>>1119446 >> "Parclo is a downgrade from a full cloverleaf" > No you are thinking of cloverstack. The only thing that make sense to talk about upgrading in interchanges is number of lanes and grade separation. Parclo is upgraded to parclo A/B4
>>1117666 and full cloverleaf has collector-distributor road added to it.
Parclo gains non-weaving traffic while losing free-flowing traffic, vice versa for full clover. It's at most a spectrum, not a vertical line or a ladder for interchanges to climb. There's not one superior to the other in a strict sense. One needs to weight and decide situationally in improving an interchange and any junction. (Similar reasoning can be sought for traffic signals and roundabouts vs intersections)
From another perspective acknowledging you label, this "downgrade" is superior (perhaps similar to road diets). Elimination of weaving is more beneficial than some degree of unstable and disruption-prone free-flow.
One more take: If you prioritize the major road then a parclo may present to you as a net improvement at the relatively minor expanse of the minor road.
As I defined it
>>1118808 it's a decent upgrade when thinking about a full clover service interchange. Obviously same could not be said for a full clover system interchange, to your credit. A system full clover with both C-D roads is a decent two-level system interchange to minimize grade separation structures.
So Anon it isn't very convincing to put service full clover above parclo by pointing out the obvious fact of conflict points in an interchange. The capacity of a parclo can exceed a full cloverleaf on high traffic volume.
