Different places adopt different attitudes towards whether freeways should have lots of interchanges or only a few. Toll roads generally have long distances between interchanges while free roads generally have them closer together, but with the dawn of AET there's no reason for that anymore. However, there are merits to both methods - which do you think should be generally used?
Quote from: Ketchup99 on June 03, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
with the dawn of AET there's no reason for that anymore
Please explain.
Quote from: kphoger on June 03, 2020, 05:22:41 PM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on June 03, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
with the dawn of AET there's no reason for that anymore
Please explain.
AET allows interchanges to be placed more freely since it does not require construction of toll plazas, etc.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 03, 2020, 05:28:06 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 03, 2020, 05:22:41 PM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on June 03, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
with the dawn of AET there's no reason for that anymore
Please explain.
AET allows interchanges to be placed more freely since it does not require construction of toll plazas, etc.
This. I was also thinking of the "slip ramps" on the PA Turnpike that are being built for EZPass users.
Quote from: Ketchup99 on June 03, 2020, 05:40:59 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 03, 2020, 05:28:06 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 03, 2020, 05:22:41 PM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on June 03, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
with the dawn of AET there's no reason for that anymore
Please explain.
AET allows interchanges to be placed more freely since it does not require construction of toll plazas, etc.
This. I was also thinking of the "slip ramps" on the PA Turnpike that are being built for EZPass users.
However, there's still a potential reason for fewer, more spread out interchanges on toll roads. It has been proven that fewer exits increases revenue. (This is something I have disagreed with in previous threads, and am still not entirely convinced of, but putting that aside for now...)
Quote from: webny99 on June 03, 2020, 06:06:55 PM
However, there's still a potential reason for fewer, more spread out interchanges on toll roads. It has been proven that fewer exits increases revenue. (This is something I have disagreed with in previous threads, and am still not entirely convinced of, but putting that aside for now...)
I assume this is because the minimum toll is higher if the interchanges are further apart. Those who 'junction hop' by leaving at the next interchange will pay more because they have to travel further. However I would have thought those doing such a thing would use a parallel free road than pay a toll for such a short distance.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 03, 2020, 05:28:06 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 03, 2020, 05:22:41 PM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on June 03, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
with the dawn of AET there's no reason for that anymore
Please explain.
AET allows interchanges to be placed more freely since it does not require construction of toll plazas, etc.
But more interchanges still require the construction of more gantries, right?
Quote from: kphoger on June 04, 2020, 10:23:09 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 03, 2020, 05:28:06 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 03, 2020, 05:22:41 PM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on June 03, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
with the dawn of AET there's no reason for that anymore
Please explain.
AET allows interchanges to be placed more freely since it does not require construction of toll plazas, etc.
But more interchanges still require the construction of more gantries, right?
It's cheaper than building a new toll plaza.
Quote from: Ben114 on June 04, 2020, 10:29:47 AM
Quote from: kphoger on June 04, 2020, 10:23:09 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 03, 2020, 05:28:06 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 03, 2020, 05:22:41 PM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on June 03, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
with the dawn of AET there's no reason for that anymore
Please explain.
AET allows interchanges to be placed more freely since it does not require construction of toll plazas, etc.
But more interchanges still require the construction of more gantries, right?
It's cheaper than building a new toll plaza.
Yes, but it's more than zero. My disagreement was with the phrase "no reason".
True, it's more than zero. But at this point, is it worth it for highways to have widely spaced interchanges?
Quote from: Ben114 on June 04, 2020, 10:29:47 AM
Quote from: kphoger on June 04, 2020, 10:23:09 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 03, 2020, 05:28:06 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 03, 2020, 05:22:41 PM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on June 03, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
with the dawn of AET there's no reason for that anymore
Please explain.
AET allows interchanges to be placed more freely since it does not require construction of toll plazas, etc.
But more interchanges still require the construction of more gantries, right?
It's cheaper than building a new toll plaza.
I-490 is going to all AET and likely point based like the EOE
Keep in mind that on closed systems, keeping drivers on the toll road with fewer chances to exit means they're more likely to use gas stations and restaurants at service plazas instead of exiting to eat or fuel up off the turnpike.
Quote from: Truvelo on June 03, 2020, 06:27:42 PMHowever I would have thought those doing such a thing would use a parallel free road than pay a toll for such a short distance.
When I went to Breezewood for the abandoned PA Turnpike meet a few months ago, I went up US 219 from I-68. I was staying in Breezewood, but I didn't get on the turnpike at all. I took PA 31 and US 30 from Somerset to Breezewood.
We gathered in Bedford, so I did all my traveling between Breezewood and Bedford on US 30 instead of the turnpike. And I went home via US 220, so I used US 30 to reach that route when I departed. It might have been faster to use the turnpike, but I didn't want to pay the toll.
On freeways, one interchange per mile in urbanized areas is plenty. Works flipping fine on Central in Dallas and points north. Sherman doesn't need 12 exits and that's being fixed.
Quote from: Road Hog on June 04, 2020, 08:14:23 PM
Sherman doesn't need 12 exits and that's being fixed.
That seems like abuse of frontage roads, no? Similar story on rural I-44 between Wichita Falls and the Red River/OK line, having 16 exits in 15 miles.
Quote from: Road Hog on June 04, 2020, 08:14:23 PM
On freeways, one interchange per mile in urbanized areas is plenty.
Tell that to the Alphabet Loop...
More accesses = more traffic generation (by spurring development), more traffic turbulence, and more infrastructure to maintain.
Fewer accesses = fewer locations for development so fewer vehicles on the road, smoother traffic flow*, less infrastructure to maintain
Basically, do you want to spur development with increased access, or do you want to improve highway throughput?
* - on the highway itself, on the adjacent street network they tend to be worse (all eggs in one basket sort of thing). That is until build out is substantial enough that everything is screwed. So that's more of a short-to-medium term advantage, long term it washes out.
And general disclaimer, the above applies whether the facility is toll or not. Toll just will throttle the demand so growth rates grow more slowly and trips are consolidated. But ultimately it's the same final result.
I-295 & US 130 in Gloucester County, NJ has way too many as a result of a former US highway expressway alignment turned freeway. Some could be dropped or consolidated.
I-95 from Eastover to Kenly in NC. It has too many and many could be merged into another one mega interchange. Although they are doing a consolidation in Dunn where Pope Road and US 421 will both be one interchange as a start, but more should be made.
Quote from: cbeach40 on June 05, 2020, 08:35:49 AM
More accesses = more traffic generation (by spurring development), more traffic turbulence, and more infrastructure to maintain.
Fewer accesses = fewer locations for development so fewer vehicles on the road, smoother traffic flow*, less infrastructure to maintain
Basically, do you want to spur development with increased access, or do you want to improve highway throughput?
It's also a fundamental question of whether the freeway should also serve local traffic or not. That is to say, should Old McDonald have easy access to the highway, considering it's right there by his farm, or should the freeway only really serve long-distance travelers. Texas has historically gone by the first model, but other states haven't necessarily had the same m.o.
Quote from: cbeach40 on June 05, 2020, 08:35:49 AM
More accesses = more traffic generation (by spurring development), more traffic turbulence, and more infrastructure to maintain.
Fewer accesses = fewer locations for development so fewer vehicles on the road, smoother traffic flow*, less infrastructure to maintain
Basically, do you want to spur development with increased access, or do you want to improve highway throughput?
* - on the highway itself, on the adjacent street network they tend to be worse (all eggs in one basket sort of thing). That is until build out is substantial enough that everything is screwed. So that's more of a short-to-medium term advantage, long term it washes out.
And general disclaimer, the above applies whether the facility is toll or not. Toll just will throttle the demand so growth rates grow more slowly and trips are consolidated. But ultimately it's the same final result.
and there is the local / express setups.
as well long frontages setups.
Quote from: kphoger on June 05, 2020, 12:54:03 PM
Quote from: cbeach40 on June 05, 2020, 08:35:49 AM
More accesses = more traffic generation (by spurring development), more traffic turbulence, and more infrastructure to maintain.
Fewer accesses = fewer locations for development so fewer vehicles on the road, smoother traffic flow*, less infrastructure to maintain
Basically, do you want to spur development with increased access, or do you want to improve highway throughput?
It's also a fundamental question of whether the freeway should also serve local traffic or not. That is to say, should Old McDonald have easy access to the highway, considering it's right there by his farm, or should the freeway only really serve long-distance travelers. Texas has historically gone by the first model, but other states haven't necessarily had the same m.o.
Of course Texas developed the way to have one's cake and eat it too -- the continuous frontage road with slip-ramps to and from the freeway lanes. Put as much local access as the market will bear on the frontage roads and make it easy for egress. But to address the OP's main question -- it's likely that DOT's, faced with extending a new freeway outward from a beltway or bypass, will sniff the air around the origin point and determine if what if any interchanges would be optimal for the facility in question. Ideally -- if development along the new corridor is to be avoided -- there will be a
very long space between that origin interchange and the next access to a local road -- maybe as much as 5-6 miles. The only problem is money-hungry jurisdictions in the vicinity of the new roadway who are stuck providing services to their ever-growing contingent of residents. They need sales tax revenues, so they press for more and more interchanges at which to place tax-generating services. Once
that occurs, it tends to snowball; interchanges spaced a mile or less apart and frontage roads strung together along freeways old and new; it continues until there's no practical land remaining. Freeways
can be built in such a way as to avoid excessive adjacent development -- but that requires one hell of a lot of political will to resist the entreaties of developers and their allies. That's only the beginning -- well past the inception of a new freeway, resisting the siren song of tax revenue has to be ongoing for the life of the facility.
Quote from: Ketchup99 on June 03, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Different places adopt different attitudes towards whether freeways should have lots of interchanges or only a few. Toll roads generally have long distances between interchanges while free roads generally have them closer together, but with the dawn of AET there's no reason for that anymore. However, there are merits to both methods - which do you think should be generally used?
I-95 (Connecticut Turnpike - detolled in the 1980's), at least between the New York State border and New Haven, is a road that cries out for fewer access and egress points.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 07, 2020, 11:20:32 AM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on June 03, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Different places adopt different attitudes towards whether freeways should have lots of interchanges or only a few. Toll roads generally have long distances between interchanges while free roads generally have them closer together, but with the dawn of AET there's no reason for that anymore. However, there are merits to both methods - which do you think should be generally used?
I-95 (Connecticut Turnpike - detolled in the 1980's), at least between the New York State border and New Haven, is a road that cries out for fewer access and egress points.
It's likely that when the CT Turnpike was being planned & developed in the early/mid 1950's, the highway department and/or toll authority were attempting to juggle the requirements of commuter traffic in the SW corner of the state (particularly as a number of those commuters had the clout to make very pointed phone calls to decision-makers) and through/commercial traffic then clogging US 1. Providing frequent interchanges was probably a way to placate the Greenwich to Darien contingent (let 'em get on/off as close as they can to where they live) -- but likely at considerable expense, as toll collection facilities had to be installed at each of those. These days, arguably most of those commuters have shifted to Metro-North simply to avoid the hassle (and $25-30/hour NYC parking garage rates!), so removing about a third to a half of the exits probably wouldn't draw a lot of flack.
Quote from: sparker on June 07, 2020, 02:20:28 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 07, 2020, 11:20:32 AM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on June 03, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Different places adopt different attitudes towards whether freeways should have lots of interchanges or only a few. Toll roads generally have long distances between interchanges while free roads generally have them closer together, but with the dawn of AET there's no reason for that anymore. However, there are merits to both methods - which do you think should be generally used?
I-95 (Connecticut Turnpike - detolled in the 1980's), at least between the New York State border and New Haven, is a road that cries out for fewer access and egress points.
It's likely that when the CT Turnpike was being planned & developed in the early/mid 1950's, the highway department and/or toll authority were attempting to juggle the requirements of commuter traffic in the SW corner of the state (particularly as a number of those commuters had the clout to make very pointed phone calls to decision-makers) and through/commercial traffic then clogging US 1. Providing frequent interchanges was probably a way to placate the Greenwich to Darien contingent (let 'em get on/off as close as they can to where they live) -- but likely at considerable expense, as toll collection facilities had to be installed at each of those. These days, arguably most of those commuters have shifted to Metro-North simply to avoid the hassle (and $25-30/hour NYC parking garage rates!), so removing about a third to a half of the exits probably wouldn't draw a lot of flack.
Shoulda followed 91 to Hartford.
Quote from: sparker on June 07, 2020, 02:20:28 PM
Providing frequent interchanges was probably a way to placate the Greenwich to Darien contingent (let 'em get on/off as close as they can to where they live) -- but likely at considerable expense, as toll collection facilities had to be installed at each of those.
I drove the Connecticut Turnpike when it was still a toll road. The Pike had barrier tolls not unlike the old days of the Garden State Parkway, where there was a toll barrier (both directions) every so often, and you dropped your quarter in the basket (though I believe there were always toll collectors on duty, as there were on the GSP).
Unlike the turnpikes in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, there were no toll tickets, though I think the Connecticut Turnpike was long enough that a ticket system could have been justified (with fewer interchanges).
Nor did the Connecticut Turnpike have ramp tolls - at least I cannot remember ever seeing one. But supposedly the barriers were positioned at or near town boundaries, so intra-town trips were generally free of tolls.
I think that the Mass Pike could use at least one more exit.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 07, 2020, 10:34:54 PM
I think that the Mass Pike could use at least one more exit.
Where were you thinking of? Western MA?
Quote from: webny99 on June 07, 2020, 10:39:25 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 07, 2020, 10:34:54 PM
I think that the Mass Pike could use at least one more exit.
Where were you thinking of? Western MA?
Yes, in that 23 mile gap.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 07, 2020, 10:55:35 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 07, 2020, 10:39:25 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 07, 2020, 10:34:54 PM
I think that the Mass Pike could use at least one more exit.
Where were you thinking of? Western MA?
Yes, in that 23 mile gap.
Agreed -- it would be nice to have an interchange in the Becket area in order to provide access from MassPike to the MSR 8 N-S corridor -- which would be a primary access point for traffic to and from much of western CT.
Well you guys will likely soon get your wish. MassDOT has been studying a new interchange there for a while now: https://www.mass.gov/i-90-interchange-study
The final report from March identified the two preferred locations, both in Blandford: adjacent to the service plaza, and adjacent to the maintenance facility. Both would serve Chester Rd.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on June 08, 2020, 08:51:10 AM
Well you guys will likely soon get your wish. MassDOT has been studying a new interchange there for a while now: https://www.mass.gov/i-90-interchange-study
The final report from March identified the two preferred locations, both in Blandford: adjacent to the service plaza, and adjacent to the maintenance facility. Both would serve Chester Rd.
Blandford's a bit east of being an optimal access point for MSR 8 traffic; wouldn't doubt that it was a "finalist" because of local input and/or political pressure. Still, constructing a more direct connector from MA 8 could be a possibility down the line.
Quote from: sparker on June 08, 2020, 10:47:08 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on June 08, 2020, 08:51:10 AM
Well you guys will likely soon get your wish. MassDOT has been studying a new interchange there for a while now: https://www.mass.gov/i-90-interchange-study
The final report from March identified the two preferred locations, both in Blandford: adjacent to the service plaza, and adjacent to the maintenance facility. Both would serve Chester Rd.
Blandford's a bit east of being an optimal access point for MSR 8 traffic; wouldn't doubt that it was a "finalist" because of local input and/or political pressure. Still, constructing a more direct connector from MA 8 could be a possibility down the line.
If you actually look at the study, one of the finalist locations was in Otis, easily accessible from MA 8. It was removed from consideration for a multitude of reasons:
QuoteAlternative 1 in Otis would provide the least benefit in terms of travel time savings and vehicle usage. The footprint of the interchange overlaps with environmentally sensitive areas, including open space/Article 97 land, and is adjacent to an Environmental Justice group. Due to the steep physical terrain surrounding the proposed interchange, it would be the most difficult alternative to construct and would have the highest construction cost. Moreover, Alternative 1 generated strong public opposition during the study process. Public comment is documented in Appendix B. As a result of these factors, this study has concluded that Alternative 1 be dismissed from future consideration if an interchange project is advanced.
I fail to see why route 8 should factor into this question at all though. Why would there be any significant demand for traffic turning between the pike and MA 8? I imagine anyone coming up 8 from CT looking to access the Pike would be heading west, and wouldn't really save any time vs getting on in Lee. And anyone looking to head east from Adams/North Adams would just use MA 2 or MA 9.
I'd suggest trusting the professionals who were paid to study this. I'm sure the team at AECOM knows what they're doing.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on June 09, 2020, 03:45:38 PM
I imagine anyone coming up 8 from CT looking to access the Pike would be heading west, and wouldn't really save any time vs getting on in Lee.
Otis?! Maybe
North Otis; that's considerably closer to the Pike -- actually, about a 2-wood from the Becket area suggested. And a westward movement on the Pike is essentially what I had envisioned as the major directional bent of MSR 8 traffic (anything going east would have turned off well before 8 started curving to the west). But if there were environmental red flags raised, these days that would have put the kibosh on that possibility, leaving something close to another state highway (i.e. Blandford) as an alternate choice.
Quote
I'd suggest trusting the professionals who were paid to study this. I'm sure the team at AECOM knows what they're doing.
............famous last words! IIRC, that was the catch phrase of the old '80's sitcom
Sledge Hammer: "Trust me -- I know what I'm doing!" :)
Quote from: sparker on June 09, 2020, 04:56:02 PMAnd a westward movement on the Pike is essentially what I had envisioned as the major directional bent of MSR 8 traffic (anything going east would have turned off well before 8 started curving to the west).
And that's the traffic that would see little benefit in terms of travel time savings. 8 meets 20 near the Pike only about 5 miles east of Lee. From overpass to overpass, Google Maps says that's 10 minutes via 20, and 6 minutes via the Pike. Traffic from 8 being able to get on the Pike 5 miles earlier will only save ~4 minutes off their trip.
AADT on MA 8 at the Otis/Becket town line is only about 2,600. AADT on US 20 between MA 8 and the Pike at Lee is about 4,300. Obviously only some of that traffic is getting on the Pike. Call it 1,000 vehicles from MA 8, or 2,000 total from 20 and 8 combined. You're saving 2,000 people about 4 minutes each, at a projected cost of $37.8 million. No wonder AECOM concluded the other alternatives were better.
For the record, the study projects much more generous numbers than my napkin math above, and still shows the other two alternatives as both cheaper and more useful. I just don't think enough traffic comes up 8 destined for the Pike to matter, especially since it's not too far from exit 2 in the first place.
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on June 05, 2020, 12:40:11 AM
Quote from: Road Hog on June 04, 2020, 08:14:23 PM
On freeways, one interchange per mile in urbanized areas is plenty.
Tell that to the Alphabet Loop...
Alphabet Loop? I don't think I have ever heard that. Where and what is it?
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 12, 2020, 05:54:03 PM
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on June 05, 2020, 12:40:11 AM
Quote from: Road Hog on June 04, 2020, 08:14:23 PM
On freeways, one interchange per mile in urbanized areas is plenty.
Tell that to the Alphabet Loop...
Alphabet Loop? I don't think I have ever heard that. Where and what is it?
Kansas City Downtown Loop, nicknamed the Alphabet Loop due to having exits being 2[insert letter here].
When I was a kid, some 35-40 years ago, the Northwest (Jane Addams) Tollway section of I-90 had the following exits, plazas and oasis:
Route 75, US 51 North (Free Exit)
Rockton Rd (SEB off, NWB on) (Free Exit)
-SOUTH BELOIT TOLL PLAZA-
Bus US 20 State St
I-39/US 51 South to US 20 Rockford Bypass
-BELVIDERE TOLL PLAZA-
-BELVIDERE OASIS-
Genoa Rd (now Belvidere-Genoa Rd)
-MARENGO TOLL PLAZA-
US 20 Marengo-Hampshire
Route 47 (EB on/WB off)
-ELGIN TOLL PLAZA-
Route 31
Route 25
Route 59 (EB off/WB on)
Barrington Rd (WB off/EB on)
I-290/Route 53
Arlington Hts Rd (WB off/EB on)
Elmhurst Rd (WB off/EB on)
-Des Plaines Oasis-
Route 72 Lee St (WB off/EB on)
-DEVON AVE TOLL PLAZA (WB ONLY)-
I-294/I-190 O'Hare
-RIVER RD TOLL PLAZA (EB ONLY)-
I-90 East Kennedy Expy
Rockford had 2 exits.
Belvidere had technically 2 exits but only signed for 1 exit.
Elgin had 2 exits.
You had 15 mile, 17 mile, 10 mile and 8 mile gaps along the route.
In the last 35ish years, here's the changes made in bold:
Route 75/US 51 North is now a diamond instead of a trumpet for access to WIS 67.
Rockton Rd FULL
-South Beloit Toll Plaza-
Route 173 West Lane Rd FULL
E Riverside Blvd FULL
Bus US 20 State St
I-39/US 51 South to US 20 Rockford Bypass
Irene Rd FULL
-Belvidere Toll Plaza- (WB ONLY)
-Belvidere Oasis-
Belvidere-Genoa Rd (added toll to the ramps for EB off/WB off)
Route 23 FULL
-Marego Toll Plaza- EB ONLY
Route 47 FULL (added tolls to ALL movements at this interchange)
Randall Rd FULL
-Elgin Toll Plaza-
Route 31
Route 25
Beverly Rd (WB off/EB on)
Route 59 FULL
Barrington Rd FULL
Roselle Rd FULL
Meacham Rd (WB off/WB on)
I-290/Route 53
Arlington Hts Rd FULL
Elmhurst Rd FULL
REMOVED Des Plaines Oasis
Future I-490 FULL where the Des Plaines Oasis was.
Route 72 Lee St
-Devon Toll Plaza-
I-294/I-190 O'Hare
-River Rd Toll Plaza-
Route 171 South Cumberland Ave (EB off)
I-90 East Kennedy Expy
Now the longest gap that was 17 miles is down to 11 miles between Genoa Rd and Route 23.
Rockford now has 3/4 exits depending on if you count Route 173.
Belvidere has 3 exits.
Elgin has 3 exits but Beverly Rd is sometimes considered another Elgin exit.
Traffic flows well despite the increase of interchanges since they widened I-90 to a minimum of 6 lanes along the entire tollway and 8 lanes from Elgin to O'Hare.