's biography of Robert Moses.
It amazes me that the BQE even has an interstate shield on it.
Quote from: compdude787 on April 14, 2017, 04:36:52 PM
It amazes me that the BQE even has an interstate shield on it.
Like I said in my previous post -- an alley with ramps; with little or no hope of improvement given the
uber-dense area it traverses. It's a relic -- but for worse or better the only non-surface N-S option until one gets out to 678. It's something we'll likely be bitching about for years to come!
ya i dont see how 278 was allowed on that route
Quote from: kurumi on April 13, 2017, 11:12:43 AM
Proposed interchange for I-95, CT 9, and freeway to Long Island, in 1965. If that's to scale, it would have carved up a huge amount of land for an ugly, confusing, low-capacity mess.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Frf7KzMO.jpg&hash=356eccf2b8ce99691ec5ba0f821ff31180e7a84a)
Good god, now that's an abomination!
As cool as a LI Sound crossing would be there (which I tossed around that idea some 20 years ago, as I-96 IIRC), that's a huge inefficient interchange. My "plan" simply extended CT 9 south of where it meets I-95, sharing some of the same ramps as it does today, continuing south to Saybrook Point... and beyond. To the north, I-96 would have taken over the CT 9 corridor and worked its way over to the CT 8 non-freeway corridor in northern CT, heading right up through Mass to VT. Of course this was long ago, before I knew that I-96 would be totally out of grid and be the wrong number for a N/S highway.
Quote from: NE2 on April 14, 2017, 02:40:31 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fu9L0fFx.png&hash=1fa2c3f938f1955c2cccb6a6f50d149090342dd3)
Ill be in Chicago for my cousins wedding next monrh.. My hotel is on the route od the hypotenuse... I will have to search out the constuction:)
LGMS428
Quote from: NE2 on April 14, 2017, 02:40:31 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fu9L0fFx.png&hash=1fa2c3f938f1955c2cccb6a6f50d149090342dd3)
Actually, that's not a hypotenuse; a hypotenuse should be a straight line. What it looks like, if read from left to right, is a diminishing and intermittent sine wave. Speaking of waves, wave it goodbye!
I would love to knock heads :ded: with the 50/60s road designers? The Kansas City Freeway plan is super interesting in a "Why did they think this was a good idea" kind of way. :poke:
*Insert Pictures here* [I wish I could have a copy for my coffee table]
I-5 in Downtown Seattle slims down to 2 lanes after the first downtown exit, creating a bottleneck that has haunted the city for decades. Not to mention that there is a huge weave created by the left-side exit for SR 520 and the right-side exit for Mercer...and the express lanes being poorly designed for the northern suburbs as a whole.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on April 14, 2017, 03:32:24 PM
Quote from: epzik8 on April 14, 2017, 01:09:17 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FWBwBkij.jpg&hash=3d7ce17e055094c1d24e8d1733f1f78b9fb960fd)
This is the interchange of I-695 and MD-702 in the area of Essex, Maryland, just east of Baltimore. I don't think I-695, AKA the Baltimore Beltway, was supposed to be a full loop, and Route 702 was all that was built of the cancelled Windlass Freeway, or something like that. But eventually, the Beltway became a full loop linked by the Francis Scott Key Bridge, resulting in this crazy interchange.
Does anyone know what this ramp to nowhere is all about?
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3240118,-76.4792116,3a,66.3y,182.07h,93.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWZyBy3uZEksgQrrHKO2IBg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I believe that this was the beginning of a loop ramp to the never-built section of the Windlass from this interchange to either US 40 or I-95 north of here.
Quote from: amroad17 on April 17, 2017, 05:13:59 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on April 14, 2017, 03:32:24 PM
Quote from: epzik8 on April 14, 2017, 01:09:17 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FWBwBkij.jpg&hash=3d7ce17e055094c1d24e8d1733f1f78b9fb960fd)
This is the interchange of I-695 and MD-702 in the area of Essex, Maryland, just east of Baltimore. I don't think I-695, AKA the Baltimore Beltway, was supposed to be a full loop, and Route 702 was all that was built of the cancelled Windlass Freeway, or something like that. But eventually, the Beltway became a full loop linked by the Francis Scott Key Bridge, resulting in this crazy interchange.
Does anyone know what this ramp to nowhere is all about?
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3240118,-76.4792116,3a,66.3y,182.07h,93.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWZyBy3uZEksgQrrHKO2IBg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I believe that this was the beginning of a loop ramp to the never-built section of the Windlass from this interchange to either US 40 or I-95 north of here.
You can see the stubs of the mainline to the Southwest there
Trenton Freeway. Almost was I-95, is just US1 thankfully. Narrow, outdated, and a choke point for US1 traffic
California 110. i-90/94 rapid fire exits in chicago. any exit or entrance from the left
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 17, 2017, 09:10:58 PM
California 110. i-90/94 rapid fire exits in chicago. any exit or entrance from the left
I think 110 kind of gets a pass considering it dates from before World War II.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 17, 2017, 09:54:47 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 17, 2017, 09:10:58 PM
California 110. i-90/94 rapid fire exits in chicago. any exit or entrance from the left
I think 110 kind of gets a pass considering it dates from before World War II.
Yeah -- CA 110 is indeed an anomaly. It's the ramps from NB 110 to NB 5 (and SB 5 to SB 110) that really stand out as problematic from a geometrical standpoint (sharp curves NB, sharp curves combined with a heavy gradient SB). Those ramps were simply directional ramps from the Pasadena Freeway (US 66 at the time) to and from Riverside Drive prior to I-5 being built through that area in the early '60's and were "grandfathered" in as part of the Golden State/Pasadena Freeway interchange (old 5/66, now 5/110) because there was little space available to construct a new connection. The hill above the interchange ramps is L.A.'s Elysian Park --2nd largest in the city after Griffith -- and tearing out the hillside was, politically and logistically, a non-starter. It's a bad design featuring reverse curves in both directions -- but was the sole feasible way to make the connections. While the grade (and the relatively blind merge with SB 110, mitigated by the ramp's continuation as the RH lane) SB is problematic, the LH sharp turn from NB 110 to NB 5 -- coming out of the last of the Figueroa tunnels -- is the site of backups and last-minute lane changes on 110; this situation is arguably the worst aspect of the whole interchange!
most of pennsylvania's highways
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 18, 2017, 07:39:14 AM
most of pennsylvania's highways
Both I70 and I78 are examples of when not to reuse an existing freeway. Substandard interstates that just exist to save a buck.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 19, 2017, 07:04:27 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 18, 2017, 07:39:14 AM
most of pennsylvania's highways
Both I70 and I78 are examples of when not to reuse an existing freeway. Substandard interstates that just exist to save a buck.
Fully concur. "Grandfathering" in existing substandard facilities merely delays the inevitable replacement process well down the line when the cost of doing so has ballooned due to inflation. If the right-of-way is there, fine -- but do at least a basic rebuild to current standards ASAP after commissioning.
Quote from: Bruce on April 17, 2017, 04:41:20 PM
I-5 in Downtown Seattle slims down to 2 lanes after the first downtown exit, creating a bottleneck that has haunted the city for decades. Not to mention that there is a huge weave created by the left-side exit for SR 520 and the right-side exit for Mercer...and the express lanes being poorly designed for the northern suburbs as a whole.
The Mercer Weave and the 520 Shuffle definitely rank near the top of the "worst stretches of freeway design" list.
Imagine if the Bay Freeway was built. The weaves would be catastrophic. At least the signal at Fairview prevents traffic from flooding onto the NB carriageway.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 19, 2017, 07:04:27 AM
Both I70 and I78 are examples of when not to reuse an existing freeway. Substandard interstates that just exist to save a buck.
"A buck"???
Methinks that there is far more cost and effort (money and people displacement) involved than "a buck"....
And, yes, I know it's an expression - but the notion of, say, building a whole new alignment of I-70 from New Stanton to Washington (and I am aware there were at least some notions/planning of that possibility decades ago) would be a huge undertaking. And for all the people who know just how substandard it is, and would like that replacement, there are also many people when it comes to public spending (especially in SW PA) that will just want them to make do with what is already there.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on April 19, 2017, 05:57:59 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 19, 2017, 07:04:27 AM
Both I70 and I78 are examples of when not to reuse an existing freeway. Substandard interstates that just exist to save a buck.
"A buck"???
Methinks that there is far more cost and effort (money and people displacement) involved than "a buck"....
And, yes, I know it's an expression - but the notion of, say, building a whole new alignment of I-70 from New Stanton to Washington (and I am aware there were at least some notions/planning of that possibility decades ago) would be a huge undertaking. And for all the people who know just how substandard it is, and would like that replacement, there are also many people when it comes to public spending (especially in SW PA) that will just want them to make do with what is already there.
but wasn't this done when the feds were paying for it up to 90%?
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 19, 2017, 08:58:55 PM
Quote from: Mr_Northside on April 19, 2017, 05:57:59 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 19, 2017, 07:04:27 AM
Both I70 and I78 are examples of when not to reuse an existing freeway. Substandard interstates that just exist to save a buck.
"A buck"???
Methinks that there is far more cost and effort (money and people displacement) involved than "a buck"....
And, yes, I know it's an expression - but the notion of, say, building a whole new alignment of I-70 from New Stanton to Washington (and I am aware there were at least some notions/planning of that possibility decades ago) would be a huge undertaking. And for all the people who know just how substandard it is, and would like that replacement, there are also many people when it comes to public spending (especially in SW PA) that will just want them to make do with what is already there.
but wasn't this done when the feds were paying for it up to 90%?
IIRC, New Stanton-Washington was in the process of being constructed -- to PA TPK standards, at the beginning of Interstate funding in '57 -- but the funds to construct it preceded the availability of that new federal source, so the route (again IIRC originally PA 71) was "grandfathered" into the system along with the mainline Turnpike. So the 90% was moot at that point; current projects to widen it
do source from what's left of the Interstate rehab pool, though (although no actual capacity increases for this segment are in the works).
Also do remember that the original alignment of I-70 turned north at Washington along what's now I-79 to serve Pittsburgh directly; the connector to New Stanton was originally designated as I-70S to serve as a through-traffic outer bypass of greater Pittsburgh. It didn't change to mainline I-70 until I-79 was extended south into WVA circa 1961.
But wasn't the reason I-70 was realigned (and I-79) was because the North Parkway and Fort Pitt Tunnels (and the associated bridges) weren't built and weren't planned for a while?
Similar to I-76 and I-676 getting switched in Philadelphia because what is I-676 was never going to be finished any time soon and still never relaly finished if you figure the lights on it.
It makes sense I-70 would follow it's current alignment between Washington and New Stanton, but even if the funding/planning was from another source, you would think interstate funds would be put toward making it to even then interstate standards for a non-urban setting. Wider shoulders, longer ramps, possibly bigger median.
i-70 as soon as it enters ks, i don't know what the hell they were thinking with that death curve
I-295 Is a great highway opposite of the poorly maintained I-95 Thru pa and Chester.
Quote from: Chris19001 on April 13, 2017, 12:47:58 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on April 13, 2017, 10:58:50 AM
The Schuylkill Expressway wins this hands down. Too many left lane exits and on ramps, on ramps that have little to no speed up lanes, 4 lanes for most of the route which not even close to enough to handle the volume it carries, and sharp curves that can flip over even the most slightly unbalanced truck. Need I say more?
My favorite part of the Schuylkill is the merge or die ramps at South Street. PENNDOT just replaced the whole South Street bridge several years back, and the best they could muster for the Schuylkill connection was still the merge or die left hand ramps.. (the river, the train station, and the other nearby ramps didn't leave much of an option I guess.) It is what it is..
You haven't lived until you've jumped on the eastbound on-ramps at Montgomery Drive and especially Girard Avenue...
My usual tactic when I'm home and using them is 1) enter ramp, 2) maximum warp and 3) HOLD ON! :wow: :-D
EDIT: Honorable mention to the US202/King Of Prussia Mall exit...OMG...
The Atlantic City-Brigantine Connector: built to 1950s urban freeway idiosyncrasies (I won't say standards) in 2001.
I've heard griping about the M271 near Southampton, England as well. The A58 in Halifax also qualifies, but to its credit it was supposed to be so much more.
I-5 in PDX from the interchange with SR 99W to SR 14 in Vancouver is the worst of the urban freeways in Oregon. There are so many problem areas that it would be easier to drop a fusion bomb on the Rose City to remove the structures, inhabitants and all possible protesters, then wait until the radioactivity has died down so one can then spend a couple years putting in a whole new freeway as the first order of business. Yeah, it's that bad...LOL!
Honorable mention: US 97 in Bend. It looks like a lousy piece of work that resembles a freeway which ODOT in their infinite wisdom called a parkway. Slow and unsure does not win the race in that city! North and south of this poorly designed excuse of roadway one can see a sane engineer did the design of the new freeway segments while the poor one proves the adage that a camel is a horse designed by a committee...LOL!
Things Getting Better Department: Seven miles of I-5 south of the interchange with SR 38/99 there is a stretch of freeway with uphill grades getting upgraded to 3 lanes in the uphill direction. More is needed for I-5 between Roseburg and Grants Pass but hey, it is a start, which considering ODOT and the current budget is a bloody miracle.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on April 20, 2017, 11:54:27 PM
I-5 in PDX from the interchange with SR 99W to SR 14 in Vancouver is the worst of the urban freeways in Oregon. There are so many problem areas that it would be easier to drop a fusion bomb on the Rose City to remove the structures, inhabitants and all possible protesters, then wait until the radioactivity has died down so one can then spend a couple years putting in a whole new freeway as the first order of business. Yeah, it's that bad...LOL!
Honorable mention: US 97 in Bend. It looks like a lousy piece of work that resembles a freeway which ODOT in their infinite wisdom called a parkway. Slow and unsure does not win the race in that city! North and south of this poorly designed excuse of roadway one can see a sane engineer did the design of the new freeway segments while the poor one proves the adage that a camel is a horse designed by a committee...LOL!
Things Getting Better Department: Seven miles of I-5 south of the interchange with SR 38/99 there is a stretch of freeway with uphill grades getting upgraded to 3 lanes in the uphill direction. More is needed for I-5 between Roseburg and Grants Pass but hey, it is a start, which considering ODOT and the current budget is a bloody miracle.
Rick
I dunno about I-5 being the absolute
worst freeway in PDX; you haven't experienced abject terror until you've had a semi bearing down on your ass on the Banfield/I-84 while you're simply trying your best to stay in your lane! Expanding that "gully alley" to 6 lanes just increased the potential for disaster 50%! It's no wonder that the original Interstate plans called for a total bypass of that alignment (as locally detrimental as they might have been).
Quote from: sparker on April 21, 2017, 04:25:08 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on April 20, 2017, 11:54:27 PM
I-5 in PDX from the interchange with SR 99W to SR 14 in Vancouver is the worst of the urban freeways in Oregon. There are so many problem areas that it would be easier to drop a fusion bomb on the Rose City to remove the structures, inhabitants and all possible protesters, then wait until the radioactivity has died down so one can then spend a couple years putting in a whole new freeway as the first order of business. Yeah, it's that bad...LOL!
Honorable mention: US 97 in Bend. It looks like a lousy piece of work that resembles a freeway which ODOT in their infinite wisdom called a parkway. Slow and unsure does not win the race in that city! North and south of this poorly designed excuse of roadway one can see a sane engineer did the design of the new freeway segments while the poor one proves the adage that a camel is a horse designed by a committee...LOL!
Things Getting Better Department: Seven miles of I-5 south of the interchange with SR 38/99 there is a stretch of freeway with uphill grades getting upgraded to 3 lanes in the uphill direction. More is needed for I-5 between Roseburg and Grants Pass but hey, it is a start, which considering ODOT and the current budget is a bloody miracle.
Rick
I dunno about I-5 being the absolute worst freeway in PDX; you haven't experienced abject terror until you've had a semi bearing down on your ass on the Banfield/I-84 while you're simply trying your best to stay in your lane! Expanding that "gully alley" to 6 lanes just increased the potential for disaster 50%! It's no wonder that the original Interstate plans called for a total bypass of that alignment (as locally detrimental as they might have been).
I've driven both. I-5 overall as described is far worse than I-84. The Banfield has been upgraded considerably over its original design. The Baldock? ROTFLMAO!
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on April 21, 2017, 10:14:47 AM
I've driven both. I-5 overall as described is far worse than I-84. The Banfield has been upgraded considerably over its original design. The Baldock? ROTFLMAO!
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this! I'll certainly concede that the aggregate amount of sub-par I-5 mileage far exceeds that of the Banfield -- even though when "upgrading" the latter, they chose to stay within the original alignment easement as much as possible (since they were also installing the LR tracks and realigning the parallel UP downtown branch at the same time and within a limited space, it's likely there was no more room to effect any higher level of improvement to I-84).
Unfortunately, local politics has gotten in the way of any substantial improvement to I-5 -- particularly the portion in North Portland from the Fremont interchange to the river. "Capacity increases" seems to be the functional equivalent of the F-bomb when discussing regional needs within local planning circles; as long as that attitude persists & prevails, it's likely any improvements will be marginal at best.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fu9L0fFx.png&hash=1fa2c3f938f1955c2cccb6a6f50d149090342dd3)
Quote from: sparker on April 21, 2017, 03:20:32 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on April 21, 2017, 10:14:47 AM
I've driven both. I-5 overall as described is far worse than I-84. The Banfield has been upgraded considerably over its original design. The Baldock? ROTFLMAO!
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this! I'll certainly concede that the aggregate amount of sub-par I-5 mileage far exceeds that of the Banfield -- even though when "upgrading" the latter, they chose to stay within the original alignment easement as much as possible (since they were also installing the LR tracks and realigning the parallel UP downtown branch at the same time and within a limited space, it's likely there was no more room to effect any higher level of improvement to I-84).
Unfortunately, local politics has gotten in the way of any substantial improvement to I-5 -- particularly the portion in North Portland from the Fremont interchange to the river. "Capacity increases" seems to be the functional equivalent of the F-bomb when discussing regional needs within local planning circles; as long as that attitude persists & prevails, it's likely any improvements will be marginal at best.
OR-217 is worse than both. Only 2 through lanes each direction for most of it, very closely packed interchanges, and lots of exit only lanes and weaving. IMO in Portland, I-84 > I-5 > OR-217.
And the earlier mentioned US-97 in Bend is a bit silly and makes you scratch your head at times, but it functions well enough and doesn't cause too many problems (I've driven on it probably hundreds of times, living there for >6 years).
Quote from: doorknob60 on April 21, 2017, 03:46:29 PM
And the earlier mentioned US-97 in Bend is a bit silly and makes you scratch your head at times, but it functions well enough and doesn't cause too many problems (I've driven on it probably hundreds of times, living there for >6 years).
Indeed, the "Bend Parkway" is indeed silly (in a Pythonesque way!); it
is one facility that looks as if it were assembled by a committee
during happy hour at the local bar -- is it a freeway, an expressway, a parkway, a boulevard -- seems to contain components of all of the above. Also the fact that it basically empties out NB onto US 20 rather than US 97 is a bit perplexing as well. Oh well, who knows what lurks in the heart of ODOT at times!
Quote from: sparker on April 21, 2017, 06:03:12 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on April 21, 2017, 03:46:29 PM
And the earlier mentioned US-97 in Bend is a bit silly and makes you scratch your head at times, but it functions well enough and doesn't cause too many problems (I've driven on it probably hundreds of times, living there for >6 years).
Indeed, the "Bend Parkway" is indeed silly (in a Pythonesque way!); it is one facility that looks as if it were assembled by a committee during happy hour at the local bar -- is it a freeway, an expressway, a parkway, a boulevard -- seems to contain components of all of the above.
Yeah that's pretty accurate.
Quote from: sparker on April 21, 2017, 06:03:12 PM
Also the fact that it basically empties out NB onto US 20 rather than US 97 is a bit perplexing as well.
Not true (unless I'm understanding that wrong), look a little closer.
Speaking of US-20 though, traffic coming from Sisters on US-20 can't directly access US-97 right away, they either have to continue down for about a mile, or take Empire. But even worse is the lack of any access from US-20 east/Greenwood Ave to US-97 in either direction, and vice versa. That there is the number one flaw of the parkway in my opinion. Through traffic (which includes a large number of trucks) heading east towards Burns or Idaho must go down a busy 5 lane 3rd St, jam into one single left turn lane, and turn left onto US-20 from there.
There are usable ways to bypass this mess if you know about them, but they aren't signed or intended for thru traffic. And at least from the north side, aren't the most straightforward (bypassing from the south is easier though).
Really, there is no good east/west access from US-97 between Reed Market and Revere. And Revere isn't really a through arterial (you just use it to access Greenwood/Newport or the Portland/Olney/Penn/Neff naming clusterfuck, or downtown). Colorado is great to access the west side of Bend, but is hardly useful to access anything to the east.
From exit 294 near Tigard or 307A in Delta Park?
Quote from: doorknob60 on April 21, 2017, 06:16:39 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 21, 2017, 06:03:12 PM
Also the fact that it basically empties out NB onto US 20 rather than US 97 is a bit perplexing as well.
Not true (unless I'm understanding that wrong), look a little closer.
Really, there is no good east/west access from US-97 between Reed Market and Revere.
Oops! I was indeed incorrect, :banghead: US 97
does maintain a through alignment onto its own continuation as an arterial (passing by a mall). What my obviously addled brain was calculating was that if the quasi-limited-access facility
were to be extended north at some future date, it would probably have to utilize the US 20 alignment north of the loop ramp for at least a half-mile or so before veering off to parallel the existing US 97; with the constrained nature of existing 97 north of 20, it's probably not feasible to effectively upgrade the present facility.
Quote from: sparker on April 21, 2017, 09:26:46 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on April 21, 2017, 06:16:39 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 21, 2017, 06:03:12 PM
Also the fact that it basically empties out NB onto US 20 rather than US 97 is a bit perplexing as well.
Not true (unless I'm understanding that wrong), look a little closer.
Really, there is no good east/west access from US-97 between Reed Market and Revere.
Oops! I was indeed incorrect, :banghead: US 97 does maintain a through alignment onto its own continuation as an arterial (passing by a mall). What my obviously addled brain was calculating was that if the quasi-limited-access facility were to be extended north at some future date, it would probably have to utilize the US 20 alignment north of the loop ramp for at least a half-mile or so before veering off to parallel the existing US 97; with the constrained nature of existing 97 north of 20, it's probably not feasible to effectively upgrade the present facility.
It does look constrained, but current designs have a new US-97 bypass east of the existing highway along the railroad tracks: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/REGION4/Pages/US97-BendNorthCorridor.aspx
Link to the design they seem to have decided on (PDF): http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/REGION4/Documents/BendNorthCorridoreast_ds2_modified_alternative.pdf
There's no funding or timetable for construction, but the design works. I like the design except for the traffic signal at the north end. But I imagine all it would take is one flyover ramp (and some at grade ramps/glorified turn lanes) to fix that in the future if needed.
Quote from: kphoger on April 21, 2017, 03:27:38 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fu9L0fFx.png&hash=1fa2c3f938f1955c2cccb6a6f50d149090342dd3)
Is this one better?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FE6RD2Co.png&hash=5dd9715b98ab8c2f4a975d5841fd89499670efde) :clap:
O. Henry Blvd in Greensboro, NC is pretty bad. It's a freeway in the sense that it's a high-speed facility with no stopping or cross traffic, but almost all of the "ramps" utilize 90-degree angles and surface streets.
I think this tops it https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3011805,-76.7104861,17z (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3011805,-76.7104861,17z) :pan:
Quote from: Tonytone on April 30, 2017, 11:35:20 PM
I think this tops it https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3011805,-76.7104861,17z (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3011805,-76.7104861,17z) :pan:
That was a policy decision by the State of Maryland and especially Baltimore City. The interchange there was designed under the assumption that I-70 would continue east via Leakin Park and ultimately tie into I-95 and I-170 (now U.S. 40).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 30, 2017, 11:47:16 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on April 30, 2017, 11:35:20 PM
I think this tops it https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3011805,-76.7104861,17z (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3011805,-76.7104861,17z) :pan:
That was a policy decision by the State of Maryland and especially Baltimore City. The interchange there was designed under the assumption that I-70 would continue east via Leakin Park and ultimately tie into I-95 and I-170 (now U.S. 40).
That explains it, but this always confuses me, why not build a bridge or tunnel https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8370514,-74.947674,11z (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8370514,-74.947674,11z) they have been using a ferry for years, and its the garden state parkway, it would make two points connecting Delaware- Jersey.
Quote from: Tonytone on April 30, 2017, 11:35:20 PM
I think this tops it https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3011805,-76.7104861,17z (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3011805,-76.7104861,17z) :pan:
i think that portion is going to be removed one day. does anyone have a map of all the proposed routings for 70 and 170?
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 01, 2017, 12:21:06 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on April 30, 2017, 11:35:20 PM
I think this tops it https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3011805,-76.7104861,17z (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3011805,-76.7104861,17z) :pan:
i think that portion is going to be removed one day. does anyone have a map of all the proposed routings for 70 and 170?
https://www.aaroads.com/guide.php?page=i0170md
Quote from: kphoger on April 21, 2017, 03:27:38 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fu9L0fFx.png&hash=1fa2c3f938f1955c2cccb6a6f50d149090342dd3)
I think we have a thread winner! :bigass:
As long as we're talking about bad designs in the Portland area, can I nominate the following? TECHNICALLY there is a freeway (I-5 and I-405) involved in this mess.
The confluence of US 26, the Ross Island Bridge with
- OR 43
- OR 10
- OR 99W (signs still up)
and a few city surface streets. This thing is a MESS! Trying to navigate your way on or off the Ross Island can be a huge pain in the ass.
US. 30 and US. 222 interchange in Lancaster. Two lanes in each direction on US. 222 does not work for the ungodly amount of traffic everyday. Also, that trumpet interchange is horribly outdated. I still have no idea why the didn't change that interchange when they did the reconstruction of US. 30 in 1999.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 01, 2017, 03:44:08 PM
As long as we're talking about bad designs in the Portland area, can I nominate the following? TECHNICALLY there is a freeway (I-5 and I-405) involved in this mess.
The confluence of US 26, the Ross Island Bridge with
- OR 43
- OR 10
- OR 99W (signs still up)
and a few city surface streets. This thing is a MESS! Trying to navigate your way on or off the Ross Island can be a huge pain in the ass.
Ain't the Ross Island Maze a beaut? :bigass:
I actually enjoy the layout and navigating it is rather simple... except when there's traffic, which is most of the time, lmao
The worst of it is on US 26 westbound, at SW Broadway and 4th/Caruthers (the left hand 'exit' to OHSU), and the left hand exit onto I-405 from SW 6th Ave, coupled with the following exit to SW 12th and the Sunset Hwy (the weaving between the merge and split on I-405 is awful and can cause backups onto the lower deck of the Marquam Bridge's left lane).
Quote from: pianocello on April 29, 2017, 11:46:25 AM
O. Henry Blvd in Greensboro, NC is pretty bad. It's a freeway in the sense that it's a high-speed facility with no stopping or cross traffic, but almost all of the "ramps" utilize 90-degree angles and surface streets.
greensboro's highways are weird in general, are they planning on building a full beltway there? it's weird to have 2 essentially parallel interstate routes south of the city
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 03, 2017, 10:20:42 AM
Quote from: pianocello on April 29, 2017, 11:46:25 AM
O. Henry Blvd in Greensboro, NC is pretty bad. It's a freeway in the sense that it's a high-speed facility with no stopping or cross traffic, but almost all of the "ramps" utilize 90-degree angles and surface streets.
greensboro's highways are weird in general, are they planning on building a full beltway there? it's weird to have 2 essentially parallel interstate routes south of the city
Greensboro has been building its beltway gradually over years. The northern side of the beltway is to be I-840. There are two completed segments on each side of town. Each segment is being extended north currently. Eventually, they will meet and there will be a full beltway around the city, though there will be no single Interstate number for the whole loop.
Earlier, the California 110 was mentioned. How about I-10 through the San Gabriel Valley east of Los Angeles with all those 1950s-era "squashed cloverleafs," as I call them.
Quote from: hm insulators on May 11, 2017, 02:22:37 PM
All those 1950s-era "squashed cloverleafs," as I call them.
I love those. But they are a relic of the past and should be reconstructed.
Quote from: hm insulators on May 11, 2017, 02:22:37 PM
Earlier, the California 110 was mentioned. How about I-10 through the San Gabriel Valley east of Los Angeles with all those 1950s-era "squashed cloverleafs," as I call them.
By the looks of it, you'd have to brake hard to make those turns. I think those exits would be more acceptable if there were longer accel/decel lanes, or an Exit Only lane between all of those exits.
there are a lot of bizarre interchanges like that in california's large cities.
Quote from: sparker on April 21, 2017, 03:20:32 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on April 21, 2017, 10:14:47 AM
I've driven both. I-5 overall as described is far worse than I-84. The Banfield has been upgraded considerably over its original design. The Baldock? ROTFLMAO!
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this! I'll certainly concede that the aggregate amount of sub-par I-5 mileage far exceeds that of the Banfield -- even though when "upgrading" the latter, they chose to stay within the original alignment easement as much as possible (since they were also installing the LR tracks and realigning the parallel UP downtown branch at the same time and within a limited space, it's likely there was no more room to effect any higher level of improvement to I-84).
Unfortunately, local politics has gotten in the way of any substantial improvement to I-5 -- particularly the portion in North Portland from the Fremont interchange to the river. "Capacity increases" seems to be the functional equivalent of the F-bomb when discussing regional needs within local planning circles; as long as that attitude persists & prevails, it's likely any improvements will be marginal at best.
Ugh. I-5 in North Portland. I'm honestly shocked the long term solution doesn't involve making I-5 bikes and TriMet only. Seems very Portlandy.
Quote from: pianocello on April 29, 2017, 11:46:25 AM
O. Henry Blvd
The road named after a chocolate bar? ;)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2-store.walmart.ca%2Fimages%2FWMTCNPE%2F075%2F788%2F1075788_Enlarged_1.jpeg&hash=ccfbce72829a6df46e96c23edb1ff221d475b34b)
I-70 in PA between I-79 and I-76 as it was never intended to be an interstate. Waiting five minutes to enter the highway westbound in Bentleyville because it lacked a proper merge and acceleration lane while traffic was heavy was ridiculous.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 15, 2017, 11:28:47 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 21, 2017, 03:20:32 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on April 21, 2017, 10:14:47 AM
I've driven both. I-5 overall as described is far worse than I-84. The Banfield has been upgraded considerably over its original design. The Baldock? ROTFLMAO!
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this! I'll certainly concede that the aggregate amount of sub-par I-5 mileage far exceeds that of the Banfield -- even though when "upgrading" the latter, they chose to stay within the original alignment easement as much as possible (since they were also installing the LR tracks and realigning the parallel UP downtown branch at the same time and within a limited space, it's likely there was no more room to effect any higher level of improvement to I-84).
Unfortunately, local politics has gotten in the way of any substantial improvement to I-5 -- particularly the portion in North Portland from the Fremont interchange to the river. "Capacity increases" seems to be the functional equivalent of the F-bomb when discussing regional needs within local planning circles; as long as that attitude persists & prevails, it's likely any improvements will be marginal at best.
Ugh. I-5 in North Portland. I'm honestly shocked the long term solution doesn't involve making I-5 bikes and TriMet only. Seems very Portlandy.
lol
Don't give them ideas.
Quote from: Brandon on May 01, 2017, 01:46:54 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 21, 2017, 03:27:38 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fu9L0fFx.png&hash=1fa2c3f938f1955c2cccb6a6f50d149090342dd3)
I think we have a thread winner! :bigass:
No doubt.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-rail-freight-chicago-trump-edit-jm-20170516-story.html
And this one is worse.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FE6RD2Co.png&hash=5dd9715b98ab8c2f4a975d5841fd89499670efde)
Getting 75th up to snuff is good for twenty years ago. How bout the next twenty?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/63151554@N00/34541981586.
Ah, a breath of old stale air.
Quote from: dzlsabe on May 16, 2017, 11:57:53 PM
Quote from: Brandon on May 01, 2017, 01:46:54 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 21, 2017, 03:27:38 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fu9L0fFx.png&hash=1fa2c3f938f1955c2cccb6a6f50d149090342dd3)
I think we have a thread winner! :bigass:
No doubt.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-rail-freight-chicago-trump-edit-jm-20170516-story.html
And this one is worse.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FE6RD2Co.png&hash=5dd9715b98ab8c2f4a975d5841fd89499670efde)
Getting 75th up to snuff is good for twenty years ago. How bout the next twenty?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/63151554@N00/34541981586.
Ah, a breath of old stale air.
You're right. The hypotenuse is a terrible freeway design . Thanks for posting that here.
what is so terrible about it? also i-70 in pennsylvania and really any highway in pennsylvania for that matter
Quote from: 7/8 on May 16, 2017, 11:31:39 PM
Quote from: pianocello on April 29, 2017, 11:46:25 AM
O. Henry Blvd
The road named after a chocolate bar? ;)
Yes, the design of the road, like the flavor of the candy bar, is nutty. :-D
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 17, 2017, 12:06:30 PM
what is so terrible about it? also i-70 in pennsylvania and really any highway in pennsylvania for that matter
Have you not driven it?
There are improvements underway to modernize I-70 in western Pennsylvania, but it contains:
* No left shoulder;
* Smaller than normal right shoulder;
* No clear zones;
* Limited sight distances;
* No acceleration/deceleration ramps on most interchanges, with stop-signs on ramps the norm, not the exception.
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on April 13, 2017, 08:56:58 AM
Post the worst, most cringey, most gut-wrenching freeway designs in your area here!
I'll start with the cancelled atrocity known as the Taft Expressway.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cincinnati-transit.net%2Fztaftexpressway-map2.jpg&hash=f3637c47e1871cb7fd5691c1f18d459e9d27420c)
The freeway would have started at an incomplete interchange at I-75. You'll see a lot of incomplete interchanges on this actually. It then curves around a hill in the same area as McMillan Street currently is. After that it passes very close to University of Cincinnati and intersects a few roads to the university with incomplete interchanges.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cincinnati-transit.net%2Fztaftexpressway-map3.jpg&hash=a815bc5a2e74a30cc784fe57b69575eabd35ebac)
It doesn't get any better after that last section. In this section we see a very strange left exit jumble that has access to Burnet Avenue, US 42, and I-71. The one good side to this section is that a few spots on the map are marked for "possible replacement park" so at least ODOT wanted to make a few parks along the road.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cincinnati-transit.net%2Fztaftexpressway-map4.jpg&hash=7ce1ad34103bee078a24a2adc269d4dcab9b5c61)
This section is probably the least eventful section. It mainly has a left exit to Victoria Parkway and an incomplete interchange with both Victoria Parkway and Woodburn Avenue.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cincinnati-transit.net%2Fztaftexpressway-map5.jpg&hash=a2cdecb8bfa221da98ec47574cb6b25922aa76af)
At the end of this road we see an interchange that marks the terminus of the Taft Expressway with Columbia Parkway. This also includes another interchange with Torrence Parkway. I bet that being on the ramp from eastbound Taft Expressway to Columbia Parkway would have had a nice view of the Ohio River though.
So all in all, the Taft Expressway was one of the worst freeway designs that I've ever seen, and I'm pretty sure a lot of people were happy it was cancelled, as well as the people who owned the 660 properties that would have been destroyed at the time!
Where did you get these plans? I have been trying to find plans for certain projects for current and old around Arkansas, but AHTD contracts all of their projects out and expects the contracting company to draw up the plans and if that is the case, the company holds the plans. I am doing some 3D modeling and I am trying to find plans for the Big Rock Interchange bridge columns design purposal/plans.
Quote from: seicer on May 17, 2017, 03:45:26 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 17, 2017, 12:06:30 PM
what is so terrible about it? also i-70 in pennsylvania and really any highway in pennsylvania for that matter
Have you not driven it?
There are improvements underway to modernize I-70 in western Pennsylvania, but it contains:
* No left shoulder;
* Smaller than normal right shoulder;
* No clear zones;
* Limited sight distances;
* No acceleration/deceleration ramps on most interchanges, with stop-signs on ramps the norm, not the exception.
i said that wrong, the "what is so bad about it" was in reference to the hypotenuse. I've never driven past 79 on 70, but i know it's garbage from what you guys say.
Oh, gotcha :)