Most Surprising Road Configurations and Control Devices

[Roadsguy]

About 15 years ago IDOT upgraded all overpasses for I-55 though the Springfield area to 3 lanes but, then, never widened the highway. So we've had 3-lane bridges for each direction ever since then but only 2 lane roads.  Kind of like your situation.

PennDOT did something similar in the '90s when they reconstructed I-81 between Harrisburg and I-78. They widened all the bridges, but the only widening they did was the recent glorified auxiliary lane between 83 and the next exit (Paxtonia/Linglestown).

[ErmineNotyours]

About 15 years ago IDOT upgraded all overpasses for I-55 though the Springfield area to 3 lanes but, then, never widened the highway. So we've had 3-lane bridges for each direction ever since then but only 2 lane roads.  Kind of like your situation.  However, now they have new plans to upgrade this whole section through Springfield but they want to tear everything out and start from scratch.  That means we paid millions for upgrades that never got used.  Illinois is sure a great place to live.

Take heart, the same thing happened in Washington State.  It seemed not long after the state rebuilt the concrete rails on the bridges between Kent-Des Moines Road and Federal Way on I-5, they were knocked down again and widened for a carpool lane.  However, before the lane could be built, they ran out of money so they just paved the shoulder and narrowed the lanes.  Google Street View.

[bcroadguy]

I've always found this setup pretty bizarre.

From Google Maps, this looks like a fairly normal interchange: https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2421442,-124.0673096,15.2z

Nothing looks out of the ordinary when you begin to exit Highway 19 either: https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2430149,-124.0664506,3a,29.7y,107.39h,87.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0wgbA47wUmvz8PPmEB2A-g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (Streetview)

But when you exit, instead of passing over the highway on a flyover as you would expect from seeing the map, you cross it at an at-grade intersection where no turns are allowed whatsoever: https://www.google.com/maps/@49.240793,-124.0607868,3a,67.4y,60.54h,91.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4hHmGA7eeEeHBwylkk4YpA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (Streetview)

I don't know why they didn't just build a regular intersection with left turn lanes here if an interchange was too expensive.

[hotdogPi]

I've always found this setup pretty bizarre.

From Google Maps, this looks like a fairly normal interchange: https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2421442,-124.0673096,15.2z

Nothing looks out of the ordinary when you begin to exit Highway 19 either: https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2430149,-124.0664506,3a,29.7y,107.39h,87.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0wgbA47wUmvz8PPmEB2A-g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (Streetview)

But when you exit, instead of passing over the highway on a flyover as you would expect from seeing the map, you cross it at an at-grade intersection where no turns are allowed whatsoever: https://www.google.com/maps/@49.240793,-124.0607868,3a,67.4y,60.54h,91.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4hHmGA7eeEeHBwylkk4YpA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (Streetview)

I don't know why they didn't just build a regular intersection with left turn lanes here if an interchange was too expensive.

That configuration is a 2-phase traffic light; a typical 3-way intersection with left arrows requires 3 phases.

[bzakharin]

I've always found this setup pretty bizarre.

From Google Maps, this looks like a fairly normal interchange: https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2421442,-124.0673096,15.2z

Nothing looks out of the ordinary when you begin to exit Highway 19 either: https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2430149,-124.0664506,3a,29.7y,107.39h,87.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0wgbA47wUmvz8PPmEB2A-g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (Streetview)

But when you exit, instead of passing over the highway on a flyover as you would expect from seeing the map, you cross it at an at-grade intersection where no turns are allowed whatsoever: https://www.google.com/maps/@49.240793,-124.0607868,3a,67.4y,60.54h,91.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4hHmGA7eeEeHBwylkk4YpA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (Streetview)

I don't know why they didn't just build a regular intersection with left turn lanes here if an interchange was too expensive.

That configuration is a 2-phase traffic light; a typical 3-way intersection with left arrows requires 3 phases.

More surprising to me are exit numbers on a road with traffic lights. I know there are places in the US that do this, but in my area this is just such an alien concept (Yes, I know the Garden State Parkway used to have traffic lights in Cape May County, even numbering those intersections as exits, but that was always going to be a temporary situation that just lasted longer than expected).

[Roadsguy]

I've always found this setup pretty bizarre.

From Google Maps, this looks like a fairly normal interchange: https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2421442,-124.0673096,15.2z

Nothing looks out of the ordinary when you begin to exit Highway 19 either: https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2430149,-124.0664506,3a,29.7y,107.39h,87.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0wgbA47wUmvz8PPmEB2A-g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (Streetview)

But when you exit, instead of passing over the highway on a flyover as you would expect from seeing the map, you cross it at an at-grade intersection where no turns are allowed whatsoever: https://www.google.com/maps/@49.240793,-124.0607868,3a,67.4y,60.54h,91.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4hHmGA7eeEeHBwylkk4YpA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (Streetview)

I don't know why they didn't just build a regular intersection with left turn lanes here if an interchange was too expensive.

That configuration is a 2-phase traffic light; a typical 3-way intersection with left arrows requires 3 phases.

A T intersection yes, but not if they left out the other left turn like the current configuration does. If all they did was replace the glorified jughandle with a double-left, it would not only still be two-phase, but the southbound(?) through movement wouldn't need to be signalized.

Seems more like making it easier for future upgrades. That whole bypass around Nanaimo is limited-access.

[kphoger]

I've always found this setup pretty bizarre.

From Google Maps, this looks like a fairly normal interchange: https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2421442,-124.0673096,15.2z

Nothing looks out of the ordinary when you begin to exit Highway 19 either: https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2430149,-124.0664506,3a,29.7y,107.39h,87.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0wgbA47wUmvz8PPmEB2A-g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (Streetview)

But when you exit, instead of passing over the highway on a flyover as you would expect from seeing the map, you cross it at an at-grade intersection where no turns are allowed whatsoever: https://www.google.com/maps/@49.240793,-124.0607868,3a,67.4y,60.54h,91.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4hHmGA7eeEeHBwylkk4YpA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (Streetview)

I don't know why they didn't just build a regular intersection with left turn lanes here if an interchange was too expensive.

That configuration is a 2-phase traffic light; a typical 3-way intersection with left arrows requires 3 phases.

A T intersection yes, but not if they left out the other left turn like the current configuration does. If all they did was replace the glorified jughandle with a double-left, it would not only still be two-phase, but the southbound(?) through movement wouldn't need to be signalized.

I'm not following.  1's reply makes sense to me, but your contradiction does not.

[vdeane]

The opposing direction to the ramp with a traffic light is itself a ramp that merges onto BC 19 like any normal interchange, so that traffic light is one-way for traffic crossing BC 19.  If the jughandle were replaced with a left turn, there would be no need for traffic on BC 19 south to stop, since there is no road for people to turn left onto BC 19 south from (additionally, right turns from BC 19 north onto the ramp are prohibited).

[kphoger]

The opposing direction to the ramp with a traffic light is itself a ramp that merges onto BC 19 like any normal interchange, so that traffic light is one-way for traffic crossing BC 19.  If the jughandle were replaced with a left turn, there would be no need for traffic on BC 19 south to stop, since there is no road for people to turn left onto BC 19 south from (additionally, right turns from BC 19 north onto the ramp are prohibited).

Got it now.  Thank you.

[bcroadguy]

I've always found this setup pretty bizarre.

From Google Maps, this looks like a fairly normal interchange: https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2421442,-124.0673096,15.2z

Nothing looks out of the ordinary when you begin to exit Highway 19 either: https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2430149,-124.0664506,3a,29.7y,107.39h,87.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0wgbA47wUmvz8PPmEB2A-g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (Streetview)

But when you exit, instead of passing over the highway on a flyover as you would expect from seeing the map, you cross it at an at-grade intersection where no turns are allowed whatsoever: https://www.google.com/maps/@49.240793,-124.0607868,3a,67.4y,60.54h,91.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4hHmGA7eeEeHBwylkk4YpA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (Streetview)

I don't know why they didn't just build a regular intersection with left turn lanes here if an interchange was too expensive.

That configuration is a 2-phase traffic light; a typical 3-way intersection with left arrows requires 3 phases.

More surprising to me are exit numbers on a road with traffic lights. I know there are places in the US that do this, but in my area this is just such an alien concept (Yes, I know the Garden State Parkway used to have traffic lights in Cape May County, even numbering those intersections as exits, but that was always going to be a temporary situation that just lasted longer than expected).

It's pretty unusual around here too. The only intersection in BC with an exit number that isn't on Highway 19 I can think of was at Highway 91 (a full freeway other than this one stupid intersection) and 72nd Ave near Vancouver. It was finally replaced by an interchange about a month ago: https://www.google.com/maps/@49.1323503,-122.9284263,3a,26.9y,2.48h,86.35t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sxkHs96drjJu2OQqxR1jXvQ!2e0!5s20170901T000000!7i13312!8i6656

The recently built Highway 17 has a mix of intersections and interchanges, but only the interchanges have exit numbers.

[JREwing78]

There's something similar in Benton Harbor, MI, on the I-94 business loop:

From an overhead view, it looks like a typical interchange:
https://goo.gl/maps/etnACUMGMkk

But look closer. Instead of an overpass, it's an at-grade intersection:
https://goo.gl/maps/tJo4gyBpxfG2
https://goo.gl/maps/4MyD1KdocFp

But you still have ramps to get on the highway:
https://goo.gl/maps/WG9CzKQtVBN2

Thankfully, no turns at the at-grade:
https://goo.gl/maps/2jYayLhcEvx

[bcroadguy]

That's really bizarre, especially considering that a future upgrade to an interchange is probably unlikely since the highway narrows to a 3 lane surface street shortly afterwards.

That practically uncontrolled (unless you count the perpetually blinking yellow lights over the intersection) school crosswalk looks pretty dangerous.

[kphoger]

There's something similar in Benton Harbor, MI, on the I-94 business loop:

From an overhead view, it looks like a typical interchange:
https://goo.gl/maps/etnACUMGMkk

But look closer. Instead of an overpass, it's an at-grade intersection:
https://goo.gl/maps/tJo4gyBpxfG2
https://goo.gl/maps/4MyD1KdocFp

But you still have ramps to get on the highway:
https://goo.gl/maps/WG9CzKQtVBN2

Thankfully, no turns at the at-grade:
https://goo.gl/maps/2jYayLhcEvx

Functionally, this is no different than the highway having frontage roads from which all turns must be made.  But it certainly looks different because of the shape.

[CardInLex]

The new Kennedy interchange in Louisville has an interesting set up (this may get complicated but check out the aerials and it will make sense):

Traffic from I-65 North to I-71 North (let's call them group A) goes underneath traffic from I-65 North to I-64 East (group B) to then just go over them again.

To try to summarize, A goes under B. Then a few seconds later A goes over B.

https://goo.gl/maps/Un7idDAX4xz

Note: The aerial imagery on Google for Louisville is also unique as it was taken during the flood earlier this year. You can see how far out of the banks the Ohio River got. The Third Street exit from I-64 West was underwater, as was the Zorn Ave exit from I-71. The flood wall was closed in several places.

[GenExpwy]

An odd one I noticed in the Canso Causeway area of Nova Scotia:

On the Cape Breton Island side, NS 104 comes to an end at NS 4. A ramp carries traffic entering 104, while 104 continues on with two-way traffic, separated by a double yellow line.
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.6187645,-61.3296214,3a,37.5y,8.21h,86.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKx2jiJskFMoEyYxS_tuT4A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Except that, a half-mile later, the oncoming lane simply disappears. It is literally a lane from nowhere.
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.6251598,-61.3327076,3a,75y,308.06h,81.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_kZrnKM2407xhnAElRZKDA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

The only way any motorist can possibly use that half-mile-long lane is to make a three-point turn in the middle of the road at the start of the lane.

[CNGL-Leudimin]

It appears to me that a Port Hawkesbury bypass was planned at one time, hence that configuration.

[jeffandnicole]

There's something similar in Benton Harbor, MI, on the I-94 business loop:

From an overhead view, it looks like a typical interchange:
https://goo.gl/maps/etnACUMGMkk

But look closer. Instead of an overpass, it's an at-grade intersection:
https://goo.gl/maps/tJo4gyBpxfG2
https://goo.gl/maps/4MyD1KdocFp

But you still have ramps to get on the highway:
https://goo.gl/maps/WG9CzKQtVBN2

Thankfully, no turns at the at-grade:
https://goo.gl/maps/2jYayLhcEvx

This is very similar to a NJ jughandle where there's a ramp before or after the intersection (or both) for people to make their turns.

[thenetwork]

Living in Colorado for about 12 years now, one thing I FINALLY noticed that is odd:

In much of Colorado, most major and secondary intersections will either have multi-way or two-way STOP signs at their crossing or a traffic signal (R/Y/G) arrangement.

VERY RARELY will you see on a CDOT-maintained road an intersection which has an installation of overhead flashing red/yellow beacons to compliment the STOP signs.  In all of Western Colorado, I can only think of one CDOT intersection in New Castle which has a single 4-way flashing beacon installation.  The handful of remaining (4 or 5) intersections with overhead flashing beacons I know of are limited to intersections of roads maintained by Mesa County.

Even in most intersections that were converted to roundabouts did not have overhead flashing beacons in their previous lives. 

Meanwhile, states like Ohio, Indiana and Michigan (to name a few) are very pro-flashing beacons at many intersections throughout the state.

Are their other states that are very limited into using these simple overhead signals? 

[Eth]

Are their other states that are very limited into using these simple overhead signals?

They're not common in Georgia, but they do exist. The only one in my area that I can think of on a state highway is this one on GA 260, which isn't even really done correctly because it only has flashing beacons for east/west traffic despite being a 4-way stop.

[Ian]

There's something similar in Benton Harbor, MI, on the I-94 business loop:

From an overhead view, it looks like a typical interchange:
https://goo.gl/maps/etnACUMGMkk

But look closer. Instead of an overpass, it's an at-grade intersection:
https://goo.gl/maps/tJo4gyBpxfG2
https://goo.gl/maps/4MyD1KdocFp

But you still have ramps to get on the highway:
https://goo.gl/maps/WG9CzKQtVBN2

Thankfully, no turns at the at-grade:
https://goo.gl/maps/2jYayLhcEvx

I find it interesting how the broken-yellow striped passing zone on the intersecting road goes right through the intersection and its stop signs. Not sure how common it is in Michigan, but I can't fathom seeing something like that anywhere in the Northeast.

[CapeCodder]

What about that inglorious northern terminus of I-65? I see they have fixed it now.

[Revive 755]

What about that inglorious northern terminus of I-65? I see they have fixed it now.

Partially fixed IMHO - it still has a 540 degree movement to get on the Toll Road eastbound from NB I-65.  Drifting into fictional territory, but I could go for a more direct NB to EB connection, given the number of times I've used I-65 after giving up on the Borman due to traffic.

[CapeCodder]

What about that inglorious northern terminus of I-65? I see they have fixed it now.

Partially fixed IMHO - it still has a 540-degree movement to get on the Toll Road eastbound from NB I-65.  Drifting into fictional territory, but I could go for a more direct NB to EB connection, given the number of times I've used I-65 after giving up on the Borman due to traffic.

I'm glad that I-170 was fixed. Many memories of almost running into Eager Road at rush-hour. Eager Road still has access to 170 though.

[theline]

What about that inglorious northern terminus of I-65? I see they have fixed it now.

Partially fixed IMHO - it still has a 540 degree movement to get on the Toll Road eastbound from NB I-65.  Drifting into fictional territory, but I could go for a more direct NB to EB connection, given the number of times I've used I-65 after giving up on the Borman due to traffic.

A big "roger" on that comment. Not only is it 540 degrees, but the total length of the ramps is about a mile at 35 MPH (if I correctly remember the calculations I made for another thread). If you're unlucky enough to get behind a truck, good luck.

[US 89]

Are their other states that are very limited into using these simple overhead signals?

They're not common in Georgia, but they do exist. The only one in my area that I can think of on a state highway is this one on GA 260, which isn't even really done correctly because it only has flashing beacons for east/west traffic despite being a 4-way stop.

I could swear there was a flashing yellow beacon (with red for cross traffic) somewhere on GA 5/515 north of 575, but I’m not finding it on google.