As my city's beltway, Ma-20, has some very close exits and entrances, the designers thought of a very peculiar way of dealing with them: double escape lanes. I've never seen a similar configuration in other roads.
https://goo.gl/maps/1e3BDyehWEs (https://goo.gl/maps/1e3BDyehWEs)
What do you think?
The jackasses who drive around here (Chicagoland) would use them to pass people on the right.
That's kinda neat, a weaving-only lane. In addition to moving the weaves away from through traffic, it gives the presumption that all drivers want to change lanes. By knowing what everyone else wants to do, you can plan your movements and speed better to fit in.
I'll give it points for creativity, but I could see the double lane change to merge or exit becoming a problem. If I had been in charge of the design, I would have tried for a C-D lane with a narrow separation from the main lanes.
The I-80/I-380/US 218 interchange around Coralville, Iowa, had an approximation of this prior to I-80 being six-laned in the area for EB I-80. From mid 2000's imagery on Google Earth I'm finding the third EB lane started around 500 feet west of the SB to EB loop ramp, and ended about 900 feet east of the EB to NB loop ramp (well before the NB to EB ramp merge).
2008 Streetview of the west end of this lane (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6942768,-91.6417604,3a,75y,103.11h,83.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snpnIMh9cNBrHpcDMVTgrnA!2e0!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en)
2008 Streetview showing EB I-80 having the brief weaving section between loops with four lanes (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6943047,-91.6385469,3a,75y,230.71h,81.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfHI1iY4n_0k3Sx0EH2Avqg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en)
2008 Streetview of east end taper for this lane (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6942802,-91.634505,3a,75y,112.79h,81.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s26nYjmT64YFaprEQMDyIDg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en)
275 EB in this Street View (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2902414,-84.442022,344m/data=!3m1!1e3) has the same thing going on. The weaving is still bad but I guess it would reduce the risk of being rear ended by through traffic.
Quote from: Revive 755 on January 04, 2017, 10:58:39 PM
I'll give it points for creativity, but I could see the double lane change to merge or exit becoming a problem. If I had been in charge of the design, I would have tried for a C-D lane with a narrow separation from the main lanes.
Isn't this setup basically just a C-D lane though (albeit rather short)? I do agree with you about the narrow buffer, or at least a solid/double-solid white line.
Quote from: Revive 755 on January 04, 2017, 10:58:39 PM
I'll give it points for creativity, but I could see the double lane change to merge or exit becoming a problem. If I had been in charge of the design, I would have tried for a C-D lane with a narrow separation from the main lanes.
I think that it's a better way too, though there's no more space for doing that because that stretch is buried in a trench, and the bridges at the left and the right don't help either. Making that would need more land consumption (and in a space-limited place like an island, most people are totally against that) or converting the steep tree filled separation between the road and the streets into a vertical retaining wall which, though expensive, I believe will become the solution when traffic grow heavier.