(https://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/pics/plan-wtf-1965.jpg)
I was reading about the proposed Long Island - Old Saybrock bridge, when the article posted this diagram and said it would have been one of the worst designs.
Why?
Here's the page, for context: https://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/licrossing.html
Here's the area in Old Saybrook (https://maps.app.goo.gl/SyGEWioaSUmuXnCz6) for reference; you can use I-95, the railroad tracks, and US 1 and Old Boston Post Road to get oriented. Let's call the bridge to Long Island "I-495".
Here are some complaints, though I'm not a traffic engineer:
* low-capacity small ramps and loops, instead of semidirectional flyovers for a system interchange
* a large chunk of land north of I-95 is isolated by the ramp system
* why is there a ramp from I-495 WB approach (from CT 9 SB) to I-95 NB? Why not stay on CT 9?
* why is there a loop ramp from I-95 NB to the 495 approach to CT 9? Why not use the existing CT 9 loop ramp?
* that upper interchange where 495 terminates at CT 9 and 154, with a tiny outlet to 154; that seems like it's from the 1940s
* existing CT 154 local traffic is severed
What would I do instead, assuming I-495 was to touch down at this location?
* semi-directional T at 95/495 (3-way), braided with I-95/CT-154 ramps.
* half-diamond for 495 bridge traffic to get to/from Old Saybrook via US 1
* if 495 traffic would overload I-95 leading to CT 9, or the 95/9 interchange, then either:
* * widen I-95 between 495 and 9, and rebuild the interchange to semi-directional T, or:
* * extend the freeway from the 95/495 interchange to provide access to/from CT 9 to the north
I always thought that I-495 would've tied directly into CT 9--IOW, have one route pick up where the other left off. Another factor (besides the opposition) that most likely played into the cancellation of this particular crossing was an environmentally sensitive marsh in the way. Even if a tunnel were considered, it still would be too impractical to build in that location anyway.