Notable incomplete interchanges

[KEK Inc.]

I-880 and CA-87 in San Jose, CA has none. 



Jokes aside, just a mile up, I-880 and US-101 is an incomplete cloverleaf.  You have to exit on Old Bayshore if you're SB on I-880 intending to go NB on US-101. 

Also, I-205 and I-5 in Vancouver.  If you're on NB 205 and plan to go on to SB I-5, you have to exit on NE 134th St. and go through about 4 lights.

[dfwmapper]

Movements that can be made via frontage roads directly at the interchange don't really count. Also the south SH 121/I-820 merge/split is missing both north-to-south movements.

Which can be made via frontage roads... (and a bit of SH 10 for I-820 north to SH 121 south)

And if frontage roads don't count, I-40 east to I-27 south.

Specifically excluding any that can be made directly at the interchange via frontage roads, because otherwise Texas will overwhelm the list since we do love out frontage road connections. I forgot about the ramp from the SH 121 north to I-820 south frontage roads, so strike that one, but I-820 north to SH 121 south still makes the list. Your example is debatable since it doesn't require going out of the way or turning but does require crossing another street. Obviously it was never intended for much traffic to be making that movement anyway, since any non-local traffic would be using Loop 335.

[roadman65]

Oh yes, I forgot the US 22 & US 202/206 interchange in Bridgewater, NJ.  For years it had full movements with some like EB to NB and SB to EB via U turn ramps on US 202/206, but when the interchange was modernized to handle the traffic for the new Bridgewater Commons at the time, they forgot to include a EB to SB in the plans. 

That interchange has it all now except for that one particular movement.

[Pete from Boston]

You say "have to" like it's a bad thing. I-91 N to I-84 E existed.  It was terrible and harrowing, practically a hard right turn off the Interstate.  The current situation is a "complete" high-speed movement where one didn't exist before.

Wasn't it actually I-91 north to Route 2 east? And the current connection via Route 15 also existed, but it was a toll bridge.

Yes.  Route 2 handles a cluster of movements there.  I wouldn't say this made the interchange incomplete. The movement was built.

[bzakharin]

The Garden State Parkway is full of these. Just in Atlantic County:
Exit 30 for NJ 52 is a Southbound exit / Northbound entrance only (The other movements are via Exit 29 for US 9)
Exit 36 serves 3 roads, none of them fully:
*Black Horse Pike (US 40/322) only has an entrance (!) and only from Westbound to Parkway North
*Tilton Road is missing a Northbound exit
*Fire Road is missing a Southbound exit
one must use local roads to complete the other movements
Exit 37 for Washington ave. is a Northbound entrance, Southbound exit
Exit 40 for White Horse Pike (US 30) is only 30 West to Parkway East and Parkway South to 30 North
Exit 44 for CR 575 is a Northbound entrance / Southbound exit

Exit 38 (full interchange with the Atlantic City Expressway) is the only complete interchange in the county

[Zeffy]

This interchange involving US 1 in Trenton is missing quite a lot of movements.

[PHLBOS]

The stretch of I-95 in Peabody/Danvers, MA that was built in the 1970s.  Four of those interchanges (one was drastically altered from its original plan) relied on utilizing the adjacent US 1 interchanges for the missing moves.

Exit 46: Southbound exit to US 1 South/Northbound entrance from US 1 North

Originally, this interchange was planned for the opposite movements only; but such was scuttled when the decision was made not to build I-95 inside of MA 128.

Exit 47A-B (MA 114 East & West): Full northbound entry & exits/Southbound entrance only*
*Added several decades later (IMHO, a southbound exit ramp to MA 114 would've been better).

Exit 48 (Centre St.): Southbound entry & exit only.

Exit 49 (MA 62): Northbound exit/Southbound entrance.

[Pete from Boston]

Are these all notable?

[kphoger]

Oh, definitely, by the logical fallacy of equivocation:

1.  If something is actual, then it is also possible.
2.  The interchanges above have actually been noted.
-----------------------------
3.  Therefore, the interchanges above are notable.

[jeffandnicole]

I would think 'Notable' would be a missing movement that could be utilized by thousands of people on a daily basis.  There are hundreds of interchanges that are uni-directional.  They may cause an inconvenience to the locals, but most travelers won't miss them.  Or, there could be another nearby interchange that makes up the difference.

For the Massachusetts examples above, there are 3 interchanges within a few miles.  The volume of traffic needing to detour and the length of the detour are both pretty minor.  Not very notable in my opinion.

[NE2]

Wikipedia articles cover notable topics–those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.

[bzakharin]

The Garden State Parkway interchanges get quite busy during shore traffic season. US 30 and US 40 get used a lot for shunpiking reasons and because the Atlantic City Expressway backs up regularly.

[kurumi]

US 7 at CT 15 (Merritt Parkway), Norwalk.

(Circa 1970, the plan was to build a stack interchange there -- this would have been only the second in CT)

[PHLBOS]

Are these all notable?

If you're referring to the listed I-95 ones in MA; it's notable (IMHO) in that there's a string of partial interchanges along this stretch; somewhat unusual for a modern Interstate in a suburban/rural (when it was built) setting.

One has to wonder had this stretch of I-95 been built further east; would three of those interchanges (MA 114, Centre St., MA 62) been full interchanges?

I would think 'Notable' would be a missing movement that could be utilized by thousands of people on a daily basis.  There are hundreds of interchanges that are uni-directional.  They may cause an inconvenience to the locals, but most travelers won't miss them.  Or, there could be another nearby interchange that makes up the difference.

For the Massachusetts examples above, there are 3 interchanges within a few miles.  The volume of traffic needing to detour and the length of the detour are both pretty minor.  Not very notable in my opinion.

See above, the stretch is notable for its collective string of partial interchanges.

For Centre St. and MA 62 interchanges separately, you have a point.  OTOH, for the MA 114 interchange; an off-ramp from I-95 Southbound to MA 114 (Eastbound) would've been more beneficial than the recently-added on-ramp to I-95 Southbound.

MassHighway didn't do I-95 Southbounders looking for MA 114 any favors when its 90s-vintage replacement primary BGS' for Exit 50 no longer had MA 114 shields on them.  A supplemental ground-mounted BGS was added sometime later due to complaints of that absence.

To this day, (do keep in mind that I'm originally from this area); I still have to give my mother directions on how get get back on 114 from I-95 South (using US 1 South for such).

[Pete from Boston]

I-93 and US 1 in Charlestown, Mass.  Neither one southbound connects directly to the other northbound.  Those movements can be accomplished using a mile or so of Mass. 99, with several traffic lights in each direction. 

Also left out of the Big Dig are ramps to the Summer Tunnel from 93 North and to the Ted Williams Tunnel from 93 South.  This only makes much difference to those entering the road between the two, because few people would pass one tunnel to take the other.

[TheStranger]

The 880/980 split in downtown Oakland has never had ramps planned to connect 980 west with 880 north (and 880 south with 980 east).  With the relocation of 880 away from the old Cypress alignment, having those ramps there would create an effective MacArthur Maze bypass where none exists at present.

[froggie]

Two that have gained local notoriety in the Twin Cities area:

- In Minneapolis, there are no direct connections from WB I-94 to NB I-35W or vice versa (SB 35W to EB 94).  Traffic must use Washington Ave/Cedar Ave.  Or, if they're further out, use MN 280.  Direct connnections were proposed in the late 2000's, but that would require a full interchange reconstruction that MnDOT can't afford.

- In St. Paul, there are no direct connections from NB I-35E to WB I-94 or the reciprocal (EB 94 to SB 35E).  Traffic must use Kellogg Blvd.  Originally, longer-distance traffic was intended to use Ayd Mill Rd to make the connection, but that road was never  extended to I-94.

- Not as notorious but raised questions when it was rebuilt recently:  I-494/US 169 in Bloomington, MN.  There are no direct ramps from SB 169 to WB 494 or EB 494 to NB 169.  MnDOT required a design exemption from FHWA in order to build this as a partial interchange (intended to save money as the direct ramp movements are mostly covered by US 212).  It should be noted that there is a semi-direct connection from SB 169 to WB 494, by taking the local exit ramp and then going through a roundabout to a local 494 on-ramp.  But there is no way to make a similar movement from EB 494 to NB 169.


- Although currently a complete interchange, the I-64/I-564 interchange in Norfolk, VA originally lacked a connection from EB 564 to WB 64.  This ramp was added ca. 1990.

[Mr. Matté]

(From The Bus That Couldn't Slow Down)

[NE2]

But there is no way to make a similar movement from EB 494 to NB 169.

There's a sign saying to use exit 10B. Then you're directed north on Washington to Valley View. There's no reason you'd make this movement unless you don't know what you're doing, because US 212.

[jakeroot]

Also, I-205 and I-5 in Vancouver.  If you're on NB 205 and plan to go on to SB I-5, you have to exit on NE 134th St. and go through about 4 lights.

Why would you go north on 205 to go south on 5? I don't think that's really a missing movement so much as it is an unnecessary movement.

[Bickendan]

I assume this thread is supposed to revolve around missing movements that should be there versus missing movements that serve no purpose (such as BC interchange in OP).

It's both -- but I'd say it's questionable that the missing BC 1 south to BC 97 south movement serves no purpose since its built counterpart is there.

[kkt]

So, without further ado, the most annoying interchange in Seattle (IMO):

EB 18 cannot go south on 167 and NB 167 cannot go west on 18. If you're one of the many at the Outlet Centre nearby, this particular annoyance is...uh, very annoying. You can take Peasley Canyon Road nearby, but besides the roundabouts halfway up the hill, the signals at the top are killer and taking the freeway the whole way is much faster.

It's pretty annoying all right.  I don't care at all about the outlet mall, but 18 eastbound to 167 southbound would be the fastest way to Mt Rainier if the interchange was finished.  The bypass on side roads to accomplish that transition is very confusing and not very well signed too.  My workaround is to take 516 eastbound to 167 southbound.

[jeffandnicole]

(From The Bus That Couldn't Slow Down)

I enjoyed the fact that the front of the bus took off as if there was a ramp allowing it to do so, when there was no such ramp allowing it to do so. 

[jakeroot]

I assume this thread is supposed to revolve around missing movements that should be there versus missing movements that serve no purpose (such as BC interchange in OP).

It's both -- but I'd say it's questionable that the missing BC 1 south to BC 97 south movement serves no purpose since its built counterpart is there.

I think the ramp was originally constructed as a runaway truck ramp that just so happens to serve as a ramp for general traffic.

[froggie]

There's a sign saying to use exit 10B. Then you're directed north on Washington to Valley View. There's no reason you'd make this movement unless you don't know what you're doing, because US 212.

I was referring to how it's impossible to make that movement within the interchange.

The only traffic that might need to get on NB 169, that isn't already on or west of 212, is that coming from Eden Prairie Center.  But that traffic can easily take County 61 or Prairie Center Dr to 212 to get to 169.