Are there any road projects in your state that didn't meet your expectations?
Such as:
having a worse impact on traffic flow
a misplaced ramp
leaving out a turn lane where there should be one
expanded lane not as far as you would've thought
or the scope of the project not as big as you figured it would be?
The recent ground-up rebuild of I-96 east of US-127 in Lansing, MI. There is no logical reason it should remain at 2 lanes each way with the traffic it gets.
The Merritt Parkway / US 7 interchange. This was in the days before I was online (not to mention ConnDOT or Google Maps) and the only way to check out what the new interchange looked like was to drive down and see it.
What I pictured: something like the 15/8 or 15/25 interchange, with modern semi-direction ramps, and complete (since there were no other freeways to provide redundant movements like the 8/15/25 triangle)
What I saw: see for yourself (http://g.co/maps/c4ngp) :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Other projects that were mildly disappointing:
- CT 2 in Ledyard, undivided "Super 4" instead of divided highway (mitigating factor: it's the only such road in the state, and pretty rare nationwide)
- CT 9 / Berlin Turnpike interchange (could have reconfigured to require no grade crossing on 5/15 south of CT 9)
- I-291: a skinny four lanes, but better than nothing at all; and the interchange with I-84 is well done
- CT 2/3: a semidirectional 3-way (even with single-lane ramps) would have been nice. Instead we have a trumpet whose loop could encircle Rhode Island.
Nothing makes me angrier than when a road like MD 43 (newest section opened in 2006) is labeled an "expressway", marked at 45 mph, and open to commercial development and at-grade intersections. Like we needed another business district and soon-to-be overcrowded straightaway. Ugh. It's so disappointing because 43 was originallyplanned to be limited access, but now is an overcrowded mess. We wouldn't have needed the express toll lanes as badly if they has built this road properly because it would have alleived so much of the traffic problem from Towson to Harford County. Even worse, the 1.5 or so mile section that is limited access will have traffic lights once they finish the new 43/95 interchange with the new toll lanes (facepalm)
Quite a few. Yes, I'm aware there are funding and environmental constraints, but sometimes DOT's just simply screw up.
Missouri
The I-64 rebuild
1) Needed SPUI's at Brentwood and Hanley, not compact diamonds
2) Needed to maintain at least C-D lane access at Brentwood and Hanley, instead of requiring drivers to exit the freeway completely and go through at least one at stoplight before arriving at their intended road
3) Did not maintain somewhat direct access from SB I-170 to Hanley Road; post rebuild, SB I-170 drivers wishing to continue south on Hanley Road must now take stoplight infested Eager Road.
4) Did not widen I-64 between I-170 and Skinker to four through lanes
5) Backed up again from day one in in the evening WB at Skinker (where the fourth lane is dropped) - should have gotten at least some time before the backups returned.
I-44 auxiliary lane at Rolla between US 63 and Rte
Might have improved traffic somewhat, but not enough to justify the now almost non-existent shoulder:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=37.960163,-91.774239&spn=0.014296,0.033023&t=m&z=16&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=37.960163,-91.774239&panoid=6usXVH8OgKZeYWo98MX8kQ&cbp=12,73.21,,0,1.35 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=37.960163,-91.774239&spn=0.014296,0.033023&t=m&z=16&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=37.960163,-91.774239&panoid=6usXVH8OgKZeYWo98MX8kQ&cbp=12,73.21,,0,1.35)
MO 141 expressway between Valley Park and Clayton Road
1) Too many stoplights - should have been more consolidation of access points and outer roads.
2) Designed for way too low of speed for a brand new road- should have been designed for posting at 55 or 60, not a lousy 45 that is being used as a revenue source for Twin Oaks and Manchester
3) Not the alternative for I-270 it could have been with a better design speed and fewer stoplights
Maryland Heights Expressway between MO 364 and the Earth City area
1) Too many stoplights
2) No reason it could not have been designed for 55 mph instead of becoming a 45 mph speedtrap
Truman Parkway in St. Louis City
1) Does not provide an easier but still at grade connection between I-55 and I-64
2) Has a lower speed of 30 mph, while parallel 14th Street (subjected to traffic calming after completion of the Truman Speedtrap) had a 35 mph limit (baring one schoolzone) with no access control
3) Features a crappy SB lane drop at the start of the connection to I-55 on a badly designed curve
4) Does not have coordinated stoplights
I-70 rehab in St. Louis, late 1990's-early 2000's
1) Kept the almost always closed reversible lanes instead of removing them and at least bringing I-70 up to four through lanes each way
2) Kept the defective intersection design at the west end of the McKinley Bridge
3) Kept the tight loops at the Lucas and Hunt interchange instead of converting this interchange to a diamond or a SPUI
Missouri and Illinois
The I-70 Great Lemon Bridge
* Does not have needed access to I-55 and I-44 on the Missouri side, so it will not properly relieve the PSB
McKinley Bridge rehab
* Narrowed the bridge from four lanes to two
Illinois
IL 3 bypass of Waterloo
1) Not built wide enough to start - now D8 is looking at fixing this mistake
2) Not built with enough ROW to support a future freeway conversion, which could be needed if Red Bud keeps growing
IL 3 widening between East St. Louis and the McKinley Bridge
* Did not fix the poorly designed intersection where IL 3 diverges from the McKinely Bridge approach (which was designed for an unbuilt IL 3 closer to the river)
I-270 Chain of Rocks Canal Bridge and IL 3 interchange redesign
1) Replaces the cloverleaf at IL 3 with a half cloverleaf (loops on the east side of IL 3) - should have looked into CD lanes on I-270, or at least keeping the geometrically superior exit loops from I-270
2) Bridge is built with obsolete shoulders from the start on the eastern end
3) New bridge does not allow for future widening of I-270 while maintaining adequate shoulders - should have been consideration of at least going for a twin span later on
Where to start????
I-80 from US-30 to US-45, 1997. IDiOT chose to rebuild the freeway as 2 lanes in each direction even with known traffic growth. Now they're back widening it a mere 14 years later.
I-55 from the Tri-State to the Ryan, late 1990s. IDiOT and Dickhead Daley decided it would be better to rebuild as 3 lanes in each direction instead of widening to 4.
I-55 from Weber Rd to I-80, 2007-8. IDiOT used substandard materials to widen to 3 lanes in each direction. Now it is filled with potholes less than 3 years after completion.
IL-59 widening from 75th St to I-55. IDiOT chose not to learn about superstreets and proper roadbuilding using channelization and Michigan Lefts. Now a clusterfuck of left turn signals just after completion.
The Cherry Valley interchange on I-90/I-39 in Rockford could have been reworked better. WB I-90 to SB I-39 (and WB US 20) has a ridiculously tight exit ramp radius (you have to slow to 35mph) and merges from the left onto the southbound/westbound freeway. You have to risk your life sometimes if you want to exit to Harrison Avenue immediately after that left merge.
the new I-805 at Mira Mesa Boulevard construction. It is providing a new HOV lane access from one of the side streets to Mira Mesa to 805 southbound, but this will not alleviate most of the traffic concerns:
* no convenient way to get from Mira Mesa Blvd west to I-5 - the route just randomly dead-ends at 805 instead of continuing another mile or so
and worse:
* main Mira Mesa Blvd to 805 traffic still has that nasty 4 down to 1 lane merge, which causes backups of as much as 30 minutes to travel the 3/4 mile or so from, say, Mira Mesa at Scranton to 805 southbound.
A Nevada one that comes to mind is the Las Vegas Beltway (Clark County 215) interchange at Summerlin Parkway and Far Hills Ave. (Google Map) (http://g.co/maps/wrsdw)
Both of these were originally split intersections with two traffic signals (one northbound and one southbound) before the beltway was constructed to freeway standards. All the ramps were put in a few years ago. I was disappointed that there really is only one freeway-to-freeway ramp here in what should be closer to a major system interchange. My issues with the interchange:
* Westbound drivers on Summerlin Parkway heading southbound have to go through a signal before reaching the loop. I would have expected a better ramp without a stop, possibly a flyover.
* Westbound drivers on Summerlin Parkway heading northbound have to make the a hard right turn at the signal. There was clearly enough room available to put in a ramp and eliminate the slow right turn and possible stop.
* Drivers entering from Far Hills to head northbound on the beltway first merge onto the northbound ramp to Summerlin Parkway. The geometry requires merging across the north-to-eastbound traffic, then passing through the signal before being able to get on the beltway. The better design would have been to braid the Far Hills onramp with a slip ramp to eastbound Summerlin Pkwy.
I understand part of the reason for this design is because if Summerlin Parkway is ever extended west of the 215, it will be as an arterial street and not a freeway. But at the same time, the freeway to freeway connection could've been much better designed. When I finally saw this finished product, I was rather disapopointed...
The Robert Moses State Parkway conversion in Niagara Falls (OK, a stretch, since I didn't know about it until it was done). All they did was set up construction crossovers and then never removed them. It still looks like a construction zone to this day, and the old road sits there unused. If they didn't want to actually convert it into a super-2 and build the bike/ped lanes that the road was theoretically changed for, they should have just left well enough alone.
Here locally, I was not impressed with the widening of Winchester Road in Huntsville from 2 lanes to 5 lanes. This aerial from Bing maps shows the intersection under construction: http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=34.79813711210906~-86.53645384483345&lvl=19&dir=0&sty=a&form=LMLTCC (Google Maps is a little older so I linked to Bing instead).
One of the major intersections included in this project was the intersection with Moores Mill Rd. Winchester Rd serves as a regional route that connects NE Madison County, SE Lincoln County, TN, and Franklin County, TN with Huntsville, AL. A lot of traffic headed west on Winchester Rd turns left to go south on Moores Mill Rd since it connects with US 72 and I-565. There is also a UPS shipping facility located off of Winchester Rd west of this intersection (closer to Memorial Pkwy/US 231/431). Moores Mill Rd is five lanes south of Winchester Rd and two lanes north of Winchester Rd.
Before the widening project, there were two lanes at the WB approach to the Winchester/Moores Mill intersection. The leftmost lane turned left, and the right lane there was the option of turning left, going straight, or turning right. I would have expected the widening to include a double left turn lane, two through lanes, and a right turn ramp (no turn lane really necessary, but would have been nice). Instead. what we have now is one left turn lane, one turn left or through lane, and one through lane. This forces there to be two signal phases for Winchester Rd (one for traffic from the west and then one for traffic from the east). I know that since most of the traffic is going to be turning left from Winchester WB to Moores Mill SB this isn't as big of an issue, but later on I can see this intersection continuing to be a bottleneck, especially if traffic volumes increase on Winchester Rd west of Moores Mill Rd. Maybe acquiring the ROW necessary for the extra lane would have cost too much, but I still think it was done cheaply.
The HOT lanes in DeKalb and Gwinnett counties (GA).
Be well,
Bryant
^ You mean you didn't expect those to be a flop?
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 12, 2011, 10:37:07 PM
McKinley Bridge rehab
* Narrowed the bridge from four lanes to two
Why would they ever take away lanes?!??!?!
Quote from: kurumi on October 12, 2011, 09:30:48 PM
- CT 2 in Ledyard, undivided "Super 4" instead of divided highway (mitigating factor: it's the only such road in the state, and pretty rare nationwide)
CT DOT doesn't like their divided roads. Most of the 4-lanings that have been done recently have been at the end of expressways where traffic is still at interstate speeds regardless of the posted speed limit. And these 4-lanings are in basically wooded areas so there is no reason for a divider. I think NIMBYism comes into play here. People I think freaked out when they saw a divider and so the DOT took it out. Of course, you know at some point there will be some serious head on crashes and there will be talk of a divider. Of course, it could all be avoided if one was put in to begin with!!
A couple from the North Metro
To access the new segment of MN-610 from SB CSAH 81, you need to go through the stoplight at Elm Creek Blvd. The whole point of having the freeway is so that you can avoid all the stoplights on 81.
Further along 81, at the Triangle reconstruction there is no direct connection from SB 81 to SB 169. You need to make a signal-controlled left turn on 85th. Given that one of the goals of the project was to facilitate these SB-SB and NB-NB movements without affecting EW traffic on 85th, this is disappointing.
(1) ANY intersection widening in OKC. For unknown reasons, they NEVER include right turn only lanes. For example, the City of Warr Acres widened MacArthur Blvd from NW 50th to NW 63rd. This included a rebuild of the 63rd and MacArthur intersection. They had to do a utility relocation, but they STILL didn't put in right turn only lanes in any direction, despite a large number of the actions in that intersection being righ turns.
(2) The I35 rebuild from downtown OKC south to Moore. Took 20+ years to complete. Replaced all overpasses, but only widened to 6 lanes, even though they left enough ROW under the bridges to go to 8 lanes. Traffic certainly justified going to 8 lanes.
rte66man
I've said it before, and I'll say it again; New York State Route 112, between Coram and Port Jefferson Station. I have a feeling Portion Road between Lake Ronkonkoma and Farmingville has turned out just as crappy.
The Rocky Point Bypass for New York State Route 25A.
Of course there are plenty of others.
Best road destruction project: The US 45/I 80 interchange. Once a cloverleaf, IDOT decided to change this to a diamond/cloverleaf hybrid that really didn't solve anything. I 80 traffic still has to deal with two ramps merging onto the road and LaGrange now has two extra stoplights to slow everyone down. The roads needed a repaving at the time, but I don't see why a ramp reconfiguring was necessary.
US 67 between Monmouth and the Quad Cities. IDOT promised more passing lanes than they delivered. They never finsihed the upgrade in Warren County. Only now(Oct 26) is IDOT holding a hearing on fixing this very poor strech of roadway.
Helton Drive Extension/Expressway here in Florence. It was supposed to have cloverleaf ramps originally, so I heard, but that would've required the demolition of the Cherry Hill Homes housing project which, needless to say, didn't fly. Failing that, ALDOT could've at least given us an SPUI. Instead we got a standard diamond and 2 more traffic lights in addition to the entirely too many we already have - and worse still, they are not tied together to function as one intersection like they should.
Quote from: kurumi on October 12, 2011, 09:30:48 PM
The Merritt Parkway / US 7 interchange. This was in the days before I was online (not to mention ConnDOT or Google Maps) and the only way to check out what the new interchange looked like was to drive down and see it.
What I pictured: something like the 15/8 or 15/25 interchange, with modern semi-direction ramps, and complete (since there were no other freeways to provide redundant movements like the 8/15/25 triangle)
What I saw: see for yourself (http://g.co/maps/c4ngp) :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Other projects that were mildly disappointing:
- CT 2 in Ledyard, undivided "Super 4" instead of divided highway (mitigating factor: it's the only such road in the state, and pretty rare nationwide)
- CT 9 / Berlin Turnpike interchange (could have reconfigured to require no grade crossing on 5/15 south of CT 9)
- I-291: a skinny four lanes, but better than nothing at all; and the interchange with I-84 is well done
- CT 2/3: a semidirectional 3-way (even with single-lane ramps) would have been nice. Instead we have a trumpet whose loop could encircle Rhode Island.
The CT 66 widening from end of the expressway east to Middletown should've been divided, at least to Jackson Hill Road in Middlefield - where there's nothing. At least they did close the School Street intersection (though the neighbors were trying to keep it open, for some reason). The speed limit of 40 is a joke. Average speed is more like 50-60.
Any road in CT where an expressway was proposed, but an in-place non-divided widening has taken place can be added to this list as well.
Quote from: doofy103 on October 13, 2011, 11:43:48 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 12, 2011, 10:37:07 PM
McKinley Bridge rehab
* Narrowed the bridge from four lanes to two
Why would they ever take away lanes?!??!?!
Official excuse I've heard from MoDOT is that the intersection at the western end of the bridge with I-70 and surface streets couldn't handle the traffic of a four lane bridge. Otherwise, two theories (not mutually exclusive:
1) The desire to add a bike lane/path to the bridge.
2) Issues with the need to split lanes in the same direction due to the center truss spans and cantilevered outer roadways. Streetviews:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=38.663397,-90.184579&spn=0.028316,0.066047&t=m&z=15&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=38.664932,-90.183664&panoid=AMAGYPXvMn0W525UXRGO6Q&cbp=12,259.91,,0,2.05 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=38.663397,-90.184579&spn=0.028316,0.066047&t=m&z=15&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=38.664932,-90.183664&panoid=AMAGYPXvMn0W525UXRGO6Q&cbp=12,259.91,,0,2.05)
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=38.664436,-90.186853&spn=0.028449,0.066047&t=h&z=15&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=38.66452,-90.186398&panoid=XDnvzfqV4YnjKlHxyKE7KQ&cbp=12,98.77,,0,6.37 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=38.664436,-90.186853&spn=0.028449,0.066047&t=h&z=15&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=38.66452,-90.186398&panoid=XDnvzfqV4YnjKlHxyKE7KQ&cbp=12,98.77,,0,6.37)
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=38.665432,-90.18031&spn=0.007112,0.016512&t=h&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=38.665432,-90.18031&panoid=EMk4p3UmD10T1hWAUFOXLA&cbp=12,102.83,,0,0 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=38.665432,-90.18031&spn=0.007112,0.016512&t=h&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=38.665432,-90.18031&panoid=EMk4p3UmD10T1hWAUFOXLA&cbp=12,102.83,,0,0)
Quote from: Super Mateo on October 13, 2011, 03:27:40 PM
Best road destruction project: The US 45/I 80 interchange. Once a cloverleaf, IDOT decided to change this to a diamond/cloverleaf hybrid that really didn't solve anything. I 80 traffic still has to deal with two ramps merging onto the road and LaGrange now has two extra stoplights to slow everyone down. The roads needed a repaving at the time, but I don't see why a ramp reconfiguring was necessary.
Most agreed. Another boneheaded move by IDiOT.
More for Missouri
The Chouteau/MO 100 viaduct replacement in St. Louis City
* The original bridge had a freeway connection between MO 100 and I-64 with a 3/4 diamond at Vandeventer. The replacement removed this connection and features a lousy lane allotment on WB Chouteau at Vandeventer consisting of dual right turn lanes and a shared left and through lane. Now if MoDOT wanted to save money, they could have at least directly aligned Chouteau with the I-64 exit
Manchester/MO 100 streetscape between Kingshighway and Vandeventer in St. Louis
* Traffic calming project that reduced the number of lanes on MO 100 and screwed up traffic. Actually this project met my expectations of screwing up traffic, but not my expectations of the quality of service that should be provided on a road in the state highway system
Grand Avenue Great Streets project, St. Louis MO
* Another traffic screwing, lane reduction project that has attempted to make St. Louis as pleasant to drive as Chicago.
US 60 expressway, Willow Springs to Sikeston
* The express part ends badly at Mountain Grove, and is reduced at almost every other town along the route. Should have been built to maintain a 65 mph speed limit.
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 13, 2011, 10:15:43 PM
Grand Avenue Great Streets project, St. Louis MO
* Another traffic screwing, lane reduction project that has attempted to make St. Louis as pleasant to drive as Chicago.
Were your expectations different? If you want a pleasant drive, stay out of the city.
Quote from: Coelacanth on October 13, 2011, 11:46:34 AM
A couple from the North Metro
To access the new segment of MN-610 from SB CSAH 81, you need to go through the stoplight at Elm Creek Blvd. The whole point of having the freeway is so that you can avoid all the stoplights on 81.
Further along 81, at the Triangle reconstruction there is no direct connection from SB 81 to SB 169. You need to make a signal-controlled left turn on 85th. Given that one of the goals of the project was to facilitate these SB-SB and NB-NB movements without affecting EW traffic on 85th, this is disappointing.
I think that they are expecting a lot of the SB CSAH 81-to-SB US 169 traffic to use MN 610 now, but I agree with you that they could've done something different to accommodate those major movements. The SB 169-to-SB CSAH 81 ramp is really nice though!
I also really wish that when Mn/DOT reconstructed MN 100 they would have built a 6-lane freeway from CSAH 81 to I-694 instead of the 4-lane freeway. The 4-lane section definitely backs up a lot more than the 6-lane portions in the morning/evening! So frustrating!
The WIS 26 -Ft. Atkinson bypass, the connection with USH 12 is just a simple diamond, not remotely what will be needed once the connection with the Whitewater bypass is built.
Quote from: NE2 on October 13, 2011, 10:26:37 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 13, 2011, 10:15:43 PM
Grand Avenue Great Streets project, St. Louis MO
* Another traffic screwing, lane reduction project that has attempted to make St. Louis as pleasant to drive as Chicago.
Were your expectations different? If you want a pleasant drive, stay out of the city.
Oklahoma City is usually quite pleasant to drive in. Just because it is a city, it does not follow that it must necessarily be difficult to drive in.
Roberts Rd in western Franklin County, OH, has a couple of projects gone awry. First, a bit of backstory. Roberts Rd is a relatively direct route from the Lake Darby community to the south end of Hilliard, where it meets I-270. The road has historically been underappreciated by the county Engineer's Office. It remained a gravel road into the 70s, later than many other county roads nearby. Roberts Rd is and always has been stop-controlled at every north-south crossroad (where signals weren't installed yet). To continue on Roberts Rd requires jogging left at Walker Rd and, until recently, Alton & Darby Creek Rd. The intersection with Amiity Rd used to have a high accident rate, due to the odd angle and many dump trucks on Amity Rd that don't have to stop.
The first messed up project (within my personal memory) was to improve safety at Amity Rd. It was obvious to most of us that simply making it a 4-way stop would be sufficient. FCEO decided to fix the angle instead, by realigning Roberts Rd with a bit of an S-curve. Amity Rd traffic still doesn't have to stop, though the dump trucks are gone. The problem now is the shoulders drain poorly, and some people fail to negotiate the new curve. I once had an episode involving black ice, in which I barely managed to stay on the road, rolling through the stop in the endeavour.
More recently, they removed the jog at Alton & Darby Creek Rd. Hilliard annexed the northern of the two intersections in 2008, along with a whole lot of farmland that was to be developed. Then the housing market crashed, so most of that development hasn't happened. But the plans included a relocated Roberts Rd, which got built this summer. There are a few things wrong with what they actually built, though. First of all, the speed limit on the new Roberts Rd (and a portion of it that was rebuilt in place) is 35 MPH, compared to 50 MPH to the east and 55 MPH to the west. Though FCEO was the lead agency on this project, it smacks of Hilliard design interference. Secondly, the new roadway simply ends at a T with the old alignment, so through traffic on Roberts Rd still has to make a turn. It's yield-controlled, so through traffic doesn't have to stop in either direction, but one of these days a student on the way to Bradley High School is going to run through the yield and smash into a westbound car coming off Old Roberts Rd... Older versions of Hilliard's master plan indicated a larger Roberts Rd relocation project, with a new-alignment roadway connecting Roberts Rd west of Walker Rd directly to Roberts Rd east of Alton & Darby Creek Rd. Theoretically what was built this summer could be part of that larger plan, but I don't think that's very likely. [View this realignment on OpenStreetMap] (http://osm.org/go/ZWD2kgXB)
Perhaps more relevant to non-locals is a recent project on I-270 on the south side of Columbus. The bridges over the Scioto River have for decades been two lanes each way, which I always thought was really dumb considering I-270 has 2+2=2 merge conditions coming out of its interchanges with both I-71 and US 23 heading for the bridges. I heard last year that ODOT was going to widen the Scioto River bridges to accommodate 4 lanes each way plus full breakdown lanes on both sides, though only 3 lanes would be used in the immediate future. The project apparently finished a couple of weeks ago. Sure enough, the Scioto River bridges were widened enough to accommodate 4 lanes each way plus breakdown lanes on either side. And that's all – no widening of anything else. I-270 itself is still only two lanes each way between I-71 and US 23, and the smaller bridges off either end of the main Scioto River bridges are still just wide enough for two lanes and a breakdown lane. There's no sign of any more work happening in this construction season. Maybe next year? Anyway, I feel like illustrating this...
First-built configuration:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fmisc%2F270scioto-a.png&hash=a2eaf1251cd25fd5d0d4f192d48ca321ce45abfc)
How I think it should be improved:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fmisc%2F270scioto-b.png&hash=46f3957e01c91d74fc85cf6edae7d67c9e350926)
How I thought they were going to fix it this year:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fmisc%2F270scioto-c.png&hash=063fc924f7a894f8fc4b2f6676878cf3532936cf)
What they actually did this year:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvidthekid.info%2Fmisc%2F270scioto-d.png&hash=6a14bfa26fd6915833ddc388dcdc3507a314ef29)
Quote from: NE2 on October 13, 2011, 10:26:37 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 13, 2011, 10:15:43 PM
Grand Avenue Great Streets project, St. Louis MO
* Another traffic screwing, lane reduction project that has attempted to make St. Louis as pleasant to drive as Chicago.
Were your expectations different? If you want a pleasant drive, stay out of the city.
I at least expect to be able to make a right turn onto the street easily in the off peak hours; the reduced lane design has queuing that can make such turns problematic.
And there are streets in St. Louis that were more pleasant (but may have since been subject to similar traffic screwing projects) but are not suburban in nature, with examples such as Jefferson Avenue, Forest Park Avenue, and Hampton Avenue
Quote from: on_wisconsin on October 13, 2011, 11:54:54 PM
The WIS 26 -Ft. Atkinson bypass, the connection with USH 12 is just a simple diamond, not remotely what will be needed once the connection with the Whitewater bypass is built.
My crystal ball still shows that a high-powered trumpet interchange, favoring a US 12 through movement to a new-ROW freeway running northwestward from there, by that WI 26 curve SW of that interchange will ultimately be needed once US 12 'grows up'. At least major upgrades on those lines are in the current 'awaiting funding' hopper at the south end of Fort Atkinson for when the US 12 east bypass is built to Whitewater.
My big disappointments in Wisconsin?
-The WI 11 Janesville bypass (an at-grade 90 degree intersection turn at its west end?)
-The US 12 non-freeway connection between I-90/94 and the new US 12 freeway to the south at Lake Delton (Wisconsin Dells)
-The I-39/90/94 split near Portage ('Cascade Interchange'). There is no safe and legal way for non-motorized traffic to easily cross I-90/94 there and it includes several nasty 'left entrance/exit' situations on its I-39 leg.
Mike
In Rochester, Jefferson Rd (NY252) widening. 3 mainline lanes each direction from I390 until almost the Marketplace mall. For some reason they ended the project just before the 5 lane intersection with Hylan Dr and NY15, so lanes go from 4 -> 2 and then back to 5 in less than 1/2 mile. They could have at least extended the third lane to feed the double left for Hylan Dr, since the mall and Wegmans plaza are major traffic generators.
http://maps.google.com/?ll=43.08681,-77.626884&spn=0.003816,0.009645&hnear=Rochester,+Monroe,+New+York&t=h&z=17&vpsrc=6
Also the NY15A rebuild near Monroe Community College. Aux lanes were added between 390 and Crittenden to bring to 8 total, but still only 4 mainline lanes near MCC, where turning traffic backs up. Really could have used 6 lanes.
http://maps.google.com/?ll=43.105871,-77.613655&spn=0.003815,0.009645&hnear=Rochester,+Monroe,+New+York&t=h&z=17&vpsrc=6
I just thought of another one last night. Florida DOT recently had a reconstruction project on I-75 between Exit 274(I-275) and 279(Florida SR 54). This was supposed to include the widening of I-75 north of Florida SR 56, and a northbound collector-distributor road to prevent weaving between I-275 and SR 56. Besides the fact that it should've also included a southbound C-D road, the exit number for SR 56 was kept as Exit I-275 at all three points, when it should've been been Exit 274 northbound on I-75 and Exit 60 in I-275. But the worst thing about it is, they never widened I-75 between SR's 56 and 54.
The EB US 10/45 split in by Winchester, WI.
US 45 exits off of US 10 as a single lane that immediately goes to two lanes. I would like to have seen a couple hundred meters of axillary lane before the split so the right lane EB becomes either/or, thus making that exit nicer.
The ~2000 rebuild of the Northwest Interchange (US 41/45 & WI 145) in Milwaukee and the loss of the 3rd SB lane on 41/45. Might have been reasonable if WI 145 actually went somewhere instead of being the dead end spur it is.
I can honestly say that any projects that have recently taken place in CT have met or exceeded my expectations. Reason being: My expectations of highway planning are so low in this state that doing nothing at all would likely meet my expectations.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 20, 2011, 06:16:24 PM
The EB US 10/45 split in by Winchester, WI.
US 45 exits off of US 10 as a single lane that immediately goes to two lanes. I would like to have seen a couple hundred meters of axillary lane before the split so the right lane EB becomes either/or, thus making that exit nicer.
I have always thought that diverge to be a bit odd. I am also somewhat disappointed in what I consider to be poor engineering geometrics on the NB US 45 flyover in that one.
I call that the 'Winchester' interchange.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 20, 2011, 06:16:24 PMThe ~2000 rebuild of the Northwest Interchange (US 41/45 & WI 145) in Milwaukee and the loss of the 3rd SB lane on 41/45. Might have been reasonable if WI 145 actually went somewhere instead of being the dead end spur it is.
That's called the 'Granville' interchange (that section of Milwaukee was all Granville Township before it was annexed into the city in 1956).
Mike
I-4 to John Young Parkway flyover could have been done differently. Now you have weaving to get into the SB Lanes of JYP off the flyover merge with SB JYP having to weave as well to get into the turn lanes for LB McCleod. Only from I-4 WB to LB McCleod the project works, that is why it was done in the first place. Most WB I-4 motorists exiting at John Young Parkway head for WB LB McCleod, so FDOT made that flyover like they did there. SB John Young from the ramp is supposed to get into the left lane with NB John Young Traffic, and then turn right at the signal, but most cars and trucks are not doing that. Hence the weave! I think it might of been better to build a flyover directly onto LB McCleod where I-4 and McCleod run parallel and use LB McCleod as the connector to JYP. Then the LB McCleod bound traffic would be where they need to be and better traffic control at the John Young Parkway and LB McCleod Intersection.
I-4 to FL 408 was done poorly, as back ups still occur from EB I-4 to FL 408 (most of the problem through here). Only from FL 408 to EB I-4 was only done and even though that was needed, the former was more needed.
I just thought of another one; The new US 19-98 bridge over the Cross Florida Barge Canal in Red Level, Florida. The newer bridges are lower, and I'm not complaining about that. My problem is frontage roads on both sides of the canal don't loop underneath the bridge, and don't have connecting exit and entrance ramps, like for example the Robert Moses Causeway Drawbridge on Captree Island.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 22, 2011, 08:45:00 PM
I-4 to John Young Parkway flyover could have been done differently. Now you have weaving to get into the SB Lanes of JYP off the flyover merge with SB JYP having to weave as well to get into the turn lanes for LB McCleod. Only from I-4 WB to LB McCleod the project works, that is why it was done in the first place. Most WB I-4 motorists exiting at John Young Parkway head for WB LB McCleod, so FDOT made that flyover like they did there. SB John Young from the ramp is supposed to get into the left lane with NB John Young Traffic, and then turn right at the signal, but most cars and trucks are not doing that. Hence the weave! I think it might of been better to build a flyover directly onto LB McCleod where I-4 and McCleod run parallel and use LB McCleod as the connector to JYP. Then the LB McCleod bound traffic would be where they need to be and better traffic control at the John Young Parkway and LB McCleod Intersection.
I-4 to FL 408 was done poorly, as back ups still occur from EB I-4 to FL 408 (most of the problem through here). Only from FL 408 to EB I-4 was only done and even though that was needed, the former was more needed.
The I-4/FL 408 interchange isn't done yet. There are plans in place to complete the interchange to eliminate the trumpet but that requires money they currently don't have and aren't expected to have before 2013. (And yes, it does suck-they need to lose that trumpet badly).
Here's what they have planned, per the Central Florida Roads website:
http://www.cflroads.com/Project/Details/30/242484_4_I_4_from_West_of_Orange_Blossom_Trail_to_Ivanhoe_Boulevard
You may want to click on the SR408 PDF to see the build out of what was known a couple of years ago as the Ultimate I-4/SR 408 Interchange:
http://www.cflroads.com/Asset/File/50/SR408.pdf
On CR 537 they replaced the bridge over crosswicks creek with a brand new all concrete span, instead of one with wood piers...problem is when they were done with it they never properly repaved the approaches to the span, leaving it a rather wobbly texture.
They temporarialy moved the traffic over to a bailey bridge off the center line.
It is not easily visible on google street view, but the pavement going upto the short bridge is fairly wobbly feeling.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=new+egypt+nj&ll=40.085271,-74.538551&spn=0.002216,0.003449&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&hnear=New+Egypt,+Ocean,+New+Jersey&gl=us&t=h&z=18&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=40.085317,-74.538437&panoid=2Dylqemzs09-cBKc7xmEoA&cbp=12,238.59,,0,17.64
U.S. 1 in Florida between Homestead and Key Largo. Definitely should have been two lanes in each direction all the way.
KC Icon--250 million dollars and still a high speed left hand exit at the Paseo. Had their once in a lifetime chance and cheaped it. People would have understood a extra 10 million or so to eliminate that traffic hazard.
3 Trails Crossing--Not as bad as the KC Icon but still left a left hand exit at 71 North. MODOT your'e supposed to get rid of these flaws instead of rebuilding them.
Quote from: Lyle on November 13, 2011, 04:18:01 PM
U.S. 1 in Florida between Homestead and Key Largo. Definitely should have been two lanes in each direction all the way.
This was one of my least favorite roads I've been on. (I was on it on a Thursday night). I kept thinking "when are they going to upgrade this to 4 lanes?".It reminded me of London Road in Duluth, another two lane stretch of road connecting two four lane stretches heading to a resort area, and with traffic on your tail that wants to speed. I took Card Sound Road on the way back.
Mn/DOT seems to waffle between doing things right (the Wakota Bridge) and doing things half baked (the MN 13 interchange in Savage) based on politics and funding.
Quote from: Mdcastle on November 17, 2011, 09:00:25 AM
doing things right (the Wakota Bridge)
These are two phrases I'm not accustomed to seeing in the same sentence.
Quote from: Coelacanth on November 17, 2011, 04:28:50 PM
Quote from: Mdcastle on November 17, 2011, 09:00:25 AM
doing things right (the Wakota Bridge)
These are two phrases I'm not accustomed to seeing in the same sentence.
Well it was the contractor that messed up on that one, not MNDOT.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 17, 2011, 05:07:54 PM
Quote from: Coelacanth on November 17, 2011, 04:28:50 PM
Quote from: Mdcastle on November 17, 2011, 09:00:25 AM
doing things right (the Wakota Bridge)
These are two phrases I'm not accustomed to seeing in the same sentence.
Well it was the contractor that messed up on that one, not MNDOT.
It widened I-494 from four lanes all the way to 10.
^^^ Yes, I was referring to the project conceptionally, not the implementation. All the drama and miscues are in the past and now we have a 10 lane bridge as well as an obvious gap in the freeway system filled in. Although the boneheaded concept everyone likes to jump on, putting traffic signals on US 169 in Bloomington, wasn't Mn/DOTs doing.
Probably the worst current projects conceptionally are being done with suboptimal designs due to budgets rather than waiting until the money is available, I-694/US 10/MN 51 and the already mentioned MN 13 "half an interchange".