Talk:Superstreet

Good source for info

[1] --SPUI (T - C) 03:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Older "superstreets" without the left turns

Take a look at the piece of US 1 in southern Rhode Island - this is basically a Durham-style superstreet without any traffic lights. Hell, part of US 22 in Union County, NJ is like that. --SPUI (T - C) 22:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Article Phrasing

I think I see how this is supposed to work, but one line in the text is confusing me: "...a lower traffic crossing intersection is closed to all motorized traffic". This sounds like no cars at all are traveling there. --Thisisbossi 11:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it means that, essentially, where you originally had a simple intersection, the minor movement is closed off so that traffic in that movement can no longer go straight on without dancing around the loops. DWaterson 10:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed entry re: US 301 in Maryland

I have removed the following as I am not sure there are any such examples. I've driven this numerous times and would like to think that I would have noticed any examples of a superstreet geometry; but I will admit that I am not necessarily the most perceptive as I am frequently traveling this area late at night. Feel free to add it back in if you can provide a reference -- preferably geo-coordinates. Thanks! --Thisisbossi 03:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

==Locations==

* Several locations on U.S. Route 301 in Maryland between U.S. Route 50 in Queen Anne's County and the Delaware State Line.

Just checked it out on Google Earth, the MD 18 (38 59 04 N, 76 09 40 W) and MD 456 (38 59 15 N, 76 09 10 W) intersections in Queenstown both look like what the article describes.-Jeff ^(talk) 05:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as Google Earth shows, they are both right-out restrictions on the minor streets; whereas superstreets provide for lefts out, as well. I can field-check these locations hopefully sometime this week to see if their geometry has changed at all. --Thisisbossi 06:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A recent look on Google Earth shows these to be normal superstreets. --Chaswmsday (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"requires four lighted intersections"...

...which is false, or there're a bunch of superstreets that fail at life. The Eastern Shore of Maryland has many major highways, namely US 50 in Wicomico County, with non-signalled superstreet intersections. Across various Wikipedia articles, these intersections are referred to as "superstreet", but I have been to so many of them in person to count and I know for a fact they aren't signalled. Google Maps overhead view can confirm this further. —Onore Baka Sama^{(speak | stalk)} 01:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Comparison with roundabouts?

I'd like to see a section comparing the efficiency with traffic light controlled roundabouts and magic roundabouts as used in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.27.248 (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong information

Particularly about requiring lighted intersections. I cannot edit the article about superstreets but refer to the article at http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/tpb/shc/facility/Superstreet/Overview/.

Missing in Usage section

There seem to be a number of superstreets missing from the Usage section of the article, making it appear that the only superstreets in existence are the handful that are currently mentioned.

Other North Carolina examples are listed in the 2010 M.S. thesis by Rebecca Lynne Haley, "Operational Effects of Signalized Superstreets in North Carolina", under the direction of Dr. Joseph E. Hummer at North Carolina State University.

There are three superstreet intersections in Butler County, Ohio, near Fairfield on State Route 4 Bypass, per the City of Fairfield and ODOT.

Per the cited FHWA "Restricted Crossing U-Turn Intersection (FHWA-HRT-09-059)", they also exist in Maryland and Michigan.

Per Texas Highway Man and a subdivision website, Encino Rio at US 281 in San Antonio (referenced in the article) is a variant, which possibly should be mentioned; it has retained left turn lanes from the minor road to the major road, yet is still considered a superstreet intersection.

"Alternative Intersections/Interchanges: Information Report (AIIR) (FHWA-HRT-09-060)", figure 84, also shows a variant without left turns from the major road. I would classify this more as a right-in/right-out road with turnarounds, but a lot of these intersection/road treatments are very similar. --Chaswmsday (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Identify Mannheim, Germany intersections

Copied from Talk:3-way junction#Addition of continuous-flow intersection and three-way interchanges prose:

...

Here's an other one, using just 2 conflicting directions:

49.463815,8.505955 3-way superstreet or at-grade trumpet ? In Mannheim, DE, EU

49.488973,8.512526 a superstreet in Mannheim, DE, EU (4way) --Hans Haase (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

End copy. --Chaswmsday (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I like your description of the first one as an "at-grade trumpet". That seems to me to be the best way to explain it...

Your second example I would describe perhaps as a RIRO road, with median U-turn crossovers. I think I've seen a document where the US Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) describes that exact layout as a form of superstreet (or possibly Michigan left), but I would have to find that document again. Does anyone else have a clue :) Thanks!! --Chaswmsday (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hatnote

User:Chaswmsday reverted my edit removing the following hatnote:

For the air combat maneuver also known as the "J-turn", see Herbst maneuver. For the driving maneuver also known as the "J-turn", see J-turn.

with this explanation:

Undid revision 625293115 by D. F. Schmidt (talk) J-turn is a listed alternate name for Superstreet; hatnote directs readers to other articles which could be called J-turns.

I feel that this hatnote is unnecessary because J-turn should be the page that has this hatnote (and indeed it does). Since no one will arrive at Superstreet wondering why they came to this article instead of J-turn or Herbst maneuver, I believe it's silly to include the hatnote that I removed. Any other thoughts? D. F. Schmidt (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I can arrive at Superstreet through Wikipedia search or external search of "J-turn". Just better safe than sorry if others find themselves on this page unexpectedly. If you believe that this hatnote isn't needed, would you also advocate removing the hatnote from Herbst maneuver? --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of a search that might yield Herbst maneuver or Superstreet over J-turn? I acknowledge that not everyone gets the same results from a search (thanks, Google and Bing), but I find it hard to believe that someone might search for J-turn and arrive at Superstreet when they should (or would rather) instead arrive at Herbst maneuver or at J-turn. (J-turn is what shows up #1 in my search on Google, and--though in my line of work colleagues refer to superstreet as J-turn--superstreet doesn't appear at all in my first page of hits, and is only alluded to in an image search.) And based on my experience, yes, I would advocate removing the hatnot from Herbst maneuver.

I guess in the end, I just feel that since some articles say "Xxxxx redirects to this article. For Xxxxx, see Yyyyy." This article doesn't have that explanation. Perhaps it should say "Some searches of Xxxxx yield this article. For Xxxxx, see Xxxxx." Perhaps another consideration should be whether any other articles are returned as inaccurate search hits. (None come to my mind immediately.) D. F. Schmidt (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I just Googled & Bing'd for "J-turn" & "J turn" and although both returned a couple of US state DOT hits where the term "J-turn" is used for "Superstreet", they did not return Wikipedia's Superstreet on the first page. Clicking on the "related search" "J-turn intersection" for me brought up WP Superstreet on page 1 of Google, page 2 of Bing. So it would seem that rather than inadvertently landing on Superstreet, it seems less likely that one would ever find Superstreet if that's what one ultimately wants.

To partially answer your question: when I do a Wikipedia search (first tricking it to get past its usual habit of a predictive jump to the J-turn article), J-turn, Herbst maneuver, Superstreet and a few other related articles come back. I guess I just err on the side of hatnote reciprocity: were a reader to click on the "wrong" link and end up here, we should explicitly show them the path back to the article they actually want. --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

To include the hatnote would be more applicable if someone might really be looking for J-turn (as the maneuver) but mistakenly type superstreet or arrive at a redirect to some other article, and I can't imagine that that would ever happen. For all the use it'll see, we might as well have a hatnote that says "If you were looking for the former President of the United States, see Andrew Jackson." In case it helps, I did a redirect check for J-turn and for Superstreet. I don't see where the hatnote could help anyone (on J-turn, I get it; on Superstreet, I don't). But I've already said that, and apparently no one else has any expressible thoughts. D. F. Schmidt (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Another alternative is this:

Since some professional organizations refer to the superstreet as J-turn, a search for J-turn may land here. For the driving maneuver, see J-turn; for the air combat maneuver also known as the "J-turn", see Herbst maneuver.

I believe that affords a happy medium and gives context for the hatnote. D. F. Schmidt (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)