Please consider that the last time we talk about this, it was part of the topic on 2 lane freeways. Can anyone think on a 4 lane undivided freeway?
I recall that I-90 in part of Montana used to be this way.
SR 22 going east from Salem OR was undivided freeway years ago. I wonder if it still is?
Rick
Related thread: Super-4 freeways (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1807.0)
Here's CT 2 at CT 214 in Ledyard:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2F8PHwP.jpg&hash=cbbda2633784838a69bbd1cf1bee99abe9591503)
Quote from: nexus73 on October 02, 2011, 02:21:37 PM
SR 22 going east from Salem OR was undivided freeway years ago. I wonder if it still is?
Rick
It's divided now. OR 18 might still have a Super-4 segment.
There's a stretch of US 271/Texas Loop (whatever) in Paris, TX that is a super 4.
There's a short stretch of the Clinton, MO bypass that is a super 4.
Quote from: ethanman62187 on October 02, 2011, 09:46:32 AM
Can anyone think on a 4 lane undivided freeway?
By definition, a freeway is a divided highway...
Quote from: roadfro on October 03, 2011, 07:05:15 AM
Quote from: ethanman62187 on October 02, 2011, 09:46:32 AM
Can anyone think on a 4 lane undivided freeway?
By definition, a freeway is a divided highway...
Well, some freeways are not like that. Because of the cost, it has to be undivided as be first stage, than the next will be a full divided freeway.
Post Merge: October 03, 2011, 11:00:24 PM
Here's CT 2 at CT 214 in Ledyard
Speed limit please
Post Merge: December 31, 1969, 06:59:59 PM
I forgot to tell you the speed limit for those roads.
The cost of a crash or jersey barrier is minimal to other contruction costs . That is why a full acess control undivided road is very very rare. One with partial or uncontrolled access would have to be undivided at those points.
I also dont see any reason not to discuss unusual designs. This is a road geek site
Quote from: ethanman62187 on October 03, 2011, 03:12:08 PM
Quote from: roadfro on October 03, 2011, 07:05:15 AM
Quote from: ethanman62187 on October 02, 2011, 09:46:32 AM
Can anyone think on a 4 lane undivided freeway?
By definition, a freeway is a divided highway...
Well, some freeways are not like that. Because of the cost, it has to be undivided as be first stage, than the next will be a full divided freeway.
The definition of "freeway" is "a divided highway with full control of access". 'Divided' in this sense can be something like a wide median or a simple Jersey barrier. 'Full control of access' means a controlled-access highway where crossroads are separated by bridges and entrance/exit from the highway is via ramps at interchanges.
If you're talking about situations such as the picture previously posted by kurumi, that is not technically a freeway--although it is easy to see how it could be described as such. It can be more adequately described as a "Super-4 expressway".
Quote from: roadfro on October 04, 2011, 06:10:54 AM
The definition of "freeway" is "a divided highway with full control of access".
Says who? Not Caltrans: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=santa+barbara,+ca&hl=en&ll=34.451953,-119.761791&spn=0.007909,0.020599&hnear=Santa+Barbara,+California&gl=us&t=k&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=34.451622,-119.761892&panoid=jbk3XA3kOJoDjM7DmQ1leA&cbp=12,273.91,,0,7.08
there are some segments of US-101 in very far northern CA which are like this.
I-5 along the Rogue River in Oregon was like this until recently.
According to the California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 332...
Quote from: CVC Section 332"Freeway" is a highway in respect to which the owners of abutting lands have no right or easement of access to or from their abutting lands or in respect to which such owners have only limited or restricted right or easement of access.
So technically, any roadway, divided or not, that is fully access-controlled is a freeway by definition in California so the segment of CA-154 noted by NE2 is, in fact, a freeway.
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 04, 2011, 04:44:00 PM
According to the California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 332...
Quote from: CVC Section 332"Freeway" is a highway in respect to which the owners of abutting lands have no right or easement of access to or from their abutting lands or in respect to which such owners have only limited or restricted right or easement of access.
So technically, any roadway, divided or not, that is fully access-controlled is a freeway by definition in California so the segment of CA-154 noted by NE2 is, in fact, a freeway.
Technically that would also include expressways.
Quote from: NE2 on October 04, 2011, 06:19:50 PMTechnically that would also include expressways.
No, expressways have their own CVC definition...
Quote from: CVC Section 314Expressway
314. An "expressway" is a portion of highway that is part of either of the following:
(a) An expressway system established by a county under Section 941.4 of the Streets and Highways Code.
(b) An expressway system established by a county before January 1, 1989, as described in subdivision (g) of Section 941.4 of the Streets and Highways Code.
Added Sec. 17, Ch. 615, Stats. 2004. Effective January 1, 2005.
Besides the above definition, California's expressways are, for the most part, not fully access-controlled.
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 04, 2011, 07:01:26 PM
Besides the above definition, California's expressways are, for the most part, not fully access-controlled.
Fine, but any fully access-controlled expressway would meet the definition of freeway. I don't know if this was the intent of the legislature, and it really doesn't make a difference in the real world.
Who gives a shit what the legal definition of a freeway is? As a roadgeek you should be able to know what a freeway is when you see it, and know when something's borderline. It doesn't have to match a definition that some crotchety Special Senate Joint House Standing Executive Legislative Committee For Road Definitions, Smorgasbord Regulations, Boat Wrestling, and Telephone Pole Length Restrictions has published.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 04, 2011, 08:27:57 PM
As a roadgeek you should be able to know what a freeway is when you see it, and know when something's borderline.
No true roadgeek...
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 04, 2011, 08:27:57 PM
Who gives a shit what the legal definition of a freeway is? As a roadgeek you should be able to know what a freeway is when you see it, and know when something's borderline. It doesn't have to match a definition that some crotchety Special Senate Joint House Standing Executive Legislative Committee For Road Definitions, Smorgasbord Regulations, Boat Wrestling, and Telephone Pole Length Restrictions has published.
Watch it! Boat Wrestling is serious business!
Quote from: realjd on October 04, 2011, 08:44:58 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 04, 2011, 08:27:57 PM
Who gives a shit what the legal definition of a freeway is? As a roadgeek you should be able to know what a freeway is when you see it, and know when something's borderline. It doesn't have to match a definition that some crotchety Special Senate Joint House Standing Executive Legislative Committee For Road Definitions, Smorgasbord Regulations, Boat Wrestling, and Telephone Pole Length Restrictions has published.
Watch it! Boat Wrestling is serious business!
nah I think it's the Telephone Pole Length lobby you don't want to fuck with. they must be pretty important - they send me like 80 emails a day telling me how I can increase the length of my telephone pole.
Quote from: NE2 on October 04, 2011, 07:39:28 PM
Fine, but any fully access-controlled expressway would meet the definition of freeway. I don't know if this was the intent of the legislature, and it really doesn't make a difference in the real world.
Perhaps I should clarify.
Within California you will NOT find any fully access-controlled expressways because they are already classified as freeways. The term "expressway" has different meanings in different parts of the country.
QuoteAs a roadgeek you should be able to know what a freeway is when you see it
I agree with you 100% Scott. IMO, that segment of CA-154 in Santa Barbara is NOT a freeway in my book. In fact, in any undivided road should not be considered a "freeway".
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 04, 2011, 09:11:32 PM
QuoteAs a roadgeek you should be able to know what a freeway is when you see it
I agree with you 100% Scott. IMO, that segment of CA-154 in Santa Barbara is NOT a freeway in my book. In fact, in any undivided road should not be considered a "freeway".
I disagree, because - divider or not - the usage is identical. Multiple lanes in each direction, limited access. Sounds like a freeway to me.
the divider is a safety feature. it is like classifying something as not being a freeway because it lacks railings on a bridge. sure, it might not be
interstate standard, but it is still a freeway.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 04, 2011, 09:13:14 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 04, 2011, 09:11:32 PM
QuoteAs a roadgeek you should be able to know what a freeway is when you see it
I agree with you 100% Scott. IMO, that segment of CA-154 in Santa Barbara is NOT a freeway in my book. In fact, in any undivided road should not be considered a "freeway".
I disagree, because - divider or not - the usage is identical. Multiple lanes in each direction, limited access. Sounds like a freeway to me.
the divider is a safety feature. it is like classifying something as not being a freeway because it lacks railings on a bridge. sure, it might not be interstate standard, but it is still a freeway.
Are there any roads or driveways that intersect this stretch of highway? If not, it's a freeway.
QuoteI disagree, because - divider or not - the usage is identical. Multiple lanes in each direction, limited access. Sounds like a freeway to me.
Are you referring to this CA 154 example specifically?
Quote from: froggie on October 04, 2011, 09:34:43 PM
Are you referring to this CA 154 example specifically?
I don't recall the 154 offhand - I was just speaking in general. does the 154 not meet one of the criteria?
Quote from: ethanman62187 on October 02, 2011, 09:46:32 AM
Please consider that the last time we talk about this, it was part of the topic on 2 lane freeways. Can anyone think on a 4 lane undivided freeway?
:hmmm:
I have no doubt most of us can think "on" any road, regardless of its design. I'm usually thinking of something when I'm driving, even if it's just something dumb like when to make a toilet stop, and the category of road has no effect on whether I think while on the road.
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 04, 2011, 09:11:32 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 04, 2011, 07:39:28 PM
Fine, but any fully access-controlled expressway would meet the definition of freeway. I don't know if this was the intent of the legislature, and it really doesn't make a difference in the real world.
Perhaps I should clarify. Within California you will NOT find any fully access-controlled expressways because they are already classified as freeways.
So what would you call a road that has no access from adjacent properties but several at-grade intersections?
Quote from: NE2 on October 04, 2011, 10:48:46 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 04, 2011, 09:11:32 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 04, 2011, 07:39:28 PM
Fine, but any fully access-controlled expressway would meet the definition of freeway. I don't know if this was the intent of the legislature, and it really doesn't make a difference in the real world.
Perhaps I should clarify. Within California you will NOT find any fully access-controlled expressways because they are already classified as freeways.
So what would you call a road that has no access from adjacent properties but several at-grade intersections?
A Wisconsin-style expressway.
Quote from: NE2 on October 04, 2011, 10:48:46 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 04, 2011, 09:11:32 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 04, 2011, 07:39:28 PM
Fine, but any fully access-controlled expressway would meet the definition of freeway. I don't know if this was the intent of the legislature, and it really doesn't make a difference in the real world.
Perhaps I should clarify. Within California you will NOT find any fully access-controlled expressways because they are already classified as freeways.
So what would you call a road that has no access from adjacent properties but several at-grade intersections?
A highway. At-grade intersections means the roadway is not access-controlled.
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 04, 2011, 04:44:00 PM
Quote from: CVC Section 332"Freeway" is a highway in respect to which the owners of abutting lands have no right or easement of access to or from their abutting lands or in respect to which such owners have only limited or restricted right or easement of access.
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 04, 2011, 11:17:00 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 04, 2011, 10:48:46 PM
So what would you call a road that has no access from adjacent properties but several at-grade intersections?
A highway. At-grade intersections means the roadway is not access-controlled.
Did you read the definition you pasted? It talks about access from
private property, not intersecting public roads.
Quote from: NE2 on October 04, 2011, 11:55:35 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 04, 2011, 04:44:00 PM
Quote from: CVC Section 332"Freeway" is a highway in respect to which the owners of abutting lands have no right or easement of access to or from their abutting lands or in respect to which such owners have only limited or restricted right or easement of access.
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 04, 2011, 11:17:00 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 04, 2011, 10:48:46 PM
So what would you call a road that has no access from adjacent properties but several at-grade intersections?
A highway. At-grade intersections means the roadway is not access-controlled.
Did you read the definition you pasted? It talks about access from private property, not intersecting public roads.
From Daniel Faigin's cahighways.org website this is an except from the California State Highway Code...
"Freeway"
A highway in respect to which the owners of abutting lands have no right or easement of access to or from their abutting lands or in respect to which such owners have only limited or restricted right or easement of access. If, in the judgment of the commission or the director, the public interest would be advanced thereby, a freeway, as defined herein, may be denominated a "controlled access highway". In all other respects, the "controlled access highway" shall be subject to all provisions of this code pertaining to freeways. [SHC Sect. 23.5]
For a better explanation of the different road types in California, I'd suggest visiting... http://www.cahighways.org/stypes.html
:banghead:
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 04, 2011, 04:28:22 PM
there are some segments of US-101 in very far northern CA which are like this.
I-5 along the Rogue River in Oregon was like this until recently.
Do you know how recently this change was made? I've been in that area for the past five or six years now and never noticed this.
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 05, 2011, 02:24:06 AMFor a better explanation of the different road types in California, I'd suggest visiting... http://www.cahighways.org/stypes.html
NE2's point is that the legal definition of a freeway in the Streets & Highways Code does not correspond perfectly to the definition of a freeway as physical object, because the legal definition lacks the element of comprehensive grade separation. Under California law a road becomes a "lawyers' freeway" (as opposed to an actual freeway) as soon as the California Transportation Commission votes to withdraw access to frontagers. Building the actual freeway in a corridor declared a freeway is always a later development; Caltrans has to go to the localities through which the freeway passes and get them to conclude freeway agreements which specify access points and maintenance arrangements, and then plans, specifications and estimates have to be developed, a construction contract has to be awarded, etc.
To what I meant is, no at grade intersections.
Reading through the past several posts, it seems to me that California does not codify/define an at-grade expressway...what other states term "limited-access" prohibits private access, but allows for at-grade intersections at public crossroads.
Quote from: froggie on October 05, 2011, 05:19:41 PM
what other states term "limited-access" prohibits private access, but allows for at-grade intersections at public crossroads.
Making it more confusing, this is also called "limited/partial control of access". Hence it makes the most sense to spell out "full control of access"/"fully access-controlled" when talking about a freeway. Or just say freeway. No true roadgeek disagrees about what a freeway is.
Quote from: froggie on October 05, 2011, 05:19:41 PM
Reading through the past several posts, it seems to me that California does not codify/define an at-grade expressway...what other states term "limited-access" prohibits private access, but allows for at-grade intersections at public crossroads.
Are we talking legal definitions, "operational definitions" (God help me for dropping a Calrog reference here) or some other definitions?
In Kentucky, the term "limited access" in general use means, for all intents and purposes, an interstate or parkway.
On West Virginia's state maps, the terms used are "access fully controlled" for interstates and "access partially controlled" for roads like the ARC corridors. The latter, of course, have a few grade-separated interchanges but have mostly at-grade intersections.
Quote from: NE2 on October 05, 2011, 06:35:50 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 05, 2011, 05:19:41 PM
what other states term "limited-access" prohibits private access, but allows for at-grade intersections at public crossroads.
Making it more confusing, this is also called "limited/partial control of access". Hence it makes the most sense to spell out "full control of access"/"fully access-controlled" when talking about a freeway. Or just say freeway. No true roadgeek disagrees about what a freeway is.
Unless he's from Far Rockaway and drove on Rockaway Freeway in the old days when it was full-on dangerous.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 05, 2011, 09:46:47 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 05, 2011, 06:35:50 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 05, 2011, 05:19:41 PM
what other states term "limited-access" prohibits private access, but allows for at-grade intersections at public crossroads.
Making it more confusing, this is also called "limited/partial control of access". Hence it makes the most sense to spell out "full control of access"/"fully access-controlled" when talking about a freeway. Or just say freeway. No true roadgeek disagrees about what a freeway is.
Unless he's from Far Rockaway and drove on Rockaway Freeway in the old days when it was full-on dangerous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
US 101 on the Golden Gate Bridge and the Doyle Drive approach road might qualify, though they use small plastic cones as a divider.
The only California "lawyers' freeway" I can think of is segments of US 395. There are clear "Begin Freeway" signs up, and then you'll see a few lightly used driveways. (Not unlike what you'd see on a few 'real interstates'.) Otherwise the distinction is almost trivial. Perhaps it was used during the freeway boom of the 50s/60s, but there doesn't seem to be many fake freeways in CA today.
there are lots of roads which would never be mistaken for a freeway which are signed as "lawyer's freeways", with the white 24x18 inch signs along the edge of the right of way saying "FREEWAY", with access rights restricted, and an office to call if you want to build alongside this road.
not that some of those signs are accurate anymore...
one example is old US-99W, parallel to I-5 but a mile or two off, which is signed as a FREEWAY despite being a) a two-laner, and b) not even under Caltrans jurisdiction anymore.
Quote from: flowmotion on October 06, 2011, 11:43:06 AM
US 101 on the Golden Gate Bridge and the Doyle Drive approach road might qualify, though they use small plastic cones as a divider.
Once Doyle Drive is upgraded to the modern Presidio Parkway, will this still be the case? (I know there had been talk about using one of those machine-operated movable dividers on the Golden Gate Bridge in past years, but I doubt that's happening any time soon.)
Quote from: Quillz on October 05, 2011, 05:03:25 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 04, 2011, 04:28:22 PM
there are some segments of US-101 in very far northern CA which are like this.
I-5 along the Rogue River in Oregon was like this until recently.
Do you know how recently this change was made? I've been in that area for the past five or six years now and never noticed this.
Certainly has been fully divided since before 1989, when I moved up from California to Medford...
I remember some sections of I-5 in the California Siskiyous that were moreless undivided (separation was provided by elevation; median such as it was was an asphalt berm)
Quote from: roadfro on October 04, 2011, 06:10:54 AM
Quote from: ethanman62187 on October 03, 2011, 03:12:08 PM
Quote from: roadfro on October 03, 2011, 07:05:15 AM
Quote from: ethanman62187 on October 02, 2011, 09:46:32 AM
Can anyone think on a 4 lane undivided freeway?
By definition, a freeway is a divided highway...
Well, some freeways are not like that. Because of the cost, it has to be undivided as be first stage, than the next will be a full divided freeway.
The definition of "freeway" is "a divided highway with full control of access". 'Divided' in this sense can be something like a wide median or a simple Jersey barrier. 'Full control of access' means a controlled-access highway where crossroads are separated by bridges and entrance/exit from the highway is via ramps at interchanges.
If you're talking about situations such as the picture previously posted by kurumi, that is not technically a freeway--although it is easy to see how it could be described as such. It can be more adequately described as a "Super-4 expressway".
it is divided by the double yellow line, and we will leave it at that. its a road geek site!!!!
Quote from: Jordanah1 on October 08, 2011, 08:15:56 PM
it is divided by the double yellow line, and we will leave it at that. its a road geek site!!!!
Er, generally that's not enough to consider a highway "divided", and this being a roadgeek site doesn't make that so (though there are times I wish roadgeeks ruled the world for other reasons). There has to be some sort of physical barrier between carriageways for a highway to be divided.
In order for a highway to be divided, there has to be either be two physical carriageways (grassy median) or crossover collisions are not possible (physical barrier).
i no, and i agree that it shouldnt be considered a freeway, but being a roadgeek site, i think we are all entitled to our opinions, and diferent states have different laws regarding such things. maybe it should be considered a subclass of freeway, a super-4, like a super-2....sigh why cant powerful people just sit down and make a standard for these things? i mean, if they can sit down and decide that 'ain't' ain't a word, and make up a new rule on the sport for why it cant, then why dont they do something that matters like define road terms. i ain't about to stop saying ain't, and most others arent aswell.
Um, ain't is a word.
But is ain't a word.
Quote from: NE2 on October 09, 2011, 05:30:59 PM
But is ain't a word.
I don't think that's a word.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
^ He's 13...let it go, dude.
its a road geek website, i was just making a comparison. why cant we just let this stupid english language quarel go?
Quote from: formulanone on October 15, 2011, 09:55:39 AM
^ He's 13...let it go, dude.
We've had some pretty articulate 13 year olds here. While I don't condone outright rudeness to other members, I don't think being of a certain age is an acceptable cover for bizarre posting. Then again when I was 13 and posting on web forums people frequently mistook me for being in my twenties, so maybe my point of view is a bit skewed...
That said... yeah, we ain't gonna have this debate about "ain't" anymore. Y'all ain't gonna talk about "ain't" no more, y'see, 'cause I reckon that tharr Wikipedia has enough to say about "ain't" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain%27t) that we ain't gotta say nothin' else about it.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 15, 2011, 10:07:58 AM
Quote from: formulanone on October 15, 2011, 09:55:39 AM
^ He's 13...let it go, dude.
We've had some pretty articulate 13 year olds here. While I don't condone outright rudeness to other members, I don't think being of a certain age is an acceptable cover for bizarre posting. Then again when I was 13 and posting on web forums people frequently mistook me for being in my twenties, so maybe my point of view is a bit skewed...
That said... yeah, we ain't gonna have this debate about "ain't" anymore. Y'all ain't gonna talk about "ain't" no more, y'see, 'cause I reckon that tharr Wikipedia has enough to say about "ain't" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain%27t) that we ain't gotta say nothin' else about it.
:)
Quote from: kurumi on October 02, 2011, 08:12:15 PM
Related thread: Super-4 freeways (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1807.0)
Here's CT 2 at CT 214 in Ledyard:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2F8PHwP.jpg&hash=cbbda2633784838a69bbd1cf1bee99abe9591503)
I'm thinking that 60 MPH should handle this road.
Have you ever even seen it in person? Do you even know anything about it beyond that picture? Do you have a degree and years of experience behind you that prove that you can accurately establish a speed limit for a road?
Didn't think so.
Quote from: ethanman62187 on October 22, 2011, 01:34:02 PM
Quote from: kurumi on October 02, 2011, 08:12:15 PM
Related thread: Super-4 freeways (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1807.0)
Here's CT 2 at CT 214 in Ledyard:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2F8PHwP.jpg&hash=cbbda2633784838a69bbd1cf1bee99abe9591503)
I'm thinking that 60 MPH should handle this road.
Uh, no. See that yellow diamond sign on the mainline beyond the exit gore point? That's a lane merge warning. That right lane drops.
Quote from: nexus73 on October 02, 2011, 02:21:37 PMSR 22 going east from Salem OR was undivided freeway years ago. I wonder if it still is?
Quote from: Bickendan on October 02, 2011, 08:39:25 PMIt's divided now. OR 18 might still have a Super-4 segment.
Oregon 22 could probably be considered a "Super 4" from Interstate 5 (where there are traffic signals governing the ramps off of I-5 onto 22) eastward to just before the Silver Falls Highway (Oregon 214) exit, where a median takes over the center. Between those two points there are no at-grade intersections and no center barrier or median.
Oregon 22 west of Salem to Willamina has some freeway segments (i.e. Center/Marion Street Bridge west through West Salem, about 1.7 miles) when the center jersey barrier ends and at-grade intersections start. Further west near the Oregon 99W interchange, Oregon 22 is now at freeway standard from the at-grade intersection with Greenwood Road west, underneath 99W, to the Dallas-Rickreall Highway interchange (signed as Oregon 223, but Oregon 223 is actually further to the west.)
Oregon 18 doesn't have any "super 4" segments. There are a few grade-separated interchanges along its route but there are also minor at-grade intersections near each of the intersections. The segment from Highway 22 west through Fort Hill to the South Yamhill River is now freeway-spec with a center jersey barrier and no at-grade intersections, but there are still driveway accesses (probably disqualifying it as a true "freeway".) And there is a divided "freeway" to the northeast of Highway 22, up to the Yamhill/Polk County Line but there's an at-grade intersection at the west end of the divided highway segment and again, driveway accesses.
One could argue that Oregon 18 is a "Super 2" along the south side of McMinnville between Oregon 99W and the Three Mile Lane/McMinnville (City Center) exit, but the city/state have been working hard to make the Three Mile Lane segment of Oregon 18 into more an urban arterial (a new traffic signal was just added for the Evergreen Aviation Museum/Waterpark this year). There's another "Super 2" segment near Dayton, this time without driveway accesses, but there's an at-grade intersection just east of Dayton on the east side of the Yamhill River, and then the notorious Highway 233 intersection.
^I was thinking of the Willamina-Sheridan Bypass portion at Exit 34.
Quote from: sp_redelectric on October 24, 2011, 12:08:15 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on October 02, 2011, 02:21:37 PMSR 22 going east from Salem OR was undivided freeway years ago. I wonder if it still is?
Quote from: Bickendan on October 02, 2011, 08:39:25 PMIt's divided now. OR 18 might still have a Super-4 segment.
Oregon 22 could probably be considered a "Super 4" from Interstate 5 (where there are traffic signals governing the ramps off of I-5 onto 22) eastward to just before the Silver Falls Highway (Oregon 214) exit, where a median takes over the center. Between those two points there are no at-grade intersections and no center barrier or median.
Oregon 22 west of Salem to Willamina has some freeway segments (i.e. Center/Marion Street Bridge west through West Salem, about 1.7 miles) when the center jersey barrier ends and at-grade intersections start. Further west near the Oregon 99W interchange, Oregon 22 is now at freeway standard from the at-grade intersection with Greenwood Road west, underneath 99W, to the Dallas-Rickreall Highway interchange (signed as Oregon 223, but Oregon 223 is actually further to the west.)
Oregon 18 doesn't have any "super 4" segments. There are a few grade-separated interchanges along its route but there are also minor at-grade intersections near each of the intersections. The segment from Highway 22 west through Fort Hill to the South Yamhill River is now freeway-spec with a center jersey barrier and no at-grade intersections, but there are still driveway accesses (probably disqualifying it as a true "freeway".) And there is a divided "freeway" to the northeast of Highway 22, up to the Yamhill/Polk County Line but there's an at-grade intersection at the west end of the divided highway segment and again, driveway accesses.
One could argue that Oregon 18 is a "Super 2" along the south side of McMinnville between Oregon 99W and the Three Mile Lane/McMinnville (City Center) exit, but the city/state have been working hard to make the Three Mile Lane segment of Oregon 18 into more an urban arterial (a new traffic signal was just added for the Evergreen Aviation Museum/Waterpark this year). There's another "Super 2" segment near Dayton, this time without driveway accesses, but there's an at-grade intersection just east of Dayton on the east side of the Yamhill River, and then the notorious Highway 233 intersection.
Yeah, that to be a 2 lane or 4 lane undivided freeway.
Quote from: Bickendan on October 24, 2011, 05:02:38 PM
^I was thinking of the Willamina-Sheridan Bypass portion at Exit 34.
Hmmmm... You're right in that there's a freeway-style interchange there, and again to the west at Exit 33 ("Sheridan", or Bridge Street/Ballston Road), but in the 1.2 miles between the two exits are two at-grade intersections and an at-grade railroad crossing. And to the east you have all sorts of driveways, intersections and such.
Oregon 18 ought to be a super-2 (or better yet a full four-lane divided highway) all the way from Grand Ronde to McDougall's Corner (intersection with 99W near Dayton) considering that so much work has been done to get in that direction, but there's a lot of work to be done and it seems ODOT has stopped any work to further improve 18. Aside from the Fort Hill improvements, the last major Highway 18 project was the widening project at the Yamhill/Polk County Line (about 10 years ago?) and widening the Three Mile Lane stretch east of McMinnville (in the early 1990s). And ODOT is doing a good job screwing that stretch up, having turned on another traffic light in a 55 MPH zone. I thought only Montana was dumb enough to put traffic lights on high speed highways (in 70 zones!)
There are a few segments of 5 and 6 lanes undivided on US 101 in northern California. Here is an instance of 6 lane undivided: http://goo.gl/maps/8GtZ4 and although it's not labelled orange on Google Maps, it's freeway status, within a mile or two of exit 614. Just north though, it narrows to two lanes and loses freeway status.
Quote from: Some_Person on November 21, 2012, 02:56:10 PM
There are a few segments of 5 and 6 lanes undivided on US 101 in northern California. Here is an instance of 6 lane undivided: http://goo.gl/maps/8GtZ4 and although it's not labelled orange on Google Maps, it's freeway status, within a mile or two of exit 614. Just north though, it narrows to two lanes and loses freeway status.
Technically speaking, that section of US 101 *is* divided because there are two sets of double yellow line separating traffic. If that road was striped with just a double yellow line, then it would be undivided.
Quote from: myosh_tino on November 21, 2012, 03:41:26 PM
Quote from: Some_Person on November 21, 2012, 02:56:10 PM
There are a few segments of 5 and 6 lanes undivided on US 101 in northern California. Here is an instance of 6 lane undivided: http://goo.gl/maps/8GtZ4 and although it's not labelled orange on Google Maps, it's freeway status, within a mile or two of exit 614. Just north though, it narrows to two lanes and loses freeway status.
Technically speaking, that section of US 101 *is* divided because there are two sets of double yellow line separating traffic. If that road was striped with just a double yellow line, then it would be undivided.
Wait... *Two* sets of double yellow? What the hell kind of striping is that?
Quote from: Special K on November 21, 2012, 04:04:10 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on November 21, 2012, 03:41:26 PM
Quote from: Some_Person on November 21, 2012, 02:56:10 PM
There are a few segments of 5 and 6 lanes undivided on US 101 in northern California. Here is an instance of 6 lane undivided: http://goo.gl/maps/8GtZ4 and although it's not labelled orange on Google Maps, it's freeway status, within a mile or two of exit 614. Just north though, it narrows to two lanes and loses freeway status.
Technically speaking, that section of US 101 *is* divided because there are two sets of double yellow line separating traffic. If that road was striped with just a double yellow line, then it would be undivided.
Wait... *Two* sets of double yellow? What the hell kind of striping is that?
It's a striped median without a 2-way left turn lane.
There are sections of US 271 in Texas with the double-double yellow lines. Although not a freeway, this road is not a divided road.
Sorry for responding to something a month old, but I just noticed the OR 22 discussion today.
Quote from: sp_redelectric on October 24, 2011, 12:08:15 AM
Oregon 22 could probably be considered a "Super 4" from Interstate 5 (where there are traffic signals governing the ramps off of I-5 onto 22) eastward to just before the Silver Falls Highway (Oregon 214) exit, where a median takes over the center. Between those two points there are no at-grade intersections and no center barrier or median.
This isn't exactly true. There are no at-grade intersections, that's true. And for years, OR 22 was 4 lanes with no center barrier east to OR 214; east of there, it was 2 lanes, at least until they built the other carriageway about 15 years ago. But a center barrier was added on the I-5-to-OR 214 section a few years back, so the lanes are now separated.
However, even though the newer four-lane section east of OR 214 has a grassy median, it still has an at-grade railroad crossing near Aumsville, so it's not quite interstate-quality.
QuoteOregon 22 west of Salem to Willamina has some freeway segments (i.e. Center/Marion Street Bridge west through West Salem, about 1.7 miles) when the center jersey barrier ends and at-grade intersections start. Further west near the Oregon 99W interchange, Oregon 22 is now at freeway standard from the at-grade intersection with Greenwood Road west, underneath 99W, to the Dallas-Rickreall Highway interchange (signed as Oregon 223, but Oregon 223 is actually further to the west.)
It's technically SPUR 223, but not signed as such. The signage indicating this highway is OR 223 exists only at its ends, both from OR 22 and OR 99W. And in Dallas, traffic heading northbound on OR 223 encounters this absurd signage, showing that 223 goes both straight ahead (north) and right (east):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FOregon%2520State%2520Routes%2FOR223SPURDallas1.jpg%3Ft%3D1353559539&hash=28a83581a949ffc8d350a5f6ecded6537239c1ff)
As for OR 22 west of Salem, there is an ongoing ODOT study looking to improve this section, but I would be very surprised to see them propose a full freeway. More likely, they'll make some of the major intersections into interchanges, but leave a lot of the minor direct accesses.
Looks like a gap of M1 in South Africa who could be classifield as a "super-4" http://goo.gl/maps/HTjlX
Would US-89/91 around Brigham City and Mantua qualify? While the US-89/91/UT-13 junction is a stoplight, the US-89/91/UT-90 junction and south Mantua junctions do involve on- and off-ramps.
Brigham City only has a NB on-ramp and SB off-ramp, while Mantua has only a NB off-ramp and SB on-ramp.
Wouldn't many of these 5-lane* roads in Utah qualify? The likes of UT-9 between Hurricane and I-15 and US-189 through Provo Canyon?
*I know, not technically 4-lane, but other than left turns operate like 4-lane roads.