Notable incomplete interchanges

[PHLBOS]

I-495 N to I-95 S and I-95 N to I-495 S direct connections do not exist just south of the NH border. 

Those movements are handled by nearby MA 110; 110's interchanges with the two Interstates are less than a mile apart with only a couple sets of traffic signals along the way.  GSV (at least on Google Earth) shows much of the stretch (MA 110) under construction; not sure if a road widening is part of the project.

[hotdogPi]

I-495 N to I-95 S and I-95 N to I-495 S direct connections do not exist just south of the NH border. 

Those movements are handled by nearby MA 110; 110's interchanges with the two Interstates are less than a mile apart with only a couple sets of traffic signals along the way.  GSV (at least on Google Earth) shows much of the stretch (MA 110) under construction; not sure if a road widneing is part of the project.

I was there about 1 year ago, and it seems to be complete.

[cl94]

I-495 N to I-95 S and I-95 N to I-495 S direct connections do not exist just south of the NH border. 

Those movements are handled by nearby MA 110; 110's interchanges with the two Interstates are less than a mile apart with only a couple sets of traffic signals along the way.  GSV (at least on Google Earth) shows much of the stretch (MA 110) under construction; not sure if a road widneing is part of the project.

I was there about 1 year ago, and it seems to be complete.

Yeah. Google Maps shows it as 4 lanes now.

[mrsman]

Hmm.
SB CA 57 to EB CA 60 and vice wouldn't count (because of CA 71) if there weren't signs at the northern CA 57/60 split guiding people making that movement off the Orange Freeway to the Pomona just prior to the interchange. Even with CA 71, it's debatable because CA 71 is at-grade between Mission and Rio Rancho.

Speaking of CA 71, I see a w 60 to s 71 loop, but no n 71 to e 60, not counting a jaunt down Riverside and Reservoir. No e 60 to n 71 or its counterpart, but that makes sense considering the angle (and Rio Rancho does work for this movement).

Any missing movements to/from CA 71 at the Kellogg Interchange aren't notable enough to include here.

For many people who are originally from SoCal (myself included) we have the freeway grid more or less memorized in our heads, even in parts of the Southland that we are not terribly familiar with.  So if I'm traveling on southbound 57 from the 210, I'd know that my next e-w freeways would be 10, then 60, then 91.  But I probably would not know or expect that I'd have any sort of restriction on going from 57 south to 60 east, unless I was very familiar with this stretch of road.  It would be a wise idea to put a sign before the 57-71 split that traffic to 60 east should use 71 and traffic to 60 west should use 57, even though that sign would be north of I-10.  Or at the very least, signing the control city of 71 to be both Corona and Riverside may also give people a clue that they should use the 71 to reach Riverside, either 71 to 60 or 71 to 91.

Other missing movements in the LA area:

I-5 SB to 134 WB.  134 EB to I-5 NB.

US 101 NB to 134 EB.  134 WB to 101 SB.
US 101 SB to 170 NB.  170 SB to 101 NB.

There are also a few missing movements in the East L.A. area, but those are not terribly significant becuase there are other freeways that make the missing movements.

[mrsman]

The Edens/Kennedy Junction in Chicago (I-90/94's northern split) can be annoying at times. The SEB->NB and SB->NWB movements aren't there, which basically shoves all O'Hare-to-Evanston traffic onto surface streets. It's not a terribly important movement, but it would cut down on travel times for Northwestern students and residents of Evanston, Skokie, and the far North Side (Edgewater, Rogers Park, etc).

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9644994,-87.7470282,16z

I've been to Chicago and had to make this very movement. And I agree that in the grand scheme of things this is really only useful for those heading to the near-north suburbs, as those going further north (like Wisconsin) have the option of taking the Tri-State from O'Hare.  So I don't fault hte highway authorities for not completing this movement, but I do fault them for not adequately signing this movement.  Yes, IDOT does a reasonable job of telling you where to exit, but Chicago DOT (or whoever is responsbile for local streets) does not sign this movement with big enough signs.   It is very easy to get lost and missing one fo the four turns necessary (left on Lawrence, left on Cicero, right on Foster, left onto I-94).

Yes, there are red white and blue interstate shield, but how about some big green signs as well as maybe a control city. It is very easy to forget that you want I-94 WEST when you are headed for the NORTH side.

[TheStranger]

  It would be a wise idea to put a sign before the 57-71 split that traffic to 60 east should use 71 and traffic to 60 west should use 57, even though that sign would be north of I-10.  Or at the very least, signing the control city of 71 to be both Corona and Riverside may also give people a clue that they should use the 71 to reach Riverside, either 71 to 60 or 71 to 91.

If I'm recalling it correctly, the control city choices at the 580/205 split going eastbound serve this role (Stockton for 205 to 5 north, Los Angeles/Fresno for 580 heading towards 5 south), as a comparison.

Other missing movements in the LA area:

US 101 NB to 134 EB.  134 WB to 101 SB.
US 101 SB to 170 NB.  170 SB to 101 NB.

IIRC, some of those missing movements were slated to be built had the 170 extension to LAX through Laurel Canyon (which will never be constructed) come to fruition.

[roadman]

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.

That will be corrected shortly.  The new BGSes on I-95 southbound for US 1 in Danvers/Topsfield to be installed under the current Peabody to Georgetown sign project will again have both Route 62 and Route 114 shields.

[thefraze_1020]

How about I-5's interchange with I-405 and WA-525 in Lynnwood? It sure would be nice if there was a ramp from I-5 SB to WA-525 NB...

[jakeroot]

How about I-5's interchange with I-405 and WA-525 in Lynnwood? It sure would be nice if there was a ramp from I-5 SB to WA-525 NB...

Particularly since the construction of the Alderwood Mall.

[froggie]

IIRC, 525 is coming down a decent grade there.  Plus you have the presence of Maple Rd and a creek complicating things there.  And given how short 525 is, one could theoretically exit SB 5 at 164th or 128th to reach that area.  I'd also expect that those trying to get to Boeing or the Mukilteo ferry from the north are taking 526.

[DandyDan]

Some other ones in the Omaha area:
1.  At the I-80/I-680/US 275 interchange.  For I Street, there is the WB exit and EB entrance from I-80 (which can also be accessed from or has access to I-680).  There is only the WB exit ramp to Q Street, with no other movements.
2.  There is only an EB exit and WB entrance for 24th Street on I-80.
3.  On US 75 just south of I-80, one cannot actually exit from SB US 75 to F Street, as the exit ramp is only accessible from the I-80 ramps.  One could say this is the EB I-80 to 24th Street exit ramp, but this is actually quite a bit west of 24th Street. 

One I seem to remember in Topeka, KS is that I-70 has an EB exit and WB entrance for Topeka Boulevard, but no WB exit or EB entrance.  I thought there was another oddball arrangement there, but I can't remember it offhand.

[CentralPAGal]

US 11/15  at US 522 in Seinsgrove, PA (site of the as yet unbuilt Central Susquehanna valley thruway). Even when complete though, 4 movements will be missing. There was also another one that came to mind, but now I've forgotten it.