Breezewood-type situations

[agentsteel53]

Why there is a stoplight on US 29-460 in Lynchburg between the 29 and 460 freeways is beyond me.

not quite a breezewood situation, but yes, I have wondered why freeway-to-freeway connections are not built with complete grade separation sometimes.

here in SoCal, we have 78W to 5S, 56E to 15N, and some of the 5/56 connections (I don't remember which).  also, 2N to 210W, where the mainline has a metering ramp as it ends, and same with 67S to 8W...

and on 125S, we have a set of metering lights at 94, because that interchange was apparently designed by drunken wombats.

[froggie]

Why there is a stoplight on US 29-460 in Lynchburg between the 29 and 460 freeways is beyond me.

That part of 460 between 501 and the 29 bypass was never limited access...IIRC the signal was added right before the US 29 Madison Heights Bypass was built.  VDOT hasn't "had the money" to upgrade that section of 460 to freeway-grade.

[1995hoo]

....

Why there is a stoplight on US 29-460 in Lynchburg between the 29 and 460 freeways is beyond me.

There's a plan to extend the US-29 bypass further south to hook back into the existing route somewhere near (a bit to the north of, I believe) VA-24. Remember the US-29 bypass there is fairly new as it is, opened within the past ten years. Perhaps the theory is that once it's extended, traffic volume will drop on the stretch you cite? In the meantime, I took a look at a map and I'm guessing the light is there simply because the people in the area north of the highway right there would have to follow a somewhat long and convoluted route out of there without that light. The interchanges at either end (US-29 Bypass and US-501) are incomplete interchanges, so implementing a RIRO coupled with asking people to ride the ramps to make U-turns isn't a viable alternative.

BTW, I note that traffic light you mention is a rare (for Virginia) use of a jughandle on the eastbound side. I wouldn't have realized that without looking at the map–when I passed through the Lynchburg area regularly, the new bypass didn't exist and so I usually came up US-501 and then used the old Lynchburg Expressway (then designated as the bypass) to connect north.

[NE2]

501 between 460 and the old 29 bypass is also a "breezewood".

[hbelkins]

not quite a breezewood situation, but yes, I have wondered why freeway-to-freeway connections are not built with complete grade separation sometimes.

I-470 and US 250/WV 2 at Wheeling.

Might be a good separate thread. "Freeway-to-freeway interchanges that aren't fully free-flowing"

[Joe The Dragon]

in-912 / gary ave / In toll road.

[hotdogPi]

I'm not sure if this counts as a Breezewood, but to get from I-495 to I-95 South (or vice versa) in Massachusetts, you have to travel on half a mile of MA 110.

[roadman65]

I'm not sure if this counts as a Breezewood, but to get from I-495 to I-95 South (or vice versa) in Massachusetts, you have to travel on half a mile of MA 110.

Yeah it does count.  Any surface street between freeways counts. Even I-10 to I-55 (EB to NB or SB to WB) in Louisiana counts that is the same as what you describe.

[NE2]

I don't count it.

[vtk]

I think we need to come up with degrees of Breezewood.  Something like this:

First-degree Breezewood: Continuing travel on a signed route which is expected to be a freeway requires turning at at least one at-grade intersection.

Second-degree Breezewood: Continuing travel on a route which is mostly freeway requires passing through at least one at-grade intersection that sometimes requires through traffic to stop, in a very short gap between two relatively long freeway segments of the route.

Third-degree Breezewood: Connecting from one freeway to another in a manner that follows a signed route or does not involve a significant change in overall direction requires passing through at least one at-grade intersection with a turning or stopping condition for the connecting movement in question.

[NE2]

Not-really-Breezewood: connecting from one freeway to another at an acute angle or otherwise indirectly such that only relatively local traffic would use a direct connection. I-95 and I-495 fits squarely here.

There's also connecting between two parallel freeways. If they eventually split permanently at each end of the parallel section, and there are no direct connections, it counts, but something like I-95 and Florida's Turnpike doesn't. (I-95 and SR 869 does, however, because there's no direct connection to the Turnpike north of SR 869.)

[I94RoadRunner]

MN 610 at the west end is currently a "Breezewood". You have to take Maple Grove Parkway to get to I-94 with several traffic lights along this boulevard. MNDOT plans to extend MN 610 to I-94 in the future just to the west of the existing Maple Grove Pkwy interchange.

And for that matter, US 169 in the twin cities had two "Breezewoods". One is fixed, the other has no plans to be fixed:

1) US 169 at I-494/MN 5: Was a simple diamond interchange originally, however once the Shakopee bypass was completed, the interchange was "upgraded" to be a 7 ramp parclo with frontage roads along I-494 and still 3 traffic lights along US 169. Just recently, MNDOT fixed this mess so that all 3 traffic signals are gone, the frontage roads are grade separated, and a flyover was added for I-494/MN 5 west to US 169 south completing the US 169 freeway.

2) US 169 between MN 610 and US 10/MN 47: US 169 north of MN 610 transitions from a freeway (once the CR 30 interchange was completed in 2013) to an expressway. Once US 169 meets the Anoka city limits, it transitions again - this time to a boulevard through town and then turns west at a diamond interchange with US 10/MN 47. What really makes no sense is that MNDOT has plans to extend US 169's freeway status northward with a couple of planned interchanges, thus becoming a true "Freeway to nowhere"!! MNDOT should consider routing US 169 westward along I-94 and then renumber MN 101 from Rogers to Otsego as US 169 allowing US 169 to pass through the Twin Cities completely as a freeway (once the MN 101/I-94 "Breezewood" gets fixed that is!)

[I94RoadRunner]

The US-61 "bypass" of Muscatine, IA is kind of like this situation, but there probably isn't very much thru traffic.
Similarly, US-61/151/52 and US-20 in Dubuque are good examples of this.

I don't get why US 151 through Dubuque has those 2 at grades in the middle of downtown Dubuque and everything else on both sides is a full freeway .....? No logic!

US 20 apparently is proposed to be routed south of Dubuque and across a new bridge as a full freeway in the future.

[Brandon]

The US-61 "bypass" of Muscatine, IA is kind of like this situation, but there probably isn't very much thru traffic.
Similarly, US-61/151/52 and US-20 in Dubuque are good examples of this.

I don't get why US 151 through Dubuque has those 2 at grades in the middle of downtown Dubuque and everything else on both sides is a full freeway .....? No logic!

US 20 apparently is proposed to be routed south of Dubuque and across a new bridge as a full freeway in the future.

That's if, and a big if at this point, IDOT ever gets its ass in gear to do so.  I trust IowaDOT to do so, but IDOT is another story altogether.

[hbelkins]

US 20 apparently is proposed to be routed south of Dubuque and across a new bridge as a full freeway in the future.

That's if, and a big if at this point, IDOT ever gets its ass in gear to do so.  I trust IowaDOT to do so, but IDOT is another story altogether.

Is that even necessary?

[I94RoadRunner]

US 20 apparently is proposed to be routed south of Dubuque and across a new bridge as a full freeway in the future.

That's if, and a big if at this point, IDOT ever gets its ass in gear to do so.  I trust IowaDOT to do so, but IDOT is another story altogether.

Is that even necessary?

Yes. The existing river crossing for US 20 is a historic bridge. It is only 2 lanes and cannot be widened. The talk of adding a twin span was discussed, however it was ruled that a second bridge at that location would detract from the historical value.

[Brandon]

US 20 apparently is proposed to be routed south of Dubuque and across a new bridge as a full freeway in the future.

That's if, and a big if at this point, IDOT ever gets its ass in gear to do so.  I trust IowaDOT to do so, but IDOT is another story altogether.

Is that even necessary?

There are plans for an expressway from Dubuque to Freeport, but IDOT has never gotten beyond the planning stages with them.  Is an expressway (or a freeway) necessary there?  I don't know.

[Big John]

US 20 apparently is proposed to be routed south of Dubuque and across a new bridge as a full freeway in the future.

That's if, and a big if at this point, IDOT ever gets its ass in gear to do so.  I trust IowaDOT to do so, but IDOT is another story altogether.

Is that even necessary?

There are plans for an expressway from Dubuque to Freeport, but IDOT has never gotten beyond the planning stages with them.  Is an expressway (or a freeway) necessary there?  I don't know.

In the late 90s, the firm I was working were doing plans for US 20 from a couple miles east of the Mississippi River to just west of IL 84.  It involved a full freeway conversion with 2 interchanges, with the alignment close to the newer WB lanes.  It was in the design stage at that point, as I was designing the ramps and frontage roads for this. 

Found out the hard way it was a low-priority project for IDOT as they were dragging their feet on the review part of the plans - what should have been 1 month at the most turned into 13 months and we were unable to meet the deadline for 30% plans as they were still sitting on the review process, and were found delinquent though it was clearly their fault.

[mgk920]

I think we need to come up with degrees of Breezewood.  Something like this:

First-degree Breezewood: Continuing travel on a signed route which is expected to be a freeway requires turning at at least one at-grade intersection.

US 10 on the east side of Stevens Point, WI?

Second-degree Breezewood: Continuing travel on a route which is mostly freeway requires passing through at least one at-grade intersection that sometimes requires through traffic to stop, in a very short gap between two relatively long freeway segments of the route.

WI 26 at Johnson Creek, WI?

Third-degree Breezewood: Connecting from one freeway to another in a manner that follows a signed route or does not involve a significant change in overall direction requires passing through at least one at-grade intersection with a turning or stopping condition for the connecting movement in question.

Inbound to outbound (either direction) at the I-90/94 'Edens Split' in Chicago?



Mike

[vtk]

I think we need to come up with degrees of Breezewood.  Something like this:

First-degree Breezewood: Continuing travel on a signed route which is expected to be a freeway requires turning at at least one at-grade intersection.

US 10 on the east side of Stevens Point, WI?

By "expected to be a freeway" I meant more like Interstates, Quebec Autoroutes, Ontario's 400-series routes, and similar designations.  US routes generally don't carry such an expectation. 

[NE2]

It shouldn't require turning - see I-78 in Jersey City.

Third-degree Breezewood: Connecting from one freeway to another in a manner that follows a signed route or does not involve a significant change in overall direction requires passing through at least one at-grade intersection with a turning or stopping condition for the connecting movement in question.

Inbound to outbound (either direction) at the I-90/94 'Edens Split' in Chicago?

Ahem?

[Brandon]

Third-degree Breezewood: Connecting from one freeway to another in a manner that follows a signed route or does not involve a significant change in overall direction requires passing through at least one at-grade intersection with a turning or stopping condition for the connecting movement in question.

Inbound to outbound (either direction) at the I-90/94 'Edens Split' in Chicago?



Mike

I'd say so.  The movement is even signed on city streets (watch out for the red light camera at Cicero and Lawrence while you're at it) and signed from the expressways.

From the inbound Kennedy Expressway:


And from the inbound Edens Expressway:

[NE2]

Ah, so it is signed. It's still an acute angle, and through traffic will use I-294.

[vtk]

I actually drove that particular connection once.  It seemed like the best way from Evanston to O'Hare.  (I considered another route consisting of mostly city streets; I'd done that from O'Hare to Evanston a few days prior, stumbling across an apparently-famous Jewish deli in Skokie, where I stopped at the request of my hotel roommate.)

[Brandon]

Ah, so it is signed. It's still an acute angle, and through traffic will use I-294.

Only heading southbound if one is using the Tri-State Tollway and not coming from US-41 (Skokie Highway).  Going northbound, one must use surface streets as the I-94/I-294 interchange is also partial (as is the I-94/US-41 interchange).  To go from northbound I-294 to eastbound I-94 (and from westbound I-94 to southbound I-294) requires the use of surface streets - namely a U-turn at the Deerfield Road interchange.  To go from southbound US-41 to westbound I-94 (and vice-versa) also requires the use of surface streets.