This interchange seems rather redundant. Does anyone know why it exists? One interchange seems sufficient to me.
(https://i.imgur.com/wzacCSu.png)
I assume to get access to that town.
Quote from: SoCal Kid on April 08, 2019, 07:32:08 PM
I assume to get access to that town.
The interchanges are a mile apart and they exit to the same road.
Irdk. I dont see anything wrong with it other than that two diamond interchanges within a mile of each other, which wasnt needed
Quote from: SoCal Kid on April 08, 2019, 07:45:05 PM
Irdk. I dont see anything wrong with it other than that two diamond interchanges within a mile of each other, which wasnt needed
This is exactly why I posted this...
Maybe they could've lengthened Bus. I-70
What the curiously-edited map doesn't show is that the western interchange is the exit for US 24 west to Colorado Springs, as well as a lot of businesses in Limon, while the eastern interchange serves US 287 traffic going in a completely different direction. Yeah, Limon has a third interchange not shown on the map that provides a shorter link to US 24 west of Limon. But you still need the overpasses carrying I-70 over I-70BL in the western interchange shown on the map, and it's not very expensive to add ramps to make that a simple diamond interchange for a speedier connection between downtown Limon and I-70.
Limon is a major watering hole, in a sparsely-populated (and boring) area of Colorado. Three cheap diamond interchanges for Limon is not excessive.
Quote from: oscar on April 08, 2019, 08:34:35 PM
What the curiously-edited map doesn't show is that the western interchange is the exit for US 24 west to Colorado Springs, as well as a lot of businesses in Limon, while the eastern interchange serves US 287 traffic going in a completely different direction. Yeah, Limon has a third interchange not shown on the map that provides a shorter link to US 24 west of Limon. But you still need the overpasses carrying I-70 over I-70BL in the western interchange shown on the map, and it's not very expensive to add ramps to make that a simple diamond interchange for a speedier connection between downtown Limon and I-70.
Limon is a major watering hole, in a sparsely-populated (and boring) area of Colorado. Three cheap diamond interchanges for Limon is not excessive.
Not to mention there's no direct interchange with CO 71, so that middle interchange also serves as the primary connection from that highway to I-70. Otherwise that connection would be lumped in with the rest of the Limon business traffic.
Quote from: SoCal Kid on April 08, 2019, 07:55:12 PM
Maybe they could've lengthened Bus. I-70
The road that's currently Business 70 existed long before the interstate did, and it was aligned that way so that it could have a grade-separated crossing of the railroad track at a decent speed. When I-70 was built, it was already going to cross the old road twice, and there wasn't any real reason not to build another interchange.
The western interchange is the one I think is unnecessary. How much does it really hurt people to exit at US 287 and head west?
Quote from: Alps on April 08, 2019, 08:47:30 PM
The western interchange is the one I think is unnecessary. How much does it really hurt people to exit at US 287 and head west?
If they really need to pee, or refuel, before taking on the deathly dull stretch between Limon and Colorado Springs, that additional exit can helpfully speed up access to traveler services. As far as I can tell, the exit to US 287 southeast to Lamar and the Oklahoma panhandle has no traveler services -- those are all concentrated near Limon's other two interchanges.
If it were an expensive interchange, I'd think twice. But a diamond interchange is almost certainly cheap enough to be worth it.
IMHO three interchanges for Limon overall is not unreasonable, but having two for for the same road (US 287/BL 70) and not having an interchange at CO 71 doesn't seem like the best design.
The western interchange at least reduces backtracking for traffic coming to/from CO 71, but switching the middle interchange to CO 71 would be even better.
There would also be precedent for eliminating the middle 4 ramps and having two half-diamonds; effectively making these two diamonds into a single interchange. See here (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3362925,-75.9846072,13z) (Whitney Point, NY), and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6211748,-83.6077513,14z) (West Lancaster, OH).
Quote from: webny99 on April 08, 2019, 09:25:01 PM
The western interchange at least reduces backtracking for traffic coming to/from CO 71, but switching the middle interchange to CO 71 would be even better.
CO 71 doesn't seem to go anywhere significant, though it is undoubtedly useful to the small towns and cattle ranches along the way. The "western" (really middle) interchange is at a more useful location for travel to and from Colorado Springs.
Here's a USGS of Limon from 1970:
(https://i.imgur.com/hskmUh7.jpg)
US-287 is the diagonal route if you are traveling from Denver to Dallas without having to drive through Kansas.
I like how the map of Colorado is captioned "Quadrangle Location". I know that it's referring to the location of this particular four-sided map, but in this case it happens to be located in a much larger quadrangle that has its own governor, flag, etc.
If anything it was to provide direct access to 287 that's my take on it. If they were two half interchanges make some sense, but still
iPhone
Quote from: Alps on April 08, 2019, 08:47:30 PM
The western interchange is the one I think is unnecessary. How much does it really hurt people to exit at US 287 and head west?
If, by "the western interchange", you mean the western one
in the image posted in the OP, then I agree with you. As there are three interchanges for Limon, this is actually the middle one.
If the railroad crossing at US-40 was already grade-separated when I-70 was constructed, which is how I interpreted
US 89's comment, then that interchange serves no functional purpose. There is virtually no disadvantage to the layout shown below.
(https://i.imgur.com/d83p87D.png)
Quote from: oscar on April 08, 2019, 09:31:21 PM
Quote from: webny99 on April 08, 2019, 09:25:01 PM
The western interchange at least reduces backtracking for traffic coming to/from CO 71, but switching the middle interchange to CO 71 would be even better.
CO 71 doesn't seem to go anywhere significant, though it is undoubtedly useful to the small towns and cattle ranches along the way. The "western" (really middle) interchange is at a more useful location for travel to and from Colorado Springs.
http://heartlandexpressway.com/
I could see 71 being rerouted onto a northside frontage road to the existing interchange.
Quote from: andrepoiy on April 08, 2019, 07:30:51 PM
Does anyone know why it exists?
Sounds like the answer is no. Lol
I would remove the central 4 ramps from the photo: the eastern 2 ramps from the western interchange, and the western 2 ramps from the eastern interchange.
My cynical answer is "to reward the person who owned the land under the center interchange, who happened to play poker on Saturday evenings with some DOT planners" ...
Quote from: davewiecking on April 10, 2019, 05:39:44 PM
My cynical answer is "to reward the person who owned the land under the center interchange, who happened to play poker on Saturday evenings with some DOT planners" ...
Or, slightly less cynical: They couldn't decide which to build, so they built them both?
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on April 11, 2019, 10:34:26 AM
Quote from: davewiecking on April 10, 2019, 05:39:44 PM
My cynical answer is “to reward the person who owned the land under the center interchange, who happened to play poker on Saturday evenings with some DOT planners”...
Or, slightly less cynical: They couldn't decide which to build, so they built them both?
What the hell is wrong with it as it is? It's like oscar already said: the bridges had to be built anyway, so why not just build an interchange at each?
If I'd been in charge of designing this segment, the only thing I would have done differently would be to build the middle interchange on CO 71 instead of Business 70, if only because putting the middle interchange on an intersecting highway rather than the parallel business loop is probably the most familiar way to handle a three-exit town in the west. Places like Walsenburg CO (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6368094,-104.7878958,14z), Las Vegas NM (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6033387,-105.2253623,13z), Cedar City UT (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6895636,-113.095484,13z), Evanston WY (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2673146,-110.9773104,14z), and Elko NV (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8298316,-115.814951,13z) all use that format.
Quote from: US 89 on April 11, 2019, 11:19:25 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on April 11, 2019, 10:34:26 AM
Quote from: davewiecking on April 10, 2019, 05:39:44 PM
My cynical answer is "to reward the person who owned the land under the center interchange, who happened to play poker on Saturday evenings with some DOT planners" ...
Or, slightly less cynical: They couldn't decide which to build, so they built them both?
What the hell is wrong with it as it is? It's like oscar already said: the bridges had to be built anyway, so why not just build an interchange at each?
It's four additional ramps to maintain, and the western of the two interchanges involves two additional overpasses, to carry ramps over the rail ROW.
I don't know that it's necessarily "wrong"...but there is an incremental cost.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on April 11, 2019, 11:56:49 AM
It's four additional ramps to maintain, and the western of the two interchanges involves two additional overpasses, to carry ramps over the rail ROW.
I don't know that it's necessarily "wrong"...but there is an incremental cost.
I agree. Added cost (and bridges ain't cheap) for near-zero functional advantage.
Quote from: kphoger on April 11, 2019, 02:57:54 PM
Added cost... for near-zero functional advantage.
I've used all three of those interchanges in various situations, so I think each of them serves a purpose. I would argue that exit 363 (the east one) doesn't even serve Limon. Rather, it's for I-70/US 287 traffic wishing to bypass Limon. Exits 361 (central) and 359 (west) are standard business loop interchanges on both ends of town, for people who have a destination there.
Also, keep in mind I-70 was built through that area about 50 years ago. It's possible the interchanges were intentionally overbuilt in anticipation of future growth (which so far hasn't really materialized). But don't count Limon out just yet, because they are still the Hub City of the Plains (https://www.townoflimon.com/index.php/front-page-info-slides/164-hub-city-of-the-plains)!
This reminds me of the two interchanges at State Highway 72 along the constructed portion of the Bella Vista Bypass. One of those seems redundant to me, although I'd understand it better if the highway between the two interchanges was a AR-72/549 duplex.
Some people may say the same on I-95 near Emporia, VA with two exit ramps close to each other. Though one ramp is for US 301 NB while the one following it connects to a VA Secondary Route that connects to US 301 north of where the Exit 12 ramp merges onto US 301.
This was done because the 12 ramp is where I-95 ended for several years until the 12-41 part of the freeway was completed in stages from 1980 to 1983. Rather than tear down the bridge that once carried US 301 over NB I-95 they just left it as a ramp between the two routes instead.
My question is why did not VDOT just eliminate the next ramp and just let US 301 be the defacto ramp to the secondary route? A question better suited for the Mid Atlantic thread, but this is to say that the configuration here is nowhere near odd.
Quote from: oscar on April 08, 2019, 09:31:21 PM
Quote from: webny99 on April 08, 2019, 09:25:01 PM
The western interchange at least reduces backtracking for traffic coming to/from CO 71, but switching the middle interchange to CO 71 would be even better.
CO 71 doesn't seem to go anywhere significant, though it is undoubtedly useful to the small towns and cattle ranches along the way. The "western" (really middle) interchange is at a more useful location for travel to and from Colorado Springs.
CO-71 to me is a way to totally bypass Denver when I drive from Southern Colorado to I-76 enroute to Nebraska. Because I don't really care to drive through beautiful downtown Limon, if I'm coming from Colorado Springs and headed up 71, I will get on I-70 at the westernmost exit and travel to the next one, which is a short backtrack to CO-71. Same thing in reverse if I'm returning.
I'd guess it was because they had money to build ramp bridges over the railroad, and if you've got it, you had better spend it.
There's a huge gap in dates on Historic Aerials. Are we even sure both interchanges were constructed at the same time?
Nevermind that BL-70 goes through these two interchanges by the airport; one was enough, but apparently, either the Town of Limon or CDOT didn't agree with this.
Quote from: usends on April 11, 2019, 05:10:02 PM
[Also, keep in mind I-70 was built through that area about 50 years ago. It's possible the interchanges were intentionally overbuilt in anticipation of future growth (which so far hasn't really materialized). But don't count Limon out just yet, because they are still the Hub City of the Plains (https://www.townoflimon.com/index.php/front-page-info-slides/164-hub-city-of-the-plains)!
This is a great point. Limon exists at a moderately important crossroads. Historically, those cities have gotten bigger with improved transportation access. However, they also need something else for business to move there. Right now, it's too far from Denver to attract those transportation-related businesses so it's mostly a big truck stop town, especially for those vehicles using US 24 or US 287.
Quote from: kphoger on April 09, 2019, 04:27:50 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 08, 2019, 08:47:30 PM
The western interchange is the one I think is unnecessary. How much does it really hurt people to exit at US 287 and head west?
If, by "the western interchange", you mean the western one in the image posted in the OP, then I agree with you. As there are three interchanges for Limon, this is actually the middle one.
If the railroad crossing at US-40 was already grade-separated when I-70 was constructed, which is how I interpreted US 89's comment, then that interchange serves no functional purpose. There is virtually no disadvantage to the layout shown below.
(https://i.imgur.com/d83p87D.png)
If I'm a truck coming up US-287/US-40 from the southeast and heading toward Denver (there's a lot of traffic in this direction), it's seems like it would be easier to skip that 1st interchange and merge onto I-70 at the 2nd interchange. Basically the same distance and no left-hand turn.
The interchanges all seem fine to me. Some of them are probably less-used, but they all seem to have at least
some sort of utility.
What is up with the wide median just east of the US 287 interchange?
Quote from: bugo on July 25, 2019, 05:18:44 AM
What is up with the wide median just east of the US 287 interchange?
I-70's westbound lanes were placed upon the original alignment of US 24. But the eastbound lanes were new construction, and they follow a straighter alignment, hence the slight bifurcation.
Quote from: skluthLimon exists at a moderately important crossroads. Historically, those cities have gotten bigger with improved transportation access. However, they also need something else for business to move there. Right now, it's too far from Denver to attract those transportation-related businesses so it's mostly a big truck stop town, especially for those vehicles using US 24 or US 287.
I think Limon would be an excellent start point for a diagonal Interstate directly connecting the Denver and Oklahoma City areas (similar to the way OKC & St Louis are connected by diagonal I-44). As I-70 goes East toward Limon it's already following a diagonal path toward OKC. US-287/40 continues that diagonal down to Kit Carson. Then the diagonal stops unfortunately. Most of the roads in the plains East of the Front Range are built on a N-S-E-W grid with very few diagonal routes.
If such a diagonal Interstate was built the existing US-287 exit from I-70 could be demolished and rebuilt as a directional Y interchange, maybe even taking advantage of that big odd gap in the I-70 median East of the existing US-287 exit. The construction could be done without really disrupting existing US-287 traffic since US-287 loops right over to the next exit.
I don't know how much traffic comes into Limon via Colorado Springs. It might not be enough to justify widening US-24 to 4 lanes there. However US-24 going East out of Colorado Springs most definitely needs to be 4-laned farther Northeast. At least to Peyton at the bare minimum or Calhan a few miles farther East.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 26, 2019, 01:21:30 PM
I don't know how much traffic comes into Limon via Colorado Springs. It might not be enough to justify widening US-24 to 4 lanes there.
The AADT low point is on the east side of Simla, at 2800 vehicles per day.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 26, 2019, 01:21:30 PM
Quote from: skluthLimon exists at a moderately important crossroads. Historically, those cities have gotten bigger with improved transportation access. However, they also need something else for business to move there. Right now, it's too far from Denver to attract those transportation-related businesses so it's mostly a big truck stop town, especially for those vehicles using US 24 or US 287.
I think Limon would be an excellent start point for a diagonal Interstate directly connecting the Denver and Oklahoma City areas (similar to the way OKC & St Louis are connected by diagonal I-44). As I-70 goes East toward Limon it's already following a diagonal path toward OKC. US-287/40 continues that diagonal down to Kit Carson. Then the diagonal stops unfortunately. Most of the roads in the plains East of the Front Range are built on a N-S-E-W grid with very few diagonal routes.
If such a diagonal Interstate was built the existing US-287 exit from I-70 could be demolished and rebuilt as a directional Y interchange, maybe even taking advantage of that big odd gap in the I-70 median East of the existing US-287 exit. The construction could be done without really disrupting existing US-287 traffic since US-287 loops right over to the next exit.
I don't know how much traffic comes into Limon via Colorado Springs. It might not be enough to justify widening US-24 to 4 lanes there. However US-24 going East out of Colorado Springs most definitely needs to be 4-laned farther Northeast. At least to Peyton at the bare minimum or Calhan a few miles farther East.
The Interstate system is definitely not finished, but with the Wuhan Virus costing Trillions I think an infrastructure bill that could have built some needed diagonals and spurs is history. There definitely has to be better connection from the Colorado Springs Pueblo area to I-70 at Limon. An I-170 spur from Limon to I-25 around Fountain would be best, but at a minimum US-24 needs to be full limited access Freeway through Co. Spr. to past Falcon Peyton as that stretch really slowed me down with endless stoplights and suburban traffic. Really surprised at all the sprawl, development and subdivisions going up around Colorado Springs as Illinois is absolutely dead, no construction anywhere and I forgot what development looks like as I haven't seen any for 12 years.
Quote from: usends on April 11, 2019, 05:10:02 PM
[Also, keep in mind I-70 was built through that area about 50 years ago. It's possible the interchanges were intentionally overbuilt in anticipation of future growth (which so far hasn't really materialized). But don't count Limon out just yet, because they are still the Hub City of the Plains (https://www.townoflimon.com/index.php/front-page-info-slides/164-hub-city-of-the-plains)!
All roads lead to Limon.
Control Cities at Denver freeway interchanges:
E470 North from I-25 North: Limon
E470 North from I-25 South: Limon
I-225 North from I-25 North: Limon
I-225 North from I-25 South: Limon
E470 South from I-76 West: Limon
I-270 East from I-25 South: Limon
I-270 East from US-36 West: Limon
I-270 East from I-76 East: Limon
I-270 East from I-76 West: Limon
E470 South from I-25 South: Limon
E470 South from I-25 North: Limon
Not to mention eastbound I-70, of course, which ACTUALLY GOES to Limon.
At least they also mention Aurora for I-225.
Quote from: halork on July 16, 2020, 05:15:18 AM
Quote from: usends on April 11, 2019, 05:10:02 PM
[Also, keep in mind I-70 was built through that area about 50 years ago. It's possible the interchanges were intentionally overbuilt in anticipation of future growth (which so far hasn't really materialized). But don't count Limon out just yet, because they are still the Hub City of the Plains (https://www.townoflimon.com/index.php/front-page-info-slides/164-hub-city-of-the-plains)!
All roads lead to Limon.
Control Cities at Denver freeway interchanges:
E470 North from I-25 North: Limon
E470 North from I-25 South: Limon
I-225 North from I-25 North: Limon
I-225 North from I-25 South: Limon
E470 South from I-76 West: Limon
I-270 East from I-25 South: Limon
I-270 East from US-36 West: Limon
I-270 East from I-76 East: Limon
I-270 East from I-76 West: Limon
E470 South from I-25 South: Limon
E470 South from I-25 North: Limon
Not to mention eastbound I-70, of course, which ACTUALLY GOES to Limon.
At least they also mention Aurora for I-225.
This is not unusual or even inappropriate. As Limon is the next control city on I-70 to the east, any road that leads directly to I-70 to the east can and (IMO should) have Limon as the control. I-270 and I-225 both end at I-70, with most of the traffic (all of the traffic for 270's situation) leading onto I-70 east. In a similar manner in the Los Angeles area, CA-170, I-405, and I-210 all have Sacramento controls for part of their route, because they all lead directly to I-5 north which does in fact go to Sacramento. Other similar examples exist throughout the country.
For Beltways, like E470, there are two schools of thought. Some would sign for the suburbs it actually goes through and some would sign for the control off of the arterial route that it leads to. It seems like E470 is following the latter school of thought, which is common in the Southeast and Midwest. Again, not unusual, but there are definitely two good alternative ways to sign controls for Beltways.
Quote from: mrsman on July 16, 2020, 08:24:47 AM
This is not unusual or even inappropriate. As Limon is the next control city on I-70 to the east, any road that leads directly to I-70 to the east can and (IMO should) have Limon as the control. I-270 and I-225 both end at I-70, with most of the traffic (all of the traffic for 270's situation) leading onto I-70 east. In a similar manner in the Los Angeles area, CA-170, I-405, and I-210 all have Sacramento controls for part of their route, because they all lead directly to I-5 north which does in fact go to Sacramento. Other similar examples exist throughout the country.
For Beltways, like E470, there are two schools of thought. Some would sign for the suburbs it actually goes through and some would sign for the control off of the arterial route that it leads to. It seems like E470 is following the latter school of thought, which is common in the Southeast and Midwest. Again, not unusual, but there are definitely two good alternative ways to sign controls for Beltways.
First, the one that annoys me the most: Approximately 0% of traffic on westbound I-76 at E470 is headed to eastbound I-70. US-85 uses Aurora and Brighton as control cities for E470, and that is what should be used for I-76. In fact, I would argue for those control cities for all of E470.
As for your California examples, I-405 uses Long Beach and I-210 uses Pasadena until they pass through those cities. They only use Sacramento near the north end. CA-170 is contained entirely in the city of Los Angeles, so using Sacramento there makes sense. However, if they used Buttonwillow instead of Sacramento, that would be more analogous to the Denver situation.
Limon is an eastern Colorado cow pasture. The only reason it is used as a control "city" is the junctions of US-24 and US-40 there. CDOT should just use Kansas as a control; more people know where Kansas is than where Limon is. But of course, that would acknowledge Kansas exists, and we sure couldn't have that!
Quote from: mrsman on July 16, 2020, 08:24:47 AM
For Beltways, like E470, there are two schools of thought. Some would sign for the suburbs it actually goes through and some would sign for the control off of the arterial route that it leads to. It seems like E470 is following the latter school of thought, which is common in the Southeast and Midwest. Again, not unusual, but there are definitely two good alternative ways to sign controls for Beltways.
There seems to be a third school of though: No control cities at all, as used around at least Indianapolis and Columbus, OH.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 20, 2020, 12:47:27 PM
Quote from: mrsman on July 16, 2020, 08:24:47 AM
For Beltways, like E470, there are two schools of thought. Some would sign for the suburbs it actually goes through and some would sign for the control off of the arterial route that it leads to. It seems like E470 is following the latter school of thought, which is common in the Southeast and Midwest. Again, not unusual, but there are definitely two good alternative ways to sign controls for Beltways.
There seems to be a third school of though: No control cities at all, as used around at least Indianapolis and Columbus, OH.
A fourth might be to use "Belt Route" or something similar as a control, as is often done with I-215 around Salt Lake City.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 20, 2020, 12:47:27 PM
Quote from: mrsman on July 16, 2020, 08:24:47 AM
For Beltways, like E470, there are two schools of thought. Some would sign for the suburbs it actually goes through and some would sign for the control off of the arterial route that it leads to. It seems like E470 is following the latter school of thought, which is common in the Southeast and Midwest. Again, not unusual, but there are definitely two good alternative ways to sign controls for Beltways.
There seems to be a third school of though: No control cities at all, as used around at least Indianapolis and Columbus, OH.
Columbus, Ohio has used control cities along I-270 for quite some time, using Cleveland, Wheeling, Cincinnati and Dayton (originally Indianapolis) along their highways. Now it does seem they are going away from that practice with some of their newer sign installs, but there are still plenty of signs using far flung control cities along 270. Now when they get rid of them all then you can put them in the same group as Indianapolis.
Quote from: tdindy88 on July 20, 2020, 06:02:30 PM
Columbus, Ohio has used control cities along I-270 for quite some time, using Cleveland, Wheeling, Cincinnati and Dayton (originally Indianapolis) along their highways. Now it does seem they are going away from that practice with some of their newer sign installs, but there are still plenty of signs using far flung control cities along 270. Now when they get rid of them all then you can put them in the same group as Indianapolis.
Based on Streetview, that day might not be far off:
None on WB I-70 (east side) (https://goo.gl/maps/9ahS1pXEfDyRnEpd8)
None on EB I-70 (east side) (https://goo.gl/maps/NSLKVTYNQZjGxpz86)
None on EB US 33 (east side) (https://goo.gl/maps/MAB98dsc4AyW1qYM6)
None on WB US 33 (east side) (https://goo.gl/maps/EqkwMZZyiGneLCW9A)
One temporary sign (old sign being resused?) with Wheeling on NB I-71 (south side) (https://goo.gl/maps/2z2Z4p3xHa9c7dao9)
None on EB I-70 (west side) (https://goo.gl/maps/RjeNqiapqxazSenx6)
None on EB US 33 (west side) (https://goo.gl/maps/hULWXWc3xSxDysrM7)
None on NB OH 315 (though there's a 'TO US 23 and I-71') (https://goo.gl/maps/Kf9TvECjMmyFAF328)
None on NB I-71 (north side) (https://goo.gl/maps/QibPKtp9or6SZYqd8)
None on SB I-71 (north side (https://goo.gl/maps/3MXmu8F9TAAYVC8W8)
None on WB OH 161 (https://goo.gl/maps/mmupfxxMSV4uDjuK6)
None on EB OH 161 (https://goo.gl/maps/xp6npH787K286mzy6)
Wheeling and Cleveland on WB US 62 (east side) (https://goo.gl/maps/EkK1cR2SCgeenQyF8)
EB I-670 does not appear to have any, but since the area was under construction at the time those may not be the final signs (https://goo.gl/maps/HgPD2qUU2fsQwk9b6)
So what is the answer to this question?
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 05, 2020, 04:20:41 PM
So what is the answer to this question?
Already answered.
Quote from: oscar on April 08, 2019, 08:34:35 PM
the western interchange is the exit for US 24 west to Colorado Springs, as well as a lot of businesses in Limon, while the eastern interchange serves US 287 traffic going in a completely different direction ... and it's not very expensive to add ramps to make that a simple diamond interchange for a speedier connection between downtown Limon and I-70.
Quote from: US 89 on April 08, 2019, 08:45:13 PM
The road that's currently Business 70 existed long before the interstate did, and it was aligned that way so that it could have a grade-separated crossing of the railroad track at a decent speed. When I-70 was built, it was already going to cross the old road twice, and there wasn't any real reason not to build another interchange.
Quote from: usends on April 11, 2019, 05:10:02 PM
Also, keep in mind I-70 was built through that area about 50 years ago.
I suspect this is the real answer. Back then people didn't blanch every time the government bought a paperclip like they do now.