What is your favorite type of road interchange or intersection? It can be anything but it does need to exist though it doesn't necessarily have to be more functional than another, just something you have a preference for. If you pick one based on efficiency, then disclose it.
Mine would have to be an Oval Rotary because I think they look badass. I don't have a specific location in mind. I also like elevated traffic circles because they look cool.
I generally like anything that looks symmetrical, whether it be a cloverleaf, a stack or anything in between. I really like trumpet interchanges too for some reason. I find them to be very visually satisfying.
From a functional/driver's perspective, I prefer a modern stack interchange, simply because they allow for high speeds and are easy to navigate, and probably because that's pretty much all we have around here; its what I'm used to.
I like turbine interchanges, such as I-4 and I-75 near Tampa and I-295 and Butler Blvd in Jacksonville. Very symmetric and no weaving. Granted the left turn movements are long, but that's part of the appeal to me for some reason.
For freeway and arterial road interchanges, I like SPUI's. They look so cool with how big the required intersection is, though I was talking to my aunt and uncle-in-law this weekend and they said how it can be intimidating since it can be hard to see where you're going on left turns. But I think this is simply due to how uncommon they are in Ontario.
It's hard to beat the stack interchanges for freeway to freeway connections. I'd like to see one of the five-level stacks in Texas one day :)
Partial cloverleaf B4 if between freeway and arterial (more green time for arterial) (B4 style has freeway exit using loop, rather than entrance):
SPUI if land is limited.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F1I876D9.png&hash=453015db4575feb261fbf3ced74211b0196b4c74)
I-5 @ South 38 Street, Tacoma, WA (https://goo.gl/vXlX1W)
Between two freeways, stacked parclos...in keeping with the idea that there's always two dominant movements through a junction, this type of interchange is lower in cost compared to a stack, is not as unsightly, and there's no weaving ... also very compact:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FpcdWZa2.png&hash=bca7bb6b8a0ca49edbb6e78ce1c6d7af0f31ac75)
I-880 @ CA-92, Hayward, CA (https://goo.gl/wVRkF1)
For rural freeway-to-freeway interchanges, I tend to prefer a full cloverleaf configuration -- if & only if CD lanes are deployed for each route. Urban -- I've come to like turbine-types; stacks generally require too much adjacent property acquisition.
Rural freeway to arterial: wide-spaced diamond that can be reconfigured as a parclo/cloverleaf if future development demands.
Urban: prefer SPUI; with DDI as viable alternative for heavily-trafficked crossing roads.
Generally, I'd just be happy if planners would not paint themselves -- and the driving public -- into a corner with designs difficult if not impossible to upgrade in the future.
I really like the I-880/CA 82 interchange.
I too enjoy five stack interchanges. What is the reasoning behind choosing a turbine interchange over a stack? Is a turbine cheaper to construct?
I like the CT 15/ I-91/ I-691 interchange. Its interesting looking.
I also like the I-84/I-291/I-384 megachange,
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 01, 2016, 01:01:14 AM
I really like the I-880/CA 82 interchange.
I too enjoy five stack interchanges. What is the reasoning behind choosing a turbine interchange over a stack? Is a turbine cheaper to construct?
Turbine doesn't require the extra levels of the ramps going over each other.
I've never quite understood why California was so keen on parclos, even in far-flung suburban areas, like on 99 south of Bakersfield and 101 in Gilroy. But they always seem to have the loop for the entrance ramp instead of the exit, requiring a traffic signal still.
I'm starting to like DDIs. While initially confusing, I like how quickly one drives through them.
The 95th St/I-35 interchange in Lenexa, Kansas is being rebuilt as one.
iPhone
Don't know the official name, but I call it the yin-yang or "69" interchange. It's a free-flowing interchange but most suitable for freeway-to-arterial interchanges since there are left-turn entrance ramps along one of the roadways:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi478.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Frr144%2Ftradephoric%2FTransportation%2520Pictures%2FRandom%2F69interchange.jpg&hash=b0233da1ca65ac5b6d37b8ccdd5e4031f9db8b2c)
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.74109,-78.95196,1454m/data=!3m1!1e3
Here is a theoretical interchange design known as the folded interchange. It's basically a Parclo B4 but with "diverging" on-ramps. The benefit is left-turning traffic entering onto the freeway only has to travel through one traffic light as opposed to two. The downside is you need a lot of ROW along the arterial to fit the "diverging" on-ramps, but some places already have extremely wide medians (ie. Detroit). This interchange wouldn't be practical everywhere though:
This interchange in Florida looks like a standard Parclo A4 interchange but traffic entering the freeway bypasses the traffic signals. It's still not great for coordination along the arterial but at least traffic entering the freeway isn't inconvenienced waiting at a red light.
https://www.google.com/maps/@25.8092339,-80.3211698,331m/data=!3m1!1e3
Quote from: cappicard on August 01, 2016, 10:17:52 AM
I'm starting to like DDIs. While initially confusing, I like how quickly one drives through them.
The 95th St/I-35 interchange in Lenexa, Kansas is being rebuilt as one.
iPhone
I like the DDi's. They are great for making left turns. Btw, that interchange should hopefully be completely open sometime by the end of this month.
For freeway interchanges, I like both the turbine and the stack.
Quote from: mvak36 on August 01, 2016, 11:11:04 AM
Quote from: cappicard on August 01, 2016, 10:17:52 AM
I'm starting to like DDIs. While initially confusing, I like how quickly one drives through them.
The 95th St/I-35 interchange in Lenexa, Kansas is being rebuilt as one.
iPhone
I like the DDi's. They are great for making left turns. Btw, that interchange should hopefully be completely open sometime by the end of this month.
For freeway interchanges, I like both the turbine and the stack.
Yeah, I live near there. Being a galactic pain to get across 35, unless you go up to 87th St.
If only KDOT hurries up with the Johnson County Gateway to Hell...
iPhone
Quote from: tradephoric on August 01, 2016, 11:09:56 AM
Don't know the official name, but I call it the yin-yang or "69" interchange. It's a free-flowing interchange but most suitable for freeway-to-arterial interchanges since there are left-turn entrance ramps along one of the roadways:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi478.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Frr144%2Ftradephoric%2FTransportation%2520Pictures%2FRandom%2F69interchange.jpg&hash=b0233da1ca65ac5b6d37b8ccdd5e4031f9db8b2c)
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.74109,-78.95196,1454m/data=!3m1!1e3
Here is a theoretical interchange design known as the folded interchange. It's basically a Parclo B4 but with "diverging" on-ramps. The benefit is left-turning traffic entering onto the freeway only has to travel through one traffic light as opposed to two. The downside is you need a lot of ROW along the arterial to fit the "diverging" on-ramps, but some places already have extremely wide medians (ie. Detroit). This interchange wouldn't be practical everywhere though:
This interchange in Florida looks like a standard Parclo A4 interchange but traffic entering the freeway bypasses the traffic signals. It's still not great for coordination along the arterial but at least traffic entering the freeway isn't inconvenienced waiting at a red light.
https://www.google.com/maps/@25.8092339,-80.3211698,331m/data=!3m1!1e3
I would have assumed the Parclo B4 was your favorite.
For standard exits, I prefer the SPUI.
However, I'm a fan of odd exits, especially utilizing left exits/entrances, especially between high-speed roadways. The old ones along I-94 near Detroit were some of my favorite as well as the US-23/I-96 interchange.
Quote from: vdeane on August 01, 2016, 01:13:33 PM
I would have assumed the Parclo B4 was your favorite.
I do favor Parclo B4s. One of the arguments against Parclo B4s is that they have exiting loop ramps. A few weeks ago I was following a green Grand Prix for about 5 miles on I-69 west of Flint. The vehicle was weaving, couldn't maintain their speed, and tailgating vehicles in front of them. I was considering calling the cops on the driver but decided against it. This was the end result:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dvm7-5yMMo
Now this interchange wasn't a Parclo B4 but it did have exiting loop ramps. The ramp was signed for 25 mph but this driver tried to take it at 75 mph. It really didn't work out so well.
The five-way one in Shanghai involving G60, S4, S20 and Humin Gaojia Lu :sombrero:.
Freeway to freeway, stack, for speed.
Freeway to arterial, where volume is low, diamond. They're so transparent and obvious how to do a U turn onto the freeway or how to do an off-freeway stop and then get back on the same way.
Standard old school diamond interchange.
Whatever the hell the Grandview Triangle would be classified as. I'm not so much a fan of an interchange type, as I am a fan of more unique interchanges.
Quote from: Darkchylde on August 01, 2016, 06:49:34 PM
Whatever the hell the Grandview Triangle would be classified as. I'm not so much a fan of an interchange type, as I am a fan of more unique interchanges.
It's a lot better before the reconstruction.
iPhone
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on August 01, 2016, 05:19:53 PM
The five-way one in Shanghai involving G60, S4, S20 and Humin Gaojia Lu :sombrero:.
I lived a few blocks from there in the late 90's, off of Lianhua Lu. Used to walk down Humin Lu all the time, and would get gas for my moped at a little station next door, that's now gone. What's now the Carrefour (IMM at the time) used to be pretty much the end of the city. It was the last stop on what was, at that time, the only subway line, and was a major bus stop for buses going to outlying areas. A couple of the Humin Lu-Hongmei/Hongxu Lu ramps had been built already. I'd have to look at the old maps I have, but I remember Humin Lu not being a freeway until a little past Hongxu Lu. The Jinjiang Park subway station had an at-grade driveway.
China has some really impressive interchanges. A lot of imagination for a country that has no reservations about leveling a few apartment buildings and displacing thousands just for a freeway. I remember them posting the sign for the Yanan Lu/Outer Ring Road interchange just before I left, and being totally impressed with it, but I don't believe they actually built it to that level (wish I had taken a picture). When they first built the Outer Ring Road, it had just a grade interchange (frontage roads) with Yanan Lu/Huqingping Highway.
Quote from: tradephoric on August 01, 2016, 11:09:56 AM
Here is a theoretical interchange design known as the folded interchange. It's basically a Parclo B4 but with "diverging" on-ramps. The benefit is left-turning traffic entering onto the freeway only has to travel through one traffic light as opposed to two. The downside is you need a lot of ROW along the arterial to fit the "diverging" on-ramps, but some places already have extremely wide medians (ie. Detroit). This interchange wouldn't be practical everywhere though:
Strikingly similar to the old I-94/US-24 interchange in Taylor, Michigan. It's the second photo at this page: http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/dumbroad/design.htm (http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/dumbroad/design.htm). The page heading could be interpreted as an editorial observation. (The interchange was replaced with a SPUI in 2004 and 2005.)
^Just to prevent confusion, I believe you quoted the wrong part of my post. The old Taylor interchange is strikingly similar to the 'yin-yang' interchange, not the Folded Interchange. But yes, i agree, they are very similar.
Quote from: tradephoric on August 01, 2016, 10:28:59 PM
^Just to prevent confusion, I believe you quoted the wrong part of my post. The old Taylor interchange is strikingly similar to the 'yin-yang' interchange, not the Folded Interchange. But yes, i agree, they are very similar.
The old left-hand exits off I-94 are what made me think it mostly resembled your Folded Interchange. But, yes, other parts resemble the Yin-Yang.
The one and only Springfield Interchange(Mixing Bowl) at the intersection of I-95, I-395, and Capital Beltway. Truly an engineering masterpiece.
Quote from: tradephoric on August 01, 2016, 11:09:56 AM
Here is a theoretical interchange design known as the folded interchange. It's basically a Parclo B4 but with "diverging" on-ramps. The benefit is left-turning traffic entering onto the freeway only has to travel through one traffic light as opposed to two. The downside is you need a lot of ROW along the arterial to fit the "diverging" on-ramps, but some places already have extremely wide medians (ie. Detroit). This interchange wouldn't be practical everywhere though:
Reminiscent of WisDOT's plan for the Stadium Interchange (I-94 & WI 175/Miller Park Way):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi113.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn208%2Ftriplemultiplex%2FInterchanges%2FStadium%2520intch%25202016_zpsj5tccnly.jpg&hash=a513413790e9ff638a2f88c22a3d44007bcc898a)
Instead of loops, though, it has low-speed flyovers.
I like diamond interchanges between two roads that are both two lanes.
I like parclo interchanges between roads meeting at sharp angles with the loop ramps in the "acute" quadrants.
I like interchanges that are like half-built at the end of a freeway because of the potential promise of extending them in the future. Even if the continuation has been cancelled, it's still neat. Because it shows foresight. Just in case we want to keep going, we'll leave it like this so we can pick it up again right here.
Whatever this monstrosity is (Parclo+SPUI?):
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7352393,-86.5924751,1575m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
I also like the infamous "Malfunction Junction" in Birmingham as well, along with the nearby one for I-20/I-59 and US 31/US 280:
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5245025,-86.8154717,2237m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
I guess I'm just a fan of odd interchanges.
I am blown away by this interchange in Huntsville, AL!!!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.awesomescreenshot.com%2Fupload%2F%2F146660%2F89c2e873-1c83-46bb-7846-77343f1921a5.png&hash=ca63c83ad06d130d885300a73652e1075d10c3c3)
w.t.f. super rad though.
Now THAT's a nice design -- considering the terrain, the development of the area, and the angles at which the roadways intersect. And no left exits from the main carriageways -- the engineers deserve congratulations!
I think it's hideous. It's so visually obtrusive. It's too bad they couldn't find a way to make the design smaller. I award them zero points. :-P
Quote from: Darkchylde on August 01, 2016, 06:49:34 PMWhatever the hell the Grandview Triangle would be classified as. I'm not so much a fan of an interchange type, as I am a fan of more unique interchanges.
The Grandview Triangle is an interchange complex with a wye interchange handling the I-49 to I-470 connections and a directional interchange handling the I-435 to I-49 movements.
The big reconstruction and expansion circa 2002 actually did little to change the sense of the various movements. However, it greatly improved operations by removing the overtight folded-diamond parclo at Red Bridge Road in favor of a regular diamond and altering the sense of the collector-distributor roads on either side of the I-49 roadway between the I-435 directional and the I-470 wye.
The Huntsville example is cool; I imagine some drivers are frustrated they can't go from one Interchange to the next.
Quote from: Darkchylde on August 01, 2016, 06:49:34 PM
Whatever the hell the Grandview Triangle would be classified as. I'm not so much a fan of an interchange type, as I am a fan of more unique interchanges.
I think I'm the same way. I always liked the elaborate freeway interchanges in Los Angeles. Even as a little kid, if we were driving down a freeway I'd never been on and I saw on the guide sign another freeway coming up, I couldn't wait until we got to the interchange to see what it looked like. I even remember being vaguely disappointed at the interchanges of US 101 and I-405 and US 101, California 170 and CA 134 the first time I saw them. I thought they were boring (and still do, from a structural standpoint--they're compact little things) compared to, say I-10 with I-405 or the East L.A. interchange with their soaring transitions and wild designs. And of course, the Four Level is the iconic interchange in L.A.
The freeway interchanges in Phoenix are stacks with simple designs compared to some of the wilder ones in L.A., but I still like them.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 03, 2016, 03:24:42 AM
I am blown away by this interchange in Huntsville, AL!!!
I saw this posted as a "monstrosity" and thought "That's actually pretty nice." I think what's bad about it is that the SPUI on the east side has ramps that are all inside and under the other ramp viaduct. That would likely cause visibility problems, but there's not much else you can do if you have to have a SPUI. I don't know how the traffic is there, but it may require a SPUI. Personally, I prefer it, in central business districts, when there are a couple of access points at the edges of the area and no local interchanges in between, allowing traffic to more easily merge and navigate the freeway interchange.
I've only been to Huntsville once, but I found the freeway system (and road system, really) to be pretty nice. It seems like a lot of money goes to transportation projects there and, looking at a map of what seems like a very extensive freeway system for a city of under 200,000, it appears to confirm that.
Quote from: RG407 on July 31, 2016, 10:54:25 PM
I like turbine interchanges, such as I-4 and I-75 near Tampa and I-295 and Butler Blvd in Jacksonville. Very symmetric and no weaving. Granted the left turn movements are long, but that's part of the appeal to me for some reason.
Me too...
What Scheme Z evolved into (https://goo.gl/maps/z5LXqDd4arF2).
Quote from: coatimundi on August 04, 2016, 01:58:55 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 03, 2016, 03:24:42 AM
I am blown away by this interchange in Huntsville, AL!!!
I saw this posted as a "monstrosity" and thought "That's actually pretty nice." I think what's bad about it is that the SPUI on the east side has ramps that are all inside and under the other ramp viaduct. That would likely cause visibility problems, but there's not much else you can do if you have to have a SPUI. I don't know how the traffic is there, but it may require a SPUI. Personally, I prefer it, in central business districts, when there are a couple of access points at the edges of the area and no local interchanges in between, allowing traffic to more easily merge and navigate the freeway interchange.
I've only been to Huntsville once, but I found the freeway system (and road system, really) to be pretty nice. It seems like a lot of money goes to transportation projects there and, looking at a map of what seems like a very extensive freeway system for a city of under 200,000, it appears to confirm that.
I called it a "monstrosity" because it's probably the largest interchange in the area, and the fact that it's two interchanges in one. Huntsville is actually Alabama's largest city that's growing the fastest, so the extensive freeways will be very useful in the future. We're actually expected to be the largest city in 2025, surpassing Birmingham in 2022, as per predictions in November.
I am a fan of unique interchanges. Near me, this is the only one I can think of:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8780819,-78.8719363,19z/data=!3m1!1e3
Other than that, good old fashion diamonds.
Quote from: coatimundi on August 01, 2016, 02:02:54 AM
I've never quite understood why California was so keen on parclos, even in far-flung suburban areas, like on 99 south of Bakersfield and 101 in Gilroy. But they always seem to have the loop for the entrance ramp instead of the exit, requiring a traffic signal still.
I believe California likes the A4 (loop on-ramp) parclos because it eliminates all of the left hand turns. In a diamond or a B4 (loop off-ramp) parclo, double or even triple left turn lanes may be needed to handle the left turning traffic entering the freeway.
One issue with the B4 (loop off-ramp) parclo is it has freeway speed traffic entering the loop ramp. As you noted, these are rare in California, but the few that do exist have considerable damage to the outside barrier on the loop ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0192613,-121.942879,3a,75y,308.99h,75.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sP0w6AXBzkcXLCUaOCKK29w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
DDI, but I loved the designs of some turbines.
My personal favorite interchange is I-88/I-355/US-34 in Illinois
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8156926,-88.0368935,15z (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8156926,-88.0368935,15z)
Am I the only one who really likes Diamonds? They're simple and work beautifully. I can't say they're my favourite though (I do like DDI's though). :evilgrin:
TBH, I don't really know if I have a favourite. I guess my favourite is the design that optimizes cost and traffic flow at the same time.
Quote from: coatimundi on August 01, 2016, 02:02:54 AM
I've never quite understood why California was so keen on parclos, even in far-flung suburban areas, like on 99 south of Bakersfield and 101 in Gilroy. But they always seem to have the loop for the entrance ramp instead of the exit, requiring a traffic signal still.
Cough cough... Ontario ...cough cough
Even in rural areas (where I think diamonds should be used), A4's are used. There's a rumour Ontario invented the Parclo A4, I'm not sure if that's true but they are everywhere there.
Is it practical to have interchanges between two surface-level arterials? The reason I ask is I have been playing around with diamonds and 2-level stack interchanges between arterials and I want traffic on arterials to flow smoothly at 40-45 mph.
The disadvantage I could see would be space and cost, but I'd like someone who knows more than I do to give me more information about this concept.
Quote from: RandomDude172 on August 18, 2016, 12:20:14 PM
Is it practical to have interchanges between two surface-level arterials? The reason I ask is I have been playing around with diamonds and 2-level stack interchanges between arterials and I want traffic on arterials to flow smoothly at 40-45 mph.
The disadvantage I could see would be space and cost, but I'd like someone who knows more than I do to give me more information about this concept.
Example: MA 28 and MA 125. (To find it on a map, draw a line from Boston due north to the New Hampshire border. The interchange should be slightly west of the midpoint of that line, but still east of I-93.)
I love simple diamonds and anything with collector-distributors.
Quote from: RandomDude172 on August 18, 2016, 12:20:14 PM
Is it practical to have interchanges between two surface-level arterials? The reason I ask is I have been playing around with diamonds and 2-level stack interchanges between arterials and I want traffic on arterials to flow smoothly at 40-45 mph.
The disadvantage I could see would be space and cost, but I'd like someone who knows more than I do to give me more information about this concept.
I know there's one in Kitchener, ON at Huron Rd and Homer Watson Blvd. I always thought it was kind of cool. I can see it being useful at particularly busy arterial-arterial intersections. But then the question arises: if you need an interchange, is a conversion to a freeway warranted?
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.3991979,-80.4533735,17.2z (https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.3991979,-80.4533735,17.2z)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJtrTLdx.png&hash=29fcaebc3aa73887d4ce3a0aaed50610d301284f)
Quote from: RandomDude172 on August 18, 2016, 12:20:14 PM
Is it practical to have interchanges between two surface-level arterials? The reason I ask is I have been playing around with diamonds and 2-level stack interchanges between arterials and I want traffic on arterials to flow smoothly at 40-45 mph.
The disadvantage I could see would be space and cost, but I'd like someone who knows more than I do to give me more information about this concept.
While "Common" may be exaggerating it, there are plenty around.
A few from NJ:
Routes 38, 41 and 73: https://goo.gl/maps/H3XRT8viNsC2
A newer one at Routes 70 & 73: https://goo.gl/maps/QqRv1deR1Kz
An example from PA; Routes 322 & 452: https://goo.gl/maps/fPHJE55xQtT2
Quote from: RandomDude172 on August 18, 2016, 12:20:14 PM
Is it practical to have interchanges between two surface-level arterials? The reason I ask is I have been playing around with diamonds and 2-level stack interchanges between arterials and I want traffic on arterials to flow smoothly at 40-45 mph.
The disadvantage I could see would be space and cost, but I'd like someone who knows more than I do to give me more information about this concept.
Here's one.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.907423,-87.8834958,314m/data=!3m1!1e3
Thank you everyone :nod:
NJ 38 and 73 look like nice roads - how's the traffic? 73 looks for the most part just like the kind of street I wanted - just remove those last few traffic lights and move the driveways to a service road and it would be an A+ road for me.
There's an interchange between County CE (College Ave) and County N just east of Appleton, WI, but I'm not sure that counts because CE is more like an expressway over there.
Quote from: 7/8 on August 18, 2016, 12:29:52 PM
Quote from: me on August 18, 2016, 12:20:14 PM
Is it practical to have interchanges between two surface-level arterials? The reason I ask is I have been playing around with diamonds and 2-level stack interchanges between arterials and I want traffic on arterials to flow smoothly at 40-45 mph.
The disadvantage I could see would be space and cost, but I'd like someone who knows more than I do to give me more information about this concept.
I know there's one in Kitchener, ON at Huron Rd and Homer Watson Blvd. I always thought it was kind of cool. I can see it being useful at particularly busy arterial-arterial intersections. But then the question arises: if you need an interchange, is a conversion to a freeway warranted?
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.3991979,-80.4533735,17.2z (https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.3991979,-80.4533735,17.2z)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJtrTLdx.png&hash=29fcaebc3aa73887d4ce3a0aaed50610d301284f)
I wouldn't think freeway conversion is needed - then you could have 5-10 freeways in a mid-sized city of 120,000. It can be kind of like an expressway, still having at-grade intersections with minor roads.
Quote from: RandomDude172 on August 18, 2016, 03:38:34 PM
Thank you everyone :nod:
NJ 38 and 73 look like nice roads - how's the traffic? 73 looks for the most part just like the kind of street I wanted - just remove those last few traffic lights and move the driveways to a service road and it would be an A+ road for me.
There's an interchange between County CE (College Ave) and County N just east of Appleton, WI, but I'm not sure that counts because CE is more like an expressway over there.
Quote from: 7/8 on August 18, 2016, 12:29:52 PM
Quote from: me on August 18, 2016, 12:20:14 PM
Is it practical to have interchanges between two surface-level arterials? The reason I ask is I have been playing around with diamonds and 2-level stack interchanges between arterials and I want traffic on arterials to flow smoothly at 40-45 mph.
The disadvantage I could see would be space and cost, but I'd like someone who knows more than I do to give me more information about this concept.
I know there's one in Kitchener, ON at Huron Rd and Homer Watson Blvd. I always thought it was kind of cool. I can see it being useful at particularly busy arterial-arterial intersections. But then the question arises: if you need an interchange, is a conversion to a freeway warranted?
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.3991979,-80.4533735,17.2z (https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.3991979,-80.4533735,17.2z)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJtrTLdx.png&hash=29fcaebc3aa73887d4ce3a0aaed50610d301284f)
I wouldn't think freeway conversion is needed - then you could have 5-10 freeways in a mid-sized city of 120,000. It can be kind of like an expressway, still having at-grade intersections with minor roads.
Manhattan, Kansas has several along Seth Childs Road (K-113) with Anderson Avenue and with Kimball Avenue.
iPhone
Quote from: RandomDude172 on August 18, 2016, 12:20:14 PM
Is it practical to have interchanges between two surface-level arterials?
I think so. Over- or under-passes can blight the landscape, so they have to be exceptionally well-designed. But if you have two extraordinarily busy arterials meeting, and a standard junction isn't cutting it, I think a grade-separated junction is a good idea. Parallel-flow intersections are becoming popular where left turn volumes are high, but these junctions take up an exceptional amount of land; If you can squeeze a tight SPUI or diamond in to that space instead, I'd prefer that (less pedestrian crossings, better overall flow, etc).
Quote from: jakeroot on August 18, 2016, 06:42:55 PM
Quote from: RandomDude172 on August 18, 2016, 12:20:14 PM
Is it practical to have interchanges between two surface-level arterials?
I think so. Over- or under-passes can blight the landscape, so they have to be exceptionally well-designed. But if you have two extraordinarily busy arterials meeting, and a standard junction isn't cutting it, I think a grade-separated junction is a good idea. Parallel-flow intersections are becoming popular where left turn volumes are high, but these junctions take up an exceptional amount of land; If you can squeeze a tight SPUI or diamond in to that space instead, I'd prefer that (less pedestrian crossings, better overall flow, etc).
I really like SPUIs, personally, but I have one question - is it necessary to have three phases? The left turning people could just go at the regular green, get their own separate turning lane, and wait until the oncoming traffic is clear, couldn't they?
Either way, I'm fine with either and besides, if you have these, not a lot of traffic lights, and not too much cross traffic, you can have at least 40-45 mph speed limits, don't you think? :cool:
In any case, thank you for your input; have a nice day.
Quote from: RandomDude172 on August 19, 2016, 07:15:38 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 18, 2016, 06:42:55 PM
Quote from: RandomDude172 on August 18, 2016, 12:20:14 PM
Is it practical to have interchanges between two surface-level arterials?
I think so. Over- or under-passes can blight the landscape, so they have to be exceptionally well-designed. But if you have two extraordinarily busy arterials meeting, and a standard junction isn't cutting it, I think a grade-separated junction is a good idea. Parallel-flow intersections are becoming popular where left turn volumes are high, but these junctions take up an exceptional amount of land; If you can squeeze a tight SPUI or diamond in to that space instead, I'd prefer that (less pedestrian crossings, better overall flow, etc).
I really like SPUIs, personally, but I have one question - is it necessary to have three phases? The left turning people could just go at the regular green, get their own separate turning lane, and wait until the oncoming traffic is clear, couldn't they?
Either way, I'm fine with either and besides, if you have these, not a lot of traffic lights, and not too much cross traffic, you can have at least 40-45 mph speed limits, don't you think? :cool:
Well, it's hard to say. Most SPUIs (nearly all that I can think of) operate with protected left turns. I believe this is because the left turns have to clear a lot of "junction" before reaching the on-ramp (which
may present a traffic flow issue when you have four or five cars that have to clear the intersection). There are a couple of SPUIs that operate with permissive phasing (here (https://goo.gl/Vak96Z) and here (https://goo.gl/w6tMUz)), but they're only half-SPUIs; the latter doesn't even half an overpass.
Personally, I think you could offset the left turns enough that four or five cars could wait in the intersection, each line of cars sitting next to each other (passenger side to passenger side). As long as the protected left turn lags behind the permissive phase, I don't think traffic flow would be an issue (four or five cars clearing the intersection, blocking cars trying to go on green).
If I have a moment, I'll make a mock-up of what I'm thinking.
Quote from: RandomDude172 on August 19, 2016, 07:15:38 AM
In any case, thank you for your input; have a nice day.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/11ISwbgCxEzMyY/giphy.gif)
I just drove through the newly reconstructed DDI at 95th St and I-35 in Lenexa. It opened up for traffic yesterday.
It's quite nice. I just need to make sure I'm not in the left lane when entering it on 95th St if not turning left. [emoji5]
iPhone
Quote from: jakeroot on August 19, 2016, 08:17:13 PM
Quote from: RandomDude172 on August 19, 2016, 07:15:38 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 18, 2016, 06:42:55 PM
Quote from: RandomDude172 on August 18, 2016, 12:20:14 PM
Is it practical to have interchanges between two surface-level arterials?
I think so. Over- or under-passes can blight the landscape, so they have to be exceptionally well-designed. But if you have two extraordinarily busy arterials meeting, and a standard junction isn't cutting it, I think a grade-separated junction is a good idea. Parallel-flow intersections are becoming popular where left turn volumes are high, but these junctions take up an exceptional amount of land; If you can squeeze a tight SPUI or diamond in to that space instead, I'd prefer that (less pedestrian crossings, better overall flow, etc).
I really like SPUIs, personally, but I have one question - is it necessary to have three phases? The left turning people could just go at the regular green, get their own separate turning lane, and wait until the oncoming traffic is clear, couldn't they?
Either way, I'm fine with either and besides, if you have these, not a lot of traffic lights, and not too much cross traffic, you can have at least 40-45 mph speed limits, don't you think? :cool:
Well, it's hard to say. Most SPUIs (nearly all that I can think of) operate with protected left turns. I believe this is because the left turns have to clear a lot of "junction" before reaching the on-ramp (which may present a traffic flow issue when you have four or five cars that have to clear the intersection). There are a couple of SPUIs that operate with permissive phasing (here (https://goo.gl/Vak96Z) and here (https://goo.gl/w6tMUz)), but they're only half-SPUIs; the latter doesn't even half an overpass.
Personally, I think you could offset the left turns enough that four or five cars could wait in the intersection, each line of cars sitting next to each other (passenger side to passenger side). As long as the protected left turn lags behind the permissive phase, I don't think traffic flow would be an issue (four or five cars clearing the intersection, blocking cars trying to go on green).
What do you mean by "clear the intersection"?
Either way, thank you - I wasn't sure and I don't want traffic flow to be too much of a problem.
Quote from: jakeroot on August 19, 2016, 08:17:13 PMIf I have a moment, I'll make a mock-up of what I'm thinking.
Thank you very much as I'm not sure I really understand. :nod:
Roundabout interchange. Full roundabout, not dogbone.
Quote from: kphoger on August 20, 2016, 09:08:32 AM
Roundabout interchange. Full roundabout, not dogbone.
Roundabout interchanges, unlike roundabouts/traffic circles/whatever themselves, are pretty cool.
Four-level stack, especially those braided with local diamond or loop interchanges (the ON 400 and ON 407 stack comes to mind). The interchange between the Garden State Parkway and Atlantic City Expressway should have been built as one during the recent construction.
SPUI for freeway-to-arterial and full stack for freeway-to-freeway
RI-RO. I-81 in VA has them in the mountainous areas.
Quote from: kphoger on August 20, 2016, 09:08:32 AM
Roundabout interchange. Full roundabout, not dogbone.
I'm going to assume by full you mean "A" (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.941936,-86.0190082,192m/data=!3m1!1e3) and by dogbone you mean "B" (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2001561,-85.1042273,209m/data=!3m1!1e3)?
I don't think by dogbone you mean"C" (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.3439298,-85.7003066,400m/data=!3m1!1e3).
Call me crazy, but I like Trumpets, most commonly seen on Toll Roads/Turnpikes. Single intersection/light for the crossroad; freeflowing for the Freeway/Tollway
Its simple and it works, even if it does require an additional overpass for the Trumpet ramps
Being from Chicago, I'm impartial to the Circle Interchange, which has the coolest design of any freeway-freeway interchange ever! For freeway-surface road interchanges, I love the SPUI.
Quote from: I-55 on September 09, 2020, 08:36:53 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 20, 2016, 09:08:32 AM
Roundabout interchange. Full roundabout, not dogbone.
I'm going to assume by full you mean "A" (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.941936,-86.0190082,192m/data=!3m1!1e3) and by dogbone you mean "B" (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2001561,-85.1042273,209m/data=!3m1!1e3)?
I don't think by dogbone you mean"C" (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.3439298,-85.7003066,400m/data=!3m1!1e3).
Correct. The dogbone in 'C' is missing an end. But the one just to the west is beautiful.
I'll second SPUI as my favorite for freeway-to-surface. For freeway-to-freeway I like the full turbine interchange (such as I-85 & I-485 northeast of Charlotte (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3476584,-80.7317192,1886m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)) and the symmetrical stack interchange (such as my local I-70/I-695 exchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3048788,-76.7437284,3a,75y,36.9h,88.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSJWpITEaArlHeefbkw6Vzw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)...if only I-70 had been completed to I-95 so it could have functioned as designed, and not as it does now with half the ramps overloaded and the other half underloaded).
Ones that show daring, bold creativity instead of a standardized formula.
https://goo.gl/maps/8r8sHMEy9TRCcNks7
https://goo.gl/maps/ngARw575cr18Xgsv9
https://goo.gl/maps/ipi2Tdv4z67pfhgAA
Quote from: stridentweasel on September 10, 2020, 12:27:48 PM
Ones that show daring, bold creativity instead of a standardized formula.
https://goo.gl/maps/8r8sHMEy9TRCcNks7
https://goo.gl/maps/ngARw575cr18Xgsv9
https://goo.gl/maps/ipi2Tdv4z67pfhgAA
The last one looks confusing to drive through.
Quote from: SeriesE on September 11, 2020, 01:50:45 AM
Quote from: stridentweasel on September 10, 2020, 12:27:48 PM
Ones that show daring, bold creativity instead of a standardized formula.
https://goo.gl/maps/8r8sHMEy9TRCcNks7
https://goo.gl/maps/ngARw575cr18Xgsv9
https://goo.gl/maps/ipi2Tdv4z67pfhgAA
The last one looks confusing to drive through.
Unlike a lot of western states and some midwestern and southern states, New Jersey is usually great at conveying pertinent information on road signs. I say "usually," because like every state/DOT/agency, you'll find a few sign arrangements leaving something to be desired.
There's often value in having road design that keeps you on your toes, rather than mile after mile of the same diamond copied and pasted everywhere. But there is an old saying, "If you can't sign it, don't design it." And New Jersey usually has no problem signing it.
Also, those intricate windings and connections of roadways, designed for optimal flows and smoothly transitioning movements, are just plain beautiful, both from an aerial perspective and from a driver's point of view.
Oh, and I never had any problem driving through the I-78/I-95/NJTP interchange, but I only remember using it to transition from or to I-95 once in my lifetime, because I tend to stick to I-287 for most things in Central to North Jersey.
Quote from: stridentweasel on September 11, 2020, 07:18:20 AM
Unlike a lot of western states and some midwestern and southern states, New Jersey is usually great at conveying pertinent information on road signs. I say "usually," because like every state/DOT/agency, you'll find a few sign arrangements leaving something to be desired.
Could you expand a bit on what you mean by "a lot of western states"? I don't know crap about the midwest (apart from a brief stint in STL before my roadgeek days), but I would not associate the west with poor road signage.
California gets a bad rap for its height limitations, but the signs themselves, and the information on them, are typically very well designed and of high quality. Oregon and Washington have very good signage overall as well. I won't even touch on Nevada, Idaho, Arizona, Utah, or Colorado, as those states are rarely mentioned as contenders for bad signs, or places that don't sign enough "pertinent information" (whatever that even means?).
Quote from: jakeroot on September 11, 2020, 12:47:14 PM
Could you expand a bit on what you mean by "a lot of western states"? I don't know crap about the midwest (apart from a brief stint in STL before my roadgeek days), but I would not associate the west with poor road signage.
California and New Mexico stand out. Colorado also pisses me off for not signing US 6 in such a way that you could actually follow it by reading the signs (ain't it nice now it just disappears? https://goo.gl/maps/HPZ4Mdyz2gQajkbm8 ).
Quote
California gets a bad rap for its height limitations, but the signs themselves, and the information on them, are typically very well designed and of high quality.
I'm not going to call you Shirley, but you
can't be serious! Poor maintenance? Little to no consistency? Missing exit numbers all over the place? Where do I even begin?
Quote
Oregon and Washington have very good signage overall as well.
Oregon is good from what I've seen. Washington is so-so.
Quote
I won't even touch on Nevada, Idaho, Arizona, Utah, or Colorado, as those states are rarely mentioned as contenders for bad signs, or places that don't sign enough "pertinent information" (whatever that even means?).
See above regarding Colorado. And that brings me to my point about why I love New Jersey so much. They
almost always sign
all of their US, state, and even county routes in such a way that they can be followed
and recognizably approached from any direction, even when there are many of them overlapping and intersecting. Other states tend to take more of a "Who cares about the secondary routes?" approach. Kansas gets praised for its road signs, but have you tried following US 169? It's barely legible in the northbound direction, and it's impossible in the southbound direction (and, as mentioned here: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15260.msg2520896#msg2520896, the
brand new sign plan doesn't even correct that). As for US 50, that's an important route, right? https://goo.gl/maps/CwBhusiqE4NztXbu6 [Sarcasm]How could anyone possibly miss those great, big, freeway-standard signs for it while going 65 MPH in busy I-35 traffic?[/Sarcasm] I can almost guarantee you NJDOT would include US 50 on the overhead signs without hesitation (although you might see a black background around the shield, but it's not like other states have never committed that [sarcasm]
horrible atrocity[/sarcasm]: https://goo.gl/maps/NyG4ydZZc6RJse9X9 ).
And it's not only that, but do you ever need to turn around? If you're on a divided roadway, chances are you will at least once in a while. Fortunately, New Jersey has signs all over the place telling you where to do it (relevant example: https://goo.gl/maps/dbkuQ9KFgfWdXB4P9 ). And, as I've mentioned many times before, New Jersey's method for signing jughandles became
the 2009 MUTCD standard! That's the closest thing to an award for sign design that I've ever heard of. Okay, Oregon did a decent job with that one, even though it's not standard: https://goo.gl/maps/5He5PY6unxfq5AB9A . But let's take a look at one closer to home for me: https://goo.gl/maps/LuGUn2efCFgXgFAp9 . Is there a reason to use use a tiny, overly worded green sign instead of the tried-and-true "ALL TURNS FROM RIGHT LANE?" As for the turn itself: https://goo.gl/maps/6iAmtY3fnEXSjj1Q8 . Nice job, KCMO! Now, in fairness, MoDOT does a better job with the ones closer to St. Louis: https://goo.gl/maps/vk67STYDF5mHuJaP7 . How about Illinois? https://goo.gl/maps/r97K5hFjzG5G4ws9A , https://goo.gl/maps/6nJ1ReoSCUfNbg737 . Since that's a construction zone, I'll just say, I hope that isn't the final draft. So, let's see a couple of others on an Illinois state highway: https://goo.gl/maps/3PNmT1L6K6FyCBeG6 , https://goo.gl/maps/rKM5Ce1fxyLpDnLA9 . Um, do those even have any signs at all?
So, all of the above is what I mean by "pertinent information." New Jersey does what a lot of other states fail to do. And it's not just states outside of the northeast. Try following US 1 through Rhode Island: https://goo.gl/maps/adpyuZzAEfcozkyMA , https://goo.gl/maps/uLdNhBF9KrHnAz4D8 . I mean, come on, it's US
One!