Interchanges between Conventional Roads

[Big John]

US 10 and WI 114 east of Meansha, https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=44.208296,-88.329349&spn=0.023472,0.03828&t=h&z=15

County N and County CE by Kimberly WI https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=44.256619,-88.324671&spn=0.011726,0.01914&t=h&z=16

[kphoger]

County N and County CE by Kimberly WI https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=44.256619,-88.324671&spn=0.011726,0.01914&t=h&z=16

County roads.....  Bonus points!

[NE2]

I'd hardly call CE a 'conventional road', however.

[NWI_Irish96]

Here's one whose existence puzzled me from the time I moved to South Bend 35 years ago to this day:

This is the intersection of SR 23 and SR 933 (formerly US 33) on the left side, plus Mishawaka Ave. on the right. All the roads are surface streets away from this interchange. This just blooms up out of nowhere, complete with BGSs:


I think that this part of SR 23 was intended as one section of an inner belt that never was finished. Two traffic lights would have sufficed.

This site: http://www.roadfan.com/sbnelkrd.html references such a plan under the section for IN 23.  The IN 23/IN 933 interchange was to be the SE corner, and the Chapin/Lincoln Way intersection was to be the NW corner.  This is also why IN 933 (formerly US 33) got routed onto Sample St. when in reality it's quicker to just stay on Lincoln Way/Monroe to get to Michigan St.

To add an entry from the other end of the state, in Clarksville, the former IN 62 and the former IN 131 have an interchange.

[theline]

^ Thanks for the additional info about my town, cabiness.

Off the subject, but I'm still trying to figure out why US-33, north of the St. Joseph Valley Parkway, had to go away. It was a useful route, and it's an easier number than SR-933. Furthermore, 933 doesn't even touch 33, since Elkhart County for whatever reason decided that they didn't need the 933 designation.

[NWI_Irish96]

Once the SJVP was completed from US 31 in South Bend to US 20 West of Plymouth, it became the primary East-West corridor in St. Joseph/Elkhart counties.  US 20 was rerouted around the SJVP, and they could have done the same with US 33, but that would have been a needless concurrency since 33 ended in Niles anyway.

The 933 designation means that the road is still a state highway and maintained by INDOT.  For whatever reason, St. Joe County wanted INDOT to continue to maintain the road but Elkhart County was willing to take back responsibility for the road.

[TheStranger]

Here's a complex set of conventional road-to-conventional road interchanges, where PA 837 and PA 885 meet in Pittsburgh just south of the Glenwood Bridge:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Baldwin+Rd+%26+Mifflin+Rd,+Pittsburgh,+PA&hl=en&ll=40.390816,-79.933648&spn=0.02494,0.038023&sll=40.391567,-79.93368&sspn=0.006235,0.009506&t=h&hnear=Baldwin+Rd+%26+Mifflin+Rd,+Pittsburgh,+Allegheny,+Pennsylvania+15207&z=15

[Roadsguy]

Well, the Glenwood Bridge is debatably a freeway.

[Alps]

Well, the Glenwood Bridge is debatably a freeway.

A working definition we came up with awhile ago requires three interchanges to make a freeway. I would add "or is at least a mile long," because otherwise, how can I-587 be a freeway?

[deathtopumpkins]

Well, the Glenwood Bridge is debatably a freeway.

A working definition we came up with awhile ago requires three interchanges to make a freeway. I would add "or is at least a mile long," because otherwise, how can I-587 be a freeway?

So a connector road that has interchanges at each end cannot be a freeway?

[Alps]

Well, the Glenwood Bridge is debatably a freeway.

A working definition we came up with awhile ago requires three interchanges to make a freeway. I would add "or is at least a mile long," because otherwise, how can I-587 be a freeway?

So a connector road that has interchanges at each end cannot be a freeway?

If it's less than a mile long, it's too short to really be established as anything. Again, that's just a working definition we had.

[TheStranger]

Well, the Glenwood Bridge is debatably a freeway.

A working definition we came up with awhile ago requires three interchanges to make a freeway. I would add "or is at least a mile long," because otherwise, how can I-587 be a freeway?

I find that intriguing because California seems to define it at an absurd minimum at times - the section of Skyline Boulevard between Westmoor Avenue in Daly City and Hickey Boulevard is officially a freeway due to one interchange with Route 1, yet the section of the Junipero Serra Freeway that carries only Route 1 north of I-280 in SF isn't officially one despite three interchanges.

[NE2]

A working definition we came up with awhile ago requires three interchanges to make a freeway. I would add "or is at least a mile long," because otherwise, how can I-587 be a freeway?

I'd cut it to two in a row, and maybe sometimes one, if one of those is with another freeway.

As for California, they call this a freeway: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=39.359719,-123.31677&spn=0.015131,0.033023&gl=us&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=39.35965,-123.316806&panoid=tRHK3Db7aV92IvqwzWtbzQ&cbp=12,28.77,,0,6.55
It's the south end of a proposed bypass, but right now has no interchanges.

[Alps]

A working definition we came up with awhile ago requires three interchanges to make a freeway. I would add "or is at least a mile long," because otherwise, how can I-587 be a freeway?

I'd cut it to two in a row, and maybe sometimes one, if one of those is with another freeway.

As for California, they call this a freeway: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=39.359719,-123.31677&spn=0.015131,0.033023&gl=us&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=39.35965,-123.316806&panoid=tRHK3Db7aV92IvqwzWtbzQ&cbp=12,28.77,,0,6.55
It's the south end of a proposed bypass, but right now has no interchanges.

I think that's just a legal definition to limit access and keep out unsavory bicyclists, horses, lions, etc.

[NE2]

I think that's just a legal definition to limit access and keep out unsavory bicyclists, horses, lions, etc.

But bikes are allowed here (and apparently on all other freeways in Caltrans District 1). I suppose it could be for the emergency parking only (CVC 21718: "No person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle upon a freeway which has full control of access and no crossings at grade") but that seems like an extremely minor reason.

[vtk]

Roadgeek definitions of terms like "freeway" and "expressway" do not have to agree with legal definitions in specific jurisdictions or colloquial usage in specific regions...

[kphoger]

Well, there are two interchanges along that section:  one at Riverton St/Glass Run Rd and one at Baldwin Rd.  In all directions from those two interchanges, all roads go back down to two lanes.  So I would say it's a marginal example, but an example nonetheless.

[roadfro]

Reno, NV: McCarran Blvd (SR 659) & Summit Ridge Dr

[J N Winkler]

I think that's just a legal definition to limit access and keep out unsavory bicyclists, horses, lions, etc.

But bikes are allowed here (and apparently on all other freeways in Caltrans District 1). I suppose it could be for the emergency parking only (CVC 21718: "No person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle upon a freeway which has full control of access and no crossings at grade") but that seems like an extremely minor reason.

I think control of access is the principal reason.  Prevention of non-emergency parking can't be the only reason because that can be done by order, without the need to declare a freeway.

[NE2]

I think control of access is the principal reason.

But don't expressways also have access control?

[Revive 755]

A working definition we came up with awhile ago requires three interchanges to make a freeway. I would add "or is at least a mile long," because otherwise, how can I-587 be a freeway?

I'd cut it to two in a row, and maybe sometimes one, if one of those is with another freeway.

I'd cut it down to one interchange if the facility is two miles or greater and has other grade separations.  Take the IL 137 freeway in Waukegan - it's only about 2.4 miles long and has only two interchanges - one of which is at the northern end of the facility and will be changed to a conventional T-intersection in the future.  Given the two overpasses on the south half, it should be classified as a freeway.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=waukegan,+il&hl=en&ll=42.359464,-87.822626&spn=0.013462,0.033023&sll=42.032432,-88.091192&sspn=0.215482,0.528374&hnear=Waukegan,+Lake,+Illinois&t=k&z=16

And as the IL 137 case could be an example for, if the facility was to be part of a much longer facility at one time, it should be able to get the freeway classify despite not having three interchanges or a decent length.

[J N Winkler]

I think control of access is the principal reason.

But don't expressways also have access control?

In general they do, but California law (to the best of my knowledge) does not distinguish expressways as a separate category of access-controlled facility.  In California a freeway is legally defined as a road in respect of which abutters either do not have a right or easement of access, or have only a limited right or easement of access.  So under California law a road which has access control but still has driveways by permit is legally a freeway, despite not meeting the AASHTO definition of a freeway, which is based primarily on features of physical construction such as access only at interchanges.

I don't think "BEGIN FREEWAY" in this context is intended to signal the beginning of an AASHTO freeway:  rather, it delimits the start of a length subject to limitation of access.

[TheStranger]

A multi-ramp setup in Rocky River, Ohio connecting Clifton Boulevard (US 6) with Marion Court and Lake Road (OH 113)

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Rocky+River,+OH&hl=en&ll=41.482782,-81.836021&spn=0.006092,0.010096&sll=41.48283,-81.830635&sspn=0.02437,0.03592&hnear=Rocky+River,+Cuyahoga,+Ohio&t=h&z=17

US 6 and OH 2 connect at this junction, while US 20 and OH 254 pass very nearby.

[BrianP]

For Maryland I can only think of MD 26 @ MD 97:
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=39.430442,-77.004461&spn=0.017204,0.033023&t=k&z=16

Both are country roads.  Although this looks to be a bypass section of MD 26.  And since the current imagery shows the bridge under construction this interchange must be old.  So I think it would be safe to say it predates I-70 to the south.  So I guess back then this road could have carried a good amount of traffic between Baltimore and points west. 

[agentsteel53]

In general they do, but California law (to the best of my knowledge) does not distinguish expressways as a separate category of access-controlled facility.  In California a freeway is legally defined as a road in respect of which abutters either do not have a right or easement of access, or have only a limited right or easement of access.  So under California law a road which has access control but still has driveways by permit is legally a freeway, despite not meeting the AASHTO definition of a freeway, which is based primarily on features of physical construction such as access only at interchanges.

I don't think "BEGIN FREEWAY" in this context is intended to signal the beginning of an AASHTO freeway:  rather, it delimits the start of a length subject to limitation of access.

there are two different styles of FREEWAY signs in California.

large signs, intended to be read by motorists at speed, designate AASHO-style freeways.

small signs, placed on the fence delineating the edge of the right of way, look like this:



that entire sign is 24x18 inches (IIRC) and is intended to be read while stopped, so that a developer may contact CalTrans appropriately.  those identify what California defines as a freeway, in terms of access rights. 

the second style of sign seems to have been much more commonly used in the 50s and 60s - all the ones I know of are porcelain, and I've seen only one which mentions CalTrans as opposed to the (pre-1973) Division of Highways.  I've seen them along two-lane roads with limited access control - i.e. only along sectional lines a mile apart.  old US-99W paralleling I-5 north of Sacramento comes to mind.