What are some of the most outdated cloverleaf interchanges out there?
It doesn't have to be a full cloverleaf, any loop ramp that carries high volumes can qualify.
Rochester has been blessed with very few cloverleafs at freeway junctions.The five highest-volume interchanges (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/43.2064393,-77.6762474/43.1566944,-77.6819075/43.1100887,-77.5991413/43.143322,-77.5461464/43.1968901,-77.5470228/@43.1549385,-77.6807014,11.38z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0) have a combined total of only one loop ramp. Suffice to say loop ramps carrying high volumes are rare.
Buffalo, on the other hand (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9193184,-78.7699899,14.13z)...
Minneapolis has some bad ones, too (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8608748,-93.2737027,14.83z)...
The I-74 cloverleaf with US-150/IL-1 in the Danville, Illinois area is quite tight, with the loop ramp from I-74 WB to US-150 EB/IL-1 SB having an AADT of 3,050. Replacing the entire cloverleaf with an SPUI would probably be better than replacing the northwestern loop ramp with a flyover, although there aren't any actual plans that I know of to modify the I-74 exit to US-150/IL-1 in any way. The short stretch of I-74 in the Danville area between US-150/IL-1 and the Bowman Avenue exit is used quite a bit by Danville Area Community College students who live south of Danville, as US-136 has an at-grade railroad crossing near a grain mill in downtown Danville, and trains often cross US-136 there at very low speed.
The I-74/I-57 cloverleaf in the northwestern outskirts of Champaign, Illinois is far worse...the only one of the four loop ramps with an AADT of less than 1,000 is the southern loop ramp (I-74 EB to I-57 NB), and the northern loop ramp (I-74 WB to I-57 SB) has an AADT of 5,700, which is very high for a single-lane tight loop. There is a proposal to completely overhaul the I-74/I-57 interchange, and a proposed design (artist rendering here (http://www.idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/IDOT-Projects/District-5/Interstate-57-&-Interstate-74/Proposed%20rendering%202015%2004-02.jpg), due north is towards the top-left corner of the rendering) would turn the interchange into a cloverstack by replacing the southern and northern loop ramps with flyovers.
A bizarre fact about the I-74 cloverleafs in east-central Illinois is that the Danville cloverleaf with US-150/IL-1 has collector/distributor lanes on I-74, but the I-74/I-57 cloverleaf in the Champaign area doesn't have collector/distributor lanes on either I-74 or I-57!
How are busy cloverleaves "outdated"?
I-495 (MA) has cloverleaves with I-93, MA 2, I-290 (almost), I-95 (southern crossing), and MA 24.
I-95/MA 128 has cloverleaves with MA 2 and I-93 (northern crossing).
I-75/M-59 cloverleaf outside Detroit:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6414421,-83.2388169,910m/data=!3m1!1e3
There is currently an I-75 widening project taking place through Oakland County but the limits end just south of the cloverleaf (meaning the current cloverleaf interchange will likely remain for some time).
I-265's cloverleaf with I-64.
Quote from: 1 on April 02, 2018, 11:28:32 AM
How are busy cloverleaves "outdated"?
Because some of them are over-capacity and a nightmare to use. See: the I-35W/494 one in the OP.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 02, 2018, 12:55:17 PM
Quote from: 1 on April 02, 2018, 11:28:32 AM
How are busy cloverleaves "outdated"?
Because some of them are over-capacity and a nightmare to use. See: the I-35W/494 one in the OP.
Exactly. Cloverleaves are only useful in rural areas anymore.
NJ 70/I-295 interchange stands out right away. It's particularly bad where the movement from I-295 North to NJ 70 East merges with the NJ 70's right lane. The resulting merged lane then becomes the exit ramp from NJ 70 to I-295 South. It can be hell when there is congestion in the area (which is often), but most regular drivers on NJ 70 have learned to let traffic entering 70 from 295 merge by only using the left lane there.
As has been mentioned on other threads, the cloverleaf loop ramp that carries mainline EB I-80 from the Borman Expressway to the Indiana Toll Road is high volume, low speed, and obsolete. In addition, after completing the loop the traffic must weave with WB traffic proceeding from the Borman to the ITR.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5882926,-87.231369,16.25z?hl=en&authuser=0
The CT 2/I-395 partial cloverleaf.
The Baltimore-Washington Parkway's cloverleaf interchanges with the Capital Beltway and Baltimore Beltway are wayyy overdue for an upgrade.
I-395 and Duke Street (VA-236) in Alexandria. It's a partial cloverleaf because eastbound 236 to northbound 395 uses a flyover, but the southbound side of 395 has the cloverleaf weave area adjacent to the right lane (no C/D roadway) and it's badly overburdened, and not helped by a lane drop just north of the weave area.
https://goo.gl/maps/ANXjmfrpK3Q2
There are plenty more cloverleafs on Route 128 besides Routes 2 and 93, which can help slow traffic significantly. A few have been modified or removed, such as the one at Route 9 which was modified. There are plans to replace the 93/128 cloverleaf (which is sometimes just referred to as the cloverleaf). Mass has plenty of cloverleafs all over the place.
Eastbound M-14 to northbound I-275 in Plymouth MI almost always has a line of vehicles.
A few more from IL...
I-290/IL 53 & I-90/Jane Addams Tollway in Schaumburg
I-55 & I-80 in Joliet
I-74/I-280 and I-80 in the Quad Cities, where Thru Traffic on 74 and 80 use Cloverleaves
And not full Cloverleafs, but busy Loops
I-294/Tri-State North to I-55 South
I-294/Tri-State North to I-290 West - ISTHA does have a plan to fix this one
In Washington, the highest volume cloverleaf would almost certainly be the 167/405 cloverleaf. There's an overpass for one of the movements, but the movement is still a loop, and the interchange is still very recognisable as a cloverleaf. At all times of day (even at 2 am), the southbound to southbound cloverleaf (the one with the overpass) backs up well before the interchange. Some directional ramps for the HOV lanes should help improve things next year:
https://goo.gl/VZy5bL
(https://i.imgur.com/bST4XBz.png)
US-15/501 and NC-147 in Durham NC.
https://goo.gl/maps/V3xcTP4d43z (https://goo.gl/maps/V3xcTP4d43z)
There aren't many cloverleaf interchanges left in Georgia anymore. I can only think of four in the whole state that have three or more loop ramps: I-285/GA 166, I-185/US 80, I-185/US 27/280, and I-16/I-95. I wouldn't really call any of those particularly high-volume.
I-94/US-23 near Ann Arbor (both directions of US-23 and EB I-94 have C/D roads, but some of the ramps still back up)
I-96/US-31 near Muskegon (doesn't help that one of the busiest movements uses a loop ramp with extremely short merges on both ends)
Quote from: 1 on April 02, 2018, 11:28:32 AM
How are busy cloverleaves "outdated"?
I-495 (MA) has cloverleaves with I-93, MA 2, I-290 (almost), I-95 (southern crossing), and MA 24.
I-95/MA 128 has cloverleaves with MA 2 and I-93 (northern crossing).
One report I read stated that the I-93-I-95/MA 128 cloverleaf in Woburn/Reading handles as much as 200,000 vehicles per day. It's probably the busiest of the Massachusetts cloverleaf interchanges.
One reason why MA went with cloverleaf interchange designs for many of its highway-to-highway crossings when they were initially built was due to construction cost & space (flyover ramps require more real estate). Not to mention the fact that nobody back then anticipated the traffic volumes these interchanges are encountering today.
First true cloverleaf that came to mind was LIE (I-495) and the Grand Central Parkway in Queens. Two of the busiest roads in the state and it's a standard cloverleaf. SOB (NY 135)/Southern State is another.
Both places where I-270 and OH SR 161 cross were cloverleafs originally. Those were a mess. Thankfully, both have flyovers now and the east one is braided with the interchange to the east. I-270 and US 23 on the north side was a cloverleaf, backups in that area were horrendous when I lived in Columbus.
In Northern CA, the most obvious outdated/underpowered cloverleaf is San Jose's own US 101/I-880, which still features a surface-street jaunt from SB 880 to NB (compass WNW at that point) 101. But there are others: I-80/I-780 in Vallejo, despite C/D roadways along I-80, still backs up into the main lanes. Originally that was the north end of I-680; that route was detoured onto the then-CA 21 freeway (Benicia-Cordelia) back in 1974, and the renumbered I-780 didn't see a lot of traffic until dense suburban development occurred along its length starting in the late '80's; now, it's a typical Bay Area mess, and that spills over onto I-80. Actually, I-680 hosts a number of now-packed cloverleaves; the I-580/I-680 Dublin interchange -- albeit improved some time ago with a direct SB 680-EB 580 ramp -- still has 3 remaining 25 mph loops, including the very heavily used WB 580-SB 680 one (part of the Central Valley-Silicon Valley commute corridor) -- major modification is long overdue. And I-680/CA 4 remains, with minor changes, as it was when opened circa 1963-64, although IIRC there was a local bond issue in Contra Costa County a few years back specifically addressing funding for revamping of that interchange. Finally -- I-5/I-80 (with silent CA 99 overlapping I-5) in the Natomas area north of central Sacramento -- a cloverleaf with CD lanes and a single direct (WB 80>SB 5) ramp deployed in "turbine" fashion. It was adequate until about a decade ago, when suburban development north of town overwhelmed the design capacity -- again, overdue for reconfiguration.
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 02, 2018, 01:06:40 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 02, 2018, 12:55:17 PM
Quote from: 1 on April 02, 2018, 11:28:32 AM
How are busy cloverleaves "outdated"?
Because some of them are over-capacity and a nightmare to use. See: the I-35W/494 one in the OP.
Exactly. Cloverleaves are only useful in rural areas anymore.
That's why ArDOT needs to phase the ones that are a part of the Big Rock Interchange out.
iPhone
Quote from: sparker on April 03, 2018, 03:54:49 PM
In Northern CA, the most obvious outdated/underpowered cloverleaf is San Jose's own US 101/I-880, which still features a surface-street jaunt from SB 880 to NB (compass WNW at that point) 101. But there are others: I-80/I-780 in Vallejo, despite C/D roadways along I-80, still backs up into the main lanes. Originally that was the north end of I-680; that route was detoured onto the then-CA 21 freeway (Benicia-Cordelia) back in 1974, and the renumbered I-780 didn't see a lot of traffic until dense suburban development occurred along its length starting in the late '80's; now, it's a typical Bay Area mess, and that spills over onto I-80. Actually, I-680 hosts a number of now-packed cloverleaves; the I-580/I-680 Dublin interchange -- albeit improved some time ago with a direct SB 680-EB 580 ramp -- still has 3 remaining 25 mph loops, including the very heavily used WB 580-SB 680 one (part of the Central Valley-Silicon Valley commute corridor) -- major modification is long overdue. And I-680/CA 4 remains, with minor changes, as it was when opened circa 1963-64, although IIRC there was a local bond issue in Contra Costa County a few years back specifically addressing funding for revamping of that interchange. Finally -- I-5/I-80 (with silent CA 99 overlapping I-5) in the Natomas area north of central Sacramento -- a cloverleaf with CD lanes and a single direct (WB 80>SB 5) ramp deployed in "turbine" fashion. It was adequate until about a decade ago, when suburban development north of town overwhelmed the design capacity -- again, overdue for reconfiguration.
Why didn't they complete the us 101/i-808 movement? because it would have made sense ?
I-55 in Memphis requires going through a cloverleaf to stay on the mainline.
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 03, 2018, 07:33:56 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 03, 2018, 03:54:49 PM
In Northern CA, the most obvious outdated/underpowered cloverleaf is San Jose's own US 101/I-880, which still features a surface-street jaunt from SB 880 to NB (compass WNW at that point) 101. But there are others: I-80/I-780 in Vallejo, despite C/D roadways along I-80, still backs up into the main lanes. Originally that was the north end of I-680; that route was detoured onto the then-CA 21 freeway (Benicia-Cordelia) back in 1974, and the renumbered I-780 didn't see a lot of traffic until dense suburban development occurred along its length starting in the late '80's; now, it's a typical Bay Area mess, and that spills over onto I-80. Actually, I-680 hosts a number of now-packed cloverleaves; the I-580/I-680 Dublin interchange -- albeit improved some time ago with a direct SB 680-EB 580 ramp -- still has 3 remaining 25 mph loops, including the very heavily used WB 580-SB 680 one (part of the Central Valley-Silicon Valley commute corridor) -- major modification is long overdue. And I-680/CA 4 remains, with minor changes, as it was when opened circa 1963-64, although IIRC there was a local bond issue in Contra Costa County a few years back specifically addressing funding for revamping of that interchange. Finally -- I-5/I-80 (with silent CA 99 overlapping I-5) in the Natomas area north of central Sacramento -- a cloverleaf with CD lanes and a single direct (WB 80>SB 5) ramp deployed in "turbine" fashion. It was adequate until about a decade ago, when suburban development north of town overwhelmed the design capacity -- again, overdue for reconfiguration.
Why didn't they complete the us 101/i-808 movement? because it would have made sense ?
The lore surrounding the construction of the interchange has it that the property where the direct 880S (then CA 17/I-680) to 101N ramp would have been was the site of a major appliance warehouse whose owner had strong political connections and didn't want to move his business (and who had threatened to fight eminent domain proceedings tooth & nail). The Division of Highways figured that SB 17 traffic going to Sunnyvale or Mountain View, northward via US 101, would simply use SSR 9 (now CA 237) from Milpitas over to Sunnyvale in any case, and that a direct ramp wasn't worth the deployment trouble. So it was decided to simply use a half-diamond ramp to the old highway, Bayshore Blvd., and then require a right turn and about three blocks' worth of street travel before the ramp to NB 101 was reached. That would have been easy if not for the SP industrial spur parallel to Bayshore and crossing it about halfway between the SSR 17 offramp and the US 101 on-ramp; the tracks are still there but only sporadically used today, while back in the '60's it served several major warehouses and a lumber yard -- and trains regularly blocked the freeway-to-freeway movement. The appliance warehouse is no more; the property is occupied by the regional Coca-Cola distributor (who isn't going anywhere either!).
there are a lot of bad cloverleaves in california. i-10 has some bizarre ones in LA, I call them squashed cloverleaves.
There aren't very many high-volume cloverleafs in Pennsylvania. Probably the worst remaining complete cloverleaf is the I-283/PA 283 interchange near Harrisburg. Many of the other worst cloverleafs were modified relatively recently to no longer be complete cloverleafs, like I-376 Exit 60 west of Pittsburgh, PA 581/US 15 near Harrisburg, etc.
VDOT sure seems to have always loved cloverleafs, though, so much so that every interchange on I-295 on the north and east sides of Richmond between I-64 and VA 895 is either a full cloverleaf or mostly a cloverleaf (the I-95 interchange, for example). There are only three along the entire interstate that aren't any form of cloverleaf, nor intended to be one: VA 895, SR 618, and the southern end at I-95. Other suburban VA expressways in the DC and Norfolk area are no exception.
Seoul has a murder's row of three horrible cloverleafs. The southernmost one is next to one of the busiest Costcos in the world. The middle one is pretty central Gangnam and near a major bus terminal, and the northernmost is right by the busiest bus terminal in the country, where frequent buses from most every large city in Korea are forced to cross 4 lanes of traffic to use the loop.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180404/3c5407eda855b68178ac5a96e53721c2.jpg)
Why are South Korea's map colors so much darker than anywhere else on google maps? I've always thought that was weird. When you zoom out, you see this box where everything inside is darker, and everything else around it is the standard google maps colors. anyone else notice this effect? https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4784402,129.2584031,7.21z
south korea appears to be the only place i've seen this affect happen.
Quote from: webny99 on April 02, 2018, 10:16:41 AM
Buffalo, on the other hand (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9193184,-78.7699899,14.13z)...
I didn't even have to click on that to know what it is. There's so few cloverleafs in the area to begin with. That one in particular snarls the entire area.
My two least favorites in Southeast PA are:
PA309 at Tillman Blvd in Allentown (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5897216,-75.5543378,531m/data=!3m1!1e3)
US422 at PA100 south of Pottstown (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.239606,-75.6595051,316m/data=!3m1!1e3)
Each is difficult to safely merge from and each has decent volumes of traffic.
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 04, 2018, 12:36:04 PM
Why are South Korea's map colors so much darker than anywhere else on google maps? I've always thought that was weird. When you zoom out, you see this box where everything inside is darker, and everything else around it is the standard google maps colors. anyone else notice this effect? https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4784402,129.2584031,7.21z
south korea appears to be the only place i've seen this affect happen.
I believe the South Korean government requests that foreign mapping services minimise the level of detail for national security purposes.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 04, 2018, 06:48:09 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 04, 2018, 12:36:04 PM
Why are South Korea's map colors so much darker than anywhere else on google maps? I've always thought that was weird. When you zoom out, you see this box where everything inside is darker, and everything else around it is the standard google maps colors. anyone else notice this effect? https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4784402,129.2584031,7.21z
south korea appears to be the only place i've seen this affect happen.
I believe the South Korean government requests that foreign mapping services minimise the level of detail for national security purposes.
ahh that makes sense, i thought my computer was broken!
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 03, 2018, 11:29:27 PM
VDOT sure seems to have always loved cloverleafs, though, so much so that every interchange on I-295 on the north and east sides of Richmond between I-64 and VA 895 is either a full cloverleaf or mostly a cloverleaf (the I-95 interchange, for example). There are only three along the entire interstate that aren't any form of cloverleaf, nor intended to be one: VA 895, SR 618, and the southern end at I-95.
The I-295 cloverleafs are large and ample designs, the route was basically built in the "Interstate 3.0 era", with long auxiliary lanes between the loops.
The new VA-618 Meadowville Road interchange is built with space for future loop ramps which would make it a full cloverleaf.
Several on VA's I-495, which were rebuilt within the past 5 years:
Chain Bridge Rd; VA-123 (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9212376,-77.2171877,733m/data=!3m1!1e3). South of that, the US-50 interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8656696,-77.2198958,802m/data=!3m1!1e3) is a cloverleaf at heart, with lots of CD lanes and braided ramps. Next is a standard Cloverleaf at VA-236 (Little River Turnpike). Along this stretch, VA-7 (Leesburg Pike) and VA-620 (Braddock Road) are 7 ramp Parclos with an Express Lane ramp thrown in.
Headed out I-66, VA-243 (Nutley Rd; https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8785809,-77.2672835,579m/data=!3m1!1e3) and VA-286 (Fairfax Co Pkwy) are each cloverleafs with CD lanes.
Along MD's I-95/495, the MD-414 (Silver Hill Rd) interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8087815,-76.9707032,803m/data=!3m1!1e3) is a full cloverleaf, as are MD-4 (Pennsylvania Ave) and the afore-mentioned BW Pkwy. On MD's I-495, MD-650 (New Hampshire Ave; https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0190248,-76.9759189,577m/data=!3m1!1e3) isn't a true cloverleaf, but the alternative for the NE corner loop ramp does manage to provide the worst aspect of a cloverleaf: entering traffic weaving with exiting traffic. 2 others along the top of the Beltway are close: MD-97 (Georgia Ave) and US-29 (Columbia Pike).
There's a cloverleaf at the heart of the US-50/BW Parkway interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9194096,-76.9323051,961m/data=!3m1!1e3), with ramps to MD-201 (Kenilworth Ave) added. I-95 has cloverleafs at MD-212 (with a northbound CD lane) and MD-216; there are a few along the BW Pkwy/MD-295.
These are all close enough to the DC/Baltimore metropolitan area that they certainly count as "High-Volume".
I-70/I-81 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6167615,-77.7844509,1348m/data=!3m1!1e3) is a high volume cloverleaf with full CD lanes. A few other cloverleafs are in Frederick or elsewhere along I-70, but I'm not sure if they'd count as 'High-Volume".
As mentioned in the OP, Minneapolis seems to have a ton of cloverleafs (almost every interchange). I'm not sure if any of them are over capacity, but I would guess at least a few.
I remember when I flew into Minneapolis last year, I was staggered by all of the cloverleafs I could see out the window.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 05, 2018, 01:25:33 AM
As mentioned in the OP, Minneapolis seems to have a ton of cloverleafs (almost every interchange). I'm not sure if any of them are over capacity, but I would guess at least a few.
I remember when I flew into Minneapolis last year, I was staggered by all of the cloverleafs I could see out the window.
I-35W and I-494 is by far the worst interchange in the state. No question. Trying to go from NB I-35W to WB I-494 is a nightmare all day, every day, and sadly, there's no indication it will be fixed in the immediate future. Most proposed fixes are just too expensive and/or lack the political will to enact.
I-35W and I-694 is also rather terrible, but its awfulness is lessened by the existence of the US-10 shortcut to the northeast.
And... yeah. There's lots of others, and they all vary from "this is okay" to "ugh..." I'm not sure how the design became so popular in the Twin Cities.
CD roadways are a way for high-volume cloverleaf interchanges to work quite well. The weaving takes place on the CD roadway which has lower speeds and lower volumes than the freeway mainline roadway.
[per mention of I-495/US-50 and I-66/VA-243 interchanges]
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 05, 2018, 01:51:24 AM
I'm not sure how the design became so popular in the Twin Cities.
Well, they're cheaper than ones with nice flyovers, so you can build more system interchanges for the same price?
Also concerns about the level of salt and sand necessary to keep flyovers clear in the winter in a state where they already spend a large part of their budget on winter snow removal.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 04, 2018, 06:48:09 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 04, 2018, 12:36:04 PM
Why are South Korea's map colors so much darker than anywhere else on google maps? I've always thought that was weird. When you zoom out, you see this box where everything inside is darker, and everything else around it is the standard google maps colors. anyone else notice this effect? https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4784402,129.2584031,7.21z
south korea appears to be the only place i've seen this affect happen.
I believe the South Korean government requests that foreign mapping services minimise the level of detail for national security purposes.
This is true, at least on paper. Google Maps is really defanged here, and a lot of features (like street view) are not available. The claim is for security reasons, but really it's more protectionism. GSV was more or less complete here when the government decided to kick out google and use essentially the same tech for domestic mapping services. Buses and subway lines work to some degree on google maps in Seoul, but it's mainly useless in other parts of the country. The local KakaoMap app is actually pretty cool and shows street view for mountain trails and subway stations, but the downside (at least for us expats) is that you can only search in Korean, and my Korean typing skills suck.
Quote from: froggie on April 05, 2018, 09:49:34 AM
Also concerns about the level of salt and sand necessary to keep flyovers clear in the winter in a state where they already spend a large part of their budget on winter snow removal.
Which is probably a reason cloverleafs and similar designs are so common in the Northeast still. I'd be willing to bet that most of the damage to bridges in these parts comes from salt, too.
Quote from: cl94 on April 05, 2018, 01:25:40 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 05, 2018, 09:49:34 AM
Also concerns about the level of salt and sand necessary to keep flyovers clear in the winter in a state where they already spend a large part of their budget on winter snow removal.
Which is probably a reason cloverleafs and similar designs are so common in the Northeast still. I'd be willing to bet that most of the damage to bridges in these parts comes from salt, too.
what the hell does salt have to do with it? they salt cloverleaves too.
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 05, 2018, 01:28:01 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 05, 2018, 01:25:40 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 05, 2018, 09:49:34 AM
Also concerns about the level of salt and sand necessary to keep flyovers clear in the winter in a state where they already spend a large part of their budget on winter snow removal.
Which is probably a reason cloverleafs and similar designs are so common in the Northeast still. I'd be willing to bet that most of the damage to bridges in these parts comes from salt, too.
what the hell does salt have to do with it? they salt cloverleaves too.
Number of bridges. Temperature of bridge decks changes faster than the temperature of pavement on solid ground, so freezing is more of a concern.
Quote from: cl94 on April 05, 2018, 01:33:40 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 05, 2018, 01:28:01 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 05, 2018, 01:25:40 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 05, 2018, 09:49:34 AM
Also concerns about the level of salt and sand necessary to keep flyovers clear in the winter in a state where they already spend a large part of their budget on winter snow removal.
Which is probably a reason cloverleafs and similar designs are so common in the Northeast still. I'd be willing to bet that most of the damage to bridges in these parts comes from salt, too.
what the hell does salt have to do with it? they salt cloverleaves too.
Number of bridges. Temperature of bridge decks changes faster than the temperature of pavement on solid ground, so freezing is more of a concern.
Wouldn't it be possible to install some sort of in-ground sprinkler or heating tube system on overpasses so that constantly salting them wouldn't be necessary? I seem to recall this being a thing in Japan, but I'm not sure the tech has been utilised in the US.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 06, 2018, 09:47:06 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 05, 2018, 01:33:40 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 05, 2018, 01:28:01 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 05, 2018, 01:25:40 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 05, 2018, 09:49:34 AM
Also concerns about the level of salt and sand necessary to keep flyovers clear in the winter in a state where they already spend a large part of their budget on winter snow removal.
Which is probably a reason cloverleafs and similar designs are so common in the Northeast still. I'd be willing to bet that most of the damage to bridges in these parts comes from salt, too.
what the hell does salt have to do with it? they salt cloverleaves too.
Number of bridges. Temperature of bridge decks changes faster than the temperature of pavement on solid ground, so freezing is more of a concern.
Wouldn't it be possible to install some sort of in-ground sprinkler or heating tube system on overpasses so that constantly salting them wouldn't be necessary? I seem to recall this being a thing in Japan, but I'm not sure the tech has been utilised in the US.
Has been done in a few places where icing has presented significant issues, but it is not common due to cost.
Quote from: silverback1065what the hell does salt have to do with it? they salt cloverleaves too.
As cl94 noted, bridges freeze faster than roadways because you get airflow underneath the bridge deck. As a result, it takes a bit more salt to clear a bridge than it does an adjacent roadway. Furthermore, salt is corrosive on bridges and their decks, not to mention adjacent land come spring thaw.
Quote from: jakerootWouldn't it be possible to install some sort of in-ground sprinkler or heating tube system on overpasses so that constantly salting them wouldn't be necessary? I seem to recall this being a thing in Japan, but I'm not sure the tech has been utilised in the US.
The new I-35W bridge in Minneapolis sort of has a similar type anti-icing system. But the technology hasn't matured in the U.S. and would be expensive to retrofit.
I-70 at I-81, Hagerstown, MD.
Traffic going to Baltimore/Philadelphia from the Great Lakes collides with traffic going to Florida from the Northeast and it's all forced onto one outdated cloverleaf. This one frequently causes delays during rush hours.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6166939,-77.7883613,16z?hl=en&authuser=0
I-295 and I-195 in Trenton, NJ
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1868096,-74.7161359,15z?hl=en&authuser=0
Quote from: froggie on April 06, 2018, 10:07:25 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 06, 2018, 09:47:06 PM
Wouldn't it be possible to install some sort of in-ground sprinkler or heating tube system on overpasses so that constantly salting them wouldn't be necessary? I seem to recall this being a thing in Japan, but I'm not sure the tech has been utilised in the US.
The new I-35W bridge in Minneapolis sort of has a similar type anti-icing system. But the technology hasn't matured in the U.S. and would be expensive to retrofit.
I can certainly see why old bridges haven't been retrofitted. That's a PITA and very disruptive. But on new overpasses, I think it would more cost-effective long term given salt's corrosive nature. I guess my hope is that MnDOT will start using (and pioneering) this technology more often. After all, they can't rely on cloverleafs forever.
EDIT: I just read that the original bridge had a de-icing system that might have
contributed to corrosion. Is this true? Was this old tech?
Quote from: mrcmc888 on April 06, 2018, 10:11:26 PM
I-70 at I-81, Hagerstown, MD.
Traffic going to Baltimore/Philadelphia from the Great Lakes collides with traffic going to Florida from the Northeast and it's all forced onto one outdated cloverleaf. This one frequently causes delays during rush hours.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6166939,-77.7883613,16z?hl=en&authuser=0
I-295 and I-195 in Trenton, NJ
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1868096,-74.7161359,15z?hl=en&authuser=0
I have been traveling through the I-70/I-81 cloverleaf for nearly 40 years and I have yet to experience a bad backup there. :D
Quote from: jakeroot on April 06, 2018, 11:48:48 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 06, 2018, 10:07:25 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 06, 2018, 09:47:06 PM
Wouldn't it be possible to install some sort of in-ground sprinkler or heating tube system on overpasses so that constantly salting them wouldn't be necessary? I seem to recall this being a thing in Japan, but I'm not sure the tech has been utilised in the US.
The new I-35W bridge in Minneapolis sort of has a similar type anti-icing system. But the technology hasn't matured in the U.S. and would be expensive to retrofit.
I can certainly see why old bridges haven't been retrofitted. That's a PITA and very disruptive. But on new overpasses, I think it would more cost-effective long term given salt's corrosive nature. I guess my hope is that MnDOT will start using (and pioneering) this technology more often. After all, they can't rely on cloverleafs forever.
EDIT: I just read that the original bridge had a de-icing system that might have contributed to corrosion. Is this true? Was this old tech?
It might have, in a minor way, but the NTSB report concludes that inadequately thick gusset plates (they were not thick enough to bear the load of the original bridge, never mind the additional load added over the years), and a lack of redundancy were the main reasons that the original bridge catastrophically failed. The anti-icing systems installed on the bridge were a relatively recent addition, so it's not terribly likely that corrosion from such systems had much to do with the bridge's failure.
Quote from: Rothman on April 06, 2018, 11:54:22 PM
I have been traveling through the I-70/I-81 cloverleaf for nearly 40 years and I have yet to experience a bad backup there. :D
While it is a 1960s cloverleaf design, both highways have CD roadways that all the ramps and loops connect to. That greatly improves merging conditions over a cloverleaf without CD roadways.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 07, 2018, 12:02:24 AM
It might have, in a minor way, but the NTSB report concludes that inadequately thick gusset plates (they were not thick enough to bear the load of the original bridge, never mind the additional load added over the years), and a lack of redundancy were the main reasons that the original bridge catastrophically failed. The anti-icing systems installed on the bridge were a relatively recent addition, so it's not terribly likely that corrosion from such systems had much to do with the bridge's failure.
Combination of a design error, major increases in structural weight from a previous modification project, and heavy loads of construction equipment and material loads on the bridge the day of the collapse. Given that the alleged design error was in the original design, was it really a design error given that the original designers couldn't have been expected to design for the latter two factors above?
....
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota, was the inadequate load capacity, due to a design error by Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc., of the gusset plates at the U10 nodes, which failed under a combination of (1) substantial increases in the weight of the bridge, which resulted from previous bridge modifications, and (2) the traffic and concentrated construction loads on the bridge on the day of the collapse. Contributing to the design error was the failure of Sverdrup & Parcel's quality control procedures to ensure that the appropriate main truss gusset plate calculations were performed for the I-35W bridge and the inadequate design review by Federal and State transportation officials. Contributing to the accident was the generally accepted practice among Federal and State transportation officials of giving inadequate attention to gusset plates during inspections for conditions of distortion, such as bowing, and of excluding gusset plates in load rating analyses.
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR0803.pdf
Quote from: Beltway on April 07, 2018, 08:25:47 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 06, 2018, 11:54:22 PM
I have been traveling through the I-70/I-81 cloverleaf for nearly 40 years and I have yet to experience a bad backup there. :D
While it is a 1960s cloverleaf design, both highways have CD roadways that all the ramps and loops connect to. That greatly improves merging conditions over a cloverleaf without CD roadways.
And a lot of "no merge area" signs as well. Weren't there supposed to be some big improvements to that interchange a few years ago? Last time I remember being through there was in 2015, and I don't recall that any significant work had been done.
My most frequent movements through that interchange have been 70 east to 81 north (requires use of a loop ramp) and 81 south to 70 west (no loop).
Quote from: sparker on April 03, 2018, 09:30:02 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on April 03, 2018, 07:33:56 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 03, 2018, 03:54:49 PM
In Northern CA, the most obvious outdated/underpowered cloverleaf is San Jose's own US 101/I-880, which still features a surface-street jaunt from SB 880 to NB (compass WNW at that point) 101. But there are others: I-80/I-780 in Vallejo, despite C/D roadways along I-80, still backs up into the main lanes. Originally that was the north end of I-680; that route was detoured onto the then-CA 21 freeway (Benicia-Cordelia) back in 1974, and the renumbered I-780 didn't see a lot of traffic until dense suburban development occurred along its length starting in the late '80's; now, it's a typical Bay Area mess, and that spills over onto I-80. Actually, I-680 hosts a number of now-packed cloverleaves; the I-580/I-680 Dublin interchange -- albeit improved some time ago with a direct SB 680-EB 580 ramp -- still has 3 remaining 25 mph loops, including the very heavily used WB 580-SB 680 one (part of the Central Valley-Silicon Valley commute corridor) -- major modification is long overdue. And I-680/CA 4 remains, with minor changes, as it was when opened circa 1963-64, although IIRC there was a local bond issue in Contra Costa County a few years back specifically addressing funding for revamping of that interchange. Finally -- I-5/I-80 (with silent CA 99 overlapping I-5) in the Natomas area north of central Sacramento -- a cloverleaf with CD lanes and a single direct (WB 80>SB 5) ramp deployed in "turbine" fashion. It was adequate until about a decade ago, when suburban development north of town overwhelmed the design capacity -- again, overdue for reconfiguration.
Why didn't they complete the us 101/i-808 movement? because it would have made sense ?
The lore surrounding the construction of the interchange has it that the property where the direct 880S (then CA 17/I-680) to 101N ramp would have been was the site of a major appliance warehouse whose owner had strong political connections and didn't want to move his business (and who had threatened to fight eminent domain proceedings tooth & nail). The Division of Highways figured that SB 17 traffic going to Sunnyvale or Mountain View, northward via US 101, would simply use SSR 9 (now CA 237) from Milpitas over to Sunnyvale in any case, and that a direct ramp wasn't worth the deployment trouble. So it was decided to simply use a half-diamond ramp to the old highway, Bayshore Blvd., and then require a right turn and about three blocks' worth of street travel before the ramp to NB 101 was reached. That would have been easy if not for the SP industrial spur parallel to Bayshore and crossing it about halfway between the SSR 17 offramp and the US 101 on-ramp; the tracks are still there but only sporadically used today, while back in the '60's it served several major warehouses and a lumber yard -- and trains regularly blocked the freeway-to-freeway movement. The appliance warehouse is no more; the property is occupied by the regional Coca-Cola distributor (who isn't going anywhere either!).
Maybe, but the south 880 to north 101 and vice versa movements would be very low volume anyway, because it's a U-turn and most traffic needed to do that would have used 237 just a little farther north. That's only a minor part of what's wrong -- the cloverleaf has short weaves with too much weaving traffic, the north 101 to north 880 (and vice versa) movements should have at least one more lane, the volume would easily justify a turbine instead of a cloverleaf.
The real estate in the immediate area would certainly cost money for takings, however by San Jose standards it's not all that expensive. I recall car junkyards, car servicing businesses, as well as the Coke distributor. It's not like it was a cathedral or a hospital or a landmarked building; they're places that would accept a check for market value and moving expenses and go with it.
This is just leftover highway 17 that was built for San Jose when it was a farm town among orchards in the 1950s and hasn't been rebuilt yet. Most of 17 got widened and the bad interchanges rebuilt when it was changed to I-880 in the 1980s, but this one and a few miles in Oakland were missed.
The cloverleaf interchanges on VA 150 at VA 10 (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4513927,-77.4864369,1046m/data=!3m1!1e3) and US 1/301 (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4441479,-77.4369463,1071m/data=!3m1!1e3) are excessively tight considering the high traffic volume in those areas. The latter needs some kind of reconfiguration considering it's just a couple thousand feet away from the complex interchange with I-95 and VA 895 - the loop ramps have an advisory speed of 15mph - but I'm sure that's impossible at this point.
Sure, VA 150 wasn't built to interstate standards (the RIRO intersections really suck when a truck decides to try to use them), but these interchanges are pretty rough in any case.
Also, don't get me started on the VA 288/US 360 (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4207025,-77.628171,1495m/data=!3m1!1e3) interchange, which is a relic from when VA 288 began/ended here at one point. There's talk of reconfiguring this interchange to eliminate the pseudo-C/D setup in the northbound lanes and extend SR 2055/Commonwealth Centre Parkway to SR 654/Bailey Bridge Road, which would be quite nice because I hate having to risk my life exiting onto US 360 WB from VA 288 NB every day. :)
Quote from: hbelkins on April 07, 2018, 07:00:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 07, 2018, 08:25:47 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 06, 2018, 11:54:22 PM
I have been traveling through the I-70/I-81 cloverleaf for nearly 40 years and I have yet to experience a bad backup there. :D
While it is a 1960s cloverleaf design, both highways have CD roadways that all the ramps and loops connect to. That greatly improves merging conditions over a cloverleaf without CD roadways.
And a lot of "no merge area" signs as well. Weren't there supposed to be some big improvements to that interchange a few years ago? Last time I remember being through there was in 2015, and I don't recall that any significant work had been done.
My most frequent movements through that interchange have been 70 east to 81 north (requires use of a loop ramp) and 81 south to 70 west (no loop).
There was significant work done ca. 2012, but it only covered one leg of the interchange....one of the legs you actually mention using. The merge lanes onto westbound I-70 were lengthened, as were the exit lanes on eastbound I-70.
I think the I-20/I-26 interchange in Columbia, South Carolina may be a contender for this thread.
I am not certain of the exact traffic counts on these interstates at the interchange, but I would imagine that they are pretty high, because these are two significant interstates (at least for the state of South Carolina), and this interchange is very close to the downtown of the city of Columbia (which is somewhat large). This interchange is obviously a cloverleaf one. I would second other people saying that this interchange probably needs some work (which I believe I've heard before here on the forum), as it is quite outdated.
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 09, 2018, 10:23:44 AM
Also, don't get me started on the VA 288/US 360 (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4207025,-77.628171,1495m/data=!3m1!1e3) interchange, which is a relic from when VA 288 began/ended here at one point. There's talk of reconfiguring this interchange to eliminate the pseudo-C/D setup in the northbound lanes and extend SR 2055/Commonwealth Centre Parkway to SR 654/Bailey Bridge Road, which would be quite nice because I hate having to risk my life exiting onto US 360 WB from VA 288 NB every day. :)
It is a design from the 1980s when the local area had almost no development. VA-288 was completed between VA-76 and I-95 in 1990. The interchange study is looking at a variety of schemes, such as the above, and/or building a semi-directional ramp from US-360 EB to VA-288 NB which would also eliminate the current loop and make the movement from VA-288 NB to US-360 WB much easier.
Quote from: Beltway on April 09, 2018, 11:20:33 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 09, 2018, 10:23:44 AM
Also, don't get me started on the VA 288/US 360 (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4207025,-77.628171,1495m/data=!3m1!1e3) interchange, which is a relic from when VA 288 began/ended here at one point. There's talk of reconfiguring this interchange to eliminate the pseudo-C/D setup in the northbound lanes and extend SR 2055/Commonwealth Centre Parkway to SR 654/Bailey Bridge Road, which would be quite nice because I hate having to risk my life exiting onto US 360 WB from VA 288 NB every day. :)
It is a design from the 1980s when the local area had almost no development. VA-288 was completed between VA-76 and I-95 in 1990. The interchange study is looking at a variety of schemes, such as the above, and/or building a semi-directional ramp from US-360 EB to VA-288 NB which would also eliminate the current loop and make the movement from VA-288 NB to US-360 WB much easier.
Ah, gotcha. Hopefully the study actually leads to a conclusion, because the movement I mentioned is pretty dicey as it currently stands.
Quote from: Beltway on April 07, 2018, 08:40:46 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 07, 2018, 12:02:24 AM
It might have, in a minor way, but the NTSB report concludes that inadequately thick gusset plates (they were not thick enough to bear the load of the original bridge, never mind the additional load added over the years), and a lack of redundancy were the main reasons that the original bridge catastrophically failed. The anti-icing systems installed on the bridge were a relatively recent addition, so it's not terribly likely that corrosion from such systems had much to do with the bridge's failure.
Combination of a design error, major increases in structural weight from a previous modification project, and heavy loads of construction equipment and material loads on the bridge the day of the collapse. Given that the alleged design error was in the original design, was it really a design error given that the original designers couldn't have been expected to design for the latter two factors above?
....
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota, was the inadequate load capacity, due to a design error by Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc., of the gusset plates at the U10 nodes, which failed under a combination of (1) substantial increases in the weight of the bridge, which resulted from previous bridge modifications, and (2) the traffic and concentrated construction loads on the bridge on the day of the collapse. Contributing to the design error was the failure of Sverdrup & Parcel’s quality control procedures to ensure that the appropriate main truss gusset plate calculations were performed for the I-35W bridge and the inadequate design review by Federal and State transportation officials. Contributing to the accident was the generally accepted practice among Federal and State transportation officials of giving inadequate attention to gusset plates during inspections for conditions of distortion, such as bowing, and of excluding gusset plates in load rating analyses.
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR0803.pdf
I have always found it interesting that the only portion of the original design records for the I-35W bridge that were never found were the gusset plate calculations. Not only that, but while the bridge was supposedly designed for the eventual eight lanes of traffic, the original loading tests only accounted for seven lanes.
Quote from: roadman on April 10, 2018, 12:00:40 PM
I have always found it interesting that the only portion of the original design records for the I-35W bridge that were never found were the gusset plate calculations. Not only that, but while the bridge was supposedly designed for the eventual eight lanes of traffic, the original loading tests only accounted for seven lanes.
That is odd, as the gusset plate calculations would be an important and vital part of the design plans for a truss span bridge. The design for 8 lanes would (should) involve forecasts for a certain level of AADT and large truck AADT, and many Interstates carry far more AADT and TAADT than was originally envisioned. After upgrades added weight to the bridge, again that is something that the original designers would not be accountable to.
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 10, 2018, 11:51:05 AM
Quote from: Beltway
It is a design from the 1980s when the local area had almost no development. VA-288 was completed between VA-76 and I-95 in 1990. The interchange study is looking at a variety of schemes, such as the above, and/or building a semi-directional ramp from US-360 EB to VA-288 NB which would also eliminate the current loop and make the movement from VA-288 NB to US-360 WB much easier.
Ah, gotcha. Hopefully the study actually leads to a conclusion, because the movement I mentioned is pretty dicey as it currently stands.
It will be expensive, the various alternatives are in the 50 to 100 million dollar range.
I-265/IN 265/I-65 in Southern Indiana is a pretty high volume interchange with three cloverleafs. NB I-65 to WB I-265 gets particularly backed up in the afternoon rush.