I'm fascinated whenever traffic engineers went overboard. At the peak of their power in the 1950s/60s, they designed and built stuff that turned out to be neither needed or wanted.
My nomination: http://goo.gl/maps/t39j9
US-101 @ Army Street (Cesar Chavez) and Potrero/Bayshore in San Francisco.
What could have been a simple modified diamond between surface streets somehow became a blender. The tight hairpin turns between streets avoid lights but become a twisty maze that the average driver can barely manage. Not to mention that submerged spaghetti intersections are completely hostile to pedestrians and bicyclists, because the original engineers really didn't care either.
At one point this was configured as a traffic circle. ( http://imgur.com/tL458 ) Probably wasn't that great either, but it looks vastly superior to the final built product.
There are so many ways to make this simpler, and so few reasons to have made this so complicated: https://maps.google.com/?ll=40.895138,-74.252086&spn=0.008386,0.016651&t=h&z=16
From the not-overly-complex, but perhaps-suspiciously-more-sprawling-than-you'd-think-it-would-need files:
http://goo.gl/maps/a0I1d
and
http://goo.gl/maps/KKUv1
I-696 at Mound Rd, Warren, MI
http://goo.gl/maps/piaTI
To be fair, Mound Rd was supposed to have been converted to freeway in this area as M-53 when this interchange was designed and constructed. That obviously never came to pass.
The I-695 interchange with its parent route North East of Baltimore, MD. It now serves as a stack interchange where before in its old configuration was not broken as far as I could see. It always had high speed ramps between the two freeways in all four directions. True it required the carriageways to switch through the intersection, which is unorthodox in highway design, but not so much to waste millions of dollars to build new flyovers with the same exact characteristics.
They're doing it because of the new HOT lanes they're building on I-95. Way too ridiculously complicated to fit them in on the old design. But it's a real shame, since the old one was much cooler. :cool:
Quote from: Roadsguy on November 10, 2012, 01:31:09 PM
They're doing it because of the new HOT lanes they're building on I-95. Way too ridiculously complicated to fit them in on the old design. But it's a real shame, since the old one was much cooler. :cool:
Amen to that!
I don't see how anything can be over built. It's much better than being under built where traffic lights and stop lines are built instead of ramps just to save a few $ :ded:
Quote from: Truvelo on November 10, 2012, 02:25:08 PM
I don't see how anything can be over built. It's much better than being under built where traffic lights and stop lines are built instead of ramps just to save a few $ :ded:
Wow, can I have your extra money, please?
Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2012, 12:05:06 PM
The I-695 interchange with its parent route North East of Baltimore, MD. It now serves as a stack interchange where before in its old configuration was not broken as far as I could see. It always had high speed ramps between the two freeways in all four directions. True it required the carriageways to switch through the intersection, which is unorthodox in highway design, but not so much to waste millions of dollars to build new flyovers with the same exact characteristics.
But it's not overbuilt. It was an unorthodox design, but with the amount of traffic moving through there, the level of construction makes sense.
https://maps.google.com/?ll=55.883026,37.725838&spn=0.005488,0.016512&t=k&z=17
Pretty much every interchange on Moscow's beltway is a cloverleaf. Many have flyovers, but also redundant loops for the same movements. Maybe they're for U-turning traffic.
Quote from: empirestate on November 10, 2012, 09:16:27 AM
From the not-overly-complex, but perhaps-suspiciously-more-sprawling-than-you'd-think-it-would-need files:
http://goo.gl/maps/a0I1d
Note that most of the 'waste' here is bridges over swamps. Probably doesn't matter much where they go, so they might as well provide higher-speed connections.
Quote from: flowmotion on November 10, 2012, 05:39:02 AM
I'm fascinated whenever traffic engineers went overboard. At the peak of their power in the 1950s/60s, they designed and built stuff that turned out to be neither needed or wanted.
My nomination: http://goo.gl/maps/t39j9
US-101 @ Army Street (Cesar Chavez) and Potrero/Bayshore in San Francisco.
What could have been a simple modified diamond between surface streets somehow became a blender. The tight hairpin turns between streets avoid lights but become a twisty maze that the average driver can barely manage. Not to mention that submerged spaghetti intersections are completely hostile to pedestrians and bicyclists, because the original engineers really didn't care either.
At one point this was configured as a traffic circle. ( http://imgur.com/tL458 ) Probably wasn't that great either, but it looks vastly superior to the final built product.
Wasn't this supposed to be the western terminus of the unbuilt Southern Crossing? I've always surmised that was the reason for the interchange configuration of what is otherwise merely three surface streets meeting up with 101.
Quote from: TheStranger on November 10, 2012, 05:29:32 PM
Quote from: flowmotion on November 10, 2012, 05:39:02 AM
I'm fascinated whenever traffic engineers went overboard. At the peak of their power in the 1950s/60s, they designed and built stuff that turned out to be neither needed or wanted.
My nomination: http://goo.gl/maps/t39j9
US-101 @ Army Street (Cesar Chavez) and Potrero/Bayshore in San Francisco.
What could have been a simple modified diamond between surface streets somehow became a blender. The tight hairpin turns between streets avoid lights but become a twisty maze that the average driver can barely manage. Not to mention that submerged spaghetti intersections are completely hostile to pedestrians and bicyclists, because the original engineers really didn't care either.
At one point this was configured as a traffic circle. ( http://imgur.com/tL458 ) Probably wasn't that great either, but it looks vastly superior to the final built product.
Wasn't this supposed to be the western terminus of the unbuilt Southern Crossing? I've always surmised that was the reason for the interchange configuration of what is otherwise merely three surface streets meeting up with 101.
Correct: http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4231803873/sizes/l/
I-10 at LA 1, Port Allen - http://goo.gl/maps/nJd45
This could have been easily solved shifting Interstate-bound traffic to the west and having a more open interchange, the tight spaghetti junction means traffic backs up for MILES to the south for Baton Rouge-bound LA 1 motorists. You have to slow down to 20 MPH, only to merge in with 60 MPH traffic.
I-10 East at Pontchartrain Expressway - http://goo.gl/maps/SviIc
I can't even begin to describe this junction.
Quote from: Steve on November 10, 2012, 03:59:05 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2012, 12:05:06 PM
The I-695 interchange with its parent route North East of Baltimore, MD. It now serves as a stack interchange where before in its old configuration was not broken as far as I could see. It always had high speed ramps between the two freeways in all four directions. True it required the carriageways to switch through the intersection, which is unorthodox in highway design, but not so much to waste millions of dollars to build new flyovers with the same exact characteristics.
But it's not overbuilt. It was an unorthodox design, but with the amount of traffic moving through there, the level of construction makes sense.
I do think it might be, as they could have added lanes to the left side exits to speed things up. However, if HOV is being added it will be easier for that though.
One thing they also did was redesign the I-895 interchange to the south that was a directional with Harbor Tunnel being the dominate roadway and I-95 leaving and entering itself to now have I-95 as the main body. That should have been built the way it is now at first. I am guessing the HOV had something to do wit that as well?
Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2012, 11:45:23 PM
Quote from: Steve on November 10, 2012, 03:59:05 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2012, 12:05:06 PM
The I-695 interchange with its parent route North East of Baltimore, MD. It now serves as a stack interchange where before in its old configuration was not broken as far as I could see. It always had high speed ramps between the two freeways in all four directions. True it required the carriageways to switch through the intersection, which is unorthodox in highway design, but not so much to waste millions of dollars to build new flyovers with the same exact characteristics.
But it's not overbuilt. It was an unorthodox design, but with the amount of traffic moving through there, the level of construction makes sense.
I do think it might be, as they could have added lanes to the left side exits to speed things up. However, if HOV is being added it will be easier for that though.
One thing they also did was redesign the I-895 interchange to the south that was a directional with Harbor Tunnel being the dominate roadway and I-95 leaving and entering itself to now have I-95 as the main body. That should have been built the way it is now at first. I am guessing the HOV had something to do wit that as well?
I think the change may have been motivated by the I-95 Express Toll Lanes.
But don't forget that I-895 existed for years (back to 1957) as the no-route-number Baltimore Harbor Tunnel Thruway, then "To I-95" before finally getting its own route number in the 1970's or 1980's.
Before the Fort McHenry Tunnel was completed and opened to traffic in 1985, I-895
was the mainline.
Quote from: Steve on November 10, 2012, 07:54:44 AM
There are so many ways to make this simpler, and so few reasons to have made this so complicated: https://maps.google.com/?ll=40.895138,-74.252086&spn=0.008386,0.016651&t=h&z=16
I stayed at that Ramada back during the March 2011 New Jersey meet. That interchange is extremely confusing, and I found it to be poorly signed as well.
Quote from: mcdonaat on November 10, 2012, 06:39:12 PM
I-10 at LA 1, Port Allen - http://goo.gl/maps/nJd45
This could have been easily solved shifting Interstate-bound traffic to the west and having a more open interchange, the tight spaghetti junction means traffic backs up for MILES to the south for Baton Rouge-bound LA 1 motorists. You have to slow down to 20 MPH, only to merge in with 60 MPH traffic.
The main problem there is the proximity of the Union Pacific rail line that serves the Port of West Baton Rouge, which limited how far you could shift LA 1 westward, as well as maintaining access to the port itself.
Quote
I-10 East at Pontchartrain Expressway - http://goo.gl/maps/SviIc
I can't even begin to describe this junction.
Actually, it's a hell of a lot better now, since they rebuilt it in the 1990's to include more direct access between the Ponchatrain Expressway and I-10 (when the Cresent City Connection twin was built). Before then, it really WAS a clusterwhack.
I nominate Federal Route 175 and IH-20. A four level stack in the fields.
Hibby has been trolled.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on November 11, 2012, 02:16:43 PM
Quote from: mcdonaat on November 10, 2012, 06:39:12 PM
I-10 at LA 1, Port Allen - http://goo.gl/maps/nJd45
This could have been easily solved shifting Interstate-bound traffic to the west and having a more open interchange, the tight spaghetti junction means traffic backs up for MILES to the south for Baton Rouge-bound LA 1 motorists. You have to slow down to 20 MPH, only to merge in with 60 MPH traffic.
The main problem there is the proximity of the Union Pacific rail line that serves the Port of West Baton Rouge, which limited how far you could shift LA 1 westward, as well as maintaining access to the port itself.
It is possible to move railroads, though I imagine the logistics of making that happen are nowhere near simple, especially for a major line. The BNSF line was relocated a few years ago when they built the new US-12 super two between Wayzata and Maple Plain, Minnesota.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 11, 2012, 10:41:35 AMQuote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2012, 11:45:23 PMQuote from: Steve on November 10, 2012, 03:59:05 PMQuote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2012, 12:05:06 PMThe I-695 interchange with its parent route northeast of Baltimore, MD. It now serves as a stack interchange where before in its old configuration was not broken as far as I could see. It always had high speed ramps between the two freeways in all four directions. True it required the carriageways to switch through the intersection, which is unorthodox in highway design, but not so much to waste millions of dollars to build new flyovers with the same exact characteristics.
But it's not overbuilt. It was an unorthodox design, but with the amount of traffic moving through there, the level of construction makes sense.
I do think it might be, as they could have added lanes to the left side exits to speed things up. However, if HOV is being added it will be easier for that though.
I think the change may have been motivated by the I-95 Express Toll Lanes.
The replacement of the I-95/I-695 interchange is indeed part of the Express Toll Lanes construction program. At the time construction started, it was divided into two phases and MdTA expected to have enough money to start the second phase just as construction was winding up on the first. But then the ICC intervened and blew a hole through MdTA's finances. The second phase was recently advertised (and, I believe, awarded), but is five years late and has been radically descoped into an interim improvement until MdTA gets enough money to carry out the full ETL work.
There were several objectives behind the conversion of the I-95/I-695 interchange from a braided interchange into a Maltese cross stack:
* Increase capacity on I-95 to accommodate expected increases in traffic demand
* Eliminate left-hand exits and entrances
* Reduce the sharpness of I-95 mainline curves (in the old braided interchange, these had advisory speeds of 50 MPH)
So, no, I don't think I-95/I-695 is overbuilt. It may have a significant amount of slack capacity at present, but this has been provided in anticipation of future demand. Ironically, the true overbuilt interchange is on the other side of Baltimore--I-70/I-695, also another Maltese cross stack, built in anticipation of an I-70 extension into urban Baltimore which was cancelled.
Quote from: Roadsguy on November 10, 2012, 01:31:09 PM
They're doing it because of the new HOT lanes they're building on I-95. Way too ridiculously complicated to fit them in on the old design. But it's a real shame, since the old one was much cooler. :cool:
Technically those are Express Toll Lanes, not HO/T lanes, because there is no "HOV rides free" provision. All traffic using the lanes must pay at all times.
For those unfamiliar with that interchange, the old setup:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi-95expresstolllanes.com%2Flinked_files%2Ffactsheets%2F101110%2Fi695_before.jpg&hash=805f50b80d313d11b54c18bb12dd2743b17a701e)
Versus the new setup (with the old "crossover carriageways" still there; this picture is a few years old):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi-95expresstolllanes.com%2Flinked_files%2Ffactsheets%2F101110%2Fi695_completed.jpg&hash=9e5002409c9efd0ebbc43a513c3b2eecedf7f898)
Versus the original plan for the final reconfiguration:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cenews.com%2Fuserfiles%2Fimage%2Fissue-images%2F2008-09_PCS_interchange1.jpg&hash=749260a59dbf32c8dde47148ceb5ceb005f1baaa)
Quote from: DTComposer on November 10, 2012, 05:59:18 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on November 10, 2012, 05:29:32 PM
Quote from: flowmotion on November 10, 2012, 05:39:02 AM
My nomination: http://goo.gl/maps/t39j9
US-101 @ Army Street (Cesar Chavez) and Potrero/Bayshore in San Francisco.
Wasn't this supposed to be the western terminus of the unbuilt Southern Crossing? I've always surmised that was the reason for the interchange configuration of what is otherwise merely three surface streets meeting up with 101.
Correct: http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4231803873/sizes/l/
The above link shows a separate intersection north of Army St.
And, if they had built the Southern Crossing connected to the current intersection, it would have been massively under-designed (tight looks that don't handle very much traffic.)
The current I-95 and FL 528 interchange in Cocoa, FL is a full cloverleaf. The EB to NB and the SB to WB are not needed as FL 407 serves as that function. It was only converted not long ago as it was a partial interchange for decades. It was missing four movements. Primarily from NB I-95 to EB FL 528 and from WB FL 528 to SB I-95 that used to have a Breezewood using FL 524 and Industry Road to make the connection between the two freeways.
Someone from FDOT explained to me that the money was there at the time so they figured why not use it. That is why it was made complete even though FL 407 is the connection from SB I-95 to WB FL 528 and EB FL 528 to NB I-95. If the later created Port St. John interchange was not a reality, then I would say it is totally pointless. However, if you want to go from FL 528 EB to Port St. John it would have to be used as Port St. John lies between both FL 528 and FL 407 on I-95. Then again are there many cars that go to Port St. John from FL 528? Also, did FDOT know at time of reconfiguration that another new interchange would be opened later that might be used from FL 528? So it may be partially pointless.
Translation: 528/95 is now a full cloverleaf. Even though I think it's overbuilt, technically it isn't because all of the new movements serve some useful function. Also, it's only a cloverleaf, so it's really hard to call it overbuilt structurally, either.
This parclo seems a little overbuilt to me:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mrc.ca%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F04%2F2010-IMAGE-11-500x333.jpg&hash=2556e57c5287dcc27b4453be828926601d7234e4)
Full size image: http://www.mrc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/2010-IMAGE-11.jpg
More info: www.mrc.ca/mrc_projects/stevenson-road-interchange-highway-401-oshawa/
^ It's actually a neat solution to not having to terminate the frontage road on the near side and tying in frontage facilities. A little overbuilt, perhaps, but cool nonetheless.
Calling any of these "over-built" is unfair unless you know the travel demand model growth and in turn the turning movement counts. Of course everything is either "over-built" or "under-built" :pan: But anyway...
Speaking of expensive frontage road options...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.modot.org%2Fimages%2Fdistricts%2Fstlouis%2F70_94_Interchange.jpe&hash=16589d757a8ec5a0410c53ee6c3613ed7f10cbe2)
http://goo.gl/maps/Ka5c0
Have you seen designs similiar to this one in your areas?
Quote from: johndoe on November 24, 2012, 10:44:15 AM
Calling any of these "over-built" is unfair unless you know the travel demand model growth and in turn the turning movement counts. Of course everything is either "over-built" or "under-built" :pan: But anyway...
Speaking of expensive frontage road options...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.modot.org%2Fimages%2Fdistricts%2Fstlouis%2F70_94_Interchange.jpe&hash=16589d757a8ec5a0410c53ee6c3613ed7f10cbe2)
http://goo.gl/maps/Ka5c0
Have you seen designs similiar to this one in your areas?
Nothing should ever look like that. I would differ with "Not To Scale." That's a lazy way of saying "We can't figure out the scale." If the drawing is in proportion, it's to scale.
Quote from: Steve on November 24, 2012, 11:55:43 PM
I would differ with "Not To Scale." That's a lazy way of saying "We can't figure out the scale." If the drawing is in proportion, it's to scale.
Haha agreed, I don't really understand that. (And that note gets put on tons of drawings!) I guess they're worried someone will get out a scale at a public meeting? But like you say...it IS to scale. Maybe not a paper-friendly scale, but a scale nonetheless.
Quote from: Steve on November 24, 2012, 11:55:43 PMNothing should ever look like that.
Referring to the scaling issues or the design?
Quote from: johndoe on November 25, 2012, 07:49:51 PM
Quote from: Steve on November 24, 2012, 11:55:43 PMNothing should ever look like that.
Referring to the scaling issues or the design?
The design. One of my boss's many sayings: "If it looks like shit on paper, it will drive like shit." The SW Loop and North Outer Road both look particularly awkward. I can't put a finger on why, since there's no scale handy. (If they'd used the proper 10-30-10-30 linestyle, that wouldn't have been an issue.)
One definite issue is traffic merging from the loop and turning left at the SPUI.
Quote from: NE2 on November 26, 2012, 05:49:04 PM
One definite issue is traffic merging from the loop and turning left at the SPUI.
Yeah, some very short merge and weave areas, and also the number of lanes rapidly changing. You're going from a 4 lane road to a 10-lane monstrosity in about 200 feet.
Quote from: Steve on November 26, 2012, 04:57:05 PM10-30-10-30 linestyle
Are you referring to the pavement marking lengths?
Yeah, I think my least favorite part of that design is to go left onto the outer road the drivers must know to go right instead. I suppose it could be cured with signing, but to sign both outer roads and the SPUI itself would be a headache!
Exit 101 on I-4 at Sanford is overbuilt. It has three interchanges in one. Now it may serve the fact that FDOT does not want local traffic between the three roads, but a long c/d road would allow locals not to enter the general use lanes and serve the same thing.
The same is done between FL 435 and FL 482 Westbound where you cannot go from SB FL 435 to FL 482 using I-4. All though that is good for traffic flow on I-4, many tourists could use the short use and all they needed to do was add a slip ramp between the long I-4 WB on ramp from FL 435 to long off ramp from I-4 WB to FL 482.
http://goo.gl/maps/U8GxI (http://goo.gl/maps/U8GxI)
The Wetzlar stack interchange in Germany. It's the only full stack interchange in Germany and the crossing A480 Autobahn carries a whopping 3,000 vehicles per day.
I do believe the local geography was a factor in building a stack instead of a cloverleaf.
Quote from: Chris on January 08, 2013, 01:49:25 PM
http://goo.gl/maps/U8GxI (http://goo.gl/maps/U8GxI)
The Wetzlar stack interchange in Germany. It's the only full stack interchange in Germany and the crossing A480 Autobahn carries a whopping 3,000 vehicles per day.
I do believe the local geography was a factor in building a stack instead of a cloverleaf.
I think that Autobahn has just beaten off my 18,800 vpd 8-lane expressway in Québec City (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=46.860782,-71.16703&spn=0.001603,0.003449&sll=46.195042,-95.712891&sspn=9.668919,56.513672&z=18).
But that's not an interchange.
If I return to the topic, I may suggest a series of 6 interchanges on 4,5 km in a low-density populated suburb (http://goo.gl/maps/bZMXN). I would take out 4 of them. At least.
Quote from: webfil on January 08, 2013, 02:48:03 PM
I think that Autobahn has just beaten off my 18,800 vpd 8-lane expressway in Québec City (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=46.860782,-71.16703&spn=0.001603,0.003449&sll=46.195042,-95.712891&sspn=9.668919,56.513672&z=18).
Road masturbation! :-D
Quote from: Chris on January 08, 2013, 01:49:25 PM
http://goo.gl/maps/U8GxI (http://goo.gl/maps/U8GxI)
The Wetzlar stack interchange in Germany. It's the only full stack interchange in Germany and the crossing A480 Autobahn carries a whopping 3,000 vehicles per day.
I do believe the local geography was a factor in building a stack instead of a cloverleaf.
Also the fact that the A480 has/d aspirations of being much more than it is now - its traffic is typical of an uncompleted stub freeway that only goes to the first interchange on either side of the cross freeway. What is its current prognosis?
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on January 09, 2013, 09:59:49 AM
Quote from: Chris on January 08, 2013, 01:49:25 PM
http://goo.gl/maps/U8GxI (http://goo.gl/maps/U8GxI)
The Wetzlar stack interchange in Germany. It's the only full stack interchange in Germany and the crossing A480 Autobahn carries a whopping 3,000 vehicles per day.
I do believe the local geography was a factor in building a stack instead of a cloverleaf.
Also the fact that the A480 has/d aspirations of being much more than it is now - its traffic is typical of an uncompleted stub freeway that only goes to the first interchange on either side of the cross freeway. What is its current prognosis?
Mike
Indeed, it was supposed to be part of a longer A48 that would have connected the current A48 near Koblenz with the A4 at Hattenbach, that would have made it an attractive option for longhaul trans-german truck traffic and seen quite a lot more traffic. Plus, waaay back in the day there were plans to turn Gießen into a new big metropolis by forcefully incorporating multiple communities into "Großstadt Lahn" and make it sort of an economic competitor. Needless to say this plan was a complete failure as it was just politicians being *needed edit*.
The Wetzla stack was still build as the A480 was still at least supposed as new shortcut between the A5 and A45. Didn't actually build the part north of the interchange over the mountain ridge to connect with the rest of A480. As for prognosis, the missing gap is considered "Further Need" in the Bundesverkehrswegeplan, so in lower importance than the "Immediate Need" projects, and considering how fvcking slowly those important projects are moving (thanks to lack of money and environmentalists suing every single project to save 2 toads per kilometer), the completion of the 480 is probably something that won't be done before 2050, if ever.