Talk:Partial cloverleaf interchange

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 August 2021. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Highways Low‑importance

	Roads portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

AB3 seems ambiguous - is it meant to cover both distinct possibilities (up to rotation)? --SPUI 02:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, google searches for "parclo ab-3" and "parclo ab3" give nothing. Is this term actually used by the MTO? --SPUI 02:27, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, there are actual Parclo AB3s in Ontario, though I don't know if the MTO calls them as such (they do use the term Parclo A3 and Parclo AB, however). The example I listed there is almost identical to the interchange between the Queen Elizabeth Way and Ontario Street in St. Catharines. Now that I think of it, Highway 416 and Hunt Club Road in Ottawa is also a Parclo AB3. Of course, the difference with these two examples is that side streets are also integrated into the actual interchange. Same principal, just looks a little different. Snickerdo 03:10, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What does Ontario call a parclo with only one loop, like [1]? --SPUI 02:59, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good question. They're all over the 401 in Durham Region. I'll hunt down the official designation, but I think they're called something along the lines of Half Parclo/Half Diamond Hybrids. As for Parclo AB3, it -is- an actual designation under the Ontario System. There are also Parclo A3s along the QEW in Niagara (At Seventh Street in St. Catharines, and Mountain Road in Niagara Falls). You can more or less ad any combo of A, B, 2, 3 or 4 to make up a designation for them. Snickerdo 03:10, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not only used in North America - junction 1 of the M50 motorway (United Kingdom) is a parclo. Loganberry 13:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed this type of interchange seems to have an interesting if somewhat chequered history in UK motorway junctions... that is, being used only in situations where the road was being built on the cheap, in a hurry, or under other conditions that meant other usually-preferred (safer, more free flowing, etc) types were not possible. EG the original Preston Bypass (first part of M6 to be built) featured at least one in it's short length, the aforementioned M50 (about as close as it's possible to get to a country track whilst still satisfying the legal definition of a motorway-class road) where J1 is one of the safer and better engineered junctions - try J2, or even better J3 if you fancy a thrill, and the M6 Toll - a shockingly cheap road in all but it's basic alignment/navigation - features Parclo's, Cloverleafs and plain overpass crossroads (features more becoming of a rural dual carriageway) in abundance.

It does seem a bit odd that a type of junction that may be found anywhere it satisfies a need is in the "Canada Roads" section! PS Apologies for the run-on sentences.. -Tahrey 82.46.180.56 03:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave this to someone else to investigate, but this appears to be another example of a B4 interchange in Ontario. It doesn't occur on a 400-Series freeway (it's the easternmost interchange on the full freeway portion of Ontario provincial highway 17 in Walden, with RR 55), but nonetheless. --Scani71 04:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a B4. 89.172.58.121 17:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cloverstack

I don't see what does the cloverstack have in common with a parclo, barring the fact that each incorporates parts of a cloverleaf interchange. If it doesn't deserve its own page, it would make more sense in the cloverleaf or stack interchange articles. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 15:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging

I think it's a little strange to tag this for both HWY and CRWP/ONRD. The analogous situation in the US, Michigan left. That article is tagged for USRD but not MSHP because while Michigan's highway department invented it, it has caught on in places in the rest of the country. If it has caught on internationally enough, it should be HWY only. I would argue that Parclos are sufficiently internationalized now that they aren't just a Ontario thing anymore, or even just a Canadian thing. That was my rationale for tagging it for the HWY parent project only. (On a side note, Michigan left is tagged for WP:MICH, and this article can be tagged by WP:ONTARIO.) I just don't think in a roads context though that either subject is particularized to just one province or state anymore. Imzadi 1979 → 02:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In the case of the Michigan left, MDOT's predecessor is directly given credit by official sources as having invented the intersection type. MDOT also takes credit for it on their website. Newspaper articles typically describe it as invented in Michigan. I don't think the media does the same with the parclo though, making the MTO connection here slightly weaker. Imzadi 1979 → 02:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and I have yet to find any official documents supporting the claim; only roadgeeks really. The Michigan left example makes sense though. I switched things back. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible and biased article.

This is a terrible and biased article with few references. It reads like as if it was written by a salesman. This design does not allow better flow then a clover leaf, it allows an interchange to be built more cheaply where a clover leaf is not needed. This kind of article should not be on wikipedia. Find some sources for your work and write an unbiased article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.168.46 (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a bad article, much due to material added to the article by someone who knew squat about interchanges. A parclo cannot be used at the intersection of two freeways. Big difference between it and cloverleaf, stack, or turbine interchanges (or bastardized versions thereof). --66.41.154.0 (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Capacity issue not handled by the article

A 4 ramp parclo needs to hande 3 conflicting directions on the crossstreet
A 6 ramp parclo needs to hande 2 conflicting directions on the crossstreet, only

--Hans Haase (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cloverstacks

…are hybrid interchanges of cloverleafes and stack interchanges. They have freeflowing traffic, often free from weafing. They are interchanges and far away from intersections. --Hans Haase (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13546 --NE2 20:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rest my laurels on Chris Beach's answer. I've wanted to cut that 'fact' out for some time. 4 years actually, if you look above. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's always permissable to request a source citation with a Template:cn tag, then come back later and remove the disputed statement if no one has supplied a source. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/designGuide/CH_7.pdf pages 15–22 --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 11:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Folded diamond

Am I the only one to think that it is strange that folded diamond interchanges are covered in this article (with Folded diamond redirecting here) rather than at Diamond interchange, with which I think they have more in common? This kind of interchange is extremely common, heavily predates the parclo idea (as mentioned in the article), and lacks what I would call a central feature of the parclo idea: the absence of left-turns off the minor road. Just because folded diamonds are considered variants of the parclo rather than of the diamond in Ontario, why should we? 85.226.204.72 (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to interchange (road)#partial cloverleaf interchange

NOT MERGED

This was never formally closed, but discussion is beyond stale and the merge tag has been removed. ^Clyde!_Franklin! 16:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My bold edit was reverted, and AFD is apparently not the venue for this. I would like to redirect this article to interchange (road)#partial cloverleaf interchange. This article is almost entirely unsourced, and a list of examples. Here is what the article looks like when the lists of examples are removed.[2] While I will not argue that this topic is notable, I see no reason it shouldn't be covered in amongst other interchanges. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AlgaeGraphix: since you undid the redirect, I'd like your opinion posted. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge - There are a plethora of sources online. BE BOLD and source it. –Davey2010^Talk 21:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not whether or not sources are available, it is whether or not this warrants an independent article, as opposed to being covered in an article about all interchanges. It is not my duty to source examples, it is the duty of the person adding the information; just undo my last edit and we have a starting point. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well judging by the sources online as well as information here one could quite easily source everything here so yes it does warrant a seperate article. Sad thing is Floydian all of this energy being wasted on redirecting, AFDing, coming here etc etc could all be much better spent on this very article. –Davey2010^Talk 00:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wasting it instead on interchange (road). Why polish several turds when one reflects quite well? Also, if you're so confident, source out the article... I don't accept Steam and SimCity Devotion forum posts as reliable sources, find me civil engineering reports. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, judging by the comment above, this is nothing more than your garden variety run-of-the-mill WP:IDL deletion, and deserves all the consideration that warrants. I stand by my reversion. Also, you should be notifying @Chaswmsday: and @Kendall-K1:, the primary editors of this article. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging them. This has nothing to do with WP:IDL, its about covering a broader topic in one article, as opposed to splitting it into four topics. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What is the point of section 3.4?

I don't see the point of section 3.4, as a parclo has loops and signalized lefts, and this has flyovers. As well, this is already covered at Interchange (road)#Combination interchange.

ClydeFranklin (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Clyde[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed the section per WP:SILENCE. However, feel free to revert that and discuss it here. CLYDE (TALK) @PING ME! 21:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]