|
If you take this 94, 35W, 55, Wahsington Ave interchange as a unit, I think you may have all 10. https://maps.google.com/maps?q=minn...&gl=us&t=m&z=15 1. See 94 east to 35W- North and vice versa as one, but not the only, example 2. See the same thing 3. see the same thing 4. See 35W south bound and 55 North bound to 94 West bound 5. See all of it 6. This isn't that bad except the entrance to Washington ave is a cluster gently caress. 7. Do you like 90 degree turns that people crash on all the drat time, because this guy did. 8. This fucker is basically bigger than downtown. 9. Not on 35W 10. I actually think this does this less bad that all the other things except for the 90 degree beds with huge 10 foot high walls on the middle that everyone spins into at winter going about 35mph. This is also terrible: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=minn...p=12,97.29,,0,0 Bonus round: This is where the bridge collapsed. Telling people not from Minneapolis to take 35W north confuses them. Minnesota drivers will yield to mergers when they have the right of way creating hilarious traffic jams when both drivers insist the othe rperson go in front of them The actually cluster gently caress extends all the way to the 394, which adds icy tunnel fun! Very few of the entrances allow one to accelerate a slower car (or slower driver) to near the speed of traffic (when it isn't a parking lot). Want to go from 94 West to 35W North? Have fun on a 1-2 mile surface street diversion! Same deal if you're taking 35W south and want to go east of 94.
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 07:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 04:02 |
|
|
NFX posted:What is the purpose of the one you've linked to here? My first idea was that it's been designed that way to slow down traffic before the interchange, but it might just be to deal with the altitude change? It's not at all cost-effective for elevation change. Every potential reason that's been brought up in this thread could've been done better another way. nm posted:Bonus round: I know this isn't endemic to Minnesota, but why the heck would you have a 35E and a 35W instead of, say, 35 and 235? It's confusing and there's no way to assign route priority. Exit numbering would be a problem, too, because each one would be a different length, and when they join back up, you can't carry both baselines.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 12:25
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Unless they fixed those, many of those problems are found around the Belgian big cities. This still gives me the heeby-jeebies every time I drive on it http://goo.gl/maps/jubct Also, why the hell is there a full line here, making it technically illegal to change lanes? I usually just say screw it and cross anyways, because following the lane sometimes creates a large detour http://goo.gl/maps/ZnXW9
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 13:07
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Also I'm reminded of this 'nice' one. Need to get from eastbound A59 to southbound A50? You leave the highway, take the roundabout on the N-road (local through road), take the traffic lights on the N-road, and then get back up another entrance ramp. During rush hour, traffic here is routinely backed up on the highway exit lane, and often onto the emergency lane before the exit, too. Cue people slamming their brakes going from 120kph to 0 so they don't miss the exit.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 13:12
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Oh, you think that one's bad? Here's my latest batch of non-euclidean geometry: I really need to buy CIM2. I decided to give SimCity another go since they put out a new patch that purported to fix traffic problems (spoiler alert: it didn't! I ended up with my entire avenue blocked from two cars trying to kiss in the center lane and deadlocking everyone). I feel like making effective transportation networks would soothe my inner need for order. Thanks for making the decision easier.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 13:12
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:It's not at all cost-effective for elevation change. Every potential reason that's been brought up in this thread could've been done better another way. Can't speak for Minnesota but I do know when 35 was built in DFW both cities were almost the same size. Dallas got really big about the same time feds droppe suffixed routes , and it became about Fort Worth not wanting to be thought of as a secondary city. 35E thru Dallas stillhhas exit number priority though.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 14:25
|
|
|
PerryMason posted:For reference, here's a link to the Zoo Interchange: http://binged.it/16iiJMN Worst part of that is the fact that it's a single lane going from 94 east to 894, and 894 to 94 west. That is probably completely responsible for all the traffic jams there during rush hours. The lane the merge to 894 dumps you out on is also an exit only lane which causes more slowdowns as people not exiting immediately try to get into thru traffic. I always try to go around that interchange if possible during rush hours. At least it's going through a 5-year reconstruct starting this year, so it should hopefully be much better... in 5 years. Sloober fucked around with this message at 16:10 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:It's not at all cost-effective for elevation change. Every potential reason that's been brought up in this thread could've been done better another way. New York has a 9W but no 9E. Also 17A, 17B, 17C, no 17D-17J (those would be too confusing), but has 17K and 17M. 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
35W and 35E were created before there were auxiliary routes, and there's no good way to figure out which would be the primary and which would be the auxiliary (should the bigger city get the primary, or the state capital?). Since there's no "core" I-35 it was seen as OK because nobody would get confused (as opposed to having a 35 and 35W, that would be confusing.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Unless they fixed those, many of those problems are found around the Belgian big cities. I think someone touched upon it a few pages back but the A59 is really a "special" road what with a missing interchange with the A27 (stoplights in the middle of the motorway) and a lot of short to very short merge lanes.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
kastein posted:New York has a 9W but no 9E. Also 17A, 17B, 17C, no 17D-17J (those would be too confusing), but has 17K and 17M. US 9W branches from US 9 to stay west of the Hudson, and thus connects from where 9 goes over into NYC to where 9 comes back across at Albany. US 9 used to just be on the west side, then in the 20s a 9E was added and 9 renumbered to 9W, then 9E got renumbered to 9 because NY state wanted it to be seen as the primary route.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:I think someone touched upon it a few pages back but the A59 is really a "special" road what with a missing interchange with the A27 (stoplights in the middle of the motorway) and a lot of short to very short merge lanes. Yeah when the A59 was upgraded to a full motorway they cut a lot of corners, and the final part was only opened in 2005. The interchange with the A50 was done on the cheap by the way, the split is a TOTSO and of course it's only half-built. Still, when they upgrade the N279 it should get a bit better.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
NFX posted:What is the purpose of the one you've linked to here? My first idea was that it's been designed that way to slow down traffic before the interchange, but it might just be to deal with the altitude change? I was thinking probably a planned road that didn't get built but then I noticed it's in Italy so I'm going to say "massive corruption." e: it's hard to tell from the pictures but the only other reason I can think of is to avoid an unreasonably steep gradient
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:I was thinking probably a planned road that didn't get built but then I noticed it's in Italy so I'm going to say "massive corruption." If you're avoiding a gradient, your best bet is just a switchback, not a full loop. Plus, going south is ascending Mount Vesuvius's pediplain, so the loop's going in the wrong direction. ----- More interchanges! Sloppiest one first.     Finally, what happens if you take yesterday's design and apply it to a six-leg interchange?    I'll have another like it tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
Those are going to be in my nightmares.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
Is Route 1 and 9 in NJ the only road that is referred to like that? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_1/9
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Is Route 1 and 9 in NJ the only road that is referred to like that? I'm pretty sure it's the only one that's still referred to that way, but that there have been other ones in the past. I believe it's also the longest US route concurrency in the country, though there's much longer interstate-interstate and interstate-state route concurrencies around.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
South Florida is where you should go if you want to design ridiculous interchanges. Try to find the path from EB 826 to NB 95 Surely you don't want to continue straight from 112 to 195, right? Somebody really famous must live on the southeast corner I think they're actually trying to "fix" this one Orlando honorable mention 826-95 is not as bad in person as it looks on Google Maps. 112-195 is far worse.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 02:39
|
|
|
Tampa expressway superiority.  The entire Crosstown and I-75 through Brandon deserve a gold star for being awesome (only one violation, a double exit N/B at MLK). I-4 is pretty lovely, with tons of left entrances/exits, exit lane dumps an a cloverleaf interchange that gives you all of 6 seconds to merge into 65+MPH traffic before having to loop all the way around. Dump traffic from the I-75 turbine interchange into an exit lane dump? Sure, why not! It'll only cause a 10 mile long traffic backup every day... 
Varance fucked around with this message at 05:40 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 02:48
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I know this isn't endemic to Minnesota, but why the heck would you have a 35E and a 35W instead of, say, 35 and 235? It's confusing and there's no way to assign route priority. Exit numbering would be a problem, too, because each one would be a different length, and when they join back up, you can't carry both baselines.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 02:52
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Oh, you think that one's bad? Here's my latest batch of non-euclidean geometry: Cichlidae posted:9: that the principle of lane balance is adhered to; and
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
If you like suffixed routes, you're gonna LOVE I-69!!!quote:Since the first section of US 77 between Corpus Christi and Robstown has been signed as I-69, it was originally implied that the I-69 mainline will follow the coastal (US-77) route from Victoria to Brownsville. This also implied that the branch along US 59 to Laredo and the branch along US 281 to Pharr were to be signed as either 3-digit spurs of I-69 (I-x69) or as separate 2-digit interstate routes. While federal legislation designating the south Texas branches as I-69 suggests that these routes may be designated as "I-69E" (east, following US-77), "I-69C" (central, following US-281), and "I-69W" (west, following US-59), the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Special Committee on Route Numbering rejected the Texas Department of Transportation's request for these three designations along the proposed I-69 branches, citing that AASHTO policy no longer allows Interstate highways to be signed as suffixed routes. Stating that the I-69E, I-69C and I-69W designations for the three I-69 branchers south of Victoria, Texas were written into federal law, the initial denial of TxDOT's applications were subsequently overturned by the AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways, and the approval for the the I-69E, I-69C an I-69W branch designations were confirmed by the AASHTO Board of Directors, pending concurrence from the Federal Highway Administration during the AASHTO Spring Meeting on May 7, 2013. On the other hand they approved IH 2 down in the Rio Grande Valley as opposed to I-869 or 969 as a replacement for US 83
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 04:42
|
|
|
I've been meaning to post in this awesome thread for a while. I'm in my final year of study to become a transport engineer here in New Zealand (though I'm already working). It's awesome to find such an assortment of interesting transport engineering designs and philosophies - both good and bad! My main focus in the field is the planning side of transport and its' interactions with land use planning, but I'm interested in pretty much anything that involves transport engineering. So while I'm here, if anyone has any interest in transport issues in this part of the world, il try my best to be of service  . In the meantime I'll get back to reading the last 80 pages of this thread!
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 12:02
|
|
|
That's more an issue of "CiM2 doesn't know how to handle merges and diverges" than anything else. If it helps, you can imagine that the mainline is 3 lanes wide, and those extra 2 lanes are just auxiliary. Ron Pauls Friend posted:If you like suffixed routes, you're gonna LOVE I-69!!! How the heck did that get into Federal law? Does Congress really have nothing better to do than override AASHTO (which isn't a government organization to begin with, and should've just ignored them)? Coritani posted:I've been meaning to post in this awesome thread for a while. I'm in my final year of study to become a transport engineer here in New Zealand (though I'm already working). It's awesome to find such an assortment of interesting transport engineering designs and philosophies - both good and bad! My main focus in the field is the planning side of transport and its' interactions with land use planning, but I'm interested in pretty much anything that involves transport engineering. So while I'm here, if anyone has any interest in transport issues in this part of the world, il try my best to be of service Enjoy the thread! I'm always interested in learning how other countries do business.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 12:17
|
|
|
All this weaving talk reminded me of the basketweave along highway 401 in West Toronto. It's literally called that. It's main purpose is to serve as an switchover between the express and collector lanes. It seems quite complicated for the purpose it serves.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 12:51
|
|
|
Coritani posted:I've been meaning to post in this awesome thread for a while. I'm in my final year of study to become a transport engineer here in New Zealand (though I'm already working). It's awesome to find such an assortment of interesting transport engineering designs and philosophies - both good and bad! My main focus in the field is the planning side of transport and its' interactions with land use planning, but I'm interested in pretty much anything that involves transport engineering. So while I'm here, if anyone has any interest in transport issues in this part of the world, il try my best to be of service New Zealand is a relatively small island nation, with only a couple of large cities. Does this impact your focus?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 14:39
|
|
|
Cichildae, you are a giant nerd with these interchanges...
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:New Zealand is a relatively small island nation, with only a couple of large cities. Does this impact your focus? Auckland has some of the worst traffic I've seen and I live in socal.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
Varance posted:Dump traffic from the I-75 turbine interchange into an exit lane dump? Sure, why not! It'll only cause a 10 mile long traffic backup every day... Thanks for bringing back the bad memories of the year I spent commuting home through this every day.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 23:37
|
|
|
Dominus Vobiscum posted:Thanks for bringing back the bad memories of the year I spent commuting home through this every day. This is why the state wants I-4 express lanes all the way to Orlando: because they'd literally have to rebuild I-4 (again) to fix the local lanes, and the current daily backups cost the state $Billions in lost business due to having to sit through this poo poo for 2-3 hours. It's also why Florida was at the top of the HSR funding list: the corridor is hosed during rush hour by people commuting to/from St Petersburg/Tampa/Lakeland/Orlando, because we have ZERO commuting options aside from car and plane. Not even regional bus service, outside of Greyhound. This, my friends, is why you don't build a single mode network: One highway design mistake will make everyone REGRET it for decades. 
Varance fucked around with this message at 00:40 on May 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 00:28
|
|
|
Not to hijack this thread into Tampa planning chat too much more, but if Polk joins TBARTA is there any chance of commuter rail on the existing CSX tracks? HSR on I-4 and local service from Tampa to Orlando via Plant City and downtown Lakeland sure would have been nice to have 10 years ago. At least Florida didn't have the fascination with left entrances/exits Wisconsin did back in the 60s, leading to all the Milwaukee-area massive interchange reconstructions. Of course the worst of them (the aforementioned Zoo Interchange, carrying over 300,000 vehicles/day) has been saved for last. Over the next 5 years, we'll be going from this:  to this:  with rebuilt interchanges and C/D roads on all sides, too. Right now four of the movements require left entrances and then immediately trying to move over 2-3 lanes if you want to get off at the next exit. At least all of the left entrances are lane adds. Most of the existing bridges are original and a few of them had to be replaced in emergency work a few years ago due to severe structural problems. The project is currently subject to a lawsuit over the lack of state funding for transit expansion in the region, but this work can't get finished soon enough.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
Dominus Vobiscum posted:Not to hijack this thread into Tampa planning chat too much more, but if Polk joins TBARTA is there any chance of commuter rail on the existing CSX tracks? HSR on I-4 and local service from Tampa to Orlando via Plant City and downtown Lakeland sure would have been nice to have 10 years ago. If anything, it will be on a new FECR rail corridor like the proposed Orlando to Miami line, because gently caress CSX. That said, 52 runs a day with 15 min bi-directional service during rush is impressive number for a starter system. Really, really hoping FECR can pull it off. Varance fucked around with this message at 01:18 on May 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:Cichildae, you are a giant nerd with these interchanges... Yes, and?   Full access between a freeway and two avenues.   LOOK AT THAT! Just look at it!
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Yes, and? What is i dont even how 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
A couple of New Urbanists just had aneurysms and nobody knows why.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
Dominus Vobiscum posted:A couple of New Urbanists just had aneurysms and nobody knows why. I was watching a webinar yesterday, and one of the guys was showing a bunch of pictures of really overbuilt roads and interchanges talking about how unfriendly they looked. All I could think was, "sick ramps, bro!"
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 02:37
|
|
|
The only thing that 6 way interchange doesn't allow is U-turns... Wow.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 02:43
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I was watching a webinar yesterday, and one of the guys was showing a bunch of pictures of really overbuilt roads and interchanges talking about how unfriendly they looked. All I could think was, "sick ramps, bro!" Being a transportation planner with an engineering background makes balancing these two thought processes really hard sometimes.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
Something that I've been wondering about... Last summer, they repaved a pretty good sized section of I-75 here in north Georgia. First, they dug up the old road in the lane they were working on, probably about 6 inches, maybe more, hard to tell when you're driving. They filled that back in level to the existing roadbed, and I figured they were done. But what puzzled me is they then went back and put about another two inches of asphalt on top of that before they were actually finished. Why would they do an extra layer like that? (I didn't ask then because I figured it'd get lost in the flood of imaginary transport planning game stuff.)
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 04:02 |
|
|
taiyoko posted:Something that I've been wondering about... The second layer, called the surface course, protects the underlying base course like a coat of paint. It is generally more coarse than the base course for better water drainage and traction during rain, plus increases road strength so that ruts don't form when subjected to frequent tractor trailer traffic. When it comes time for repaving, they'll scrape the surface course off by milling the pavement and replace it with a fresh coat of asphalt. Varance fucked around with this message at 14:22 on May 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 14:04
|
|