Installer Steam						
					
				
				
									log på
											 | 
						sprog
						
																																					简体中文 (forenklet kinesisk)
																													繁體中文 (traditionelt kinesisk)
																													日本語 (japansk)
																													한국어 (koreansk)
																													ไทย (thai)
																													Български (bulgarsk)
																													Čeština (tjekkisk)
																																							Deutsch (tysk)
																													English (engelsk)
																													Español – España (spansk – Spanien)
																													Español – Latinoamérica (spansk – Latinamerika)
																													Ελληνικά (græsk)
																													Français (fransk)
																													Italiano (italiensk)
																													Bahasa indonesia (indonesisk)
																													Magyar (ungarsk)
																													Nederlands (hollandsk)
																													Norsk
																													Polski (polsk)
																													Português (portugisisk – Portugal)
																													Português – Brasil (portugisisk – Brasilien)
																													Română (rumænsk)
																													Русский (russisk)
																													Suomi (finsk)
																													Svenska (svensk)
																													Türkçe (tyrkisk)
																													Tiếng Việt (Vietnamesisk)
																													Українська (ukrainsk)
																									Rapporter et oversættelsesproblem
							
						
											









1 Sprawl - zoneable space forfeit
2 Some Head On Crossings, just merges, neither head-ons nor merges
3 Lane mathematics or not
4 Some sharp corners or all sweeping bends
5 Lanes*length and Lanes*Levels*Length. I've never calculated them, though, as it gets hard. But they help comparatively.
If I get to it, #6, making it smooth and pretty boosts #4 as well.
There are definite trade-offs between 1 and 4, although 2 and 3 are solvable in pretty much every space constraint where an interchange fits.
I looked at your collection and I was and am troubled by your statement "Intersections are Big". "Some Intersections are Big", that is true, but not all. I couldn't see where to comment on the collection, so I hope you'll see this, and I can chop it down or delete it after you get a chance to ponder.
Things you might want in your collection for performance and variety:
+a No-Weave Double Y (low-merge, TM:PE can force no merge)
+a Compact stacked interchange that fits mostly within the rights-of-way, minimizing or even (almost) eliminating sprawl.
+a reasonably compact stacked interchange that takes Pinavia and Turbine off the table, unless someone wants to build a replica stadium and can spare the space and the concrete,
+a reasonably compact service interchange that can start as a simple diamond, and grow with the needs
I love this intersection because of its minimal "sprawl", the occupied spaces outside the right-of-way for the highways. The number of zoneable squares lost to an intersection is a key criteria (or should be) for intersection selection.
In three quadrants the sprawl is nil. In the fourth it's not bad, but remember to divide it by 4 when comparing, and then the bonus is only one quadrant is impacted.
I got frustrated by the weaving (like in cloverleafs) that could mess-up traffic. So I made a non-weaving variant.