Pinavia interchange

New unique high capacity two-level road interchange without intersecting traffic flows and only four small overpasses - newly patented invention (inventor - Stanislovas Buteliauskas), no existing prototypes yet. The visualization of western Vilnius bypass, Lithuania
Here's another visualization with more infrastructure and features of the Pinavia: • Pinavia 70

[@pitthepig]

Cities Skylines brought me here

[@raelenebee8011]

HOW DID YOU KNOW

[@timpanfans2945]

+2

[@NicDoesDumbThings]

Same this game is making me figure out more about traffic than i ever thought i would

[@arie1899]

anyway i will try it on cities skylines :P

[@michaelperrin2531]

pitthepig Same here as well.

[@CalvinsWorldNews]

I lived in the UK for 30 years and saw a lot of the crazier stuff (the Magic Roundabout in Swindon or motorway onramps on the wrong side). But I just moved to the US and discovered the dangerous obsession with cloverleafs and the weaving issue. You see these things online (pros and cons of junctions) but you really have to experience it firsthand. Although yes I really really want to drive on a Pinavia interchange!

[@pinakinkale]

I’d say Germany has the crazier obsession, most cloverleafs in the US nowadays are out in the countryside where traffic volumes are low enough that weaving issues don’t really happen. But when I visited Germany almost all the interchanges where cloverleafs, countryside or jot(granted Germany doesn’t have freeways criss crossing into cities like the US)

[@HappyGator1972]

Beautiful, looks like a fun drive when roads are not too crowded!

[@-fuk57]

Looks a bit pricey.

[@dZaq]

More pricey than any other highway intersection?

[@naverilllang]

Not the most pricey, but it does take a lot of space. I really do want to see this built.

[@Milesco]

--"Looks a bit pricey." That was my first thought, too, but considering some of the other large, complex interchanges I've seen, I'm not sure that this type necessarily *_is_* significantly more expensive than other interchanges of similar capacity. And even if it were, it sure looks like it would work well, saving much time, which as we all know, equals money. Frankly, I don't know why these things aren't as common as blades of grass already. (Okay, they *_do_* use a lot of land, and that could be the reason. But even, then, if properly designed and built, the center portion could be used for a high-rise office building or some such.)

[@sydgriffin7591]

There's a similar exchange outside of Jacksonville, Fla. I actually saw it from a plane and was amazed, looked it up on google maps afterwards. It is beautiful and I wondered why it isn't used more. But it looks like it needs significantly more concrete and asphalt to construct. So yeah, too expensive.

[@ghassan4509]

my thoughts exactly. elevation is VERY expensive, people dont realize bridge structures not only cost a pretty penny upfront but needs significantly more maintenance and replacement costs. thats why fly overs are the last solution engineers turn to. this is only a 4 stack interchange, you're much better off with a clover leaf or butterfly intersection, same functionality, significantly less expensive and space consuming.

[@infidelnumerouno8751]

Round-a-bout on steroids.

[@claudiamastroianni4300]

Cloverleafs folded over each other.

[@dragonenergy4523]

lmao.. no just no. Watch Biffa if u want to see 4 lane runabout on highways.

[@celairgilfaenmirion]

Hah! I invented this exact same style of intersection yesterday while playing Cities: Skylines to alleviate freeway traffic issues. Neat to see that it may actually have practical uses in the real world.

[@rainbowcake1818]

Celairgil Faenmirion "it actually have been used"

[@koverpy426]

Intersection =/= interchange

[@crownjules1]

If you look it up they are both synonyms for one another. An interchange is just a specific type of intersection.

[@arandombard1197]

@@crownjules1 The difference is that none of these roads actually intersect each other.

[@SirHeinzbond]

so much space wasted for cars, no bicycle, no pedestrians, maybe not shown. way too much money, thinking of Jevons-Paradoxon, will be full with cars in 3.2.1....

[@s2156945]

Great Idea & Visualisation. Improvements: - You could easily have 3,4,5 lanes going straight instead of 2, and 2,3,4 going left/right as dictated by the predicted demand - You could make a U-turn possible by having an extra lane on the ground both incoming and outgoing - You could make a U-turn possible and using the central space possible by having a central round-about with the facility inside - You could add extra lanes on the ground for going straight at the expense of the internal space.

[@ausriusj]

@s2156945: yeap. you are describing the "Pinavia 70" video. As for the number of lanes - choose any number during the design stage depending on the forecasted traffic volumes for that direction - it's not an improvement, it's just adaptation to your needs. Concerning the straight lanes - then you take an existing "Spiral interchange" such as they have in Sharjah (UAE).

[@rpf276]

This could work in Florida (USA) in many instances there is a frequent need for drainage ponds, to hold water run off for a while before it is allowed back in the environment when designing an expressway. The water table is very high just 2-3 meters deep. A Florida Pinavia interchange center would be that drainage holding area for all four roads leading to the interchange.

[@ERBphantom]

State Road 417/429 and Interstate 4. Boom solved where it could go.

[@jimsmith4005]

Perhaps the biggest drawback is the enormous amount of land required. That and the extensive elevated sections would probably make it cost-prohibitive.

[@ausriusj]

@Jim Smith: The land requirement is both the largest drawback and the most important advantage (see the "Pinavia 70" video) as it can turn this junction into a public transport hub or a business center (or a stadium)

[@tech99070]

Yeah the size of this thing would be the end of it. Great for use in a hypothetical designed city but not great to retrofit.

[@naverilllang]

Such an elegant design with high capacity. Shame it may never get used.

[@edphillips636]

Looks like it needs more land than it really uses. The area in the middle can be utilized for just about anything short of an airport. The interchange only really uses the perimeter of its overall footprint.

[@swinde]

How would you get to the land in the middle? With a helicopter or put traffic light in the middle of the interchange?

[@andrewfusco7824]

Interesting concept, beautiful when used correctly. It does take up a large amount of land, but it deals with efficiency nicely.

[@TannerForrest]

Video: "No jams, no accidents, no problems." Americans: "HOLD MY BEER WATCH THIS." *20 minutes later the entire interchange system is clogged for hours...*

[@left0verture]

Tanner Forrest I was thinking the same thing. Anytime there’s more than one vehicle (too often when there’s ONLY one...!) there are accidents and problems. People are ALWAYS the problem.

[@thatpersonsmusic]

Someone will find a way to screw it all up

[@AnOriginalYouTuber]

So basically, its a standard multi lane European roundabout with barriers for people who can't understand the rules for multi lane roundabouts. I'm all for it!!

[@AtzenMiro]

Actually there are conflict points, before the roundabout when every car has to get in the correct lane so he can follow the lane he/she wants.

[@lendluke]

All of those long bridges look expensive.

[@ausriusj]

@Luke: the bridges need not be so long. The architects who made the visualization decided they "look better" this way. In reality, all roads could be constructed on a raised earth and just four very short overpasses would be needed.

[@peterp1158]

Consider that the highest bridge is only 1 level above the base. Other intersection types could require up to 5 levels.

[@4NeonFun]

Probably nowhere near Dallas High Five which has a huge price tag. This one looks like it would cost a couple hundred mil, which is on the costlier side considering types of flyovers used. The bonus of the inside being this way is that you could use it for other things like a whole community. Could also be useful if one is trying to avoid that portion if land if it happened to be not serviceable. ☕Cheers! ~4NeonFun

[@RPSchonherr]

Ok the problem with this is the same as every left side exit: slower traffic getting in the left lanes. It looks good but in practice would not be as good as promised.

[@tollboothjason]

The straight-through traffic will have to slow down, too. Also, left and straight traffic are separated at some distance away from this interchange.

[@arandombard1197]

There won't be any traffic because these are effectively just straight roads with no intersections. Traffic will always flow without fail.

[@holger_p]

@@tollboothjason "straigth through" traffic is only a concern, when its the dominantly used direction. If it's just about 30-40% it becomes unimportant. On such a "circle highway around a city" this is very likely the case.

[@timmysig]

Everyone here forgetting one simple point, what if you are reaching this intersection and you want to do a U-Turn (e.g. you are heading northbound and you want to get to a park on the southbound direction of the road)... There is simply no option to turn around! And if these were fully adopted instead of roundabouts, even if you turn left at this one, then again left, left, left, you would still not end up on the other side of the road (you would have to carry on straight, then turn left, left, left, then right). This is the simple reason these will never get adopted.

[@ausriusj]

Tim Simonds: you have 7 lefts in your post, no wonder you don't get it right. E.g., "everyone forgetting about u-turns" - almost a third of the posts (at least in the beginning) had the same question. I usually claim it's not such a big deal, but if it is, I forward you to "Pinavia 70" kzbin.info/www/bejne/aWnQdqiuj9Opd6Mm. "Never adopted" - well, it's already adoped - does Cities Skylines count? :-).

[@matthewhemmings2464]

Why bother with U-turns? It's like 0,5% of the traffic and there is still possibility to make a U-Turn in a less critical area... It's not like U-Turn infrastructure was so crucial!

[@tauaru]

You bother with U-Turns, because road users need to make U-turns. Infrastructure designed for only popular usages is part of the problem encountered already in infrastructure design.

[@bashovski]

Most highway interchanges excluding exit junctions rarely have an U-turn possibility, e.g. T-interchange

[@randallsmerna384]

It seems that you could add a diverging Y at 0:26 It creates a continuous ring in the center that has different merge intersections at a much slower speeds with perhaps elongated merge lanes... This would allow for an emergency vehicles to change course. It looks like it would only work in one access but you could change axis' every other intersection...

[@B1G_Dave]

No jams, no accidents, no problems. Humanity: "Hold my beer"

[@CombraStudios]

This and the diverging diamond interchange are the most awesome designs

[@ElmerCat]

The naysayers are clueless; this is a great design! It would be a great concept for the upcoming replacement of the Turcot interchange in Montreal. Recovering the high-value useable space in the center is brilliant!

[@dlwatib]

All the left exits and left merges are a problem. That's why they invented cloverleaf interchanges.

[@ausriusj]

@dkwatib: talking about merges: if you merge two highways, one of them is on the left no matter how you turn them, so I would discount merges as a problem. Concerning the exits I would agree there is an issue for high speeds. But - this junction is no good for high speeds (becomes too large), so I would say the exits should be treated carefully but they might be ok if the junction is in the right place. Thinking forward: autonomous cars should have no issues with this. As for the clover - it's a terrible design, let's be honest: lots of wasted space (inside the leafs), weaving and conflict points, you turn right 3 times to turn left, limited capacity for turns; the only thing it's good for is one bridge, so it's cheap.

[@calvinbaII]

Cloverleafs are flawed in that the merge/exits merge-exit in the same lane, causing significant backlog.

[@DroneFragger]

This is only high capacity assuming everyone is going different directions. If (as in most instances of highway and motorway usage) a majority of people are going straight on this is going to cause massive traffic jams as 3 lanes of traffic merge into one or two lanes going straight on.

[@Pamani_]

DroneFragger Have you seen that 1 lane is going left, 1 right and 2 straight ?There would not be any traffic jam. There are actualy 4 lanes. If half of the people is going straight, it's optimized.

[@ausriusj]

DroneFragger Number of lanes is arbitrary in each direction - design as many as needed depending on the predicted traffic volume. If they merge too quickly afterwards, it's a problem, of course - just the way it is with all other interchanges: nothing to do with the interchange itself.

[@peterp1158]

Your first design better plan for traffic growth way out in the future. Expanding the initial design for growing traffic later will mean taking down the whole structure and rebuilding from scratch and probably consuming the area in the middle.

[@LubosMudrak]

Tried this in Cities: Skylines and it works great. Thanks!

[@johnholder4208]

That center would be the perfect place for a sports stadium. Easy in, easy out, spectacular view from the highways.

[@02suraditpengsaeng41]

You can't even build park on it 1. Noise 2. Parking space (can't crosswalk) 3. More traffic

[@ausriusj]

@james: by the way, concerning the driver headaches: you do not need to worry how your lane goes, it does not intersect any other. So you just follow the signs to choose the right lane before entering the junction, and you simply appear in the right exit. And it is quite natural - if you want to turn right, you choose the right lane, and if you want to exit into the left road, you choose the left entry lane. It is quite more complicated in Clover Leaf junctions, I would say.

[@Irishfan]

I like this idea. I could see this replacing the cloverleaf interchange at the junction of Interstates 70 and 75 near Dayton, Ohio. The problem I have with it is building it while keeping traffic going in all directions on the existing road. I know the problems associated with reconfiguring interchanges. I have worked in the design of several interchange reconfiguration projects in my career.

[@FeygeleGoy]

I think this is less intimidating than a double diamond. And the best part is that the center area can be filled with ballerinas pirouetting and tiptoeing to the graceful, delicate background music.

[@ausriusj]

@txrvs: beautiful, the interchange in Kuwait does look similar. Thanks for the example! They have advantage of very high speeds for driving through. My point remains valid though: they lost the center of the junction, and they have 5 overpasses. Minor thing: the left turn lane makes two turns inside the junction, so its turn radius and the driving speed drops. In Pinavia case we loose high speeds, but we gain parking space inside it, so it is perfect for cities with park&ride system.

[@ausriusj]

Because it's never been designed before. Patent offices made a comprehensive search in prior patents and found nothing similar. I'm also amazed at this. One would think road layouts have all been invented years ago. Apparently there's always one more thing to discover in every aspect of life if you open your mind...

[@camerontrickey6057]

Looks beautiful, I'd love to drive on it

[@QuantumRift]

It is basically a roundabout with better entrance, exit ramps.

[@ausriusj]

QuantumRift: you are right. The inventor of Pinavia was trying to improve a roundabout when he decided to add another level to it.

[@vukashin88]

it's the turbo roundabout, right?

[@bxdanny]

A very clever design. The text says traffic can pass at 70 km/hr, which is 43.5 mi/hr, so all traffic would have to slow down a bit from full highway speed (60-65 mi/hr). That might be a drawback in some locations. As for the center area, it might be used for municipal offices in a newly-built city. I can't see anyone living there, and I can't really see it being sold to private businesses either, but maybe office space could be rented to private businesses by the city or highway authority. I also never heard of an interchange design being patented before.

[@Rapsodiaast]

yes yes. :) cleaver... he-he. :) and in my opinion here a situation in which the sly fellow outwitted himself. it's not clever - it's hmmm very strange. that country is strange where on a ring it is impossible to be developed on 180 degrees and to go back.

[@Pamani_]

Dan Schwartz Are you crazy ? You have nether taken a cloverleaf interchang. You have to slow down to like 30 mi/hr.

[@bxdanny]

Pamani I was talking about thru traffic that is not exiting. It doesn't have to slow down at a cloverleaf. Still, I do like this design.

[@bonemealas1175]

Don't know how much of coincidence all of this is, but this video quite struct me. You see, I was just looking for some interchanges for Cities Skylines, so I just looked at some in-game footage of how to solve traffic problems in-game. Then some time later I see this video in my recommendations, so I decide to check this out. First of all I start by reading description of video and I see that designer name is Lithuanian, basically he is from country that I am from as well. So I think, oh cool how often do you see Lithuanians invent such great interchanges. But then I see that this is actually planned for Vilnius, more specifically, for western bypass. And that what impressed me the most, since I do live in Vilnius and actually pretty much right next to this newly build bypass (in Virsuliskes). SO yea, this was like a lot of coincidence, starting from just me messing around in Cities Skylines leading up to location where I live. The only question I have now, is where was this interchange planned to be placed exactly in western bypass, since now when it's finished, this interchange is not here, my guess due the cost of this interchange.

[@ausriusj]

Povilas: this is the place where Western bypass intersects Vilnius-Ukmerge highway ( www.google.com/maps/dir/54.7452753,25.219154 ). The Western bypass was mostly financed from EU funds and for some reason it was decided not to continue with the Northern bypass, so instead of a full 4-way junction we now have a 3-way junction with traffic lights (how cool is that!). Could be they will return to the 4-way design some time in the future, but the process of road construction is long and winding and if you are not part of the system (and Pinavia is not), then it's kind of impossible to push through a new design. As we were once told: "a pity this junction was not invented by Germans - it would look so much more convincing then". So yeah - we'll try to build this somewhere else first, maybe then we'll be accepted back home.

[@ausriusj]

Povilas: on a side note: talking about Lithuanian inventions you don't know. Have you ever listened to Stellardrone?

[@cheqmanis7291]

Anyway, while this is a cool idea, it doesn't seem practical in real life. You need huge traffic volume to build high capacity lanes, that is, in urban areas. Is there any urban areas in the world with such a huge land reserve? There would be a lot of buildings to be whacked to construct this interchange. Not to mention, the ridiculous cost for the structures since the ramps are elevated and unnecessarily longer.

[@ausriusj]

This is just a concept, so the ramps are not optimized. The land problem: browse for "pinavia 70". It'd be a park&ride solution to decrease the city transport...

[@Pamani_]

Siti Melur It would be useful in new cities in asia or south america. The interchange in us city center also have big ramps and costed like 100M$

[@spartaotano1906]

just let everything flow. Perfect.

[@nectartyrant1390]

for anyone who doesn't get this - this road has no lane merging of any kind. that's why it works in theory (and in cities skylines, in practice) - throughput and safety are both entirely unhindered. the input road has 4 lanes going in one direction. one lane diverges left, another diverges right, and two continue forwards. then, on each side, those split lanes coming from every direction converge together to form a 4-lane output. it's actually a brilliantly simple design, with an aesthetically pleasing pattern to match

[@ausriusj]

@Junn Kopf: thanks, Junn! What's more - you can actually make use of the large center piece of land too. Now only if you were a chief transport engineer of a municipality of some evolving city... :-)

[@letterpool]

simpler to have the green lanes just continue straight. why build all that curve?? $$$$...

[@Pamani_]

letterpool If the green line was continuing straight, the yellow on would have to make a big turn that would slow doown the traffic. It is also simpler because you can make an interchange smaller : the lane dont have to have a important gradient to reach the very near bridges at the middle.

[@ausriusj]

Here's why: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aWnQdqiuj9Opd6M

[@Pamani_]

Ausrius Juozapavicius It's the same ? With just a city inside?

[@Specularrrr]

to slow the cars down

[@AlwaysRM_]

2 years later... It's to build an City inside duh

[@Pamani_]

That could work pretty well in Cities Skyline !

[@geometrydashwinter2392]

Pamani there is a pinavia interchange in cities skylines (workshop) already!

[@Pamani_]

Maybe now. I also saw a video of youtube of a man that reproduced the second version of pinavia interchange in CTS

[@CastorQuinn]

Pamani KZbin actually suggested this video for me while I was watching someone play Cities:Skylines and I clicked it thinking it was a Cities:Skylines road. It is ever so much more impressive knowing this is a design intended for real life traffic.

[@Pamani_]

Castor Quinn Of course, this design is perfectly optimized, because there is no weaving

[@lolguy-x9n]

looks great. the utilizable inner space can be made into a whole city centre with appropriate one way outlets and inlets into the city.

[@MGZetta]

Damn people have no idea what they are seeing. 1. It is not a round-a-bout. (no conflict) 2. You don't have to build it raised. (Probably cheaper to build it raised) 3. It is maximum 2 level instead of at least 3 level mega interchanges we use today. 4. It is not sharp turn that every one has to lose speed. It is sloped inwards due to minimum curve radius on a highway to be able to travel at speed limit. Don't worry about the turning radius because whether you worry or not engineers are always calculating as we speak. I'm no expert, i'm just a student in civil engineering. Golden rule of engineering is "do not touch it if it is working fine." So i don't see anything changing any time soon.

[@jimbarron9939]

This visualization has a serious omission that I was glad to see was remedied in the visualization at the link: in this one there is no way to use the intersection to go back in the direction you came from. In the one at the link you could go to the (low traffic center meant to access only the buildings there and use the traffic circle to navigate back toward where you originally came from. The center can handle only a low level of traffic but that's not a problem because only a small portion of drivers realize they've made an error and need to go back in the direction they came from. Without that ability, to reverse direction would require navigating more intersections and a lot longer distance, plus considerably more complexity (which is exactly what you don't need when you've already made one navigational error). It's bad enough to have to drive an extra 20 miles or so, round trip, to correct one wrong turn because of limited access but to have to go thru several intersections and the distance between them with a much greater chance of getting even more lost would lead to many accidents. The traffic circle in the center is an absolute necessity. (not seen in this visualization but in the one at the link).

[@yangguan4070]

Having no conflict points at all is so safe and seamlesd

[@Lunavii_Cellest]

Thats with all highway interchanges

[@vkrsoft]

Autonomous Cars would need this kind of infrastructure everywhere to make it happen a reality. Until then Autonomous Cars is just a dream of the future...

[@ausriusj]

I see your point. And to take it even further: this is not an "ideal" junction. We simply think it's a kind of improvement of the 4-level junction. It has drawbacks - you can not have unlimited speeds, and the size is considerable. However, we think everything is balanced by the unique ability to use the center area - mostly to accumulate cars, instead of letting them congest the city. (all that is better seen on the "Pinavia 70" video).

[@andrew09021977]

Пишу это не с целью облить помоями, а с целью высказать своё мнение. В этой конструкции есть недостатки: 1) Занимает огромную площадь. Поэтому данное решение возможно или за городом или во вновь возводимых кварталах. Для большинства городов с большой историей эта развязка не подходит. 2) Нет возможности развернуться. Доступны направления: направо, прямо и налево. 3) В отличие от классического кольца или развязки по типу моста с лепестками-съездами ("клевера"), если нечаянно проехал нужный поворот (не смог во время занять нужную полосу), то второго шанса совершить манёвр нет. Придётся проехать дальше и искать разворот.

[@ausriusj]

@ltu42: I agree. Most of things look like some other things. LCD TV looks like an xray tube too. It's the details that make the difference. And the "details" for the turbine interchange are these: 3 or 4 levels (Pinavia: 2), center area used up (Pinavia: free), you can't have Park&Ride system inside turbine, so it cannot decrease number of cars on roads (Pinavia: ideal Park&Ride inside).

[@geoffreyreeks2422]

Outstandingly good. Well done.

[@ilockedthedoor854]

This is very much like the interchange near Hinsdale Illinois. First time i got on i thought i was going to take off into the atmosphere. Also the city placed the salt trucks in that usable area for quick refills and deployment

[@KOZMOGRAFX]

Where #355 and #55 cross-over?

[@ausriusj]

Please note this visualization is not optimized for construction. In real life, the flyovers will be incredibly small (each of them smaller than a flyover in an ordinary "clover-leaf" interchange. The land - yes. Lots of it is needed. BUT! That's the beautiful part: you can USE it (watch the "Pinavia 70" video) - create Park&Ride system inside, and you decrease the traffic, so basically you solve the traffic congestion inside the city.

[@ausriusj]

Anyway, I thought about your comment once more, and you know - this junction is not aimed at freeways, it will be simply too large. It's purpose would be better illustrated by the "Pinavia 70" movie: place it close to the city, where speeds are lower, and a need for Park&Ride arises.

[@drone-time]

This works great if you have huge freeways intersecting out in the middle of nowhere so there's plenty of land. If, on the other hand, your two roads started out small and grew up over time, with existing buildings and homes, churches, etc, well, in that case you'd probably keep your two roads as straight as possible, have one go over the other, and add four loops to get traffic from one direction to another... and you'd have the classic freeway cloverleaf...

[@wizbang68]

There is one of these in south Florida and it is such a pain to navigate. It's like you are traveling in a never ending circle and it uses a lot of pavement, land, and overpass structure to accomplish the interchange. It may be non stop but it's not particularly efficient.

[@ausriusj]

wizbang68: I think you have in mind the Turbine interchange - it does use a lot of land indeed. Pinavia is more efficient from that perspective, see here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aWnQdqiuj9Opd6Mm

[@Smokie181]

Very innovative and cool design.

[@Twiggy163]

While the shape is new (no intersection and road is the same), the idea is not new at all and has been in use in Europe and probably the States for many years.

[@Pamani_]

Lennart You may confuse it with turbine interchange.I dare you to change an interchange that has the same main idea in term of design.

[@knockshinnoch1950]

Cities Skylines- this interchange is a thing of beauty

[@hugoyairod]

simply wonderful

[@ausriusj]

For those who don't know where to go there must be clear signs, of course (and they should also have a GPS with a lane assistant). In general - if you could go around in a circle, then by definition you'd have to cross some other traffic flow, so the whole meaning of a fully directional high capacity and safe junction would go down the drain... right?

You shouldn't interfere with urbanism if you're a traffic engineer. But given that it is a solution for rural areas and connections between cities, it may work.

[@timaamelinsios8862]

This interchange is great!

[@daredevil3744]

Much better than today's interchanges.

[@asdfasdfasdfASDF7764]

Looks like a great idea

[@dodgyhingst]

Lots of bridges which means lots of iced over roadways for locations with snow/ice activity. Bridges cost more than roads which never leave the ground. Gov'ments are cash-strapped. Great idea...for a perfect world.

[@shmuli9]

There's sort of been an interchange like this (that has existed for 50 years) in Chicago called "the Circle Interchange".

[@mcexpress-trains]

if you actually want a good free-flowing interchange just go for a stack interchange. This is a huge inconvenience for drivers on the freeway and it takes up too much space.

[@NelsonClick]

I agree with below comment that it does look pricey. Also, it needs loads of engineering from several disciplines and a mountain of concrete. It would take an army of surveyors. Finally and most importantly, making a wide consistent turn like that would be momentarily disorienting for all except the most experienced drivers. A moment is all it takes to go over the rails of which there are insufficient in this animation. More costs. Oh, one more thing; these bridges would suffer a little worse in ice, snow or even rain.

[@tarcal87]

If you look at the design, it's way too curvy for no reason. e.g. - going straight is unnecessarily a long curve - going left anywhere is also an even bigger curve. Since everything is solved with elevation, you might as well shorctut to the left instantly, above or below another. Same concept. Nothing patentable in it...

[@ausriusj]

If you curve directly to the left then you need a third level overpass and that is both ugly and very expensive. That is of course known and not new.

[@tarcal87]

Any left turn lane passes 3 points with elevation difference. I like the design though, quite compact. Though it's almost fully like an elevated roundabout, which is not cheap. Also if you look at 0:50, the north-south direction goes unnecessarily over around, when it could keep going straight on the ground without elevation. This only works with one straight direction, not both. I don't think the middle utilizable bit would be so valuable that a straight road cannot cross it.

[@ausriusj]

+GaborBartal This video has too many poles elevating the lanes indeed, but that is only "for beauty", a real construction would have 4 very (very) short and narrow overpasses (just concrete plates), the rest on earthworks. And the area inside is really large (expensive), worth to reach.

[@fred08830]

Gabor -- great minds think alike WRT the straight through traffic having to take a curved route.

[@user-uy8lz8ev2n]

+Ausrius Juozapavicius If the point is to preserve that expensive piece of property in the center then just build the interchange around the entire city.

[@jkiser002]

Diverging Diamond Intersections are much more efficient, much less expensive, and take up a lot less land.

[@adelmorse173]

Comparing this to diverging diamond intersections is like comparing apples to oranges. This is a design that focus on a constant flow of traffic and should be compared to cloverleaf interchanges instead.

[@jkiser002]

Their are several DDI's in my area which have replaced cloverleaf interchanges. Although DDI's stop traffic it does it in a timed and controlled method which has actually releaved traffic congestion. It's about the FLOW of traffic, not whether it stops or in continuous.

[@ausriusj]

@megalo: Yep, I'd love that too. :-) The difficult part is to persuade (any) government. To build is easy.

[@MalikKillian]

Cool concept but merging will be a pain, not to mention if there is an accident on the interchange it will completely halt some lanes. Each direction would ideally be two lanes.

[@nigelkthomas9501]

The M1/M62 interchange should be like this!

[@ausriusj]

@jwebley: this is a two-level junction only, and in principal it does the same, as a 4-level junction does. Our junction is at least twice cheaper. Also, you can sell the land inside the junction, because it becomes easily accessible from all 4 roads (cf. the other video: Pinavia 70), and depending on the junction size and market value of the land it might even be possible to make a profit out of it all. So no, this is NOT expensive at all.

[@richardbloemenkamp8532]

It looks nice but I think the Turbine is still preferable: No curves for straight through traffic, no right-side exits, smaller total area. A few more overpasses but no complex multilevel overpasses.

[@ausriusj]

And you are completely right from the car-centric perspective. The advantage of Pinavia (we think) comes from the ability to utilize its center area by building public traffic hubs there so that these intersections can serve cars but at the same time function as park&ride - this way traffic towards the city can be optimized (minimized). But from what I see this junction was invented 50 years too late. Now everyone 's is waiting for self-driving cars to solve all our road problems.

[@Bark777]

This makes me want to play OpenTTD and build rail networks and try out this junction...

[@poilboiler]

Isn't this just a slightly different turbine intersection?

[@AnthonyBrusca]

+poilboiler it uses the same space, but the area in the center is usable

[@gormster]

Not even different, this is a turbine intersection.

[@MichaelScottRamming]

The only difference with the turbines described here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interchange_(road)#Turbine_interchange Is that the Pinavia has the through lanes also curve with the left and right turn ramps through the turbine.

[@MichaelScottRamming]

This turbine interchange in Dubai has some interesting "use" of the center area of a traditional turbine, where the through lanes remain straight. www.google.com/maps/place/25%C2%B003'21.9%22N+55%C2%B014'57.6%22E/@25.0557204,55.2466982,1212m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d25.056076!4d55.249332?hl=en

[@Pyedr]

It's just a worse turbine intersection. Having all exiting traffic on the right is better.

[@coolranch7537]

i cant stop thinking about roads

[@ausriusj]

Please look up the advanced version: "Pinavia 70" - you can turn around and do lots of other exciting maneuvers.

[@GaryBickford]

Left exits needlessly increase traffic crossovers and confuse. A slight alteration would have the exits to the 270 degree route come off at the same side as the 90 degree route, then split. This is also less confusing to the drivers, as "continuing" us on the left, while "changing raids" us on the right as expected.

[@GaryBickford]

I'll just add that clear back in the 1960s several interchange designs not unlike this were designed and some built, but less than others because they use up so much real estate and cost more. That will always be a constraint. Cloverleafs are bad, but they use the least land and the fewest expensive ramps.

[@shalamanzer4653]

Problem is assuming perfect, friendly and non-competitive drivers. This would work when fully automatic cars remove the driver from the equation.

[@matthewadventureexploratio6596]

That’s a Good Change, I wish it happens in Oregon. The Good spot will be Brookwood and Cornell Intersections

[@ltu42]

That one looks like a standard turbine interchange, there's lots of them everywhere. Just look up "turbine interchange" in Wikipedia and Google images.

[@ausriusj]

@james: going straight through would make it more costly - a 5th overpass would be needed, and the area within the circle would become a waste (this junction has that unique property - availability of the land inside). Either way, Pinavia is not suited for highways - it would be at least 2 km in size to allow 100 km/h speeds. This junction suits best for city bypass roads, where speeds are moderate, and a need for parking space (inside it) arises.

[@jimmybrannan7303]

People will need a lot more warning than one set of arrows in a 100 foot area like in this picture. It will take multiple sets and overhead signs. These are the kinds of roads you see in countries where the tax rates are VERY high and infrastructure is a priority. Not here in the US unless maybe a one time example.

[@ausriusj]

I wouldn't argue about big or small deal with you (it's smallish, because the interchange hasn't been built yet), but it's not a roundabout however you define it.

[@kelli217]

Functionally equivalent to a four-level stack interchange.

[@ausriusj]

Thanks, Andrew. Let me know if you see a good place for it.

[@ausriusj]

No, problem. Just make some extra 10 miles to the next one. In fact, most of the multi-level junctions are unforgiving, if you don't read the signs (and don't mention the clover-leaf, 'cause it's not of the same class).

[@Hyoukikyo]

I believe the utilizable center area is what may cause traffic. I also feel that this could not have been a recent marvel innovation idea; something simple like this should have already been thought out and has a reason why it was not made.

[@ausriusj]

Hyoukikyo - what is the other thing that you compare against? I mean - if the facilities inside the Pinavia are not there, then they are somewhere else in an alternative version of the junction: in most cases they are on one side of the road, so they are so much more difficult to reach/exit (from all other roads) and therefore generate even more traffic. Concerning your "feel" - that's exactly the feeling people have to justify their stubborn conservative nature, and it's a normal absolutely understandable feeling. Many of innovations are counter-intuitive and do not seem rational. And if they are any good, then of course you think "someone else must have thought of this". In most cases you would be right - it's not easy to create something new in a world of almost 8 billion. Is this case an exception? It might be, knowing the extremely conservative nature of road construction policies. For one thing - there was no such design known to any of the world's patent offices. Now is it good enough? I don't know. Time will tell. At least one component of it (the splitting of the road before the intersection and the initial weaving) has been noticed by road engineers and they referenced Pinavia when presenting their idea for one crossroad renovation in Lincoln, NE.

[@Hyoukikyo]

I am sorry friend if i came to sound brash in any way. My comment was mostly related to the game Cities Skylines; I did not consider to compare it the real world setting. All my respect goes to the engineers, innovators and to you for sharing it friend.

[@ausriusj]

Thanks! I did not mean to call you any names either, even though it might seem that way. :-) I would still say that it is completely normal to look for negative features in all new things - that's what I do at least.

[@babebutterfly]

i like this, it looks way neater than those interchange criss cross kinda look ugly

[@ausriusj]

Sure there is. You can enter the center. Google a more advanced version of this: "Pinavia 70". On second hand, it's much more effective to make a u-turn before or after the junction.

[@txrvs]

See the comment below by jamesrcollier. There is a very similar interchange at the crossing of Fifth Ring Road at King Faisal Motorway in Kuwait City. It has the through movements. That interchange is over 26 years old. It was there in 1985 when I was in Kuwait.

[@littlejennsmall]

I drive on one of plenty of examples of left lane exits in the US nearly every day. I don't see how it could be illegal if so many are in use on major highways in major cities.

[@ausriusj]

Ok then, sorry for flaming up so quickly. :-) Anyway, the bridges in turbine are several times longer than in Pinavia, even if they can be arranged on 2 levels (although it's not evident in this video of Pinavia).

[@vanhouten64]

Looks lovely but possibly expensive. I would use the central area for gardens or a giant statue of local significance.

[@korbermeister1]

vanhouten64 constant noise and pollution from the vehicular traffic makes me think that the only thing suitable to exist in the center is a prison

[@cmyk8964]

It’s just a massive highway roundabout innit

[@ausriusj]

@Mudimush: please look at this visualization as an idea only - it's not a construction design for a particular project. In fact, overpasses are so long just for clarity's sake - they could simply lie on on elevated ground instead. As for the left exits - mirror image of the layout solves the problem.

[@fadetounforgiven]

Yes, you're right about it, I never said otherwise. The thing is though, things should (IMHO) be done trying to be foolproof, up to a certain level. Where to set that level is the key question. And mistakes, missdirections and so on, happen. How many? is it worth to take care of them? that would be the point. Also, maybe you couldn't change lanes before because there was another car/truck/accident there. Yes, this is a good solution in the "everything's right" assumption, but...

[@SaintZombie1]

The conflicts would still arise prior to entering and exiting the exchange as traffic merges from two different directions.

[@ausriusj]

I'd think every junction has problems of choosing the right lane before entering it. That's why they can't be built too close to each other.

[@QuantumRift]

There's no conflict as merging and entering traffic are all going the same direction and there's no need to cut over multiple lanes to get where you want to go. The only problem I see is there's no way, say if you are Northbound coming up from the S, to enter the roundabout and go back the way you came, that is, do a 360 and come out heading S (if you want to change directions that way). From any directing, entering, you have three choices...you can exit off to the L, do the swerve thru the roundabout and continue straight ahead, or go 3/4 around to the left. No way to reverse direction.

[@ausriusj]

QuantumRift Large junctions do not have a u-turn as a rule. However, due to the large central area of Pinavia it is possible to make one inside, see "Pinavia 70".

[@timaamelinsios8862]

No conflict points! It is the safest.

[@TeamTacDotNet]

You have to check your state. There are plenty of states that have left-lane exits in existence, mine included.

[@ausriusj]

@fontosaurus: of course it does, how else would they issue the patents. It's just that patent is of little use when you cannot build the thing yourself (patents give you competitive advantage in some normal areas, such as new plasma TV screens or faster DVDs). In this case patent was needed as a proof of inventiveness, in other words: this is NOT a useless thing. We claim it could be a perfect Park & Ride solution to help cities solve the congestion problem.

[@marleneroscher441]

They should have used this in the "Grandview Triangle" aka "3-Trails Crossing Memorial Interchange" here in Kansas city metroplex.

[@scottholder7374]

call it what it is: a giant roundabout

[@dhy5342]

It looks like you'll need about 30 acres of land for this. Multi levels and ramps should increase the cost substantially.