Interstate 10 and TX Beltway 8. Built in 1990, torn down by 2009. I'm sure there are more examples in the South to choose from too.
* I-270 at I-44 in Missouri -
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=38.552467,-90.422083&spn=0.005013,0.008256&t=k&z=18 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=38.552467,-90.422083&spn=0.005013,0.008256&t=k&z=18)
Obsolete due to a design flaw in which traffic exiting WB I-44 for SB I-270 must weave across traffic from MO 366 heading for SB I-270 and merge into traffic from WB MO 366 to SB I-270. This design flaw causes traffic to back up to beyond US 61-67 in the evening peak. Should have had a two lane flyover to SB I-270 with one lane for MO 366 traffic and one lane for I-44 traffic.
Half the interchanges in California.
Just about every one in Columbus, Oh.
Already rebuilt...
I-70/71 west split (1976)
I-670-US 62/Cassedy Ave-17th Ave (1991)
I-270/Sawmill Rd (2001?)
US 23/US 42, Delaware (2002)
I-670/US 33/Oh 315 (2003)
I-71/Oh 161 NE (2008)
I-270/71 north (2008)
I-71/Oh 750, Polaris Pkwy (2009)
I-71/670 (ETC 2014)
----
Proposed
I-70/71 east split
I-70/71 west split (deux)
I-270/Oh 315/US 23
I-270/US 33-Oh 161 (NW)
I-71/US 36-Oh 37
The 408-417 interchange near Orlando opened 22 years ago and was totally torn down and changed, not to everyone's pleasure. (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-31/news/os-beth-kassab-sr417-sr-408-waste-032712-20120331_1_cash-lanes-interchange-project-orlando-orange-county-expressway-authority) When I was down there one month ago, this bridge from 1990 was in demolition (http://goo.gl/maps/4RBT)--amazing to see something that recent (and which still looked new) being demolished.
The powers that be say that it was due to confusing left exits but those who dislike it say that the left exits didn't present the problems the powers that be say.
The bridges that carry I-295 (Anacostia Freeway) over I-95/I-495 (Capital Beltway) in Prince George's County, Maryland were built in the late 1980's or early 1990's to provide a direct connection from 295 to Md. 210 (Indian Head Highway) but had to be demolished and reconstructed as part of the reconstruction of the Beltway in the area when the Woodrow Wilson Bridge was rebuilt.
I-49/I-30 is currently under construction, and it is an underpowered 3/4 cloverleaf with one flyover. It will need to be replaced soon enough.
The I-10/I-49-US 167 full cloverleaf interchange in Lafayette need some serious upgrade, even before I-49 is ultimately extended through Lafayette. At the very least, some fully directional ramps would be nice; allowing one-way frontage roads to be extended north under I-10 and continue along I-49 to at least Carencro would be even better.
I'd even consider tolling I-49 from Carencro southward to pay for that...along with adding an additional lane to I-49, too.
Anthony
The entire NJ Turnpike was planned as 4 lanes and within 20 years a dual-dual system was established and upgraded, including turning trumpets into doubled monstrosities and sometimes flipping their locations. Exits 7, 11, 12, and 17 all changed significantly within 20 years of opening. They just failed to account for growth in population and especially demand.
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on July 02, 2012, 10:53:17 PM
Just about every one in Columbus, Oh.
Already rebuilt...
I-270/Sawmill Rd (2001?)
US 23/US 42, Delaware (2002)
I-670/US 33/Oh 315 (2003)
I-71/Oh 161 NE (2008)
I-270/71 north (2008)
----
Proposed
I-70/71 east split
I-70/71 west split (deux)
I-270/Oh 315/US 23
I-270/US 33-Oh 161 (NW)
I-71/US 36-Oh 37
I think most of those involve a time window much larger than 20 years between first construction and rebuild... on the other hand, first construction to "obsolete" could be measured differently by different people.
I think part of the problem is it's SOP to design new roads to be merely "adequate" about 25 years in the future. With delays in construction and/or greater-than-anticipated population growth, a new highway or interchange can easily be overwhelmed in 20 years.
The entire Blue Route (I-476) south of PA 3 falls under this category. (And probably the 202 parkway when it opens, particularly the two-lane parts... :pan:)
Catthorpe Interchange (http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Catthorpe_Interchange) between the M1, M6 and A14. The original fork interchange between M1 and M6 is fine - though they replaced the bridge recently after 40 years and changed the lane layout a few years before that as 3+3 into 3 doesn't go easily (ghost lane drops where both motorways drop down to two lanes before merging). I think the new bridge is only 2 lanes, rather than 3 to cement this change in layout for good.
When they built the A14, they widened a local road under the M1 to three lanes, and put in some slip roads to/from the M1 to the north and the M6. A complete bodge.
The planned rebuild of the interchange will be 20 years after the junction was first built (1994, so 2014), but the junction has been obsolete and in need of improvement for years. The problem is that it's been a low priority as the problem is unlikely to get worse in years to come.
Quote from: Steve on July 02, 2012, 11:59:01 PM
The entire NJ Turnpike was planned as 4 lanes and within 20 years a dual-dual system was established and upgraded, including turning trumpets into doubled monstrosities and sometimes flipping their locations. Exits 7, 11, 12, and 17 all changed significantly within 20 years of opening. They just failed to account for growth in population and especially demand.
But in the case of the N.J. Turnpike, what was the state-of-the-practice for travel demand forecasting in the late 1940's?
I do not believe there were computers available to do any of the number-crunching work back then, and I suspect that the primary (
perhaps only) concern of the engineers was making sure there would be enough revenue-paying traffic to pay off the Turnpike's construction bonds.
I-66 and the Capital Beltway (I-495) in Virginia. When the roads opened around 1964, I-66 ended at the (then two lanes per side) Beltway and the interchange included a number of left-lane merges and exits. The Beltway was soon widened to four lanes per side but the left-side ramps weren't fixed either then or when I-66 was extended to DC in 1982, and in fact another left-lane merge was added at that time. They also built a right-lane exit from northbound I-495 to westbound I-66 as an additional alternative to the left-lane exit for the same route, but few people used it. Over time ramps were grafted on in various ways that continued to leave it a mess. It's been a notorious backup for years.
It's finally receiving a full rebuild as part of the HO/T lane project. The managed lanes will still have left-side exits and entrances, but the mainline won't.
It 1951 a cloverleaf was opened at what is now the I-90/I-490/NY 96 interchange.
In 1953-54 it had to be torn down and rebuilt because of the Thruway going through.
http://www.empirestateroads.com/week/week12.html
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 03, 2012, 12:12:22 PM
I-66 and the Capital Beltway (I-495) in Virginia. When the roads opened around 1964, I-66 ended at the (then two lanes per side) Beltway and the interchange included a number of left-lane merges and exits. The Beltway was soon widened to four lanes per side but the left-side ramps weren't fixed either then or when I-66 was extended to DC in 1982, and in fact another left-lane merge was added at that time. They also built a right-lane exit from northbound I-495 to westbound I-66 as an additional alternative to the left-lane exit for the same route, but few people used it. Over time ramps were grafted on in various ways that continued to leave it a mess. It's been a notorious backup for years.
It's finally receiving a full rebuild as part of the HO/T lane project. The managed lanes will still have left-side exits and entrances, but the mainline won't.
That left-side exit was the "original" exit from I-66 eastbound to I-495 northbound (Inner Loop).
When the concurrent-flow HOV lanes were implemented outside (west of) I-495 in about 1994, then general-purpose traffic could no longer use the left-side exit, and was funneled into a narrow (1 lane) and twisting ramp which exited I-66 on the right, but deposited that I-66 traffic on the left side of the Inner Loop. Trying to funnel most of 3 lanes of general-purpose lane traffic into a one lane twisty ramp is never likely to work well, and eastbound I-66 has been frequently congested from as far west as U.S. 50 at Fair Oaks as a result.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 03, 2012, 12:01:21 PM
Quote from: Steve on July 02, 2012, 11:59:01 PM
The entire NJ Turnpike was planned as 4 lanes and within 20 years a dual-dual system was established and upgraded, including turning trumpets into doubled monstrosities and sometimes flipping their locations. Exits 7, 11, 12, and 17 all changed significantly within 20 years of opening. They just failed to account for growth in population and especially demand.
But in the case of the N.J. Turnpike, what was the state-of-the-practice for travel demand forecasting in the late 1940's?
I do not believe there were computers available to do any of the number-crunching work back then, and I suspect that the primary (perhaps only) concern of the engineers was making sure there would be enough revenue-paying traffic to pay off the Turnpike's construction bonds.
So what? Point is that interchanges were torn out because of poor planning, not making excuses as to why.
the US 41-US 151 interchange on the south side of Fond du Lac, WI was built only a few years ago as a diamond. US151 is a freeway/expressway to the west/south, and a bypass on the cheap to its east. within 10-20 years a fullspeed interchange will be built here, the at grade intersections to the east (currently upgraded to J-turns), the US151-US45 jughandle interchange, and the diamond at WIS 23 are all going to be upgraded, WIS23 is currently in the design and preliminary construction faze of being upgraded to an expressway between fond du lac and sheboygan, and a the current interchange will also be built as a partial-Y and diamond interchange. also the jughandle interchange due west of the US41-US151 interchange will be removed, so a total of 4 soon to be obsolete interchanges built within the last 7-10 years or so i believe.
Quote from: Steve on July 03, 2012, 08:15:15 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 03, 2012, 12:01:21 PM
Quote from: Steve on July 02, 2012, 11:59:01 PM
The entire NJ Turnpike was planned as 4 lanes and within 20 years a dual-dual system was established and upgraded, including turning trumpets into doubled monstrosities and sometimes flipping their locations. Exits 7, 11, 12, and 17 all changed significantly within 20 years of opening. They just failed to account for growth in population and especially demand.
But in the case of the N.J. Turnpike, what was the state-of-the-practice for travel demand forecasting in the late 1940's?
I do not believe there were computers available to do any of the number-crunching work back then, and I suspect that the primary (perhaps only) concern of the engineers was making sure there would be enough revenue-paying traffic to pay off the Turnpike's construction bonds.
So what? Point is that interchanges were torn out because of poor planning, not making excuses as to why.
Like it or not, estimating how much traffic is going to use a highway (and in particular a highway where revenue bonds are paying for construction) is perhaps the most-basic step in planning for a highway - and this was
especially the case back in the 1940's, when there was no National Environmental Policy Act and no Clean Water Act and so on, so highway engineers could build their projects much more quickly than today, and without much regard to waterway and wetland impacts.
Somebody had to have done some sort of estimate of traffic (and traffic in the out-years) for the New Jersey Turnpike before the Turnpike Authority sold its bonds.
Also keep in mind that the Turnpike Authority was (according to
Looking for America on the New Jersey Turnpike) was
very much a no-nonsense, keep-it-simple type of operation, and planning for future expansion was probably
not something that its leaders were very interested in -
at the time.
The primary goals were getting the project designed, the right-of-way acquired and the road built, and collecting enough dollars in tolls to pay off the bonds on schedule.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 02, 2012, 11:55:30 PM
The I-10/I-49-US 167 full cloverleaf interchange in Lafayette need some serious upgrade, even before I-49 is ultimately extended through Lafayette. At the very least, some fully directional ramps would be nice; allowing one-way frontage roads to be extended north under I-10 and continue along I-49 to at least Carencro would be even better.
I'd even consider tolling I-49 from Carencro southward to pay for that...along with adding an additional lane to I-49, too.
Anthony
C'mon, people MUST pay the tolls. After all, from Carencro to Lafayette, I-49 is the ONLY way to drive, because LA 182 and the Ambassador Extension won't exist at all. With that sarcasm being said, I-49/I-10 need to be replaced big time. I would even suggest that I-49/US 190 need to be changed, with a fly ramp from 49 South to 190 East instead of having to stop at the intersection.
Quote from: Steve on July 03, 2012, 08:15:15 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 03, 2012, 12:01:21 PM
Quote from: Steve on July 02, 2012, 11:59:01 PM
The entire NJ Turnpike was planned as 4 lanes and within 20 years a dual-dual system was established and upgraded, including turning trumpets into doubled monstrosities and sometimes flipping their locations. Exits 7, 11, 12, and 17 all changed significantly within 20 years of opening. They just failed to account for growth in population and especially demand.
But in the case of the N.J. Turnpike, what was the state-of-the-practice for travel demand forecasting in the late 1940's?
I do not believe there were computers available to do any of the number-crunching work back then, and I suspect that the primary (perhaps only) concern of the engineers was making sure there would be enough revenue-paying traffic to pay off the Turnpike's construction bonds.
So what? Point is that interchanges were torn out because of poor planning, not making excuses as to why.
Calling it poor planning sort of does the powers that be a disservice. I'd argue that in 1948, NJTP couldn't possibly have known what they were even planning
for. General Eisenhower had only gotten his hands-on experience with the Autobahn three years prior. Levittown, NY, generally considered the first modern suburb, was still under construction. There were the earliest rumblings of what would become the Interstate System, but the man at the top of BPR was still Chief MacDonald, who considered rural freeways unnecessary. (He was fired two months after Eisenhower took office.) Certainly in 1948 everyone had a vague idea that something big in road building was taking place, but nobody really knew what its final form would be or what to expect. I doubt anyone responsible for planning at NJTP could have realistically foreseen the state of the road system in 1968.
The FL 429 and FL 414 interchange near Apopka, FL, I think, is the most short lived interchange as it was only constructed within the last 5 years. Now, just very recently it was modified to a new configuration. The bridge that once carried FL 429 over FL 414 was brand new then and now demolished and the one over CR 437A is going to be (if not already) torn down.
Quote from: Jordanah1 on July 03, 2012, 08:50:36 PM
the US 41-US 151 interchange on the south side of Fond du Lac, WI was built only a few years ago as a diamond. US151 is a freeway/expressway to the west/south, and a bypass on the cheap to its east. within 10-20 years a fullspeed interchange will be built here, the at grade intersections to the east (currently upgraded to J-turns), the US151-US45 jughandle interchange, and the diamond at WIS 23 are all going to be upgraded, WIS23 is currently in the design and preliminary construction faze of being upgraded to an expressway between fond du lac and sheboygan, and a the current interchange will also be built as a partial-Y and diamond interchange. also the jughandle interchange due west of the US41-US151 interchange will be removed, so a total of 4 soon to be obsolete interchanges built within the last 7-10 years or so i believe.
The US 151/WI 23 interchange study was, essentially, postponed indefinitely - WisDOT determined that that high-powered turn movement was not going to be needed within the 20-30 year planning window. There is a thread on this in the Midwest-Great Lakes section of this forvm. I'm not sure on US 41/151, I have seen no plans regarding any further upgrades there. The rest east of US 41, as well as the ongoing upgrades to WI 23, will likely be done within that time, though.
WisDOT (I hope) learned its lesson with these 'bypasses on the cheap' (ie, US 151) as their new WI 26 bypasses of Watertown, Jefferson, Fort Atkinson and Milton, all approved since then, are all full freeways (Fort Atkinson was a 'super two' that has recently been upgraded to four lanes). The Watertown bypass is expected to open later this month.
Mike
(Almost) the entire Surekill: 202 to 611. :sombrero:
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 03, 2012, 12:01:21 PMBut in the case of the N.J. Turnpike, what was the state-of-the-practice for travel demand forecasting in the late 1940's?
The survey techniques were much the same as those used today.
PHRB has reports of expressway planning studies from the mid-1940's onward. The Kansas City expressway plan, which was being developed at around the time the NJ Turnpike was being planned, partitioned the city into what are now recognizable as traffic analysis zones and estimated trips into and out of each zone based on dominant land use and other considerations. These trip counts were aggregated to identify logical corridors for high-capacity through routes.
QuoteI do not believe there were computers available to do any of the number-crunching work back then, and I suspect that the primary (perhaps only) concern of the engineers was making sure there would be enough revenue-paying traffic to pay off the Turnpike's construction bonds.
The lack of widespread computerization at the time is probably less important than the inability to use measuring techniques which rely on some form of automated surveillance, such as license plate counting. Lack of computerization would have made it expedient to use TAZ with very coarse granularity and to apply growth factors globally instead of gathering data to initialize a more refined model.
A more fundamental problem with traffic forecasting in the 1940's relates not to the actual techniques used or the availability of computing power, but rather to the sheer lack of research relating to the feedback effects highway development has on land use. At the time there was no baseline for understanding how highways would affect land values, or stimulate suburban development, and there was no real way to get this information short of building a few freeways and taking measurements. This is part of the reason
CHPW issues from the late 1940's are full of before-and-after studies showing the effect freeways have on land values. (The underbuilding that went on in California in the 1940's is roughly comparable to that of the NJTP corridor. A considerable mileage of freeway, especially around downtown Los Angeles, is in fact 1960's widenings of freeways which were originally built in the late 1940's.)
The main difference between now and the 1940's, at least where traffic forecasting is concerned, is that it is now SOP to estimate generated traffic resulting from building development that can reasonably be forecast to occur, whether or not it is compatible with current land-use plans. But even this entails working with a spectrum of possible growth values. In Spain, for example, lane counts for rural motorways are checked against high, medium, and low traffic growth scenarios, a different factor for annually compounded increase in traffic being adopted for each.
Quote from: bugo on July 02, 2012, 11:41:56 PM
I-49/I-30 is currently under construction, and it is an underpowered 3/4 cloverleaf with one flyover. It will need to be replaced soon enough.
The one flyover is curious. My guess is the fourth cloverleaf was left off because of the farmhouse in the northwest quadrant of the interchange. That's how AHTD rolls.
I-12/I-55 cloverleaf interchange should have been a stack. It was probably adequate when the speed limit was 55 but it's a little more tricky to slow down from 70.
The rebuilt CA-22 east to I-5/CA 57. They rebuilt it about 7 years ago and added a collector lane, and the whole thing backs up about 3 miles during rush hour.
The rebuilt CA-57/60 merge. They built a truck bypass lane on the southbound lanes that trucks don't have to use. There is very little difference in the pre-rebuild and post-rebuild traffic.
I-15/CA 91 interchange. It was built 25 years ago. For the past 15 years on weekends the northbound 15 to westbound 91 lanes regularly back up.