The goal here is to get a complete list, by state, of rural four-lane freeways that need six lanes now or will within the next 10-15 years. Generally, volumes on a given stretch must be above 30K in order to be considered for six-laning. Please include traffic volume counts (AADT) with your submissions if possible; most states have these numbers available online.
Submissions for freeways within a metro area must (a) be open to trucks, and (b) carry a significant percentage of long-distance, non-commuting, through traffic. An interstate shield is preferred, but not required.
If a six-laning is currently under construction or officially proposed by the state DOT, please note it as such. Any six-laning substantially complete by winter 2018-2019 need not be included.
I'll follow up with the beginnings of a list for NY and PA, and keep it updated as we go!
Any part of the CA 99 Freeway that is four lanes ought to be six at minimum. There are four stretches that come to mind:
- Delano to Tulare
- Fresno to just north of Madera
- Merced to Turlock
- Lodi to Elk Grove
MN: I-94, St. Michael to Clearwater (there is progress being made toward this)
WI: I-90/94, Tomah to I-39, or at least Dells - I-39
I-57, north of Marion, IL to Mt Vernon/I-64.
IDOT has proposed, and around Marion is done, and the next few miles north of Marion are planned.
The whole segment is needed. IDOT/State of IL has to find the money, first
Also, I-55 in/around Springfield, where the ridiculous 4 lane segment exists between 6 lane segments both north and south of town. No idea if IDOT has plans on that one
New York
I-81 from Exit 15/US 20/Lafayette to Exit 16A/I-481/Syracuse.
Length: 8 miles. AADT: 37,125 (south of US 11), 40,265 (north of US 11).
I-86 from Exit 116/NY 17K/Bloomingburg to Southern Terminus at I-87.
Length: 25 miles. Max AADT: 60,506 at Woodbury. Min AADT: 34,357 at Bloomingburg.
I-87 (NY Thruway) from Exit 16/I-86/Harriman to Exit 23/I-787/Albany.
Length: 95 miles. Max AADT: 48,019 at Harriman. Min AADT: 34,648 at Catskill.
I-90 (NY Thruway) from Exit 57/NY 75/Hamburg to Lackawanna Toll Barrier.
Length: 7 miles. AADT: 36,350 (southwest of NY 179), 40,206 (northeast of NY 179).
I-90 (NY Thruway) from Williamsville Toll Barrier to Exit 33/NY 365/Verona.
Note: There are two segments (Exit 47 to 46, and Exit 35 to 34A) where volumes fall below 30K. I am including them anyway for consistency.
Length: 167 miles. Max AADT: 50,729 at Williamsville. Min AADT: 30,729 immediately east of I-81.
I-490 from Exit 25/NY 31F/Fairport to Exit 27/NY 96/Bushnell Basin.
Length: 4 miles. :banghead:
AADT: 72,453 (northwest of NY 31), 61,196 (southeast of NY 31).
Long-term, say as part of a 50-year plan, I would include the entire mainline Thruway, I-81 from Binghamton to Syracuse, and I-86 from I-390 to Corning (the theoretical I-83/I-86 multiplex! :-P).
In South Carolina, I-95 between I-26 and the Georgia state line is well-known to need widening. I'm not motivated enough to look up the traffic counts. While the other four-lane portions need widening too, the heavy traffic and resulting congestion seem noticeably worse south of I-26.
Quote from: webny99 on January 01, 2019, 12:58:05 PM
Please include traffic volume counts (AADT) with your submissions if possible
It was worth a shot. It really was.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 01, 2019, 02:46:56 PM
In South Carolina, I-95 between I-26 and the Georgia state line is well-known to need widening. I'm not motivated enough to look up the traffic counts. While the other four-lane portions need widening too, the heavy traffic and resulting congestion seem noticeably worse south of I-26.
South Carolina's TDV is actually quite user-friendly. Volumes are 43,400 immediately south of I-26, and sustained above 40K all the way to the Georgia line. The bridge into Georgia actually carries 55,300.
North of I-26, volumes are lower, generally in the mid-30K's, but still six-lane territory by my standards. Of course, there's another spike north of I-20 - up to 54,100 - but that's already six-laned. Wouldn't hurt to continue the six-laning to the NC border, either.
Quote from: kphoger on January 01, 2019, 04:19:22 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 01, 2019, 12:58:05 PM
Please include traffic volume counts (AADT) with your submissions if possible
It was worth a shot. It really was.
:pan:
Well, I guess I'll find the counts myself (the ones I care about, anyways!)
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 01, 2019, 02:46:56 PM
In South Carolina, I-95 between I-26 and the Georgia state line is well-known to need widening. I'm not motivated enough to look up the traffic counts. While the other four-lane portions need widening too, the heavy traffic and resulting congestion seem noticeably worse south of I-26.
You may or may not recall that I did an analysis of I-95 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19592.msg2203257#msg2203257) in the Carolinas and south of Petersburg a couple years ago. Widening is very warranted from the Georgia line up to US 17/Exit 33 and again near I-26, but from Yemassee to north of Walterboro less so.
And a note on what "needs widening". FHWA generally considers LOS D the threshold at which improvements (including widening) become warranted, though freeways will still flow even at LOS D. For most rural freeway sections, that roughly translates into a daily vehicle volume around or north of 40K. Lower vehicle thresholds will exist for segments with more trucks, more of a directional split, or more recreational traffic as opposed to commuter traffic. For I-95 through the Carolinas and southern Virginia, that threshold was in the neighborhood of 48K.
But even going with 40K as a base threshold, most of the segments already mentioned would meet that.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 01, 2019, 02:14:14 PM
WI: I-90/94, Tomah to I-39, or at least Dells - I-39
How about Tomah to the Illinios line?
I recall construction of some sort on I-90/I-39 south of Madison, but I would love to see a consistent six lanes from Rockford, IL, up to Tomah.
Quote from: webny99 on January 01, 2019, 04:42:09 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 01, 2019, 02:14:14 PM
WI: I-90/94, Tomah to I-39, or at least Dells - I-39
How about Tomah to the Illinios line?
I recall construction of some sort on I-90/I-39 south of Madison, but I would love to see a consistent six lanes from Rockford, IL, up to Tomah.
It's being six laned south of Madison, so I omitted it.
Quote from: froggie on January 01, 2019, 04:34:55 PM
You may or may not recall that I did an analysis of I-95 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19592.msg2203257#msg2203257) in the Carolinas and south of Petersburg a couple years ago. Widening is very warranted from the Georgia line up to US 17/Exit 33 and again near I-26, but from Yemassee to north of Walterboro less so.
I was not aware of that -- it was just before my time. Thanks for posting!
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 01, 2019, 02:07:20 PM
Any part of the CA 99 Freeway that is four lanes ought to be six at minimum. There are four stretches that come to mind:
- Delano to Tulare
- Fresno to just north of Madera
- Merced to Turlock
- Lodi to Elk Grove
Fortunately -- or not, depending upon Caltrans' whims and priorities -- the ultimate plan as outlined in the "CA 99 Master Plan" active for nearly 20 years is to 6-lane the entire route while getting rid of substandard (by reasonably current as well as Interstate-compliant) the remaining "virtual RIRO's" (i.e., the several 15mph on/off "ramp" facilities in the Delano-Tulare segment). Unfortunately, as there was no timetable attached to that master plan, the agency is free to prioritize as they will -- although D10 has been considerably more active than D6 since the CA 198-to-Kingsburg segment was done.
I just returned from an abbreviated trip to SoCal to take care of some business related to my audio ventures; my traveling companion, who is also in that field, needed to get back early to handle some family stuff. I'll post what I saw on the 2-day venture in the Road Trip section either today or tomorrow.
But for the purposes of the OP, the
other CA 6-laning that I consider necessary and/or overdue are, in no particular order:
(1) US 101 from Novato through Healdsburg (the outer edge of North Bay suburbia).
(2) I-5 from CA 12 to the existing 6-lane section at Elk Grove. Commute traffic can overwhelm at times.
(3) I-5 from CA 152 north to the I-580 split, and I-580 from there to I-205. Lots of traffic coming from CA 152. Ideally, all of I-5 needs 6-laning -- but occasional extra lanes in the median (more for the passing of trucks than anything else) plus some truck climbers in the Kettleman Hills area (both directions).
(4) I-15 north of the I-40 split, all the way to the NV line. Just add an extra lane in the median over the whole length -- period!
(5) US 101 from south of Santa Maria up to the recent 6-laning of the Cuesta grade north of SLO. Enough folks have moved to the area to warrant this; it tends to get congested on its own without help from LA or Bay tourists.
(6) (and this is a real long shot:) I-80 all the way over the Sierras to the NV state line. Such an expansion would probably cost 15-20 times what the original ca. 1965 construction did, so one shouldn't hold one's breath!
(7) (another long shot considering the cost of bridge/causeway expansion): I-5 from CA 99 near Sacramento Airport out to the CA 16 junction NW of Woodland. Since Woodland is effectively functioning as a Sacramento exurb these days, I-5 can and does see regular congestion along that stretch.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 01, 2019, 04:47:50 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 01, 2019, 04:42:09 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 01, 2019, 02:14:14 PM
WI: I-90/94, Tomah to I-39, or at least Dells - I-39
How about Tomah to the Illinios line?
I recall construction of some sort on I-90/I-39 south of Madison, but I would love to see a consistent six lanes from Rockford, IL, up to Tomah.
It's being six laned south of Madison, so I omitted it.
I figured as much --- it looked like a widening, but there wasn't much, if any, activity, so I couldn't tell for sure. That was summer 2017.
Quote from: webny99 on January 01, 2019, 04:42:09 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 01, 2019, 02:14:14 PM
WI: I-90/94, Tomah to I-39, or at least Dells - I-39
How about Tomah to the Illinios line?
I recall construction of some sort on I-90/I-39 south of Madison, but I would love to see a consistent six lanes from Rockford, IL, up to Tomah.
I'd say up to Wisconsin Dells might be sufficient, but from there to Tomah is kind of right on the line, with AADT between 30k and 40k.
Wisconsin Dells to Tomah would be a "nice to have", but isn't outright necessary. In my experience, it normally flows unless it floods (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6819.msg2352437#msg2352437).
(pun intended)
For Michigan, US-23 between Flint and the Ohio line and I-94 between Ann Arbor and Benton Harbor. US-23 acts as a western bypass of Detroit and has very heavy traffic during peak times. I-94 is a major truck route between Chicago and Detroit and sees a lot of traffic. I-75 between the US-23 split at MM 115 and I-475 at MM 111. I-75 should be six lanes for awhile north of MM 164 as well, at that junction it goes from eight lanes to four, you pick up the extra two lanes going SB and lose the two lanes going NB. That is right at the M-13 Connector exit, the right lane becomes the exit for the M-13 connector and the left lane ends. The M-13 connector gets another lane as it's exiting I-75. All the traffic that exited at Exit 164 going SB has to use the M-13 Connector to get back to I-75 SB.
Quote from: froggie on January 01, 2019, 04:34:55 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 01, 2019, 02:46:56 PM
In South Carolina, I-95 between I-26 and the Georgia state line is well-known to need widening. I'm not motivated enough to look up the traffic counts. While the other four-lane portions need widening too, the heavy traffic and resulting congestion seem noticeably worse south of I-26.
You may or may not recall that I did an analysis of I-95 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19592.msg2203257#msg2203257) in the Carolinas and south of Petersburg a couple years ago. Widening is very warranted from the Georgia line up to US 17/Exit 33 and again near I-26, but from Yemassee to north of Walterboro less so.
My response to that was "does it need more lanes at least 20 weekends (Fri thru Sun), including major holidays, per year"? They tend to have very high peaks on some weekends, while having many weekdays with light traffic. Mere AADTs are averaged over 365 days and don't reflect the needs of rural Interstate highways, in this regard, IMHO. That would be my criteria for 6 lane widening.
Current needs in my region based on that, for widening to no less than 6 lanes --
-- I-81, the entire distance between TN I-40 and PA I-78
-- I-64, the entire distance between VA I-295 and Williamsburg 6-lane widening projects
-- I-95, the entire distance between Georgia and VA I-295
-- I-83, the entire distance between Towson MD and Harrisburg
-- I-270, the entire distance between Frederick MD and Gaithersburg
Granted that is about 20 billion dollars, but I have answered the question of the OP for my region! :clap:
Is there talk of widening I-70 across Missouri?
Interstate 180 in Illinois
Just kidding. I 55 around Springfield has been studied but the cost is sky high. There was a study on 74 just west of 57 that was dropped. Someday 80 to LaSalle and maybe 39 north of 88...so a long answer to say none right now.
Iowa thinks 80 across the state though they finally decided it did not need to be done that urgently so maybe between Iowa City and 280.
Missouri same thing with 70 though its condition is worse or was because MO is out of road money.
Quote from: kphoger on January 01, 2019, 06:40:13 PM
Is there talk of widening I-70 across Missouri?
There's talk but no funding. IMHO it will probably be piecemealed - MoDOT will probably try to get a few grants to do a few small sections. Maybe if the delays from the upcoming repairs to the Missouri River crossing are as bad as predicted (supposedly a bad day will back westbound traffic up to Kingdom City) there will be more talk or a stronger move toward tolls.
Georgia (all AADT values cited are from 2017)
I-16
I-75 to US 80: AADT 47k+, but this is an urban area, so might not qualify
(US 80 to US 280: no widening needed)
US 280 to Pooler Pkwy: AADT 35k-40k
Pooler Pkwy to I-95: AADT ~58k
I-95 to I-516: AADT ~67k
(East of I-516: urban and/or 6+ lanes)
Should likely be widened for a bit west of the Savannah area out to around US 280.
I-20
AL state line to US 27: AADT 37k-42k
US 27 to GA 61/101: AADT ~50k
(GA 61/101 to GA 142: already 6+ lanes)
GA 142 to GA 11: AADT ~50k
GA 11 to US 129/441: AADT 36k-38k
(US 129/441 to Exit 169: no widening needed)
Exit 169 to GA 47: AADT 32k-37k
GA 47 to GA 388: AADT 43k
GA 388 to GA 383: AADT 59k
(GA 383 to GA 104: already 6+ lanes)
GA 104 to SC state line: AADT 60k
Should probably be 6 lanes west to the Alabama border and east to at least GA 11, and probably from at least GA 47 east to Augusta.
I-24
West of I-59: AADT ~50k
East of I-59: AADT ~70k
Should probably be 6 lanes in full.
I-59
(South of GA 136: no widening needed)
GA 136 to I-24: AADT 40k-50k
Should be considered for 6 lanes down to GA 136.
I-75
No existing 4-lane rural sections
I-85
AL state line to I-185: AADT 33k-37k
I-185 to Meriwether/Coweta county line: AADT ~52k
(Meriwether/Coweta county line to Hamilton Mill Rd: already 6+ lanes)
Hamilton Mill Rd to GA 211: AADT 108k(!)
GA 211 to US 441: AADT 52k-62k
US 441 to SC state line: AADT 45k-47k
So everything north of I-185 certainly, and south of I-185 might still be useful.
I-95
No existing 4-lane sections
I-185
(South of US 80: already 6+ lanes)
US 80 to GA 315: AADT 33k-37k
(North of GA 315: no widening needed)
I-185 is probably fine as it is.
I-285
Fully urban
I-475
North of US 41: AADT ~40k
(South of US 41: already 6+ lanes)
The short 4-lane section at the north end isn't too bad and also isn't very long, so no real need to worry about it.
I-516
Fully urban
I-520
No sections in need of widening
I-675
South of Forest Pkwy: AADT ~55k-75k
(North of Forest Pkwy: already 6+ lanes)
This probably needs to be 6 lanes all the way.
I-985
I-85 to US 129 (Exit 22): AADT 57k-69k
US 129 (Exit 22) to US 129 (Exit 24): AADT ~41k
Should probably make the whole thing 6 lanes.
I-5 from Mount Vernon, WA to the Canadian border. It would be rather difficult, since the current freeway (built as part of the pre-Interstate US 99 upgrades) weaves its way tightly around downtown Mount Vernon and has a major bridge over the Skagit River (the one that partially collapsed in 2013) that would need to be replaced. Then there's more issues once you reach the Samish Mountains and start the descent into Bellingham.
It was definitely a mistake not to build I-5 to the west of Mount Vernon (with extra bridges over the river) and thus only really hitting farmland.
I-65 between Nashville and the Kentucky border
I do remember seeing it listed as a future project on some long list of potential Tennessee projects, but can't recall its funding status or timeline.
Quote from: Buck87 on January 01, 2019, 10:45:49 PM
I-65 between Nashville and the Kentucky border
I-65 all the way thru Indiana.
Quote from: 3467 on January 01, 2019, 06:52:34 PM
Interstate 180 in Illinois
:meh:
WA: I-5 between Tumwater and the lane drop/addition between Centralia and Chehalis
I-205's north end
OR: I-5 Rose Quarter (not rural)
I-5 South Salem Hills to OR 34 at minimum, otherwise to OR 569
I-205 Stafford to OR 99E
I-5 from 99 to Sacramento needs 6 lanes minimum due to the heavy amount of truck traffic, then prohibit trucks from being in the left lane. That would let the traffic roll along much safer and faster. It would be cheaper and handle more volume than the HSR project too.
Rick
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 01, 2019, 02:14:14 PM
MN: I-94, St. Michael to Clearwater (there is progress being made toward this)
WI: I-90/94, Tomah to I-39, or at least Dells - I-39
- I-41 (WI 15 to Scheuring Rd)
- US 41/141 (entire length of duplex)
- I-94 (Cottage Grove to Waukesha and WI 35 to WI 29)
- US 10/45 (entire length of duplex)
- I-43 (I-41/894 to WI 163)
Mike
ALL of I-5 from Exit 188 in Oregon to the Canadian Border.
I-205 mp 1-6 (Oregon)
I-84 Onterio to Cadwell.
I-90 west of I-82.
Quote from: Beltway on January 01, 2019, 11:16:10 PM
I-65 all the way thru Indiana.
Hey, while we are at it, let's widen all of I-70 through Indiana!!
I-25 should be six lanes north of Denver to at least Fort Collins and probably the Wyoming border. I believe long terms plans are for this to happen.
Currently where it drops to four north of CO-66 is a source of major backups.
The stretch of I-84 in CT between Danbury (US 7 North) & Waterbury (CT 8) at the very least. Ideally, as far west as the I-684 interchange in Brewster, NY (granted, such includes the Danbury stretch).
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on January 02, 2019, 02:29:53 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 01, 2019, 11:16:10 PM
I-65 all the way thru Indiana.
Hey, while we are at it, let's widen all of I-70 through Indiana!!
Not sure if that is needed yet, but the entire I-65 north of Indianapolis certainly does.
Quote from: Beltway on January 02, 2019, 10:50:25 AM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on January 02, 2019, 02:29:53 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 01, 2019, 11:16:10 PM
I-65 all the way thru Indiana.
Hey, while we are at it, let's widen all of I-70 through Indiana!!
Not sure if that is needed yet, but the entire I-65 north of Indianapolis certainly does.
Yeah, the Chicago-Indianapolis corridor looks like a great candidate for six lanes.
2018 volumes on the four-lane stretch (although I'm not sure exactly where the lane-drop is) are generally between 38K and 46K. Comparable to the Thruway, but probably with more truck traffic.
As a general rule, I am surprised at the lack of six-lane corridors heading into/out of the Chicago area.
Quote from: 3467 on January 01, 2019, 06:57:35 PM
Iowa thinks 80 across the state though they finally decided it did not need to be done that urgently so maybe between Iowa City and 280.
West of Iowa City, volumes are generally in the mid-20K's, not quite high enough to warrant it. I'd agree with widening from there east to I-280, though, given volumes near or above 35K and 34% truck traffic.
At the end of the day, though, I'd give I-380 from Iowa City to Cedar Rapids a much higher priority than I-80.
Quote from: Beltway on January 01, 2019, 06:30:11 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 01, 2019, 04:34:55 PM
You may or may not recall that I did an analysis of I-95 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19592.msg2203257#msg2203257) in the Carolinas and south of Petersburg a couple years ago. Widening is very warranted from the Georgia line up to US 17/Exit 33 and again near I-26, but from Yemassee to north of Walterboro less so.
My response to that was "does it need more lanes at least 20 weekends (Fri thru Sun), including major holidays, per year"? They tend to have very high peaks on some weekends, while having many weekdays with light traffic. Mere AADTs are averaged over 365 days and don't reflect the needs of rural Interstate highways, in this regard, IMHO. That would be my criteria for 6 lane widening.
Not all rural Interstate highways have the weekend demand or the consistent differences between weekday and weekend traffic that I-95 do. It's really a special case or, at worst, falls into a small category of such highways compared to the overall Interstate system.
That said, I did figure out a way to test your theory. In addition to AADT, VDOT includes average weekday volumes (defined by them as Monday-Thursday). I was able to use those to back out average weekend volumes for I-95 south of Petersburg. Those weekend volumes are, on average, about 22% higher than the AADT.
I'm assuming that the 22% value is also typical through the Carolinas (in the absence of available weekday/weekend data or ATRs for either state). Using that, I redid my previous I-95 analysis based on weekend traffic:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7918/44754335340_97c45ccdd9_c_d.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajfroggie/44754335340)
I used the same base AADT data (2014/2015) for consistency and comparison and recalculated the LOS thresholds. As the average of the weekends (roughly analogous to your "20 weekends a year"), a case could be made for Georgia to I-26 (especially south of US 17/Yemassee), Lumbarton (I-74) to Benson (I-40), and smaller bits past Florence, south of Emporia, and north of VA 35.
Even with weekend traffic factored in, I-26 to I-20 remains adequate. Others have commented in other threads that the problem with that segment isn't capacity...it's the pavement condition. Most of Benson to Roanoke Rapids is also adequate currently.
Quote... pavement condition.
Indeed, the right lane is particularly bad throughout South Carolina on I-95. I'm pretty rigid about lane discipline and my wife was constantly complaining about all the bumps and depressions along the right side of the right lane in both directions. She wanted me to drive in the left lane like all the left-lane hogs.
Quote from: froggie on January 02, 2019, 11:24:48 AM
Not all rural Interstate highways have the weekend demand or the consistent differences between weekday and weekend traffic that I-95 do. It's really a special case or, at worst, falls into a small category of such highways compared to the overall Interstate system.
I'm not sure. I would include much of the Thruway (certainly through the Finger Lakes, and arguably all of Buffalo to Albany), much of I-81, and much of I-86/NY 17 in that category.
In fact, though I don't have the data to back it up, I would think most rural interstates east of the Mississippi see a distinct uptick in volumes Friday-Sunday. At least 10%, more like 20% in areas with tourist destinations.
Quote from: mgk920 on January 02, 2019, 01:02:12 AM
[
- I-43 (I-41/894 to WI 163)
Mike
Do you mean WI 83? :hmmm: WI 163 was decommissioned 20 years ago.
Sections of I-25 S and N of Albuquerque. MP 195 north side of Belen to MP 220 Rio Bravo Blvd.
N side of Albuquerque to MP 282 St. Francis Dr. This widening is what should have been done, in lieu of what was - that is the Richardson pet commuter train. Did go to a Scoping meeting or two, in the early 00's and left formal comments that a rubber tired commuter transit vehicle could operate on a widened facility, w/o the expenditures and limitations of said train. Very low attendance at the meetings, the decision appeared to have been made by a select few elites in the Richardson administration.
Interstate 10, MP 144 to MP 134. The 2012 widening of I-10 south to El Paso should have been continued W through las Cruces to the top of the climb W of the Rio Grande river. Several interchanges that were reconstructed since then, within the city limits should have had space for a third lane in each direction. Almost unbelievable that they weren't, as it would have been relatively easy to simply have constructed bridges 12 feet wider to the outside.
Quote from: sparker on January 01, 2019, 04:49:36 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 01, 2019, 02:07:20 PM
Any part of the CA 99 Freeway that is four lanes ought to be six at minimum. There are four stretches that come to mind:
- Delano to Tulare
- Fresno to just north of Madera
- Merced to Turlock
- Lodi to Elk Grove
Fortunately -- or not, depending upon Caltrans' whims and priorities -- the ultimate plan as outlined in the "CA 99 Master Plan" active for nearly 20 years is to 6-lane the entire route while getting rid of substandard (by reasonably current as well as Interstate-compliant) the remaining "virtual RIRO's" (i.e., the several 15mph on/off "ramp" facilities in the Delano-Tulare segment). Unfortunately, as there was no timetable attached to that master plan, the agency is free to prioritize as they will -- although D10 has been considerably more active than D6 since the CA 198-to-Kingsburg segment was done.
I just returned from an abbreviated trip to SoCal to take care of some business related to my audio ventures; my traveling companion, who is also in that field, needed to get back early to handle some family stuff. I'll post what I saw on the 2-day venture in the Road Trip section either today or tomorrow.
But for the purposes of the OP, the other CA 6-laning that I consider necessary and/or overdue are, in no particular order:
(1) US 101 from Novato through Healdsburg (the outer edge of North Bay suburbia).
(2) I-5 from CA 12 to the existing 6-lane section at Elk Grove. Commute traffic can overwhelm at times.
(3) I-5 from CA 152 north to the I-580 split, and I-580 from there to I-205. Lots of traffic coming from CA 152.
Ideally, all of I-5 needs 6-laning -- but occasional extra lanes in the median (more for the passing of trucks than
than anything else) plus some truck climbers in the Kettleman Hills area (both directions).
(4) I-15 north of the I-40 split, all the way to the NV line. Just add an extra lane in the median over the whole length --
period!
(5) US 101 from south of Santa Maria up to the recent 6-laning of the Cuesta grade north of SLO. Enough folks have
moved to the area to warrant this; it tends to get congested on its own without help from LA or Bay tourists.
(6) (and this is a real long shot:) I-80 all the way over the Sierras to the NV state line. Such an expansion would
probably cost 15-20 times what the original ca. 1965 construction did, so one shouldn't hold one's breath!
(7) (another long shot considering the cost of bridge/causeway expansion): I-5 from CA 99 near Sacramento Airport out to the CA
16 junction NW of Woodland. Since Woodland is effectively functioning as a Sacramento exurb these days, I-5 can and does see
regular congestion along that stretch.
I-505 Vacaville to Winters should be in the Running for widening project to 6 lanes at some point due to Truck traffic and a housing development currently along I-505 as a feeder highway for I-80 serving both Sacramento and Bay Area traffic. Yes this area is basically a suburb of both Sacramento and Bay Area.
Quote from: bing101 on January 02, 2019, 01:53:07 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 01, 2019, 04:49:36 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 01, 2019, 02:07:20 PM
Any part of the CA 99 Freeway that is four lanes ought to be six at minimum. There are four stretches that come to mind:
- Delano to Tulare
- Fresno to just north of Madera
- Merced to Turlock
- Lodi to Elk Grove
Fortunately -- or not, depending upon Caltrans' whims and priorities -- the ultimate plan as outlined in the "CA 99 Master Plan" active for nearly 20 years is to 6-lane the entire route while getting rid of substandard (by reasonably current as well as Interstate-compliant) the remaining "virtual RIRO's" (i.e., the several 15mph on/off "ramp" facilities in the Delano-Tulare segment). Unfortunately, as there was no timetable attached to that master plan, the agency is free to prioritize as they will -- although D10 has been considerably more active than D6 since the CA 198-to-Kingsburg segment was done.
I just returned from an abbreviated trip to SoCal to take care of some business related to my audio ventures; my traveling companion, who is also in that field, needed to get back early to handle some family stuff. I'll post what I saw on the 2-day venture in the Road Trip section either today or tomorrow.
But for the purposes of the OP, the other CA 6-laning that I consider necessary and/or overdue are, in no particular order:
(1) US 101 from Novato through Healdsburg (the outer edge of North Bay suburbia).
(2) I-5 from CA 12 to the existing 6-lane section at Elk Grove. Commute traffic can overwhelm at times.
(3) I-5 from CA 152 north to the I-580 split, and I-580 from there to I-205. Lots of traffic coming from CA 152.
Ideally, all of I-5 needs 6-laning -- but occasional extra lanes in the median (more for the passing of trucks than
than anything else) plus some truck climbers in the Kettleman Hills area (both directions).
(4) I-15 north of the I-40 split, all the way to the NV line. Just add an extra lane in the median over the whole length --
period!
(5) US 101 from south of Santa Maria up to the recent 6-laning of the Cuesta grade north of SLO. Enough folks have
moved to the area to warrant this; it tends to get congested on its own without help from LA or Bay tourists.
(6) (and this is a real long shot:) I-80 all the way over the Sierras to the NV state line. Such an expansion would
probably cost 15-20 times what the original ca. 1965 construction did, so one shouldn't hold one's breath!
(7) (another long shot considering the cost of bridge/causeway expansion): I-5 from CA 99 near Sacramento Airport out to the CA
16 junction NW of Woodland. Since Woodland is effectively functioning as a Sacramento exurb these days, I-5 can and does see
regular congestion along that stretch.
I-505 Vacaville should be in the Running for widening project to 6 lanes at some point due to Truck traffic and a housing development currently along I-505 as a feeder highway for I-80 serving both Sacramento and Bay Area traffic.
Another local one came to mind for me me; CA 198 between CA 99 and CA 216.
Quote from: ilpt4u on January 01, 2019, 02:39:41 PM
Also, I-55 in/around Springfield, where the ridiculous 4 lane segment exists between 6 lane segments both north and south of town. No idea if IDOT has plans on that one
The plans are indeed out there.
I don't know if Springfield, IL counts as rural, however.
I would six lane I-80 from IL 71 to US 6
Quote from: froggie on January 02, 2019, 11:24:48 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 01, 2019, 06:30:11 PM
My response to that was "does it need more lanes at least 20 weekends (Fri thru Sun), including major holidays, per year"? They tend to have very high peaks on some weekends, while having many weekdays with light traffic. Mere AADTs are averaged over 365 days and don't reflect the needs of rural Interstate highways, in this regard, IMHO. That would be my criteria for 6 lane widening.
Not all rural Interstate highways have the weekend demand or the consistent differences between weekday and weekend traffic that I-95 do. It's really a special case or, at worst, falls into a small category of such highways compared to the overall Interstate system.
That said, I did figure out a way to test your theory. In addition to AADT, VDOT includes average weekday volumes (defined by them as Monday-Thursday). I was able to use those to back out average weekend volumes for I-95 south of Petersburg. Those weekend volumes are, on average, about 22% higher than the AADT.
I'm assuming that the 22% value is also typical through the Carolinas (in the absence of available weekday/weekend data or ATRs for either state). Using that, I redid my previous I-95 analysis based on weekend traffic:
You're averaging over a whole year, and then projecting the same figure over rural Interstate highways in general.
Plus that ignores my accounting of Friday being part of the weekend traffic, which certainly is the case after Noon. That doesn't measure what is happening on weekends between Memorial Day and Labor Day inclusive, what is happening Wed-Sun on Thanksgiving, and what is happening Christmas thru New Years.
I didn't mention the heavy truck traffic on these highways, specifically I-81 and I-95, even if low on Sunday it is high on Friday and Saturday.
These highways [I-81 TN/VA/WV/MD/PA and NC/SC I-95] don't work at 4 lanes during these 20 or so weekends including Friday in the year. That criteria is many times more than the "30th highest hourly volume in the year" that is commonly used for highway capacity.
I was taking monthly weekend trips to South Carolina in the early 1990s, and NC I-95 was experiencing problems with spot rolling backups even back then. It needed 6 lanes back then.
Quote from: inkyatari on January 02, 2019, 03:09:13 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on January 01, 2019, 02:39:41 PM
Also, I-55 in/around Springfield, where the ridiculous 4 lane segment exists between 6 lane segments both north and south of town. No idea if IDOT has plans on that one
The plans are indeed out there.
I don't know if Springfield, IL counts as rural, however.
I would six lane I-80 from IL 71 to US 6
One would hope that any plans for widening I-55 through Springfield would include an upgrade of the north/east I-55/72 interchange beyond the existing tight cloverleaf -- at least with a flyover for WB I-72 traffic!
Quote from: Big John on January 02, 2019, 01:46:41 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on January 02, 2019, 01:02:12 AM
[
- I-43 (I-41/894 to WI 163)
Mike
Do you mean WI 83? :hmmm: WI 163 was decommissioned 20 years ago.
I was just going off of the top of my head, thinking about the interchange for Big Bend - WI 164.
:-P
Mike
Quote from: inkyatari on January 02, 2019, 03:09:13 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on January 01, 2019, 02:39:41 PM
Also, I-55 in/around Springfield, where the ridiculous 4 lane segment exists between 6 lane segments both north and south of town. No idea if IDOT has plans on that one
The plans are indeed out there.
I don't know if Springfield, IL counts as rural, however.
Debatable. What is Fact, are the rural sections both north and south of Springfield are already 6 lane. Crazy to choke it down around/in town, especially with a multiplex with I-72
IDOT has 6 laned I-55/I-74/US 51 around Bloomington/Normal, I-57/I-70 around Effingham, and I-57/I-64 around Mt Vernon. I-74 has a running C/D lane around Champaign/Urbana, in addition to the 4 thru lanes. I-55/I-72 needs the 6 lane treatment too
Quote from: ilpt4u on January 02, 2019, 08:33:32 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on January 02, 2019, 03:09:13 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on January 01, 2019, 02:39:41 PM
Also, I-55 in/around Springfield, where the ridiculous 4 lane segment exists between 6 lane segments both north and south of town. No idea if IDOT has plans on that one
The plans are indeed out there.
I don't know if Springfield, IL counts as rural, however.
Debatable. What is Fact, are the rural sections both north and south of Springfield are already 6 lane. Crazy to choke it down around/in town, especially with a multiplex with I-72
IDOT has 6 laned I-55/I-74/US 51 around Bloomington/Normal, I-57/I-70 around Effingham, and I-57/I-64 around Mt Vernon. I-74 has a running C/D lane around Champaign/Urbana, in addition to the 4 thru lanes. I-55/I-72 needs the 6 lane treatment too
Also a complete re-engineering of its interchanges, especially at I-72 east.
:nod:
Mike
An example from Maine that comes to mind is the stretch of I-295 from the Falmouth Spur (exit 11) to the US 1 connector (exit 28) in Brunswick. This segment has progressively gotten more congested over the years, especially through the summer months. You could also argue that it should be six lanes further north to ME 196 (exit 31) in Topsham.
Quote from: Beltway on January 01, 2019, 06:30:11 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 01, 2019, 04:34:55 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 01, 2019, 02:46:56 PM
In South Carolina, I-95 between I-26 and the Georgia state line is well-known to need widening. I'm not motivated enough to look up the traffic counts. While the other four-lane portions need widening too, the heavy traffic and resulting congestion seem noticeably worse south of I-26.
You may or may not recall that I did an analysis of I-95 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19592.msg2203257#msg2203257) in the Carolinas and south of Petersburg a couple years ago. Widening is very warranted from the Georgia line up to US 17/Exit 33 and again near I-26, but from Yemassee to north of Walterboro less so.
My response to that was "does it need more lanes at least 20 weekends (Fri thru Sun), including major holidays, per year"? They tend to have very high peaks on some weekends, while having many weekdays with light traffic. Mere AADTs are averaged over 365 days and don't reflect the needs of rural Interstate highways, in this regard, IMHO. That would be my criteria for 6 lane widening.
Current needs in my region based on that, for widening to no less than 6 lanes --
-- I-81, the entire distance between TN I-40 and PA I-78
-- I-64, the entire distance between VA I-295 and Williamsburg 6-lane widening projects
-- I-95, the entire distance between Georgia and VA I-295
-- I-83, the entire distance between Towson MD and Harrisburg
-- I-270, the entire distance between Frederick MD and Gaithersburg
Granted that is about 20 billion dollars, but I have answered the question of the OP for my region! :clap:
Also I-95 from I-295 (northern end) to Washington needs to be a minimum of 8 lanes. AADT is between 100,000 (southern end) - 200,000 (northern end), and that's just 365 day averages. Way higher during peak travel times. Consistently stop and go traveling that stretch, and consistently stopped north of Fredericksburg. I know someone who commutes this entire stretch weekly, and says it is a nightmare.
I'll nominate I-80 west of Salt Lake City, specifically between UT 36 and UT 201. Really, an auxiliary lane between those two exits would be enough, but the whole thing narrows to four lanes here (https://goo.gl/maps/RvygRMAAdTQ2). AADT on this section is 42,000.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 02, 2019, 10:55:50 PM
Also I-95 from I-295 (northern end) to Washington needs to be a minimum of 8 lanes. AADT is between 100,000 (southern end) - 200,000 (northern end), and that's just 365 day averages. Way higher during peak travel times.
Agreed, as I have detailed in the past. I just addressed the topic of six-laning in this thread.
Interestingly, these originally 4-lane sections of VA I-95 were widened to six lanes or more --
-- I-85 to Maury Street in Richmond, 22 miles, 1974-78
-- Ashland to Triangle, 58 miles, 1980-87
-- Shirley Highway VA-350 rebuilt to Interstate standards, 17 miles, 1965-75
Segments in the above corridor that were originally built with six lanes --
-- Maury Street to Ashland, 19 miles
-- Triangle to Woodbridge, 13 miles
Quote from: Eth on January 01, 2019, 08:22:16 PM
Georgia (all AADT values cited are from 2017)
I-16
I-75 to US 80: AADT 47k+, but this is an urban area, so might not qualify
(US 80 to US 280: no widening needed)
US 280 to Pooler Pkwy: AADT 35k-40k
Pooler Pkwy to I-95: AADT ~58k
I-95 to I-516: AADT ~67k
(East of I-516: urban and/or 6+ lanes)
Should likely be widened for a bit west of the Savannah area out to around US 280.
Note that GDOT has existing plans in the STIP for widening I-16 to 6+ lanes through exit 2 in Macon (with a C/D setup) and from I-95 to I-516.
Quote
I-20
AL state line to US 27: AADT 37k-42k
US 27 to GA 61/101: AADT ~50k
This is particularly glaring now ALDOT finally removed the cones (which were in place for months while they chased down punch list items) and opened all six lanes between AL 46 and the state line. Extending into AL, the four-lane section remaining west of Talledega Speedway is becoming a serious bottleneck.
Quote
I-75
No existing 4-lane rural sections
However there's a case for 8 lanes, particularly southbound, between the Sardis Church exit and the Centerville/Warner Robins exit (GA 247 connector). Southbound there's a long incline between Sardis Church and the Byron exit that regularly ends up with the right two lanes filled with trucks, RVs, etc. trying to rat race each other and inevitably dropping speed, since many aren't patient enough to follow the ones that are only able to climb at 45-55 mph, so they clog up the middle lane doing 55-60 (and slowing down). (Widening to 8 lanes is in the long term MPO plan for 2035 or so, but it's already a mess now from about 4-8 pm daily.)
The inclined area at the I-75/475 south merge near Hartley Bridge Road is also very poorly engineered; you have I-75 traffic trying to cut over to the slow lanes in the right, truckers trying to move leftward into the middle lane (which corresponds to the fast lane of I-475 feeding into the merge) so they don't have to merge three miles up the road, while almost nobody uses the right-hand lane, and like the incline up to Byron it just shows up unexpected surrounded by miles of flat to downhill terrain. So even though there are 5 lanes there it functions terribly.
Frankly GDOT should try their segregated truck lanes idea southbound here before building it out northbound from I-475 to GA 155 to see if it will actually fix any of the truck congestion problems on I-75. Even sticking some jersey barriers in and moving the merge point to the peak of the incline so trucks stay in the right lane up the incline would probably make a big operational difference - there's enough room for an extra travel lane while retaining the full shoulder on the existing pavement, which would be enough space for a jersey barrier to be added between I-75 and I-475 traffic.
Really what they should have done in retrospect is a deeper cutting through the hill here to reduce the southbound incline when they rebuilt the interchange over a decade ago.
Quote
I-475
North of US 41: AADT ~40k
(South of US 41: already 6+ lanes)
The short 4-lane section at the north end isn't too bad and also isn't very long, so no real need to worry about it.
This section, while short, gets backed up northbound fairly frequently during peak travel periods (which on I-475 aren't really rush hours, but periods like Spring Break, Thanksgiving, Christmas etc.).
More of a suburban example that came to mind tonight: OR 213 between Redland Rd and Beavercreek Rd. Additionally, an interchange with Redland would be needed.
Quote from: Beltway on January 02, 2019, 11:37:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 02, 2019, 10:55:50 PM
Also I-95 from I-295 (northern end) to Washington needs to be a minimum of 8 lanes. AADT is between 100,000 (southern end) - 200,000 (northern end), and that's just 365 day averages. Way higher during peak travel times.
Agreed, as I have detailed in the past. I just addressed the topic of six-laning in this thread.
Interestingly, these originally 4-lane sections of VA I-95 were widened to six lanes or more --
-- I-85 to Maury Street in Richmond, 22 miles, 1974-78
-- Ashland to Triangle, 58 miles, 1980-87
-- Shirley Highway VA-350 rebuilt to Interstate standards, 17 miles, 1965-75
Segments in the above corridor that were originally built with six lanes --
-- Maury Street to Ashland, 19 miles
-- Triangle to Woodbridge, 13 miles
I bet 1974 - 1987 were some rough years driving 95 during constant construction. Did they phase the widening over the course of those 8 years, or was it all done in one build? At least the stretch between DC - Richmond is 6 lanes, I couldn't imagine it still 4. They need to widen in phases for 8 lanes, starting north heading south. Similar to the I-64 Peninsula Widening.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 03, 2019, 07:12:13 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 02, 2019, 11:37:51 PM
Interestingly, these originally 4-lane sections of VA I-95 were widened to six lanes or more --
-- I-85 to Maury Street in Richmond, 22 miles, 1974-78
-- Ashland to Triangle, 58 miles, 1980-87
-- Shirley Highway VA-350 rebuilt to Interstate standards, 17 miles, 1965-75
Segments in the above corridor that were originally built with six lanes --
-- Maury Street to Ashland, 19 miles
-- Triangle to Woodbridge, 13 miles
I bet 1974 - 1987 were some rough years driving 95 during constant construction. Did they phase the widening over the course of those 8 years, or was it all done in one build? At least the stretch between DC - Richmond is 6 lanes, I couldn't imagine it still 4. They need to widen in phases for 8 lanes, starting north heading south. Similar to the I-64 Peninsula Widening.
The contracts for widening the 22 miles of the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike were awarded over a 12-month period. As seen above RPT was complete before Ashland to Triangle was started.
Ashland to Triangle contracts were awarded over a 4-year period due to funding limitations. The first 4 were widely separated along the corridor due to fears (or so was some scuttlebutt) that FHWA might try to truncate the project to 20 or 30 miles if the contracts were let in sequence starting from one end. I would have to think about it but I recall one was near Doswell, one near Thornburg, one near Falmouth and one near Quantico, none tying into a pre-existing 6-lane section.
Maintenance of traffic on the projects was good and while those sections were busy there was not nearly the traffic that there is today.
I-91 from US 202 to at least MA 116, if not MA 2.
^ Up to Northampton, certainly. I've never had a problem north of there, though. Nor does it meet the OP's original criteria of 30K daily traffic north of Deerfield.
If not mentioned: I-80 from Joliet to the Quad Cities
Quote from: ET21 on January 03, 2019, 04:51:39 PM
If not mentioned: I-80 from Joliet to the Quad Cities
I mentioned from Ottawa to Spring Valley.
One that hasn't been mentioned yet is the rural parts of Interstate 26 in South Carolina. It would be very helpful to have I-26 at a minimum of six lanes throughout the whole state. Also, I believe I-26 is still four lanes in North Carolina southeast of Asheville, and it would probably not hurt to widen that as well.
Quote from: webny99 on January 02, 2019, 11:23:59 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 02, 2019, 10:50:25 AM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on January 02, 2019, 02:29:53 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 01, 2019, 11:16:10 PM
I-65 all the way thru Indiana.
Hey, while we are at it, let's widen all of I-70 through Indiana!!
Not sure if that is needed yet, but the entire I-65 north of Indianapolis certainly does.
Yeah, the Chicago-Indianapolis corridor looks like a great candidate for six lanes.
2018 volumes on the four-lane stretch (although I'm not sure exactly where the lane-drop is) are generally between 38K and 46K. Comparable to the Thruway, but probably with more truck traffic.
As a general rule, I am surprised at the lack of six-lane corridors heading into/out of the Chicago area.
Yes indeed. Interstate 65 from Chicagoland to Nashville is a
major trucking corridor. Kentucky has already widened much of I-65 to six lanes, and it would be extremely helpful to widen all the rest of I-65 between Nashville and Chicagoland to a minimum of six lanes.
This stuff really is expensive, but sucky traffic and a love for new road projects (that are good) can really make you hope for this stuff. :-D
Quote from: Beltway on January 03, 2019, 08:48:57 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 03, 2019, 07:12:13 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 02, 2019, 11:37:51 PM
Interestingly, these originally 4-lane sections of VA I-95 were widened to six lanes or more --
-- I-85 to Maury Street in Richmond, 22 miles, 1974-78
-- Ashland to Triangle, 58 miles, 1980-87
-- Shirley Highway VA-350 rebuilt to Interstate standards, 17 miles, 1965-75
Segments in the above corridor that were originally built with six lanes --
-- Maury Street to Ashland, 19 miles
-- Triangle to Woodbridge, 13 miles
I bet 1974 - 1987 were some rough years driving 95 during constant construction. Did they phase the widening over the course of those 8 years, or was it all done in one build? At least the stretch between DC - Richmond is 6 lanes, I couldn't imagine it still 4. They need to widen in phases for 8 lanes, starting north heading south. Similar to the I-64 Peninsula Widening.
The contracts for widening the 22 miles of the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike were awarded over a 12-month period. As seen above RPT was complete before Ashland to Triangle was started.
Ashland to Triangle contracts were awarded over a 4-year period due to funding limitations. The first 4 were widely separated along the corridor due to fears (or so was some scuttlebutt) that FHWA might try to truncate the project to 20 or 30 miles if the contracts were let in sequence starting from one end. I would have to think about it but I recall one was near Doswell, one near Thornburg, one near Falmouth and one near Quantico, none tying into a pre-existing 6-lane section.
Maintenance of traffic on the projects was good and while those sections were busy there was not nearly the traffic that there is today.
Assumed they widened to the inside as much as possible, though some sections still have very wide medians, almost like they widened to the outside. I guess it was just originally extremely wide. Also, was there a point where it was a work-zone in one area, opened up to a newly built six lane section, then back down to 4 lanes? Or did they open the new lanes in a sequential way from north-south or south-north so it would be continuous? Similar to how I-64 is being down now, it's going south-north (I wouldn't really count the I-295 area project because those will for the time be auxiliary lanes from Exit 205 to Exit 200)
Just curious on some of this stuff, it's interesting to know, and there's never good info online. Your website has been extremely useful for other projects like these & new highways from anywhere before the early 2000s. What made you stop posting new stuff?
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 03, 2019, 05:17:13 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 03, 2019, 08:48:57 AM
Ashland to Triangle contracts were awarded over a 4-year period due to funding limitations. The first 4 were widely separated along the corridor due to fears (or so was some scuttlebutt) that FHWA might try to truncate the project to 20 or 30 miles if the contracts were let in sequence starting from one end. I would have to think about it but I recall one was near Doswell, one near Thornburg, one near Falmouth and one near Quantico, none tying into a pre-existing 6-lane section.
Maintenance of traffic on the projects was good and while those sections were busy there was not nearly the traffic that there is today.
Assumed they widened to the inside as much as possible, though some sections still have very wide medians, almost like they widened to the outside. I guess it was just originally extremely wide. Also, was there a point where it was a work-zone in one area, opened up to a newly built six lane section, then back down to 4 lanes? Or did they open the new lanes in a sequential way from north-south or south-north so it would be continuous? Similar to how I-64 is being down now, it's going south-north (I wouldn't really count the I-295 area project because those will for the time be auxiliary lanes from Exit 205 to Exit 200)
I have a public hearing brochure, about 65% of the length had outside widening, to preserve the wide median where they already had wide right-of-way. I don't recall the exact opening sequence, but none of the first short segments had the new lane opened until continuous openings could be accomplished from one of the two 6- to 4-lane pre-existing transitions. I would say that all the openings were in the 1984-87 range. Back then 58 miles could be widened for $160 million!
The wide clear roadsides were built in these projects. The original highway had much narrower clear roadsides.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 03, 2019, 05:17:13 PM
Just curious on some of this stuff, it's interesting to know, and there's never good info online. Your website has been extremely useful for other projects like these & new highways from anywhere before the early 2000s. What made you stop posting new stuff?
Changes in life activities and priorities. I hadn't really envisioned not continuing the rapid pace of new articles. In the last few years I did complete the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project article, and a major addition to the article about the Midtown Tunnel corridor with the material about the parallel tunnel project and MLK Freeway Extension. But I am definitely going to keep the websites online in the future.
Quote from: inkyatari on January 03, 2019, 04:59:50 PM
Quote from: ET21 on January 03, 2019, 04:51:39 PM
If not mentioned: I-80 from Joliet to the Quad Cities
I mentioned from Ottawa to Spring Valley.
Why such a short segment?
I would actually give Quad Cities to I-380 a higher priority, given that I-80 and I-88 already run roughly parallel between Chicagoland and Iowa. Essentially I-88 serves Chicagoland traffic bound for Iowa, while I-80 serves thru-traffic bound for (or coming from) Indiana and points east. I can't see either of them being too congested, though I haven't looked up the volumes.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 03, 2019, 05:02:57 PM
One that hasn't been mentioned yet is the rural parts of Interstate 26 in South Carolina. It would be very helpful to have I-26 at a minimum of six lanes throughout the whole state. Also, I believe I-26 is still four lanes in North Carolina southeast of Asheville, and it would probably not hurt to widen that as well.
Wow, I didnt realize what kind of volumes I-26 carries through much of SC! A widening would certainly be warranted from Charleston, across I-95, and all the way up to Columbia. Volumes are above 40K on most segments and even sustained above 50K between Orangeburg and Columbia. Heading northwest on I-26, from Columbia to the I-385 split, could also use widening, with volumes generally above 35K.
Beyond I-385, up to the NC state line, a widening doesn't seem to be needed: volumes are only in the mid to high 20K's except for a few segments near Spartanburg.
Quote
Yes indeed. Interstate 65 from Chicagoland to Nashville is a major trucking corridor. Kentucky has already widened much of I-65 to six lanes, and it would be extremely helpful to widen all the rest of I-65 between Nashville and Chicagoland to a minimum of six lanes.
Agreed! Much of the remaining widening would fall to Indiana, which has plenty of 2dis, but unfortunately doesn't seem to be doing too many six-laning projects. :-/
As far as Kentucky, they seem to have good things going on with I-65 and I-75. It would be great if they continue to spread the joy and widen I-64 between Louisville and Lexington!
I want to study all of Pennsylvania in more detail at some point, but for now just the most obvious ones:
*I-80 from I-380 to the NJ line
(Desparately needed. Volumes are sustained over 50K and even top 70K on some segments!)
*I-78 from I-81 to the NJ line
*I-81 from I-83 to I-78
(Together, these widenings would create a continuous six-lane corridor from Harrisburg to NYC - sorely needed given the incredible volume of trucks using both I-78 and I-81!)
Quote from: webny99 on January 03, 2019, 07:55:53 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on January 03, 2019, 04:59:50 PM
Quote from: ET21 on January 03, 2019, 04:51:39 PM
If not mentioned: I-80 from Joliet to the Quad Cities
I mentioned from Ottawa to Spring Valley.
Why such a short segment?
I would actually give Quad Cities to I-380 a higher priority, given that I-80 and I-88 already run roughly parallel between Chicagoland and Iowa. Essentially I-88 serves Chicagoland traffic bound for Iowa, while I-80 serves thru-traffic bound for (or coming from) Indiana and points east. I can't see either of them being too congested, though I haven't looked up the volumes.
To get to the Quad Cities, I-88 is the better choice only for those on the north side of town. Where I'm at, I-80 is more direct and doesn't have tolls. Traffic drops once I get west of Morris, but there are still times where I will be stuck behind a truck trying to pass another truck, so I wouldn't be against a lane expansion. I'm seeing traffic counts over 30,000 on IDOT's site everywhere east of I-39. Ideally, I'd say six from I-39 to Minooka; eight from Minooka to the IN border. And fix that lousy connection to I-294 on I-80's eastbound mainline.
I agree with I-65 mentioned earlier; no other rural freeway has me seeking ways to avoid it like this one. I'll take US 52 instead. It's much more peaceful.
I-57 between Chicagoland and Kankakee could use an extra lane each way; the road also has traffic counts over 30,000, meaning over 20 vehicles per minute. Personally, I'd like to see six lanes all the down to Champaign, but I don't think there's enough traffic to justify it.
Quote from: webny99 on January 03, 2019, 07:55:53 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on January 03, 2019, 04:59:50 PM
Quote from: ET21 on January 03, 2019, 04:51:39 PM
If not mentioned: I-80 from Joliet to the Quad Cities
I mentioned from Ottawa to Spring Valley.
Why such a short segment?
I would actually give Quad Cities to I-380 a higher priority, given that I-80 and I-88 already run roughly parallel between Chicagoland and Iowa. Essentially I-88 serves Chicagoland traffic bound for Iowa, while I-80 serves thru-traffic bound for (or coming from) Indiana and points east. I can't see either of them being too congested, though I haven't looked up the volumes.
That stretch in particular because of the increased traffic around LaSalle / Peru, and through Ottawa, and for Starved Rock traffic during summer weekends. Ideally I'd like I-80 six laned through all of Illinois, but I think this would be an easier sell.
Quote from: 3467 on January 01, 2019, 06:52:34 PM
Interstate 180 in Illinois
Thank you for making me guffaw out loud while my students are taking a test.
Quote from: 3467 on January 01, 2019, 06:57:35 PM
Iowa thinks 80 across the state though they finally decided it did not need to be done that urgently so maybe between Iowa City and 280.
Missouri same thing with 70 though its condition is worse or was because MO is out of road money.
80 between Altoona and Newton is nightmarish. Also 35 between Ankeny and Ames is long overdue, I think it's actually happening.
Quote from: inkyatari on January 04, 2019, 08:50:38 AM
Quote from: webny99 on January 03, 2019, 07:55:53 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on January 03, 2019, 04:59:50 PM
Quote from: ET21 on January 03, 2019, 04:51:39 PM
If not mentioned: I-80 from Joliet to the Quad Cities
I mentioned from Ottawa to Spring Valley.
Why such a short segment?
I would actually give Quad Cities to I-380 a higher priority, given that I-80 and I-88 already run roughly parallel between Chicagoland and Iowa. Essentially I-88 serves Chicagoland traffic bound for Iowa, while I-80 serves thru-traffic bound for (or coming from) Indiana and points east. I can't see either of them being too congested, though I haven't looked up the volumes.
That stretch in particular because of the increased traffic around LaSalle / Peru, and through Ottawa, and for Starved Rock traffic during summer weekends. Ideally I'd like I-80 six laned through all of Illinois, but I think this would be an easier sell.
what about widening the tolled parts of I-88 to at least 6 lanes?
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on January 04, 2019, 02:17:13 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on January 04, 2019, 08:50:38 AM
Quote from: webny99 on January 03, 2019, 07:55:53 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on January 03, 2019, 04:59:50 PM
Quote from: ET21 on January 03, 2019, 04:51:39 PM
If not mentioned: I-80 from Joliet to the Quad Cities
I mentioned from Ottawa to Spring Valley.
Why such a short segment?
I would actually give Quad Cities to I-380 a higher priority, given that I-80 and I-88 already run roughly parallel between Chicagoland and Iowa. Essentially I-88 serves Chicagoland traffic bound for Iowa, while I-80 serves thru-traffic bound for (or coming from) Indiana and points east. I can't see either of them being too congested, though I haven't looked up the volumes.
That stretch in particular because of the increased traffic around LaSalle / Peru, and through Ottawa, and for Starved Rock traffic during summer weekends. Ideally I'd like I-80 six laned through all of Illinois, but I think this would be an easier sell.
what about widening the tolled parts of I-88 to at least 6 lanes?
Traffic dies off fast west of the Sugar Grove exit and even more after I-39. Maybe a three lane might be necessary out to IL-47 once the interchange is completed, but I can't see anything past that. If you really wanted to stretch it, maybe out to DeKalb
Quote from: ilpt4u on January 01, 2019, 02:39:41 PM
Also, I-55 in/around Springfield, where the ridiculous 4 lane segment exists between 6 lane segments both north and south of town. No idea if IDOT has plans on that one
Agreed! I live in Spfld and no one knows why it was built this way. Not even the the local IDOT engineers. But they do have plans to widen it to 6 lanes all through town and even 8 lanes with a collector/distributor road for a couple of miles where traffic is heaviest. http://i55springfield.com/site/ (http://i55springfield.com/site/)
Actually, I drive from Spfld to St Louis frequently and I can say with confidence that I-55 needs six lanes from Litchfield all the way down. The whole stretch from the St Louis area to Bloomington is antiquated and needs a complete tearout and rebuild. Bridges and overpasses too. . .but, then, this is Illinois. We never seem to have money.
Quote from: Beltway on January 03, 2019, 06:17:21 PM
I have a public hearing brochure, about 65% of the length had outside widening, to preserve the wide median where they already had wide right-of-way. I don't recall the exact opening sequence, but none of the first short segments had the new lane opened until continuous openings could be accomplished from one of the two 6- to 4-lane pre-existing transitions. I would say that all the openings were in the 1984-87 range. Back then 58 miles could be widened for $160 million!
Geesh, $160 million today widens 5 miles at most. I wish they still would do the outside widening concept, I-64 from Newport News to Williamsburg used to be lined with trees in the median, and a nice aesthetic appearance. Because of inside widening, now it's 30-60 ft median, all the way up past Williamsburg. The even wider stretches north of there will hopefully retain some trees unless they tear all them down. The median is wider than 200 ft in many locations, and 500 ft at Exit 220.
Question (if you know) - why did they build highways like that in the past, lined w/ trees & over 100 ft wide, and why do they use consistent and smaller medians now? Does it have something to do w/ cost or something?
Quote from: Beltway on January 03, 2019, 06:17:21 PM
Changes in life activities and priorities. I hadn't really envisioned not continuing the rapid pace of new articles. In the last few years I did complete the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project article, and a major addition to the article about the Midtown Tunnel corridor with the material about the parallel tunnel project and MLK Freeway Extension. But I am definitely going to keep the websites online in the future.
Ah, I understand. I wish there were more sites like yours out there, especially for Virginia stuff. Very useful & well organized.
Are there any rural four lane stretches of I-95 left in Florida?
I-95 should really be a minimum of six lanes from Miami all the way to I-26 in SC. Georgia has done their part. SC has been discussed. Not sure how much Florida has left.
Quote from: webny99 on January 04, 2019, 05:11:58 PM
Are there any rural four lane stretches of I-95 left in Florida?
None are left, sections of I-95 in Florida are 8+ lanes wide, but all 382 miles are at least 6 lanes.
Quote from: webny99 on January 04, 2019, 05:11:58 PM
I-95 should really be a minimum of six lanes from Miami all the way to I-26 in SC. Georgia has done their part. SC has been discussed. Not sure how much Florida has left.
It should be a minimum of 6 lanes from Miami all the way up to Richmond, VA, then a minimum of 8 lanes from Richmond northwards.
NCDOT has plans to widen their entire stretch to 6 lanes, and about 25 miles are currently funded between Fayetteville and I-40 to be widened from 4 lanes to 8 lanes. That project should begin in the next few months. About $147 million of the total $700+ million project was funded by a grant awarded this past summer. Originally, the project was supposed to begin in 10+ years, but now it's starting this year.
No word from VDOT about anything, but it should definitely start from Washington heading south.
^ Not quite. Reconstruction of the I-4 and US 92 interchanges has things down to 4 lanes, though that should be wrapping up this spring.
Quote from: Ian on January 02, 2019, 10:33:48 PM
An example from Maine that comes to mind is the stretch of I-295 from the Falmouth Spur (exit 11) to the US 1 connector (exit 28) in Brunswick. This segment has progressively gotten more congested over the years, especially through the summer months. You could also argue that it should be six lanes further north to ME 196 (exit 31) in Topsham.
Volumes on that stretch appear to be in the high 20K's - getting close to the threshold. I imagine traffic is a lot more seasonal there than it is in most places, thanks to tourists from the Bos-Wash corridor making their way up to Maine during the summer months!
^ Mostly southern New England license plates...not much from beyond NYC.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 04, 2019, 05:22:36 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 04, 2019, 05:11:58 PM
I-95 should really be a minimum of six lanes from Miami all the way to I-26 in SC. Georgia has done their part. SC has been discussed. Not sure how much Florida has left.
It should be a minimum of 6 lanes from Miami all the way up to Richmond, VA, then a minimum of 8 lanes from Richmond northwards.
Refer to
froggie's map (Reply #37) for some great info in this regard.
I agree that six lanes the whole way would be great, but the SC line to I-26 is clearly the highest priority.
If NC gets their act together (which I'm sure they will, given their love for new freeways and red and blue shields!), then the segments in SC will become a more serious bottleneck.
Quote from: froggie on January 04, 2019, 05:41:40 PM
^ Mostly southern New England license plates...not much from beyond NYC.
Needless to say, I've never been to Maine, but it is certainly on the top of my list of places to visit!
I know of at least a few New Yorkers that vacationed in Maine this past summer, but I suppose those on the far side of NYC tend to head to the Jersey shore, or points south, instead.
So about how many miles are we up to, perhaps 12,000 out of the 48,000 miles of Interstate highway, that need to be widened to 6 lanes?
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 04, 2019, 05:08:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 03, 2019, 06:17:21 PM
I have a public hearing brochure, about 65% of the length had outside widening, to preserve the wide median where they already had wide right-of-way. I don't recall the exact opening sequence, but none of the first short segments had the new lane opened until continuous openings could be accomplished from one of the two 6- to 4-lane pre-existing transitions. I would say that all the openings were in the 1984-87 range. Back then 58 miles could be widened for $160 million!
Geesh, $160 million today widens 5 miles at most. I wish they still would do the outside widening concept, I-64 from Newport News to Williamsburg used to be lined with trees in the median, and a nice aesthetic appearance. Because of inside widening, now it's 30-60 ft median, all the way up past Williamsburg. The even wider stretches north of there will hopefully retain some trees unless they tear all them down. The median is wider than 200 ft in many locations, and 500 ft at Exit 220.
Partly because the newly widened segments between Bland Boulevard and the southern VA-199 interchange, are "congestion relief" projects to add a lane each way in the median with only minimal construction to the outside, thus saving major costs, getting it done sooner, and having a much simpler environmental impact document. Some time in the future a lane each way will be added on the outside, with major interchange improvements, needing a full EIS document, to provide the 8-lane highway that was the ultimate plan 5 to 10 years ago. So the existing right-of-way was pretty much spoken for.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 04, 2019, 05:08:05 PM
Question (if you know) - why did they build highways like that in the past, lined w/ trees & over 100 ft wide, and why do they use consistent and smaller medians now? Does it have something to do w/ cost or something?
Obvious cost savings, plus environmental impacts. Medians on new highways got wider and wider from the 1950s to the 1970s, and they started getting narrower and narrower.
It would definitely be good to have I-95 at a minimum of six lanes all the way from Miami to the Northeast Megalopolis (D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City, etc.). This would definitely make that extremely long, multi-state stretch of I-95 the longest stretch of interstate in the country that has a sustained minimum of at least six lanes. It would be expensive as hell and would not be an easy task whatsoever, but it would help traffic congestion going down the east coast on I-95 immensely.
Where to start? As others have noted, good starting places could include I-95 in South Carolina between Georgia and I-26 - Interstate 95 in North Carolina close to Fayetteville - or I-95 in Virginia from Richmond to the D.C. area - granted I think much (or all) of that is already at least six lanes, but as it was noted upthread, it could be useful to widen that even more to 8 lanes.
Quote from: WhitePoleRD on January 04, 2019, 01:30:16 PM
Quote from: 3467 on January 01, 2019, 06:52:34 PM
Interstate 180 in Illinois
Thank you for making me guffaw out loud while my students are taking a test.
Be glad that Interstate 180 in Wyoming wasn't nominated.
I-10 from Chandler to Casa Grande in Arizona. 'Nuff said.
Also, I-82 between Yakima and Ellensburg in Washington, at least in some places, as it goes over 3 summits in all of about 30 miles. I've routinely seen a truck going 25mph jump into the left lane to pass another truck doing 20mph, and that gets ugly, with all the car traffic doing at least 75-80, clustered in that same left lane.
Quote from: Beltway on January 04, 2019, 10:49:47 PM
Partly because the newly widened segments between Bland Boulevard and the southern VA-199 interchange, are "congestion relief" projects to add a lane each way in the median with only minimal construction to the outside, thus saving major costs, getting it done sooner, and having a much simpler environmental impact document. Some time in the future a lane each way will be added on the outside, with major interchange improvements, needing a full EIS document, to provide the 8-lane highway that was the ultimate plan 5 to 10 years ago. So the existing right-of-way was pretty much spoken for.
Oh, I never realized the intent was to have 8-lanes all the way up. I would agree the 6 lanes (the one segment open) works fine, but I guess eventually it'll have to expand. One interesting thing I've noticed driving up it was there are portions of soundwall which leave no room for expansion, and the median doesn't have any either. But other portions do leave expansion room. Here's one example of no room - https://goo.gl/AupL3s , and with room - https://goo.gl/uJMPYf . I guess it was just immediate to stay within R/W, or they could also do all the widening in those portions to the west, and shift the locations of the lanes. But that would definitely be a $300 million+ project just for those 6 miles, especially if you include the Fort Eustis interchange reconfiguration.
Also, I don't think I've ever seen a median design that is used here. Looks like a combination of having drainage in the median where a grass strip would be too small, and at the same time providing aesthetics. The raised part is 10 ft wide, whereas just south of this is 16 ft wide, and the standard grass strip w/ guardrail.
Quote from: froggie on January 04, 2019, 05:39:00 PM
^ Not quite. Reconstruction of the I-4 and US 92 interchanges has things down to 4 lanes, though that should be wrapping up this spring.
There's also a brief four-lane segment related to construction just south of Fort Pierce where the lanes shift and there's sort of a "cattle chute" configuration due to jersey barriers on both sides. I couldn't quite tell what they were doing (my focus was on the road due to traffic) and I haven't looked it up, but it's clearly a temporary situation until the work is done.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 07:50:23 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 04, 2019, 10:49:47 PM
Partly because the newly widened segments between Bland Boulevard and the southern VA-199 interchange, are "congestion relief" projects to add a lane each way in the median with only minimal construction to the outside, thus saving major costs, getting it done sooner, and having a much simpler environmental impact document. Some time in the future a lane each way will be added on the outside, with major interchange improvements, needing a full EIS document, to provide the 8-lane highway that was the ultimate plan 5 to 10 years ago. So the existing right-of-way was pretty much spoken for.
Oh, I never realized the intent was to have 8-lanes all the way up. I would agree the 6 lanes (the one segment open) works fine, but I guess eventually it'll have to expand. One interesting thing I've noticed driving up it was there are portions of soundwall which leave no room for expansion, and the median doesn't have any either. But other portions do leave expansion room. Here's one example of no room - https://goo.gl/AupL3s , and with room - https://goo.gl/uJMPYf . I guess it was just immediate to stay within R/W, or they could also do all the widening in those portions to the west, and shift the locations of the lanes. But that would definitely be a $300 million+ project just for those 6 miles, especially if you include the Fort Eustis interchange reconfiguration.
They could probably do it for around $25 million per mile. At that point it would require more right-of-way, as can be seen in the aerial view some houses would need to be removed as well. Those sound barriers are of a light enough design that the columns and walls could be reused and relocated.
AADTs range from 93,000 to 80,000 advancing from VA-143 to VA-199, so a 20-year design would definitely be in the 8-lane range, and the plan was for the inner lane each way to be HOV.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 07:50:23 AM
Also, I don't think I've ever seen a median design that is used here. Looks like a combination of having drainage in the median where a grass strip would be too small, and at the same time providing aesthetics. The raised part is 10 ft wide, whereas just south of this is 16 ft wide, and the standard grass strip w/ guardrail.
That was a result of adding a lane each way in the median where it didn't compute to a 26-foot median (two 12-foot shoulders and a 2-foot median barrier). It is wider than that but not wide enough for an open grassed median.
Plus there is an elevation difference between the two roadways. So they used two one-sided concrete barriers and a grassed area in between.
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 09:25:43 AM
They could probably do it for around $25 million per mile. At that point it would require more right-of-way, as can be seen in the aerial view some houses would need to be removed as well. Those sound barriers are of a light enough design that the columns and walls could be reused and relocated.
AADTs range from 93,000 to 80,000 advancing from VA-143 to VA-199, so a 20-year design would definitely be in the 8-lane range, and the plan was for the inner lane each way to be HOV.
From the looks of it, I wouldn't see anywhere homes would need to be removed. An 8-lane build would likely involve adding one 16 ft (HOV) lane and 12 ft shoulder in each direction & a 2 ft barrier, 58 feet total. The median is at least 40 feet wide, and could be fully used. The rest could be added to the outside of either one roadway or split between both. In cases the median is 58 feet or wider (a lot of it is), all of it could be constructed to the inside. One obstacle, the Denbigh Blvd overpass, is scheduled to be replaced, and hopefully they'll leave room for outside expansion on the southbound lanes.
Interestingly enough, Segment 2 of the widening (schedule to open this Spring), has about 2 miles of outside widening on the northbound lanes, even though there's plenty of room to the inside to widen. Anyways, that would leave at least 50-55 ft of median.
Segment 3 on the other hand (looking at project plans) uses all inside widening, and while it will generally have a 50-80 ft median, there's about 3 miles that will have a 40 ft median, and I assume will use the two barriers with grass in the middle concept seen in Segment 1. Also, the overpasses will be retained, and the left median will actually shrink down to 4 ft under a couple of them, similar to how shoulders shrink to go over narrower overpasses. Weird to see a substandard design used on this, but it will save at least $25 million. The Queens Creek Bridge though is being fully replaced due to deteriorating structure. It also has some weird designs for sound walls, hopefully they are straightened out - http://i64widening.org/documents/november_2018_cim/aerial_board_3_with_sound_walls.pdf
As for costs, I wouldn't say it's $25 million per mile for widening. Segment 3 (8 miles) is costing about $311 million, which is about $39 million per mile.
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 09:25:43 AM
That was a result of adding a lane each way in the median where it didn't compute to a 26-foot median (two 12-foot shoulders and a 2-foot median barrier). It is wider than that but not wide enough for an open grassed median.
Plus there is an elevation difference between the two roadways. So they used two one-sided concrete barriers and a grassed area in between.
Huh, I've never noticed that elevation difference. You would think it would've been graded the same.
SCDOT has recently committed to widening all of I-26 to six lanes from greater Columbia to greater Charleston (right now needs it from Sandy Run to Summerville), as well as widening I-95 to six lanes from the GA line to the US 17 North interchange towards Beaufort and Charleston:
http://info2.scdot.org/SCDOTPress/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2782
I know it doesn't include 95 all the way to 26, but it's definitely a step in the right direction. And living near 26, I know for a fact that it's consistently clogged with trucks hauling cargo containers to/from the Port of Charleston pretty much 24/7, which is one of the few Atlantic sea ports currently capable of accepting Panamax cargo ships.
I-95 in CT from the Baldwin Bridge (exit 70) to the I-395 split (exit 76) needs six lanes. Summer traffic ranged from 31200 to 40600 VPD there in 2014. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be nice to have six lanes all the way from New Haven to New London, but the stretch from Branford at the end of the current six lanes to the Baldwin Bridge mostly hovers right around 30000 VPD and is not as strong of a candidate. Just getting some relief in the former stretch would be a start. The DOT has tentatively planned to do this, but I'm doubtful it will happen for at least 20 years.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 04, 2019, 11:36:30 PM
It would definitely be good to have I-95 at a minimum of six lanes all the way from Miami to the Northeast Megalopolis (D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City, etc.). This would definitely make that extremely long, multi-state stretch of I-95 the longest stretch of interstate in the country that has a sustained minimum of at least six lanes. It would be expensive as hell and would not be an easy task whatsoever, but it would help traffic congestion going down the east coast on I-95 immensely.
Agreed. One area that will always have congestion though is D.C. and Baltimore, even with widenings. I believe a 80 - 100 mile long toll road stretching the east side of D.C. (paralleling U.S. 301, starting at Ruther Glen) then tying into the Chesapeake Bay Bridge at U.S. 50 would severely relieve congestion for thru-traffic, a road similar to the New Jersey Turnpike. Very expensive, $5-8 billion most likely, however tolls + likely federal / state funding would repay that cost.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 04, 2019, 11:36:30 PM
Where to start? As others have noted, good starting places could include I-95 in South Carolina between Georgia and I-26 - Interstate 95 in North Carolina close to Fayetteville - or I-95 in Virginia from Richmond to the D.C. area - granted I think much (or all) of that is already at least six lanes, but as it was noted upthread, it could be useful to widen that even more to 8 lanes.
The portion of I-95 between Fayetteville and I-40 (25 miles) is fully funded to widen from 4 lanes to 8 (a massive improvement), and another 20 miles near Lumberton is also funded (or close to being fully funded) for expansion from 4 to 8 lanes.
I-295 (the Richmond Bypass) is 6-lanes from Hopewell (just north of Petersburg) to I-64, 8 lanes from I-64 to I-95, then back on I-95 north of Richmond, it is 6 lanes all the way to U.S.1 near Woodbridge (south of D.C), 8 lanes from there to north of Baltimore (a few 6 lane sections in this at major interchanges, but mainly 8 lanes continuous), then finally back to 6 lanes north of Baltimore.
Agreed the remaining 6 lane sections (Richmond - DC) (Baltimore - north) need to be widened to 8 lanes, plus HO/T lanes in urban areas when exceeding 8 general purpose (free) lanes.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 10:53:10 AM
From the looks of it, I wouldn't see anywhere homes would need to be removed.
The section/link you posted, looks like it would be, or would be very close to some houses.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 10:53:10 AM
An 8-lane build would likely involve adding one 16 ft (HOV) lane and 12 ft shoulder in each direction & a 2 ft barrier, 58 feet total. The median is at least 40 feet wide, and could be fully used. The rest could be added to the outside of either one roadway or split between both. In cases the median is 58 feet or wider (a lot of it is), all of it could be constructed to the inside. One obstacle, the Denbigh Blvd overpass, is scheduled to be replaced, and hopefully they'll leave room for outside expansion on the southbound lanes.
Interestingly enough, Segment 2 of the widening (schedule to open this Spring), has about 2 miles of outside widening on the northbound lanes, even though there's plenty of room to the inside to widen. Anyways, that would leave at least 50-55 ft of median.
Segment 3 on the other hand (looking at project plans) uses all inside widening, and while it will generally have a 50-80 ft median, there's about 3 miles that will have a 40 ft median, and I assume will use the two barriers with grass in the middle concept seen in Segment 1. Also, the overpasses will be retained, and the left median will actually shrink down to 4 ft under a couple of them, similar to how shoulders shrink to go over narrower overpasses. Weird to see a substandard design used on this, but it will save at least $25 million. The Queens Creek Bridge though is being fully replaced due to deteriorating structure. It also has some weird designs for sound walls, hopefully they are straightened out - http://i64widening.org/documents/november_2018_cim/aerial_board_3_with_sound_walls.pdf
The left exit WB at Exit 243 is being retained in these projects, but the right side is adjacent to federal military property. I would presume that the future outside widening will address that as well as negotiate with the US DOD to acquire the needed right-of-way, and they are hard for a state to deal with.
Whether driving it or viewing the design plans, it is apparent that the median width is variable with considerable differences in width. Some places inside widening will use all the median and other places there will still be a 50 or 60 foot median.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 10:53:10 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 09:25:43 AM
Plus there is an elevation difference between the two roadways. So they used two one-sided concrete barriers and a grassed area in between.
Huh, I've never noticed that elevation difference. You would think it would've been graded the same.
Independently graded roadways, that is the highway engineering term. Varying in median width as well as elevation. On curves if the roadways are at the same elevation the left edges will be different due to superelevation (banking) of the curve.
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 01:05:39 PM
The left exit WB at Exit 243 is being retained in these projects, but the right side is adjacent to federal military property. I would presume that the future outside widening will address that as well as negotiate with the US DOD to acquire the needed right-of-way, and they are hard for a state to deal with.
I don't know if the design had anything to do with the military property, as most was still done on existing R/W. The left exit was most likely retained because they did not want to severely modify the interchanges. In the future, they could raise WB I-64 over the ramp, and swing the exit around to the right side. If HOV lanes are part of the next 8-laning, then that's going to have to happen, unless they want some weird situation with traffic using the HOV lane simply to exit (I-264 to I-64 in Norfolk, a mistake).
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 01:05:39 PM
Independently graded roadways, that is the highway engineering term. Varying in median width as well as elevation. On curves if the roadways are at the same elevation the left edges will be different due to superelevation (banking) of the curve.
I suppose if they were spread out enough the grades would not have matched perfectly. Nowadays, it seems they try to grade it all the same for both roadways, mainly because there's no barrier (trees in this instance) in between.
Kind of old (9 yrs ago), but found information of I-95 as part of the Virginia Statewide Multimodal Freight Study done in 2010.
The study basically gave recommendations to major interstates / U.S. routes across Virginia for future projects. There's some interesting "recommendations" to I-95 I never would've thought of, but here they are -
- Widen from North Carolina State Line to Exit 11 (U.S. 58) to 6 lanes.
- Widen from Exit 41 (VA-35) to Exit 46 (I-295 South) to 6 lanes.
- Widen from Exit 86 (VA-656) to three miles south of Exit 126 (VA-608 overpass) to 8 lanes.
- Construct a 2 lane C/D road in each direction from three miles south of Exit 126 (VA-608 overpass) to Exit 152 (VA-234), along with a 2 reversible HO/T lanes in the median.
- Widen from Exit 152 (VA-234) to Exit 160 (VA-123) to 8 lanes, and widen the existing HO/T lanes to 3 lanes.
- Construct a 2 lane C/D road in each direction from Exit 170 (I-395/495) to the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, along with 2 HO/T lanes in each direction.
Figured the 8 laning was pretty obvious, but I like the idea of 10 lanes between Dumfries and Fredericksburg, and splitting local and thru traffic for 30 miles, plus HO/T lanes. IMHO, they need to extend this sort of concept from Dumfries all the way to I-395, and tie into the proposed ones on I-95 / I-495. HO/T lanes, plus local / thru lanes allow up to 7-9 lanes in each direction, and splits different traffic types. This would severely relieve congestion. Also, the 6 lanes from NC to Emporia, and VA-35 and I-295 is interesting.
Study - http://www.vtrans.org/resources/vsmmfs-ii_i95.pdf
Quote from: Beltway on January 04, 2019, 10:37:55 PM
So about how many miles are we up to, perhaps 12,000 out of the 48,000 miles of Interstate highway, that need to be widened to 6 lanes?
25% seems a bit high.
We will get a final mileage count at some point, but my guess is closer to ~7,000.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 04:33:31 PM
Kind of old (9 yrs ago), but found information of I-95 as part of the Virginia Statewide Multimodal Freight Study done in 2010.
That was for 2030 needs. Still a long ways off, but they need to start many years before that because they can't build it all at once.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 01:26:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 01:05:39 PM
The left exit WB at Exit 243 is being retained in these projects, but the right side is adjacent to federal military property. I would presume that the future outside widening will address that as well as negotiate with the US DOD to acquire the needed right-of-way, and they are hard for a state to deal with.
I don't know if the design had anything to do with the military property, as most was still done on existing R/W. The left exit was most likely retained because they did not want to severely modify the interchanges. In the future, they could raise WB I-64 over the ramp, and swing the exit around to the right side. If HOV lanes are part of the next 8-laning, then that's going to have to happen, unless they want some weird situation with traffic using the HOV lane simply to exit (I-264 to I-64 in Norfolk, a mistake).
Left hand ramps were acceptable in the 1960s when that was built. By the 1990s they were recognized as having safety deficiencies, and should be eliminated when possible.
I have taken a good look at that on the ground as well as the Google Maps aerial, and there are definite right-of-way restrictions. To build a right-hand ramp, they either need more right-of-way or they to build a long flyover bridge with retaining wall approaches, and that would be pretty expensive.
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 06:50:53 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 04:33:31 PM
Kind of old (9 yrs ago), but found information of I-95 as part of the Virginia Statewide Multimodal Freight Study done in 2010.
That was for 2030 needs. Still a long ways off, but they need to start many years before that because they can't build it all at once.
We're 11 years from 2030, and the need is here now. It seems they've been way more focused on the HO/T lane concept rather than these ideas. Newer overpasses constructed go completely against the C/D idea, and one locality tried to get 8-laning done on their portion of I-95, but was shot down by VDOT due to compensation that would be required to Transurban. If Transurban and the HO/T lanes are going to hold I-95 to six lanes for the next 10+ years, the traffic is only going to get worse and worse. This is one of the reasons that doing these HO/T lanes under the private sector, and signing a poorly negotiated contract was a mistake. P3 has its benefits, but only when it's done correctly.
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 06:57:14 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 01:26:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 01:05:39 PM
The left exit WB at Exit 243 is being retained in these projects, but the right side is adjacent to federal military property. I would presume that the future outside widening will address that as well as negotiate with the US DOD to acquire the needed right-of-way, and they are hard for a state to deal with.
I don't know if the design had anything to do with the military property, as most was still done on existing R/W. The left exit was most likely retained because they did not want to severely modify the interchanges. In the future, they could raise WB I-64 over the ramp, and swing the exit around to the right side. If HOV lanes are part of the next 8-laning, then that's going to have to happen, unless they want some weird situation with traffic using the HOV lane simply to exit (I-264 to I-64 in Norfolk, a mistake).
Left hand ramps were acceptable in the 1960s when that was built. By the 1990s they were recognized as having safety deficiencies, and should be eliminated when possible.
I have taken a good look at that on the ground as well as the Google Maps aerial, and there are definite right-of-way restrictions. To build a right-hand ramp, they either need more right-of-way or they to build a long flyover bridge with retaining wall approaches, and that would be pretty expensive.
They've still have constructed left entrances & exits beyond 1990, one example I can think of was built just a couple years ago, at I-73 & NC 68 north of Greensboro, NC. Agreed, while they do have their issues, they still work fine. I don't support constructing them new (I strongly oppose the one they just built at I-73), but retaining existing ones where it won't cause too many issues can work. I would argue that left entrances are more dangerous than exits. If proper signage is used identifying it as a left exit, and it has a long enough deceleration lane that won't interrupt traffic, it can work.
If they had to rebuild it, here's a concept using all existing R/W -
(https://i.ibb.co/7VdhpG9/Exit-243.png)
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 07:09:52 PM
We're 11 years from 2030, and the need is here now. It seems they've been way more focused on the HO/T lane concept rather than these ideas. Newer overpasses constructed go completely against the C/D idea, and one locality tried to get 8-laning done on their portion of I-95, but was shot down by VDOT due to compensation that would be required to Transurban. If Transurban and the HO/T lanes are going to hold I-95 to six lanes for the next 10+ years, the traffic is only going to get worse and worse. This is one of the reasons that doing these HO/T lanes under the private sector, and signing a poorly negotiated contract was a mistake. P3 has its benefits, but only when it's done correctly.
Would you like to try to compute the cost of widening I-95 nearly all the way thru the state? We've been over this ground before. I've seen no evidence that any actual 8-laning proposal was rejected for the reason you say, no evidence that any kind of compensation study was performed in the first place, and no reason why 4th lanes couldn't be added as tolled express lanes themselves.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 07:28:52 PM
They've still have constructed left entrances & exits beyond 1990, one example I can think of was built just a couple years ago, at I-73 & NC 68 north of Greensboro, NC. Agreed, while they do have their issues, they still work fine. I don't support constructing them new (I strongly oppose the one they just built at I-73), but retaining existing ones where it won't cause too many issues can work. I would argue that left entrances are more dangerous than exits. If proper signage is used identifying it as a left exit, and it has a long enough deceleration lane that won't interrupt traffic, it can work.
They all have issues, that is why highway engineers don't recommend them. Traffic still has to go to the left lane and then slow down into the ramp.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 07:28:52 PM
If they had to rebuild it, here's a concept using all existing R/W -
I already considered that alternative. There would be a major expense relocating a half mile of 3-lane westbound I-64 roadway. There would be a lot less construction in relocating the one-lane ramp.
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 07:36:30 PM
I already considered that alternative. There would be a major expense relocating a half mile of 3-lane westbound I-64 roadway. There would be a lot less construction in relocating the one-lane ramp.
The sloping used to raise the eastbound could be extended to support an westbound roadway without the use of retaining walls, if so minimal. At most, a $25 million project.
Even if you relocated the one lane ramp, you'd still have raise I-64 westbound over it because you can't (or could, but it would be tight) have a new one-lane ramp flyover I-64 then slope back down and get under I-64 eastbound.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 07:43:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 07:36:30 PM
I already considered that alternative. There would be a major expense relocating a half mile of 3-lane westbound I-64 roadway. There would be a lot less construction in relocating the one-lane ramp.
The sloping used to raise the eastbound could be extended to support an westbound roadway without the use of retaining walls, if so minimal. At most, a $25 million project.
Should have been done in the current project if that was the ultimate plan, rather than widen and rebuild the existing roadway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 07:43:54 PM
Even if you relocated the one lane ramp, you'd still have raise I-64 westbound over it because you can't (or could, but it would be tight) have a new one-lane ramp flyover I-64 then slope back down and get under I-64 eastbound.
The ramp could pass over Busch Blvd. as well if the grade wouldn't work as is.
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 07:31:28 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 07:09:52 PM
We're 11 years from 2030, and the need is here now. It seems they've been way more focused on the HO/T lane concept rather than these ideas. Newer overpasses constructed go completely against the C/D idea, and one locality tried to get 8-laning done on their portion of I-95, but was shot down by VDOT due to compensation that would be required to Transurban. If Transurban and the HO/T lanes are going to hold I-95 to six lanes for the next 10+ years, the traffic is only going to get worse and worse. This is one of the reasons that doing these HO/T lanes under the private sector, and signing a poorly negotiated contract was a mistake. P3 has its benefits, but only when it's done correctly.
Would you like to try to compute the cost of widening I-95 nearly all the way thru the state? We've been over this ground before. I've seen no evidence that any actual 8-laning proposal was rejected for the reason you say, no evidence that any kind of compensation study was performed in the first place, and no reason why 4th lanes couldn't be added as tolled express lanes themselves.
For straight-up 8-laning from US-1 to I-295, I'd estimate $3-5 billion. For a C/D road from US-1 to Fredericksburg, then 8 lanes the rest, $5-8 billion. No reason a project like this couldn't be done in phases. The segment from DC to Fredericksburg should be the highest priority. And for high costs, a road as badly congested as this can warrant using that money. Look at I-66 outside the beltway, $2 billion there, and I-64 at the HRBT, almost $4 billion there. Doing a multi-billion dollar project for I-95 can be justified with its benefits.
As for tolling any new capacity, we clearly can see by the reversible HO/T lanes that there's already new tolled capacity, and there's still massive congestion on I-95. New free lanes, and managing them properly (local, thru, etc.) along with reconfiguring interchanges will help significantly, but simply tolling specific lanes will divert traffic to stay in the free ones. The only additional tolling I would support on I-95 would be to parallel the existing HO/T lanes to have 2 in each direction. There's a lot of times where there is congestion in both directions, but only one gets
some option to avoid it.
The eight lane project has been shot down due to compensation and lack of project scope. Even if a scope was given, likely it would still be shot because costs to reimburse. -
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/will-virginia-finally-address-the-mess-on-i-95-at-the-occoquan-river/2018/02/02/2daa90a4-0540-11e8-8777-2a059f168dd2_story.html?utm_term=.0a5daa9658ca
In the previous statewide Smart Scale funding round, Prince William County submitted an application to widen I-95 in both directions in the county, but the project was rejected because of a lack of project scope and the unknown cost related to a potential "compensation event" in the toll project comprehensive agreement. This agreement pays the toll concessionaire for lost revenue when "additional lanes" are added to I-95 in Fairfax, Prince William and part of Stafford County.
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 07:50:31 PM
Should have been done in the current project if that was the ultimate plan, rather than widen and rebuild the existing roadway.
The issue is this was an "immediate relief" project, meaning no interchanges, bridges, etc. would be reconfigured or allow for future expansion. It was poorly planned out in regards like this, and if the left exit is to become a right one in the future, this would be the cheapest way to go about it, by relocating a portion of I-64 by extending the existing grade to support it.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 07:57:27 PM
For straight-up 8-laning from US-1 to I-295, I'd estimate $3-5 billion. For a C/D road from US-1 to Fredericksburg, then 8 lanes the rest, $5-8 billion. No reason a project like this couldn't be done in phases. The segment from DC to Fredericksburg should be the highest priority. And for high costs, a road as badly congested as this can warrant using that money. Look at I-66 outside the beltway, $2 billion there, and I-64 at the HRBT, almost $4 billion there. Doing a multi-billion dollar project for I-95 can be justified with its benefits.
Let's see... I-95 has already had 101 miles of Interstate widening, one section widened more than once, another now under construction (Fredericksburg). The 37 miles of I-95 Richmond-Petersburg has been bypassed by an Interstate outer loop, and 22 miles of that part of I-95 was widened in the above.
So you are proposing $8 to 13 billion in I-95 widenings.
What about I-81 and how little of that percentagewise has been widened? What about I-64 between Bottoms Bridge and Williamsburg that has never been widened?
All these projects have to compete with many other projects statewide.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 07:57:27 PM
In the previous statewide Smart Scale funding round, Prince William County submitted an application to widen I-95 in both directions in the county, but the project was rejected because of a lack of project scope and the unknown cost related to a potential "compensation event" in the toll project comprehensive agreement. This agreement pays the toll concessionaire for lost revenue when "additional lanes" are added to I-95 in Fairfax, Prince William and part of Stafford County.
The project is still active --
As part of the agreement, the northbound Rappahannock River Crossing will be built and $232 million will be allocated to I-95 corridor improvements.
This $232 million provides an opportunity for Virginia to work with the I-95 Express Lane concessionaire to study, design and implement a solution for I-95 between Prince William Parkway and U.S. 1 in both directions that benefits both parties. As a start, VDOT and Prince William County have submitted a project for inclusion into the Council of Governments' long-range plan to add an auxiliary lane to southbound I-95 between Route 123 and Prince William Parkway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 08:02:02 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 07:50:31 PM
Should have been done in the current project if that was the ultimate plan, rather than widen and rebuild the existing roadway.
The issue is this was an "immediate relief" project, meaning no interchanges, bridges, etc. would be reconfigured or allow for future expansion.
The widening was on the inside, meaning that a second phase would address the outside and any needed interchange upgrades. Mainline bridges would be widened on the outside where needed.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 08:02:02 PM
It was poorly planned out in regards like this, and if the left exit is to become a right one in the future, this would be the cheapest way to go about it, by relocating a portion of I-64 by extending the existing grade to support it.
With all due respect, neither of us has enough data to make an engineering determination about what you say. I have worked in freeway design before, and I would have to work up a detailed design of each alternative and an detailed cost estimate, before making such a recommendation. Probably at least 40 hours of work starting with the design plans, and I have not done that.
VDOT has a project underway to do a "Local/Thru" configuration similar to the Wilson Bridge from just north of Exit 133 (US-17 at Falmouth) to south of Exit 130 (VA-3). I don't recall whether it's to be that way in both directions or southbound only. It'll be interesting to see how the northern end ties into the new southern end of the HO/T lanes.
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 08:15:11 PM
Let's see... I-95 has already had 98 miles of Interstate widening, one section widened more than once, another now under construction (Fredericksburg). The 43 miles of I-95 Richmond-Petersburg has been bypassed by an Interstate outer loop.
So you are proposing $8 to 13 billion in I-95 widenings.
What about I-81 and how little of that percentagewise has been widened? What about I-64 between Bottoms Bridge and Williamsburg that has never been widened?
All these projects have to compete with many other projects statewide.
The difference between those projects and this are that those, while needed, are not as needed as a I-95 overhaul. As I mentioned, it could be done in phases as well. 8-laning down to Fredericksburg would likely cost $1-2 billion, which is more reasonable. C/D lanes down to Fredericksburg could be closer to $3-4 billion.
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 08:15:11 PM
The project is still active --
As part of the agreement, the northbound Rappahannock River Crossing will be built and $232 million will be allocated to I-95 corridor improvements.
This $232 million provides an opportunity for Virginia to work with the I-95 Express Lane concessionaire to study, design and implement a solution for I-95 between Prince William Parkway and U.S. 1 in both directions that benefits both parties. As a start, VDOT and Prince William County have submitted a project for inclusion into the Council of Governments' long-range plan to add an auxiliary lane to southbound I-95 between Route 123 and Prince William Parkway.
The auxiliary lane is a "start". Another article shows VDOT rejected 7 miles down to Route 234 because of the same issue. https://potomaclocal.com/2017/01/13/virginia-wont-consider-widening-i-95-blames-express-lanes/
Officials in Prince William said they've long asked the state to widen the road to four travel lanes on the north and southbound sides through nearly the entire stretch of I-95 in Prince William County, from Occoquan to Dumfries.
Instead, the I-95 E-ZPass Express Lanes were built. Toll lanes in the center of the highway that regularly charge as much as $16 one way, and allows vehicles with three or more occupants to ride free.
In a response, the CTB noted it wouldn't even consider the project because of the negative impacts it could have to the Express Lanes.
"As a result of this review, it has been determined that...[widening] I-95 from Occoquan River bridge to Route 234 is not eligible for the following reasons: The project's estimate would result in a compensation event for the I-95 Express Lanes..." the letter stated.
The state's new Smart Scale process requires state transportation planners place every proposed transportation project under heavy scrutiny before any funds are awarded. The fact that the state could be forced to pay Transurban, the Austrailian company that operates the Express Lanes for the next 70 years, was enough for it shut down the widening idea, with the letter stating "this project will not proceed to the next step in the evaluation process." If they are actually allowed to use the $232 million, hopefully they could indeed widen this stretch to 8 lanes.
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 08:21:57 PM
The widening was on the inside, meaning that a second phase would address the outside and any needed interchange upgrades. Mainline bridges would be widened on the outside where needed.
Exactly, hense an interchange upgrade happening in Phase 2, to reconfigure the ramp and I-64 mainline.
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 08:21:57 PM
With all due respect, neither of us has enough data to make an engineering determination about what you say. I have worked in freeway design before, and I would have to work up a detailed design of each alternative and an detailed cost estimate, before making such a recommendation. Probably at least 40 hours of work starting with the design plans, and I have not done that.
The $25 million figure is just a pure estimate, nothing in detail. Figure you're raising the roadway for 1/2 mile and constructing one small overpass, $25-30 million is a pure estimate judging by the minimal work occurring.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2019, 08:34:19 PM
VDOT has a project underway to do a "Local/Thru" configuration similar to the Wilson Bridge from just north of Exit 133 (US-17 at Falmouth) to south of Exit 130 (VA-3). I don't recall whether it's to be that way in both directions or southbound only. It'll be interesting to see how the northern end ties into the new southern end of the HO/T lanes.
I'm aware, and this should significantly help. It's currently only southbound, but the HO/T extension is funding the northbound crossing. Both should be operational by 2023.
Here's what the tie in & entire project is proposed to look like -
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.virginiadot.org%2Fimages%2FNorthbound_River_Crossing_Conceptual_Design_View_1.jpg&hash=0efa6c88bf36bab1bcab0c2c2712eec99ae4ba4a)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.virginiadot.org%2Fimages%2FNorthbound_River_Crossing_Conceptual_Design_View_2.jpg&hash=158861ff8404c9f4f3f938754e938ca88caaa9cc)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.virginiadot.org%2Fimages%2FNorthbound_River_Crossing_Conceptual_Design_View_3.jpg&hash=662827a659c45d3dd32d91f3df4a8c04f8038325)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.virginiadot.org%2Fimages%2FNorthbound_River_Crossing_Conceptual_Design_View_4.jpg&hash=0bb298a03ddcef509d04d7bee65339aa0d163be1)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.virginiadot.org%2Fimages%2FNorthbound_River_Crossing_Conceptual_Design_View_5.jpg&hash=8aab18538b7c8a358674846bdc7312a1722f4cf1)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.virginiadot.org%2Fimages%2FNorthbound_River_Crossing_Conceptual_Design_View_6.jpg&hash=e0222b2fb96ceeaa63cfabea731b2aff77d19965)
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 08:37:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 08:15:11 PM
All these projects have to compete with many other projects statewide.
The difference between those projects and this are that those, while needed, are not as needed as a I-95 overhaul. As I mentioned, it could be done in phases as well. 8-laning down to Fredericksburg would likely cost $1-2 billion, which is more reasonable. C/D lanes down to Fredericksburg could be closer to $3-4 billion.
The people who use I-81 and who live in the western part of the state would not agree with your view of the priorities.
Given the length and the AADTs and the large truck percentages, I would probably agree with them.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 08:37:14 PM
The auxiliary lane is a "start". Another article shows VDOT rejected 7 miles down to Route 234 because of the same issue. https://potomaclocal.com/2017/01/13/virginia-wont-consider-widening-i-95-blames-express-lanes/
How about a topical news release from VDOT or CTB? I haven't seen one yet.
Newspapers make all kinds of claims.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 08:40:04 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 08:21:57 PM
With all due respect, neither of us has enough data to make an engineering determination about what you say. I have worked in freeway design before, and I would have to work up a detailed design of each alternative and an detailed cost estimate, before making such a recommendation. Probably at least 40 hours of work starting with the design plans, and I have not done that.
The $25 million figure is just a pure estimate, nothing in detail. Figure you're raising the roadway for 1/2 mile and constructing one small overpass, $25-30 million is a pure estimate judging by the minimal work occurring.
My "back of the envelope" assessment would favor the relocated ramp, but again I would have to prove it true or false via the above method.
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 08:46:09 PM
The people who use I-81 and who live in the western part of the state would not agree with your view of the priorities.
Given the length and the AADTs and the large truck percentages, I would probably agree with them.
And those who use I-95 and live in that corridor wouldn't agree with I-81's views. A similar argument to yours as well, people that support and live near the proposed I-73 corridor in southwestern VA want their portion of the billions too. Each project has its advantages. I-95 is most important, has the most AADT, serves the most amount of local traffic, has high truck percentage volumes, followed by I-81 & I-64, then eventually to I-73. Nobody is going to like the results unless it benefits them. That's why doing a $1-2 billion project from DC to Fredericksburg should be the most prioritized, whenever it will win funding. Like said, I-66 and I-64 are getting over $6 billion exclusively for those two roads. And money does need to be allocated to I-81 widenings in places most needed as well.
I-95 from Richmond to DC is quite possibly one of the most hellish segments of interstate highway in the entire country. I-81 doesn't even come close. It at least moved at freeway speeds both times I've been on it. The only time I've seen I-95 move anywhere faster than stop and go was at 8 AM on a holiday.
As someone who lives near and uses I-95 in Virginia, I think I'd rather see the focus be on improving I-81. I-95 has at least six lanes from Petersburg north to Springfield, and while it does get congested and is often a frustrating drive due both to slowdowns and aggressive drivers, I find I-81 to be more annoying most of the time when I use it precisely because it's only four lanes in most places, making passing difficult, plus I-81 has fewer legitimate easy alternate routes for thru traffic in that corridor (referring to people who understand you're not required to stay on the Interstate).
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2019, 10:25:33 PM
As someone who lives near and uses I-95 in Virginia, I think I'd rather see the focus be on improving I-81. I-95 has at least six lanes from Petersburg north to Springfield, and while it does get congested and is often a frustrating drive due both to slowdowns and aggressive drivers, I find I-81 to be more annoying most of the time when I use it precisely because it's only four lanes in most places, making passing difficult, plus I-81 has fewer legitimate easy alternate routes for thru traffic in that corridor (referring to people who understand you're not required to stay on the Interstate).
Quote from: vdeane on January 05, 2019, 10:11:59 PM
I-95 from Richmond to DC is quite possibly one of the most hellish segments of interstate highway in the entire country. I-81 doesn't even come close. It at least moved at freeway speeds both times I've been on it. The only time I've seen I-95 move anywhere faster than stop and go was at 8 AM on a holiday.
I-81 is four lanes majority, with occasional 6 lane segments, with most segments at about 40,000 AADT, some up to 50 - 60,000 AADT near urban areas. I-95 on the other hands is six lanes, with 100,000 - 200,000 AADT, the key area (Fredericksburg - Woodbridge) has between 140,000 - 200,000 AADT.
Please tell me how I-81 is more prioritized over I-95. I've driven I-81 many times, including holiday travel times, it moves at least 65 MPH, most of the time 75 - 80 MPH. Hop on I-95, especially north of Fredericksburg and you'll be moving those speeds if it's night time (even that's a stretch) or on a Sunday. Having a lane to pass the truck doing 65 MPH might be nice, but going faster than 20 MPH on I-95 would be also be nice. See the difference?
I could see funding on the overall I-81 corridor to improve safety deficiencies and improve alternate routes such as U.S. 11 to handle traffic whenever I-81 is shutdown, but it's not nearly as pressing an issue as I-95 is.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2019, 10:25:33 PM
As someone who lives near and uses I-95 in Virginia, I think I'd rather see the focus be on improving I-81. I-95 has at least six lanes from Petersburg north to Springfield, and while it does get congested and is often a frustrating drive due both to slowdowns and aggressive drivers, I find I-81 to be more annoying most of the time when I use it precisely because it's only four lanes in most places, making passing difficult, plus I-81 has fewer legitimate easy alternate routes for thru traffic in that corridor (referring to people who understand you're not required to stay on the Interstate).
Passing is not possible on I-95. Traffic has to be moving faster than 0 mph for lane changes to happen.
I-81 also has US 11 parallel to it for its entire length. But yeah, I haven't had issues with it. Traffic moved at least 65 mph the whole way - even in the rain! I've had more issues on the Thruway than I've had on I-81 in VA.
^ By that logic, I-95 has US 1 and/or US 301 parallel to it through Virginia.
And I'm with Hoo...passing's a lot easier on I-95 than it is on I-81.
Ideas for Alabama:
I-65 between Prattville (north of Montgomery) and Alabaster (south of Birmingham)
I-85 between Montgomery and Auburn/Opelika
I-65 from Exit 291 (AL-91 Arkadelphia) and Decatur. I would suggest all the way to I-565, but adding lanes to the Tennessee River bridge would be cost prohibitive.
And while not rural, I-459 between I-20/59 and Exit 6 (Bessemer/Helena)
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 09:00:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 08:46:09 PM
The people who use I-81 and who live in the western part of the state would not agree with your view of the priorities.
Given the length and the AADTs and the large truck percentages, I would probably agree with them.
And those who use I-95 and live in that corridor wouldn't agree with I-81's views.
That is when the state has to set priorities for allocations around the state.
Some people always think that -their- area is the one that is being "short shrifted".
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 09:00:17 PM
A similar argument to yours as well, people that support and live near the proposed I-73 corridor in southwestern VA want their portion of the billions too. Each project has its advantages. I-95 is most important, has the most AADT, serves the most amount of local traffic, has high truck percentage volumes, followed by I-81 & I-64, then eventually to I-73. Nobody is going to like the results unless it benefits them. That's why doing a $1-2 billion project from DC to Fredericksburg should be the most prioritized, whenever it will win funding. Like said, I-66 and I-64 are getting over $6 billion exclusively for those two roads. And money does need to be allocated to I-81 widenings in places most needed as well.
I-95 has gotten $6 billion in expansion completions and under construction since 2007 between Richmond and Oxon Hill MD. Not to mention the widenings I listed in the 1970s thru 1990s.
I-81 has gotten little in comparison. VA I-81 is 325 miles long and has more total VMT and more large truck VMT than VA I-95. The VA I-81 counties have about 1 million people, so it is not some kind of wilderness.
Quote from: froggie on January 05, 2019, 11:05:42 PM
^ By that logic, I-95 has US 1 and/or US 301 parallel to it through Virginia.
And I'm with Hoo...passing's a lot easier on I-95 than it is on I-81.
The southern half isn't much an issue, so I wouldn't consider US 301 for that matter. As for US 1 being a parallel route in congested areas, US 1 is just as bad if not worse than I-95 during most of the day. US 11 on the other handle is relatively rural, and traffic rarely has to use it to bypass traffic.
Agreed, it's easier to pass on I-95 because of more lane capacity. You can pass when the guy in front of you is doing 35 MPH and you need to get around at 38 MPH. On I-81, you can't pass the truck doing 68 MPH passing the truck doing 65 MPH. When there's not a lot of traffic on I-95, you can pass both of those trucks at 70 or more MPH. When I-95 is congested, majority of the time, you're lucky if you can do 40 MPH.
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 11:18:34 PM
That is when the state has to set priorities for allocations around the state.
So what will the state chose - the road that has 40,000 AADT, most of the time moving 70+ MPH, some slow downs to 65 MPH when a truck passes, clear parallel route, or the road that has 100,000+ AADT, has traffic down to 35 MPH majority of the time, heavily congested parallel routes, and has parts that carry 200,000 AADT with only 6 lanes?
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 11:18:34 PM
I-95 has gotten $6 billion in expansion completions and under construction since 2007 between Richmond and Oxon Hill MD. Not to mention the widenings I listed in the 1970s thru 1990s.
I-81 has gotten little in comparison. VA I-81 is 325 miles long and has more total VMT and more large truck VMT than VA I-95. The VA I-81 counties have about 1 million people, so it is not some kind of wilderness.
I-95 has received billions in improvements and expansion because it is constantly congested, has many issues, and still has many issues. I-81 has received few improvements because the truck holding traffic up at 65 MPH passing the one doing 62 MPH doesn't create 5+ mile backups to 35 MPH and clog every parallel road and create a traffic nightmare in every city it passes through.
---------------------
For all these, I will say I support both I-95 being widened to 8 lanes or C/D lanes added, I-64 & I-81 to six lanes, but it needs to be done in just that order. The urbanized, heavily traffic areas that do an average of 35 - 40 MPH are going to gain more priority over the route where you can't always pass doing 70 or more MPH.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 11:45:42 PM
So what will the state chose - the road that has 40,000 AADT, most of the time moving 70+ MPH, some slow downs to 65 MPH when a truck passes, clear parallel route, or the road that has 100,000+ AADT, has traffic down to 35 MPH majority of the time, heavily congested parallel routes, and has parts that carry 200,000 AADT with only 6 lanes?
I-81 has serious congestion problems on at least 20 weekends Fri-Sun per year. There is no "clear parallel route". The I-95 sections that have 100,000+ AADT have at least 3 lanes each way and during peak hours some segments have as much as 7 lanes in the peak direction. I don't know about you but I usually go the speed limit on I-95 anywhere on the corridor and that is not in the middle of the night.
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 11:56:37 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 11:45:42 PM
So what will the state chose - the road that has 40,000 AADT, most of the time moving 70+ MPH, some slow downs to 65 MPH when a truck passes, clear parallel route, or the road that has 100,000+ AADT, has traffic down to 35 MPH majority of the time, heavily congested parallel routes, and has parts that carry 200,000 AADT with only 6 lanes?
I-81 has serious congestion problems on at least 20 weekends Fri-Sun per year. There is no "clear parallel route". The I-95 sections that have 100,000+ AADT have at least 3 lanes each way and during peak hours some segments have as much as 7 lanes in the peak direction. I don't know about you but I usually go the speed limit on I-95 anywhere on the corridor and that is not in the middle of the night.
Have you driven it weekly on Friday afternoons heading southbound? And there's been numerous of times I'll head up I-95 from Richmond northward during a normal day and it's up to 60 MPH, then back to 30 MPH, then back up to 50 MPH, then down to 30 MPH, etc.
What areas have congestion issues on I-81? I've never ran into any spots, even on peak travel weekends. I'm curious to know.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 06, 2019, 12:02:41 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 11:56:37 PM
I-81 has serious congestion problems on at least 20 weekends Fri-Sun per year. There is no "clear parallel route". The I-95 sections that have 100,000+ AADT have at least 3 lanes each way and during peak hours some segments have as much as 7 lanes in the peak direction. I don't know about you but I usually go the speed limit on I-95 anywhere on the corridor and that is not in the middle of the night.
Have you driven it weekly on Friday afternoons heading southbound? And there's been numerous of times I'll head up I-95 from Richmond northward during a normal day and it's up to 60 MPH, then back to 30 MPH, then back up to 50 MPH, then down to 30 MPH, etc.
Most of the time it is pretty fast. I also take advantage of the HOT lanes when I can.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 06, 2019, 12:02:41 AM
What areas have congestion issues on I-81? I've never ran into any spots, even on peak travel weekends. I'm curious to know.
Rolling backups can happen anywhere and without visible explanation.
Quote from: Beltway on January 06, 2019, 12:13:59 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 06, 2019, 12:02:41 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 11:56:37 PM
I-81 has serious congestion problems on at least 20 weekends Fri-Sun per year. There is no "clear parallel route". The I-95 sections that have 100,000+ AADT have at least 3 lanes each way and during peak hours some segments have as much as 7 lanes in the peak direction. I don't know about you but I usually go the speed limit on I-95 anywhere on the corridor and that is not in the middle of the night.
Have you driven it weekly on Friday afternoons heading southbound? And there's been numerous of times I'll head up I-95 from Richmond northward during a normal day and it's up to 60 MPH, then back to 30 MPH, then back up to 50 MPH, then down to 30 MPH, etc.
Most of the time it is pretty fast. I also take advantage of the HOT lanes when I can.
Well there's no doubt that the HOT lanes are congestion free 24/7, most people
don't use them, hence there's a lot of congestion. Some people cannot afford to pay $25 on a Friday afternoon just to reach Stafford, not to mention every day, twice. That's up to $250 per week, $1,000 per month, and $12,000 per year exclusively in tolls.
Quote from: Beltway on January 06, 2019, 12:13:59 AM
Rolling backups can happen anywhere and without visible explanation.
Down to what speed? 50 MPH, or close to nothing?
I'll say it again though, I support six laning rural portions of I-81, it's just the I-95 corridor between Fredericksburg and DC rank higher and should come first. Fredericksburg to Richmond is at the same level of priority I'd say as I-81. One idea I would support to get funding would be to collect tolls at certain rural locations for exclusively for out-of-state traffic, because most of the traffic is thru and not local, and use those funds to widen the road. It would cost up to $10+ billion to widen all of I-81 to six lanes, and would be seriously difficult to get funded, and take 20+ years. I-95 on the other hand is more likely to receive the state & federal funding, up to $2 billion to expand.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 06, 2019, 12:26:03 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 06, 2019, 12:13:59 AM
Most of the time it is pretty fast. I also take advantage of the HOT lanes when I can.
Well there's no doubt that the HOT lanes are congestion free 24/7, most people don't use them, hence there's a lot of congestion. Some people cannot afford to pay $25 on a Friday afternoon just to reach Stafford, not to mention every day, twice. That's up to $250 per week, $1,000 per month, and $12,000 per year exclusively in tolls.
The HOT lanes get plenty of usage, and those who can use them but don't use them still get the benefit of having 5 lanes (or more) in the direction of peak traffic.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 06, 2019, 12:26:03 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 06, 2019, 12:13:59 AM
Rolling backups can happen anywhere and without visible explanation.
Down to what speed? 50 MPH, or close to nothing?
Down to stop and go traffic that causes 5 or 10 minutes of delay just for each occurrence.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 06, 2019, 12:26:03 AM
I'll say it again though, I support six laning rural portions of I-81, it's just the I-95 corridor between Fredericksburg and DC rank higher and should come first.
That reminds me of when I was first interested in highways from 1970 onward, I lived in Alexandria and was frustrated at the delays in getting the Beltway in Virginia widened, while seeing the progress in getting segments of VA I-77 under construction. The Beltway carried almost 100,000 AADT and most of the Virginia portion was only 4 lanes. US-52 was only carrying what a 2-lane highway could carry. I thought it was "unfair" given the much higher volumes on the Washington Beltway that its widening projects seemed to have lower priority than building I-77 which is in a mostly rural part of the state.
Can you see what were the errors in my thinking back then?
Quote from: Beltway on January 06, 2019, 02:32:53 PM
The HOT lanes get plenty of usage, and those who can use them but don't use them still get the benefit of having 5 lanes (or more) in the direction of peak traffic.
The point is the majority of the traffic stays in the general purpose lanes. Some of that traffic in the HO/T lanes is also HOV traffic, which isn't an option to everybody. Yes, the benefit of having them exists for all, but it's minimal. There's also plenty of times where traffic is heavy in one direction, but the lanes are flowing another. A good example is every Sunday night (and actually looking at it, right now).
Quote from: Beltway on January 06, 2019, 02:32:53 PM
Down to stop and go traffic that causes 5 or 10 minutes of delay just for each occurrence.
Understandable, but it's still not nearly as a bad as I-95.
Quote from: Beltway on January 06, 2019, 02:32:53 PM
That reminds me of when I was first interested in highways from 1970 onward, I lived in Alexandria and was frustrated at the delays in getting the Beltway in Virginia widened, while seeing the progress in getting segments of VA I-77 under construction. The Beltway carried almost 100,000 AADT and most of the Virginia portion was only 4 lanes. US-52 was only carrying what a 2-lane highway could carry. I thought it was "unfair" given the much higher volumes on the Washington Beltway that its widening projects seemed to have lower priority than building I-77 which is in a mostly rural part of the state.
Can you see what were the errors in my thinking back then?
Interstate 77 was an original interstate that was funded by federal-aid, very little from VDOT. The Beltway on the other hand was mainly the state funding for widening projects. The issue today is that now both are in the hands of VDOT to tackle, and the money has to be given where appropriate. I-81 is going to rank lower on that list than I-95 is, we've already seen that for years. I-64 is now finally getting the widening it needs, and mainly thanks to HRTAC for accelerating many projects in the region, like the I-264 interchange, High Rise Bridge, HRBT, and the Peninsula widening. The reason the rest isn't funded outside of the HR district is because of the same reasons I-81 isn't getting anything. Even so, I-64 carries 60,000+ AADT between Williamsburg and I-295 and would still rank over I-81. It's also important to note I-64 widening is about 30 miles more needed, I-95 is about 40, and I-81 would be 323 miles.
It'd be reasonable to get urban widening projects completed on I-81 in the next few years, then once those are settled, moving to the rural areas and doing those in phases, or it can be set up as a toll / truck-toll road as previously proposed and get completed within 10 years fully.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 06, 2019, 03:07:58 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 06, 2019, 02:32:53 PM
The HOT lanes get plenty of usage, and those who can use them but don't use them still get the benefit of having 5 lanes (or more) in the direction of peak traffic.
The point is the majority of the traffic stays in the general purpose lanes. Some of that traffic in the HO/T lanes is also HOV traffic, which isn't an option to everybody. Yes, the benefit of having them exists for all, but it's minimal. There's also plenty of times where traffic is heavy in one direction, but the lanes are flowing another. A good example is every Sunday night (and actually looking at it, right now).
The HOT lanes in peak periods often carry near the full capacity of lanes, which could approach 4,000 VPH for two lanes. The second half of Sunday normally is oriented toward D.C. with NB HOT. The usual reason why "traffic is heavy in one direction but the lanes are flowing another" is usually not true, it is the visual effect of 5 or more lanes in one direction simply greatly thinning out the traffic on each lane as compared to it all being in 3 lanes.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 06, 2019, 03:07:58 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 06, 2019, 02:32:53 PM
Down to stop and go traffic that causes 5 or 10 minutes of delay just for each occurrence.
Understandable, but it's still not nearly as a bad as I-95.
In 325 miles if that happens 10 times those users would disagree. That is why I-81 has its reputation. The other states between TN and PA inclusive have the same problem.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 06, 2019, 03:07:58 PM
Interstate 77 was an original interstate that was funded by federal-aid, very little from VDOT. The Beltway on the other hand was mainly the state funding for widening projects.
All those projects were funded 90% federal and 10% state. The original Interstate construction as well as the widening projects that happened in the 1970s and 1980s.
Quote from: Beltway on January 06, 2019, 03:33:15 PM
The HOT lanes in peak periods often carry near the full capacity of lanes, which could approach 4,000 VPH for two lanes. The second half of Sunday normally is oriented toward D.C. with NB HOT. The usual reason why "traffic is heavy in one direction but the lanes are flowing another" is usually not true, it is the visual effect of 5 or more lanes in one direction simply greatly thinning out the traffic on each lane as compared to it all being in 3 lanes.
Judging by the fact that every week on Sunday afternoon there's always congestion heading southbound, and none going northbound proves that otherwise. The visual effect is sitting in traffic doing 20 MPH watching the people in the HO/T lanes flying by at 65 MPH.
Quote from: Beltway on January 06, 2019, 03:33:15 PM
In 325 miles if that happens 10 times those users would disagree. That is why I-81 has its reputation. The other states between TN and PA inclusive have the same problem.
Again, if it was a pressing issue, then barrels would be up, traffic would be shifted, and construction would be happening right now. That's what's happening right now on I-95, and will continue to, and nothing on I-81. The issue with I-81 is it's trying to be widened in one project. It needs to be done in phases, and I can say the same thing about I-95.
Quote from: Beltway on January 06, 2019, 03:33:15 PM
All those projects were funded 90% federal and 10% state. The original Interstate construction as well as the widening projects that happened in the 1970s and 1980s.
Then likely it was a safety factor. A two-lane road is way more dangerous and has low capacity compared to an at least 4-lane divided highway.
Look I'm just gonna say it. One of these interstates needs tolling, whether it be I-95 or I-81. There's not enough money to support all of the widenings in the next 10-15 years on either route. That tolling also needs to come from thru-traffic & out-of-state rather than local & in-state. It's been proposed on both interstates, but has gone nowhere.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 06, 2019, 03:44:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 06, 2019, 03:33:15 PM
The HOT lanes in peak periods often carry near the full capacity of lanes, which could approach 4,000 VPH for two lanes. The second half of Sunday normally is oriented toward D.C. with NB HOT. The usual reason why "traffic is heavy in one direction but the lanes are flowing another" is usually not true, it is the visual effect of 5 or more lanes in one direction simply greatly thinning out the traffic on each lane as compared to it all being in 3 lanes.
Judging by the fact that every week on Sunday afternoon there's always congestion heading southbound, and none going northbound proves that otherwise.
That is because of having 3 lanes SB and 5 lanes NB in PW county, in Fairfax County 4 lanes SB and 7 lanes NB. Eh?
Like I said the normal directional split on the second half of Sunday normally is oriented NB (not SB as on a weekday).
Quote from: Beltway on January 06, 2019, 03:52:44 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 06, 2019, 03:44:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 06, 2019, 03:33:15 PM
The HOT lanes in peak periods often carry near the full capacity of lanes, which could approach 4,000 VPH for two lanes. The second half of Sunday normally is oriented toward D.C. with NB HOT. The usual reason why "traffic is heavy in one direction but the lanes are flowing another" is usually not true, it is the visual effect of 5 or more lanes in one direction simply greatly thinning out the traffic on each lane as compared to it all being in 3 lanes.
Judging by the fact that every week on Sunday afternoon there's always congestion heading southbound, and none going northbound proves that otherwise.
That is because of having 3 lanes SB and 5 lanes NB in PW county, in Fairfax County 4 lanes SB and 7 lanes NB. Eh?
Like I said the normal directional split on the second half of Sunday normally is oriented NB (not SB as on a weekday).
Could be, but two things - there's a lot of times SB congestion in Fredericksburg on a Sunday, and none NB (and there's no express lanes there (yet)), and there's a horrible merge VDOT put in a few years back by the Occoquan River that is the cause of a lot of congestion. NB doesn't have that issue, and instead gains more lanes. I'd be willing to bet if they switched it to see how it works, it would relieve congestion more than create it.
The only time I've ever managed to drive I-95 between DC and Richmond and not hit 10+ miles of stop and go around Fredericksburg (no HOT lanes there!) was at 8 AM on a holiday. I can't even conceive of how one would managed to go double digits, much less the speed limit, there at a civilized time. The only section of roadway in the entire country I can think of that's worse is the Cross-Bronx, which has several parallel freeways nearby.
I detest the idea of "soak the strangers" toll arrangements. A toll should apply to all roadway users or not exist at all. Period.
Quote from: vdeane on January 06, 2019, 09:07:36 PM
I detest the idea of "soak the strangers" toll arrangements. A toll should apply to all roadway users or not exist at all. Period.
Another concept for tolling that was considered a few years back is to stick the toll north of Emporia, where most of the traffic is thru-traffic. The point of "tolling out-of-state" is because many people commute weekly that are living in state on that stretch of I-95, whereas a lot of "thru-traffic" isn't coming back weekly. It puts less of a burden on locals or weekly commuters, but I suppose it wouldn't be fair overall. So the next best bet is to place the toll at a strategic location that mainly gets out-of-state and thru traffic, like said, down near Emporia or the NC state line, but not restricting it to out-of-state.
Quote from: vdeane on January 06, 2019, 09:07:36 PM
The only time I've ever managed to drive I-95 between DC and Richmond and not hit 10+ miles of stop and go around Fredericksburg (no HOT lanes there!) was at 8 AM on a holiday. I can't even conceive of how one would managed to go double digits, much less the speed limit, there at a civilized time. The only section of roadway in the entire country I can think of that's worse is the Cross-Bronx, which has several parallel freeways nearby.
That's one thing I-95 lacks - good alternative routes. If a D.C. toll-road bypass existed to the east, that would relieve a lot of congestion problems and provide different routes. North of D.C, I-95 has many freeway alternatives, is 8-lanes, and usually traffic is more tolerable up that way.
And another good time to not hit traffic is at night, you'll never see any slow downs, yet you'll still see some people in the HO/T lanes anyways paying their $5. Never makes sense to me.
Quote from: vdeane on January 06, 2019, 09:07:36 PM
The only time I've ever managed to drive I-95 between DC and Richmond and not hit 10+ miles of stop and go around Fredericksburg (no HOT lanes there!) was at 8 AM on a holiday.
You must be vexed with evil spirits or something if that has been your experience. I've done it at least 100 times without hitting a significant slowdown there, and usually not at a typical low volume time. Fredericksburg is not usually a problem, the more common place is around Woodbridge.
Quote from: Beltway on January 06, 2019, 10:00:00 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 06, 2019, 09:07:36 PM
The only time I've ever managed to drive I-95 between DC and Richmond and not hit 10+ miles of stop and go around Fredericksburg (no HOT lanes there!) was at 8 AM on a holiday.
You must be vexed with evil spirits or something if that has been your experience. I've done it at least 100 times without hitting a significant slowdown there, and usually not at a typical low volume time. Fredericksburg is not usually a problem, the more common place is around Woodbridge.
Fredericksburg is one of the worst spots actually, between US 17 and VA 3 is jam daily with local and thru traffic trying to mix just to get one exit down. To say it's not a problem is not accurate. That's why VDOT is doing the project happening now, the C/D lanes, which when complete, will make this area, hopefully, not a problem. But now, it is definitely a huge traffic hotspot.
And agreed, the Woodbridge area is a major issue due to poor interchange design and the 4th lane dropping off, and between there and Fredericksburg is also too congested, frequent stop-and-go daily, but no real interchange issues, there, additional capacity is what is needed.
You need to take make a southbound trip on I-95 on a Friday afternoon between 2 - 6 PM in the general purpose lanes, and see all the issues. You've been lucky every time you've used that stretch of I-95, good timing, etc.
Quote from: vdeane on January 06, 2019, 09:07:36 PM
The only time I've ever managed to drive I-95 between DC and Richmond and not hit 10+ miles of stop and go around Fredericksburg (no HOT lanes there!) was at 8 AM on a holiday. I can't even conceive of how one would managed to go double digits, much less the speed limit, there at a civilized time. The only section of roadway in the entire country I can think of that's worse is the Cross-Bronx, which has several parallel freeways nearby.
Yes, given unlimited funds I would be a major advocate of doing to that stretch of I-95 what New Jersey did to the northern half of the Turnpike: four roadways of three lanes each, with the inner carriageways being car traffic only. I'm having trouble finding traffic counts for the NJ Turnpike, but I'd imagine they're very comparable to DC to Richmond. Northern Virginia seems to be one of the fastest growing regions of the country, so if not entirely warranted at present, it certainly would be within the next decade or two.
On the other hand, I'd like to see improvements to I-81 as well. It is heavily used by long distance traffic and especially trucks, so it is no fun on weekends or during peak travel periods, either. I would argue that going from four lanes to six on heavily used rural corridors is the more important of the two priorities. All it takes is one truck passing another, and a rolling roadblock forms. At least I-95 is already wide enough to enable passing of trucks. Even if congestion occurs anyways, at least the most basic need has been permanently addressed. Certainly, some interchange improvements and auxiliary lanes are in order on I-95, but as far as a major large-scale widening, I would put the funds towards I-81 while focusing on spot improvements on the former corridor.
Quote from: webny99 on January 07, 2019, 11:20:35 AM
Yes, given unlimited funds I would be a major advocate of doing to that stretch of I-95 what New Jersey did to the northern half of the Turnpike: four roadways of three lanes each, with the inner carriageways being car traffic only.
I've thought of that, but I don't think that even that would resolve things, after all in Fairfax County it already has 7 lanes in the direction of peak traffic. The region needs a freeway true outer bypass such as the Western Transportation Corridor that was seriously studied 15 to 20 years ago by VDOT, but which MDOT would never get onboard with which obviously would prevent Washington from having an outer bypass.
The I-95 Centerport Parkway interchange Exit 143 that was added about 15 years ago would have been the I-95 southern interchange of the Western Transportation Corridor. It could be toll financed if needed like the Houston outer beltway.
Regarding the idea of tolling I-95, Virginia had a proposal to do just that during the 2011 time frame. I don't remember when they dropped the idea, but I know it was under consideration in 2011 because a friend of mine was running for state senate that year and I have a copy of a briefing paper I put together for him explaining the differences between the HO/T lane projects and the I-95 toll proposal. The last proposal I had seen involved two toll-collection points, one near the North Carolina state line and the other a short distance south of Massaponax (Exit 126), the latter location having something to do the original plan to extend the HO/T system south to the Massaponax area. Other than the HO/T lanes, there was to be no tolling of I-95 in Northern Virginia.
I don't believe they ever addressed the question of how they'd try to avoid shunpiking. When North Carolina was proposing to toll their portion of I-95, they had talked about tolling the next interchange or two to either side of the toll-collection points in order to disincentivize the sort of thing you see on the Delaware Turnpike. I remember thinking it would make sense to stick the southern toll-collection point somewhere in the Emporia area such that shunpiking would force you to crawl along roads with 25-mph speed limits, a bunch of traffic lights, and cops eager to write speeding tickets.
The biggest failure with Virginia's proposal to toll I-95, IMO, is that the politicians did an utterly crappy job of trying to explain it to the public (well, actually, they didn't really explain it well at all). They did nothing to combat the public image of "toll roads" bringing to mind long lines at toll plazas that so many of us recall from the 1970s and 1980s on trips to New York. They did nothing to explain how the toll revenue would have to be used solely for I-95 improvements and how it would not replace the percentage of state gas tax revenues used for that road. They did nothing to respond to the common complaint of "I pay a gas tax, so why should I have to pay a toll for a road my gas tax paid to build?" They did nothing to explain how Virginia's long-standing transportation-funding apportionment formula makes it impossible simply to raise the gas tax and then devote the increased revenue to one area of particular need.
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2019, 01:38:24 PM
....
The I-95 Centerport Parkway interchange Exit 143 that was added about 15 years ago would have been the I-95 southern interchange of the Western Transportation Corridor. It could be toll financed if needed like the Houston outer beltway.
FWIW, Centreport Parkway is Exit 136, not Exit 143. Exit 143 is the Aquia interchange, Route 610 (Garrisonville Road).
Quote from: Bruce on January 01, 2019, 10:38:01 PM
I-5 from Mount Vernon, WA to the Canadian border. It would be rather difficult, since the current freeway (built as part of the pre-Interstate US 99 upgrades) weaves its way tightly around downtown Mount Vernon and has a major bridge over the Skagit River (the one that partially collapsed in 2013) that would need to be replaced. Then there's more issues once you reach the Samish Mountains and start the descent into Bellingham.
It was definitely a mistake not to build I-5 to the west of Mount Vernon (with extra bridges over the river) and thus only really hitting farmland.
Assuming in the next 70 years that A) cars still operate largely the way they do now, and B) we have an HSR connection to Vancouver (something I'd consider to be marginally more important), I could see I-5 being relocated west of Mt Vernon/Burlington. If not for removing a freeway that runs directly through the cities, to improve safety and maintain the rural limit that exists on either side of the cities. WSDOT's Collision GeoPortal shows quite a large uptick in injury or possible injury crashes through the towns, and a huge uptick in non-injury crashes. Of course, I'm not sure if the businesses that rely on the freeway would be as keen.
The bigger issue beyond Mt Vernon and Burlington is Bellingham itself. There seems to be sufficient ROW for a third (or even fourth) lane through the Samish range (tight as the curves may be), but the urban ROW through Bellingham is constrictive as hell, especially between Hwy 542 and Iowa St. I don't really know what to do through there. Part of me wants to see I-5 sunk below the city (or at least through that stretch) in a six-lane tunnel, but my other part suspects that geology (and geography) may not be as forgiving.
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 02, 2019, 01:05:56 AM
ALL of I-5 from Exit 188 in Oregon to the Canadian Border.
Ignoring I-5 north of Mt Vernon (as I just finished discussing it), I have faith that WSDOT will eventually six-lane the entirety of I-5 between Centralia and the Toutle River rest area (plans for as much are clear when looking at new bridges over the freeway), but my outlook for the Oregon section is less ambitious. Do you know of any ODOT plans for I-5 widening (even long term)?
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2019, 01:38:24 PM
I've thought of that, but I don't think that even that would resolve things, after all in Fairfax County it already has 7 lanes in the direction of peak traffic.
If it was done properly it could work - thru traffic restricted to the middle lanes, no merging conflicts to deal with. Local traffic in their own lanes, HO/T lanes running the middle.
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2019, 01:38:24 PM
The region needs a freeway true outer bypass such as the Western Transportation Corridor that was seriously studied 15 to 20 years ago by VDOT, but which MDOT would never get onboard with which obviously would prevent Washington from having an outer bypass.
The I-95 Centerport Parkway interchange Exit 143 that was added about 15 years ago would have been the I-95 southern interchange of the Western Transportation Corridor. It could be toll financed if needed like the Houston outer beltway.
It would definitely need to be toll financed, it would cost nowadays at minimum $5 billion, maybe closer to 10. Also, I believe an eastern route would better, parallel to U.S. 301 and VA 207. I imagine such road would be 6-8 lanes wide, start near Ruther Glen with a high-capacity interchange at I-95, and begin its journey northward following south of VA 207. The first interchange would be crossing US-301 south of Bowling Green. At the Potomac River, it would have an 8-lane high level fixed span bridge and continue following east of US 301 into Maryland. Limited interchanges, only at major roads that need access. It would finally cross the US-50 freeway with a major interchange with flyover ramps heading to and from Annapolis, allowing traffic to use that route to avoid Baltimore as well. The bypass would finally flow into I-97 going towards Baltimore, and terminate. The speed limit along the entire route would likely be 70 MPH, and it would be fully rural. I'll stop here though, I'm getting too much into fictional terrority, though I believe such idea needs to be brought to the drawing table.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 07, 2019, 03:50:56 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 02, 2019, 01:05:56 AM
ALL of I-5 from Exit 188 in Oregon to the Canadian Border.
Ignoring I-5 north of Mt Vernon (as I just finished discussing it), I have faith that WSDOT will eventually six-lane the entirety of I-5 between Centralia and the Toutle River rest area (plans for as much are clear when looking at new bridges over the freeway), but my outlook for the Oregon section is less ambitious. Do you know of any ODOT plans for I-5 widening (even long term)?
In the private draft of the transportation package back from 2017, there was funding dedicated towards widening mp 188-251, but that got scrapped so counties and cities get more money. Currently their are in draft stages in extending 3rd travel lane from mp 251 south to 249, and an auxillary lane NB in Albany. Nothing else is planned or in ODOT's long term outlook (ironically, 4 landing US 97 is in their long term outlook though).
LG-TP260
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 07, 2019, 06:01:35 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 07, 2019, 03:50:56 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 02, 2019, 01:05:56 AM
ALL of I-5 from Exit 188 in Oregon to the Canadian Border.
Ignoring I-5 north of Mt Vernon (as I just finished discussing it), I have faith that WSDOT will eventually six-lane the entirety of I-5 between Centralia and the Toutle River rest area (plans for as much are clear when looking at new bridges over the freeway), but my outlook for the Oregon section is less ambitious. Do you know of any ODOT plans for I-5 widening (even long term)?
In the private draft of the transportation package back from 2017, there was funding dedicated towards widening mp 188-251, but that got scrapped so counties and cities get more money. Currently their are in draft stages in extending 3rd travel lane from mp 251 south to 249, and an auxillary lane NB in Albany. Nothing else is planned or in ODOT's long term outlook (ironically, 4 landing US 97 is in their long term outlook though).
I see. At least it's in their sight lines. I'm guessing the widening would have been done over a couple decades? 63 miles of widening would be awfully expensive to perform over several years, especially through Eugene. Unless the plan was to simply six-lane the sections that currently did not have six lanes?
Quote from: Beltway on January 06, 2019, 10:00:00 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 06, 2019, 09:07:36 PM
The only time I've ever managed to drive I-95 between DC and Richmond and not hit 10+ miles of stop and go around Fredericksburg (no HOT lanes there!) was at 8 AM on a holiday.
You must be vexed with evil spirits or something if that has been your experience. I've done it at least 100 times without hitting a significant slowdown there, and usually not at a typical low volume time. Fredericksburg is not usually a problem, the more common place is around Woodbridge.
I've been on I-95 between DC and Richond three times:
-8 AM northbound on Columbus Day returning from the Birmingham meet; this time went smoothly, and it took about an hour
-1 PM northbound on a Sunday returning from the Beckly, WV meet; significant stop and go traffic around Fredericksburg, the trip took 2 hours
-5 PM southbound on a Friday heading down to my cousin's wedding in Jacksonville, FL (in my defense, I had intended to hit this 2-3 hours sooner, but rain delays in the Baltimore/DC area, combined with leaving my apartment half an hour later than planned, caused my arrival at the Springfield interchange to be delayed significantly); significant stop and go traffic most of the length of the corridor from DC all the way through Fredericksburg (a traumatic experience - this particular day of my Florida trip is easily my worst roadtrip ever, by a very wide margin, and I was emotionally on a very short fuse the rest of the night), except for ironically the middle transition from the HOT lanes, where I stupidly left them for the general purpose lanes thinking I had already passed the congestion (not realizing that congestion is not all clumped in one spot on this corridor, and that the high toll wasn't just because of the legendary merge at the end); the trip took 2.5 hours, and in order to not miss the series finale of Once Upon a Time, I had to skip dinner; I also had to forgo my planned clinch of I-295, which greatly annoys me to this day, especially since I won't have future opportunities to clinch it that aren't either annoying or impractical, as I have no plans to drive I-95 in the Carolinas ever again; I-64 east of Richmond is my only remotely reasonable opportunity (short of a Richmond meet), but this would require 30 miles of backtracking to get the southern end.
Quote from: webny99 on January 07, 2019, 11:20:35 AM
Quote from: vdeane on January 06, 2019, 09:07:36 PM
The only time I've ever managed to drive I-95 between DC and Richmond and not hit 10+ miles of stop and go around Fredericksburg (no HOT lanes there!) was at 8 AM on a holiday. I can't even conceive of how one would managed to go double digits, much less the speed limit, there at a civilized time. The only section of roadway in the entire country I can think of that's worse is the Cross-Bronx, which has several parallel freeways nearby.
Yes, given unlimited funds I would be a major advocate of doing to that stretch of I-95 what New Jersey did to the northern half of the Turnpike: four roadways of three lanes each, with the inner carriageways being car traffic only. I'm having trouble finding traffic counts for the NJ Turnpike, but I'd imagine they're very comparable to DC to Richmond. Northern Virginia seems to be one of the fastest growing regions of the country, so if not entirely warranted at present, it certainly would be within the next decade or two.
On the other hand, I'd like to see improvements to I-81 as well. It is heavily used by long distance traffic and especially trucks, so it is no fun on weekends or during peak travel periods, either. I would argue that going from four lanes to six on heavily used rural corridors is the more important of the two priorities. All it takes is one truck passing another, and a rolling roadblock forms. At least I-95 is already wide enough to enable passing of trucks. Even if congestion occurs anyways, at least the most basic need has been permanently addressed. Certainly, some interchange improvements and auxiliary lanes are in order on I-95, but as far as a major large-scale widening, I would put the funds towards I-81 while focusing on spot improvements on the former corridor.
Since I mentioned my experiences on I-95 earlier, below I'll detail my experiences with I-81 in VA (ironically, they're the same trips):
-Southbound full corridor, Thursday at 4:30 and Friday morning on the way to the Birmingham meet; no significant delays, despite major rain Friday; it was about an hour from the WV line to my hotel in Harrisonburg; measuring from Harrisonburg to the TN line is harder, but according to my photo timestamps, I left the hotel at 8 and got to I-381 around 11:45 - note that I also clinched I-581 on the way
-Northbound on the I-64 overlap on a Sunday returning from the Beckley, WV meet; traffic was free-flow and according to photo timestamps the journey took about 25 minutes
As you can see, the I-81 experiences don't stand out in my brain nearly as much. I prefer to be moving (even if behind a truck) over stop and go. In fact, that Florida trip left an impression on me, and I changed how I estimate trip times because of it (I also realized that I need to allocate more time to packing).
Quote from: vdeane on January 07, 2019, 09:11:15 PM
the trip took 2.5 hours, and in order to not miss the series finale of Once Upon a Time, I had to skip dinner;
You know you can DVR shows, right? I'm not sure I've ever watched anything live, apart from the occasional HBO program where I don't have to watch commercials.
For the record, every time I've gone south from DC towards Richmond on 95, I've also hit traffic right around the point where the express lanes end, and then off and on for quite a few miles. My last trip, which was to South Boston, VA, I stayed on 95 to 85, then to exit 12, and experienced a significant amount of traffic off and on starting at the end of the express lanes, lasting for what
felt like hundreds of miles. This was the 29th of December of last month. I was so annoyed by the traffic that I stayed off 95 (heading back to DC) until Fredericksburg, using back roads from South Boston to there instead. Was a bit more relaxing!
How about I-95 in SC between the Georgia Line and Exit 33. Traffic has clogged that stretch since the 1980's and the only widening in SC along I-95 that SCDOT has done was to six lane the part near Florence.
I-30 in Texas from the Metroplex to Texarkana needs to be widened badly as four lanes is not enough to handle the load that freeway has.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 07, 2019, 11:26:10 PM
How about I-95 in SC between the Georgia Line and Exit 33. Traffic has clogged that stretch since the 1980's and the only widening in SC along I-95 that SCDOT has done was to six lane the part near Florence.
I-30 in Texas from the Metroplex to Texarkana needs to be widened badly as four lanes is not enough to handle the load that freeway has.
I-30 doesn't have very much traffic, if any, turning off in Texarkana as I-49 isn't complete north of there until Alma, so it likely needs it all the way to US-70.
The time I drove IH 30 it was very congested on a weekday in September back in 12. It was steady and moveable, but could have used breathing space. It did flow at its 75 mph, but pushing it.
^^^^^^^^
All of I-30 seems like it should be expanded to at least 6 overall lanes, probably due to the very high percentage of truck traffic. But from my own experience the segment in AR -- specifically starting a bit into TX at the I-369/US 59 interchange and extending NE to the US 70 merge, where currently the 6-lane section begins -- is the section actually warranting 6 lanes. Despite the presence of a large number of trucks, I-30 from Greenville to US 59 is functioning quite well in its 2+2 configuration; but the overall number of vehicles picks up once in AR. I don't know if ADOT has done a traffic count after I-49 was opened down to I-220 in LA, but it would certainly be revealing to compare I-30 counts (east of the I-49 junction, of course) before and after that occurred.
I-40 through Haywood County, NC, all the times I've been on it, feels rather crowded, especially with the truck traffic it gets. Even though it has an AADT of about 26,000, I feel a widening could be justified. However it'd prove to be a long and costly task, due to the terrain it goes through and the fact the route has tunnels on it.
IIRC, it is also one of the most dangerous stretches of Interstate highway in NC, and I'd bet it's due, in part, not only to the winding nature of it but the level of trucks. A bit of breathing room could be an improvement.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 07, 2019, 11:26:10 PM
How about I-95 in SC between the Georgia Line and Exit 33.
Literally, like half of the thread has been about that exact segment.
I'm not sure if you knew that or not.
Froggie did some very detailed research for us on I-95 in the Carolinas, which can be found in Reply# 37.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 07, 2019, 10:35:43 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 07, 2019, 09:11:15 PM
the trip took 2.5 hours, and in order to not miss the series finale of Once Upon a Time, I had to skip dinner;
You know you can DVR shows, right? I'm not sure I've ever watched anything live, apart from the occasional HBO program where I don't have to watch commercials.
I don't have cable, and even if I bought a DVR, I often have to futz around with my antenna to make programs watchable (given that my antenna is naturally level with the ground due to how my apartment is laid out and there's a shrub just outside, I'm probably lucky that it works at all), so I wouldn't trust that it could record things while I was away. So no, I can't DVR shows.
Quote from: index on January 08, 2019, 08:25:41 AM
I-40 through Haywood County, NC, all the times I've been on it, feels rather crowded, especially with the truck traffic it gets. Even though it has an AADT of about 26,000, I feel a widening could be justified. However it'd prove to be a long and costly task, due to the terrain it goes through and the fact the route has tunnels on it.
IIRC, it is also one of the most dangerous stretches of Interstate highway in NC, and I'd bet it's due, in part, not only to the winding nature of it but the level of trucks. A bit of breathing room could be an improvement.
It being a dangerous stretch of highway, narrow, and winding through the mountain would make extremely challenging to widen, not to mention the amount of money it would cost. There's just not too much that could realistically happen, and not much of a need.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 07, 2019, 10:35:43 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 07, 2019, 09:11:15 PM
the trip took 2.5 hours, and in order to not miss the series finale of Once Upon a Time, I had to skip dinner;
You know you can DVR shows, right? I'm not sure I've ever watched anything live, apart from the occasional HBO program where I don't have to watch commercials.
For the record, every time I've gone south from DC towards Richmond on 95, I've also hit traffic right around the point where the express lanes end, and then off and on for quite a few miles. My last trip, which was to South Boston, VA, I stayed on 95 all the way to exit 12, and experienced a significant amount of traffic off and on starting at the end of the express lanes, lasting for what felt like hundreds of miles. This was the 29th of December of last month. I was so annoyed by the traffic that I stayed off 95 (heading back to DC) until Fredericksburg, using back roads from South Boston to there instead. Was a bit more relaxing!
Assume you were referring to Exit 12 off I-85 near South Hill? Because Exit 12 off I-95 doesn't exist :hmmm:
^ There's a northbound Exit 12 on I-95 (ramp to northbound 301) on the north side of Emporia.
Quote from: froggie on January 08, 2019, 06:41:54 PM
^ There's a northbound Exit 12 on I-95 (ramp to northbound 301) on the north side of Emporia.
Well, yes, but only northbound. jakeroot was referring to southbound.
Probably referring to Exit 11 (US 58) then, given South Boston was his destination. I find it highly unlikely he'd see the volume of traffic he claimed on I-85 south of Petersburg.
Quote from: froggie on January 08, 2019, 07:20:07 PM
Probably referring to Exit 11 (US 58) then, given South Boston was his destination. I find it highly unlikely he'd see the volume of traffic he claimed on I-85 south of Petersburg.
I-95 traffic from Fredericksburg to Richmond. Taking I-95 to Emporia then to South Boston is about 25 minutes slower then taking I-85 to South Hill.
It was 85. My bad. Still learning the roads in the area.
85 was quieter than 95, but I still recall some brief slowdowns. I do very clearly remember US-58 being wide open.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 08, 2019, 07:28:09 PM
It was 85. My bad. Still learning the roads in the area.
85 was quieter than 95, but I still recall some brief slowdowns. I do very clearly remember US-58 being wide open.
It's all good, just was confused because taking I-95 to Emporia is a lot slower then just shooting down I-85. I've never traveled on I-85 in Virginia, except from U.S. 58 at South Hill to North Carolina (living in Hampton Roads, I have just about no reasons to traverse it), same with I-95 between Richmond and Emporia. I would like to try those highways someday, especially the 80s segment of upgrades to 301, some interesting, yet well done designs. I drove U.S. 58 from Hampton Roads to Martinsville a couple weeks ago for the first time, and from HR to I-95, it was pretty crowded, from I-95 to I-85, somewhat but less so, then from there everybody hopped on I-85, and U.S. 58 was completely empty, a very relaxing ride, all the way to Martinsville. One of my favorite main highways in southern Virginia that I've driven on.
Quote from: webny99 on January 08, 2019, 08:50:01 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 07, 2019, 11:26:10 PM
How about I-95 in SC between the Georgia Line and Exit 33.
Literally, like half of the thread has been about that exact segment.
I'm not sure if you knew that or not. Froggie did some very detailed research for us on I-95 in the Carolinas, which can be found in Reply# 37.
This thread is about anybody to comment about interesting topics. FYI I am not religious on here like some so excuse me if I do not read the whole thing. I find the I-95 thing to be well warranted and Froggie is correct. Its been a hold up for many years and SCDOT does not seem to want to make it a priority.
I know you have aspergers as you stated which means you are prone to being literal, which means you need to realize at times to cool down. I have learned to let things go as it can bug you at times like it would at the toll plaza how many people don't read simple road signs when they complain FDOT leaves out the price of the toll which they do not. I learned not to be so literal. You should too.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 09, 2019, 12:13:52 AM
This thread is about anybody to comment about interesting topics.
Well, to be honest, that's not exactly what I had in mind. But sure, say whatever you want! :-D
Quote from: roadman65 on January 09, 2019, 12:13:52 AM
Quote from: webny99 on January 08, 2019, 08:50:01 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 07, 2019, 11:26:10 PM
How about I-95 in SC between the Georgia Line and Exit 33.
Literally, like half of the thread has been about that exact segment.
I'm not sure if you knew that or not. Froggie did some very detailed research for us on I-95 in the Carolinas, which can be found in Reply# 37.
FYI I am not religious on here like some so excuse me if I do not read the whole thing.
You are excused. :-P
QuoteI know you have aspergers as you stated which means you are prone to being literal, which means you need to realize at times to cool down. I have learned to let things go as it can bug you at times like it would at the toll plaza how many people don't read simple road signs when they complain FDOT leaves out the price of the toll which they do not. I learned not to be so literal. You should too.
Whoa!
I am not sure who told you they have aspergers (maybe multiple people, given the threads we've had), but I
do know it definitely wasn't me. I am not super-comfortable in social situations, but I get along fine, and have never been diagnosed with an actual condition.
I didn't mean to offend; and sorry if I sounded harsh. Just wanted to make sure you knew there had been plenty of discussion of I-95 SC if you were interested.
Quote from: sparker on January 08, 2019, 05:52:16 AM
^^^^^^^^
All of I-30 seems like it should be expanded to at least 6 overall lanes, probably due to the very high percentage of truck traffic. But from my own experience the segment in AR -- specifically starting a bit into TX at the I-369/US 59 interchange and extending NE to the US 70 merge, where currently the 6-lane section begins -- is the section actually warranting 6 lanes. Despite the presence of a large number of trucks, I-30 from Greenville to US 59 is functioning quite well in its 2+2 configuration; but the overall number of vehicles picks up once in AR. I don't know if ADOT has done a traffic count after I-49 was opened down to I-220 in LA, but it would certainly be revealing to compare I-30 counts (east of the I-49 junction, of course) before and after that occurred.
Compared to some of the other roads on this thread that should be expanded, I-30 can wait. I could maybe make an argument for the Metroplex to Greenville along with anything in Texarkana that hasn't yet been upgraded, but that's it. Heck, US75 from about McKinney to the OK state line needs it more, especially with all the housing going into the area.
Quote from: webny99 on January 03, 2019, 09:38:14 PM
I want to study all of Pennsylvania in more detail at some point, but for now just the most obvious ones:
*I-80 from I-380 to the NJ line
(Desparately needed. Volumes are sustained over 50K and even top 70K on some segments!)
*I-78 from I-81 to the NJ line
*I-81 from I-83 to I-78
(Together, these widenings would create a continuous six-lane corridor from Harrisburg to NYC - sorely needed given the incredible volume of trucks using both I-78 and I-81!)
Adding to my list for Pennsylvania.
I-80:
From NJ state line west to I-380 was mentioned above (needs widening!).
From I-380 west to I-81, not really warranted now, but possibly in the future. Volumes sustained in the mid-to-high 20K's.
From I-81 west to I-180, widening warranted per criteria of 30K, but not a high priority. Volumes sustained between 30K and 40K.
From US 15 west to OH state line, (somewhat surprisingly) not warranted. Volumes reach 30K on a few short segments, but not sustained.
I-81:
From MD state line north to Harrisburg is very much warranted. Sustained over 40K and nearing 50K in spots.
From Harrisburg to I-78 mentioned above (needs widening!)
From I-78 north to Hazelton: not warranted at this time.
From Hazelton north to Scranton and up to I-476 (preferably PA 107), segments not already six-laned need widening.
From PA 107 north to NY state line: not warranted at this time.
I-76: widening warranted from I-79 to Breezewood, and from Harrisburg east.
I-79: minimum six lanes needed from Waynesburg, through the Pittsburgh area, and north to US 422 (not sure how much is six-laned already!)
I-83: may have been mentioned, very much needed between Harrisburg and the MD state line.
I-90: widening needed between I-79 and (eastern) I-86.
All told, I think PA has even more work to do than NY! :-P
I'm sure some of these have already been mentioned but I'll compile my own list.
I-15 between Barstow and Primm(could even be argued to 8 lanes)
I-5 between and LA and SF
I-44 between OKC and Tulsa
Though probably not really needed, I'd like to see I-35 widened between OKC and Dallas to six lanes just because with TxDOT having widened the interstate to six lanes throughout a large potion of the state it would likely be one of the longest stretches of six laned interstate in the country. It would also be nice to have as it would be easier to maintain speed without having to slow down every five fucking miles because of someone camping in the left lane.
Quote from: sparker on January 08, 2019, 05:52:16 AM
^^^^^^^^
All of I-30 seems like it should be expanded to at least 6 overall lanes, probably due to the very high percentage of truck traffic. But from my own experience the segment in AR -- specifically starting a bit into TX at the I-369/US 59 interchange and extending NE to the US 70 merge, where currently the 6-lane section begins -- is the section actually warranting 6 lanes. Despite the presence of a large number of trucks, I-30 from Greenville to US 59 is functioning quite well in its 2+2 configuration; but the overall number of vehicles picks up once in AR. I don't know if ADOT has done a traffic count after I-49 was opened down to I-220 in LA, but it would certainly be revealing to compare I-30 counts (east of the I-49 junction, of course) before and after that occurred.
1. Traffic is just slower in Arkansas, largely due to construction zones. The 70 mph speed limit should be 75.
2. The job is in the works starting at US 70, but right now the 6-laning of I-30 begins at Sevier Street in Benton.
3. For a tiny state, Arkansas gets a lot of interstate traffic. Wouldn't break my heart if every interstate had 6 lanes, especially I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis.
4. Take the stupid governors off the stupid trucks.
Quote from: Road Hog on January 11, 2019, 06:23:04 PM
4. Take the stupid governors off the stupid trucks.
I wouldn't say the trucks that are currently governed need them removed, but they need to be increased to allow every truck to have a max speed of 75 MPH. Anything higher than 75 MPH in a truck is dangerous and not good on the tires. There's some trucks that are governed around 60 - 62 MPH which creates some dangerous situations.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 11, 2019, 01:06:09 PM
I'm sure some of these have already been mentioned but I'll compile my own list.
I-15 between Barstow and Primm(could even be argued to 8 lanes)
While it does connect the Southern California Megalopolis to Las Vegas and points north and northeast, I am surprised that Interstate 15 between Barstow and Primm needs to be widened. It is certainly justified for I-15 from Barstow south to the Megalopolis (especially due to all the long-distance trucks and traffic coming in from I-40 West), but I just didn't know there was that much traffic on I-15 northeast of Barstow.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 11, 2019, 01:06:09 PM
Though probably not really needed, I'd like to see I-35 widened between OKC and Dallas to six lanes just because with TxDOT having widened the interstate to six lanes throughout a large potion of the state it would likely be one of the longest stretches of six laned interstate in the country. It would also be nice to have as it would be easier to maintain speed without having to slow down every five fucking miles because of someone camping in the left lane.
It could be useful now (though perhaps not a necessity) - but if it's not needed now, I suspect it could become even more so not too long from now in the future - by looking at the monstrous growth of the DFW Metro Area, Oklahoma City, and other nearby areas in the thriving Sun Belt.
There's also probably a good bit of truck traffic on this route, and that will likely only increase in the future. But it is an intriguing idea to be sure - and it could definitely be one of the longest stretches of interstate in the country with a sustained minimum of six lanes.
^^^ regarding I-15, it actually flows well most of the time, but it would still be a much better improvement if it were a minimum of six lanes without having to slow down for slow drivers passing trucks in the right lane where it's only two lanes.
Really, if CA wanted to go the cheap route, there are many portions where the freeway is already six lanes if you count the climbing lanes, so they could just expand those. But ideally they'd slap two lanes(one each direction) in the median. There was an article last year where the mayor of Las Vegas(IIRC) called for the widening, so maybe with SB-1 in place, we might see some sort of movement.
Regarding I-35, it would be really nice to see it. I know TxDOT is planning 6 lanes or more on its portion across the red river and I believe it will even expand the bridges over the red river and widen the freeway to Winstar. It would be nice to see OkDOT pursue that undertaking, but there are so many needs in the state, unless they received a large budget increase, it'd be hard to justify this project.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 11, 2019, 01:06:09 PM
it would likely be one of the longest stretches of six laned interstate in the country.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 11, 2019, 06:30:39 PM
and it could definitely be one of the longest stretches of interstate in the country with a sustained minimum of six lanes.
I-75 maintains at least 6 lanes between Chattanooga, TN and Naples, FL, a distance of 735 miles (with a couple of half-mile 4-lane sections at major junctions, but 6-lanes everywhere else). A six-lane I-35 between San Antonio and Oklahoma City would only be 500 miles.
Quote from: Road Hog on January 11, 2019, 06:23:04 PM
For a tiny state, Arkansas gets a lot of interstate traffic. Wouldn't break my heart if every interstate had 6 lanes, especially I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis.
I agree. If I recall correctly, all of both I-30 and I-40 in Arkansas have incredibly high levels of truck traffic. Nowhere is this more evident than on Interstate 40 between Little Rock and Memphis, which, IIRC, is a stretch of interstate that has one of the highest levels of truck traffic in the entire country.
Interstate 30 in Arkansas (and Texas) also has very high volumes of truck traffic - and combined with regular traffic, I could see how it could possibly indeed be warranted to widen much of Interstate 30 from DFW to Little Rock - perhaps mostly in Arkansas, as the traffic calls for, as has been noted.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 11, 2019, 06:52:56 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 11, 2019, 01:06:09 PM
it would likely be one of the longest stretches of six laned interstate in the country.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 11, 2019, 06:30:39 PM
and it could definitely be one of the longest stretches of interstate in the country with a sustained minimum of six lanes.
I-75 maintains at least 6 lanes between Chattanooga, TN and Naples, FL, a distance of 735 miles (with a couple of half-mile 4-lane sections at major junctions, but 6-lanes everywhere else). A six-lane I-35 between San Antonio and Oklahoma City would only be 500 miles.
It would definitely still be largely beat by the stretch of I-75 that you mention - and it would not even come remotely close to I-95 if it is fully widened by South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia - but I just meant that if that theoretical I-35 widening was fully completed, it would still probably make it into the Top 5 (or so) longest stretches of interstate in the country with a sustained minimum of six lanes.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 11, 2019, 07:05:37 PM
It would definitely still be largely beat by the stretch of I-75 that you mention - and it would not even come remotely close to I-95 if it is fully widened by South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia - but I just meant that if that theoretical I-35 widening was fully completed, it would still probably make it into the Top 5 (or so) longest stretches of interstate in the country with a sustained minimum of six lanes.
Oh okay. Yeah, a I-95 widening through SC, NC, and VA would result in about 1,160 miles of 6+ lane interstate continuous.
I personally think that I-75 should be at least six lanes from the northern terminus of US-127 to Miami. It's busy enough to warrant at least six lanes and should be at least ten lanes in Detroit, Cincinnati and Atlanta. There are also some chokes on I-75 that need to be fixed in both Detroit and Cincinnati. I think eight lanes through Florida would be fine as well. I've traveled I-75 plenty of times and can honestly say that it's a very heavily traveled highway.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 12, 2019, 12:03:27 AM
I personally think that I-75 should be at least six lanes from the northern terminus of US-127 to Miami. It's busy enough to warrant at least six lanes and should be at least ten lanes in Detroit, Cincinnati and Atlanta. There are also some chokes on I-75 that need to be fixed in both Detroit and Cincinnati. I think eight lanes through Florida would be fine as well. I've traveled I-75 plenty of times and can honestly say that it's a very heavily traveled highway.
I'd love to see Ohio 6 lane the remaining 4 lane portion from Findlay to Troy, but it doesn't seem to be in the works. The recent project to rebuild 75 around Lima would have been an excellent opportunity to widen that section of it, but it was deemed that the traffic counts didn't warrant the extra expense, and they didn't even build the brand new bridges wide enough to facilitate any future 6 laning.
Quote from: webny99 on January 05, 2019, 06:45:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 04, 2019, 10:37:55 PM
So about how many miles are we up to, perhaps 12,000 out of the 48,000 miles of Interstate highway, that need to be widened to 6 lanes?
25% seems a bit high.
We will get a final mileage count at some point, but my guess is closer to ~7,000.
(Replying a week late because it took me that long to get the dataset winnowed down to a size that won't crash ArcMap...)Using the 2017 FHWA Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) dataset. This is from data that the state DOTs (or equivalents) have submitted to FHWA...part of the recent "ARNOLD" requirements for all state DOTs to submit their road networks to FHWA in a GIS Linear Reference System format.
The dataset includes recent Interstate additions such as I-2 and I-14 in Texas and also includes the limited-access segments of Alaska's "Interstates". It does not include the latest additions such as I-69 north of Bloomington, IN or the completion of I-269 in Mississippi.
Out of approximately 48,158 miles of Interstate highway...:
11,887 miles (just under 25%) are listed as already being 6 or more lanes.
3,487 miles (7.2%) are listed as 8 or more lanes.
7,446 miles (15.5%) meet the OP's criteria of being in rural areas (also to include urbanized areas less than 50,000 population), currently 4 lanes, and at least 30,000 AADT.
2,751 miles (5.7%) that are in rural areas and currently 4 lanes, but have a more restrictive (yet better-than-normal-scenaro) volume of 41,000 AADT or higher. 41,000 AADT is the LOS C/D threshold for a rural roadway with the following characteristics:
- Free flow speed of 75 MPH
- Interchange spacing of 2+ miles
- 25% trucks
- K-Factor of 10%
- Directional split of 65%
- Peak Hour Factor of 0.9
Most rural Interstates have a lower truck percentage, a lower directional split, and a higher peak hour factor, all of which would result in a higher LOS threshold than 41K.
Even with the "more restrictive" AADT level, several notable candidates stand out:
- I-5 from Eugene to Salem, OR
- I-10 from Lafayette to Baton Rouge, LA
- I-15 from Barstow, CA to the Nevada line
- I-26 from I-95 to Columbia, SC
- I-71 from Cincinnati to Columbus, OH
- I-77 from Columbia to Rock Hill, SC
- I-81 from Wythville to Strasburg, VA
- I-85 from outside Atlanta, GA into South Carolina
- I-90 from Buffalo, NY to I-490 (towards Rochester)
- I-95 from Savannah, GA to I-26 (noted a number of times upthread)
- Most of I-95 through North Carolina (exceptions south of Lumbarton, bypassing Fayetteville, and Kenley-Wilson)
Lastly, there are about 230 miles that are in rural areas, currently 4 lanes, but have a volume of 62,360 AADT or higher. This volume level meets the LOS C/D threshold I described above for needing 8 lanes, though the actual LOS threshold for these road segments would need to be determined at a local level.
Quote from: Buck87 on January 12, 2019, 11:53:23 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 12, 2019, 12:03:27 AM
I personally think that I-75 should be at least six lanes from the northern terminus of US-127 to Miami. It's busy enough to warrant at least six lanes and should be at least ten lanes in Detroit, Cincinnati and Atlanta. There are also some chokes on I-75 that need to be fixed in both Detroit and Cincinnati. I think eight lanes through Florida would be fine as well. I've traveled I-75 plenty of times and can honestly say that it's a very heavily traveled highway.
I'd love to see Ohio 6 lane the remaining 4 lane portion from Findlay to Troy, but it doesn't seem to be in the works. The recent project to rebuild 75 around Lima would have been an excellent opportunity to widen that section of it, but it was deemed that the traffic counts didn't warrant the extra expense, and they didn't even build the brand new bridges wide enough to facilitate any future 6 laning.
They must of widened the part between Perrysburg and Findlay then, last time I was through there I wasn't paying attention to the number of lanes. By the time you get to Troy you're pretty much hitting all of Dayton's traffic after that point going south or before it going north. I just wish they could widened the approach on the Cincinnati side to the Brent Spence Bridge, actually the Covington side should be widened too. Hopefully a second span gets built soon there.
Quote from: froggie on January 12, 2019, 06:39:50 PM
2,751 miles (5.7%) that are in rural areas and currently 4 lanes, but have a more restrictive (yet better-than-normal-scenaro) volume of 41,000 AADT or higher. 41,000 AADT is the LOS C/D threshold for a rural roadway with the following characteristics:
- Free flow speed of 75 MPH
- Interchange spacing of 2+ miles
- 25% trucks
- K-Factor of 10%
- Directional split of 65%
- Peak Hour Factor of 0.9
That would mean a hundred or hundreds of miles of bumper to bumper traffic moving at high speeds, a very unpleasant experience over that distance, and it would take very little to "bring it to its knees" at that volume.
Those are 24/7/365 averages, and as I have said before what are the weekend volumes for the highest volume 20 weekends of the year, on a particular highway that is being evaluated.
Quote from: froggie on January 12, 2019, 06:39:50 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 05, 2019, 06:45:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 04, 2019, 10:37:55 PM
So about how many miles are we up to, perhaps 12,000 out of the 48,000 miles of Interstate highway, that need to be widened to 6 lanes?
25% seems a bit high.
We will get a final mileage count at some point, but my guess is closer to ~7,000.
(Replying a week late because it took me that long to get the dataset winnowed down to a size that won't crash ArcMap...)
Using the 2017 FHWA Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) dataset. This is from data that the state DOTs (or equivalents) have submitted to FHWA...part of the recent "ARNOLD" requirements for all state DOTs to submit their road networks to FHWA in a GIS Linear Reference System format.
The dataset includes recent Interstate additions such as I-2 and I-14 in Texas and also includes the limited-access segments of Alaska's "Interstates". It does not include the latest additions such as I-69 north of Bloomington, IN or the completion of I-269 in Mississippi.
Out of approximately 48,158 miles of Interstate highway...:
11,887 miles (just under 25%) are listed as already being 6 or more lanes.
3,487 miles (7.2%) are listed as 8 or more lanes.
7,446 miles (15.5%) meet the OP's criteria of being in rural areas (also to include urbanized areas less than 50,000 population), currently 4 lanes, and at least 30,000 AADT.
2,751 miles (5.7%) that are in rural areas and currently 4 lanes, but have a more restrictive (yet better-than-normal-scenaro) volume of 41,000 AADT or higher. 41,000 AADT is the LOS C/D threshold for a rural roadway with the following characteristics:
- Free flow speed of 75 MPH
- Interchange spacing of 2+ miles
- 25% trucks
- K-Factor of 10%
- Directional split of 65%
- Peak Hour Factor of 0.9
Most rural Interstates have a lower truck percentage, a lower directional split, and a higher peak hour factor, all of which would result in a higher LOS threshold than 41K.
Even with the "more restrictive" AADT level, several notable candidates stand out:
- I-5 from Eugene to Salem, OR
- I-10 from Lafayette to Baton Rouge, LA
- I-15 from Barstow, CA to the Nevada line
- I-26 from I-95 to Columbia, SC
- I-71 from Cincinnati to Columbus, OH
- I-77 from Columbia to Rock Hill, SC
- I-81 from Wythville to Strasburg, VA
- I-85 from outside Atlanta, GA into South Carolina
- I-90 from Buffalo, NY to I-490 (towards Rochester)
- I-95 from Savannah, GA to I-26 (noted a number of times upthread)
- Most of I-95 through North Carolina (exceptions south of Lumbarton, bypassing Fayetteville, and Kenley-Wilson)
Lastly, there are about 230 miles that are in rural areas, currently 4 lanes, but have a volume of 62,360 AADT or higher. This volume level meets the LOS C/D threshold I described above for needing 8 lanes, though the actual LOS threshold for these road segments would need to be determined at a local level.
Thank you very much for posting that. That was very interesting and insightful. :nod:
It appears that I-15 from Barstow, California to Nevada must indeed have a good bit of traffic. Perhaps Interstate 15 being a minimum of six lanes from the SoCal Megalopolis to Las Vegas could be in order.
Quote from: Beltway on January 12, 2019, 07:17:11 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 12, 2019, 06:39:50 PM
2,751 miles (5.7%) that are in rural areas and currently 4 lanes, but have a more restrictive (yet better-than-normal-scenaro) volume of 41,000 AADT or higher. 41,000 AADT is the LOS C/D threshold for a rural roadway with the following characteristics:
- Free flow speed of 75 MPH
- Interchange spacing of 2+ miles
- 25% trucks
- K-Factor of 10%
- Directional split of 65%
- Peak Hour Factor of 0.9
That would mean a hundred or hundreds of miles of bumper to bumper traffic moving at high speeds, a very unpleasant experience over that distance, and it would take very little to "bring it to its knees" at that volume.
You're aware that FHWA considers LOS C acceptable in rural areas, right?
And there's still some wiggle room in a traffic stream at LOS D. Not much, but there's still room. What you described is the LOS D/E threshold.
QuoteThose are 24/7/365 averages, and as I have said before what are the weekend volumes for the highest volume 20 weekends of the year, on a particular highway that is being evaluated.
Well get me some weekend volume data then. I'm going off the data that is available....
Quote from: froggie on January 12, 2019, 07:48:20 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 12, 2019, 07:17:11 PM
That would mean a hundred or hundreds of miles of bumper to bumper traffic moving at high speeds, a very unpleasant experience over that distance, and it would take very little to "bring it to its knees" at that volume.
You're aware that FHWA considers LOS C acceptable in rural areas, right?
And there's still some wiggle room in a traffic stream at LOS D. Not much, but there's still room. What you described is the LOS D/E threshold.
QuoteThose are 24/7/365 averages, and as I have said before what are the weekend volumes for the highest volume 20 weekends of the year, on a particular highway that is being evaluated.
Well get me some weekend volume data then. I'm going off the data that is available....
It is unfortunate that weekend volume data is not available, because it would help outline the problems on some of our favorite Interstate highways, such as I-81 TN-Harrisburg and I-95 SC/NC.
The PA Turnpike is doing 6-lane total rebuilds on some sections in the mid-20s and some in the low-30s, probably going to 6 lanes because of weekend problems.
Quote from: froggie on January 12, 2019, 06:39:50 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 05, 2019, 06:45:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 04, 2019, 10:37:55 PM
So about how many miles are we up to, perhaps 12,000 out of the 48,000 miles of Interstate highway, that need to be widened to 6 lanes?
25% seems a bit high.
We will get a final mileage count at some point, but my guess is closer to ~7,000.
(Replying a week late because it took me that long to get the dataset winnowed down to a size that won't crash ArcMap...)
Using the 2017 FHWA Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) dataset. This is from data that the state DOTs (or equivalents) have submitted to FHWA...part of the recent "ARNOLD" requirements for all state DOTs to submit their road networks to FHWA in a GIS Linear Reference System format.
The dataset includes recent Interstate additions such as I-2 and I-14 in Texas and also includes the limited-access segments of Alaska's "Interstates". It does not include the latest additions such as I-69 north of Bloomington, IN or the completion of I-269 in Mississippi.
Out of approximately 48,158 miles of Interstate highway...:
11,887 miles (just under 25%) are listed as already being 6 or more lanes.
3,487 miles (7.2%) are listed as 8 or more lanes.
7,446 miles (15.5%) meet the OP's criteria of being in rural areas (also to include urbanized areas less than 50,000 population), currently 4 lanes, and at least 30,000 AADT.
2,751 miles (5.7%) that are in rural areas and currently 4 lanes, but have a more restrictive (yet better-than-normal-scenaro) volume of 41,000 AADT or higher. 41,000 AADT is the LOS C/D threshold for a rural roadway with the following characteristics:
- Free flow speed of 75 MPH
- Interchange spacing of 2+ miles
- 25% trucks
- K-Factor of 10%
- Directional split of 65%
- Peak Hour Factor of 0.9
Most rural Interstates have a lower truck percentage, a lower directional split, and a higher peak hour factor, all of which would result in a higher LOS threshold than 41K.
Even with the "more restrictive" AADT level, several notable candidates stand out:
- I-5 from Eugene to Salem, OR
- I-10 from Lafayette to Baton Rouge, LA
- I-15 from Barstow, CA to the Nevada line
- I-26 from I-95 to Columbia, SC
- I-71 from Cincinnati to Columbus, OH
- I-77 from Columbia to Rock Hill, SC
- I-81 from Wythville to Strasburg, VA
- I-85 from outside Atlanta, GA into South Carolina
- I-90 from Buffalo, NY to I-490 (towards Rochester)
- I-95 from Savannah, GA to I-26 (noted a number of times upthread)
- Most of I-95 through North Carolina (exceptions south of Lumbarton, bypassing Fayetteville, and Kenley-Wilson)
Lastly, there are about 230 miles that are in rural areas, currently 4 lanes, but have a volume of 62,360 AADT or higher. This volume level meets the LOS C/D threshold I described above for needing 8 lanes, though the actual LOS threshold for these road segments would need to be determined at a local level.
I've also seen with a 10% truck traffic, its 72,000 C/D level for 4 lanes, and 108,000 for 6 lanes.
If we are talking about 8 laning, then I-5 from Salem to Wilsonville is around 95,000 AADT, well above that threshold for 8 laning, in fact it could be at the threshold for 10 laning.
Quote from: BeltwayIt is unfortunate that weekend volume data is not available, because it would help outline the problems on some of our favorite Interstate highways, such as I-81 TN-Harrisburg and I-95 SC/NC.
Agree it's unfortunate we don't have more detailed weekend data. That would help settle the disagreement. But I was able to find a proxy for I-95 weekend volumes, using VDOT's average weekend daily traffic. It's the best we've got from the available data.
Quote from: Hurricane RexI've also seen with a 10% truck traffic, its 72,000 C/D level for 4 lanes, and 108,000 for 6 lanes.
It's also going to depend on the other factors I described above. Keeping all other above-mentioned variables constant but dropping the truck percentage to 10%, the LOS C/D threshold for 4 lanes is much lower...just under 44,000 vpd. And around 66,800 for 6 lanes.
(EDIT)QuoteIf we are talking about 8 laning, then I-5 from Salem to Wilsonville is around 95,000 AADT, well above that threshold for 8 laning, in fact it could be at the threshold for 10 laning.
So I took a look at this segment, finding what data I could from ODOT. 2017 volumes from the north side of Salem to the south side of Wilsonville range from 93K-100K. Let's go with 96K for the mean (the average is slightly below 96K). Regarding a point Beltway made about weekend volumes, the ATR on the south side of Wilsonville shows that weekend volumes are actually lower than weekday volumes several months of the year, and not much higher than weekday volumes during the remaining months. The ATR also recorded the 30th Highest Hour percentage (8.2%), which we can use in lieu of specific weekday or weekend volumes. Truck percentage ranges from 13.9% to 17.5%. We'll use an even 16% as the mean.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find directional split or peak hour factor data for this segment, so I'm going to default to the same values I used upthread (65% split and 0.9 PHF).
Calculating this out, I come up with LOS D, though it wouldn't take a whole lot of traffic for it to go to LOS E. By FHWA's rural LOS criteria, most of it would warrant 8 lanes (which would result in an LOS C even with higher volumes). 10 would be overkill.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 12, 2019, 06:45:41 PM
They must of widened the part between Perrysburg and Findlay then, last time I was through there I wasn't paying attention to the number of lanes.
Yep, they just spent the last 3 or so years widening it from Perrysburg to the north side of Findlay. Widening through Findlay itself to just past the OH 15/US 68 exit is currently underway, which includes rebuilding the OH 15/US 68 interchange (which now has a new flyover open to replace the old loop ramp)
QuoteI just wish they could widened the approach on the Cincinnati side to the Brent Spence Bridge, actually the Covington side should be widened too. Hopefully a second span gets built soon there.
They have the plans drawn up for redoing that entire stretch on both sides and adding a second span...but the issue is funding it, since Kentucky is opposed to using tolls.
^ I don't see why, since Kentucky approved bridge tolls down in Louisville. Unless they're just being obstinate...
Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2019, 11:26:21 AM
^ I don't see why, since Kentucky approved bridge tolls down in Louisville. Unless they're just being obstinate...
just spitballing here, but...
In Louisville the commutters most affected by the tolls are on the non Kentucky side of the river.
In Cincinnati it would be the Kentucky side that gets the shaft.
Quote from: Buck87 on January 13, 2019, 10:54:19 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 12, 2019, 06:45:41 PM
They must of widened the part between Perrysburg and Findlay then, last time I was through there I wasn't paying attention to the number of lanes.
Yep, they just spent the last 3 or so years widening it from Perrysburg to the north side of Findlay. Widening through Findlay itself to just past the OH 15/US 68 exit is currently underway, which includes rebuilding the OH 15/US 68 interchange (which now has a new flyover open to replace the old loop ramp)
QuoteI just wish they could widened the approach on the Cincinnati side to the Brent Spence Bridge, actually the Covington side should be widened too. Hopefully a second span gets built soon there.
They have the plans drawn up for redoing that entire stretch on both sides and adding a second span...but the issue is funding it, since Kentucky is opposed to using tolls.
I noticed the construction at the US-68/OH-15 exit. It'd be nice if they could widen it all the way to Troy.
Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2019, 09:57:43 AM
Quote from: BeltwayIt is unfortunate that weekend volume data is not available, because it would help outline the problems on some of our favorite Interstate highways, such as I-81 TN-Harrisburg and I-95 SC/NC.
Agree it's unfortunate we don't have more detailed weekend data. That would help settle the disagreement. But I was able to find a proxy for I-95 weekend volumes, using VDOT's average weekend daily traffic. It's the best we've got from the available data.
Those are averaged figures, which aren't even really applicable for one Interstate highway corridor. What would be needed are segment by segment (say 10 miles perhaps) weekend volumes for the particular Interstate highway that is under consideration for expansion.
Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2019, 09:57:43 AM
Quote from: Hurricane RexI've also seen with a 10% truck traffic, its 72,000 C/D level for 4 lanes, and 108,000 for 6 lanes.
It's also going to depend on the other factors I described above. Keeping all other above-mentioned variables constant but dropping the truck percentage to 10%, the LOS C/D threshold for 4 lanes is much lower...just under 44,000 vpd. And around 66,800 for 6 lanes.
(EDIT)
QuoteIf we are talking about 8 laning, then I-5 from Salem to Wilsonville is around 95,000 AADT, well above that threshold for 8 laning, in fact it could be at the threshold for 10 laning.
So I took a look at this segment, finding what data I could from ODOT. 2017 volumes from the north side of Salem to the south side of Wilsonville range from 93K-100K. Let's go with 96K for the mean (the average is slightly below 96K). Regarding a point Beltway made about weekend volumes, the ATR on the south side of Wilsonville shows that weekend volumes are actually lower than weekday volumes several months of the year, and not much higher than weekday volumes during the remaining months. The ATR also recorded the 30th Highest Hour percentage (8.2%), which we can use in lieu of specific weekday or weekend volumes. Truck percentage ranges from 13.9% to 17.5%. We'll use an even 16% as the mean.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find directional split or peak hour factor data for this segment, so I'm going to default to the same values I used upthread (65% split and 0.9 PHF).
Calculating this out, I come up with LOS D, though it wouldn't take a whole lot of traffic for it to go to LOS E. By FHWA's rural LOS criteria, most of it would warrant 8 lanes (which would result in an LOS C even with higher volumes). 10 would be overkill.
According to an ODOT project evaluation for the Boone Bridge, that section of road was LOS C (albeit barely IMO, and I think they stretched the definition.
LG-TP260
Quote from: froggie on January 12, 2019, 06:39:50 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 05, 2019, 06:45:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 04, 2019, 10:37:55 PM
So about how many miles are we up to, perhaps 12,000 out of the 48,000 miles of Interstate highway, that need to be widened to 6 lanes?
25% seems a bit high.
We will get a final mileage count at some point, but my guess is closer to ~7,000.
(Replying a week late because it took me that long to get the dataset winnowed down to a size that won't crash ArcMap...)
...
7,446 miles (15.5%) meet the OP's criteria of being in rural areas (also to include urbanized areas less than 50,000 population), currently 4 lanes, and at least 30,000 AADT.
...
- I-90 from Buffalo, NY to I-490 (towards Rochester)
Thanks for the reply... awesome info! :thumbsup:
Glad to see my guesstimate was pretty darn close, and especially glad to see the Thruway Rochester-Buffalo made the list!
Most of the segments you listed didn't come as a huge surprise, although there were at least a few that hadn't been mentioned yet, like I-71 from Columbus to Cincinnati.
After looking at the traffic counts along the 90 mile stretch of US-23 between the Ohio state line and Flint I'd say the cutoff line should be Milan, north of that six lanes and in the Ann Arbor area between the western M-14 split and US-12 eight lanes.
There are 90,000 vehicles a day that use the stretch between the western M-14 split and I-94 and it boggles the mind on why MDOT has not widened this stretch of highway. It's six lanes only in the stretch with the M-14 multiplex.
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 02:27:54 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2019, 09:57:43 AM
Quote from: BeltwayIt is unfortunate that weekend volume data is not available, because it would help outline the problems on some of our favorite Interstate highways, such as I-81 TN-Harrisburg and I-95 SC/NC.
Agree it's unfortunate we don't have more detailed weekend data. That would help settle the disagreement. But I was able to find a proxy for I-95 weekend volumes, using VDOT's average weekend daily traffic. It's the best we've got from the available data.
Those are averaged figures, which aren't even really applicable for one Interstate highway corridor. What would be needed are segment by segment (say 10 miles perhaps) weekend volumes for the particular Interstate highway that is under consideration for expansion.
The way VDOT publishes its traffic volumes, you can actually calculate segment-by-segment average weekend volumes (VDOT defining the weekend as Fri-Sun). That's what I had done for my I-95 analysis.
Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2019, 06:37:15 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 02:27:54 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2019, 09:57:43 AM
Quote from: BeltwayIt is unfortunate that weekend volume data is not available, because it would help outline the problems on some of our favorite Interstate highways, such as I-81 TN-Harrisburg and I-95 SC/NC.
Agree it's unfortunate we don't have more detailed weekend data. That would help settle the disagreement. But I was able to find a proxy for I-95 weekend volumes, using VDOT's average weekend daily traffic. It's the best we've got from the available data.
Those are averaged figures, which aren't even really applicable for one Interstate highway corridor. What would be needed are segment by segment (say 10 miles perhaps) weekend volumes for the particular Interstate highway that is under consideration for expansion.
The way VDOT publishes its traffic volumes, you can actually calculate segment-by-segment average weekend volumes (VDOT defining the weekend as Fri-Sun). That's what I had done for my I-95 analysis.
I forgot to include my qualifier, "the highest 20 weekends in the year plus holidays". That would take specific traffic engineering analysis on each segment.
For I-75 in Michigan keep in mind that a lot of people have vacation homes on the lakes in the northern part of the state that live in the Detroit area and I-75 connects the two so you're going to have a lot of weekend traffic in the summer, especially on the Holiday weekends. US-127 and US-131 both have the same issue with Lansing/Jackson and Grand Rapids/Kalamazoo respectfully.
I-94 between US-127 and US-23 should be six lanes already, then again from I-69 to Mattawan.
I-94 should also be at least eight lanes between US-12 in Ypsilanti and M-19 near New Haven, a pretty hefty distance of 61 miles where I-94 sees over 100,000 VPD in many areas of this stretch including a long stretch from Haggerty Road to Roseville. The entire Edsel Ford Freeway is as outdated as it gets for an Interstate highway.
I wonder if it would be possible to get an estimated mileage by state?
So far, it would seem that Virginia and Pennsylvania have the most miles of six-laning in order, with New York, South Carolina, and Indiana not far behind.
Quote from: webny99 on January 14, 2019, 09:36:04 AM
I wonder if it would be possible to get an estimated mileage by state?
So far, it would seem that Virginia and Pennsylvania have the most miles of six-laning in order, with New York, South Carolina, and Indiana not far behind.
Has anyone yet said much about California? Just between I-5, I-15 and I-80 there is at least 600 miles that likely need 6-laning, and that would make them #1.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 12, 2019, 07:37:09 PM
Thank you very much for posting that. That was very interesting and insightful. :nod:
It appears that I-15 from Barstow, California to Nevada must indeed have a good bit of traffic. Perhaps Interstate 15 being a minimum of six lanes from the SoCal Megalopolis to Las Vegas could be in order.
Not sure about the regular daily traffic volumes, but it does get jam packed on weekends and holidays with the SoCal folks spending time in Vegas. It's a rough go northbound at the beginning of weekends and much worse southbound on the last day of a holiday weekend. The backup is pretty bad (1) just before the state line, where the #3 lane exits at Primm and (2) the CA Agriculture inspection station slows/stops traffic.
So mileage data for 6 laning? Lets see...
Oregon: I-5: +63 miles
I-84 +1 (Boise)
I-205: +6 miles
Washington: I-5: +78 miles
I-90 +about 40 (I don't know the exact mp when it drops from 6 lanes to 4)
LG-TP260
US 67 (from the terminus of the new 6 lanes at exit 16). 6 lanes to the new exit 21 (AR 38). In the far future when it becomes I-57, the whole freeway may need to be 6 laned, depending on how much truck traffic utilizes the route from Dallas (via I-30); points west (I-40) to Chicago. I-30 from northeast of Dallas (east of Lake Hubbard), TX to the outskirts of Texarkana needs to be 6 laned.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 01, 2019, 02:14:14 PM
MN: I-94, St. Michael to Clearwater (there is progress being made toward this)
WI: I-90/94, Tomah to I-39, or at least Dells - I-39
The 3rd lane ending in Portage never made any sense. I always thought the reason why it was 3 lanes out of Madison is to handle traffic going to the Dells but the 3rd lane stops before it reaches the Dells.
^ It makes sense in the context that, even today, about 1/3 of the traffic (37% specifically per 2017 counts) on 39/90/94 exits at 39/78.
Quote from: dvferyance on March 05, 2019, 04:33:38 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 01, 2019, 02:14:14 PM
MN: I-94, St. Michael to Clearwater (there is progress being made toward this)
WI: I-90/94, Tomah to I-39, or at least Dells - I-39
The 3rd lane ending in Portage never made any sense. I always thought the reason why it was 3 lanes out of Madison is to handle traffic going to the Dells but the 3rd lane stops before it reaches the Dells.
It definitely makes sense. You have 3 interstates between Madison and Portage. One of them exits at Portage. Makes sense that you'd lose a lane there.
Quote from: tribar on March 06, 2019, 02:09:35 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 05, 2019, 04:33:38 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 01, 2019, 02:14:14 PM
MN: I-94, St. Michael to Clearwater (there is progress being made toward this)
WI: I-90/94, Tomah to I-39, or at least Dells - I-39
The 3rd lane ending in Portage never made any sense. I always thought the reason why it was 3 lanes out of Madison is to handle traffic going to the Dells but the 3rd lane stops before it reaches the Dells.
It definitely makes sense. You have 3 interstates between Madison and Portage. One of them exits at Portage. Makes sense that you'd lose a lane there.
But even then you're on a highway that is carrying two different routes.
After driving to Chicago the last several times I have done that trip I have noticed how badly an I-94 widening is needed. To start out in western Michigan I-94 has an emergency route that is carried on another road not an Interstate but another road such as a state highway I can't think of a good example right off the top of my head M-96 might be one since that highway has both terminals at a business loop for I-94. But with that said I-94 is four lanes (two in each direction) from Ann Arbor to Benton Harbor except for a small stretch in Kalamazoo near US-131. With all the Detroit-Chicago traffic and vice versa I would think that an upgrade to I-94 would have been done already or at least started or being planned.
I seriously think that I-94 should be rebuilt through the entire state. It has very outdated interchanges in Detroit and the number of lanes are outdated as well. In 2015 the highway averaged 168,200 vpd between I-75 and Chene Street in Detroit (the busiest stretch of I-94 in Michigan). The lowest number of vpd anywhere on I-94 in Michigan was 12,554 vpd just west of the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron (it's eastern terminus). The stretch that has 168,200 vpd has six lanes (three in each direction). This is through a major city and the highway has never been up to Interstate standards in the first place.
This is the way I think it should be:
Port Huron to 23 Mile Road: Four lanes (two in each direction)
23 Mile Road to I-696: Eight lanes (four in each direction)
I-696 to I-275: Ten lanes (five in each direction)
I-275 to M-14: Eight lanes (four in each direction)
M-14 to the Michigan/Indiana border: Six lanes (three in each direction)
Currently it is six lanes from I-196 to the Michigan/Indiana border and continues as six lanes (three in each direction) all the way to Lake Station, Indiana where it joins I-80 and becomes the Borman Expressway.
Also not mentioned elsewhere in this thread and likely not totally kosher for it, IMHO, the entire I-39/90/94 triplex here in Wisconsin should be upgraded from six lanes to eight lanes.
Mike
In Louisiana? ALL of Interstate 10 needs to be upgraded to at least 6 lanes through this state, and probably jacked up to 8 lanes through Lafayette, Baton Rouge (though that is already planned), and from the I-55 split in LaPlace through NOLA. How to handle the portion through the Atchafalaya Basin will be the tricky section.
It would also be nice if they could find some way to increase capacity on the new Mississippi River Bridge going into BTR and fix the mess of the I-10/I-110 Split "exit ramp". Though, I still think a south bypass freeway would do the trick for that, along with the proposed North Bypass Loop and the current plans for I-10 proper.
Long term would welcome widening I-49 from I-10 in Lafayette to just north of Opelousas (US 167 divergence at Nuba, Exit 23) to six lanes, too.
Other than the sections through Shreveport (from the Texas state line to the east I-220 interchangew) and through Monroe, I-20 looks OK for now.
Going off the OP's criterion of 30K+ AADT, that puts all of I-35 between Goldsby, Oklahoma and the Texas state line in need of widening. (Goldsby is where the interstate widens to 3 lanes as it enters Norman and the OKC metro). 106 or so miles.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 07, 2019, 06:51:22 AM
Going off the OP's criterion of 30K+ AADT, that puts all of I-35 between Goldsby, Oklahoma and the Texas state line in need of widening. (Goldsby is where the interstate widens to 3 lanes as it enters Norman and the OKC metro). 106 or so miles.
I-35 needs to be six lanes from OKC to Dallas. Texas is already widening it 8 lanes a mile into Oklahoma. There are few sections in the arbuckles have climbing lanes. I am not sure how much it would cost to widen it.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 07, 2019, 09:39:20 AM
Texas is already widening it 8 lanes a mile into Oklahoma.
:hmmm:
Quote from: webny99 on March 08, 2019, 12:29:22 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 07, 2019, 09:39:20 AM
Texas is already widening it 8 lanes a mile into Oklahoma.
:hmmm:
Sssh, I'm hunting wabbits...LOL! Those sneaky Texans!
Rick
Quote from: webny99 on March 08, 2019, 12:29:22 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 07, 2019, 09:39:20 AM
Texas is already widening it 8 lanes a mile into Oklahoma.
:hmmm:
The two-mile sections are mind-blowing to drive on.
Quote from: webny99 on March 08, 2019, 12:29:22 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 07, 2019, 09:39:20 AM
Texas is already widening it 8 lanes a mile into Oklahoma.
:hmmm:
I did a horrible job phrasing that. There is a project in the planning stages to completely reconstruct and realign I-35 in North Texas. It includes the replacement of the Red River bridges and added frontage roads, IIRC, into Oklahoma.
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/wichita-falls/020515.html
Interstate 10 in Southeastern Arizona.
Twenty miles, East of downtown Tucson. Milepost 262 to exit 281. Combination of widening to inside (western part) then to outside (eastern part). With corresponding full depth reconstruction, SPUI interchanges , and full one way frontage. No Houghton Road DDI. Years overdue.
Benson area truck lanes.
a. WB milepost 305 to just east of exit 302. Bottom of the climb, to the top.
b. EB milepost 305, to Texas Canyon rest area. Bottom of the climb, to the top.
Completely to outside, with median preservation. All new widened bridges and full depth reconstruction milepost 303 to bridge crossing at roughly milepost 305. Currently features extremely heaved pavement, original concrete slabs moved by expansive soils, to include overpass settlement, and heavy truck traffic.
I'm not sure if Springfield, IL counts as rural (115,000 population) but I certainly wouldn't call it urban. Regardless, for those of you that have traveled I-55 through here I'm sure you'll remember that both north of town and south of town there are six lanes of wonderfulness but once you actually get to the city limits the interstate inexplicably drops to 4 lanes. This stretch of road was installed in the late sixties and early seventies so I've asked all the old-timers if they could remember what the rationale was and no one I've talked to so far can remember. I've asked numerous IDoT and City officials I've known over the years (I work for State gov't) and no one there knows either.
Because of the congestion of traffic condensing from 6 down to 4 lanes there are numerous accidents along this 10 mile stretch of road through town. In the past 4 days (March 10-14) there have been 5 crashes in this area resulting in 2 deaths and one Life Flight to one of the local hospitals. I now call this area the Springfield Kill Zone. Take I-57 instead!! Save yourselves!!!
Even though they have studied the problem, and even have plans to do a complete tear out and rebuild ([/url]http://i55springfield.com/site/[/url]), there is of course no money to fund any of it because it's Illinois :banghead:. Meanwhile, I can retire in 2 years and I hear I-75 on the gulf side of Florida is nice. It's 6 lanes minimum from Tampa all the way down to Naples. . .I think.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 12, 2019, 07:37:09 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 12, 2019, 06:39:50 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 05, 2019, 06:45:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 04, 2019, 10:37:55 PM
So about how many miles are we up to, perhaps 12,000 out of the 48,000 miles of Interstate highway, that need to be widened to 6 lanes?
25% seems a bit high.
We will get a final mileage count at some point, but my guess is closer to ~7,000.
(Replying a week late because it took me that long to get the dataset winnowed down to a size that won't crash ArcMap...)
Using the 2017 FHWA Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) dataset. This is from data that the state DOTs (or equivalents) have submitted to FHWA...part of the recent "ARNOLD" requirements for all state DOTs to submit their road networks to FHWA in a GIS Linear Reference System format.
The dataset includes recent Interstate additions such as I-2 and I-14 in Texas and also includes the limited-access segments of Alaska's "Interstates". It does not include the latest additions such as I-69 north of Bloomington, IN or the completion of I-269 in Mississippi.
Out of approximately 48,158 miles of Interstate highway...:
11,887 miles (just under 25%) are listed as already being 6 or more lanes.
3,487 miles (7.2%) are listed as 8 or more lanes.
7,446 miles (15.5%) meet the OP's criteria of being in rural areas (also to include urbanized areas less than 50,000 population), currently 4 lanes, and at least 30,000 AADT.
2,751 miles (5.7%) that are in rural areas and currently 4 lanes, but have a more restrictive (yet better-than-normal-scenaro) volume of 41,000 AADT or higher. 41,000 AADT is the LOS C/D threshold for a rural roadway with the following characteristics:
- Free flow speed of 75 MPH
- Interchange spacing of 2+ miles
- 25% trucks
- K-Factor of 10%
- Directional split of 65%
- Peak Hour Factor of 0.9
Most rural Interstates have a lower truck percentage, a lower directional split, and a higher peak hour factor, all of which would result in a higher LOS threshold than 41K.
Even with the "more restrictive" AADT level, several notable candidates stand out:
- I-5 from Eugene to Salem, OR
- I-10 from Lafayette to Baton Rouge, LA
- I-15 from Barstow, CA to the Nevada line
- I-26 from I-95 to Columbia, SC
- I-71 from Cincinnati to Columbus, OH
- I-77 from Columbia to Rock Hill, SC
- I-81 from Wythville to Strasburg, VA
- I-85 from outside Atlanta, GA into South Carolina
- I-90 from Buffalo, NY to I-490 (towards Rochester)
- I-95 from Savannah, GA to I-26 (noted a number of times upthread)
- Most of I-95 through North Carolina (exceptions south of Lumbarton, bypassing Fayetteville, and Kenley-Wilson)
Lastly, there are about 230 miles that are in rural areas, currently 4 lanes, but have a volume of 62,360 AADT or higher. This volume level meets the LOS C/D threshold I described above for needing 8 lanes, though the actual LOS threshold for these road segments would need to be determined at a local level.
Thank you very much for posting that. That was very interesting and insightful. :nod:
It appears that I-15 from Barstow, California to Nevada must indeed have a good bit of traffic. Perhaps Interstate 15 being a minimum of six lanes from the SoCal Megalopolis to Las Vegas could be in order.
If you have ever driven I-15 thru the Mojave on a weekend or near a holiday (any holiday/excuse for a 3-day weekend), you would agree that 6 lanes should be a minimum through this stretch.
I have been stuck in stop-and-go traffic in Mountain Pass (the last hamlet one passes thru before turning the corner and descending toward the Nevada line at Primm) on the day after Christmas...at 10 PM.
I-10 in Arizona is getting 6-laned between Casa Grande and Tucson, but that stretch through the Gila River reservation is a pretty bad bottleneck. And I feel I-10 should also be 6-laned from Verrado Way all the way to at least AZ 85.
I-5 should be 6-laned between Wheeler Ridge and Tracy, too.
I have never understood why I-75 between MM's 111 and 115 goes down to four lanes for a 4 mile stretch when it's at least six lanes everywhere else between the Ohio line and Bay City. I think I've mentioned this on here before but I-75 really should be at least six lanes from the Ohio line to the northern terminus of US-127 then cut down to four lanes there until the northern terminus in Sault Ste. Marie.
Quote from: Paulinator66 on March 14, 2019, 03:55:56 PM
I'm not sure if Springfield, IL counts as rural (115,000 population) but I certainly wouldn't call it urban. Regardless, for those of you that have traveled I-55 through here I'm sure you'll remember that both north of town and south of town there are six lanes of wonderfulness but once you actually get to the city limits the interstate inexplicably drops to 4 lanes. This stretch of road was installed in the late sixties and early seventies so I've asked all the old-timers if they could remember what the rationale was and no one I've talked to so far can remember. I've asked numerous IDoT and City officials I've known over the years (I work for State gov't) and no one there knows either.
Because of the congestion of traffic condensing from 6 down to 4 lanes there are numerous accidents along this 10 mile stretch of road through town. In the past 4 days (March 10-14) there have been 5 crashes in this area resulting in 2 deaths and one Life Flight to one of the local hospitals. I now call this area the Springfield Kill Zone. Take I-57 instead!! Save yourselves!!!
Even though they have studied the problem, and even have plans to do a complete tear out and rebuild ([/url]http://i55springfield.com/site/[/url]), there is of course no money to fund any of it because it's Illinois :banghead:. Meanwhile, I can retire in 2 years and I hear I-75 on the gulf side of Florida is nice. It's 6 lanes minimum from Tampa all the way down to Naples. . .I think.
I am a former IDOT employee but don't have any particular "inside information" . The best I can guess is that the 6 lane section north was built to accommodate the eventual extra traffic via I-155 between Springfield and Peoria. Not sure what the rationale was going south where the extra lane drops around Divernon. But maybe there was hope that the traffic on I-55 around Springfield would split up, with a portion taking the "west bypass" of Business 66/IL 4 and reducing the need for the extra lanes on the east side of Springfield. That, and the expense of a wider bridge across the Sangamon River, are the only two that I could come up with.
I-5 should be at least six lanes from CA 99 (south junction) to I-505.
I-10 should be at least six lanes from CA 60 to I-8, and from I-35 to I-95.
I-15 should be at least six lanes from I-40 to NV 215.
I-16 should be at least six lanes for its entire length.
I-20 should be at least six lanes from I-59 (south junction) to U.S. 129/U.S. 441.
I-24 should be at least six lanes from U.S. 60 to I-59, and eight lanes from I-59 to I-75.
I-26 should be at least six lanes from U.S. 19 (north junction) to I-526.
I-40 should be at least six lanes from I-30 to I-81.
I-45 should be at least six lanes for its entire length.
I-55 should be at least six lanes from I-70 (east junction) to I-72 (east junction).
I-64 should be at least six lanes from I-65 to I-77 (south junction).
I-65 should be at least six lanes from I-22 to I-465 (south junction).
I-70 should be at least six lanes from I-335 to I-57 (north junction), and I-470 (east junction) to the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike should be at least six lanes from the Ohio state line to I-70 (west junction), and I-70 (east junction) to I-76 (east junction). The I-70 concurrency should be eight lanes.
I-76 should be at least six lanes from the Pennsylvania Turnpike to the New Jersey state line.
I-77 should be at least six lanes from I-26 to I-81 (north junction), and I-64 (east junction) to I-79.
I-78 should be at least six lanes for its entire length.
I-79 should be at least six lanes from U.S. 50 to I-68, and from I-70 (west junction) to I-376.
I-81 should be at least six lanes from I-40 to I-78.
I-85 should be at least six lanes from I-185 (Georgia) to I-40 (west junction). From U.S. 29 (South Carolina south junction) to I-85 Business (north junction), and from U.S. 74 to U.S. 321, it should be eight lanes.
I-95 should be at least six lanes from the South Carolina state line to I-85.
Quote from: capt.ron on March 05, 2019, 10:50:07 AM
US 67 (from the terminus of the new 6 lanes at exit 16). 6 lanes to the new exit 21 (AR 38). In the far future when it becomes I-57, the whole freeway may need to be 6 laned, depending on how much truck traffic utilizes the route from Dallas (via I-30); points west (I-40) to Chicago. I-30 from northeast of Dallas (east of Lake Hubbard), TX to the outskirts of Texarkana needs to be 6 laned.
Glad someone agrees. I drove I-30 from Texarkana to Dallas and it was very crowded. This was in 2012.
All of I-41 and all of I-94 will soon need to be six lanes in Wisconsin. For I-94, the remaining portions are between Waukesha and Cottage Grove, and between Portage and Minnesota. For I-41, it's between the NW MKE suburbs and Oshkosh, and parts between Appleton and Green Bay that are in process of being widened.
For Rick Powell.I asked that about 55 and how 4 lane Illinois 29 moved up so quickly not even an NHS route to 4 lane and was told huh you know roads around Springfield tend to get built.......Oh and 72. .......
Quote from: thspfcall of I-94 will soon need to be six lanes in Wisconsin.
What are you basing this on? Elk Mound to Tomah is under the OP's 30,000 AADT criteria (which is low given typical LOS D volumes). WisDOT's own traffic volume forecasts keep it under 30K from Eau Claire to Tomah through 2030 and still under 30K through most of Jackson and Monroe Counties through 2045.
Quote from: froggie on April 24, 2019, 09:56:41 AM
Quote from: thspfcall of I-94 will soon need to be six lanes in Wisconsin.
What are you basing this on? Elk Mound to Tomah is under the OP's 30,000 AADT criteria (which is low given typical LOS D volumes). WisDOT's own traffic volume forecasts keep it under 30K from Eau Claire to Tomah through 2030 and still under 30K through most of Jackson and Monroe Counties through 2045.
Yeah, north/west of Tomah didn't seem to have any traffic issues the few times I've taken that route into the Twin Cities.
I can't speak for Milwaukee > Madison, but I would think it would be a higher priority than Tomah > Elk Mound.
Quote from: webny99 on April 24, 2019, 12:50:03 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 24, 2019, 09:56:41 AM
Quote from: thspfcall of I-94 will soon need to be six lanes in Wisconsin.
What are you basing this on? Elk Mound to Tomah is under the OP's 30,000 AADT criteria (which is low given typical LOS D volumes). WisDOT's own traffic volume forecasts keep it under 30K from Eau Claire to Tomah through 2030 and still under 30K through most of Jackson and Monroe Counties through 2045.
Yeah, north/west of Tomah didn't seem to have any traffic issues the few times I've taken that route into the Twin Cities.
I can't speak for Milwaukee > Madison, but I would think it would be a higher priority than Tomah > Elk Mound.
What about Madison ---> Wisconsin Dells
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on April 24, 2019, 01:27:05 PM
What about Madison ---> Wisconsin Dells
I believe that is already six lanes, or at least under construction.
Quote from: webny99 on April 24, 2019, 02:16:41 PM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on April 24, 2019, 01:27:05 PM
What about Madison ---> Wisconsin Dells
I believe that is already six lanes, or at least under construction.
Madison to Portage is 6 lanes. Portage to Wis. Dells is 4 lanes.
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on April 24, 2019, 01:27:05 PM
Quote from: webny99 on April 24, 2019, 12:50:03 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 24, 2019, 09:56:41 AM
Quote from: thspfcall of I-94 will soon need to be six lanes in Wisconsin.
What are you basing this on? Elk Mound to Tomah is under the OP's 30,000 AADT criteria (which is low given typical LOS D volumes). WisDOT's own traffic volume forecasts keep it under 30K from Eau Claire to Tomah through 2030 and still under 30K through most of Jackson and Monroe Counties through 2045.
Yeah, north/west of Tomah didn't seem to have any traffic issues the few times I've taken that route into the Twin Cities.
I can't speak for Milwaukee > Madison, but I would think it would be a higher priority than Tomah > Elk Mound.
What about Madison ---> Wisconsin Dells
IMHO, the need is eight lanes for the entire I-39/90/94 triplex and six lanes for the I-90/94 duplex between I-39 (Cascade interchange near Portage) and the I-90/94 split at Tomah.
Four lanes is just fine for I-94 between Tomah and WI 29 at Elk Mound.
Mike
Quote from: Gnutella on April 23, 2019, 06:19:19 PM
I-15 should be at least six lanes from I-40 to NV 215.
Nevada has done its part. I-15 is three or more lanes from the Primm interchange (CA state line) past I-215/CC-215, clear to Speedway Blvd north of the greater Las Vegas area.
If folks would just drive the speed limit no one would need to worry about additional lane capacity. Stay in your lane and quit weaving. Those are the folks that cause the back ups.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on April 27, 2019, 08:12:02 PM
If folks would just drive the speed limit no one would need to worry about additional lane capacity. Stay in your lane and quit weaving. Those are the folks that cause the back ups.
if folks would drive faster and better it would increase the capacity. Cars moving at 100 MPH through a lane will allow that lane to push through more cars than ones going 70MPH.
What causes backups is people traveling slower than the speed of traffic which impedes it. Myself, I get frustrated with some dick in the passing lane creeping which I'll often end up weaving. You'll get a whole group of cars who will follow each other doing that though when that happens with me I'll often back off as I no longer will race in traffic.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on April 27, 2019, 08:12:02 PM
If folks would just drive the speed limit no one would need to worry about additional lane capacity. Stay in your lane and quit weaving. Those are the folks that cause the back ups.
Um, people don't usually weave just for fun. They weave because somebody's moving slowly on the left and they want to get past. If slower traffic kept to the right, there would never be a need for anyone to weave.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 27, 2019, 08:29:15 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on April 27, 2019, 08:12:02 PM
If folks would just drive the speed limit no one would need to worry about additional lane capacity. Stay in your lane and quit weaving. Those are the folks that cause the back ups.
if folks would drive faster and better it would increase the capacity. Cars moving at 100 MPH through a lane will allow that lane to push through more cars than ones going 70MPH.
The reality is a bit more nuanced. As a general rule, as travel speeds increase, the average distance drivers put between them and the vehicle in front of them also increases, so you wind up with slightly less throughput as a result.
I'm actually kind of surprised that this hasn't been added yet (yes, I went through all ten pages first).
Interstate 90 in South Dakota, between mileposts 29 and 65, Sturgis to Box Elder. I don't know if it's been officially proposed, but a bunch of different sources said they wanted it.
Their main reason for this is for the motorcycle rally.
My main reason is that it's kinda dumb that two local roads are wider than the local interstate. (Omaha Street (SD 44) and West Main Street both have six-lane sections.)
Quote from: webny99 on April 27, 2019, 09:12:23 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on April 27, 2019, 08:12:02 PM
If folks would just drive the speed limit no one would need to worry about additional lane capacity. Stay in your lane and quit weaving. Those are the folks that cause the back ups.
Um, people don't usually weave just for fun. They weave because somebody's moving slowly on the left and they want to get past. If slower traffic kept to the right, there would never be a need for anyone to weave.
This exactly and I see it all the time driving in Michigan, it's highly annoying to have to do that. I always wonder what people were thinking when they made the lane change to get in the left lane in the first place.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 11, 2019, 06:52:56 PM
I-75 maintains at least 6 lanes between Chattanooga, TN and Naples, FL, a distance of 735 miles (with a couple of half-mile 4-lane sections at major junctions, but 6-lanes everywhere else).
FDOT is still working on six-laning the stretch from Exit 301 to the Sumter County Rest Areas, which was supposed to be over in April 2019. The month is almost over and it's still not done partially due to things like storm delays, but I still think they'll be over before the summer.
Six lanes in rural areas just kills the rural character of the area.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on April 28, 2019, 08:08:39 AM
Six lanes in rural areas just kills the rural character of the area.
If so, how does four lanes not kill the rural character of the area?
Quote from: Beltway on April 28, 2019, 08:19:07 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on April 28, 2019, 08:08:39 AM
Six lanes in rural areas just kills the rural character of the area.
If so, how does four lanes not kill the rural character of the area?
It does indeed kill the rural character of the area. It cuts across formerly pristine land, for the majority purpose of bringing people
through the region (i.e. transcontinental freight), not
to the region. It is analogous to when railroads were laid across the central US, cutting off former cattle grazing land and migration routes.
There are numerous examples of rural interstates having issues with animal migration (e.g. special crossing corridors with fencing, or underpasses) which I think speaks to the fact that they are a negative impact on the rural scene.
I'm not saying get rid of them, but simply acknowledge their negative impacts.
Rural areas need non-expressway routes, in order to improve local commerce. Lord knows that small towns suffer enough these days as it is (particularly in downstate Virginia).
That certainly is a unique idea that rural areas need more non-expressway routes to improve local commerce.
From what I've seen, rural communities are dying because the industries that caused them to exist have reduced compensation to remain competitive, moved out or just shut down. Not sure how building more dinky roads helps them to rebound.
Quote from: froggie on April 27, 2019, 10:32:46 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 27, 2019, 08:29:15 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on April 27, 2019, 08:12:02 PM
If folks would just drive the speed limit no one would need to worry about additional lane capacity. Stay in your lane and quit weaving. Those are the folks that cause the back ups.
if folks would drive faster and better it would increase the capacity. Cars moving at 100 MPH through a lane will allow that lane to push through more cars than ones going 70MPH.
The reality is a bit more nuanced. As a general rule, as travel speeds increase, the average distance drivers put between them and the vehicle in front of them also increases, so you wind up with slightly less throughput as a result.
The maximum capacity of a road is achieved at the maximum safe speed at which motorists can keep a 2 second cushion. This means that the safe speed is actually irrelevant to the throughput and tends to top out at 1800 vehicles per lane per hour.
You can get SLIGHTLY better throughput at a MUCH lower level of service at speeds at which motorists don't feel the need to keep a 2-second cushion (like 15 MPH), but that is no way to run a road with an 80 MPH design speed.
I thought the FHWA's "pocket guide" assigned capacity per speed limit: Something like 2250 per lane per hour at 55 mph, 2300 at 60 mph, 2350 at 65 mph and then 2400 at 70 mph?
(totally IIRC, as I am sitting in a Sunday School class right now)
If there's a 2-second cushion, higher speeds mean more vehicles (although it approaches a constant), because of the lengths of the cars themselves.
Quote from: Beltway on April 28, 2019, 08:19:07 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on April 28, 2019, 08:08:39 AM
Six lanes in rural areas just kills the rural character of the area.
If so, how does four lanes not kill the rural character of the area?
I agree. It's not really the number of lanes. To me, it's more about the width of the ROW, or more precisely, the width of the median.
In Europe, where ROW is really expensive, you have six-lane motorways but with very narrow medians. Total horizontal width is usually less, or equal to, a typical four-lane rural freeway in the US:
(https://i.imgur.com/Frirqax.gif)
Quote from: 1 on April 28, 2019, 01:32:26 PM
If there's a 2-second cushion, higher speeds mean more vehicles (although it approaches a constant), because of the lengths of the cars themselves.
My understanding is that there is not constant cushion. It grows alongside speed (though not as much as the government may think it does). At 70, assuming a 2-second gap, that's about 200 feet between cars. At 20, you don't really need to leave more than about a second of following distance, if that. Still only about 30 feet. Because of all the wasted space at 70, freeways are not running at their highest capacity. Probably why freeways slow way down at rush hour.
IIRC, because humans are not very wise, we leave tiny following distances at freeway speeds up to around 55 or 60; at those speeds, two things occur: high capacity on account of the speed, and high capacity on account of the lack of wasted space. As far as I know, this is why urban speed limits remain lower than rural areas, beyond physical restrictions. Big reason that I've always supported variable speed limits, so you can have higher limits during off hours.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 28, 2019, 01:37:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 28, 2019, 08:19:07 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on April 28, 2019, 08:08:39 AM
Six lanes in rural areas just kills the rural character of the area.
If so, how does four lanes not kill the rural character of the area?
I agree. It's not really the number of lanes. To me, it's more about the width of the ROW, or more precisely, the width of the median.
In Europe, where ROW is really expensive, you have six-lane motorways but with very narrow medians. Total horizontal width is usually less, or equal to, a typical four-lane rural freeway in the US:
(https://i.imgur.com/Frirqax.gif)
I also think that's more a result of the reduced median and not the visual effect of having six lanes. This interstate in central Illinois (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9956545,-89.5111463,499m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)has six lanes, plus a frontage road, a railroad, and a coal conveyor run parallel to it through the same fields. I've driven it countless times and it's always felt rural.
The poster does have a point about how highways and railroads interfere with animal migration. More needs to be done in making sure animals can safely migrate by maintaining some level of separation. Wildlife overpasses (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2019/04/wildlife-overpasses-underpasses-make-animals-people-safer/) and underpasses (https://www.aspentimes.com/news/colorados-wildlife-crossings-save-lives-officials-say-they-need-your-help-to-build-more/) along with low long bridges rather than causeways (http://www.themunicipal.com/2015/08/wildlife-underpasses-projects-in-partnership/) through swamps are vitally important in keeping animal diversity strong, especially with larger mammals. A lot of people think this is only for rural areas, but many (https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/edmonton-set-to-open-4-million-underpass-for-moose-that-will-offset-impact-of-new-bridge-residential-neighbourhoods) suburban (https://www.bscgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/875192984586fca8999dda.pdf) areas (https://www.treehugger.com/animals/man-building-hedgehog-highways-london.html) support a lot of wildlife.
I realize this costs money in the short run. However, it saves lives - both animal and human - along with all the benefits associated with a more diverse ecosystem.
Quote from: skluth on April 28, 2019, 02:20:37 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 28, 2019, 01:37:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 28, 2019, 08:19:07 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on April 28, 2019, 08:08:39 AM
Six lanes in rural areas just kills the rural character of the area.
If so, how does four lanes not kill the rural character of the area?
I agree. It's not really the number of lanes. To me, it's more about the width of the ROW, or more precisely, the width of the median.
In Europe, where ROW is really expensive, you have six-lane motorways but with very narrow medians. Total horizontal width is usually less, or equal to, a typical four-lane rural freeway in the US:
(https://i.imgur.com/Frirqax.gif)
I also think that's more a result of the reduced median and not the visual effect of having six lanes. This interstate in central Illinois (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9956545,-89.5111463,499m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)has six lanes, plus a frontage road, a railroad, and a coal conveyor run parallel to it through the same fields. I've driven it countless times and it's always felt rural.
The poster does have a point about how highways and railroads interfere with animal migration. More needs to be done in making sure animals can safely migrate by maintaining some level of separation. Wildlife overpasses (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2019/04/wildlife-overpasses-underpasses-make-animals-people-safer/) and underpasses (https://www.aspentimes.com/news/colorados-wildlife-crossings-save-lives-officials-say-they-need-your-help-to-build-more/) along with low long bridges rather than causeways (http://www.themunicipal.com/2015/08/wildlife-underpasses-projects-in-partnership/) through swamps are vitally important in keeping animal diversity strong, especially with larger mammals. A lot of people think this is only for rural areas, but many (https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/edmonton-set-to-open-4-million-underpass-for-moose-that-will-offset-impact-of-new-bridge-residential-neighbourhoods) suburban (https://www.bscgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/875192984586fca8999dda.pdf) areas (https://www.treehugger.com/animals/man-building-hedgehog-highways-london.html) support a lot of wildlife.
I realize this costs money in the short run. However, it saves lives - both animal and human - along with all the benefits associated with a more diverse ecosystem.
I'm not sure if I would consider that road next to I-55 a frontage road because it doesn't serve any exits or anything. To me it looks like that was the original road and they just built the highway next to it.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on April 28, 2019, 08:08:39 AM
Six lanes in rural areas just kills the rural character of the area.
I'd be curious to know how this (https://goo.gl/maps/6AhhhuGBSXwLs1wSA) could be considered anything but rural.
Quote from: US 89 on April 28, 2019, 03:21:35 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on April 28, 2019, 08:08:39 AM
Six lanes in rural areas just kills the rural character of the area.
I'd be curious to know how this (https://goo.gl/maps/6AhhhuGBSXwLs1wSA) could be considered anything but rural.
As well as this (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0648484,-77.5065738,358m/data=!3m1!1e3) with a wide treed median.
Some of these may already be 6 lanes and I am just unaware of it. I'm sure some of these also have been mentioned but here's my list:
ILLINOIS
I-39
Baxter Rd to I-90 East (Rockford)
I-80 to ILL 71 (La Salle-Peru)
I-55
I-80 to Lorenzo Rd (Joliet area)
Bus 55 Sherman Blvd to Bus 55 6th St (Springfield)
I-57
I-80 to Monee-Manhattan Rd (Far South Suburbs)
Bourbonnais Pkwy to US 45, US 52 Schuyler Ave (Kankakee)
Market St to County Rd 1000 N (Champaign)
I-70 East to I-70 West (Effingham)
Exit 103 Dix to I-64 East Exit 92 (Mt Vernon)
Cedar Grove Rd to I-24 (Marion area)
US 51 Exit 25 to Mississippi River Bridge (Cairo area)
I-64
ILL 158 Air Mobility Dr to ILL 4 (East St Louis area)
I-57 North to ILL 142 (Mt Vernon)
I-70
US 40 Randolph St to US 40 Cumberland Rd (Vandalia)
I-57 South to I-57 North (Effingham)
I-72
Wabash Ave to Overpass Rd (Springfield)
US 36 East El Dorado St, US 51 South to ILL 48 22nd St (Decatur)
I-74
I-474 to Morton Ave (Morton)
US 45 Cunningham Ave to County Rd 1700E (Urbana)
US 150 Main St to IND 63 (Danville)
I-80
Mississippi River Bridge to I-74 (Quad Cities)
ILL 89 to ILL 178 (LaSalle-Peru)
ILL 47 to US 30 (Morris-Joliet)
I-155
I-74 to Broadway Rd (Morton)
Quote from: US 89 on April 28, 2019, 03:21:35 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on April 28, 2019, 08:08:39 AM
Six lanes in rural areas just kills the rural character of the area.
I'd be curious to know how this (https://goo.gl/maps/6AhhhuGBSXwLs1wSA) could be considered anything but rural.
I agree and that's what less than 20 miles or so from Vegas?
I know in my case that I associate four lanes with rural and six lanes with urban/suburban simply because that's how it tends to be in NY. We don't really have six lane rural freeways, and the examples we do have tend to be arguable for one reason or another.
Quote from: US 89 on April 28, 2019, 03:21:35 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on April 28, 2019, 08:08:39 AM
Six lanes in rural areas just kills the rural character of the area.
I'd be curious to know how this (https://goo.gl/maps/6AhhhuGBSXwLs1wSA) could be considered anything but rural.
I think maybe "dampens" is a better word than "kills" for what he's trying to say. If that was a four lane highway with a wider median and no jersey barrier (which I assume is what it used to be), it would "feel" more rural, and less like you must be near or approaching a large city.
Quote from: vdeane on April 28, 2019, 07:54:27 PM
I know in my case that I associate four lanes with rural and six lanes with urban/suburban simply because that's how it tends to be in NY. We don't really have six lane rural freeways, and the examples we do have tend to be arguable for one reason or another.
Yes, same here, and if by "arguable" you mean as to whether the area is actually rural or not, then I agree. NY has nothing at all like I-15 in Nevada, I-75 in Georgia, or even I-95 in Maryland.
Quote from: webny99 on April 28, 2019, 08:03:18 PM
Yes, same here, and if by "arguable" you mean as to whether the area is actually rural or not, then I agree. NY has nothing at all like I-15 in Nevada, I-75 in Georgia, or even I-95 in Maryland.
There might also be some such spots in NY 17 due to climbing lanes. Not sure off the top of my head.
Oh because I recently drove it in Tennessee/Georgia and it was a pain in the arse, I-24 from US 27 North Exit 178 to US 72 Kimball Exit 152 at the very least.
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 28, 2019, 07:32:33 PM
Some of these may already be 6 lanes and I am just unaware of it. I'm sure some of these also have been mentioned but here's my list:
ILLINOIS
I-39
Baxter Rd to I-90 East (Rockford)
I-80 to ILL 71 (La Salle-Peru)
I-55
I-80 to Lorenzo Rd (Joliet area)
Bus 55 Sherman Blvd to Bus 55 6th St (Springfield)
I-57
I-80 to Monee-Manhattan Rd (Far South Suburbs)
Bourbonnais Pkwy to US 45, US 52 Schuyler Ave (Kankakee)
Market St to County Rd 1000 N (Champaign)
I-70 East to I-70 West (Effingham)
Exit 103 Dix to I-64 East Exit 92 (Mt Vernon)
Cedar Grove Rd to I-24 (Marion area)
US 51 Exit 25 to Mississippi River Bridge (Cairo area)
I-64
ILL 158 Air Mobility Dr to ILL 4 (East St Louis area)
I-57 North to ILL 142 (Mt Vernon)
I-70
US 40 Randolph St to US 40 Cumberland Rd (Vandalia)
I-57 South to I-57 North (Effingham)
I-72
Wabash Ave to Overpass Rd (Springfield)
US 36 East El Dorado St, US 51 South to ILL 48 22nd St (Decatur)
I-74
I-474 to Morton Ave (Morton)
US 45 Cunningham Ave to County Rd 1700E (Urbana)
US 150 Main St to IND 63 (Danville)
I-80
Mississippi River Bridge to I-74 (Quad Cities)
ILL 89 to ILL 178 (LaSalle-Peru)
ILL 47 to US 30 (Morris-Joliet)
I-155
I-74 to Broadway Rd (Morton)
As far as I know I-70/I-57 around Effingham is the only one of those that has been widened to 6 lanes.
Quote from: skluth on April 28, 2019, 02:20:37 PM
I also think that's more a result of the reduced median and not the visual effect of having six lanes.
They're about to convert a four-lane divided non-limited-access highway in South Texas with a wide median into a four-lane interstate highway by constructing the freeway lanes in the wide median. This will result in 40+ miles of two lanes in each direction with jersey barrier and no grassy median whatsoever in an isolated rural area. Even better, they're reserving right of way on the OUTSIDE for future 6-laning. Why not reserve on the inside, then have a 46 foot grassy median initially, then jersey barrier when 6-laned? It just makes more sense in my mind, and would keep a rural feel for decades to come, as that highway will not need widening anytime soon as far as I'm aware.
Gotta love TXDOT though!
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 28, 2019, 09:00:46 PM
Quote from: skluth on April 28, 2019, 02:20:37 PM
I also think that's more a result of the reduced median and not the visual effect of having six lanes.
They're about to convert a four-lane divided non-limited-access highway in South Texas with a wide median into a four-lane interstate highway by constructing the freeway lanes in the wide median. This will result in 40+ miles of two lanes in each direction with jersey barrier and no grassy median whatsoever in an isolated rural area. Even better, they're reserving right of way on the OUTSIDE for future 6-laning. Why not reserve on the inside, then have a 46 foot grassy median initially, then jersey barrier when 6-laned? It just makes more sense in my mind, and would keep a rural feel for decades to come, as that highway will not need widening anytime soon as far as I'm aware.
Gotta love TXDOT though!
Is that 69E or 69C?
Quote from: vdeane on April 28, 2019, 08:22:32 PM
Quote from: webny99 on April 28, 2019, 08:03:18 PM
Yes, same here, and if by "arguable" you mean as to whether the area is actually rural or not, then I agree.
There might also be some such spots in NY 17 due to climbing lanes. Not sure off the top of my head.
I don't believe there are any six lane segments (besides Goshen), at least not of a mile or more. The climbing lanes are almost always just one direction at a time.
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 28, 2019, 07:32:33 PM
Some of these may already be 6 lanes and I am just unaware of it. I'm sure some of these also have been mentioned but here's my list:
ILLINOIS
I-39
Baxter Rd to I-90 East (Rockford)
I-80 to ILL 71 (La Salle-Peru)
I-55
I-80 to Lorenzo Rd (Joliet area)
Bus 55 Sherman Blvd to Bus 55 6th St (Springfield)
I-57
I-80 to Monee-Manhattan Rd (Far South Suburbs)
Bourbonnais Pkwy to US 45, US 52 Schuyler Ave (Kankakee)
Market St to County Rd 1000 N (Champaign)
I-70 East to I-70 West (Effingham)
Exit 103 Dix to I-64 East Exit 92 (Mt Vernon)
Cedar Grove Rd to I-24 (Marion area)
US 51 Exit 25 to Mississippi River Bridge (Cairo area)
I-64
ILL 158 Air Mobility Dr to ILL 4 (East St Louis area)
I-57 North to ILL 142 (Mt Vernon)
I-70
US 40 Randolph St to US 40 Cumberland Rd (Vandalia)
I-57 South to I-57 North (Effingham)
I-72
Wabash Ave to Overpass Rd (Springfield)
US 36 East El Dorado St, US 51 South to ILL 48 22nd St (Decatur)
I-74
I-474 to Morton Ave (Morton)
US 45 Cunningham Ave to County Rd 1700E (Urbana)
US 150 Main St to IND 63 (Danville)
I-80
Mississippi River Bridge to I-74 (Quad Cities)
ILL 89 to ILL 178 (LaSalle-Peru)
ILL 47 to US 30 (Morris-Joliet)
I-155
I-74 to Broadway Rd (Morton)
I can confirm that the I-72 and downstate I-55 portions are still 4 lanes. There are plans to widen all of it (except the portion of I-72 east of I-55) to 6 lanes with a c/d road between exits 94 and 98.
http://i55springfield.com/site/ (http://i55springfield.com/site/)
The I-57 duplexes with I-64 and I-70 are both six lanes.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 28, 2019, 09:00:46 PM
Quote from: skluth on April 28, 2019, 02:20:37 PM
I also think that's more a result of the reduced median and not the visual effect of having six lanes.
They're about to convert a four-lane divided non-limited-access highway in South Texas with a wide median into a four-lane interstate highway by constructing the freeway lanes in the wide median. This will result in 40+ miles of two lanes in each direction with jersey barrier and no grassy median whatsoever in an isolated rural area. Even better, they're reserving right of way on the OUTSIDE for future 6-laning. Why not reserve on the inside, then have a 46 foot grassy median initially, then jersey barrier when 6-laned? It just makes more sense in my mind, and would keep a rural feel for decades to come, as that highway will not need widening anytime soon as far as I'm aware.
Gotta love TXDOT though!
You're right. That's just stupid on TXDOT's part.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 28, 2019, 02:31:40 PM
Quote from: skluth on April 28, 2019, 02:20:37 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 28, 2019, 01:37:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 28, 2019, 08:19:07 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on April 28, 2019, 08:08:39 AM
Six lanes in rural areas just kills the rural character of the area.
If so, how does four lanes not kill the rural character of the area?
I agree. It's not really the number of lanes. To me, it's more about the width of the ROW, or more precisely, the width of the median.
In Europe, where ROW is really expensive, you have six-lane motorways but with very narrow medians. Total horizontal width is usually less, or equal to, a typical four-lane rural freeway in the US:
(https://i.imgur.com/Frirqax.gif)
I also think that's more a result of the reduced median and not the visual effect of having six lanes. This interstate in central Illinois (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9956545,-89.5111463,499m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)has six lanes, plus a frontage road, a railroad, and a coal conveyor run parallel to it through the same fields. I've driven it countless times and it's always felt rural.
The poster does have a point about how highways and railroads interfere with animal migration. More needs to be done in making sure animals can safely migrate by maintaining some level of separation. Wildlife overpasses (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2019/04/wildlife-overpasses-underpasses-make-animals-people-safer/) and underpasses (https://www.aspentimes.com/news/colorados-wildlife-crossings-save-lives-officials-say-they-need-your-help-to-build-more/) along with low long bridges rather than causeways (http://www.themunicipal.com/2015/08/wildlife-underpasses-projects-in-partnership/) through swamps are vitally important in keeping animal diversity strong, especially with larger mammals. A lot of people think this is only for rural areas, but many (https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/edmonton-set-to-open-4-million-underpass-for-moose-that-will-offset-impact-of-new-bridge-residential-neighbourhoods) suburban (https://www.bscgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/875192984586fca8999dda.pdf) areas (https://www.treehugger.com/animals/man-building-hedgehog-highways-london.html) support a lot of wildlife.
I realize this costs money in the short run. However, it saves lives - both animal and human - along with all the benefits associated with a more diverse ecosystem.
I'm not sure if I would consider that road next to I-55 a frontage road because it doesn't serve any exits or anything. To me it looks like that was the original road and they just built the highway next to it.
You are correct that the frontage road was part of the original US 66 through Illinois. However, I don't know why it's not a frontage road. A frontage road, by definition, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontage_road) "is a local road running parallel to a higher-speed, limited-access road. A frontage road is often used to provide access to private driveways, shops, houses, industries or farms." I realize it's Wikipedia's definition, but I believe the definition is accurate and definitely describes how the old road is currently utilized. The definition never states it can't be an older road. The Dunn Road in North St Louis County (MO) (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7736523,-90.3087755,789m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en) is a frontage road that existed before the interstate system was imagined.
Quote from: X99 on April 29, 2019, 10:19:12 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 28, 2019, 09:00:46 PM
Quote from: skluth on April 28, 2019, 02:20:37 PM
I also think that's more a result of the reduced median and not the visual effect of having six lanes.
They're about to convert a four-lane divided non-limited-access highway in South Texas with a wide median into a four-lane interstate highway by constructing the freeway lanes in the wide median. This will result in 40+ miles of two lanes in each direction with jersey barrier and no grassy median whatsoever in an isolated rural area. Even better, they're reserving right of way on the OUTSIDE for future 6-laning. Why not reserve on the inside, then have a 46 foot grassy median initially, then jersey barrier when 6-laned? It just makes more sense in my mind, and would keep a rural feel for decades to come, as that highway will not need widening anytime soon as far as I'm aware.
Gotta love TXDOT though!
Is that 69E or 69C?
43 miles of I-69C between Falfurrias and TX-186.
Here's the proposed typical section -
(https://i.ibb.co/jkQ9S4N/I69-C-Proposed-Section.png)
It's nice they're getting a large chunk completed, but I just wish they'd build the "outside" lanes first, and then widen to the inside later on when warranted. It's not like it'll cost anymore, all of the bridges will be built to accommodate an additional lane already, and the lane will be graded. Same thing, just do it to the inside as opposed to the outside.
When they upgraded US-281 to interstate standards through Falfurrias a few years back, they built 4-lanes with a 46 foot grassy median wide enough for widening in the future. Why not the same thing here? All of the other I-69 upgrade projects also have a 46 foot or larger median, wide enough for future expansion to the inside, not outside. Ironically, the southern end of the project will tie into the TX-186 interchange, which has a grassy median, even at the grade separation. Whoever is in charge of the design on this project needs to re-evaluate this.
Here's the project website -
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/pharr/102318.html
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/pharr/us281-future-i-69c.html
On the public hearings site, you can view schematics for the entire corridor, and indeed, it's 4-lanes with jersey barrier the entire 43 miles.
Quote from: skluth on April 29, 2019, 04:18:06 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 28, 2019, 02:31:40 PM
Quote from: skluth on April 28, 2019, 02:20:37 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 28, 2019, 01:37:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 28, 2019, 08:19:07 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on April 28, 2019, 08:08:39 AM
Six lanes in rural areas just kills the rural character of the area.
If so, how does four lanes not kill the rural character of the area?
I agree. It's not really the number of lanes. To me, it's more about the width of the ROW, or more precisely, the width of the median.
In Europe, where ROW is really expensive, you have six-lane motorways but with very narrow medians. Total horizontal width is usually less, or equal to, a typical four-lane rural freeway in the US:
(https://i.imgur.com/Frirqax.gif)
I also think that's more a result of the reduced median and not the visual effect of having six lanes. This interstate in central Illinois (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9956545,-89.5111463,499m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)has six lanes, plus a frontage road, a railroad, and a coal conveyor run parallel to it through the same fields. I've driven it countless times and it's always felt rural.
The poster does have a point about how highways and railroads interfere with animal migration. More needs to be done in making sure animals can safely migrate by maintaining some level of separation. Wildlife overpasses (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2019/04/wildlife-overpasses-underpasses-make-animals-people-safer/) and underpasses (https://www.aspentimes.com/news/colorados-wildlife-crossings-save-lives-officials-say-they-need-your-help-to-build-more/) along with low long bridges rather than causeways (http://www.themunicipal.com/2015/08/wildlife-underpasses-projects-in-partnership/) through swamps are vitally important in keeping animal diversity strong, especially with larger mammals. A lot of people think this is only for rural areas, but many (https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/edmonton-set-to-open-4-million-underpass-for-moose-that-will-offset-impact-of-new-bridge-residential-neighbourhoods) suburban (https://www.bscgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/875192984586fca8999dda.pdf) areas (https://www.treehugger.com/animals/man-building-hedgehog-highways-london.html) support a lot of wildlife.
I realize this costs money in the short run. However, it saves lives - both animal and human - along with all the benefits associated with a more diverse ecosystem.
I'm not sure if I would consider that road next to I-55 a frontage road because it doesn't serve any exits or anything. To me it looks like that was the original road and they just built the highway next to it.
You are correct that the frontage road was part of the original US 66 through Illinois. However, I don't know why it's not a frontage road. A frontage road, by definition, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontage_road) "is a local road running parallel to a higher-speed, limited-access road. A frontage road is often used to provide access to private driveways, shops, houses, industries or farms." I realize it's Wikipedia's definition, but I believe the definition is accurate and definitely describes how the old road is currently utilized. The definition never states it can't be an older road. The Dunn Road in North St Louis County (MO) (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7736523,-90.3087755,789m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en) is a frontage road that existed before the interstate system was imagined.
Looked so obvious to me lol. I don't quite understand why it's not a frontage road either, here in Michigan we call those service drives and in the urban areas almost all the freeways have a service drive. The frontage road is good to serve the off and on ramps to freeways. Around here a good example is US-23 south of Flint, it's a freeway until Perrysburg, Ohio and for some of the route north of Ann Arbor the freeway runs parrel to Old US-23 which is for the most part just a two lane road and it does work well as an alternate route in some areas when the freeway is backed up which happens often especially when Michigan has a home football game as it's only two lanes in each direction. All of Detroit's freeways except for I-275 have service drives.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 28, 2019, 09:00:46 PM
Quote from: skluth on April 28, 2019, 02:20:37 PM
I also think that's more a result of the reduced median and not the visual effect of having six lanes.
They're about to convert a four-lane divided non-limited-access highway in South Texas with a wide median into a four-lane interstate highway by constructing the freeway lanes in the wide median. This will result in 40+ miles of two lanes in each direction with jersey barrier and no grassy median whatsoever in an isolated rural area. Even better, they're reserving right of way on the OUTSIDE for future 6-laning. Why not reserve on the inside, then have a 46 foot grassy median initially, then jersey barrier when 6-laned? It just makes more sense in my mind, and would keep a rural feel for decades to come, as that highway will not need widening anytime soon as far as I'm aware.
Gotta love TXDOT though!
Something very similar was done on the "spur 601" in El Paso. A narrow four lane alignment with center jersey barrier was built along its eastern route through Fort Bliss. Plenty of space existed to have a grassy median and wider separation of carriageways. And they put in a terrible DDI at its eastern connection to "loop 375" where plenty of room existed for a free flowing directional interchange. No love for the texdot here. Enormous sums wasted on clear view, excessive architectural frills, and bad design decision making.
Any 4-lane stretch of I-75 in Kentucky.
The one thing that I have noticed is that the more lanes built just attracts more traffic. I have witnessed this in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee. So why bother in the first place.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 09, 2019, 11:17:31 AM
The one thing that I have noticed is that the more lanes built just attracts more traffic. I have witnessed this in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee. So why bother in the first place.
The cars aren't being added; while traffic increases on that route, it decreases on other routes.
Try Duluth, MN, Binghamton, NY and I'd even argue Detroit, MI. Despite the highways, congestion has not filled capacity.
The blanket idea that more lanes just fill up automatically with congestion just because they're there is unfounded in reality.
^ Except for Detroit (where I'd argue the congestion isn't in the city proper but in the suburbs), those aren't exactly large metropolitan areas.
Well, the thread is about rural freeways and we were responding to a particular comment.
Quote from: 1 on May 09, 2019, 11:18:40 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 09, 2019, 11:17:31 AM
The one thing that I have noticed is that the more lanes built just attracts more traffic. I have witnessed this in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee. So why bother in the first place.
The cars aren't being added; while traffic increases on that route, it decreases on other routes.
Vehicle registrations have gone up by 72 million since 1990. Where are those cars going? You could easily say the owners use transit, or bike, or whatever. But we don't really build the infrastructure for those things, so most of those cars are probably being driven at least once a week.
Quote from: jakeroot on May 09, 2019, 04:12:21 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 09, 2019, 11:18:40 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 09, 2019, 11:17:31 AM
The one thing that I have noticed is that the more lanes built just attracts more traffic. I have witnessed this in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee. So why bother in the first place.
The cars aren't being added; while traffic increases on that route, it decreases on other routes.
Vehicle registrations have gone up by 72 million since 1990. Where are those cars going?
It goes up over time due to population growth, but building a new road doesn't have much effect on the total number of cars compared to doing nothing.
A few people will be driving when they wouldn't have driven otherwise, but there are also people who are now taking a shorter route because the new road exists.
Quote from: 1 on May 09, 2019, 04:15:53 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 09, 2019, 04:12:21 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 09, 2019, 11:18:40 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 09, 2019, 11:17:31 AM
The one thing that I have noticed is that the more lanes built just attracts more traffic. I have witnessed this in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee. So why bother in the first place.
The cars aren't being added; while traffic increases on that route, it decreases on other routes.
Vehicle registrations have gone up by 72 million since 1990. Where are those cars going?
It goes up over time due to population growth, but building a new road doesn't have much effect on the total number of cars compared to doing nothing.
A few people will be driving when they wouldn't have driven otherwise, but there are also people who are now taking a shorter route because the new road exists.
Sure. But that's why congestion has increased so much over the last 30+ years. Our roads are handling more cars than they were intended to. To alleviate the issue, we widen our roads. But in doing so, we increase the theoretical capacity of those roads. This improves the average LOS conditions in the mean time, but also makes the routes more attractive for people who live in the area that either don't, or will soon be, driving. Never mind new homeowners.
I would say most of I-81, especially from the southern terminus to I-78 in PA, and then I-78 to Syracuse being a longer term vision.
Adding to my previous post, I-95 in South Carolina.
Quote from: Rothman on May 09, 2019, 11:22:06 AM
Try Duluth, MN, Binghamton, NY and I'd even argue Detroit, MI. Despite the highways, congestion has not filled capacity.
The blanket idea that more lanes just fill up automatically with congestion just because they're there is unfounded in reality.
That's because Detroit's freeway system was built for a city much bigger than Detroit even at it's peak population of 1,849,568 in 1950. Detroit lacks a good mass transit system so depending on your car is how you get around.
For the Deep South in AL and MS, some of my thoughts:
Mississippi
I-10: Warrants 6 lanes across the state (it's not a very long stretch). Quite urbanized too between New Orleans and Mobile/Pensacola.
I-20 and 20/59: May be warranted in the longer term from Vicksburg to the Jackson metro. Apart from in Meridian, traffic isn't very high from Jackson to Tuscaloosa.
I-22: 4 lanes is definitely sufficient.
I-55: Not much in the way of upgrades needed. May warrant 6 lanes south to Senatobia in the longer term. Traffic drops quite fast once outside the Jackson metro.
I-59: 4 lanes is probably sufficient. The only fairly busy sections are near Hattiesburg but a US 49 freeway is definitely of higher priority.
Alabama
I-10: Warrants at least 6 lanes across the state, if it isn't already (it's mostly urban anyway).
I-20 and 20/59: From Tuscaloosa eastward, the sections that are not 6 lanes ideally should be. AADT is near or over 40,000 through most of the state.
I-22: 4 lanes is definitely sufficient.
I-59: I'd say it should be 6 lanes about as far as Argo. Traffic does drop into St. Clair County, and is quite low beyond Gadsden.
I-65: From the Tennessee line to near the Lowndes-Montgomery county line definitely calls for 6 lanes on any sections that are not such (especially between Birmingham and Montgomery where AADT is up close to 50,000). In southern Alabama, the AADT in the 20,000 to 25,000 range doesn't really call for it until Mobile County.
Quote from: RoadMaster09I-10: Warrants 6 lanes across the state (it's not a very long stretch). Quite urbanized too between New Orleans and Mobile/Pensacola.
6 lanes would be a "nice to have" on I-10, but it isn't an outright necessity. Traffic moves fairly well in part because it is INLAND from most of the coastal urbanization. MDOT has also 6-laned it from the Long Beach exit (Exit 28) to MS 609 and is in the process of extending that to MS 57. That covers the bulk of the busier traffic area. I could eventually see an extension of that to Diamondhead (Exit 16) but it's not outright needed beyond Bay St Louis. Widening across the Pascagoula River would also be very difficult due to the wetlands and the length of the bridge. At 4 miles, it's almost as long as the Twin Spans over Lake Pontchartrain (which required emergency Katrina-related funding in order to replace and widen).
Having been stationed in that area twice, I would also say that 10 is most definitely
not urbanized between Slidell and the Canal Rd exit (Exit 31) in Gulfport, especially where it crosses the Stennis Space Center buffer zone. There's also an expanse east of Ocean Springs that is not urbanized due to the Pascagoula River basin and an adjacent wildlife refuge area.
Quote from: webny99 on May 15, 2019, 09:24:22 PM
I would say most of I-81, especially from the southern terminus to I-78 in PA, and then I-78 to Syracuse being a longer term vision.
Believe you are referring to I-81 North. Is there really much through truck and other traffic north of Binghamton?? Would suspect it falls off quite a bit, and may have been a part, a very small part, of the decision to scrap 81's route through Syracuse itself. That and of course the state is stretched very thin and costs there are very high.
^ Not enough to warrant 6 lanes...not even by his own criteria (first post of the thread).
Quote from: froggie on May 17, 2019, 05:22:30 PM
^ Not enough to warrant 6 lanes...not even by his own criteria (first post of the thread).
Can you quote people when responding to them? Especially earlier on this page, when your reply ended up on a different page than the post you were responding to.
Quote from: froggie on May 17, 2019, 05:22:30 PM
^ Not enough to warrant 6 lanes...not even by his own criteria (first post of the thread).
Not now, which is why I mentioned it as something long-term, not an immediate need.
Wisconsin:
I-39/90: (Under const currently) IL State Line to US 12/18 Madison
I-39: I-90/94/Wis 78 Portage to US 51 Portage
I-39: Wis 54 Plover to US 10 West Exit 165 (Stevens Point)
I-39/US 51: Business US 51 Rothschild to Hwy WW Brokaw (Wausau)
I-90/94: Wis 78 Portage to I-90/94 Split Tomah.
I-90: MM State Line to Wis 16 La Crosse (not sure if this is 6 lanes already)
I-94: Wis 25 Menomonie to US 53 Eau Claire
I-94: I-39/90/Wis 30 Madison to Hwy N Cottage Grove
I-94: Wis 67 Oconomowoc to Wis 16 Waukesha
I-41: US 151 Fond du Lac to Wis 26 Oshkosh (Wis 26 to US 45 is 6 lanes around Oshkosh)
I-41: US 45 Oshkosh to Wis 114 Neenah (Wis 114 to I-43 Green Bay I believe is now 6 lanes)
I-43: Wis 83 Mukwonago to I-41/894 Greenfield
I-43: Wis 100 Fox Point to Wis 57 North Port Washington
I-43: Hwy V Exit 120 to Wis 42 Sheboygan
I-43: Silver Creek Rd to Rockwood Rd (Manitowoc)
I-43: US 141 Exit 178 Bellevue to I-41 Green Bay (I think parts of this are 6 lanes)
US 53: I-94 Eau Claire to Hwy S Chippewa Falls
US 2/53: US 2 East Amnicon Falls to 53rd Ave E Superior (US 2 & 53 in Superior is a city street (2nd St) that should be 6 lanes as well through town to Belknap St.)
US 61/151: IA State Line to US 61 North Dickeyville
Wis 29: Business Wis 29/90th St Exit 72 to Hwy X Exit 80 (Chippewa Falls)
Wis 29: 72nd Ave Wausau to I-39/US 51 North JCT Wausau
Wis 29: I-39/US 51 South JCT to Hwy J Weston (Wausau)
Wis 29: Hillcrest Rd Howard to I-41 Green Bay
Wis 172: I-41 Ashwaubenon to I-43 Bellevue (Green Bay)
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 19, 2019, 12:10:10 PM
Wisconsin:
I-41: US 45 Oshkosh to Wis 114 Neenah (Wis 114 to I-43 Green Bay I believe is now 6 lanes)
I-41 from US45 to WI 114 is already 6 lanes. I-41 from WI 15 Appleton to Scheuring Rd (CTH F) De Pere is 4 lanes but needs 6 lanes.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 09, 2019, 11:17:31 AM
The one thing that I have noticed is that the more lanes built just attracts more traffic. I have witnessed this in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee. So why bother in the first place.
The one thing that I have noticed is that no matter where you drive, you just end up dying at some point anyway. I have witnessed this in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri. So why bother in the first place.
Quote from: Big John on May 19, 2019, 12:26:58 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 19, 2019, 12:10:10 PM
Wisconsin:
I-41: US 45 Oshkosh to Wis 114 Neenah (Wis 114 to I-43 Green Bay I believe is now 6 lanes)
I-41 from US45 to WI 114 is already 6 lanes. I-41 from WI 15 Appleton to Scheuring Rd (CTH F) De Pere is 4 lanes but needs 6 lanes.
Been too long since I was last north of Oshkosh.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 19, 2019, 01:39:05 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 09, 2019, 11:17:31 AM
The one thing that I have noticed is that the more lanes built just attracts more traffic. I have witnessed this in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee. So why bother in the first place.
The one thing that I have noticed is that no matter where you drive, you just end up dying at some point anyway. I have witnessed this in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri. So why bother in the first place.
Yeah, some people would say, "Why not just pull the noose and get it over with."
I-215 in California comes to mind mostly because the rural parts are largely being absorbed as suburban outgrowth. I was really surprised I-215 south of Cajon Pass was still only four lanes when I drove it yesterday.
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 19, 2019, 12:10:10 PM
Wisconsin:
I-39/90: (Under const currently) IL State Line to US 12/18 Madison
This has been needed for a long time, thank god it's finally happening.
I-39: I-90/94/Wis 78 Portage to US 51 Portage
Why do this section but not anything north of it? I-39 between Cascade Interchange and Plover does not need 6 lanes, and won't for a long time.
I-39: Wis 54 Plover to US 10 West Exit 165 (Stevens Point)
Not immediately, but probably in 5-10 years.
I-39/US 51: Business US 51 Rothschild to Hwy WW Brokaw (Wausau)
The WI-29 concurrency is already 6 lanes, and the last section before WW has climbing lanes for trucks. The whole thing does need 6 lanes though.
I-90/94: Wis 78 Portage to I-90/94 Split Tomah.
Yes.
I-90: MM State Line to Wis 16 La Crosse (not sure if this is 6 lanes already)
The last time I was in La Crosse was 6 or 7 years ago, so I'm not sure.
I-94: Wis 25 Menomonie to US 53 Eau Claire
Not so much as between Portage and Tomah, but still needs 6 lanes.
I-94: I-39/90/Wis 30 Madison to Hwy N Cottage Grove
Already 6 lanes.
I-94: Wis 67 Oconomowoc to Wis 16 Waukesha
Agreed.
US 61/151: IA State Line to US 61 North Dickeyville
Maybe a third lane NB for slow trucks, but it doesn't need 6 full lanes.
Wis 172: I-41 Ashwaubenon to I-43 Bellevue (Green Bay)
Already 6.
Quote from: thspfc on May 19, 2019, 03:05:51 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on May 19, 2019, 12:10:10 PM
Wisconsin:
[
Wis 172: I-41 Ashwaubenon to I-43 Bellevue (Green Bay)
Already 6.
Partially so. The part from Webster to I-43 is 4 lanes.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 09, 2019, 11:17:31 AM
The one thing that I have noticed is that the more lanes built just attracts more traffic. I have witnessed this in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee. So why bother in the first place.
I suppose we should just downsize all freeways in the country, urban or rural to 4-lanes. Tell me how it works it for you then :wave:
It may seem like a 6-lane freeway is overcrowded, make it 4-lanes, and you get nowhere.
Your comment is moot. Aren't you the anti-new-freeways person anyway?
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 19, 2019, 03:26:38 PM
Your comment is moot. Aren't you the anti-new-freeways person anyway?
He's the anti-everything person. He blanches if you suggest any government agency does anything that costs more than $8.
Top 5 for Upstate NY, in this order:
*I-490 between exits 25 and 27
*I-190 between I-290 and Niagara Falls
*I-90/Thruway between Exit 50/Williamsville and Exit 47/LeRoy
*I-90/Thruway between Exit 44/Farmington and Exit 42/Geneva
*I-87 between Harriman and Albany
On that last one, I can't comment on which specific segments need widening the worst, however, I would assume Exit 21A/Berkshire Connector to Exit 23/I-787 is the top priority. The I-787 to I-90 segment is super nice now that it's been widened - one of the only stretches in Upstate NY that compares to legitimate large scale widenings that have been done in other states.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 19, 2019, 02:00:48 PM
I-215 in California comes to mind mostly because the rural parts are largely being absorbed as suburban outgrowth. I was really surprised I-215 south of Cajon Pass was still only four lanes when I drove it yesterday.
I not only would agree with you about I-215, but it is hard to think of any true freeway in California that ought not to be at least 6 lanes. Maybe some sections of I-5 in the extreme north. Maybe some newly upgraded freeways like CASR-198. But not that very many.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 09, 2019, 11:17:31 AM
The one thing that I have noticed is that the more lanes built just attracts more traffic. I have witnessed this in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee. So why bother in the first place.
Attracts more traffic? The traffic is already there. Adding more lanes is adding more capacity for traffic to move.
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 10, 2019, 02:32:03 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 09, 2019, 11:17:31 AM
The one thing that I have noticed is that the more lanes built just attracts more traffic. I have witnessed this in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee. So why bother in the first place.
Attracts more traffic? The traffic is already there. Adding more lanes is adding more capacity for traffic to move.
I read a book called "traffic" by Tom Vanderbilt (would recommend it to any roadgeek), and the "more lanes means more cars" idea was a central concept of the book. It is true, it's not a cheeky lie. That being said, it doesn't mean that freeways should never be widened, because there is a time and place where that is the best option.
^^^ it's not a lie but it's disingenuous. It doesn't tell the whole story. That's like saying building more homes only allows more people to live in a city. It's true but an extremely simplistic statement that doesn't tell the whole picture.
Quote from: thspfc on June 10, 2019, 04:32:49 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 10, 2019, 02:32:03 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 09, 2019, 11:17:31 AM
The one thing that I have noticed is that the more lanes built just attracts more traffic. I have witnessed this in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee. So why bother in the first place.
Attracts more traffic? The traffic is already there. Adding more lanes is adding more capacity for traffic to move.
I read a book called "traffic" by Tom Vanderbilt (would recommend it to any roadgeek), and the "more lanes means more cars" idea was a central concept of the book. It is true, it's not a cheeky lie. That being said, it doesn't mean that freeways should never be widened, because there is a time and place where that is the best option.
Under that theory, the interstate system should have never been built.
Also, not every road is congested by a long shot (and some have seen traffic even diminish), so, yes, it is a cheeky lie.
Also Georgia, Florida and Tennessee have seen significant population growth so how does this even add up? Adding more lanes attracts more traffic and he's seen it in the states mentioned. Ok and population growth is also going to add more traffic. Florida has grown by almost 3 million people since 2010 so how is that a good example? Georgia and Tennessee have both grown since 2010 as well. It doesn't make a good example when there are going to be more people on the highways because of population growth.
Quote from: michravera on June 10, 2019, 01:54:45 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 19, 2019, 02:00:48 PM
I-215 in California comes to mind mostly because the rural parts are largely being absorbed as suburban outgrowth. I was really surprised I-215 south of Cajon Pass was still only four lanes when I drove it yesterday.
I not only would agree with you about I-215, but it is hard to think of any true freeway in California that ought not to be at least 6 lanes. Maybe some sections of I-5 in the extreme north. Maybe some newly upgraded freeways like CASR-198. But not that very many.
Interestingly the Visalia segment of freeway on CA 198 pretty old and I still wouldn't upgrade even with the city approaching 150,000 people. The western segment of freeway from Hanford to Lemoore is probably has the quickest pace of any freeway in California. I've heard arguments for expansion of I-505 but aside from maybe the last two-three southern miles I don't see the need. CA 120 between 99 and 5 seems to manage its traffic capacity well with just four lanes.
My suggestions:
I-90, from Boston to Buffalo
I-91, Northampton, MA to Greenfield, MA
I-84, Waterbury, CT to Scranton, PA
I-395 (CT), Norwich to Killingly*
I-490, Gates to Le Roy, NY
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 28, 2019, 09:00:46 PM
Quote from: skluth on April 28, 2019, 02:20:37 PM
I also think that's more a result of the reduced median and not the visual effect of having six lanes.
They're about to convert a four-lane divided non-limited-access highway in South Texas with a wide median into a four-lane interstate highway by constructing the freeway lanes in the wide median. This will result in 40+ miles of two lanes in each direction with jersey barrier and no grassy median whatsoever in an isolated rural area. Even better, they're reserving right of way on the OUTSIDE for future 6-laning. Why not reserve on the inside, then have a 46 foot grassy median initially, then jersey barrier when 6-laned? It just makes more sense in my mind, and would keep a rural feel for decades to come, as that highway will not need widening anytime soon as far as I'm aware.
Gotta love TXDOT though!
Maybe because they think retrofitting a stormwater drainage system will cost way too much more later than constructing it now?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 10, 2019, 10:37:54 PM
Interestingly the Visalia segment of freeway on CA 198 pretty old and I still wouldn't upgrade even with the city approaching 150,000 people. The western segment of freeway from Hanford to Lemoore is probably has the quickest pace of any freeway in California. I've heard arguments for expansion of I-505 but aside from maybe the last two-three southern miles I don't see the need. CA 120 between 99 and 5 seems to manage its traffic capacity well with just four lanes.
505 is pretty deserted north of Winters from what I remember of that freeway.
The times I've taken 120, it's busy but not unmanageable in that 5 to 99 stretch. Like a third lane would be nice, but not super necessary. I do feel like 205/120 make one neat corridor between Altamont/Livermore and 99 and that the lane configuration on the part of 5 between two could be shuffled a bit to be more of a dual/dual setup (with 205/120 becoming a seamless route that way).
With some talk of 120 being built out as an expressway near Oakdale, will that ever connect to the current 120/99 freeway to freeway junction? Since right now drivers have to go on 99 briefly then use an exit to continue onto 120 east.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 10, 2019, 10:50:58 PM
I-490, Gates to Le Roy, NY
I'm all for six lane highways and everything, but I did get a chuckle out of that one!
Unlike the Thruway, which needs six lanes from roughly Easter to Thanksgiving, that stretch of I-490 literally only needs to be widened for the 8 Bills games per year and that's it. I've driven it many, many times and have never encountered any recurring traffic issues. In fact, it was even down to
two lanes a few years ago for some bridge replacements between Exits 4 and 5, and it still moved along OK (or at least much better than the Thruway would under those conditions).
You could make a case for Exit 5 to Exit 6, especially given commuter traffic, but not really west of Exit 5.
For context, NY 31 near Brockport carries more traffic than I-490 west of Exit 4, and NY 31 is a two-lane road.
Traffic volumes for I-490 per NYS Traffic Data Viewer (https://gis3.dot.ny.gov/html5viewer/?viewer=tdv):
| At Thruway | 15,355 |
| MM 2 | 14,720 |
| MM 5 | 18,875 |
| MM 8 | 20,131 |
| MM 12 | 27,637 |
| MM 15 | 37,703 |
On the other hand, while we're on the subject of I-490, volumes on the stretch from Exit 25 to Exit 27 are cresting 70,000:
double the volumes of the Thruway segments that I have complained about, and
quadruple the volumes of I-490 near LeRoy. So, when it comes to priorities, Exit 25 to Exit 27 is the clear choice. That segment is also the only interruption to a six-lane corridor between downtown and the eastbound Thruway, whereas we already have I-390 as a six-lane connection to the westbound Thruway.
| MM 31 | 72,614 |
| MM 33 | 61,332 |
| MM 35* | 36,361 |
| At Thruway | 36,427 |
*Already six lanes at this location
I've felt as if I-57 needs more lanes through the Chicago suburbs. Maybe not to Kankakee.
This may have been mentioned upthread, but after having driven it last week, I-15 from the NV border to Barstow DEFINITELY needs 6 lanes. Too many trucks, too many hills (Halloran Summit & Mountain Pass immediately come to mind). NDOT did their part south of Vegas, Caltrans needs to do their part north of I-40.
Also, I would include the entirety of I-15 from St. George to Vegas as well. The problem is...the Virgin River Gorge. I don't see adding additional lanes there without MAJOR expense (and environmental impact). So I would just say that NDOT needs to widen I-15 to 6 lanes for its entire (rural) length in Nevada.
Quote from: golden eagle on June 17, 2019, 01:05:51 AM
I've felt as if I-57 needs more lanes through the Chicago suburbs. Maybe not to Kankakee.
It needs at least 6 down to US 30, but IMHO there should be at least preparations for a future six laning down to Kankakee. It appears the corridor is trying to turn suburban (going off the subdivisions popping up at the interchanges between US 30 and Kankakee).
The effect of additional lanes attracting so much additional traffic that travel times don't improve or get worse is VERY well documented. It's the reason many cities are controlling access to freeways at the on-ramps. Only with traffic controls like that can we insure that adding lanes to an urban freeway will reduce travel times and improve the travel experience.
However, I think that's not so true on most rural freeways. I'm sure there are rural places where lanes could be added without adding controls, and the travel experience would be improved, especially if it's a route where no current, reasonable alternative route exists. I'm not an engineer so I can't say this with authority, but it does seem that unless there is pent-up demand currently using other routes, as happens in cities, then the potential for massive increase in traffic would be less.
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 19, 2019, 10:15:42 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on June 17, 2019, 01:05:51 AM
I've felt as if I-57 needs more lanes through the Chicago suburbs. Maybe not to Kankakee.
It needs at least 6 down to US 30, but IMHO there should be at least preparations for a future six laning down to Kankakee. It appears the corridor is trying to turn suburban (going off the subdivisions popping up at the interchanges between US 30 and Kankakee).
When I left the K3 area about ten years ago, bus service was started to the University Park Metra line. There's been talk of extending Metra to K3 (I think just local officials, but it seems to me to be a no-brainer.) I absolutely agree with widening 57, though I'd widen it to Sauk Trail, and prep for a widening to Kankakee.
Hwy-401 6 between Kingston and Oshawa might need 6 lanes as well as TCH-20 between Longueuil and Lévis.
Today is a good peak travel day to take a look on Google Maps and see some of the 4-lane freeways that need 6-lanes and have congestion issues on heavy travel times.
I-81 in Virginia, I-95 in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, I-77 in Virginia, I-64/I-77 overlap in West Virginia, etc.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 07, 2019, 01:30:28 PM
Today is a good peak travel day to take a look on Google Maps and see some of the 4-lane freeways that need 6-lanes and have congestion issues on heavy travel times.
I-81 in Virginia, I-95 in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, I-77 in Virginia, I-64/I-77 overlap in West Virginia, etc.
I-81 has needed six lanes through most of Virginia (at least from the Potomac to Roanoke) for at least the last 15 years. It wouldn't surprise me if it's needed to the Tennessee border, but I'm less familiar with traffic there. But since I-81 is a de facto bypass of the Philly-DC area with a higher percentage of truck traffic than many interstates, it could probably use widening from Scranton south.
I-95 is already six lanes north of Richmond (and I think north of Petersburg). It's bad both weekdays and every summer weekend. The area around Emporia is bad, but part of that is just Emporia with so much traffic maneuvering around all the US 58 interchange. A better US 58/I-95 connection instead of that cloverleaf would do more for traffic than widening to six lanes.
Widening the WV Turnpike would be ungodly expensive. It's already squeezing through some of the terrain. I just don't see it.
Quote from: skluth on July 07, 2019, 03:26:52 PM
I-95 is already six lanes north of Richmond (and I think north of Petersburg). It's bad both weekdays and every summer weekend.
That stretch needs to be expanded to 8-lanes, at least from I-295 to Woodbridge. Traffic counts range between 100,000 - 200,000 AADT, definitely in the 8-lane warrants. I-295 has 8-lanes between I-64 and I-95 and only has 80,000 AADT, and never has congestion
(correction - congestion is usually formed when traffic is squeezed to 2-lanes funneling onto I-95. But that's it)I-295 is my favorite part about driving between Norfolk and DC - always moves at least 70 mph even on the busiest of days. And going to US-460, it empties out significantly south of I-64 - a very nice bonus.
If they had built the US-460 toll road, that would have been even better - $3 - $5 to drive on a 70 mph interstate-standard freeway between Petersburg and Suffolk. But of course, that went down the drain thanks to corruption in Richmond.
Quote from: skluth on July 07, 2019, 03:26:52 PM
The area around Emporia is bad, but part of that is just Emporia with so much traffic maneuvering around all the US 58 interchange. A better US 58/I-95 connection instead of that cloverleaf would do more for traffic than widening to six lanes.
In the long run, the entire stretch of I-95 between the Georgia / South Carolina state line and I-295 needs to be expanded to 6-lanes. SCDOT and NCDOT have plans to do this - NCDOT has about 40 miles of expansion from 4-lanes to 8-lanes funded to begin next year. SCDOT is pushing for 6-lanes between the state line and I-26. Nothing so far in Virginia, though traffic issues appear to less south of Richmond. VDOT's biggest focus needs to be and should be between Woodbridge and Fredericksburg at this time.
VDOT completed a "US-58 Arterial Management Plan" which recommend where innovative intersections should be built along the corridor, etc. and one of the concepts was to modify the I-95 interchange in a Diverging Diamond interchange using the existing bridges and ramps.
https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/hampton_roads/Rt_58_Arterial_Management_Study/Final_Recs_Emporia_Greensville.pdf
Quote from: skluth on July 07, 2019, 03:26:52 PM
Widening the WV Turnpike would be ungodly expensive. It's already squeezing through some of the terrain. I just don't see it.
Ideally it's needed, but certainly not feasible - I agree on that part.
I'm surprised that the WV turnpike needs six lanes.
Quote from: skluth on July 07, 2019, 03:26:52 PM
I-81 has needed six lanes through most of Virginia (at least from the Potomac to Roanoke) for at least the last 15 years. It wouldn't surprise me if it's needed to the Tennessee border, but I'm less familiar with traffic there. But since I-81 is a de facto bypass of the Philly-DC area with a higher percentage of truck traffic than many interstates, it could probably use widening from Scranton south.
My experience and observation is that I-81 has consistent and similar traffic issues all the way between TN I-40 and PA I-78. My "20 highest weekends and holidays" guideline. Needs minimum of 6 lanes all the way.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 07, 2019, 03:44:01 PM
If they had built the US-460 toll road, that would have been even better - $3 - $5 to drive on a 70 mph interstate-standard freeway between Petersburg and Suffolk. But of course, that went down the drain thanks to corruption in Richmond.
Don't blame Richmond for the governor that sits there (McAuliffe that was responsible for that debacle), he was elected in a statewide election! :-/
Quote from: Beltway on July 07, 2019, 09:08:03 PM
Don't blame Richmond for the governor that sits there (McAuliffe that was responsible for that debacle), he was elected in a statewide election! :-/
Mostly by the urban population centers, notably North Virginia.
Most of Virginia did not vote for him. But most of Virginia is rural. The small portion of Virginia that did vote for him is urban population centers including Hampton Roads, Richmond, and North Virginia and population wise he won.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 07, 2019, 10:04:59 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 07, 2019, 09:08:03 PM
Don't blame Richmond for the governor that sits there (McAuliffe that was responsible for that debacle), he was elected in a statewide election! :-/
Mostly by the urban population centers, notably North Virginia.
Most of Virginia did not vote for him. But most of Virginia is rural. The small portion of Virginia that did vote for him is urban population centers including Hampton Roads, Richmond, and North Virginia and population wise he won.
ESPECIALLY Northern Virginia with its 2 million population disproportionally represented by recent immigrants from Yankee states and other countries, and federal workers of which many are public sector union members.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 07, 2019, 04:15:30 PM
I'm surprised that the WV turnpike needs six lanes.
There is no other good way to get across the state in that direction.
Also, IMHO, the I-77/81 duplex in Virginia needs rebuilding into a 'local/express' setup, with a six-lane I-81 being the inner 'express' lanes and I-77 being the outer 'local' lanes.
Mike
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 07, 2019, 01:30:28 PM
Today is a good peak travel day to take a look on Google Maps and see some of the 4-lane freeways that need 6-lanes and have congestion issues on heavy travel times.
Indeed. Yesterday afternoon certainly contributed to the case for widening the Thruway, with at least three separate incidents causing major delays between Buffalo and Syracuse. I could tell volumes streaming through the Williamsville toll barrier were too high to be sustained, and sure enough, within 20 minutes after I passed by around 4 pm, an incident had been reported just east of NY 78, backing traffic up 5+ miles and onto both free I-90 and I-290 west of Exit 50.
Quote from: thspfc on June 10, 2019, 04:32:49 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 10, 2019, 02:32:03 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 09, 2019, 11:17:31 AM
The one thing that I have noticed is that the more lanes built just attracts more traffic. I have witnessed this in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee. So why bother in the first place.
Attracts more traffic? The traffic is already there. Adding more lanes is adding more capacity for traffic to move.
I read a book called "traffic" by Tom Vanderbilt (would recommend it to any roadgeek), and the "more lanes means more cars" idea was a central concept of the book. It is true, it's not a cheeky lie. That being said, it doesn't mean that freeways should never be widened, because there is a time and place where that is the best option.
It's often referred to as Parkinson's Law of Traffic Generation, and was first verified with the construction of the Triborough Bridge in 1936.
I-75 southbound was backed up yesterday at a point where it goes from six lanes to eight lanes for some reason it was backing up and backing I-675 up into downtown Saginaw.
I got caught in a traffic jam on US-127 southbound yesterday north of St Johns in the stretch where it goes down to a divided highway. I was on M-57 and went to turn south and by the time I saw the traffic was backed up I was already coming down the on ramp. That stretch is the only stretch of US-127 north of Jackson that isn't freeway. It's freeway from Jackson to Grayling.
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 08, 2019, 05:24:44 PM
I got caught in a traffic jam on US-127 southbound yesterday north of St Johns in the stretch where it goes down to a divided highway. I was on M-57 and went to turn south and by the time I saw the traffic was backed up I was already coming down the on ramp. That stretch is the only stretch of US-127 north of Jackson that isn't freeway. It's freeway from Jackson to Grayling.
Any plans to finish the gap? Traffic counts look around 20,000 AADT with around 10% large trucks. It's probably not a big priority - but with that amount of traffic it could be necessary in 10-20 years.
Quote from: mgk920 on July 08, 2019, 10:16:27 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 07, 2019, 04:15:30 PM
I'm surprised that the WV turnpike needs six lanes.
There is no other good way to get across the state in that direction.
Also, IMHO, the I-77/81 duplex in Virginia needs rebuilding into a 'local/express' setup, with a six-lane I-81 being the inner 'express' lanes and I-77 being the outer 'local' lanes.
Mike
Only issue is space and the close proximity of the frontage roads. That stretch of roadway was originally a 4-lane divided US-11 until expanded into a 6-lane freeway with continuous frontage roads on either side and tight interchanges in the late 80s.
It does have a 40 foot median though, and could be widened to 8-lanes. That would clear up a lot of the issues IMO.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 08, 2019, 05:30:56 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 08, 2019, 05:24:44 PM
I got caught in a traffic jam on US-127 southbound yesterday north of St Johns in the stretch where it goes down to a divided highway. I was on M-57 and went to turn south and by the time I saw the traffic was backed up I was already coming down the on ramp. That stretch is the only stretch of US-127 north of Jackson that isn't freeway. It's freeway from Jackson to Grayling.
Any plans to finish the gap? Traffic counts look around 20,000 AADT with around 10% large trucks. It's probably not a big priority - but with that amount of traffic it could be necessary in 10-20 years.
It was suppose to be part of Michigan's section of I-73 but that highway will probably never happen at least in Michigan.
It's not horrible in that stretch but it goes down to 65 mph use to be 55 mph which wax even worse than it is now. Most traffic still does about 70 through there too. The lanes remain the same too. I think they should just make it 75 mph all the way through. It doesn't really cross too many major roads and has an interchange at M-57 with M-57 crossing it on an overpass.
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 08, 2019, 10:34:28 PM
I think they should just make it 75 mph all the way through.
Pulling a Texas I see :sombrero:
Quote from: roadman on July 08, 2019, 03:20:46 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 10, 2019, 04:32:49 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 10, 2019, 02:32:03 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 09, 2019, 11:17:31 AM
The one thing that I have noticed is that the more lanes built just attracts more traffic. I have witnessed this in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee. So why bother in the first place.
Attracts more traffic? The traffic is already there. Adding more lanes is adding more capacity for traffic to move.
I read a book called "traffic" by Tom Vanderbilt (would recommend it to any roadgeek), and the "more lanes means more cars" idea was a central concept of the book. It is true, it's not a cheeky lie. That being said, it doesn't mean that freeways should never be widened, because there is a time and place where that is the best option.
It's often referred to as Parkinson's Law of Traffic Generation, and was first verified with the construction of the Triborough Bridge in 1936.
And it's just as much bullshit now as it is then. Cars don't spawn out of thin air like koopas in
Super Mario World.
Nobody is going down to the dealership and buying six cars for their family because the road got widened. Whenever you widen a road and traffic increases, it's because those cars were taking other routes and are now choosing the widened road. They are leaving an empty space on the road they were using before. Traffic is the same, the pattern is just changing.
Quote from: roadman on July 08, 2019, 03:20:46 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 10, 2019, 04:32:49 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 10, 2019, 02:32:03 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 09, 2019, 11:17:31 AM
The one thing that I have noticed is that the more lanes built just attracts more traffic. I have witnessed this in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee. So why bother in the first place.
Attracts more traffic? The traffic is already there. Adding more lanes is adding more capacity for traffic to move.
I read a book called "traffic" by Tom Vanderbilt (would recommend it to any roadgeek), and the "more lanes means more cars" idea was a central concept of the book. It is true, it's not a cheeky lie. That being said, it doesn't mean that freeways should never be widened, because there is a time and place where that is the best option.
It's often referred to as Parkinson's Law of Traffic Generation, and was first verified with the construction of the Triborough Bridge in 1936.
saying it was verified is a misnomer or better put simply untrue.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 08, 2019, 11:39:10 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 08, 2019, 03:20:46 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 10, 2019, 04:32:49 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 10, 2019, 02:32:03 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 09, 2019, 11:17:31 AM
The one thing that I have noticed is that the more lanes built just attracts more traffic. I have witnessed this in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee. So why bother in the first place.
Attracts more traffic? The traffic is already there. Adding more lanes is adding more capacity for traffic to move.
I read a book called "traffic" by Tom Vanderbilt (would recommend it to any roadgeek), and the "more lanes means more cars" idea was a central concept of the book. It is true, it's not a cheeky lie. That being said, it doesn't mean that freeways should never be widened, because there is a time and place where that is the best option.
It's often referred to as Parkinson's Law of Traffic Generation, and was first verified with the construction of the Triborough Bridge in 1936.
And it's just as much bullshit now as it is then. Cars don't spawn out of thin air like koopas in Super Mario World.
Nobody is going down to the dealership and buying six cars for their family because the road got widened. Whenever you widen a road and traffic increases, it's because those cars were taking other routes and are now choosing the widened road. They are leaving an empty space on the road they were using before. Traffic is the same, the pattern is just changing.
... or in the case of some of the fast-growing cities out West, traffic is increasing with population, and the widening was most likely a response to the increasing traffic.
Quote from: webny99 on July 09, 2019, 04:02:33 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 08, 2019, 11:39:10 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 08, 2019, 03:20:46 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 10, 2019, 04:32:49 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 10, 2019, 02:32:03 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 09, 2019, 11:17:31 AM
The one thing that I have noticed is that the more lanes built just attracts more traffic. I have witnessed this in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee. So why bother in the first place.
Attracts more traffic? The traffic is already there. Adding more lanes is adding more capacity for traffic to move.
I read a book called "traffic" by Tom Vanderbilt (would recommend it to any roadgeek), and the "more lanes means more cars" idea was a central concept of the book. It is true, it's not a cheeky lie. That being said, it doesn't mean that freeways should never be widened, because there is a time and place where that is the best option.
It's often referred to as Parkinson's Law of Traffic Generation, and was first verified with the construction of the Triborough Bridge in 1936.
And it's just as much bullshit now as it is then. Cars don't spawn out of thin air like koopas in Super Mario World.
Nobody is going down to the dealership and buying six cars for their family because the road got widened. Whenever you widen a road and traffic increases, it's because those cars were taking other routes and are now choosing the widened road. They are leaving an empty space on the road they were using before. Traffic is the same, the pattern is just changing.
... or in the case of some of the fast-growing cities out West, traffic is increasing with population, and the widening was most likely a response to the increasing traffic.
Extra lanes do generate more traffic in any area that's at least moderately populated. All the wishful thinking and rationalization that it doesn't won't change that fact. You can have your own opinions, but facts are facts. People will drive more when more highway space is available. Some extra traffic will be from former carpoolers because driving has become easier. Some traffic will be people taking more trips they may have avoided because there's more space on the road. Some traffic will come from other roads that are now not as quick as the new wider road. There are dozens of reasons the lanes will fill again, none of which require the spontaneous appearance of koopas.
This doesn't change the need for many highway widenings. There are still far more highways that need six lanes than there is money and the will to widen them. I-10 between Indio and the western Phoenix suburbs desperately needs widening to six lanes and can be justified by traffic count, the high percentage of trucks combined with the steep grades approaching Chiriaco Summit, and the high number of accidents for a rural interstate. I can name a dozen other rural interstates that also need widening. Traffic would undoubtedly increase on any of these interstates should they be widened, much of it induced by the widening. That wouldn't change the need for widening those interstates. But there is a direct relationship that is scientifically proven.
I know this is about rural areas but for an urban area I-94 is in serious need of not only repairs but it also needs to be widened like 20 years ago. This pretty much involves the stretch in Wayne and most of Macomb County. I've mentioned several times how I-94 needs to be widened between Ann Arbor and Benton Harbor as well. MDOT is slower than molasses in January at getting anything done.
Quote from: skluth on July 09, 2019, 07:29:29 PM
Extra lanes do generate more traffic in any area that's at least moderately populated. All the wishful thinking and rationalization that it doesn't won't change that fact. You can have your own opinions, but facts are facts.
Here's a fact: I live in a residential neighborhood with one exit, which carries an AADT of approximately 320 cars. It's two lanes; if it was widened to four lanes, there would be
no change whatsoever in the average AADT.
More lanes only increases traffic when the demand was
already growing due to other factors, such as increasing population; demand does not simply appear out of nowhere.
Let's say that a 4-lane road has 20k AADT and it gets widened to 6 lanes. Even if the ridership increases, it shouldn't multiply by 1.5× solely due to the widening. If it increases to 25k, it's still a benefit.
Quote from: webny99 on July 10, 2019, 01:44:08 PM
Quote from: skluth on July 09, 2019, 07:29:29 PM
Extra lanes do generate more traffic in any area that's at least moderately populated. All the wishful thinking and rationalization that it doesn't won't change that fact. You can have your own opinions, but facts are facts.
Here's a fact: I live in a residential neighborhood with one exit, which carries an AADT of approximately 320 cars. It's two lanes; if it was widened to four lanes, there would be no change whatsoever in the average AADT.
More lanes only increases traffic when the demand was already growing due to other factors, such as increasing population; demand does not simply appear out of nowhere.
Here's the problem: that street doesn't serve anything else besides your neighborhood and has no cut through.
A lot of times, neighborhoods are surrounded on either side by two major roads. People use the many residential streets that go between the two major roads as a cut over. If one of those roads was expanded to four-lanes, chances are it would generate more traffic as it would be a more appealing route rather than the other 2-lane residential streets.
In Arkansas, at the very least the segment of I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis. At every section, AADT runs at least 31,000 with several stretches much greater than that. To make matters worse, quite literally half of the traffic on road is truck traffic. Lots of rolling roadblocks as governed trucks attempt to overtake each other at less than a 2MPH differential.
Quote from: webny99 on July 10, 2019, 01:44:08 PM
Quote from: skluth on July 09, 2019, 07:29:29 PM
Extra lanes do generate more traffic in any area that's at least moderately populated. All the wishful thinking and rationalization that it doesn't won't change that fact. You can have your own opinions, but facts are facts.
Here's a fact: I live in a residential neighborhood with one exit, which carries an AADT of approximately 320 cars. It's two lanes; if it was widened to four lanes, there would be no change whatsoever in the average AADT.
More lanes only increases traffic when the demand was already growing due to other factors, such as increasing population; demand does not simply appear out of nowhere.
An AADT of 320 shows the area is sparsely populated and likely won't need widening for a
very long time. Try again when the population reaches several thousand. Not relevant.
Quote from: skluth on July 10, 2019, 07:14:37 PM
Quote from: webny99 on July 10, 2019, 01:44:08 PM
Quote from: skluth on July 09, 2019, 07:29:29 PM
Extra lanes do generate more traffic in any area that's at least moderately populated. All the wishful thinking and rationalization that it doesn't won't change that fact. You can have your own opinions, but facts are facts.
Here's a fact: I live in a residential neighborhood with one exit, which carries an AADT of approximately 320 cars. It's two lanes; if it was widened to four lanes, there would be no change whatsoever in the average AADT.
More lanes only increases traffic when the demand was already growing due to other factors, such as increasing population; demand does not simply appear out of nowhere.
An AADT of 320 shows the area is sparsely populated and likely won't need widening for a very long time. Try again when the population reaches several thousand. Not relevant.
So you're saying there has to be an already-existing need for widening for traffic to be "induced"?
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 08, 2019, 11:39:10 PM
Cars don't spawn out of thin air like koopas in Super Mario World.
No, but people do (sort of). The population of the US has grown by 17% over the last twenty years. How are those people getting around? Based on our investments in transportation over the last forty years, I'm going to guess, largely, single-occupancy vehicle.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 10, 2019, 11:34:07 PM
So you're saying there has to be an already-existing need for widening for traffic to be "induced"?
Induced demand is largely aimed at people who are going to live in a certain area, but don't yet. How are they going to get around "the city"? It can be aimed at the current population, especially in areas with very bad traffic.
Consider this:Someone in City A rides the train to work, because traffic is miserable. They own a car, but they consider it a waste of time (and money) to drive; they have relatively easy access to the train via a local bus a few blocks from their home. City A officials then widen a portion of road that was an essential part of their commute; they switch back to driving because their commute now takes about 25% less time. Their fuel economy is now higher as well, reducing their fuel usage (cheaper).City A officials widened this road, with the hope that it would reduce the congestion. Perhaps it will, short term. But that high-speed road is now a very attractive option for people who never used that road, stopped using it previously,
or just moved to the area. Basically, the road will (ultimately) end up serving people that don't currently use the road. But what if we just don't widen the road? What if that road was just a permanently crappy option? We could widen the road, but if the population is growing, and we widened the road as a response to that, at what point is the freeway wide enough? Certainly we can't have 40-lane freeways in keeping with whatever the relevant required population would be.
Here in Seattle, it's basically been determined that most freeways have "enough" lanes (thanks especially to our very hilly, watery, and expensive geography), and that other modes of transportation (chiefly, light rail and BRT) need some investment. Most widening projects, therefore, are to add HOV and/or express toll lanes. But of course, "the car" is the primary mode of transport for most people because it's by far the easiest of the bunch. But what if our cities were designed to make walking, cycling, or transit-riding easy?
That is certainly the bigger issue here. Urban planners are well aware of how important the car is...most of us drive, after all! But cities should be designed around things other than the car, so that we don't have to justify endless investment in road widening.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 11, 2019, 05:12:29 AM
Someone in City A rides the train to work, because traffic is miserable. They own a car, but they consider it a waste of time (and money) to drive; they have relatively easy access to the train via a local bus a few blocks from their home. City A officials then widen a portion of road that was an essential part of their commute; they switch back to driving because their commute now takes about 25% less time. Their fuel economy is now higher as well, reducing their fuel usage (cheaper).
City A officials widened this road, with the hope that it would reduce the congestion. Perhaps it will, short term. But that high-speed road is now a very attractive option for people who never used that road, stopped using it previously, or just moved to the area. Basically, the road will (ultimately) end up serving people that don't currently use the road. But what if we just don't widen the road? What if that road was just a permanently crappy option? We could widen the road, but if the population is growing, and we widened the road as a response to that, at what point is the freeway wide enough? Certainly we can't have 40-lane freeways in keeping with whatever the relevant required population would be.
The road will probably still be less congested, even with the extra cars. If it's not, he or she will switch back.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 10, 2019, 01:59:06 PM
Quote from: webny99 on July 10, 2019, 01:44:08 PM
Quote from: skluth on July 09, 2019, 07:29:29 PM
Extra lanes do generate more traffic in any area that's at least moderately populated. All the wishful thinking and rationalization that it doesn't won't change that fact. You can have your own opinions, but facts are facts.
Here's a fact: I live in a residential neighborhood with one exit, which carries an AADT of approximately 320 cars. It's two lanes; if it was widened to four lanes, there would be no change whatsoever in the average AADT.
More lanes only increases traffic when the demand was already growing due to other factors, such as increasing population; demand does not simply appear out of nowhere.
Here's the problem: that street doesn't serve anything else besides your neighborhood and has no cut through.
A lot of times, neighborhoods are surrounded on either side by two major roads. People use the many residential streets that go between the two major roads as a cut over. If one of those roads was expanded to four-lanes, chances are it would generate more traffic as it would be a more appealing route rather than the other 2-lane residential streets.
This is generally what happens.
Minor roads have seen more traffic than intended because the major roads were too crowded or congested. When the major road is improved or widened, traffic stops using local side roads and instead utilizes the major road. There's no induced demand here - the amount of traffic is the same in the region. There's more traffic on the main road but the side roads see less traffic.
Unfortunately, people have bought into the induced demand theory. Yet, no one is paying attention to the side roads and sees that there's less traffic there. The residents are happy there's less traffic on their residential side roads...yet they'll also be the first to complain that the main road has more traffic, WHICH IS HOW IT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK.
I can use an area near me as an example: NJ 42 was a very congested 3 lanes each direction. When 42 was widened from 3 lanes to 4 lanes, people complained the highway quickly started getting congested again. However, the overall congestion period was a lot less, and the length of the traffic jam was a lot less. People in the height of rush hour just focued that there was congestion...ignoring that their trip was still shorter and quicker than before. People outside of rush hour that had some congestion now saw none at all, fully benefiting from the widened highway. And on nearby NJ 47, one lane each direction, traffic was noticiably lighter on that road. Congestion all but disappeared. Many of those that used 47 previously were using 42, saving a good amount of time.
And of course anti-road people never would disclose how much better the region's traffic actually was, because they still wanted to spend money on light rail, even though the widened road could handle much more traffic throughout the day and night than their precious rail line ever could.
Quote from: skluth on July 10, 2019, 07:14:37 PM
Quote from: webny99 on July 10, 2019, 01:44:08 PM
Quote from: skluth on July 09, 2019, 07:29:29 PM
Extra lanes do generate more traffic in any area that's at least moderately populated. All the wishful thinking and rationalization that it doesn't won't change that fact. You can have your own opinions, but facts are facts.
Here's a fact: I live in a residential neighborhood with one exit, which carries an AADT of approximately 320 cars. It's two lanes; if it was widened to four lanes, there would be no change whatsoever in the average AADT.
More lanes only increases traffic when the demand was already growing due to other factors, such as increasing population; demand does not simply appear out of nowhere.
An AADT of 320 shows the area is sparsely populated and likely won't need widening for a very long time. Try again when the population reaches several thousand. Not relevant.
It's plenty densely populated; just doesn't happen to be a very big neighborhood.
It is relevant because it proves that extra lanes don't magically add traffic. If there was an alternate route, maybe traffic would decrease on that route and increase on the other one, but overall traffic would remain unchanged. Increases in population add to traffic woes; increases in capacity alone do not.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 11, 2019, 05:12:29 AM
But what if we just don't widen the road? What if that road was just a permanently crappy option? We could widen the road, but if the population is growing, and we widened the road as a response to that, at what point is the freeway wide enough? Certainly we can't have 40-lane freeways in keeping with whatever the relevant required population would be.
My opinion is that widening should occur in step with population growth, until land constraints and acquisition costs make further widening impractical. At that point, high rates of growth are no longer sustainable. Investment in other modes of transport can help, but ultimately, the growth needs to slow down/stop entirely or conditions are just going to keep getting worse and worse.
Quote from: webny99 on July 11, 2019, 10:10:41 AM
My opinion is that widening should occur in step with population growth, until land constraints and acquisition costs make further widening impractical. At that point, high rates of growth are no longer sustainable. Investment in other modes of transport can help, but ultimately, the growth needs to slow down/stop entirely or conditions are just going to keep getting worse and worse.
Exhibit A: Atlanta. :no:
Quote from: thspfc on July 11, 2019, 10:18:08 AM
Quote from: webny99 on July 11, 2019, 10:10:41 AM
My opinion is that widening should occur in step with population growth, until land constraints and acquisition costs make further widening impractical. At that point, high rates of growth are no longer sustainable. Investment in other modes of transport can help, but ultimately, the growth needs to slow down/stop entirely or conditions are just going to keep getting worse and worse.
Exhibit A: Atlanta. :no:
There are three issues here:
1. Everyone gets funneled on 75/85 unless they're continuing straight on I-20 or are able to go around on I-285.
2. There is no outer beltway.
3. Surface road alternates are slow. Some cities have well-timed signals or semi-expressways in their surface road network, but not Atlanta.
Quote from: 1 on July 11, 2019, 10:22:04 AM
Quote from: thspfc on July 11, 2019, 10:18:08 AM
Quote from: webny99 on July 11, 2019, 10:10:41 AM
My opinion is that widening should occur in step with population growth, until land constraints and acquisition costs make further widening impractical. At that point, high rates of growth are no longer sustainable. Investment in other modes of transport can help, but ultimately, the growth needs to slow down/stop entirely or conditions are just going to keep getting worse and worse.
Exhibit A: Atlanta. :no:
2. There is no outer beltway.
Not anymore, though there probably was when 285 was built . . . speaking of urban sprawl.
Quote from: 1 on July 11, 2019, 10:22:04 AM
Some cities have well-timed signals
Such a city exists? Definitely not where I live :-D
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 01:03:51 PM
Quote from: 1 on July 11, 2019, 10:22:04 AM
Some cities have well-timed signals
Such a city exists? Definitely not where I live :-D
Me either. I am constantly annoyed by the timing of the traffic lights around where I live.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 01:03:51 PM
Quote from: 1 on July 11, 2019, 10:22:04 AM
Some cities have well-timed signals
Such a city exists? Definitely not where I live :-D
Santa Clara County in California does a pretty good job especially on San Tomas and Lawrence Expressways. It's not uncommon to be able to maintain speed on San Tomas from US-101 all of the way to CASR-17 hitting lights at just near the beginning, end, and sometimes at El Camino Real. It's a crapshoot as to whether it's faster to take clogged freeways or heavily traveled expressways. Same goes for Lawrence from US-101 to I-280.
Quote from: 1 on July 11, 2019, 05:31:13 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 11, 2019, 05:12:29 AM
Someone in City A rides the train to work, because traffic is miserable. They own a car, but they consider it a waste of time (and money) to drive; they have relatively easy access to the train via a local bus a few blocks from their home. City A officials then widen a portion of road that was an essential part of their commute; they switch back to driving because their commute now takes about 25% less time. Their fuel economy is now higher as well, reducing their fuel usage (cheaper).
City A officials widened this road, with the hope that it would reduce the congestion. Perhaps it will, short term. But that high-speed road is now a very attractive option for people who never used that road, stopped using it previously, or just moved to the area. Basically, the road will (ultimately) end up serving people that don't currently use the road. But what if we just don't widen the road? What if that road was just a permanently crappy option? We could widen the road, but if the population is growing, and we widened the road as a response to that, at what point is the freeway wide enough? Certainly we can't have 40-lane freeways in keeping with whatever the relevant required population would be.
The road will probably still be less congested, even with the extra cars. If it's not, he or she will switch back.
There isn't a finite number of cars. In a city built around the car (i.e. minimal walking, cycling, and transit infrastructure), the usage of cars usually keeps pace with the population (not a finite number).
Quote from: webny99 on July 11, 2019, 10:10:41 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 11, 2019, 05:12:29 AM
But what if we just don't widen the road? What if that road was just a permanently crappy option? We could widen the road, but if the population is growing, and we widened the road as a response to that, at what point is the freeway wide enough? Certainly we can't have 40-lane freeways in keeping with whatever the relevant required population would be.
My opinion is that widening should occur in step with population growth, until land constraints and acquisition costs make further widening impractical. At that point, high rates of growth are no longer sustainable. Investment in other modes of transport can help, but ultimately, the growth needs to slow down/stop entirely or conditions are just going to keep getting worse and worse.
You cannot stop growth. It is inevitable. Places like China and South Africa have attempted to stop it, but they failed. Never mind that, in the US,
individual cities are generally not permitted to develop comprehensive growth plans that specifically disallow growth. You can make it hard, by limiting building permits, but that makes real-estate prices skyrocket (and all the bad things that come along with that).
Part of this is that we, as a nation, have somehow decided to favor packing everyone into mega-cities. This isn't "inevitable" as many claim, but rather due to political choices favoring this development pattern. The smaller and mid-sized cities could use some love.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/11/cities-economic-fates-diverge/417372/
Quote
Throughout most of the country's history, American government at all levels has pursued policies designed to preserve local control of businesses and to check the tendency of a few dominant cities to monopolize power over the rest of the country. These efforts moved to the federal level beginning in the late 19th century and reached a climax of enforcement in the 1960s and '70s. Yet starting shortly thereafter, each of these policy levers were flipped, one after the other, in the opposite direction, usually in the guise of "deregulation." Understanding this history, largely forgotten today, is essential to turning the problem of inequality around.
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 08, 2019, 10:34:28 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 08, 2019, 05:30:56 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 08, 2019, 05:24:44 PM
I got caught in a traffic jam on US-127 southbound yesterday north of St Johns in the stretch where it goes down to a divided highway. I was on M-57 and went to turn south and by the time I saw the traffic was backed up I was already coming down the on ramp. That stretch is the only stretch of US-127 north of Jackson that isn't freeway. It's freeway from Jackson to Grayling.
Any plans to finish the gap? Traffic counts look around 20,000 AADT with around 10% large trucks. It's probably not a big priority - but with that amount of traffic it could be necessary in 10-20 years.
It was suppose to be part of Michigan's section of I-73 but that highway will probably never happen at least in Michigan.
It's not horrible in that stretch but it goes down to 65 mph use to be 55 mph which wax even worse than it is now. Most traffic still does about 70 through there too. The lanes remain the same too. I think they should just make it 75 mph all the way through. It doesn't really cross too many major roads and has an interchange at M-57 with M-57 crossing it on an overpass.
MDOT is continuing with its effort to remove cross traffic on the US-127 stretch, but a full freeway rebuild is decades away. The traffic you experienced (Sunday after Independence Day) is a worst-case scenario and likely was congested only because of an accident. There's more conflict points that provides potential for a congestion-causing accident, but traffic is still low enough that it's not generally a problem.
There's other places where US-127 needs 6-laning much more - namely, the stretch between I-69 and I-96 in Lansing.
Quote from: 1 on July 11, 2019, 10:22:04 AM
Quote from: thspfc on July 11, 2019, 10:18:08 AM
Quote from: webny99 on July 11, 2019, 10:10:41 AM
My opinion is that widening should occur in step with population growth, until land constraints and acquisition costs make further widening impractical. At that point, high rates of growth are no longer sustainable. Investment in other modes of transport can help, but ultimately, the growth needs to slow down/stop entirely or conditions are just going to keep getting worse and worse.
Exhibit A: Atlanta. :no:
There are three issues here:
1. Everyone gets funneled on 75/85 unless they're continuing straight on I-20 or are able to go around on I-285.
2. There is no outer beltway.
3. Surface road alternates are slow. Some cities have well-timed signals or semi-expressways in their surface road network, but not Atlanta.
Originally, issue 1 was not supposed to be a problem. I-675 was supposed to continue north past 285, roughly to the Carter library where it would have met I-485. 485 would have served as a southern continuation of GA 400, but turning west at the I-675 junction back to 75/85 along GA 10. In addition, the US 78 freeway east of 285 was planned to continue west to the interchange with 675 and 485. Unfortunately, freeway revolts killed all of these proposals, and we are stuck with the hopelessly congested Downtown Connector as a result.
As for what we have today, the Perimeter is indeed faster than the Connector in typical conditions, but hazmats and large loads are prohibited inside I-285. As a result, 285 is often congested with heavy truck traffic, and one accident on it might eat up the time you saved by avoiding downtown.
Maybe US 64 where Rocky Mount is? Traffic is increasing there. But I think a rural freeway with six lanes should be at least 60,000 vpd.
Quote from: vdeane on July 11, 2019, 08:57:17 PM
Part of this is that we, as a nation, have somehow decided to favor packing everyone into mega-cities. This isn't "inevitable" as many claim, but rather due to political choices favoring this development pattern. The smaller and mid-sized cities could use some love.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/11/cities-economic-fates-diverge/417372/
Good article! But it doesn't speak negatively of public transit or density, nor does it encourage car-use.
I am totally for public policy changes to favor new development in less "popular" cities. But there's a couple things that need considering:
(1) Policies that favor population growth in "underdeveloped" regions don't necessarily go hand in hand with wide freeways and dead-end suburbs. In Vancouver, there's been big developments in areas that are now connected to the SkyTrain network (Brentwood Town Centre, South Vancouver, Richmond). Having that connection (half a million people
walking around stations) is potentially as, if not more, important than freeway access.
(2) Policies may favor development in new regions, but you cannot stop people from "longing" to live in iconic places: San Francisco, Seattle, Miami, New York City, etc. Living in cities like these are landmark achievements for some. No one who grew up in rural Nebraska, longing for the day when they could catch a glimpse of the Space Needle on the daily, is going to be super-happy when they end up in Tacoma for 20 years (the point was to live in Seattle!) Companies that headquarter themselves in these cities, benefit from being in places that people
want to live. It's a sound business decision, to locate somewhere attractive. "Attractive", 60 years ago, was the suburbs. That's just not the case anymore.
Quote from: webny99 on July 11, 2019, 10:10:41 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 11, 2019, 05:12:29 AM
But what if we just don't widen the road? What if that road was just a permanently crappy option? We could widen the road, but if the population is growing, and we widened the road as a response to that, at what point is the freeway wide enough? Certainly we can't have 40-lane freeways in keeping with whatever the relevant required population would be.
My opinion is that widening should occur in step with population growth, until land constraints and acquisition costs make further widening impractical. At that point, high rates of growth are no longer sustainable. Investment in other modes of transport can help, but ultimately, the growth needs to slow down/stop entirely or conditions are just going to keep getting worse and worse.
Since this thread is about rural freeways, it isn't population growth that should cause the need for widening, but traffic growth. Urban traffic is the result of population growth, but in rural areas like this thread is about, are linking urban areas that are too far apart for the area between to be infilled for a long period of time. Many are major freight arteries, which for lack of a more efficient route, have filled with truck traffic. The alternative for many isn't to limit the lanes to force alternate modes of transportation, as in rural areas, there aren't any alternatives. The only alternative would be to build an alternate route that bypasses some of those urban areas that straightens out the routing that the freight and passenger car through traffic currently has to take.
Quote from: MikieTimT on July 12, 2019, 08:18:54 AM
Quote from: webny99 on July 11, 2019, 10:10:41 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 11, 2019, 05:12:29 AM
But what if we just don't widen the road? What if that road was just a permanently crappy option? We could widen the road, but if the population is growing, and we widened the road as a response to that, at what point is the freeway wide enough? Certainly we can't have 40-lane freeways in keeping with whatever the relevant required population would be.
My opinion is that widening should occur in step with population growth, until land constraints and acquisition costs make further widening impractical. At that point, high rates of growth are no longer sustainable. Investment in other modes of transport can help, but ultimately, the growth needs to slow down/stop entirely or conditions are just going to keep getting worse and worse.
Since this thread is about rural freeways, it isn't population growth that should cause the need for widening, but traffic growth. Urban traffic is the result of population growth, but in rural areas like this thread is about, are linking urban areas that are too far apart for the area between to be infilled for a long period of time. Many are major freight arteries, which for lack of a more efficient route, have filled with truck traffic. The alternative for many isn't to limit the lanes to force alternate modes of transportation, as in rural areas, there aren't any alternatives. The only alternative would be to build an alternate route that bypasses some of those urban areas that straightens out the routing that the freight and passenger car through traffic currently has to take.
It is a shame that the plan to build the freeways didn't incorporate (more generally) thru roadways that largely bypassed city centers, with cities only connected with spur routes. I know some of the earlier plans (FDR toll road plan) had this as their philosophy.
For example, it is great that the OH Turmpike gets close to Cleveland, but doesn't go thru Cleveland. It forms an effective bypass for thru traffic (and doesn't add mileage).
Quote from: jakeroot on July 11, 2019, 08:32:16 PM
Quote from: webny99 on July 11, 2019, 10:10:41 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 11, 2019, 05:12:29 AM
But what if we just don't widen the road? What if that road was just a permanently crappy option? We could widen the road, but if the population is growing, and we widened the road as a response to that, at what point is the freeway wide enough? Certainly we can't have 40-lane freeways in keeping with whatever the relevant required population would be.
My opinion is that widening should occur in step with population growth, until land constraints and acquisition costs make further widening impractical. At that point, high rates of growth are no longer sustainable. Investment in other modes of transport can help, but ultimately, the growth needs to slow down/stop entirely or conditions are just going to keep getting worse and worse.
You cannot stop growth. It is inevitable. Places like China and South Africa have attempted to stop it, but they failed. Never mind that, in the US, individual cities are generally not permitted to develop comprehensive growth plans that specifically disallow growth. You can make it hard, by limiting building permits, but that makes real-estate prices skyrocket (and all the bad things that come along with that).
I get that. All I'm saying is that at a certain point, it isn't sustainable, so there's no use complaining about the inevitable issues that come along with that, and there's no use blaming things on induced demand when it's easy to see the demand was already there.
Quote from: webny99 on July 12, 2019, 11:28:06 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 11, 2019, 08:32:16 PM
You cannot stop growth. It is inevitable. Places like China and South Africa have attempted to stop it, but they failed. Never mind that, in the US, individual cities are generally not permitted to develop comprehensive growth plans that specifically disallow growth. You can make it hard, by limiting building permits, but that makes real-estate prices skyrocket (and all the bad things that come along with that).
I get that. All I'm saying is that at a certain point, it isn't sustainable, so there's no use complaining about the inevitable issues that come along with that, and there's no use blaming things on induced demand when it's easy to see the demand was already there.
Oh, I see. So the whole system is going to fail anyway, so who cares?
Like I said, cities can't "check-out". They have to plan for the future. Their comprehensive plans can't say "we're fucked". They have to outline a growth plan for sustainability. Lately, this has meant moving away from cars (which are physically too large to make sense in cities), and towards cities that are designed to encourage literally anything else. Tokyo is a remarkable example of this style of planning. Largest metro area in the world; virtually no traffic jams.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 12, 2019, 03:00:05 PM
Quote from: webny99 on July 12, 2019, 11:28:06 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 11, 2019, 08:32:16 PM
You cannot stop growth. It is inevitable. Places like China and South Africa have attempted to stop it, but they failed. Never mind that, in the US, individual cities are generally not permitted to develop comprehensive growth plans that specifically disallow growth. You can make it hard, by limiting building permits, but that makes real-estate prices skyrocket (and all the bad things that come along with that).
I get that. All I'm saying is that at a certain point, it isn't sustainable, so there's no use complaining about the inevitable issues that come along with that, and there's no use blaming things on induced demand when it's easy to see the demand was already there.
Oh, I see. So the whole system is going to fail anyway, so who cares?
Like I said, cities can't "check-out". They have to plan for the future. Their comprehensive plans can't say "we're fucked". They have to outline a growth plan for sustainability. Lately, this has meant moving away from cars (which are physically too large to make sense in cities), and towards cities that are designed to encourage literally anything else. Tokyo is a remarkable example of this style of planning. Largest metro area in the world; virtually no traffic jams.
OTOH, transit traffic in Tokyo has long been such that their subway employs station attendants called 'pushers', whose sole job is to get the people onto the train cars such that the doors can be closed.
:-o
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on July 13, 2019, 03:50:57 AM
OTOH, transit traffic in Tokyo has long been such that their subway employs station attendants called 'pushers', whose sole job is to get the people onto the train cars such that the doors can be closed.
It's really quite remarkable. From what I've learned, that's the exception, but you can only run so many trains per hour, and demand is strong for their clean, on-time trains. But the busiest line in the system, the Tozai line, still manages to carry 1.6M passengers per day...not sure there's any freeway out there with that capacity (unless every car on Ontario's 401 is a 4-person carpool!)
Quote from: jakeroot on July 13, 2019, 01:43:28 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 13, 2019, 03:50:57 AM
OTOH, transit traffic in Tokyo has long been such that their subway employs station attendants called 'pushers', whose sole job is to get the people onto the train cars such that the doors can be closed.
It's really quite remarkable. From what I've learned, that's the exception, but you can only run so many trains per hour, and demand is strong for their clean, on-time trains. But the busiest line in the system, the Tozai line, still manages to carry 1.6M passengers per day...not sure there's any freeway out there with that capacity (unless every car on Ontario's 401 is a 4-person carpool!)
Another thing that is hard about Tokyo is the workaholic culture. If they worked more American schedules (8 hour days), they could probably encourage spreading out the rush hour more, some people work 6am-3pm, others 8am-5pm, others 10am-7pm. But if everyone is working 12 hour days, they will all be coming and going at the same time so that they can go home and get some sleep. At that schedule, you wouldn't say, hey I'll wait an hour to avoid the crowding - you simply can't.
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 11, 2019, 11:07:26 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 08, 2019, 10:34:28 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 08, 2019, 05:30:56 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 08, 2019, 05:24:44 PM
I got caught in a traffic jam on US-127 southbound yesterday north of St Johns in the stretch where it goes down to a divided highway. I was on M-57 and went to turn south and by the time I saw the traffic was backed up I was already coming down the on ramp. That stretch is the only stretch of US-127 north of Jackson that isn't freeway. It's freeway from Jackson to Grayling.
Any plans to finish the gap? Traffic counts look around 20,000 AADT with around 10% large trucks. It's probably not a big priority - but with that amount of traffic it could be necessary in 10-20 years.
It was suppose to be part of Michigan's section of I-73 but that highway will probably never happen at least in Michigan.
It's not horrible in that stretch but it goes down to 65 mph use to be 55 mph which wax even worse than it is now. Most traffic still does about 70 through there too. The lanes remain the same too. I think they should just make it 75 mph all the way through. It doesn't really cross too many major roads and has an interchange at M-57 with M-57 crossing it on an overpass.
MDOT is continuing with its effort to remove cross traffic on the US-127 stretch, but a full freeway rebuild is decades away. The traffic you experienced (Sunday after Independence Day) is a worst-case scenario and likely was congested only because of an accident. There's more conflict points that provides potential for a congestion-causing accident, but traffic is still low enough that it's not generally a problem.
There's other places where US-127 needs 6-laning much more - namely, the stretch between I-69 and I-96 in Lansing.
It was due to a state cop having someone pulled over on the left side and everyone was slowing down around it and the traffic was already heavy heading towards Lansing from up north. The stretch between I-69 and I-96 isn't really that congested I would say it needs 6 lanes between I-496 and I-96.
Any road with an AADT of 50,000 or more should be on the High Priority - Immediate Need list for six-laning.
In Upstate NY, that includes the following:
I-87 between Exit 16 (NY 17) and Exit 17 (I-84)
I-87 between Exit 21A (Berkshire Connector) and Exit 23 (I-787)
I-90 between Exit 50 (I-290) and Exit 49 (NY 78)
I-190 between Exit 16 (I-290) and Exit 21 (NSP/NY 384)
I-490 between Exit 25 (NY 31F) and Exit 27 (NY 96)
The first three would be relatively easy to widen; the last two not so much, especially the Grand Island Bridges.
If you move the threshold to 40K instead of 50K, almost all of I-87 from NY 17 to Albany, and almost all of I-90 from Buffalo to Syracuse, make the list.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 10, 2019, 10:50:58 PM
My suggestions:
I-90, from Boston to Buffalo
I-90 is already 6-lanes between I-84 in Sturbridge & I-93 in Boston. Note: the short lane-drop (to 4-lanes) within the I-95 interchange in Weston at the former-toll plaza location is relatively recent. Personally, I'm not too fond of this change but I can see the reasoning/rationale behind such.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 10, 2019, 10:50:58 PM
I-84, Waterbury, CT to Scranton, PA
I-84 through Danbury, between Exit 2 (US 6/202) and Exit 7 (US 7 North/202 East), is already 6-lanes. A recent widening project in Waterbury itself, east of CT 69, to 6-lanes was recently completed.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 16, 2019, 03:54:45 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 10, 2019, 10:50:58 PM
My suggestions:
I-90, from Boston to Buffalo
I-90 is already 6-lanes between I-84 in Sturbridge & I-93 in Boston.
But I-84 is still a long ways from Buffalo.
A lot of it could use six lanes, but probably not Utica to I-88 or the western Mass Pike.
Quote from: webny99 on July 16, 2019, 11:16:38 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 16, 2019, 03:54:45 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 10, 2019, 10:50:58 PM
My suggestions:
I-90, from Boston to Buffalo
I-90 is already 6-lanes between I-84 in Sturbridge & I-93 in Boston.
But I-84 is still a long ways from Buffalo.
A lot of it could use six lanes, but probably not Utica to I-88 or the western Mass Pike.
Meh. I'd settle for three lanes from NY 13 west into Syracuse.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 12, 2019, 03:54:55 AM
(2) Policies may favor development in new regions, but you cannot stop people from "longing" to live in iconic places: San Francisco, Seattle, Miami, New York City, etc. Living in cities like these are landmark achievements for some. No one who grew up in rural Nebraska, longing for the day when they could catch a glimpse of the Space Needle on the daily, is going to be super-happy when they end up in Tacoma for 20 years (the point was to live in Seattle!) Companies that headquarter themselves in these cities, benefit from being in places that people want to live. It's a sound business decision, to locate somewhere attractive. "Attractive", 60 years ago, was the suburbs. That's just not the case anymore.
I think this sort of thing is kind of an edge case. Yes, people can and do fall in love with particular cities and move there. The vast majority of people end up in a metro area due to it being 1) the closest metro to where they grew up 2) a metro they have family (or maybe friends) in 3) a metro that they moved to in order to take a job (or education) there. The first two are more a result of pure momentum than anything else and not something that can be controlled on a policy level.
I think it's fairly rare that someone have an ambition to move to a particular city they have nothing but aesthetic attachment to because it runs counter to our programming as social beings. In doing so, you lose the benefit of a social support structure you have in your home city. Even if you secure a job, you initially have no friends, and it takes time to build a network of them. You have to find a place to live. You have to learn where the good mechanics and plumbers are, new recreational options, and so forth. Get new doctors and dentists.
Rarely does a city captivate someone to go through the significant discomfort of attempting such a transplant, and when it does, recidivism is commonplace. (A fun exercise is to go on OKCTalk and see how many users mention moving to larger cities with stars in their eyes, only to end up back in OKC whenever the new wore off and they realized it wasn't really so bad here.) There are only a handful of cities that command such a stature–New York, Los Angeles, Austin, Portland,
maybe Seattle (I've heard more people want to move to Austin than Seattle, but that's anecdotal). Most of these cities have industries that would be drawing people in for those reasons anyway, so people moving there for brand reasons are essentially rounding error. That is, the number of people who grow up dreaming of moving to Seattle for Seattle's sake is probably an order of magnitude lower than those who dream of getting a job at Microsoft, Nintendo of America, Amazon, etc. and Seattle is simply the venue where that happens.
More importantly, because the number of cities where this even applies is a few percent of the metro areas in the US, it doesn't make sense to discuss it as a major traffic generator–it is wholly irrelevant to the freeway system in Salt Lake, or Sioux Falls, or Oklahoma City, or Tulsa, or Waco, Texas, or Champaign-Urbana, Illinois.
These so called "iconic" cities - San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, New York, Boston, Washington, could also be labeled as too expensive. If no one doing the service work - retail, restaurants, convenience stores, etc. can afford to live there - it does not bode well for the place.
Quote from: DJStephens on July 20, 2019, 08:43:27 PM
These so called "iconic" cities - San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Seattle, New York, Boston, Washington, could also be labeled as too expensive. If no one doing the service work - retail, restaurants, convenience stores, etc. can afford to live there - it does not bode well for the place.
Ditto police, fire and other emergency services, public works, etc. I consider this to be a fatal flaw in the entire concept of zoning for land use control.
Mike
^ It's not just zoning (which can technically be changed, and often is). NIMBYs have become a big factor as well.
Quote from: DJStephens on July 20, 2019, 08:43:27 PM
These so called "iconic" cities - San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Seattle, New York, Boston, Washington, could also be labeled as too expensive. If no one doing the service work - retail, restaurants, convenience stores, etc. can afford to live there - it does not bode well for the place.
Chicago and Philadelphia might feel 'slighted' by being omitted from the list of "iconic" cities! :-D
Quote from: Beltway on July 21, 2019, 08:07:05 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on July 20, 2019, 08:43:27 PM
These so called "iconic" cities - San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Seattle, New York, Boston, Washington, could also be labeled as too expensive. If no one doing the service work - retail, restaurants, convenience stores, etc. can afford to live there - it does not bode well for the place.
Chicago and Philadelphia might feel 'slighted' by being omitted from the list of "iconic" cities! :-D
That wasn't the point of the post. :banghead:
Quote from: mgk920 on July 21, 2019, 03:49:56 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on July 20, 2019, 08:43:27 PM
These so called "iconic" cities - San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Seattle, New York, Boston, Washington, could also be labeled as too expensive. If no one doing the service work - retail, restaurants, convenience stores, etc. can afford to live there - it does not bode well for the place.
Ditto police, fire and other emergency services, public works, etc. I consider this to be a fatal flaw in the entire concept of zoning for land use control.
Mike
Especially when cities like Boston force their municipal employees to live in the city of Boston.
Don't know if this was mentioned yet, but the New Jersey Turnpike could use 6-lanes down to the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Or even better - continue the 3-3-3-3 roadway all the way down.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 21, 2019, 01:24:58 PM
Don't know if this was mentioned yet, but the New Jersey Turnpike could use 6-lanes down to the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Or even better - continue the 3-3-3-3 roadway all the way down.
6 lanes yes. 8 lanes OK, even as 2-2-2-2. 12 lanes no.
A good portion of the NJTP traffic is now exiting to follow I-95. If 6 lanes of NB NJTP had to merge with 3 lanes of I-95 NB into 6 lanes of I-95/NJTP, we'd have problems.
There would also be problems on the southern end. I-295 has to merge into NJTP and then there are only 4 lanes in each direction on the Delaware Memorial Bridge.
The way I see it, if two highways merge in, and the merged highway is not adjustable, the maximum that each of the two highways can be is one lane more (each) that what is available on the merge.
That was hard to understand, here's an example:
Del Mem Bridge is 4 lanes southbound. Assume this won't be widened. (The lanes of NJTP-1) + (the lanes of 295 - 1) <= (lanes of the bridge).
So a 4 lane NJTP SB with a 2 lane 295 SB would work. A 3 lane NJTP SB and a 3 lane 295 SB would also work. (A total of 6 lanes SB). This means that on both the NJTP and 295, one lane each would end around the merge point before entering the bridge. If any of the roadways were wider, going SB, it would create too much merging delay at this point.
So the total lanes SB must be 6 or less to avoid cramming the bridge. Since we are dealing with both NJTP and 295 and 295 can't be less than 2 lanes, NJTP can only be a maximum of 4 SB lanes.
Quote from: froggie on July 21, 2019, 06:34:51 AM
^ It's not just zoning (which can technically be changed, and often is). NIMBYs have become a big factor as well.
IMHO, the NIMBY effect plays a big part in this growing failure of zoning.
Mike
Quote from: DJStephens on July 20, 2019, 08:43:27 PM
These so called "iconic" cities - San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Seattle, New York, Boston, Washington, could also be labeled as too expensive. If no one doing the service work - retail, restaurants, convenience stores, etc. can afford to live there - it does not bode well for the place.
You said Seattle twice.
Quote from: Road Hog on July 22, 2019, 04:49:22 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on July 20, 2019, 08:43:27 PM
These so called "iconic" cities - San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Seattle, New York, Boston, Washington, could also be labeled as too expensive. If no one doing the service work - retail, restaurants, convenience stores, etc. can afford to live there - it does not bode well for the place.
You said Seattle twice.
:-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o
^ The only thing less necessary than what you were responding to, was your response. :meh:
Quote from: mrsman on July 21, 2019, 07:05:43 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 21, 2019, 01:24:58 PM
Don't know if this was mentioned yet, but the New Jersey Turnpike could use 6-lanes down to the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Or even better - continue the 3-3-3-3 roadway all the way down.
6 lanes yes. 8 lanes OK, even as 2-2-2-2. 12 lanes no.
Totally agree. In addition to the argument you laid out regarding the Del Mem Bridge being a constraint, also keep in mind that I-295 serves a lot of the local traffic south of NJTP Exit 6 (which happens to be where the 3-3-3-3 setup ends - certainly not mere coincidence!).
When you consider I-295 as part of the same corridor as the NJTP, having 6 lanes on I-295 and 6 on the Turnpike, essentially does the same thing as having 12 lanes in a 3-3-3-3 setup. The way the traffic is
split up (local on I-295/long distance on NJTP
vs trucks on outer roadway/cars on inner roadway) is different, but the same traffic volumes can be handled either way. Going up to 12 lanes on the Turnpike would be like going to 18 lanes total, which is just completely unnecessary. With the Philly traffic having already exited the Turnpike and not rejoining until south of Wilmington, the traffic volumes needed to justify more than six lanes just aren't there.
Quote from: mrsman on July 21, 2019, 07:05:43 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 21, 2019, 01:24:58 PM
Don't know if this was mentioned yet, but the New Jersey Turnpike could use 6-lanes down to the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Or even better - continue the 3-3-3-3 roadway all the way down.
6 lanes yes. 8 lanes OK, even as 2-2-2-2. 12 lanes no.
A good portion of the NJTP traffic is now exiting to follow I-95. If 6 lanes of NB NJTP had to merge with 3 lanes of I-95 NB into 6 lanes of I-95/NJTP, we'd have problems.
There would also be problems on the southern end. I-295 has to merge into NJTP and then there are only 4 lanes in each direction on the Delaware Memorial Bridge.
The way I see it, if two highways merge in, and the merged highway is not adjustable, the maximum that each of the two highways can be is one lane more (each) that what is available on the merge.
That was hard to understand, here's an example:
Del Mem Bridge is 4 lanes southbound. Assume this won't be widened. (The lanes of NJTP-1) + (the lanes of 295 - 1) <= (lanes of the bridge).
So a 4 lane NJTP SB with a 2 lane 295 SB would work. A 3 lane NJTP SB and a 3 lane 295 SB would also work. (A total of 6 lanes SB). This means that on both the NJTP and 295, one lane each would end around the merge point before entering the bridge. If any of the roadways were wider, going SB, it would create too much merging delay at this point.
So the total lanes SB must be 6 or less to avoid cramming the bridge. Since we are dealing with both NJTP and 295 and 295 can't be less than 2 lanes, NJTP can only be a maximum of 4 SB lanes.
I say just keep doing 6 lanes. Traffic capacity there isn't that high and it's not a problem really. 2-2-2-2 would be nice but 3-3-3-3, no.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 25, 2019, 02:04:19 AM
Quote from: mrsman on July 21, 2019, 07:05:43 PM
So the total lanes SB must be 6 or less to avoid cramming the bridge. Since we are dealing with both NJTP and 295 and 295 can't be less than 2 lanes, NJTP can only be a maximum of 4 SB lanes.
I say just keep doing 6 lanes. Traffic capacity there isn't that high and it's not a problem really. 2-2-2-2 would be nice but 3-3-3-3, no.
It doesn't need more than 6 lanes (3 each way).
Quote from: Beltway on July 25, 2019, 08:22:49 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 25, 2019, 02:04:19 AM
Quote from: mrsman on July 21, 2019, 07:05:43 PM
So the total lanes SB must be 6 or less to avoid cramming the bridge. Since we are dealing with both NJTP and 295 and 295 can't be less than 2 lanes, NJTP can only be a maximum of 4 SB lanes.
I say just keep doing 6 lanes. Traffic capacity there isn't that high and it's not a problem really. 2-2-2-2 would be nice but 3-3-3-3, no.
It doesn't need more than 6 lanes (3 each way).
Agree with you. 6 lanes is good enough. Widen it again in the future when there's more traffic.
Could we get a full list of all six-laning projects currently in progress?
-Alabama: I-20/59 near Tuscaloosa
-Ohio: I-75 south of Exit 157, portions of I-80/90 near Toledo
-Wisconsin: I-90/39 from the Illinois line to Madison
Six-Laning of Rural Freeways, Execution, Where Needed; State Rankings:
Above Average:
Ohio
Kentucky
Georgia
Florida
Texas
Colorado
Average:
Minnesota
Illinois
Wisconsin
Michigan
Alabama
North Carolina
Below Average:
New York
Pennsylvania
Indiana
Virginia
Tennessee
South Carolina
Unknown:
Massachusetts
Connecticut
New Jersey
Maryland
West Virginia
Mississippi
Louisiana
Arkansas
Missouri
Iowa
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma
New Mexico
Arizona
Nevada
Utah
Idaho
Washington
Oregon
California
Not Needed/Sufficient:
Maine
Vermont
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Delaware
North Dakota
South Dakota
Wyoming
Montana
^ Please define "above/below average".
Quote from: webny99 on September 11, 2019, 11:27:24 AM
Could we get a full list of all six-laning projects currently in progress?
Virginia has 62 miles under construction (and 389 miles completed in the past). About 60 miles of I-81 should be under construction within the next 2 years.
Route Limit Limit Description Compl. Miles Comment
64 Mallory Street in Hampton I-564 4 lanes widened to 6 and 8 2025 9 HRBT Expansion
64 I-264/I-664 Bowers Hill East of I-464 4 lanes widened to 6 2022 9 High-Rise Br.
64 West of VA-199 Exit 234 West of VA-199 Exit 242 4 lanes widened to 6 2021 8 Segment 3
66 US-29 at Gainesville I-495 Beltway 8 lanes widened to 10 2021 22
95 VA-3 at Fredericksburg N. of US-17 at Falmouth 6 lanes widened to 3-3-3-2 2023 4
95 US-17 at Falmouth VA-610 at Garrisonville 6 lanes widened to 3-2-3 2022 10
Excel format here --
http://www.capital-beltway.com/VA-Freeway-Widening-Projects.xlsm
Quote from: Beltway on September 11, 2019, 04:00:40 PM
Route Limit Limit Description Compl. Miles Comment
64 Mallory Street in Hampton I-564 4 lanes widened to 6 and 8 2025 9 HRBT Expansion
64 I-264/I-664 Bowers Hill East of I-464 4 lanes widened to 6 2022 9 High-Rise Br.
64 West of VA-199 Exit 234 West of VA-199 Exit 242 4 lanes widened to 6 2021 8 Segment 3
66 US-29 at Gainesville I-495 Beltway 8 lanes widened to 10 2021 22
95 VA-3 at Fredericksburg N. of US-17 at Falmouth 6 lanes widened to 3-3-3-2 2023 4
95 US-17 at Falmouth VA-610 at Garrisonville 6 lanes widened to 3-2-3 2022 10
Excel format here --
http://www.capital-beltway.com/VA-Freeway-Widening-Projects.xlsm
Important to note that the bolded projects (66% of them) are only adding HO/T lane (tolled) capacity, no general purpose capacity.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 05:15:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 11, 2019, 04:00:40 PM
Route Limit Limit Description Compl. Miles Comment
64 Mallory Street in Hampton I-564 4 lanes widened to 6 and 8 2025 9 HRBT Expansion
64 I-264/I-664 Bowers Hill East of I-464 4 lanes widened to 6 2022 9 High-Rise Br.
64 West of VA-199 Exit 234 West of VA-199 Exit 242 4 lanes widened to 6 2021 8 Segment 3
66 US-29 at Gainesville I-495 Beltway 8 lanes widened to 10 2021 22
95 VA-3 at Fredericksburg N. of US-17 at Falmouth 6 lanes widened to 3-3-3-2 2023 4
95 US-17 at Falmouth VA-610 at Garrisonville 6 lanes widened to 3-2-3 2022 10
Important to note that the bolded projects (66% of them) are only adding HO/T lane (tolled) capacity, no general purpose capacity.
Important to who? It is a large increase in peak direction capacity on I-95, and in both directions on the others.
They are Interstate widening projects.
Just because you are cheap about using tollroads doesn't mean that other people are.
Quote from: Beltway on September 11, 2019, 05:29:38 PM
Important to who? It is a large increase in peak direction capacity on I-95, and in both directions on the others.
Well those daily 5+ mile backups really show the increase of capacity...
Quote from: Beltway on September 11, 2019, 05:29:38 PM
Just because you are cheap about using tollroads doesn't mean that other people are.
Trust me, a lot of people are and a lot avoid toll roads at all costs. That is evident around here with Dominion Blvd, the Chesapeake Expressway, and the tunnels.
Quote from: webny99 on September 11, 2019, 11:27:24 AM
Could we get a full list of all six-laning projects currently in progress?
-Alabama: I-20/59 near Tuscaloosa
-Ohio: I-75 south of Exit 157, portions of I-80/90 near Toledo
-Wisconsin: I-90/39 from the Illinois line to Madison
Illinois: I-57 has a five mile stretch being widened near Johnston City.
Indiana: Part of I-65 near Seymour
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 05:31:08 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 11, 2019, 05:29:38 PM
Important to who? It is a large increase in peak direction capacity on I-95, and in both directions on the others.
Well those daily 5+ mile backups really show the increase of capacity...
All you do is complain.
Note that I-95 has had 141 miles of widening completed and 14 miles under construction. The auxiliary route I-495 has had 39 miles of widening completed (and that means that parts have been widened more than once), and my table didn't track the Springfield Interchange Project as one of the widening projects.
Before you complain that "most were a long time ago" be advised that those lanes are still doing their handiwork today and going forward!
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 05:31:08 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 11, 2019, 05:29:38 PM
Just because you are cheap about using tollroads doesn't mean that other people are.
Trust me, a lot of people are and a lot avoid toll roads at all costs. That is evident around here with Dominion Blvd, the Chesapeake Expressway, and the tunnels.
Time to call you out on your attitude about tolls. Based on your various trip descriptions and roads you have seen, you probably drive at least 20,000 miles per year, maybe 25,000 or more. Even a good used car costs at least $15,000 nowadays. Even an entry level technician job pays at least $30,000 yearly (or about $15/hr) nowadays.
Most everybody likes to economize where they can, but frankly IMO you need to loosen up some about using tollroads. With E-ZPass it simply becomes part of a monthly bill that is part of the cost of driving.
These are my last 4 trips to the MD Eastern Shore and IMO it was well worth the convenience, not a lot of congestion on the GP but there were some spots, and when I exited I did not feel shortchanged.
7/8/2019 9:13:02 AM 95 NB EXPRESS LANES -13.65 Monday
7/8/2019 8:58:08 PM 95 SB EXPRESS LANES -6.90
8/1/2019 9:51 am 95 NB Express Lanes -9.30 Thursday
8/1/2019 9:13 pm 95 SB Express Lanes -8.20
8/20/2019 9:41:29 AM 95 NB EXPRESS LANES -12.75 Tuesday
8/20/2019 8:58:16 PM 95 SB EXPRESS LANES -10.65
8/31/2019 7:30 AM 95 General Purpose NB 0.00 Saturday
8/31/2019 6:30 PM 95 General Purpose SB 0.00
Don't be cheap.
Quote from: Beltway on September 11, 2019, 05:45:21 PM
Note that I-95 has had 141 miles of widening completed and 14 miles under construction. The auxiliary route I-495 has had 39 miles of widening completed (and that means that parts have been widened more than once), and my table didn't track the Springfield Interchange Project as one of the widening projects.
Just out of curiosity, how much of that has been general purpose expansion, and how much has been HO/T capacity?
I'm not against HO/T lanes, I've said that before, it's just the fact that there needs to be a mix of HO/T lanes and general purpose expansion, and as of lately, it's been merely HO/T lanes, and nothing but HO/T lanes.
HO/T lanes add capacity and can be considered widening projects, but I prefer to distinguish HO/T capacity addition from general purpose addition, hence why I made my previous post. It's not the same as a general purpose widening, and doesn't add the full amount of capacity as a general purpose widening would to the overall highway. Sure, the toll lanes fly at highway speeds, but the general purpose lanes still crawl, and only increase speeds -slightly-. A general purpose expansion on the other hand doesn't offer the toll incentive to fly at highway speeds, but overall the traffic flow is moving faster. That's why I feel it's important to distinguish those two types of capacity expansions and not to interchange (pun intended) them.
Quote from: Beltway on September 11, 2019, 05:45:21 PM
Time to call you out on your attitude about tolls. Based on your various trip descriptions and roads you have seen, you probably drive at least 20,000 miles per year, maybe 25,000 or more. Even a good used car costs at least $15,000 nowadays. Even an entry level technician job pays at least $30,000 yearly (or about $15/hr) nowadays.
Most everybody likes to economize where they can, but frankly IMO you need to loosen up some about using tollroads. With E-ZPass it simply becomes part of a monthly bill that is part of the cost of driving.
These are my last 4 trips to the MD Eastern Shore and IMO it was well worth the convenience, not a lot of congestion on the GP but there were some spots, and when I exited I did not feel shortchanged.
7/8/2019 9:13:02 AM 95 NB EXPRESS LANES -13.65 Monday
7/8/2019 8:58:08 PM 95 SB EXPRESS LANES -6.90
8/1/2019 9:51 am 95 NB Express Lanes -9.30 Thursday
8/1/2019 9:13 pm 95 SB Express Lanes -8.20
8/20/2019 9:41:29 AM 95 NB EXPRESS LANES -12.75 Tuesday
8/20/2019 8:58:16 PM 95 SB EXPRESS LANES -10.65
8/31/2019 7:30 AM 95 General Purpose NB 0.00 Saturday
8/31/2019 6:30 PM 95 General Purpose SB 0.00
Don't be cheap.
I'm not against paying most tolls, especially if it's a reasonable price. For example, I used the TX-130 toll road to bypass Austin when traveling on I-35 between Dallas and San Antonio this past summer on a Friday during afternoon peak. ~$19 for 90 miles of 80-85 mph toll road via toll-by-plate. To me, that was worth it. There was some congestion on the toll road, but it was always moving at least 40 mph and it was only a small section, and that section that has congestion issues is currently under construction to add a third lane in each direction. Comparing that to my other trips through Austin on the free I-35 at peak hours where it's mostly a standstill for miles and miles on end, it was definitely worth it, and I would definitely do it again.
More locally, if they had built the ~50 mile US-460 toll road, I would have gladly paid the ~$4-6 toll that was proposed to bypass the mess on I-64 on every trip. If they built an outer DC toll road ~80-90 miles long with a ~$15-20 toll, I'd gladly use it for that price.
What I'm against is the price gauging techniques used during peak hours
(usually at least $20, a lot of times $30 one-way tolls for the entire trip, only about ~30 miles.) the time I mostly used I-95
(I used to use I-95 multiple times per month, though as of lately I haven't been traveling up that way regularly). For me, I'd rather sit in traffic than pay that amount, as I'm not really in a hurry to get anywhere.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 06:10:22 PM
What I'm against is the price gouging techniques used during peak hours (usually at least $20, a lot of times $30 one-way tolls for the entire trip, only about ~30 miles.) the time I mostly used I-95 (I used to use I-95 multiple times per month, though as of lately I haven't been traveling up that way regularly). For me, I'd rather sit in traffic than pay that amount, as I'm not really in a hurry to get anywhere.
The price seems ridiculous, but if the tolls were lower, the toll lanes would be just as congested as the main lanes.
Quote from: 1 on September 11, 2019, 06:13:13 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 06:10:22 PM
What I'm against is the price gouging techniques used during peak hours (usually at least $20, a lot of times $30 one-way tolls for the entire trip, only about ~30 miles.) the time I mostly used I-95 (I used to use I-95 multiple times per month, though as of lately I haven't been traveling up that way regularly). For me, I'd rather sit in traffic than pay that amount, as I'm not really in a hurry to get anywhere.
The price seems ridiculous, but if the tolls were lower, the toll lanes would be just as congested as the main lanes.
I understand that, but I'm just saying, in my head, $30 for ~30 miles is not worth it for me.
Quote from: 1 on September 11, 2019, 06:13:13 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 06:10:22 PM
What I'm against is the price gouging techniques used during peak hours (usually at least $20, a lot of times $30 one-way tolls for the entire trip, only about ~30 miles.) the time I mostly used I-95 (I used to use I-95 multiple times per month, though as of lately I haven't been traveling up that way regularly). For me, I'd rather sit in traffic than pay that amount, as I'm not really in a hurry to get anywhere.
The price seems ridiculous, but if the tolls were lower, the toll lanes would be just as congested as the main lanes.
The horror of not having enough capacity and just charging people for some of it...
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 06:10:22 PM
Just out of curiosity, how much of that has been general purpose expansion, and how much has been HO/T capacity?
I could add a flag to the table to track that. However keep in mind that the 28 miles of I-95 between VA-234 and D.C. is in a third category as where the original reversible roadway widening addition was funded toll-free with 90% FHWA funding and 10% state funding (completions 1975 and 1997).
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 06:10:22 PM
It's not the same as a general purpose widening, and doesn't add the full amount of capacity as a general purpose widening would to the overall highway.
Nonsense. It adds exactly the same approx. 2,200 vehicles per hour per lane.
As far as current traffic problems on VA I-95, stop blaming Virginia for that and start blaming Maryland, who has refused so far to participate in any of the 4 general Washington bypass proposals that have been studied in the past, which would provide relief to I-95 and alternates to I-95. Even one of these would be a major help, and I most favor a VA-207/US-301 freeway or I-97 extension.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 06:10:22 PM
A general purpose expansion on the other hand doesn't offer the toll incentive to fly at highway speeds, but overall the traffic flow is moving faster.
There is no way that you can quantitatively demonstrate that.
The added toll lane means the whole highway has more lanes and more capacity and means relief from the GP lanes.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 06:10:22 PM
What I'm against is the price gauging techniques used during peak hours (usually at least $20, a lot of times $30 one-way tolls for the entire trip, only about ~30 miles.)
I have disproved that figure multiple times, I just did so above. My trips in and near peak hours average nowhere near those figures.
My data comes from the E-ZPass website transaction records, so I can assure you that it is accurate.
Saturdays are still often busy and notice that on August 31st that traffic conditions were good enough that I stayed on the GP lanes and paid no toll. I would average that zero toll day in with all the other toll trips to get an average figure.
Quote from: Beltway on September 11, 2019, 08:47:28 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 06:10:22 PM
What I'm against is the price gauging techniques used during peak hours (usually at least $20, a lot of times $30 one-way tolls for the entire trip, only about ~30 miles.)
I have disproved that figure multiple times, I just did so above. My trips in and near peak hours average nowhere near those figures.
What about 5 PM?
Quote from: 1 on September 11, 2019, 08:50:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 11, 2019, 08:47:28 PM
I have disproved that figure multiple times, I just did so above. My trips in and near peak hours average nowhere near those figures.
What about 5 PM?
What about it? Does everybody travel at 5 pm? If you are an out-of-town intermittent user like myself your times will be varied like I listed above.
As has been pointed out many times, when a variable toll gets that high it is because the lanes are so close to capacity that additional users are "priced off" of the lanes. When the use is that high you have full usage of the lanes which is a sign of success (not failure).
Quote from: Beltway on September 11, 2019, 08:58:05 PM
Quote from: 1 on September 11, 2019, 08:50:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 11, 2019, 08:47:28 PM
I have disproved that figure multiple times, I just did so above. My trips in and near peak hours average nowhere near those figures.
What about 5 PM?
What about it? Does everybody travel at 5 pm? If you are an out-of-town intermittent user like myself your times will be varied like I listed above.
As has been pointed out many times, when a variable toll gets that high it is because the lanes are so close to capacity that additional users are "priced off" of the lanes. When the use is that high you have full usage of the lanes which is a sign of success (not failure).
I already said my travels take me on I-95 during peak hours. The tolls then are in the $30 range. I'm not paying that just to bypass some congestion.
QuoteWhat I'm against is the price gauging techniques used during peak hours, the time I mostly used I-95. For me, I'd rather sit in traffic than pay that amount, as I'm not really in a hurry to get anywhere.
And what you describe is called price gauging. Exactly what I'm not a fan of, and exactly why I'm not going to buy into it.
Maybe VDOT should study general purpose widening instead of constantly announcing all these new HO/T lane extensions.
And don't bring back this whole DC bypass stuff. It's a great concept, but is it really going to relieve all of the traffic problems on I-95? Will it render it to the point where it won't need anymore widening? How much traffic is really thru traffic and how much is local? If a lot of traffic is local, then you're not doing too much building a bypass asides from letting thru traffic get around.
Look at TX-130 for example. 90 mile toll road around Austin. I used it on my recent trip in Texas to bypass Austin. Worth the $19 toll-by-plate toll, avoided the city completely, and didn't have much traffic issues. But the southern segment of the toll road only has ~5,000 AADT. Meanwhile I-35 through Austin has 200,000+ AADT and is still massively choked to death crawling during peak hours. That bypass is nice to have, but improvements are also needed on I-35 as well. The exact reason TXDOT is studying a multi-billion dollar expansion which would add general purpose lanes along with "managed lanes" that would 2-3 lanes each direction with limited-access points designed for thru-traffic, similar to the HO/T lanes. But here's the catch - no tolls.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 09:26:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 11, 2019, 08:58:05 PM
Quote from: 1 on September 11, 2019, 08:50:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 11, 2019, 08:47:28 PM
I have disproved that figure multiple times, I just did so above. My trips in and near peak hours average nowhere near those figures.
What about 5 PM?
What about it? Does everybody travel at 5 pm? If you are an out-of-town intermittent user like myself your times will be varied like I listed above.
As has been pointed out many times, when a variable toll gets that high it is because the lanes are so close to capacity that additional users are "priced off" of the lanes. When the use is that high you have full usage of the lanes which is a sign of success (not failure).
I already said my travels take me on I-95 during peak hours. The tolls then are in the $30 range. I'm not paying that just to bypass some congestion.
QuoteWhat I'm against is the price gauging techniques used during peak hours, the time I mostly used I-95. For me, I'd rather sit in traffic than pay that amount, as I'm not really in a hurry to get anywhere.
And what you describe is called price gauging. Exactly what I'm not a fan of, and exactly why I'm not going to buy into it.
Maybe VDOT should study general purpose widening instead of constantly announcing all these new HO/T lane extensions.
And don't bring back this whole DC bypass stuff. It's a great concept, but is it really going to relieve all of the traffic problems on I-95? Will it render it to the point where it won't need anymore widening? How much traffic is really thru traffic and how much is local? If a lot of traffic is local, then you're not doing too much building a bypass asides from letting thru traffic get around.
Look at TX-130 for example. 90 mile toll road around Austin. I used it on my recent trip in Texas to bypass Austin. Worth the $19 toll-by-plate toll, avoided the city completely, and didn't have much traffic issues. But the southern segment of the toll road only has ~5,000 AADT. Meanwhile I-35 through Austin has 200,000+ AADT and is still massively choked to death crawling during peak hours. That bypass is nice to have, but improvements are also needed on I-35 as well. The exact reason TXDOT is studying a multi-billion dollar expansion which would add general purpose lanes along with "managed lanes" that would 2-3 lanes each direction with limited-access points designed for thru-traffic, similar to the HO/T lanes. But here's the catch - no tolls.
You are clearly not understanding how variable pricing works. The goal is to keep traffic moving at 45 mph and above. The toll is simply priced to limit demand. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to pay that price.
As for a previous comment about paying $15 or whatever to drive a new outer ring of the DC beltway...now you're not understanding economics. If it costs $10 to make a widget, I can't sell it for $5. Likewise, I can't build a toll road that won't allow me too recoup my costs.
Public-private partnerships are not about recouping costs, but recouping costs PLUS making a profit for the private partner. Therefore, they inherently cause the public to pay more than an organization that would be restricted to not making a profit.
I also like how you said it is a simple matter to limit demand. Yep, we only want those who can line the toll operator's pockets with cash on the road, no matter what percentage of that person's income may be represented, rather than serving the entire public.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 11, 2019, 09:46:24 PM
You are clearly not understanding how variable pricing works. The goal is to keep traffic moving at 45 mph and above. The toll is simply priced to limit demand.
That's called price gauging. I understand that fully.
"Price gouging is a term referring to when a seller spikes the prices of goods, services or commodities to a level much higher than is considered reasonable or fair, and is considered exploitative, potentially to an unethical extent.
Usually this event occurs after a demand or supply shock." - AKA it's too "full"
Quote from: Rothman on September 11, 2019, 09:51:52 PM
Public-private partnerships are not about recouping costs, but recouping costs PLUS making a profit for the private partner. Therefore, they inherently cause the public to pay more than an organization that would be restricted to not making a profit.
Funny how toll lanes operated publicly by VDOT here in Hampton Roads rarely spike past $1.50 for 7 miles. By that standard, the I-95 HO/T lanes should be ~$6-8 for all 30 miles.
But for Transurban's toll road, it's $30 during peak hours.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC most HO/T lane facilities are nowhere near the price of I-95's.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 09:26:24 PM
I already said my travels take me on I-95 during peak hours. The tolls then are in the $30 range. I'm not paying that just to bypass some congestion.
I find that hard to believe, you live about 200 miles from there and you claim that your travels are always (or near always) in the center of rush hours?
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 09:26:24 PM
And what you describe is called price gauging. Exactly what I'm not a fan of, and exactly why I'm not going to buy into it.
Gauging (as in gauge) or gouging (as in gouge)?
The former is true and the latter is false. The pricing gets high only when it is needed to keep the lanes from getting over-congested.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 09:26:24 PM
And don't bring back this whole DC bypass stuff. It's a great concept, but is it really going to relieve all of the traffic problems on I-95?
Strawman. It won't relieve "all the traffic problems" but it would help a lot.
You keep attacking Virginia over the traffic problems on I-95 when that is the only north-south freeway south of I-495 (at least to I-295).
And I am going to hammer Maryland over this issue whenever it comes up.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 09:58:47 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 11, 2019, 09:51:52 PM
Public-private partnerships are not about recouping costs, but recouping costs PLUS making a profit for the private partner. Therefore, they inherently cause the public to pay more than an organization that would be restricted to not making a profit.
Public-private partnerships obtain capital from private sources which have vast resources far above what road use taxes could provide, the latter are rather limited, and public-private partnerships enable massive capacity increases on highways. It's that simple.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 09:58:47 PM
Funny how toll lanes operated publicly by VDOT here in Hampton Roads rarely spike past $1.50 for 7 miles. By that standard, the I-95 HO/T lanes should be ~$6-8 for all 30 miles.
Come on, you can't be this obtuse after all these past discussions.
The H.R. HOT lanes are far below capacity, that is why the tolls are low.
QuoteI find that hard to believe, you live about 200 miles from there and you claim that your travels are always (or near always) in the center of rush hours?
Leaving southbound on a Friday afternoon was the norm for me for quite awhile actually. I rarely make the DC trip anymore, so it's no longer an issue for me. But my point is when I did, it was frequently that price and frequently during peak hours, at least southbound. Northbound was never an issue, mostly at night and off-peak. Never have had the need to use the HO/T lanes then.
QuoteGauging (as in gauge) or gouging (as in gouge)?
Sorry, gouging is the correct term, not gauging.
$30 for 30 miles is absurd. Any way you slice it.
QuoteStrawman. It won't relieve "all the traffic problems" but it would help a lot.
You keep attacking Virginia over the traffic problems on I-95 when that is the only north-south freeway south of I-495 (at least to I-295).
And I am going to hammer Maryland over this issue whenever it comes up.
We see how well TX-130 relieved the traffic issues of I-35. Somewhat, but not enough that it still doesn't need improvements. Yet you seem to always ignore that example...?
What if majority of traffic on I-95 is DC bound? How is Maryland going to make that better?
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 10:30:52 PM
Leaving southbound on a Friday afternoon was the norm for me for quite awhile actually. I rarely make the DC trip anymore, so it's no longer an issue for me. But my point is when I did, it was frequently that price and frequently during peak hours, at least southbound. Northbound was never an issue, mostly at night and off-peak. Never have had the need to use the HO/T lanes then.
OK then, then take the average, as I did. Yours was high SB and zero NB. So a round trip would average 1/2 of the SB peak toll per leg.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 10:30:52 PM
QuoteGauging (as in gauge) or gouging (as in gouge)?
Sorry, gouging is the correct term, not gauging.
$30 for 30 miles is absurd. Any way you slice it.
The demand is so high that it takes that price to keep it from getting over-congested.
If that many people want to use it then they don't think it unreasonable (and I sure don't).
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 10:30:52 PM
We see how well TX-130 relieved the traffic issues of I-35. Yet you seem to always ignore that example...?
What about it? It is only an indirect bypass of I-35.
Quote from: froggie on September 11, 2019, 12:25:55 PM
^ Please define "above/below average".
-Above average means most or all of the needed six laning is being done promptly.
-Average means some of the needed six laning is being done, maybe slowly, but it is happening.
-Below average means very little to none of the needed six laning is being done.
I would generally expect six laning to be "needed" when volumes exceed 40K per day (to be a bit more generous than the 30K in the OP...) although I did not analyze AADT data for every state. If the 40K threshold has been met/exceeded in various locations for many years and no widening has been planned or executed, that tips the scales towards "below average" for that state.
That's also why some states are noted "sufficient"; they don't have enough highways carrying 40K or even 30K to require a plan/strategy for long-distance widenings.
Quote from: webny99 on September 11, 2019, 11:29:27 AM
Below Average:
Virginia
Quote from: webny99 on September 11, 2019, 11:02:28 PM
-Below average means very little to none of the needed six laning is being done.
I mean, I can't really argue with that.
Quote from: Beltway on September 11, 2019, 10:29:09 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 09:58:47 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 11, 2019, 09:51:52 PM
Public-private partnerships are not about recouping costs, but recouping costs PLUS making a profit for the private partner. Therefore, they inherently cause the public to pay more than an organization that would be restricted to not making a profit.
Public-private partnerships obtain capital from private sources which have vast resources far above what road use taxes could provide, the latter are rather limited, and public-private partnerships enable massive capacity increases on highways. It's that simple.
The private sources only provide capital so they can generate a profit. That is the core premise of our entire economy -- profit-driven private businesses.
I don't think your description is true -- that massive amounts of private capital is just sitting around to be easily obtained, but private sources are definitely an alternative means of funding -- but for a terrible price.
Transportation infrastructure should serve the travelling public first and foremost. What PPPs do is place profit above the desires of the travelling public. They are more about ensuring private businesses making money by extracting such from the public than making sure someone can make it from point A to point B at the lowest cost possible to the individual.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 10:30:52 PM
Leaving southbound on a Friday afternoon was the norm for me for quite awhile actually. I rarely make the DC trip anymore, so it's no longer an issue for me. But my point is when I did, it was frequently that price and frequently during peak hours, at least southbound. Northbound was never an issue, mostly at night and off-peak. Never have had the need to use the HO/T lanes then.
And there we go. It's not about the high cost. It's about the cost, period.
Why aren't you using the toll lanes when the price is low? Because there's no need as the free lanes are moving fine.
Why aren't you using the toll lanes when the price is high? Because you don't want to pay the high toll.
But what if the price was low and the lanes congested? Most likely you would see no benefit in using toll lanes that are congested, so you'll drive in the free lanes then too.
Quote from: Rothman on September 12, 2019, 08:46:00 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 11, 2019, 10:29:09 PM
Public-private partnerships obtain capital from private sources which have vast resources far above what road use taxes could provide, the latter are rather limited, and public-private partnerships enable massive capacity increases on highways. It's that simple.
The private sources only provide capital so they can generate a profit. That is the core premise of our entire economy -- profit-driven private businesses.
I don't think your description is true -- that massive amounts of private capital is just sitting around to be easily obtained, but private sources are definitely an alternative means of funding -- but for a terrible price.
Transportation infrastructure should serve the travelling public first and foremost. What PPPs do is place profit above the desires of the travelling public. They are more about ensuring private businesses making money by extracting such from the public than making sure someone can make it from point A to point B at the lowest cost possible to the individual.
You just keep repeating the same tripe. If the public was so opposed as you imply, they would be making it known, instead they use these facilities to capacity in nearly all cases, and all indications are that they are very much in support. You exaggerate the "private capital is just sitting around" when I just made the comment that in effect an order of magnitude more is available than tax funding which is inherently limited.
These PPTA projects build facilities and massive capacity expansions that would not otherwise be fundable from taxpayer largesse, they usually come in on-time and on-budget because of the profit incentive that you demagogue, to get it open and generating revenue as soon as possible, and to control the costs so that the return on investment is not lowered. This is the 21st Century. Governments have a way of massive delays and overruns on their projects.
This is not to say that tax funded toll-free projects should be deemphasized, indeed they should be funded as much as possible, but to get projects built above that level of funding, tolls and PPTA and other forms of innovative financing are a valuable part of the highway funding toolkit.
I suspect the public is opposed, but feels powerless to do anything about it. A lot of people gripe about toll roads and oppose them, but feel like their opinions really don't matter in the long run.
And, they would be right. Studies have shown that government is more responsive to corporate interests than the interests of private individuals.
The Interstate Highway System was mostly built with taxes. That model worked well and can again. Toll-free facilities that do not cause economic inequality on our transportation system are better at serving the public at large than tolled facilities that cause only those that can afford them to be able to use them (or putting an unnecessary extra economic burden on those on the cusp of affording them).
Finally, this idea that all government does is delay projects for a higher cost is false. The traditional design-bid-build process is actually quite efficient. It is with alterations to the bidding process where, at least in NY, we have seen inefficiencies (e.g., Kosciuszko Bridge design-build, where it was delivered on a great schedule, but for a concerning higher cost that caused a lot of wrist-wringing).
Since you called my argument tripe, all I can say is that you've drunk the Kool-Aid and are foolish to just hand over your money to private companies at a higher price than if things were publicly funded, precisely because private companies have to charge for profit above cost.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: Rothman on September 12, 2019, 09:39:06 AM
I suspect the public is opposed [PPP] , but feels powerless to do anything about it.
Proof? Polls? Articles? I suspect that you are talking thru your hat.
Quote from: Rothman on September 12, 2019, 09:39:06 AM
The Interstate Highway System was mostly built with taxes. That model worked well and can again. Toll-free facilities that do not cause economic inequality on our transportation system are better at serving the public at large than tolled facilities that cause only those that can afford them to be able to use them (or putting an unnecessary extra economic burden on those on the cusp of affording them).
Then why so many perpetual toll roads in your state (NY)? Including the longest end-to-end turnpike, built in the 1950s, the vast majority of which has never been expanded (and a number of AARoads posters have cited congestion problems between Buffalo and Albany that warrant 6-lane widening), and the number of NYC bridges and tunnels that have not been expanded in over 50 years yet they have tolls as high as the peak period tolls on the HOT lanes that you complain about, and all for one or two miles of highway.
Quote from: Rothman on September 12, 2019, 09:39:06 AM
Finally, this idea that all government does is delay projects for a higher cost is false. The traditional design-bid-build process is actually quite efficient. It is with alterations to the bidding process where, at least in NY, we have seen inefficiencies (e.g., Kosciuszko Bridge design-build, where it was delivered on a great schedule, but for a concerning higher cost that caused a lot of wrist-wringing).
Well there you go. I will grant they have gotten better (WWB and ICC for example came in close to schedule and budget and were not PPP) but before about 2005, it was a widely reported joke as to how poorly that government infrastructure "mega projects" did with regard to cost and schedule overruns. The Big Dig may have been the worst, but most of the others did almost as poorly.
Quote from: Rothman on September 12, 2019, 09:39:06 AM
Since you called my argument tripe, all I can say is that you've drunk the Kool-Aid and are foolish to just hand over your money to private companies at a higher price than if things were publicly funded, precisely because private companies have to charge for profit above cost.
Didn't you say that you are a member of a public sector union? I was a member of AFSCME when I worked for PennDOT in the 1970s, and as a young person I heard the word "profit" attacked enough times in union meetings and in conversations with union members, that I got a bad taste in my mouth about that word. Unions, especially those in the public sector, have a hatred of "profits".
When I started my business/IT education in my late 20s, it took awhile for me to get over that distaste and to realize how important it is that businesses make a profit so that they can grow and reinvest in their business. (And Virginia does not allow local and state public employees to unionize).
Now if CA/THT (Big Dig) had been a well-designed PPP, it might have been built for 1/3 the cost and delivered 5 years earlier and thus with less tax funding and with lower tolls on the tunnel and the turnpike. Same with other such "mega projects" of that era.
Now I don't think that PPP are "the cat's meow", just that they are one of the various tools in the road funding toolkit. Some projects they should be utilized and some others should not.
Quote from: Beltway on September 12, 2019, 01:31:49 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 12, 2019, 09:39:06 AM
I suspect the public is opposed [PPP] , but feels powerless to do anything about it.
Proof? Polls? Articles? I suspect that you are talking thru your hat.
Quote from: Rothman on September 12, 2019, 09:39:06 AM
The Interstate Highway System was mostly built with taxes. That model worked well and can again. Toll-free facilities that do not cause economic inequality on our transportation system are better at serving the public at large than tolled facilities that cause only those that can afford them to be able to use them (or putting an unnecessary extra economic burden on those on the cusp of affording them).
Then why so many perpetual toll roads in your state (NY)? Including the longest end-to-end turnpike, built in the 1950s, the vast majority of which has never been expanded (and a number of AARoads posters have cited congestion problems between Buffalo and Albany that warrant 6-lane widening), and the number of NYC bridges and tunnels that have not been expanded in over 50 years yet they have tolls as high as the peak period tolls on the HOT lanes that you complain about, and all for one or two miles of highway.
Quote from: Rothman on September 12, 2019, 09:39:06 AM
Finally, this idea that all government does is delay projects for a higher cost is false. The traditional design-bid-build process is actually quite efficient. It is with alterations to the bidding process where, at least in NY, we have seen inefficiencies (e.g., Kosciuszko Bridge design-build, where it was delivered on a great schedule, but for a concerning higher cost that caused a lot of wrist-wringing).
Well there you go. I will grant they have gotten better (WWB and ICC for example came in close to schedule and budget and were not PPP) but before about 2005, it was a widely reported joke as to how poorly that government infrastructure "mega projects" did with regard to cost and schedule overruns. The Big Dig may have been the worst, but most of the others did almost as poorly.
Quote from: Rothman on September 12, 2019, 09:39:06 AM
Since you called my argument tripe, all I can say is that you've drunk the Kool-Aid and are foolish to just hand over your money to private companies at a higher price than if things were publicly funded, precisely because private companies have to charge for profit above cost.
Didn't you say that you are a member of a public sector union? I was a member of AFSCME when I worked for PennDOT in the 1970s, and as a young person I heard the word "profit" attacked enough times in union meetings and in conversations with union members, that I got a bad taste in my mouth about that word. Unions, especially those in the public sector, have a hatred of "profits".
When I started my business/IT education in my late 20s, it took awhile for me to get over that distaste and to realize how important it is that businesses make a profit so that they can grow and reinvest in their business. (And Virginia does not allow local and state public employees to unionize).
Now if CA/THT (Big Dig) had been a well-designed PPP, it might have been built for 1/3 the cost and delivered 5 years earlier and thus with less tax funding and with lower tolls on the tunnel and the turnpike. Same with other such "mega projects" of that era.
Now I don't think that PPP are "the cat's meow", just that they are one of the various tools in the road funding toolkit. Some projects they should be utilized and some others should not.
Something tells me we're both talking out our hats. :D
Quote from: Beltway on September 12, 2019, 09:13:12 AM
Quote from: Rothman on September 12, 2019, 08:46:00 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 11, 2019, 10:29:09 PM
Public-private partnerships obtain capital from private sources which have vast resources far above what road use taxes could provide, the latter are rather limited, and public-private partnerships enable massive capacity increases on highways. It's that simple.
The private sources only provide capital so they can generate a profit. That is the core premise of our entire economy -- profit-driven private businesses.
I don't think your description is true -- that massive amounts of private capital is just sitting around to be easily obtained, but private sources are definitely an alternative means of funding -- but for a terrible price.
Transportation infrastructure should serve the travelling public first and foremost. What PPPs do is place profit above the desires of the travelling public. They are more about ensuring private businesses making money by extracting such from the public than making sure someone can make it from point A to point B at the lowest cost possible to the individual.
You just keep repeating the same tripe. If the public was so opposed as you imply, they would be making it known, instead they use these facilities to capacity in nearly all cases, and all indications are that they are very much in support. You exaggerate the "private capital is just sitting around" when I just made the comment that in effect an order of magnitude more is available than tax funding which is inherently limited.
These PPTA projects build facilities and massive capacity expansions that would not otherwise be fundable from taxpayer largesse, they usually come in on-time and on-budget because of the profit incentive that you demagogue, to get it open and generating revenue as soon as possible, and to control the costs so that the return on investment is not lowered. This is the 21st Century. Governments have a way of massive delays and overruns on their projects.
This is not to say that tax funded toll-free projects should be deemphasized, indeed they should be funded as much as possible, but to get projects built above that level of funding, tolls and PPTA and other forms of innovative financing are a valuable part of the highway funding toolkit.
Quote from: Beltway on September 12, 2019, 01:31:49 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 12, 2019, 09:39:06 AM
I suspect the public is opposed [PPP] , but feels powerless to do anything about it.
Proof? Polls? Articles? I suspect that you are talking thru your hat.
Quote from: Rothman on September 12, 2019, 09:39:06 AM
The Interstate Highway System was mostly built with taxes. That model worked well and can again. Toll-free facilities that do not cause economic inequality on our transportation system are better at serving the public at large than tolled facilities that cause only those that can afford them to be able to use them (or putting an unnecessary extra economic burden on those on the cusp of affording them).
Then why so many perpetual toll roads in your state (NY)? Including the longest end-to-end turnpike, built in the 1950s, the vast majority of which has never been expanded (and a number of AARoads posters have cited congestion problems between Buffalo and Albany that warrant 6-lane widening), and the number of NYC bridges and tunnels that have not been expanded in over 50 years yet they have tolls as high as the peak period tolls on the HOT lanes that you complain about, and all for one or two miles of highway.
Quote from: Rothman on September 12, 2019, 09:39:06 AM
Finally, this idea that all government does is delay projects for a higher cost is false. The traditional design-bid-build process is actually quite efficient. It is with alterations to the bidding process where, at least in NY, we have seen inefficiencies (e.g., Kosciuszko Bridge design-build, where it was delivered on a great schedule, but for a concerning higher cost that caused a lot of wrist-wringing).
Well there you go. I will grant they have gotten better (WWB and ICC for example came in close to schedule and budget and were not PPP) but before about 2005, it was a widely reported joke as to how poorly that government infrastructure "mega projects" did with regard to cost and schedule overruns. The Big Dig may have been the worst, but most of the others did almost as poorly.
Quote from: Rothman on September 12, 2019, 09:39:06 AM
Since you called my argument tripe, all I can say is that you've drunk the Kool-Aid and are foolish to just hand over your money to private companies at a higher price than if things were publicly funded, precisely because private companies have to charge for profit above cost.
Didn't you say that you are a member of a public sector union? I was a member of AFSCME when I worked for PennDOT in the 1970s, and as a young person I heard the word "profit" attacked enough times in union meetings and in conversations with union members, that I got a bad taste in my mouth about that word. Unions, especially those in the public sector, have a hatred of "profits".
When I started my business/IT education in my late 20s, it took awhile for me to get over that distaste and to realize how important it is that businesses make a profit so that they can grow and reinvest in their business. (And Virginia does not allow local and state public employees to unionize).
Now if CA/THT (Big Dig) had been a well-designed PPP, it might have been built for 1/3 the cost and delivered 5 years earlier and thus with less tax funding and with lower tolls on the tunnel and the turnpike. Same with other such "mega projects" of that era.
Now I don't think that PPP are "the cat's meow", just that they are one of the various tools in the road funding toolkit. Some projects they should be utilized and some others should not.
Can you just accept the fact not everyone agrees with P3's? I agree with the majority of the things Rothman have said, just because you can get on here and spew these factoids doesn't change my opinions, and probably doesn't anyone else.
I think we all need to agree to disagree - on pretty much every issue we disagree on. Pages of arguments spilling the same back and forth gets nowhere. We've been through this before, and nothing got accomplished. I'm not changing my opinion, you're not changing yours, and Rothman isn't changing his. And I'm not blaming you specifically, it's all of us. But it takes one to say something and that's what I'm doing.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 12, 2019, 04:43:20 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 12, 2019, 09:13:12 AM
Now I don't think that PPP are "the cat's meow", just that they are one of the various tools in the road funding toolkit. Some projects they should be utilized and some others should not.
Can you just accept the fact not everyone agrees with P3's? I agree with the majority of the things Rothman have said, just because you can get on here and spew these factoids doesn't change my opinions, and probably doesn't anyone else.
I think we all need to agree to disagree - on pretty much every issue we disagree on. Pages of arguments spilling the same back and forth gets nowhere. We've been through this before, and nothing got accomplished. I'm not changing my opinion, you're not changing yours, and Rothman isn't changing his. And I'm not blaming you specifically, it's all of us. But it takes one to say something and that's what I'm doing.
I think you have an attitudinal problem, just reread what you wrote above. I am the one who is taking a middle ground position on this issue, and acknowledging that PPP is just one tool, and not meant to replace tax funding. Some projects are appropriate for PPP, some are not.
You are taking the outlier position, that almost nothing is good about PPP. You could stop raising the issue ad nauseum. You have control over what you post or don't post. My replies are almost always prompted by your postings of your position.
Quote from: Beltway on September 12, 2019, 06:09:31 PM
My replies are almost always prompted by your postings of your position.
To elaborate, when I post my position on any said matter and you encounter it & disagree, you respond with an opposing view because you seem to have this rhetoric that my views are incorrect and yours are correct.
For example, I made a posting this morning regarding waiting as opposed entering the intersection and going when clear, and all of a sudden you're the next post telling me why I'm wrong.
Quote from: Beltway on September 12, 2019, 06:09:31 PM
I am the one who is taking a middle ground position on this issue, and acknowledging that PPP is just one tool, and not meant to replace tax funding. Some projects are appropriate for PPP, some are not.
You seem to have major support and some connection to the I-95, I-495, and I-395 HO/T lane system as anytime someone disagrees with its operation, the P3 aspect, the HO/T concept, the fact I-95 needs more lanes, etc. you come across with that same rhetoric that you're right, they're wrong. For instance, Rothman posted the negative aspects of P3's and you questioned it, defended them (the HO/T lanes) heavily, and almost seem to use that same rhetoric in the process. I don't think I've made one post about anything negative relating to the HO/T lanes that hasn't prompted you to come in and spam the same stuff, essentially attempting to drown out my opinions as wrong, and you're the one right. Just look at the Northern Virginia HOT Lanes thread, and now it seems a page of this thread. Same goes for a variety of other subjects, including North Carolina in particular.
If Tolls and/or PPPs are to be debated/discussed, perhaps a new thread is warranted
They can relate to adding lanes to existing 4 lane rural interstates, but are not the center of said topic
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 12, 2019, 06:24:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 12, 2019, 06:09:31 PM
My replies are almost always prompted by your postings of your position.
To elaborate, when I post my position on any said matter and you encounter it & disagree, you respond with an opposing view because you seem to have this rhetoric that my views are incorrect and yours are correct.
Pot, kettle, black (and I could write that 10 times)
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 12, 2019, 06:24:10 PM
For example, I made a posting this morning regarding waiting as opposed entering the intersection and going when clear, and all of a sudden you're the next post telling me why I'm wrong.
What makes you think my post was to YOU? There are at least 4 other people that disagree with me. I acknowledged that there is no legal obligation to stake out a left turn. There has been an interesting exchange and I am learning more about both viewpoints.
I have agreed with your views in a number of topics, including the I-81 Syracuse thread that just again became active.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 12, 2019, 06:24:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 12, 2019, 06:09:31 PM
I am the one who is taking a middle ground position on this issue, and acknowledging that PPP is just one tool, and not meant to replace tax funding. Some projects are appropriate for PPP, some are not.
You seem to have major support and some connection to the I-95, I-495, and I-395 HO/T lane system as
anytime someone disagrees with its operation, the P3 aspect, the HO/T concept, the fact I-95 needs more lanes, etc.
....
you come across with that same rhetoric that you're right, they're wrong.
Not to sound like a 'broken record', but ...
Pot .... Kettle ... Black!
Look, it is obvious that you are new to online group discussions. You clearly don't yet very well understand the give and take of opinions. Perhaps you should slow down and lurk more and post less, to learn more about how things work.
Quote from: Beltway on September 12, 2019, 06:53:07 PM
Look, it is obvious that you are new to online group discussions. You clearly don't yet very well understand the give and take of opinions. Perhaps you should slow down and lurk more and post less, to learn more about how things work.
I understand generally how they work. The constant back-and-forth is excessive. That's been said many times here.
How many pages have we argued over I-87, HO/T lanes, just to name a few? 50+ over the past year. That's excessive, especially when it's repetition.
Quote from: Beltway on September 12, 2019, 01:31:49 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 12, 2019, 09:39:06 AM
The Interstate Highway System was mostly built with taxes. That model worked well and can again. Toll-free facilities that do not cause economic inequality on our transportation system are better at serving the public at large than tolled facilities that cause only those that can afford them to be able to use them (or putting an unnecessary extra economic burden on those on the cusp of affording them).
Then why so many perpetual toll roads in your state (NY)? Including the longest end-to-end turnpike, built in the 1950s, the vast majority of which has never been expanded (and a number of AARoads posters have cited congestion problems between Buffalo and Albany that warrant 6-lane widening), and the number of NYC bridges and tunnels that have not been expanded in over 50 years yet they have tolls as high as the peak period tolls on the HOT lanes that you complain about, and all for one or two miles of highway.
So many? Even breaking out the New England Thruway from the rest of the Thruway system (I don't break out the Berkshire Spur because it's part of the ticket system), that's just two. Note that I'm not including tolled bridges and tunnels, as those are much more expensive to build and maintain.
Most people I know want the tolls gone. IMO the tolled interstates should have been required to remove the tolls upon the original bonds being paid off when they were grandfathered into the system, and the prohibitions on tolls should not have been relaxed (I'd also have indexed the gas tax to inflation, construction costs, and fuel efficiency, which would have avoided the funding problems we now have).
Quote from: webny99 on September 11, 2019, 11:27:24 AM
Could we get a full list of all six-laning projects currently in progress?
Adding a few more of my own, plus the segments others have noted, for an updated list:
-Alabama: I-20/59 near Tuscaloosa
-Ohio: I-75 south of Exit 157
-Ohio: portions of I-80/90 near Toledo
-Pennsylvania: I-70/I-79 multiplex near Washington, PA.
-Texas: I-45 north of Houston, near Ada and New Waverly.
-Wisconsin: I-90/39 from the Illinois line to Madison
-Illinois: I-57 has a five mile stretch being widened near Johnston City.
-Indiana: Part of I-65 near Seymour
-Virginia: 64 West of VA-199 Exit 234 West of VA-199 Exit 242
*I omitted the HO/T lanes being added in Virginia, not because they aren't legitimate widenings, but because they are likely being added to commuter routes located in urban or suburban (non-rural) areas.
As much beef as I have with tolls HO/T lanes are most certainly a widening of the freeway. Would we not count a toll road being widened as a widening?
North Carolina:
I-95 between Fayetteville and I-40 - 25 miles - Widening from 4 to 8 lanes - Completion 2024.
I-40 between NC-42 and I-87 - 10 miles - Widening from 4 to 8 lanes - Completion 2022.
I-85 between NC-73 and US-29 - 14 miles - Widening from 4 to 8 lanes - Completion 2019 - 2020.
I-40 between US-501 and I-85 - 12 miles - Widening from 4 to 6 lanes - Completion ~2025.
I-85 between NC-273 and US-321 - 10 miles - Widening from 6 to 8 lanes - Completion 2024.
Another project could be US-1 between I-540 and NC-1931 which would be completed around 2025 - 2026. The road is currently a four-lane non-limited-access urban arterial with numerous traffic signals and heavy congestion issues though would be expanded into a 6-lane freeway apart of this project, roughly 10 miles.
Did not include 26 miles of HO/T lanes on I-77 and 17 miles of HO/T lanes on I-485.
Another in Illinois, coming soon:
I-80 around/thru Joliet/Will County...was a key piece of the Infrastructure bill that required the doubling of the fuel tax this past summer
Another widening for Indiana: I-69 from Miles 218 to 226 around Anderson. When this is done the first 26 miles of I-69 northeast of Indianapolis will be all six lanes. When I went to school in Muncie back around 2010, only the first five miles was six lanes.
Quote from: webny99 on September 13, 2019, 12:43:36 PM
Quote from: webny99 on September 11, 2019, 11:27:24 AM
Could we get a full list of all six-laning projects currently in progress?
Adding a few more of my own, plus the segments others have noted, for an updated list:
-Alabama: I-20/59 near Tuscaloosa
-Ohio: I-75 south of Exit 157
-Ohio: portions of I-80/90 near Toledo
-Pennsylvania: I-70/I-79 multiplex near Washington, PA.
-Texas: I-45 north of Houston, near Ada and New Waverly.
-Wisconsin: I-90/39 from the Illinois line to Madison
-Illinois: I-57 has a five mile stretch being widened near Johnston City.
-Indiana: Part of I-65 near Seymour
-Virginia: 64 West of VA-199 Exit 234 West of VA-199 Exit 242
*I omitted the HO/T lanes being added in Virginia, not because they aren't legitimate widenings, but because they are likely being added to commuter routes located in urban or suburban (non-rural) areas.
I-80/I-90 is now six lanes to exit 59. I think it used to end at exit 64 a few years ago. Really no need for six-laning west of exit 59 IMHO
Quote from: ilpt4u on September 13, 2019, 05:21:50 PM
Another in Illinois, coming soon:
I-80 around/thru Joliet/Will County...was a key piece of the Infrastructure bill that required the doubling of the fuel tax this past summer
Not really rural, and based on the exhibits from "Public Meeting #3," it's mostly a couple of auxiliary lanes, with only IL 7 to Briggs really getting a third through lane. (https://i-80will.com/newsroom.html)
Quote from: vdeane on September 12, 2019, 08:30:30 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 12, 2019, 01:31:49 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 12, 2019, 09:39:06 AM
The Interstate Highway System was mostly built with taxes. That model worked well and can again. Toll-free facilities that do not cause economic inequality on our transportation system are better at serving the public at large than tolled facilities that cause only those that can afford them to be able to use them (or putting an unnecessary extra economic burden on those on the cusp of affording them).
Then why so many perpetual toll roads in your state (NY)? Including the longest end-to-end turnpike, built in the 1950s, the vast majority of which has never been expanded (and a number of AARoads posters have cited congestion problems between Buffalo and Albany that warrant 6-lane widening), and the number of NYC bridges and tunnels that have not been expanded in over 50 years yet they have tolls as high as the peak period tolls on the HOT lanes that you complain about, and all for one or two miles of highway.
So many? Even breaking out the New England Thruway from the rest of the Thruway system (I don't break out the Berkshire Spur because it's part of the ticket system), that's just two. Note that I'm not including tolled bridges and tunnels, as those are much more expensive to build and maintain.
Most people I know want the tolls gone. IMO the tolled interstates should have been required to remove the tolls upon the original bonds being paid off when they were grandfathered into the system, and the prohibitions on tolls should not have been relaxed (I'd also have indexed the gas tax to inflation, construction costs, and fuel efficiency, which would have avoided the funding problems we now have).
Toll roads, and the turnpike authorities that birthed them, are manifestations of machine politics. Usually found in Democratic majority states - New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Illinois are the main examples. Florida and Oklahoma are the strange exceptions.
Quote from: DJStephens on September 15, 2019, 12:58:39 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 12, 2019, 08:30:30 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 12, 2019, 01:31:49 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 12, 2019, 09:39:06 AM
The Interstate Highway System was mostly built with taxes. That model worked well and can again. Toll-free facilities that do not cause economic inequality on our transportation system are better at serving the public at large than tolled facilities that cause only those that can afford them to be able to use them (or putting an unnecessary extra economic burden on those on the cusp of affording them).
Then why so many perpetual toll roads in your state (NY)? Including the longest end-to-end turnpike, built in the 1950s, the vast majority of which has never been expanded (and a number of AARoads posters have cited congestion problems between Buffalo and Albany that warrant 6-lane widening), and the number of NYC bridges and tunnels that have not been expanded in over 50 years yet they have tolls as high as the peak period tolls on the HOT lanes that you complain about, and all for one or two miles of highway.
So many? Even breaking out the New England Thruway from the rest of the Thruway system (I don't break out the Berkshire Spur because it's part of the ticket system), that's just two. Note that I'm not including tolled bridges and tunnels, as those are much more expensive to build and maintain.
Most people I know want the tolls gone. IMO the tolled interstates should have been required to remove the tolls upon the original bonds being paid off when they were grandfathered into the system, and the prohibitions on tolls should not have been relaxed (I'd also have indexed the gas tax to inflation, construction costs, and fuel efficiency, which would have avoided the funding problems we now have).
Toll roads, and the turnpike authorities that birthed them, are manifestations of machine politics. Usually found in Democratic majority states - New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Illinois are the main examples. Florida and Oklahoma are the strange exceptions.
There's also California and somewhat Virginia, though less so. Texas had a "toll road era" where toll road construction spiked, especially in urban areas such as Austin, Dallas, and Houston, and a few other remote exceptions, though as of late, toll road construction is now a thing of the past. Previously planned roads like the Grand Pkwy, and other roads under construction are still going to be tolled, but future projects are being done without tolls, and HO/T lanes are no longer going to be constructed, but rather HOV lanes.
It's nice to see the state finally veer away from tolls and towards traditional construction. Of course, the toll roads that exist will stay for decades to come, but no more or very few will be built.
San Antonio remains a major metro in Texas without any toll roads, and new highways and expansion projects are continuing to be built, such as US-281, Loop 1604, I-10, and others with toll-free general purpose lanes and HOV managed lanes in select areas. No HO/T lanes, no tolls. They both were proposed once, but traditional funding methods got them done toll-free, HO/T free.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 15, 2019, 01:18:29 PM
There’s also California and somewhat Virginia, though less so. Texas had a “toll road era” where toll road construction spiked, especially in urban areas such as Austin, Dallas, and Houston, and a few other remote exceptions, though as of late, toll road construction is now a thing of the past. Previously planned roads like the Grand Pkwy, and other roads under construction are still going to be tolled, but future projects are being done without tolls, and HO/T lanes are no longer going to be constructed, but rather HOV lanes.
It’s nice to see the state finally veer away from tolls and towards traditional construction. Of course, the toll roads that exist will stay for decades to come, but no more or very few will be built.
San Antonio remains a major metro in Texas without any toll roads, and new highways and expansion projects are continuing to be built, such as US-281, Loop 1604, I-10, and others with toll-free general purpose lanes and HOV managed lanes in select areas. No HO/T lanes, no tolls. They both were proposed once, but traditional funding methods got them done toll-free, HO/T free.
But the toll roads in those three states are largely for transportation within metro areas. The big toll roads in the other states listed above are intended to be long-distance corridors. (I'd also add Kansas to the list of long-distance tolling states, which would join Oklahoma as an exception to the trend mentioned.)
Most of those older tollroads were built because plans for the Interstate system kept getting delayed until Ike got the job done and the nation's major population centers needed connecting in the booming post war economy. The Illinois system was built in the then Republican suburbs not the machine controlled city.
Quote from: US 89 on September 15, 2019, 03:31:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 15, 2019, 01:18:29 PM
There's also California and somewhat Virginia, though less so. Texas had a "toll road era" where toll road construction spiked, especially in urban areas such as Austin, Dallas, and Houston, and a few other remote exceptions, though as of late, toll road construction is now a thing of the past. Previously planned roads like the Grand Pkwy, and other roads under construction are still going to be tolled, but future projects are being done without tolls, and HO/T lanes are no longer going to be constructed, but rather HOV lanes.
It's nice to see the state finally veer away from tolls and towards traditional construction. Of course, the toll roads that exist will stay for decades to come, but no more or very few will be built.
San Antonio remains a major metro in Texas without any toll roads, and new highways and expansion projects are continuing to be built, such as US-281, Loop 1604, I-10, and others with toll-free general purpose lanes and HOV managed lanes in select areas. No HO/T lanes, no tolls. They both were proposed once, but traditional funding methods got them done toll-free, HO/T free.
But the toll roads in those three states are largely for transportation within metro areas. The big toll roads in the other states listed above are intended to be long-distance corridors. (I'd also add Kansas to the list of long-distance tolling states, which would join Oklahoma as an exception to the trend mentioned.)
There's also TX-130 which is meant as a long-distance bypass of I-35 avoiding Austin and San Antonio. Was constructed in the early 2000s and completed in 2012. About 90 miles long.
Virginia had considered tolling on I-95 and I-81 at one point for long-distance traffic, though those plans were scrapped, and rightfully so. They also nearly constructed a ~53 mile toll road paralleling US-460 between US-58 in Suffolk and I-295 in Petersburg. It would've acted as a long-distance bypass of I-64 avoiding the tunnels, Newport News & Hampton, and traffic congestion thruout the entire corridor. There's also the VA-168 Chesapeake Expressway in southern Chesapeake is technically within Hampton Roads, but mostly oriented towards long-distance travelers to the Outer Banks, which is why the toll rates spike to $8 for the 6-mile toll road during peak weekends. Lastly, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, also for long-distance traffic, tolls up to $18 during peak weekends.
Quote from: US 89 on September 15, 2019, 03:31:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 15, 2019, 01:18:29 PM
There's also California and somewhat Virginia, though less so. Texas had a "toll road era" where toll road construction spiked, especially in urban areas such as Austin, Dallas, and Houston, and a few other remote exceptions, though as of late, toll road construction is now a thing of the past. Previously planned roads like the Grand Pkwy, and other roads under construction are still going to be tolled, but future projects are being done without tolls, and HO/T lanes are no longer going to be constructed, but rather HOV lanes.
It's nice to see the state finally veer away from tolls and towards traditional construction. Of course, the toll roads that exist will stay for decades to come, but no more or very few will be built.
San Antonio remains a major metro in Texas without any toll roads, and new highways and expansion projects are continuing to be built, such as US-281, Loop 1604, I-10, and others with toll-free general purpose lanes and HOV managed lanes in select areas. No HO/T lanes, no tolls. They both were proposed once, but traditional funding methods got them done toll-free, HO/T free.
But the toll roads in those three states are largely for transportation within metro areas. The big toll roads in the other states listed above are intended to be long-distance corridors. (I'd also add Kansas to the list of long-distance tolling states, which would join Oklahoma as an exception to the trend mentioned.)
Kansas isn't an exception – Kansas voted with the Northeast and Midwest (Republican) in the 1950s.
Quote from: 1 on September 15, 2019, 04:47:14 PM
Quote from: US 89 on September 15, 2019, 03:31:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 15, 2019, 01:18:29 PM
There's also California and somewhat Virginia, though less so. Texas had a "toll road era" where toll road construction spiked, especially in urban areas such as Austin, Dallas, and Houston, and a few other remote exceptions, though as of late, toll road construction is now a thing of the past. Previously planned roads like the Grand Pkwy, and other roads under construction are still going to be tolled, but future projects are being done without tolls, and HO/T lanes are no longer going to be constructed, but rather HOV lanes.
It's nice to see the state finally veer away from tolls and towards traditional construction. Of course, the toll roads that exist will stay for decades to come, but no more or very few will be built.
San Antonio remains a major metro in Texas without any toll roads, and new highways and expansion projects are continuing to be built, such as US-281, Loop 1604, I-10, and others with toll-free general purpose lanes and HOV managed lanes in select areas. No HO/T lanes, no tolls. They both were proposed once, but traditional funding methods got them done toll-free, HO/T free.
But the toll roads in those three states are largely for transportation within metro areas. The big toll roads in the other states listed above are intended to be long-distance corridors. (I'd also add Kansas to the list of long-distance tolling states, which would join Oklahoma as an exception to the trend mentioned.)
Kansas isn't an exception – Kansas voted with the Northeast and Midwest (Republican) in the 1950s.
It's an exception to the fact that today most of those states are democratic.
Quote from: 3467 on September 15, 2019, 03:37:42 PM
Most of those older tollroads were built because plans for the Interstate system kept getting delayed until Ike got the job done and the nation's major population centers needed connecting in the booming post war economy. The Illinois system was built in the then Republican suburbs not the machine controlled city.
Of the entire ISTHA system, fully a one half block long (measured the narrow way) section of the Tri-State Tollway (I-294) just east of ORD is actually inside of Chicago's city limits.
Mike
AH 1 between Barddhaman and Kolkata... although given how traffic treats lanes as suggestions...
Quote from: mgk920 on September 16, 2019, 10:44:20 PM
Quote from: 3467 on September 15, 2019, 03:37:42 PM
Most of those older tollroads were built because plans for the Interstate system kept getting delayed until Ike got the job done and the nation's major population centers needed connecting in the booming post war economy. The Illinois system was built in the then Republican suburbs not the machine controlled city.
Of the entire ISTHA system, fully a one half block long (measured the narrow way) section of the Tri-State Tollway (I-294) just east of ORD is actually inside of Chicago's city limits.
Mike
Only done so that O'Hare has connectivity to the rest of the city. That area mine as well be the suburbs.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 08, 2020, 07:24:33 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 16, 2019, 10:44:20 PM
Quote from: 3467 on September 15, 2019, 03:37:42 PM
Most of those older tollroads were built because plans for the Interstate system kept getting delayed until Ike got the job done and the nation's major population centers needed connecting in the booming post war economy. The Illinois system was built in the then Republican suburbs not the machine controlled city.
Of the entire ISTHA system, fully a one half block long (measured the narrow way) section of the Tri-State Tollway (I-294) just east of ORD is actually inside of Chicago's city limits.
Mike
Only done so that O'Hare has connectivity to the rest of the city. That area mine as well be the suburbs.
In fact, the City of Chicago has an agreement with one of the suburbs that is adjacent to that strip to provide first response fire protection to the properties that are on it.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on February 09, 2020, 12:04:14 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 08, 2020, 07:24:33 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 16, 2019, 10:44:20 PM
Quote from: 3467 on September 15, 2019, 03:37:42 PM
Most of those older tollroads were built because plans for the Interstate system kept getting delayed until Ike got the job done and the nation's major population centers needed connecting in the booming post war economy. The Illinois system was built in the then Republican suburbs not the machine controlled city.
Of the entire ISTHA system, fully a one half block long (measured the narrow way) section of the Tri-State Tollway (I-294) just east of ORD is actually inside of Chicago's city limits.
Mike
Only done so that O'Hare has connectivity to the rest of the city. That area mine as well be the suburbs.
In fact, the City of Chicago has an agreement with one of the suburbs that is adjacent to that strip to provide first response fire protection to the properties that are on it.
Mike
That makes sense considering it's such a small strip of land that is isolated from the rest of the city.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200209/6e0ad199329d242362d7a41669b259fc.jpg)
In the image https://goo.gl/maps/9ggxJUj4b6QNGN3n9 the properties on the north side of Foster Ave are in the City of Chicago. The 'outlet' development to the north is in Rosemont and the area on the south side of the Foster Ave is in Schiller Park.
Streetview image https://goo.gl/maps/kdS7ZngEHDWMapFU7 is looking westward on Foster. The businesses on the right are in Chicago (note the Chicago streetlights).
Mike
It looks like there is only about 27 miles remaining (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/46.7331693,-122.9756096/46.3720239,-122.9070849/@46.5462384,-123.0169386,9.96z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0!5m1!1e1) of I-5 between Portland and Seattle that's still four lanes. I imagine this would be a priority for widening, but are there any plans to widen this segment, and how badly is it needed?
I-65 between the northern fringe of Nashville and the KY line. It seems like there's always a traffic jam of some kind in that stretch!
Also, I-65 between Indy and the Louisville suburbs (at least there is some work going on to widen some stretches).
It's already six lanes, but I-4 from Exit 55 eastward could use another pair of lanes
Quote from: ftballfan on April 19, 2021, 07:25:19 PM
It's already six lanes, but I-4 from Exit 55 eastward could use another pair of lanes
Something needs to be done about I-4 in the vicinity of FL-429 and FL-417. That area is a major chokepoint daily.
FL-417 needs to be widened to 6 lanes throughout, and FL-429 at least south of FL-414.
Also upgrade the "gap" in freeway segments along FL-414 and widen to 6 lanes throughout to provide a continuous "cutover" to I-4 from the western beltway.
Quote from: ftballfan on April 19, 2021, 07:25:19 PM
Also, I-65 between Indy and the Louisville suburbs (at least there is some work going on to widen some stretches).
I think the section between Indy and Chicago is a slightly higher priority for 6 lane than Indy-Louisville from the amount of traffic and trucks I see when driving on it.
Though I have never been on the section of I-65 between Indy and Louisville, always switched from 65 S to 74 E past Indy and 65 N to 71 N past Louisville, so lmk if I'm underestimating the traffic counts and if it's really higher than Indy-Chicago.
Quote from: SkyPesos on April 19, 2021, 07:51:12 PM
Quote from: ftballfan on April 19, 2021, 07:25:19 PM
Also, I-65 between Indy and the Louisville suburbs (at least there is some work going on to widen some stretches).
I think the section between Indy and Chicago is a slightly higher priority for 6 lane than Indy-Louisville from the amount of traffic and trucks I see when driving on it.
Aren't there more active widening projects on the Indy-Lousiville section than Indy-Chicagoland section?
North of Indy there's at least the US 52-US 41 corridor as a four lane alternative but with a number of slow towns and the major slowdowns around Lafayette and north of St. John.
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 19, 2021, 10:44:45 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on April 19, 2021, 07:51:12 PM
Quote from: ftballfan on April 19, 2021, 07:25:19 PM
Also, I-65 between Indy and the Louisville suburbs (at least there is some work going on to widen some stretches).
I think the section between Indy and Chicago is a slightly higher priority for 6 lane than Indy-Louisville from the amount of traffic and trucks I see when driving on it.
Aren't there more active widening projects on the Indy-Lousiville section than Indy-Chicagoland section?
North of Indy there's at least the US 52-US 41 corridor as a four lane alternative but with a number of slow towns and the major slowdowns around Lafayette and north of St. John.
Yes, from what I can tell, INDOT has plans to widen another section of I-65 on the Indy-Louisville section from MP 16-29 (Scottsburg)... I guess that they are doing the Indy-Louisville section first before the Indy-Chicagoland section...
Quote from: SkyPesos on April 19, 2021, 07:51:12 PM
Quote from: ftballfan on April 19, 2021, 07:25:19 PM
Also, I-65 between Indy and the Louisville suburbs (at least there is some work going on to widen some stretches).
I think the section between Indy and Chicago is a slightly higher priority for 6 lane than Indy-Louisville from the amount of traffic and trucks I see when driving on it.
Though I have never been on the section of I-65 between Indy and Louisville, always switched from 65 S to 74 E past Indy and 65 N to 71 N past Louisville, so lmk if I'm underestimating the traffic counts and if it's really higher than Indy-Chicago.
You could do a trip like I do and just make a loop. Start in Cincinnati, go to Louisville, go back up to Indy then come back across to Cincinnati.
Quote from: webny99 on April 19, 2021, 03:14:29 PM
It looks like there is only about 27 miles remaining (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/46.7331693,-122.9756096/46.3720239,-122.9070849/@46.5462384,-123.0169386,9.96z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0!5m1!1e1) of I-5 between Portland and Seattle that's still four lanes. I imagine this would be a priority for widening, but are there any plans to widen this segment, and how badly is it needed?
I couldn't tell you whether it was a priority or not, but provisions have been made at new and upgraded interchanges in that stretch for two additional lanes. Ellsbury Street in Centralia and Chamber of Commerce Way in Chehalis are two examples of this.
The only real obstacle is the Cowlitz River and Skookumchuck River bridges, which would both need replacing, and maybe a couple of overpasses. The RIRO southwest of Toledo would likely need replacing for safety reasons as well, I would suspect.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 20, 2021, 08:14:32 PM
The only real obstacle is the Cowlitz River and Skookumchuck River bridges, which would both need replacing, and maybe a couple of overpasses. The RIRO southwest of Toledo would likely need replacing for safety reasons as well, I would suspect.
Hmm. Yeah, that RIRO would definitely have to be addressed, possibly in tandem with the Cowlitz River bridge. This is probably a naïve suggestion, but why not just remove that interchange entirely? A new overpass in place of the RIRO (connecting WA 506 to Mulford Rd) would make things easier for local traffic by eliminating the long loop to get around the freeway, and traffic wanting to get on I-5 could just use Exit 60.
The six-lane section has been creeping south from the edge of Tumwater for a few decades now, so it will happen eventually (but the money isn't there, especially with the Columbia River crossing coming up).
I suppose the best thing would be to six-lane I-5 from Oregon to BC in one fell swoop. Package the widening into a larger bill that would reconstruct the entire remaining 80-ish miles, with the focal points being reconstruction in Mt Vernon and Bellingham; those two cities easily present the biggest hurdle, even when considering bridge replacements.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 21, 2021, 06:02:02 PM
I suppose the best thing would be to six-lane I-5 from Oregon to BC in one fell swoop. Package the widening into a larger bill that would reconstruct the entire remaining 80-ish miles, with the focal points being reconstruction in Mt Vernon and Bellingham; those two cities easily present the biggest hurdle, even when considering bridge replacements.
Mt Vernon doesn't get congested enough to warrant trying to cram 6 lanes into its downtown, even with Tulip Festival traffic. I'd rather see those billions spent on more Cascades service.
Quote from: Bruce on April 21, 2021, 06:13:00 PM
I'd rather see those billions spent on more Cascades service.
That seems like a waste of money if anything. Pouring billions of dollars into rail service that will likely get underutilized.
Traffic volumes through Mt Vernon almost reach 80,000 AADT, with a sustained volume well over 50,000 AADT along the rest of the route.
Widening would likely go a much longer way to addressing heavy traffic demand.
Quote from: Bruce on April 21, 2021, 06:13:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 21, 2021, 06:02:02 PM
I suppose the best thing would be to six-lane I-5 from Oregon to BC in one fell swoop. Package the widening into a larger bill that would reconstruct the entire remaining 80-ish miles, with the focal points being reconstruction in Mt Vernon and Bellingham; those two cities easily present the biggest hurdle, even when considering bridge replacements.
Mt Vernon doesn't get congested enough to warrant trying to cram 6 lanes into its downtown, even with Tulip Festival traffic. I'd rather see those billions spent on more Cascades service.
The stretch through Burlington and Mt Vernon averages around 75k AADT, which is actually more than many existing six-lane stretches elsewhere along I-5 (south of Tumwater for instance). Combined with the frequent exit/entrance ramps, and tight inside shoulder, I think rebuilding I-5 through that stretch should at least be a consideration. (edit: I see
sprjus4 also addressed this).
The hardest to justify stretch would probably be north of Bellingham. North of Ferndale, the AADT is about half of the quietest stretches of I-5 elsewhere in WA.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 21, 2021, 06:43:59 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 21, 2021, 06:13:00 PM
Mt Vernon doesn't get congested enough to warrant trying to cram 6 lanes into its downtown, even with Tulip Festival traffic. I'd rather see those billions spent on more Cascades service.
The stretch through Burlington and Mt Vernon averages around 75k AADT, which is actually more than many existing six-lane stretches elsewhere along I-5 (south of Tumwater for instance). Combined with the frequent exit/entrance ramps, and tight inside shoulder, I think rebuilding I-5 through that stretch should at least be a consideration.
I have to agree - 75K is a lot, especially in a rural/semi-rural area (although I know development is a bit more dense in/around Mount Vernon). That's very comparable to the section of I-490 southeast of Rochester between Exits 25 and 27 that I have frequently mentioned as needing to be widened.
Not to mention, what are the truck volumes on that segment of I-5? If they're on the higher end, then it definitely needs expansion.
Two Ohio ones from me:
- I-75 between exit 74 in Troy and exit 156 in Findlay. Truck traffic on I-75 is high in general.
- I-71 between exit 28 in Lebanon and exit 97 in Grove City. There is a short 6 lane section near the US 35 exit, which could be extended on both sides. Also, the new Jeremiah Morrow Bridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4191616,-84.1042357,3a,75y,51.24h,84.92t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sg0VvITHRZYT5vifUgM4MGQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dg0VvITHRZYT5vifUgM4MGQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D17.196302%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) have space on the left for a 3rd lane in each direction in the future.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 21, 2021, 11:06:37 PM
Not to mention, what are the truck volumes on that segment of I-5? If they're on the higher end, then it definitely needs expansion.
I don't know the exact volumes, but it's a significant amount tying directly into the Canadian border.
Quote from: ftballfan on April 19, 2021, 07:25:19 PM
I-65 between the northern fringe of Nashville and the KY line. It seems like there's always a traffic jam of some kind in that stretch!
Also, I-65 between Indy and the Louisville suburbs (at least there is some work going on to widen some stretches).
It's already six lanes, but I-4 from Exit 55 eastward could use another pair of lanes
Our gas tax is already through the roof. Where is this money going to come from? The four lanes of I-65 from KY to Goodlettsville is sufficient.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on April 27, 2021, 01:52:30 PM
Quote from: ftballfan on April 19, 2021, 07:25:19 PM
I-65 between the northern fringe of Nashville and the KY line. It seems like there's always a traffic jam of some kind in that stretch!
Also, I-65 between Indy and the Louisville suburbs (at least there is some work going on to widen some stretches).
It's already six lanes, but I-4 from Exit 55 eastward could use another pair of lanes
Our gas tax is already through the roof. Where is this money going to come from? The four lanes of I-65 from KY to Goodlettsville is sufficient.
It's a 6 lane gap that needs to be filled sticking out like a sore thumb. I mean, come on.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 21, 2021, 06:02:02 PM
I suppose the best thing would be to six-lane I-5 from Oregon to BC in one fell swoop. Package the widening into a larger bill that would reconstruct the entire remaining 80-ish miles, with the focal points being reconstruction in Mt Vernon and Bellingham; those two cities easily present the biggest hurdle, even when considering bridge replacements.
While we're about it, how about at least 6 lanes all of the way from Mexico to Canada except possibly for short distances around major splits? (and those should go to 6+lanes after the diverted traffic gets out of visual range. I'm talking about something from a couple of hundred meters to maybe a kilometer or two -- at most for one exit or so)
I-5 needs six lanes soon after the NB exit for CASR-99, but I'm not sure that the two of them together need to be twelve lanes at that point. 8 is probably enough for an exit or two. Same thing goes for just after the NB exit for I-580. A similar situation happens after the SB exit for I-205.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on April 27, 2021, 01:52:30 PM
Our gas tax is already through the roof. Where is this money going to come from? The four lanes of I-65 from KY to Goodlettsville is sufficient.
I know this is your schtick, but just for the record, the gas tax in Tennessee is 27.6 cents a gallon, which is 19% below the national state average of 34.2.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on April 27, 2021, 02:54:41 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on April 27, 2021, 01:52:30 PM
Our gas tax is already through the roof. Where is this money going to come from? The four lanes of I-65 from KY to Goodlettsville is sufficient.
I know this is your schtick, but just for the record, the gas tax in Tennessee is 27.6 cents a gallon, which is 19% below the national state average of 34.2.
It was raised in 2018. The former Chairman of the House Transportation Committee lost his seat in a primary. He is a road builder by the way. No conflict of interest there.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on April 27, 2021, 03:00:33 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on April 27, 2021, 02:54:41 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on April 27, 2021, 01:52:30 PM
Our gas tax is already through the roof. Where is this money going to come from? The four lanes of I-65 from KY to Goodlettsville is sufficient.
I know this is your schtick, but just for the record, the gas tax in Tennessee is 27.6 cents a gallon, which is 19% below the national state average of 34.2.
It was raised in 2018. The former Chairman of the House Transportation Committee lost his seat in a primary. He is a road builder by the way. No conflict of interest there.
My point is that the gas tax in Tennessee is not "through the roof" regardless of how that tax came to be implemented.
The federal gas tax has been stagnant for decades and it's been left to the states to increase it to keep pace with rising construction costs. Maybe y'all should join the $3/gal club so that projects can actually get funded.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 20, 2021, 08:14:32 PM
Quote from: webny99 on April 19, 2021, 03:14:29 PM
It looks like there is only about 27 miles remaining (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/46.7331693,-122.9756096/46.3720239,-122.9070849/@46.5462384,-123.0169386,9.96z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0!5m1!1e1) of I-5 between Portland and Seattle that's still four lanes. I imagine this would be a priority for widening, but are there any plans to widen this segment, and how badly is it needed?
I couldn't tell you whether it was a priority or not, but provisions have been made at new and upgraded interchanges in that stretch for two additional lanes. Ellsbury Street in Centralia and Chamber of Commerce Way in Chehalis are two examples of this.
The only real obstacle is the Cowlitz River and Skookumchuck River bridges, which would both need replacing, and maybe a couple of overpasses. The RIRO southwest of Toledo would likely need replacing for safety reasons as well, I would suspect.
WSDOT is considering widening I-5 between Mellen St in Centralia and Main St/SR 6 in Chehalis, we'll have to wait and see what they decide on. Really this is the main area that would need widening anyway, at least in the short term. The rest of the segment doesn't really experience any congestion issues at this point.
With regards to the work needed to close the gap, I was actually surprised when driving it recently by just how many times it's broken up by auxiliary lanes and climbing lanes. Currently these segments have three lanes in at least one direction:
- Exit 76 to Exit 72 (both directions)
- Exit 71 to Exit 68 (SB climbing lane)
- Exit 63 to 1 mile north (NB climbing lane)
- Exit 59 to Exit 60 (NB climbing lane)
All those interruptions mean that the longest continuous segment with 4 lanes is only 6.5 miles!
Way too many posts to scroll through to see if this has been suggested before but:
Interstate 10 from San Antonio all the way to Baton Rouge could honestly be six lanes and should be. Especially from San Antonio to Houston.
Interstate 45 from Galveston to Dallas.
Interstate 12 from Baton Rouge to Slidell. Yeah it needs it.
Quote from: achilles765 on April 30, 2021, 11:25:29 PM
Interstate 10 from San Antonio all the way to Baton Rouge could honestly be six lanes and should be. Especially from San Antonio to Houston.
All the way through Louisiana? I'm not sure what the volumes are like, but a lot of it seems pretty rural.
I'm not sure whether this is "rural" enough for this thread, but I-24 could really use a third lane in each direction between I-59 and US 27 west of Chattanooga.
Quote from: webny99 on May 01, 2021, 01:10:33 PM
Quote from: achilles765 on April 30, 2021, 11:25:29 PM
Interstate 10 from San Antonio all the way to Baton Rouge could honestly be six lanes and should be. Especially from San Antonio to Houston.
All the way through Louisiana? I'm not sure what the volumes are like, but a lot of it seems pretty rural.
Heavy. The volumes on I-10 across Louisiana seems to sustain around 50,000 AADT with 60,000 AADT or greater in many areas, including along the Atchafalaya Basin Bridge.
Ultimately, 6 lanes is warranted from San Antonio to Baton Rouge at a minimum.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 01, 2021, 01:15:11 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 01, 2021, 01:10:33 PM
Quote from: achilles765 on April 30, 2021, 11:25:29 PM
Interstate 10 from San Antonio all the way to Baton Rouge could honestly be six lanes and should be. Especially from San Antonio to Houston.
All the way through Louisiana? I'm not sure what the volumes are like, but a lot of it seems pretty rural.
Heavy. The volumes on I-10 across Louisiana seems to sustain around 50,000 AADT with 60,000 AADT or greater in many areas, including along the Atchafalaya Basin Bridge.
Ultimately, 6 lanes is warranted from San Antonio to Baton Rouge at a minimum.
Interesting. I would not have guessed that high. Those stretches of elevated highway would likely be expensive to widen, too.
Quote from: webny99 on May 01, 2021, 01:27:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 01, 2021, 01:15:11 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 01, 2021, 01:10:33 PM
Quote from: achilles765 on April 30, 2021, 11:25:29 PM
Interstate 10 from San Antonio all the way to Baton Rouge could honestly be six lanes and should be. Especially from San Antonio to Houston.
All the way through Louisiana? I'm not sure what the volumes are like, but a lot of it seems pretty rural.
Heavy. The volumes on I-10 across Louisiana seems to sustain around 50,000 AADT with 60,000 AADT or greater in many areas, including along the Atchafalaya Basin Bridge.
Ultimately, 6 lanes is warranted from San Antonio to Baton Rouge at a minimum.
Interesting. I would not have guessed that high. Those stretches of elevated highway would likely be expensive to widen, too.
Unless volumes have picked up dramatically west of the Houston metro over the last 10 years (last time I drove that stretch) I really don't see the need on I-10 there. Didn't seem busy at all, especially closer to San Antonio
Quote from: plain on May 01, 2021, 01:49:11 PM
Unless volumes have picked up dramatically west of the Houston metro over the last 10 years (last time I drove that stretch) I really don't see the need on I-10 there. Didn't seem busy at all, especially closer to San Antonio
Traffic volumes get down to 35,000 AADT between SH-71 and SH-130, though are usually around 45,000 - 50,000 AADT everywhere else.
Either way, TxDOT plans to eventually widen the whole stretch to 6 lanes, and has already made significant progress in the past decade alone.
I-10 west of Houston all the way to US-77 in Schulenburg has been either been widened, placed under construction, or will be in the near future. Additionally, I-10 between I-410 and Loop 1604 is under construction outside of San Antonio for 6 lane widening.
Though, about 86 more miles are remaining, so they still have work to do. But a good 1/3 or more has seen progress. I'd like to see more priority placed on SH-130 to Loop 1604 as opposed to SH-130 to US-77 first, given it carries higher volumes and serves as a piece of the SH-130 Austin bypass.
Given the rapid increase compared to the previous year, I find a number of those 2019 volumes along I-10 between Lake Charles and Baton Rouge to be suspect.
Quote from: froggie on May 01, 2021, 10:48:31 PM
Given the rapid increase compared to the previous year, I find a number of those 2019 volumes along I-10 between Lake Charles and Baton Rouge to be suspect.
Even from simply driving on the highway myself numerous times, I'd argue 6 lanes is warranted. Especially during peak times.
Quote from: US 89 on May 01, 2021, 01:13:09 PM
I'm not sure whether this is "rural" enough for this thread, but I-24 could really use a third lane in each direction between I-59 and US 27 west of Chattanooga.
I'm thinking that it could use six-laning the entire way between Chattanooga and Nashville, including drilling a twin-bore six lane tunnel to bypass Monteagle Hill.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on May 03, 2021, 03:43:38 AM
Quote from: US 89 on May 01, 2021, 01:13:09 PM
I'm not sure whether this is "rural" enough for this thread, but I-24 could really use a third lane in each direction between I-59 and US 27 west of Chattanooga.
I'm thinking that it could use six-laning the entire way between Chattanooga and Nashville, including drilling a twin-bore six lane tunnel to bypass Monteagle Hill.
Mike
I just take US 41 it is quite through that stretch.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 03, 2021, 07:27:42 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on May 03, 2021, 03:43:38 AM
Quote from: US 89 on May 01, 2021, 01:13:09 PM
I'm not sure whether this is "rural" enough for this thread, but I-24 could really use a third lane in each direction between I-59 and US 27 west of Chattanooga.
I'm thinking that it could use six-laning the entire way between Chattanooga and Nashville, including drilling a twin-bore six lane tunnel to bypass Monteagle Hill.
Mike
I just take US 41 it is quite through that stretch.
That still doesn't eliminate the need for widening.
The worst part of Monteagle is already 6 lanes.
Quote from: froggie on May 03, 2021, 09:05:44 AM
The worst part of Monteagle is already 6 lanes.
Are you referring to the stretch with the wide median south of Monteagle? That appears to be five lanes (2 S/EB, 3 N/WB)
Quote from: webny99 on May 03, 2021, 11:29:22 AM
Quote from: froggie on May 03, 2021, 09:05:44 AM
The worst part of Monteagle is already 6 lanes.
Are you referring to the stretch with the wide median south of Monteagle? That appears to be five lanes (2 S/EB, 3 N/WB)
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1989109,-85.793989,8731m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1
That stretch has 3 lanes in both directions, a total of 6 lanes. The segment is about 5 miles long throughout.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 03, 2021, 11:52:40 AM
Quote from: webny99 on May 03, 2021, 11:29:22 AM
Quote from: froggie on May 03, 2021, 09:05:44 AM
The worst part of Monteagle is already 6 lanes.
Are you referring to the stretch with the wide median south of Monteagle? That appears to be five lanes (2 S/EB, 3 N/WB)
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1989109,-85.793989,8731m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1
That stretch has 3 lanes in both directions, a total of 6 lanes. The segment is about 5 miles long throughout.
Huh, that is correct. I had looked at both ends on Street View, but I guess I didn't look far enough. The eastbound extra lane is only about 3.5 miles, beginning after the brake check area.
US-64 between Raleigh and I-95 could use six lanes?
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 03, 2021, 11:18:23 PM
US-64 between Raleigh and I-95 could use six lanes?
That segment only carries around 24,000 - 30,000 AADT east of US-264, no need. A much bigger case could be made for 6 laning US-64 west of US-264 which carries 60,000 AADT, I-40 to I-95 which carries 50,000 AADT, or I-95 itself.
Quote from: stevashe on April 29, 2021, 02:10:58 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 20, 2021, 08:14:32 PM
Quote from: webny99 on April 19, 2021, 03:14:29 PM
It looks like there is only about 27 miles remaining (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/46.7331693,-122.9756096/46.3720239,-122.9070849/@46.5462384,-123.0169386,9.96z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0!5m1!1e1) of I-5 between Portland and Seattle that's still four lanes. I imagine this would be a priority for widening, but are there any plans to widen this segment, and how badly is it needed?
I couldn't tell you whether it was a priority or not, but provisions have been made at new and upgraded interchanges in that stretch for two additional lanes. Ellsbury Street in Centralia and Chamber of Commerce Way in Chehalis are two examples of this.
The only real obstacle is the Cowlitz River and Skookumchuck River bridges, which would both need replacing, and maybe a couple of overpasses. The RIRO southwest of Toledo would likely need replacing for safety reasons as well, I would suspect.
WSDOT is considering widening I-5 between Mellen St in Centralia and Main St/SR 6 in Chehalis, we'll have to wait and see what they decide on. Really this is the main area that would need widening anyway, at least in the short term. The rest of the segment doesn't really experience any congestion issues at this point.
With regards to the work needed to close the gap, I was actually surprised when driving it recently by just how many times it's broken up by auxiliary lanes and climbing lanes. Currently these segments have three lanes in at least one direction:
- Exit 76 to Exit 72 (both directions)
- Exit 71 to Exit 68 (SB climbing lane)
- Exit 63 to 1 mile north (NB climbing lane)
- Exit 59 to Exit 60 (NB climbing lane)
All those interruptions mean that the longest continuous segment with 4 lanes is only 6.5 miles!
Great research there. I knew from driving it quite a few times that the two-lane stretch never seemed to last that long. And maybe on paper, the two lane stretch is fairly long, but all of those climbing lanes and auxiliary lanes certainly mean that a six-lane future is actually quite achievable. But filling in those gaps is certainly easier said than done.
Back in the north end...
I was at the Tulip Festival again this last weekend, which helped me take in I-5 from Burlington to Mount Vernon again. Some of my takeaways:
* the six lane stretch of I-5 only ends just south of Mount Vernon. There is plenty of freeway north of there, yes, but I think we forget just how far the six-lane stretch goes already.
* I-5 through Burlington and Mount Vernon is not quiet at all. It's not I-5-through-Seattle busy, but it's far from dead. It felt very crowded.
* North of Mount Vernon is tight, but there is enough room to preliminarily widen I-5 up to exit 226, just south of this stretch. Only the Blackburn overpass would need replacing (the others were built to allow six lanes).
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 03, 2021, 11:52:40 AM
Quote from: webny99 on May 03, 2021, 11:29:22 AM
Quote from: froggie on May 03, 2021, 09:05:44 AM
The worst part of Monteagle is already 6 lanes.
Are you referring to the stretch with the wide median south of Monteagle? That appears to be five lanes (2 S/EB, 3 N/WB)
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1989109,-85.793989,8731m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1
That stretch has 3 lanes in both directions, a total of 6 lanes. The segment is about 5 miles long throughout.
I-24 on the northwest side of that ridge in a narrow, curvy four lanes.
Mike
The PA Turnpike got six lanes from Blue Mountain to Carlisle especially when it is a 25 mile exit free roadway.
However, SC could widen all of I-95, but for the next hundred years I-95 will reduce to four lanes upon crossing the Savannah River and only Florence will be six lanes for all of I-95 from Georgia to Fayetteville (as NCDOT is underway to eight lane it from there to I-40)
Exit 13 (Lumberton) to Exit 40 (Fayetteville) will be widened to 8 lanes beginning next year, in addition to the under construction or soon to be portion from Exit 56 to Exit 81.
Exit 40 to Exit 56 (Fayetteville Bypass) will remain 4 lanes for the time being.
In all honesty, all of these 8 lane segments would reasonably suffice at 6 lanes, so it will be a major relief for traffic especially on peak weekends for those long distances once it is all complete by 2026.
Next segment needs to be Fayetteville Bypass to 8 lanes, then 6 lanes from Lumberton to South Carolina.
South Carolina desperately needs to prioritize at least 6 lanes from I-26 to Georgia. That segment is notorious during peak weekends. It's still bad north of there, but certainly better with some of that I-26 split traffic gone.
Then of course there's I-26 itself from Columbia to Charleston.
Quote from: jakeroot on May 04, 2021, 12:46:58 PM
Quote from: stevashe on April 29, 2021, 02:10:58 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 20, 2021, 08:14:32 PM
Quote from: webny99 on April 19, 2021, 03:14:29 PM
It looks like there is only about 27 miles remaining (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/46.7331693,-122.9756096/46.3720239,-122.9070849/@46.5462384,-123.0169386,9.96z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0!5m1!1e1) of I-5 between Portland and Seattle that's still four lanes. I imagine this would be a priority for widening, but are there any plans to widen this segment, and how badly is it needed?
I couldn't tell you whether it was a priority or not, but provisions have been made at new and upgraded interchanges in that stretch for two additional lanes. Ellsbury Street in Centralia and Chamber of Commerce Way in Chehalis are two examples of this.
The only real obstacle is the Cowlitz River and Skookumchuck River bridges, which would both need replacing, and maybe a couple of overpasses. The RIRO southwest of Toledo would likely need replacing for safety reasons as well, I would suspect.
WSDOT is considering widening I-5 between Mellen St in Centralia and Main St/SR 6 in Chehalis, we'll have to wait and see what they decide on. Really this is the main area that would need widening anyway, at least in the short term. The rest of the segment doesn't really experience any congestion issues at this point.
With regards to the work needed to close the gap, I was actually surprised when driving it recently by just how many times it's broken up by auxiliary lanes and climbing lanes. Currently these segments have three lanes in at least one direction:
- Exit 76 to Exit 72 (both directions)
- Exit 71 to Exit 68 (SB climbing lane)
- Exit 63 to 1 mile north (NB climbing lane)
- Exit 59 to Exit 60 (NB climbing lane)
All those interruptions mean that the longest continuous segment with 4 lanes is only 6.5 miles!
Great research there. I knew from driving it quite a few times that the two-lane stretch never seemed to last that long. And maybe on paper, the two lane stretch is fairly long, but all of those climbing lanes and auxiliary lanes certainly mean that a six-lane future is actually quite achievable. But filling in those gaps is certainly easier said than done.
Back in the north end...
I was at the Tulip Festival again this last weekend, which helped me take in I-5 from Burlington to Mount Vernon again. Some of my takeaways:
* the six lane stretch of I-5 only ends just south of Mount Vernon. There is plenty of freeway north of there, yes, but I think we forget just how far the six-lane stretch goes already.
* I-5 through Burlington and Mount Vernon is not quiet at all. It's not I-5-through-Seattle busy, but it's far from dead. It felt very crowded.
* North of Mount Vernon is tight, but there is enough room to preliminarily widen I-5 up to exit 226, just south of this stretch. Only the Blackburn overpass would need replacing (the others were built to allow six lanes).
Hmm, I don't remember all those auxiliary and climbing lanes last time I drove up to Seattle. I might have to make another jaunt up that way soonish, although I really don't like how the Salmon Creek-Longview segment metaphorically drags for me. I don't get it -- Wilsonville to Salem (and even down to Eugene) goes by faster for me.
I go to Bellingham from Seattle regularly, and traffic is never really a concern north of Smokey Point. I don't think 6 lanes is justified north of Mt. Vernon.
I think the state should focus on upgrading the SR-18 corridor between Hobart and Snoqualmie since it's the critical arterial for Tacoma from I-90. I don't use that route, but I see traffic backed up on the climb from North Bend on I-90 WB at that exit sometimes when I return from the mountains.
Also, US-2 between Monroe and Stevens Pass so I can go skiing faster. :bigass:
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 05, 2021, 10:34:25 PM
Exit 13 (Lumberton) to Exit 40 (Fayetteville) will be widened to 8 lanes beginning next year, in addition to the under construction or soon to be portion from Exit 56 to Exit 81.
Exit 40 to Exit 56 (Fayetteville Bypass) will remain 4 lanes for the time being.
In all honesty, all of these 8 lane segments would reasonably suffice at 6 lanes, so it will be a major relief for traffic especially on peak weekends for those long distances once it is all complete by 2026.
Next segment needs to be Fayetteville Bypass to 8 lanes, then 6 lanes from Lumberton to South Carolina.
South Carolina desperately needs to prioritize at least 6 lanes from I-26 to Georgia. That segment is notorious during peak weekends. It's still bad north of there, but certainly better with some of that I-26 split traffic gone.
Then of course there's I-26 itself from Columbia to Charleston.
And does I-95 in Rocky Mount and Roanoke Rapids need 8 lanes?
Quote from: KEK Inc. on May 06, 2021, 08:57:07 PM
I go to Bellingham from Seattle regularly, and traffic is never really a concern north of Smokey Point. I don't think 6 lanes is justified north of Mt. Vernon.
I think the state should focus on upgrading the SR-18 corridor between Hobart and Snoqualmie since it's the critical arterial for Tacoma from I-90. I don't use that route, but I see traffic backed up on the climb from North Bend on I-90 WB at that exit sometimes when I return from the mountains.
Also, US-2 between Monroe and Stevens Pass so I can go skiing faster. :bigass:
For 18, the biggest issues are certainly safety and access. It's a high speed road with lots of curves are little in the way of room for error (at least in the stretches without a divider). The access at 18 is a massive issue but will be temporarily resolved when it is modified into a DDI in a year or two. Still, the ultimate solution is a total rebuild of 18 into a four-lane freeway with a proper interchange at I-90.
But, 18 over Tiger Mountain has about a third the number of cars as I-5 through Mt Vernon/Burlington. Purely in terms of capacity, I-5 is just as deserving of a third lane as 18 is deserving of a second lane. North of Mount Vernon/Burlington, a third lane is harder to justify. Although a proper six-lane rebuild of I-5 in Bellingham should be considered too.
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 06, 2021, 11:33:30 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 05, 2021, 10:34:25 PM
Exit 13 (Lumberton) to Exit 40 (Fayetteville) will be widened to 8 lanes beginning next year, in addition to the under construction or soon to be portion from Exit 56 to Exit 81.
Exit 40 to Exit 56 (Fayetteville Bypass) will remain 4 lanes for the time being.
In all honesty, all of these 8 lane segments would reasonably suffice at 6 lanes, so it will be a major relief for traffic especially on peak weekends for those long distances once it is all complete by 2026.
Next segment needs to be Fayetteville Bypass to 8 lanes, then 6 lanes from Lumberton to South Carolina.
South Carolina desperately needs to prioritize at least 6 lanes from I-26 to Georgia. That segment is notorious during peak weekends. It's still bad north of there, but certainly better with some of that I-26 split traffic gone.
Then of course there's I-26 itself from Columbia to Charleston.
And does I-95 in Rocky Mount and Roanoke Rapids need 8 lanes?
No.
From my experience it would be really nice if I-85 could get six lanes all the way through Georgia and east Alabama, at least from Auburn AL up towards Greenville SC. The part in eastern Alabama especially has very heavy traffic every time I'm on it.
Would also be nice to have a fully 6 laned I-20 from Birmingham to Atlanta. Alabama has done most of their part for this, but Georgia has shown no real interest in it.
Georgia needs to do to I-85 what they did to I-75 and I-95... 6 lanes throughout the state.
They're making good progress heading towards South Carolina, and given SCDOT's progress on the Spartanburg to North Carolina projects, it's inevitable they'll eventually go south towards Georgia in the future. The last piece would be NCDOT between South Carolina and US-74 which will, again, inevitably happen, and you would have a 6 lane minimum corridor between Raleigh-Durham and Atlanta.
Quote from: US 89 on May 07, 2021, 09:48:29 AM
From my experience it would be really nice if I-85 could get six lanes all the way through Georgia and east Alabama, at least from Auburn AL up towards Greenville SC. The part in eastern Alabama especially has very heavy traffic every time I'm on it.
How far do six lanes currently extend south of Atlanta? It seems like six lanes would be reasonable at least to I-185, if not to Auburn.
Ca. 2008, 8 lanes were extended south to the north end of Newnan (GA 34/Exit 47), with 6 lanes down to a mile or two south of the Grantville exit (US 29/Exit 35). I drove through the construction when I transferred from Mississippi to DC.
One issue I have with 6 lanes on a rural Interstate is the build characteristic. They seem to built the road with more of an urban feel in lieu of a rural feel. I like the look and feel of the rural Interstate characteristic.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 07, 2021, 09:31:03 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 06, 2021, 11:33:30 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 05, 2021, 10:34:25 PM
Exit 13 (Lumberton) to Exit 40 (Fayetteville) will be widened to 8 lanes beginning next year, in addition to the under construction or soon to be portion from Exit 56 to Exit 81.
Exit 40 to Exit 56 (Fayetteville Bypass) will remain 4 lanes for the time being.
In all honesty, all of these 8 lane segments would reasonably suffice at 6 lanes, so it will be a major relief for traffic especially on peak weekends for those long distances once it is all complete by 2026.
Next segment needs to be Fayetteville Bypass to 8 lanes, then 6 lanes from Lumberton to South Carolina.
South Carolina desperately needs to prioritize at least 6 lanes from I-26 to Georgia. That segment is notorious during peak weekends. It's still bad north of there, but certainly better with some of that I-26 split traffic gone.
Then of course there's I-26 itself from Columbia to Charleston.
And does I-95 in Rocky Mount and Roanoke Rapids need 8 lanes?
No.
How about 6 lanes?
Quote from: froggie on May 07, 2021, 12:32:53 PM
Ca. 2008, 8 lanes were extended south to the north end of Newnan (GA 34/Exit 47), with 6 lanes down to a mile or two south of the Grantville exit (US 29/Exit 35). I drove through the construction when I transferred from Mississippi to DC.
Not far from I-185, then, with only one more interchange in between. Not sure what volumes are like, but it seems like they might as well extend the six-laning over that short stretch.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 07, 2021, 12:37:47 PM
One issue I have with 6 lanes on a rural Interstate is the build characteristic. They seem to built the road with more of an urban feel in lieu of a rural feel. I like the look and feel of the rural Interstate characteristic.
This is probably at least in part because many have concrete barriers in the median...
not all do (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.349597,-73.6976872,3a,90y,301.87h,74.7t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s39pCI5wXLQaedyKwFMLy5g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D39pCI5wXLQaedyKwFMLy5g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D48.632446%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en),
though (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8069175,-82.3731895,3a,75y,243.11h,77.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8_M7X4Ep3PIaCb6vNErKNA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en)!
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 07, 2021, 12:37:47 PM
One issue I have with 6 lanes on a rural Interstate is the build characteristic. They seem to built the road with more of an urban feel in lieu of a rural feel. I like the look and feel of the rural Interstate characteristic.
Depends on the circumstances. If there's a wide median, usually the feel can remain of a rural area. But in more tight right of way circumstances with a narrow median, sometimes building into that and putting up a jersey barrier is the best option.
I like the look and feel of rural interstates too, but if it's a heavily traveled corridor, I fully support any and all widening that is necessary to achieve high level of service operations even during the most peak of weekends. Look at I-65 in Kentucky, I-75 in Georgia, I-95 in Georgia, I-35 in Texas, I-95 in Virginia (well... better than 4 lanes but volumes are so high it ideally needs 8 lanes down to Richmond), I-295 in Virginia, I-71 in Ohio, NJTP in New Jersey, and many more examples that have significant 6+ lane rural portions.
Quote from: webny99 on May 07, 2021, 12:24:40 PM
How far do six lanes currently extend south of Atlanta? It seems like six lanes would be reasonable at least to I-185, if not to Auburn.
South of the I-285 Perimeter...
8 lanes - 22 miles to Newnan
6 lanes built to accommodate 8 lanes - an additional 7 miles south
6 lanes - an additional 7 miles south
So in total, about 36 miles south of I-285 has 6 or more lanes. About 12 miles short of I-185.
I-85 carries around 50,000 - 55,000 AADT south of Newnan to the I-185 split. South of the split, about 20,000 AADT on I-185 and 30,000 - 35,000 AADT on I-85.
So agreed, 6 lanes to the I-185 split does seem to be a reasonable next widening project on that portion. Less need south of there.
I'm sort of surprised I-85 isn't 6 laned between Atlanta and Charlotte yet. Isn't it one of the most important corridors in the Southeast?
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 07, 2021, 12:37:59 PM
How about 6 lanes?
Long term, I'd argue 6 lanes is necessary for all of I-95 in North Carolina, and to be honest, probably all of I-95 from VA I-295 to the Georgia state line. We'll probably see North Carolina make more progress on more projects though before South Carolina starts anything, and I don't even think Virginia has even
discussed any sort of widening south of VA I-295 to the North Carolina state line. Considering they haven't even with I-81 besides urban areas, climbing lanes, and Christiansburg - Roanoke (which is badly needed more so than the rest of the corridor), I doubt it will ever actually become a real discussion any time soon.
Quote from: SkyPesos on May 07, 2021, 01:00:00 PM
I'm sort of surprised I-85 isn't 6 laned between Atlanta and Charlotte yet. Isn't it one of the most important corridors in the Southeast?
I-85 hasn't been fully 6 laned yet, but significant progress has been made and more is to come. Even
South Carolina is doing a lot, which must mean something.
See my previous post.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 07, 2021, 09:55:52 AM
Georgia needs to do to I-85 what they did to I-75 and I-95... 6 lanes throughout the state.
They're making good progress heading towards South Carolina, and given SCDOT's progress on the Spartanburg to North Carolina projects, it's inevitable they'll eventually go south towards Georgia in the future. The last piece would be NCDOT between South Carolina and US-74 which will, again, inevitably happen, and you would have a 6 lane minimum corridor between Raleigh-Durham and Atlanta.
Quote from: SkyPesos on May 07, 2021, 01:00:00 PM
I'm sort of surprised I-85 isn't 6 laned between Atlanta and Charlotte yet. Isn't it one of the most important corridors in the Southeast?
On the other hand, much of it is in South Carolina, a state that contains neither city, but is also, to put it charitably, not known for extensive six-laning projects (see also: I-95 and I-26).
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 07, 2021, 01:02:25 PM
I-85 hasn't been fully 6 laned yet, but significant progress has been made and more is to come. Even South Carolina is doing a lot, which must mean something.
Interesting, I was not aware of that. Are there any current widening projects?
Quote from: webny99 on May 07, 2021, 01:04:11 PM
Interesting, I was not aware of that. Are there any current widening projects?
29 miles (MM 77 to 106) between Spartanburg and the North Carolina state line is currently under construction being widened to 6 lanes.
http://www.85widening.com/
58 miles (MM 19 to 77) is already 6 lanes or more lanes. The only portion remaining for South Carolina to have a continuous 6 lane corridor throughout the state (pending the completion of the northern projects) is 19 miles south to the Georgia state line. If that project is complete, presumably once Georgia extends their projects to the South Carolina state line, I-85 would become their first interstate highway to span state line to state line with 6 or more lanes throughout.
I was not aware of this project, but apparently widening from 6 to
8 lanes is being planned for MM 40 to MM 69 which would cover the 29 miles from I-185 south of Greenville, through Greenville, and up to the I-85 / I-85 Business split south of Spartanburg.
https://www.scdot.org/business/i-85-widening-mm40-69.aspx
Quote from: webny99 on May 07, 2021, 01:04:11 PM
On the other hand, much of it is in South Carolina, a state that contains neither city, but is also, to put it charitably, not known for extensive six-laning projects (see also: I-95 and I-26).
That is true, but I-85 does pass through Greenville and Spartanburg, which combined, is a major metropolitan / population center that portion of the state. Like half of I-85 in South Carolina is that urban corridor. And unfortunately, because it is South Carolina and their strict urban speed limit regulations, means a continuous, universally ignored, 60 mph speed limit for that entire 30+ mile stretch. North of Spartanburg and south of Greenville, it's 65 mph. The only 70 mph portion through the entire state is the short 90s Spartanburg bypass.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 07, 2021, 12:37:47 PM
One issue I have with 6 lanes on a rural Interstate is the build characteristic. They seem to built the road with more of an urban feel in lieu of a rural feel. I like the look and feel of the rural Interstate characteristic.
So you'd like something more
like this (https://goo.gl/maps/ZNy1SULnKoKgMVow7).
VDOT did pretty good on widening I-95 between Ashland and Woodbridge in 80s keeping a "rural" feel.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.9683937,-77.4904622,3a,75y,339.54h,85.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ8FZbRf8nGV32KqpZv1Kmg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.98858,-77.4926666,3a,49.4y,2.5h,87.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3H3v8Kr4m5x_1AojzGo4YQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0289439,-77.4989886,3a,48.9y,6.92h,85.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUisBp61Prz8ijnbnieaycQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
This is probably the most "urban" feel - https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7734541,-77.4620877,3a,48.8y,6.56h,80.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp9GpE9KYavAaYDCXGDOUbA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
Examples like I-35 in Texas, I-40/I-85 in North Carolina, or what is currently being built along I-95 in North Carolina on the other hand though... left shoulder with a continuous running concrete median barrier... would be the opposite.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 07, 2021, 02:06:55 PM
VDOT did pretty good on widening I-95 between Ashland and Woodbridge in 80s keeping a "rural" feel.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.9683937,-77.4904622,3a,75y,339.54h,85.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ8FZbRf8nGV32KqpZv1Kmg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.98858,-77.4926666,3a,49.4y,2.5h,87.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3H3v8Kr4m5x_1AojzGo4YQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0289439,-77.4989886,3a,48.9y,6.92h,85.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUisBp61Prz8ijnbnieaycQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
This is probably the most "urban" feel - https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7734541,-77.4620877,3a,48.8y,6.56h,80.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp9GpE9KYavAaYDCXGDOUbA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
Examples like I-35 in Texas, I-40/I-85 in North Carolina, or what is currently being built along I-95 in North Carolina on the other hand though... left shoulder with a continuous running concrete median barrier... would be the opposite.
What happened to NCDOT building highways like
this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6257231,-80.5003429,3a,39.2y,38.92h,84.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sNkdABXO58UzABfJAN37-iw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DNkdABXO58UzABfJAN37-iw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D127.83204%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1)? Looks like they stopped.
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 07, 2021, 04:19:03 PM
What happened to NCDOT building highways like
this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6257231,-80.5003429,3a,39.2y,38.92h,84.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sNkdABXO58UzABfJAN37-iw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DNkdABXO58UzABfJAN37-iw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D127.83204%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1)? Looks like they stopped.
Right of way.
Is there any plan to expand I-10 west of Brookshire? Looking at Google maps looks like it drops to 4 lanes. Given how that portion of I-10 connects the two largest cities in Texas, you'd think more than 2 in each direction would be needed.
I-10 is being expanded to 6 lanes out to US-77. Long term plans call to keep going to San Antonio. It's happening... they're making significant progress 20-30 miles at a time.
Quote from: jakeroot on May 04, 2021, 12:46:58 PM
Quote from: stevashe on April 29, 2021, 02:10:58 PM
WSDOT is considering widening I-5 between Mellen St in Centralia and Main St/SR 6 in Chehalis, we'll have to wait and see what they decide on. Really this is the main area that would need widening anyway, at least in the short term. The rest of the segment doesn't really experience any congestion issues at this point.
With regards to the work needed to close the gap, I was actually surprised when driving it recently by just how many times it's broken up by auxiliary lanes and climbing lanes. Currently these segments have three lanes in at least one direction:
- Exit 76 to Exit 72 (both directions)
- Exit 71 to Exit 68 (SB climbing lane)
- Exit 63 to 1 mile north (NB climbing lane)
- Exit 59 to Exit 60 (NB climbing lane)
All those interruptions mean that the longest continuous segment with 4 lanes is only 6.5 miles!
Great research there. I knew from driving it quite a few times that the two-lane stretch never seemed to last that long. And maybe on paper, the two lane stretch is fairly long, but all of those climbing lanes and auxiliary lanes certainly mean that a six-lane future is actually quite achievable. But filling in those gaps is certainly easier said than done.
Thanks! Yeah it definitely will take a lot of work, but I assume it's on the DOT's radar since those aux lanes were clearly built with future widening in mind, they certainly aren't needed for the non-existant mass of merging/weaving traffic in that area! Not to mention recent bridges are wide/long enough to accommodate three lanes as well. The biggest barrier is definitely I-5's bridges over the rivers, as identified previously.
Quote from: jakeroot
Back in the north end...
I was at the Tulip Festival again this last weekend, which helped me take in I-5 from Burlington to Mount Vernon again. Some of my takeaways:
* the six lane stretch of I-5 only ends just south of Mount Vernon. There is plenty of freeway north of there, yes, but I think we forget just how far the six-lane stretch goes already.
* I-5 through Burlington and Mount Vernon is not quiet at all. It's not I-5-through-Seattle busy, but it's far from dead. It felt very crowded.
* North of Mount Vernon is tight, but there is enough room to preliminarily widen I-5 up to exit 226, just south of this stretch. Only the Blackburn overpass would need replacing (the others were built to allow six lanes).
Yup! Even when I was a kid, I remember the Old Hwy 99 S was the place where the third lane dropped with an EXIT ONLY. And given that the portion south of there is paved in concrete, I'd guess it's been that way for a very long time, if not from when the Interstate was built.
The freeway is definitely busy north of the lane drop there as you go through Mt Vernon and Burlington, however, I can't remember ever sitting through a traffic jam because of it. I suspect this is why there are studies at the south end (Centralia/Chehalis) and not here, because that segment definitely does back up frequently. Heck, it even seems like they haven't even looked at widening from a safety perspective up there *cough cough* Skagit River Bridge *cough*
Quote from: jakeroot on May 07, 2021, 01:42:33 AM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on May 06, 2021, 08:57:07 PM
I go to Bellingham from Seattle regularly, and traffic is never really a concern north of Smokey Point. I don't think 6 lanes is justified north of Mt. Vernon.
I think the state should focus on upgrading the SR-18 corridor between Hobart and Snoqualmie since it's the critical arterial for Tacoma from I-90. I don't use that route, but I see traffic backed up on the climb from North Bend on I-90 WB at that exit sometimes when I return from the mountains.
Also, US-2 between Monroe and Stevens Pass so I can go skiing faster. :bigass:
For 18, the biggest issues are certainly safety and access. It's a high speed road with lots of curves are little in the way of room for error (at least in the stretches without a divider). The access at 18 is a massive issue but will be temporarily resolved when it is modified into a DDI in a year or two. Still, the ultimate solution is a total rebuild of 18 into a four-lane freeway with a proper interchange at I-90.
But, 18 over Tiger Mountain has about a third the number of cars as I-5 through Mt Vernon/Burlington. Purely in terms of capacity, I-5 is just as deserving of a third lane as 18 is deserving of a second lane. North of Mount Vernon/Burlington, a third lane is harder to justify. Although a proper six-lane rebuild of I-5 in Bellingham should be considered too.
SR 18 is actually in the works, though. There are preliminary plans posted on WSDOT's website (https://wsdot.wa.gov/projects/sr18/issaquah-raging-river-br/design), and the current transportation package being worked on by the legislature includes funding. It's anyone's guess as to if it will make it into the final bill, though.
And a US 2 upgrade would be nice in Monroe and is sorely needed in Sultan, but alas, it doesn't seem like that will be happening anytime soon. The focus seems to be on replacing the WB trestle for that route.
Blurring the rural/urban bit a bit, couple California nominations:
CA 1 from Santa Cruz to Watsonville (CA 17 to CA 152), to say nothing of the Watsonville to Castroville's 2 lane segment...
US 101 from Pismo Beach to SLO or even Astacadero or Paso Robles (there's a six lane expressway section climbing over the hills between SLO and Santa Maria. At grades with a six lane expressway is just a scary idea...).
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 07, 2021, 04:24:30 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 07, 2021, 04:19:03 PM
What happened to NCDOT building highways like
this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6257231,-80.5003429,3a,39.2y,38.92h,84.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sNkdABXO58UzABfJAN37-iw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DNkdABXO58UzABfJAN37-iw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D127.83204%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1)? Looks like they stopped.
Right of way.
No, not right-of-way, and they didn't even necessarily stop. This rebuilt section of I-85 at Spencer (https://goo.gl/maps/KxH756f7NC6cSVHA9) has a very tight right-of-way and still has that same narrow grassed median. I pass through only occasionally and I haven't had much of a chance to observe, but I suspect that the decision of whether or not to provide a median has much more to do with construction phasing and detours rather than which type of median is preferable. I expect to see more of this type of thing when the narrow-median sections of I-95 are widened.
I-5 from OR 62 to US 199
Quote from: Bickendan on June 10, 2021, 02:31:48 AM
Blurring the rural/urban bit a bit, couple California nominations:
CA 1 from Santa Cruz to Watsonville (CA 17 to CA 152), to say nothing of the Watsonville to Castroville's 2 lane segment...
I'll one up you and say there's a segment in Santa Cruz that could use the 8 lane treatment. There are so many segments on CA-1 that even need to just be widened to 4 lanes.
Quote from: Bickendan on June 13, 2021, 02:13:07 AM
I-5 from OR 62 to US 199
If we replaced the original I-5 viaduct in Medford, then we can 6-lane all the way south until the land flattens out. Obviously the Rogue Valley needs 6 lanes but as we head south and have a ton of truck traffic, they need the extra lane for climbing up and dropping down so the other 2 lanes of passenger vehicle traffic can proceed at a decent speed.
Oh heck, just 6-lane minimum all of I-5 and call it a day! There is so much traffic on it.
Rick
Observation that I'm not sure has been pointed out yet. Just about all the freeways that have been nominated for widening are I-x5 routes.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on June 14, 2021, 05:42:53 AM
Observation that I'm not sure has been pointed out yet. Just about all the freeways that have been nominated for widening are I-x5 routes.
Not a surprise to me, a lot of my initial thoughts for interstates that need to be 6 laned are x5 routes.
I-65: Remaining 4 lane section north of Nashville to KY border, also Indianapolis-Chicago.
I-75: Remaining 4 lane section in Ohio
I-85: Remaining 4 lane sections between Atlanta and Charlotte
I-95: Too many examples to list here
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 14, 2021, 08:55:18 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on June 14, 2021, 05:42:53 AM
Observation that I'm not sure has been pointed out yet. Just about all the freeways that have been nominated for widening are I-x5 routes.
Not a surprise to me, a lot of my initial thoughts for interstates that need to be 6 laned are x5 routes.
I-65: Remaining 4 lane section north of Nashville to KY border, also Indianapolis-Chicago.
I-75: Remaining 4 lane section in Ohio
I-85: Remaining 4 lane sections between Atlanta and Charlotte
I-95: Too many examples to list here
I hate and I mean HATE that four lane stretch of I-75 in Ohio. From Findlay to Troy it's 80 miles of headache.
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 14, 2021, 08:55:18 AM
I-95: Too many examples to list here
That gap between the Georgia/South Carolina state line and VA I-295 definitely stands out as one.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on June 14, 2021, 05:42:53 AM
Observation that I'm not sure has been pointed out yet. Just about all the freeways that have been nominated for widening are I-x5 routes.
A lot of the ongoing discussion has been about I-x5 routes, because there are some egregious ones. But there were plenty of I-x0's (and routes that end in neither 0 or 5, such as parts of I-87) mentioned earlier in the thread.
There are many spots on I-40, I-70, and I-10 that need to be six lanes.
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 14, 2021, 08:55:18 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on June 14, 2021, 05:42:53 AM
Observation that I'm not sure has been pointed out yet. Just about all the freeways that have been nominated for widening are I-x5 routes.
Not a surprise to me, a lot of my initial thoughts for interstates that need to be 6 laned are x5 routes.
I-65: Remaining 4 lane section north of Nashville to KY border, also Indianapolis-Chicago. Waste of money as it would not be serving the needs of the taxpayers but those travelling out of town.
I-75: Remaining 4 lane section in Ohio
I-85: Remaining 4 lane sections between Atlanta and Charlotte Wish list but not needed.
I-95: Too many examples to list hereWaste of money as it would not be serving the needs of the taxpayers but those travelling out of town.
I-70 between I-75 and the Indiana/Ohio state line. It's six lanes for awhile then goes down to four and when it goes down to four the truck traffic uses the left lane constantly and no one can pass it's totally ridiculous and stressful to drive under those conditions.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 15, 2021, 07:26:10 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 14, 2021, 08:55:18 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on June 14, 2021, 05:42:53 AM
Observation that I'm not sure has been pointed out yet. Just about all the freeways that have been nominated for widening are I-x5 routes.
Not a surprise to me, a lot of my initial thoughts for interstates that need to be 6 laned are x5 routes.
I-65: Remaining 4 lane section north of Nashville to KY border, also Indianapolis-Chicago. Waste of money as it would not be serving the needs of the taxpayers but those travelling out of town.
I-75: Remaining 4 lane section in Ohio
I-85: Remaining 4 lane sections between Atlanta and Charlotte Wish list but not needed.
I-95: Too many examples to list hereWaste of money as it would not be serving the needs of the taxpayers but those travelling out of town.
You forgot to cross out I-75 and label it with waste of money :bigass:
Also aren't the Interstate Highways built for tons of non-locals/truckers to use it as well, besides the local taxpayers? Maybe this is why Wyoming wanted to toll I-80...
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 15, 2021, 08:41:27 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 15, 2021, 07:26:10 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 14, 2021, 08:55:18 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on June 14, 2021, 05:42:53 AM
Observation that I'm not sure has been pointed out yet. Just about all the freeways that have been nominated for widening are I-x5 routes.
Not a surprise to me, a lot of my initial thoughts for interstates that need to be 6 laned are x5 routes.
I-65: Remaining 4 lane section north of Nashville to KY border, also Indianapolis-Chicago. Waste of money as it would not be serving the needs of the taxpayers but those travelling out of town.
I-75: Remaining 4 lane section in Ohio
I-85: Remaining 4 lane sections between Atlanta and Charlotte Wish list but not needed.
I-95: Too many examples to list hereWaste of money as it would not be serving the needs of the taxpayers but those travelling out of town.
You forgot to cross out I-75 and label it with waste of money :bigass:
Also aren't the Interstate Highways built for tons of non-locals/truckers to use it as well, besides the local taxpayers? Maybe this is why Wyoming wanted to toll I-80...
...and why NC wanted to toll I-95, and VA wanted to toll I-81...
FWIW, any non-locals/truckers who fuel up at gas stations/truck stops (and thus pay gas tax) along those routes are technically taxpayers, aren't they? :bigass:
Since virtually every Interstate highway project involves Federal money, every person who buys gas in the U.S. is contributing. "Local taxpayers" contribute, at most, 10% of these projects (state/local match to the 90% Federal match).
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 15, 2021, 08:41:27 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 15, 2021, 07:26:10 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 14, 2021, 08:55:18 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on June 14, 2021, 05:42:53 AM
Observation that I'm not sure has been pointed out yet. Just about all the freeways that have been nominated for widening are I-x5 routes.
Not a surprise to me, a lot of my initial thoughts for interstates that need to be 6 laned are x5 routes.
I-65: Remaining 4 lane section north of Nashville to KY border, also Indianapolis-Chicago. Waste of money as it would not be serving the needs of the taxpayers but those travelling out of town.
I-75: Remaining 4 lane section in Ohio
I-85: Remaining 4 lane sections between Atlanta and Charlotte Wish list but not needed.
I-95: Too many examples to list hereWaste of money as it would not be serving the needs of the taxpayers but those travelling out of town.
You forgot to cross out I-75 and label it with waste of money :bigass:
Also aren't the Interstate Highways built for tons of non-locals/truckers to use it as well, besides the local taxpayers? Maybe this is why Wyoming wanted to toll I-80...
Truckers are what clog everything up. I was on I-70 yesterday between Richmond and I-75 and it was a clusterfuck of trucks for 30 miles just miles of trucks using both lanes. It was a blessing when I got closer to I-75 and got that third lane. Then I-75 itself was a clusterfuck going through Dayton as usual.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 15, 2021, 07:26:10 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 14, 2021, 08:55:18 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on June 14, 2021, 05:42:53 AM
Observation that I'm not sure has been pointed out yet. Just about all the freeways that have been nominated for widening are I-x5 routes.
Not a surprise to me, a lot of my initial thoughts for interstates that need to be 6 laned are x5 routes.
I-65: Remaining 4 lane section north of Nashville to KY border, also Indianapolis-Chicago. Waste of money as it would not be serving the needs of the taxpayers but those travelling out of town.
I-75: Remaining 4 lane section in Ohio
I-85: Remaining 4 lane sections between Atlanta and Charlotte Wish list but not needed.
I-95: Too many examples to list hereWaste of money as it would not be serving the needs of the taxpayers but those travelling out of town.
Aren't those travelling out of town "taxpayers?"
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 15, 2021, 10:40:40 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 15, 2021, 07:26:10 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 14, 2021, 08:55:18 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on June 14, 2021, 05:42:53 AM
Observation that I'm not sure has been pointed out yet. Just about all the freeways that have been nominated for widening are I-x5 routes.
Not a surprise to me, a lot of my initial thoughts for interstates that need to be 6 laned are x5 routes.
I-65: Remaining 4 lane section north of Nashville to KY border, also Indianapolis-Chicago. Waste of money as it would not be serving the needs of the taxpayers but those travelling out of town.
I-75: Remaining 4 lane section in Ohio
I-85: Remaining 4 lane sections between Atlanta and Charlotte Wish list but not needed.
I-95: Too many examples to list hereWaste of money as it would not be serving the needs of the taxpayers but those travelling out of town.
Aren't those travelling out of town "taxpayers?"
Yes they are as well as the through trucks. However, the locals who have the right of way taken from them are going to disagree with the need of I-65 widened.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 15, 2021, 10:56:57 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 15, 2021, 10:40:40 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 15, 2021, 07:26:10 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 14, 2021, 08:55:18 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on June 14, 2021, 05:42:53 AM
Observation that I'm not sure has been pointed out yet. Just about all the freeways that have been nominated for widening are I-x5 routes.
Not a surprise to me, a lot of my initial thoughts for interstates that need to be 6 laned are x5 routes.
I-65: Remaining 4 lane section north of Nashville to KY border, also Indianapolis-Chicago. Waste of money as it would not be serving the needs of the taxpayers but those travelling out of town.
I-75: Remaining 4 lane section in Ohio
I-85: Remaining 4 lane sections between Atlanta and Charlotte Wish list but not needed.
I-95: Too many examples to list hereWaste of money as it would not be serving the needs of the taxpayers but those travelling out of town.
Aren't those travelling out of town "taxpayers?"
Yes they are as well as the through trucks. However, the locals who have the right of way taken from them are going to disagree with the need of I-65 widened.
Yeah but that has always been the case. The people who had their farmland "taken from them" when the first round of interstates were built didn't benefit from them as much as "those travelling out of town." That's the balancing act that we have had to manage for years.
I have been pro expanding current corridors versus building new ones for a long time. I-65 is a great example. The stretch between Indianapolis and Chicago would benefit greatly from an expansion to six lanes. IMO the benefit of those travelling the system exceeds the loss of those whose land is purchased.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 15, 2021, 10:56:57 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 15, 2021, 10:40:40 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 15, 2021, 07:26:10 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 14, 2021, 08:55:18 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on June 14, 2021, 05:42:53 AM
Observation that I'm not sure has been pointed out yet. Just about all the freeways that have been nominated for widening are I-x5 routes.
Not a surprise to me, a lot of my initial thoughts for interstates that need to be 6 laned are x5 routes.
I-65: Remaining 4 lane section north of Nashville to KY border, also Indianapolis-Chicago. Waste of money as it would not be serving the needs of the taxpayers but those travelling out of town.
I-75: Remaining 4 lane section in Ohio
I-85: Remaining 4 lane sections between Atlanta and Charlotte Wish list but not needed.
I-95: Too many examples to list hereWaste of money as it would not be serving the needs of the taxpayers but those travelling out of town.
Aren't those travelling out of town "taxpayers?"
Yes they are as well as the through trucks. However, the locals who have the right of way taken from them are going to disagree with the need of I-65 widened.
I feel like one of the reasons you heavily oppose I-65 being widened is because you would somehow be impacted... hate to break it to you, but all those highways you crossed out do need to be widened, and given you crossed out I-95, it makes me wonder how much you've actually driven that road, particularly during peak times. It's a nightmare with bumper to bumper traffic and stop-and-go conditions. But I suppose that's adequate for you. My most recent trip was free-flowing 75+ mph in Georgia with 6 lanes, then down to 35-60 mph (never really got faster, despite the 70 mph limit) throughout South Carolina's 4 lanes virtually through the entire state, plus having to exit a couple times and avoid some continuous red areas. "Waste of money" "Not needed" :bigass:
At this point, you're merely trolling, deeming any new expansion project a "waste" despite the fact I guarantee 90% of them you've never even driven or have driven once, and have virtually no recurring experience with them enough to soundly say it's not needed.
And for the record, the vast majority of interstate widenings occur in the median, within existing right of way.
I-70 between Richmond, Indiana and Dayton, Ohio was a slugfest on Monday afternoon. After I crossed into Ohio it was 30 miles of truck after truck after truck taking up both lanes, slowing traffic down to the high 50's/low 60's mph. I would say this stretch calls for more than four lanes which is what it is and it's probably a daily thing through there considering it is I-70 one of the crossroads of America.
I-75 between Troy and Findlay, Ohio without looking has probably been mentioned maybe by me I just don't remember lol. But same thing just less traffic. It'd be nice if they cut down on the 80 miles of four lanes through there and start widening it.
I don't think any part of I-75 between Bay City, MI and Miami should be under six lanes. In fact it should be six lanes up to the US-23 split in Standish. That is a logical point to cut it back down to four lanes because a lot of traffic stays on US-23 heading toward Lake Huron. The stretch between the US-23 split in Flint and the south end of I-475 should be 6-8 lanes as well.
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 18, 2021, 12:34:39 PM
I don't think any part of I-75 between Bay City, MI and Miami should be under six lanes. In fact it should be six lanes up to the US-23 split in Standish. That is a logical point to cut it back down to four lanes because a lot of traffic stays on US-23 heading toward Lake Huron. The stretch between the US-23 split in Flint and the south end of I-475 should be 6-8 lanes as well.
I'll exclude I-75 in Macon from the 6 laning, as I-475 is the bypass and is 6 laned already.
It may have been mentioned earlier. But yesterday I drove I-5 past Camp Pendleton which is already eight lanes wide. It was the middle of the day and packed. It could probably use another lane, even if it was an HOV lane. Trucks using all but the far left lane didn't help matters either.
Quote from: skluth on June 18, 2021, 02:31:57 PM
It may have been mentioned earlier. But yesterday I drove I-5 past Camp Pendleton which is already eight lanes wide. It was the middle of the day and packed. It could probably use another lane, even if it was an HOV lane. Trucks using all but the far left lane didn't help matters either.
Lol that road could use 2 or even 3 more lanes each way. Ideally it'd be widened with one additional GP lane plus two tolled lanes each way.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 15, 2021, 11:07:39 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 15, 2021, 10:56:57 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 15, 2021, 10:40:40 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 15, 2021, 07:26:10 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 14, 2021, 08:55:18 AM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on June 14, 2021, 05:42:53 AM
Observation that I'm not sure has been pointed out yet. Just about all the freeways that have been nominated for widening are I-x5 routes.
Not a surprise to me, a lot of my initial thoughts for interstates that need to be 6 laned are x5 routes.
I-65: Remaining 4 lane section north of Nashville to KY border, also Indianapolis-Chicago. Waste of money as it would not be serving the needs of the taxpayers but those travelling out of town.
I-75: Remaining 4 lane section in Ohio
I-85: Remaining 4 lane sections between Atlanta and Charlotte Wish list but not needed.
I-95: Too many examples to list hereWaste of money as it would not be serving the needs of the taxpayers but those travelling out of town.
Aren't those travelling out of town "taxpayers?"
Yes they are as well as the through trucks. However, the locals who have the right of way taken from them are going to disagree with the need of I-65 widened.
I feel like one of the reasons you heavily oppose I-65 being widened is because you would somehow be impacted… hate to break it to you, but all those highways you crossed out do need to be widened, and given you crossed out I-95, it makes me wonder how much you’ve actually driven that road, particularly during peak times. It’s a nightmare with bumper to bumper traffic and stop-and-go conditions. But I suppose that’s adequate for you. My most recent trip was free-flowing 75+ mph in Georgia with 6 lanes, then down to 35-60 mph (never really got faster, despite the 70 mph limit) throughout South Carolina’s 4 lanes virtually through the entire state, plus having to exit a couple times and avoid some continuous red areas. “Waste of money” “Not needed” :bigass:
At this point, you’re merely trolling, deeming any new expansion project a “waste” despite the fact I guarantee 90% of them you’ve never even driven or have driven once, and have virtually no recurring experience with them enough to soundly say it’s not needed.
And for the record, the vast majority of interstate widenings occur in the median, within existing right of way.
I was just through the I-95 corridor area back in April. I will be back later next month. US 301 was a nice option as well.
I-65 winding and expansion would affect me.
Quote from: skluth on June 18, 2021, 02:31:57 PM
It may have been mentioned earlier. But yesterday I drove I-5 past Camp Pendleton which is already eight lanes wide. It was the middle of the day and packed. It could probably use another lane, even if it was an HOV lane. Trucks using all but the far left lane didn't help matters either.
Way more common in California now. It drives me nuts.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 18, 2021, 03:09:08 PM
I was just through the I-95 corridor area back in April. I will be back later next month. US 301 was a nice option as well.
Which section? I'm specifically referring to the 4 lane segments south of VA I-295.
And for the record, suggesting a 2 lane or 4 lane arterial highway littered with signals, passing though small towns, etc. is a viable alternative and reason not to widen an interstate highway is a poor one and simply doesn't meet reality.
Quote
I-65 winding and expansion would affect me.
So, asides from your personal impacts, what are your reasons for opposing the project? You cannot seriously argue that I-65 is adequate, particularly during peak times and with heavy truck volumes. Also, the fact Kentucky has expanded there segment to 6 lanes. Plus I-65 south of I-840 needs to be expanded to 8 lanes. You, yourself, have said it's an issue yet claimed it does not need to be widened - I suppose you take traffic congestion and bumper to bumper for miles as "acceptable" or suggest using a 2 lane arterial highway as a reason to not widen it.
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 18, 2021, 12:40:57 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 18, 2021, 12:34:39 PM
I don't think any part of I-75 between Bay City, MI and Miami should be under six lanes. In fact it should be six lanes up to the US-23 split in Standish. That is a logical point to cut it back down to four lanes because a lot of traffic stays on US-23 heading toward Lake Huron. The stretch between the US-23 split in Flint and the south end of I-475 should be 6-8 lanes as well.
I'll exclude I-75 in Macon from the 6 laning, as I-475 is the bypass and is 6 laned already.
Yeah that doesn't need to be six lanes unless the traffic counts are high enough. A new Ohio River crossing is really needed, the Brent Spence Bridge needs to be replaced. I made it from Troy to Findlay in an hour the other day I thought that was pretty good and I didn't want to stop on the four lane stretch.
Looks like that I-65 widening between Nashville and Kentucky is happening. First segment goes to construction this fall.
https://www.newschannel5.com/news/tdot-to-widen-i-65-from-nashville-to-kentucky-state-line
Quote from: Crown Victoria on June 22, 2021, 09:55:34 AM
Looks like that I-65 widening between Nashville and Kentucky is happening. First segment goes to construction this fall.
https://www.newschannel5.com/news/tdot-to-widen-i-65-from-nashville-to-kentucky-state-line
Looks like it will not be rural in construction. Looks like this will no longer be a rural interstate. :no: :ded: :angry:
TDOT provided the following outline of the project:
I-65, north of Nashville, will be widened from four to six lanes with three 12-foot travel lanes in each direction, 12-foot paved outside shoulders, 12-foot paved inside shoulders, with approximately 300 feet of right-of-way and a concrete median barrier wall where required.
Two northbound truck climbing lanes will be constructed — one between mile markers 99 and 100 and another between mile markers 102 and 104.
An auxiliary lane will also be added in each direction between the interchanges of Rivergate Parkway (Exit 96) and SR 174 (Long Hollow Pike, Exit 97) to accommodate traffic exiting and entering the roadway.
Sounds like a typical rural interstate highway widening cross section. Given the high volumes, it's needed. It also indicates concrete median barrier wall will only be used where needed, the large grassy median could be retained in certain areas.
Either way, glad to finally see this project started. It's been long overdue.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 22, 2021, 10:54:24 AM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on June 22, 2021, 09:55:34 AM
Looks like that I-65 widening between Nashville and Kentucky is happening. First segment goes to construction this fall.
https://www.newschannel5.com/news/tdot-to-widen-i-65-from-nashville-to-kentucky-state-line
Looks like it will not be rural in construction. Looks like this will no longer be a rural interstate. :no: :ded: :angry:
The road could have as wide a profile as they can make it...if it's in a rural area, then it's rural.
Besides, three 12-foot travel lanes each way, with 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders, and a median barrier...plenty of examples of that in rural areas. Just look at the Blue Mountain to Carlisle stretch of the PA Turnpike...
Quote from: Crown Victoria on June 22, 2021, 11:46:09 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 22, 2021, 10:54:24 AM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on June 22, 2021, 09:55:34 AM
Looks like that I-65 widening between Nashville and Kentucky is happening. First segment goes to construction this fall.
https://www.newschannel5.com/news/tdot-to-widen-i-65-from-nashville-to-kentucky-state-line
Looks like it will not be rural in construction. Looks like this will no longer be a rural interstate. :no: :ded: :angry:
The road could have as wide a profile as they can make it...if it's in a rural area, then it's rural.
Besides, three 12-foot travel lanes each way, with 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders, and a median barrier...plenty of examples of that in rural areas. Just look at the Blue Mountain to Carlisle stretch of the PA Turnpike...
Agreed, and the widened portions of the Ohio Turnpike west of Cleveland (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3613704,-82.9255123,3a,75y,276.38h,89.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7Gc6JIasareTJYqEbmBulA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en) still feel perfectly rural to me as well.
On the contrary, this (https://goo.gl/maps/QDk2bwtiiKTxvWg78) have one of the widest patches of grassy median I've seen, though it would in no way be considered rural.
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 22, 2021, 12:01:21 PM
On the contrary, this (https://goo.gl/maps/QDk2bwtiiKTxvWg78) have one of the widest patches of grassy median I've seen, though it would in no way be considered rural.
That's funny that you sent that, as I'm currently sitting at a hotel about a mile away from that. Yes, it's a huge median, but it's crazy how much of a difference that makes for the feel of the highway.
Quote from: jmacswimmer on June 22, 2021, 11:54:30 AM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on June 22, 2021, 11:46:09 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 22, 2021, 10:54:24 AM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on June 22, 2021, 09:55:34 AM
Looks like that I-65 widening between Nashville and Kentucky is happening. First segment goes to construction this fall.
https://www.newschannel5.com/news/tdot-to-widen-i-65-from-nashville-to-kentucky-state-line
Looks like it will not be rural in construction. Looks like this will no longer be a rural interstate. :no: :ded: :angry:
The road could have as wide a profile as they can make it...if it's in a rural area, then it's rural.
Besides, three 12-foot travel lanes each way, with 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders, and a median barrier...plenty of examples of that in rural areas. Just look at the Blue Mountain to Carlisle stretch of the PA Turnpike...
Agreed, and the widened portions of the Ohio Turnpike west of Cleveland (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3613704,-82.9255123,3a,75y,276.38h,89.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7Gc6JIasareTJYqEbmBulA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en) still feel perfectly rural to me as well.
Same with I-35 (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.7732403,-97.1034317,3a,39.2y,186.62h,86.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQWpAUzW3YfkU69o3o94ezw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) in Texas between Dallas-Fort Worth and Austin.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on June 22, 2021, 12:07:12 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 22, 2021, 12:01:21 PM
On the contrary, this (https://goo.gl/maps/QDk2bwtiiKTxvWg78) have one of the widest patches of grassy median I've seen, though it would in no way be considered rural.
That's funny that you sent that, as I'm currently sitting at a hotel about a mile away from that. Yes, it's a huge median, but it's crazy how much of a difference that makes for the feel of the highway.
If you're only a mile from that, you're also only about 5-7 miles from me :D
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 22, 2021, 12:01:21 PM
On the contrary, this (https://goo.gl/maps/QDk2bwtiiKTxvWg78) have one of the widest patches of grassy median I've seen, though it would in no way be considered rural.
Here's I-295 (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.598668,-77.3528473,3a,46.2y,329.43h,81.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq74V6mHKXDwlmT6Y5YHKQA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en) that bypasses Richmond, VA to the east. I'd say this is relatively rural.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 22, 2021, 12:09:56 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 22, 2021, 12:01:21 PM
On the contrary, this (https://goo.gl/maps/QDk2bwtiiKTxvWg78) have one of the widest patches of grassy median I've seen, though it would in no way be considered rural.
Here's I-295 (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.598668,-77.3528473,3a,46.2y,329.43h,81.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq74V6mHKXDwlmT6Y5YHKQA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en) that bypasses Richmond, VA to the east. I'd say this is relatively rural.
I think a lot of beltways have a section that looks relatively rural (even with grassy medians sometimes), but it's actually suburban or exurban. Like here's I-275 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1375593,-84.2649981,3a,75y,183.25h,86.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG85SenpGZu9BNLwpATHuqw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) on the east side of Cincinnati and I-270 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8722336,-82.9606671,3a,75y,67.41h,86.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9nZNEUAgtx2MFjzZTABaLA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) on the south side of Columbus.
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 22, 2021, 12:19:18 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 22, 2021, 12:09:56 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 22, 2021, 12:01:21 PM
On the contrary, this (https://goo.gl/maps/QDk2bwtiiKTxvWg78) have one of the widest patches of grassy median I've seen, though it would in no way be considered rural.
Here's I-295 (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.598668,-77.3528473,3a,46.2y,329.43h,81.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq74V6mHKXDwlmT6Y5YHKQA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en) that bypasses Richmond, VA to the east. I'd say this is relatively rural.
I think a lot of beltways have a section that looks relatively rural (even with grassy medians sometimes), but it's actually suburban or exurban. Like here's I-275 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1375593,-84.2649981,3a,75y,183.25h,86.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG85SenpGZu9BNLwpATHuqw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) on the east side of Cincinnati and I-270 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8722336,-82.9606671,3a,75y,67.41h,86.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9nZNEUAgtx2MFjzZTABaLA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) on the south side of Columbus.
I'd say I-295 is more exurban / rural. There's some growth areas, but the beltway largely functions as a rural bypass route carrying heavy regional volumes from I-95 and I-64. The speed limit is posted at 70 mph, which VDOT keeps reserves for rural freeways. The highest they've posted on an urban freeway is 65 mph.
But I do understand where your statement is coming from. I-410 on the southside of San Antonio, TX is still relatively rural (development has concentrated on the northern and western side of the city) and feels that way driving on it.
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.3220063,-98.4553215,3a,41.7y,270.21h,83.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skECghYh6bFgmX2LLn5MbrA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 22, 2021, 10:54:24 AM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on June 22, 2021, 09:55:34 AM
Looks like that I-65 widening between Nashville and Kentucky is happening. First segment goes to construction this fall.
https://www.newschannel5.com/news/tdot-to-widen-i-65-from-nashville-to-kentucky-state-line
Looks like it will not be rural in construction. Looks like this will no longer be a rural interstate. :no: :ded: :angry:
TDOT provided the following outline of the project:
If a concrete barrier was a guideline, the PA Turnpike wouldn't be rural either, despite it going thru a few hundred miles of farmland and mountainous terrain.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 22, 2021, 12:23:36 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 22, 2021, 12:19:18 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 22, 2021, 12:09:56 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 22, 2021, 12:01:21 PM
On the contrary, this (https://goo.gl/maps/QDk2bwtiiKTxvWg78) have one of the widest patches of grassy median I've seen, though it would in no way be considered rural.
Here's I-295 (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.598668,-77.3528473,3a,46.2y,329.43h,81.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq74V6mHKXDwlmT6Y5YHKQA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en) that bypasses Richmond, VA to the east. I'd say this is relatively rural.
I think a lot of beltways have a section that looks relatively rural (even with grassy medians sometimes), but it's actually suburban or exurban. Like here's I-275 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1375593,-84.2649981,3a,75y,183.25h,86.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG85SenpGZu9BNLwpATHuqw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) on the east side of Cincinnati and I-270 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8722336,-82.9606671,3a,75y,67.41h,86.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9nZNEUAgtx2MFjzZTABaLA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) on the south side of Columbus.
I'd say I-295 is more exurban / rural. There's some growth areas, but the beltway largely functions as a rural bypass route carrying heavy regional volumes from I-95 and I-64. The speed limit is posted at 70 mph, which VDOT keeps reserves for rural freeways. The highest they've posted on an urban freeway is 65 mph.
But I do understand where your statement is coming from. I-410 on the southside of San Antonio, TX is still relatively rural (development has concentrated on the northern and western side of the city) and feels that way driving on it.
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.3220063,-98.4553215,3a,41.7y,270.21h,83.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skECghYh6bFgmX2LLn5MbrA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en
Some of I-95/495 southeast of DC (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8535406,-76.8568565,3a,44.9y,40.77h,86.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3a_ulv8TNDGWN5ETu5KSpw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) fits this description as well - I think I've said this before in other threads, but there is a noticeable difference in 495 between Montgomery & Prince George's Counties (which IMHO may have played a role in routing I-95 around the east side, despite being a couple miles longer than going around the west side).
Quote from: Crown Victoria on June 22, 2021, 11:46:09 AM
The road could have as wide a profile as they can make it...if it's in a rural area, then it's rural.
Besides, three 12-foot travel lanes each way, with 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders, and a median barrier...plenty of examples of that in rural areas. Just look at the Blue Mountain to Carlisle stretch of the PA Turnpike...
Wow, I'm impressed. I didn't realize that section of the PA Turnpike was six lanes.
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 22, 2021, 12:01:21 PM
On the contrary, this (https://goo.gl/maps/QDk2bwtiiKTxvWg78) have one of the widest patches of grassy median I've seen, though it would in no way be considered rural.
Let's get a bit of a Road Sign Uno trend going: From PA to OH to OH, and now back to PA, with one of the widest suburban/exurban medians
I've ever seen:
I-490 near MM 13 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1095715,-77.7790006,3a,88.8y,174.85h,76.45t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgTIPA73vmyAQFYA_7ANpeA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DgTIPA73vmyAQFYA_7ANpeA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D306.68716%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1)
Quote from: webny99 on June 22, 2021, 12:39:17 PM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on June 22, 2021, 11:46:09 AM
The road could have as wide a profile as they can make it...if it's in a rural area, then it's rural.
Besides, three 12-foot travel lanes each way, with 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders, and a median barrier...plenty of examples of that in rural areas. Just look at the Blue Mountain to Carlisle stretch of the PA Turnpike...
Wow, I'm impressed. I didn't realize that section of the PA Turnpike was six lanes.
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 22, 2021, 12:01:21 PM
On the contrary, this (https://goo.gl/maps/QDk2bwtiiKTxvWg78) have one of the widest patches of grassy median I've seen, though it would in no way be considered rural.
Let's get a bit of a Road Sign Uno trend going: From PA to OH to OH, and now back to PA, with one of the widest suburban/exurban medians I've ever seen: I-490 near MM 13 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1095715,-77.7790006,3a,88.8y,174.85h,76.45t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgTIPA73vmyAQFYA_7ANpeA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DgTIPA73vmyAQFYA_7ANpeA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D306.68716%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1)
There's some areas of the Garden State Parkway where Express/Local roadways exist with fairly wide medians not only between the different direction of travel, but also between the *same* direction of travel. This exists just 10 or 15 miles south of NYC.
Quote from: nexus73 on June 13, 2021, 03:05:20 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on June 13, 2021, 02:13:07 AM
I-5 from OR 62 to US 199
If we replaced the original I-5 viaduct in Medford, then we can 6-lane all the way south until the land flattens out. Obviously the Rogue Valley needs 6 lanes but as we head south and have a ton of truck traffic, they need the extra lane for climbing up and dropping down so the other 2 lanes of passenger vehicle traffic can proceed at a decent speed.
Oh heck, just 6-lane minimum all of I-5 and call it a day! There is so much traffic on it.
Rick
Yes. There is no part of I-5 that is comfortable with less than six lanes.
I notice that six lanes on I-75 between Chattanooga and Atlanta is no better traffic wise than back in the four lane days.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 23, 2021, 10:19:15 AM
I notice that six lanes on I-75 between Chattanooga and Atlanta is no better traffic wise than back in the four lane days.
Really? Induced demand or does it need 8 lanes?
The traffic volumes on that segment of I-75 are close to or above 100,000 AADT. That highway's capacity would be failing if it was still 4 lanes. Given those high numbers, it proves that 8 lanes is needed and 6 lanes is underbuilt. 4 lanes is not even an option.
Take a look at something like I-95 that only carries 55,000 - 60,000 AADT and has been 6 laned throughout. Virtually never any congestion.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 23, 2021, 12:31:06 PM
The traffic volumes on that segment of I-75 are close to or above 100,000 AADT. That highway's capacity would be failing if it was still 4 lanes. Given those high numbers, it proves that 8 lanes is needed and 6 lanes is underbuilt. 4 lanes is not even an option.
Take a look at something like I-95 that only carries 55,000 - 60,000 AADT and has been 6 laned throughout. Virtually never any congestion.
Wow that's a lot more traffic than I would think.
More progress being made... the entire project stretches from MM 241 to MM 233 and will be fully complete by Fall 2021. Upon completion, between 2016 and 2021, approximately 26 miles of I-64 between MM 254 and MM 233, and between MM 200 and 205, will have been expanded from 4 to 6 lanes. A 28 mile gap between MM 205 and MM 233 will remain at 4 lanes until funding is identified to complete that stretch.
New, Third Travel Lane Opens Along Eastern Project Limits of I-64 Widening Project (https://myemail.constantcontact.com/I-64-WIDENING--NEW--THIRD-TRAVEL-LANE-OPENS-ALONG-EASTERN-PROJECT-LIMITS.html?soid=1124277087205&aid=hj3bAzj6Iyc)
QuoteYORK COUNTY — As of overnight on Tuesday, June 22, contractor crews with the Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT) I-64 Widening Segment III Project have increased vehicle capacity eastbound by opening approximately two miles of a third travel lane to traffic. Following overnight operations to adjust traffic barriers, motorists are now able to utilize a third lane for travel on I-64 east between the on-ramp at Route 143 (exit 238) to the eastern limits of the project, just west of Route 199 (exit 242).
Lane closures will continue as needed in this section of I-64, as well as throughout the project corridor. Crews will also be implementing lane closures to place the final surface layer of pavement across all lanes to create a smooth riding surface throughout the project corridor.
Motorists are reminded to continue to obey the reduced work zone speed limit of 55 mph on I-64 and to drive with caution when traveling in the project work zone.
All project work and scheduled closures are dependent upon weather conditions.
For additional scheduled lane closures this week and to learn more about the I-64 Widening Segment III project, please visit the project website at http://i64widening.org/learn_more/segment_3.asp.
(https://files.constantcontact.com/5ebe224c501/804dad0f-b958-4c35-b948-b79ec6f5f37b.jpg)
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 23, 2021, 12:49:48 PM
More progress being made... the entire project stretches from MM 241 to MM 233 and will be fully complete by Fall 2021. Upon completion, between 2016 and 2021, approximately 26 miles of I-64 between MM 254 and MM 233, and between MM 200 and 205, will have been expanded from 4 to 6 lanes. A 28 mile gap between MM 205 and MM 233 will remain at 4 lanes until funding is identified to complete that stretch.
New, Third Travel Lane Opens Along Eastern Project Limits of I-64 Widening Project (https://myemail.constantcontact.com/I-64-WIDENING--NEW--THIRD-TRAVEL-LANE-OPENS-ALONG-EASTERN-PROJECT-LIMITS.html?soid=1124277087205&aid=hj3bAzj6Iyc)
QuoteYORK COUNTY – As of overnight on Tuesday, June 22, contractor crews with the Virginia Department of Transportation’s (VDOT) I-64 Widening Segment III Project have increased vehicle capacity eastbound by opening approximately two miles of a third travel lane to traffic. Following overnight operations to adjust traffic barriers, motorists are now able to utilize a third lane for travel on I-64 east between the on-ramp at Route 143 (exit 238) to the eastern limits of the project, just west of Route 199 (exit 242).
Lane closures will continue as needed in this section of I-64, as well as throughout the project corridor. Crews will also be implementing lane closures to place the final surface layer of pavement across all lanes to create a smooth riding surface throughout the project corridor.
Motorists are reminded to continue to obey the reduced work zone speed limit of 55 mph on I-64 and to drive with caution when traveling in the project work zone.
All project work and scheduled closures are dependent upon weather conditions.
For additional scheduled lane closures this week and to learn more about the I-64 Widening Segment III project, please visit the project website at http://i64widening.org/learn_more/segment_3.asp.
(https://files.constantcontact.com/5ebe224c501/804dad0f-b958-4c35-b948-b79ec6f5f37b.jpg)
The rest of this definitely needs to happen, but it's good seeing progress. I drove from north of Richmond to Chesapeake on Friday afternoon (I know, probably the worst time to be fair), and the whole rural stretch between I-295 and Williamsburg was in a constant flux between 35 and 65 MPH, with it occasionally coming to a near stop, never was really able to keep a constant speed. Once we hit the 6 lane section past Williamsburg it opened up to 75-80 MPH haha. Until we got stuck for 20+ minutes approaching the tunnel, but that's nothing new there.
Quote from: doorknob60 on June 23, 2021, 06:09:27 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 23, 2021, 12:49:48 PM
More progress being made... the entire project stretches from MM 241 to MM 233 and will be fully complete by Fall 2021. Upon completion, between 2016 and 2021, approximately 26 miles of I-64 between MM 254 and MM 233, and between MM 200 and 205, will have been expanded from 4 to 6 lanes. A 28 mile gap between MM 205 and MM 233 will remain at 4 lanes until funding is identified to complete that stretch.
New, Third Travel Lane Opens Along Eastern Project Limits of I-64 Widening Project (https://myemail.constantcontact.com/I-64-WIDENING--NEW--THIRD-TRAVEL-LANE-OPENS-ALONG-EASTERN-PROJECT-LIMITS.html?soid=1124277087205&aid=hj3bAzj6Iyc)
QuoteYORK COUNTY — As of overnight on Tuesday, June 22, contractor crews with the Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT) I-64 Widening Segment III Project have increased vehicle capacity eastbound by opening approximately two miles of a third travel lane to traffic. Following overnight operations to adjust traffic barriers, motorists are now able to utilize a third lane for travel on I-64 east between the on-ramp at Route 143 (exit 238) to the eastern limits of the project, just west of Route 199 (exit 242).
Lane closures will continue as needed in this section of I-64, as well as throughout the project corridor. Crews will also be implementing lane closures to place the final surface layer of pavement across all lanes to create a smooth riding surface throughout the project corridor.
Motorists are reminded to continue to obey the reduced work zone speed limit of 55 mph on I-64 and to drive with caution when traveling in the project work zone.
All project work and scheduled closures are dependent upon weather conditions.
For additional scheduled lane closures this week and to learn more about the I-64 Widening Segment III project, please visit the project website at http://i64widening.org/learn_more/segment_3.asp.
(image deleted)
The rest of this definitely needs to happen, but it's good seeing progress. I drove from north of Richmond to Chesapeake on Friday afternoon (I know, probably the worst time to be fair), and the whole rural stretch between I-295 and Williamsburg was in a constant flux between 35 and 65 MPH, with it occasionally coming to a near stop, never was really able to keep a constant speed. Once we hit the 6 lane section past Williamsburg it opened up to 75-80 MPH haha. Until we got stuck for 20+ minutes approaching the tunnel, but that's nothing new there.
Did you use the HRBT or Monitor-Merrimac? The HRBT has backed up at all times for years but when I left Tidewater backups on I-664 were pretty rare unless there was an accident. I'd use I-664 to get to Chesapeake in most cases.
Quote from: skluth on June 23, 2021, 07:57:01 PM
Did you use the HRBT or Monitor-Merrimac? The HRBT has backed up at all times for years but when I left Tidewater backups on I-664 were pretty rare unless there was an accident. I'd use I-664 to get to Chesapeake in most cases.
I-664 always has a major backup approaching the MMMBT southbound in Newport News at peak hours in the afternoon. You could easily be there for 20+ minutes. Otherwise, agreed, I-664 usually flows south of there down to Bowers Hill at 65-75 mph even during peak hours, unless there's an accident of course.
Quote from: doorknob60 on June 23, 2021, 06:09:27 PM
The rest of this definitely needs to happen, but it's good seeing progress. I drove from north of Richmond to Chesapeake on Friday afternoon (I know, probably the worst time to be fair), and the whole rural stretch between I-295 and Williamsburg was in a constant flux between 35 and 65 MPH, with it occasionally coming to a near stop, never was really able to keep a constant speed. Once we hit the 6 lane section past Williamsburg it opened up to 75-80 MPH haha. Until we got stuck for 20+ minutes approaching the tunnel, but that's nothing new there.
Sounds about accurate, particularly during summer months. Even off peak, I-64 is packed it seems 24/7, and is always moving at or 5-10 mph below the posted 70 mph speed limit. It's always frustrating to drive, and I've used US-460 as an alternative and would more often, but I figure on there I'm still legally limited to 55 mph (which means I'm probably not going to push more than 65-70 mph anyways which at least I'm able to get up to on I-64 on its slowest, packed portions) plus all the towns and all. It would have been beautiful if they built the 70 mph toll road between Petersburg and Suffolk as proposed years back, I'd be using that every trip, no questions asked.
Quote from: skluth on June 23, 2021, 07:57:01 PM
Did you use the HRBT or Monitor-Merrimac? The HRBT has backed up at all times for years but when I left Tidewater backups on I-664 were pretty rare unless there was an accident. I'd use I-664 to get to Chesapeake in most cases.
I used the MMBT (I-664). Both were pretty backed up, though the HRBT was slightly worse by 5-10 minutes according to the VMSes (as is almost always the case, though the difference is often bigger). In retrospect, using I-295 to US-460 would have probably been faster on this trip, oh well. When I drove up to Hampton on Sunday, I used I-664 both directions and had only a ~10 minute backup on the way north, and smooth sailing southbound.
I-70 between KC and STL and STL to Ohio.
I-5 between Sacramento and Salem. Too many trucks slowing for the mountains and the slower speed limit for trucks in both CA and OR causes bottlenecks and bumper to bumper driving.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 14, 2021, 11:34:58 AM
I-5 between Sacramento and Salem. Too many trucks slowing for the mountains and the slower speed limit for trucks in both CA and OR causes bottlenecks and bumper to bumper driving.
Basically all of I-5 should be at least six lanes. So, also:
- L.A. to Sacramento
- Toutle River Rest Area to Centralia
- Mount Vernon to the Canadian border
Agreed with both that I-5 between Wheeler Ridge and Canada should be 6-lanes, but for me it's not on account of trucks (even during the long inclines on the seven passes between Redding and Eugene): It's the long convoy of left-lane hogs (not bikes) going slightly above marginally above speed limit with minimal spacing so traffic in the right lane can't safely get over to pass.
I unfortunately got caught in one them while I was doing my best to Keep Right Except to Pass between Sutherlin up past Coburg back in June x.x
I'd rather get stuck between a semi trying to pass a string of semis through Black Butte Summit, Anderson Grade, AND Syskiyou Summit then then these left lane campers.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 07, 2021, 09:31:03 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 06, 2021, 11:33:30 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 05, 2021, 10:34:25 PM
Exit 13 (Lumberton) to Exit 40 (Fayetteville) will be widened to 8 lanes beginning next year, in addition to the under construction or soon to be portion from Exit 56 to Exit 81.
Exit 40 to Exit 56 (Fayetteville Bypass) will remain 4 lanes for the time being.
In all honesty, all of these 8 lane segments would reasonably suffice at 6 lanes, so it will be a major relief for traffic especially on peak weekends for those long distances once it is all complete by 2026.
Next segment needs to be Fayetteville Bypass to 8 lanes, then 6 lanes from Lumberton to South Carolina.
South Carolina desperately needs to prioritize at least 6 lanes from I-26 to Georgia. That segment is notorious during peak weekends. It's still bad north of there, but certainly better with some of that I-26 split traffic gone.
Then of course there's I-26 itself from Columbia to Charleston.
And does I-95 in Rocky Mount and Roanoke Rapids need 8 lanes?
No.
Well, I-95 between US-64 and US-158 has a feasibility study that it shows it being expanded to 8 lanes.
About 2/3 or 3/4 of Tennessee's 2DI's that aren't already six-laned or more due to heavy traffic (especially trucks), in order of priority:
I-24 between Murfreesboro and Chattanooga
Entirety of I-75
I-65 Nashville to Kentucky border
I-40 Memphis to Nashville
I-40 Nashville to I-81
I-81
I-65 south of I-840, I-24 west of Nashville, I-40 east of I-81, and I-26 don't need to be six-laned, they are fairly lightly travelled. And I think I-55 and I-69 (what exists of I-69) are 6+ lanes except for the Mississippi River bridge, which would require an entire new bridge replacement (and a new interchange replacement), although I could be wrong. I don't think expressway sections of US 51 between Dyersburg and Fulton are signed I-69 yet anyway.
Quote from: Daniel Fiddler on January 17, 2022, 09:36:33 PM
About 2/3 or 3/4 of Tennessee's 2DI's that aren't already six-laned or more due to heavy traffic (especially trucks), in order of priority:
I-24 between Murfreesboro and Chattanooga
Entirety of I-75
I-65 Nashville to Kentucky border
I-40 Memphis to Nashville
I-40 Nashville to I-81
I-81
I-65 south of I-840, I-24 west of Nashville, I-40 east of I-81, and I-26 don't need to be six-laned, they are fairly lightly travelled. And I think I-55 and I-69 (what exists of I-69) are 6+ lanes except for the Mississippi River bridge, which would require an entire new bridge replacement (and a new interchange replacement), although I could be wrong. I don't think expressway sections of US 51 between Dyersburg and Fulton are signed I-69 yet anyway.
I would put I-65 between Nashville and KY border above everything else. Less distance to widen, and it serves as part of a corridor from both the Upper Midwest to Georgia/Florida, and Eastern Midwest/Western PA and NY to Texas.
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 17, 2022, 09:42:34 PM
Quote from: Daniel Fiddler on January 17, 2022, 09:36:33 PM
About 2/3 or 3/4 of Tennessee's 2DI's that aren't already six-laned or more due to heavy traffic (especially trucks), in order of priority:
I-24 between Murfreesboro and Chattanooga
Entirety of I-75
I-65 Nashville to Kentucky border
I-40 Memphis to Nashville
I-40 Nashville to I-81
I-81
I-65 south of I-840, I-24 west of Nashville, I-40 east of I-81, and I-26 don't need to be six-laned, they are fairly lightly travelled. And I think I-55 and I-69 (what exists of I-69) are 6+ lanes except for the Mississippi River bridge, which would require an entire new bridge replacement (and a new interchange replacement), although I could be wrong. I don't think expressway sections of US 51 between Dyersburg and Fulton are signed I-69 yet anyway.
I would put I-65 between Nashville and KY border above everything else. Less distance to widen, and it serves as part of a corridor from both the Upper Midwest to Georgia/Florida, and Eastern Midwest/Western PA and NY to Texas.
Indeed, good point. I-65 north of Nashville first, then I-24 east, then I-75.
Although while most of the land area of NY is accessed via I-65, the most populous region of NY (metropolitan NYC and eastern Long Island) are accessed via I-81 most commonly, which accounts for 70% of the state's population.
Quote from: Daniel Fiddler on January 17, 2022, 09:36:33 PM
About 2/3 or 3/4 of Tennessee's 2DI's that aren't already six-laned or more due to heavy traffic (especially trucks), in order of priority:
I-24 between Murfreesboro and Chattanooga
Entirety of I-75
I-65 Nashville to Kentucky border
I-40 Memphis to Nashville
I-40 Nashville to I-81
I-81
I-65 south of I-840, I-24 west of Nashville, I-40 east of I-81, and I-26 don't need to be six-laned, they are fairly lightly travelled. And I think I-55 and I-69 (what exists of I-69) are 6+ lanes except for the Mississippi River bridge, which would require an entire new bridge replacement (and a new interchange replacement), although I could be wrong. I don't think expressway sections of US 51 between Dyersburg and Fulton are signed I-69 yet anyway.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=30848.0
SkyPesos, in the I-24/TN thread linked above, looked up the AADT #s, and the traffic counts are higher between I-65 and the KY/TN line than between Murfreesboro and I-59
I may be a bit biased, but I think 24 NW of Nashville up to Clarksville and the KY state line warrants the widening
Quote from: Daniel Fiddler on January 17, 2022, 09:48:31 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 17, 2022, 09:42:34 PM
Quote from: Daniel Fiddler on January 17, 2022, 09:36:33 PM
About 2/3 or 3/4 of Tennessee's 2DI's that aren't already six-laned or more due to heavy traffic (especially trucks), in order of priority:
I-24 between Murfreesboro and Chattanooga
Entirety of I-75
I-65 Nashville to Kentucky border
I-40 Memphis to Nashville
I-40 Nashville to I-81
I-81
I-65 south of I-840, I-24 west of Nashville, I-40 east of I-81, and I-26 don't need to be six-laned, they are fairly lightly travelled. And I think I-55 and I-69 (what exists of I-69) are 6+ lanes except for the Mississippi River bridge, which would require an entire new bridge replacement (and a new interchange replacement), although I could be wrong. I don't think expressway sections of US 51 between Dyersburg and Fulton are signed I-69 yet anyway.
I would put I-65 between Nashville and KY border above everything else. Less distance to widen, and it serves as part of a corridor from both the Upper Midwest to Georgia/Florida, and Eastern Midwest/Western PA and NY to Texas.
Indeed, good point. I-65 north of Nashville first, then I-24 east, then I-75.
Although while most of the land area of NY is accessed via I-65, the most populous region of NY (metropolitan NYC and eastern Long Island) are accessed via I-81 most commonly, which accounts for 70% of the state's population.
Yea, the "western" I had is for both PA and NY. I-65 and I-71 serves as the diagonal down from those parts to Nashville (and connected via I-70, 80 or 90 east of I-71), rather than I-81. I remember checking a while ago that even from Syracuse, I-90/I-71/I-65 is faster than I-81/I-40 to Nashville. I guess it's because of a sort of curve to the east between Syracuse and Scranton for I-81, before starting its SW orientation the rest of the way down.
This may change in the future though, if (fictional warning) I-71 gets extended southwest on the WK Pkwy to I-69, and a completed I-69/I-71 becomes the new routing from those points to Texas, bypassing Nashville.
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 17, 2022, 09:53:05 PM
Quote from: Daniel Fiddler on January 17, 2022, 09:48:31 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 17, 2022, 09:42:34 PM
Quote from: Daniel Fiddler on January 17, 2022, 09:36:33 PM
About 2/3 or 3/4 of Tennessee's 2DI's that aren't already six-laned or more due to heavy traffic (especially trucks), in order of priority:
I-24 between Murfreesboro and Chattanooga
Entirety of I-75
I-65 Nashville to Kentucky border
I-40 Memphis to Nashville
I-40 Nashville to I-81
I-81
I-65 south of I-840, I-24 west of Nashville, I-40 east of I-81, and I-26 don't need to be six-laned, they are fairly lightly travelled. And I think I-55 and I-69 (what exists of I-69) are 6+ lanes except for the Mississippi River bridge, which would require an entire new bridge replacement (and a new interchange replacement), although I could be wrong. I don't think expressway sections of US 51 between Dyersburg and Fulton are signed I-69 yet anyway.
I would put I-65 between Nashville and KY border above everything else. Less distance to widen, and it serves as part of a corridor from both the Upper Midwest to Georgia/Florida, and Eastern Midwest/Western PA and NY to Texas.
Indeed, good point. I-65 north of Nashville first, then I-24 east, then I-75.
Although while most of the land area of NY is accessed via I-65, the most populous region of NY (metropolitan NYC and eastern Long Island) are accessed via I-81 most commonly, which accounts for 70% of the state's population.
Yea, the "western" I had is for both PA and NY. I-65 and I-71 serves as the diagonal down from those parts to Nashville (and connected via I-70, 80 or 90 east of I-71), rather than I-81. I remember checking a while ago that even from Syracuse, I-90/I-71/I-65 is faster than I-81/I-40 to Nashville. I guess it's because of a sort of curve to the east between Syracuse and Scranton for I-81, before starting its SW orientation the rest of the way down.
This may change in the future though, if (fictional warning) I-71 gets extended southwest on the WK Pkwy to I-69, and a completed I-69/I-71 becomes the new routing from those points to Texas, bypassing Nashville.
Indeed, and I-40 curves a bit south as well before returning back north. Not much, but some. Adds a few more miles.
I forget who it was, but someone commented a while back about I-24 and I-65 weaving approximately 50 or 60 miles west of the most direct line (which would be somewhere around Carthage) to pick up Nashville. I don't see a problem with it doing so, metropolitan Nashville has a population of 2.1 million, far more than Louisville and slightly more than Indianapolis. While I do favor a toll arc of I-840 to the northeast between Lebanon and Portland, I'd rather see improving I-24 and I-65 than a whole new Interstate through, say, Cookeville and Glasgow. I did plan such a toll road actually, but scrapped said idea. If a "reliever route" is planned for Miami - Chicago north of Atlanta, I would prefer it bypass Louisville and Indianapolis (starting from Evansville going to Vincennes and then Terre Haute with upgrades to US 41 / IN 63 or a new toll road through Danville and to Kankakee) than Nashville.
I-785 in Greensboro from I-40/I-85 to US-29. Traffic is currently 27,000 AADT but that's going to be expected to rise significantly for airport traffic as well as traffic coming from the Summerfield area.
(In case it hasn't been mentioned): I-95 in Connecticut, from New Haven to Rhode Island. Not really rural, but definitely needs upgrade.
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on January 23, 2022, 07:39:18 AM
(In case it hasn't been mentioned): I-95 in Connecticut, from New Haven to Rhode Island. Not really rural, but definitely needs upgrade.
Again, another old highway which was the Connecticut Turnpike. Any specific reasons why it's overbuilt?
MA 3 south of Boston. Too much Cape traffic.
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 23, 2022, 07:42:50 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on January 23, 2022, 07:39:18 AM
(In case it hasn't been mentioned): I-95 in Connecticut, from New Haven to Rhode Island. Not really rural, but definitely needs upgrade.
Again, another old highway which was the Connecticut Turnpike. Any specific reasons why it's overbuilt?
I believe you mean underbuilt, and your point about it being old stands... it's old and might have been sufficient for its time, but it needs widening today.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 23, 2022, 07:50:38 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 23, 2022, 07:42:50 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on January 23, 2022, 07:39:18 AM
(In case it hasn't been mentioned): I-95 in Connecticut, from New Haven to Rhode Island. Not really rural, but definitely needs upgrade.
Again, another old highway which was the Connecticut Turnpike. Any specific reasons why it's overbuilt?
I believe you mean underbuilt, and your point about it being old stands... it's old and might have been sufficient for its time, but it needs widening today.
I got confused when looking at the "Underbuilt" and the 6 lane thread.
How about I-85 between Newnan, GA and I-185? It's a 13-mile stretch with AADT volumes over 50k. Finishing it off would complete 6 lanes between Atlanta and I-185.
I-85 from Commerce, GA to Northlake, SC .The incredible growth in that corridor with all the trucks mandate six lanes.
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on November 22, 2022, 01:21:14 PM
I-85 from Commerce, GA to Northlake, SC .The incredible growth in that corridor with all the trucks mandate six lanes.
The bridges from GA into SC are also badly in need of replacement.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 07, 2021, 05:26:51 PM
I-10 is being expanded to 6 lanes out to US-77. Long term plans call to keep going to San Antonio. It's happening... they're making significant progress 20-30 miles at a time.
Honestly I think I-10 should be 6-10 lanes from San Antonio all the way to the Mississippi state line. And all of I-12 too.
If not already mentioned, I-20 in East Texas, post haste.
I-10 across Louisiana, and the entirety of I-12.
I'm sure it's been mentioned, but I would include I-81 from Scranton, PA all the way south to its end with I-40 in Dandridge, TN.
I'm joining this thread three years late to supply some hard answers for Kansas and Nebraska, based on the OP's cited criteria of present-day AADT of 30,000 VPD.
* In Nebraska, I-80 has already undergone rural widening to six lanes all the way from Omaha west to Lincoln, and the long-term plan is to widen all the way from Lincoln to Grand Island, amounting to the eastern third of I-80 in the state. As of 2021, AADT does not drop below 30,000 VPD until the Link 80G interchange (Exit 373) near Goehner, about 25 miles west of Lincoln. I-80 also has high truck percentages, ranging from about 30% in the eastern part of the state to over 50% in the far west.
* In Kansas, long-term plans for rural widening to six lanes are restricted to the Turnpike (I-70) between Topeka and Kansas City as part of the Kaw Corridor upgrades. This is the only segment of the rural freeway network with AADTs consistently above 30,000 VPD. The Turnpike already has six lanes between Topeka and Lawrence. Between Lawrence and the K-7 interchange near Bonner Springs, the Turnpike still has just the original four lanes, but the volumes are just barely above the 30,000 VPD threshold. (All numbers are as of 2021.) Besides I-70, there are short segments of other freeways and expressways such as I-35 in far southwestern Johnson County and US 54-400 in Sedgwick County between Goddard and Wichita that carry AADTs in excess of 30,000 VPD, but these are clearly under metropolitan influence and do not cross any county lines. Truck percentages rarely rise above 30% and typically do so in the presence of low overall volumes.
If not already mentioned.......in Tennessee, I-75 south from its split with I-40 south of Knoxville to Chattanooga.
I-84 west of Waterbury in Connecticut. I think the amount of traffic has really outgrown the capacity of that highway. Every time I use this highway, there's always heavy traffic which could be fixed if it was at least six lanes through that stretch. And the construction through Waterbury doesn't help either.
I-64 from Charlottesville to Short Pump.
I-40 in Arkansas between Little Rock and Memphis needs it pretty badly as it's 38K AADT (2021) with 64% trucks. Once I-30 between Texarkana and Little Rock is 6 laned, there'll be some notable LOS degradation. And when I-69/I-369 in Texas gets done, it and I-30 will need 8 laning without I-69 in Arkansas and Mississippi.
Quote from: achilles765 on November 27, 2022, 12:23:20 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 07, 2021, 05:26:51 PM
I-10 is being expanded to 6 lanes out to US-77. Long term plans call to keep going to San Antonio. It's happening... they're making significant progress 20-30 miles at a time.
Honestly I think I-10 should be 6-10 lanes from San Antonio all the way to the Mississippi state line. And all of I-12 too.
I don't know the eventual plan of I-10 between San Antonio and Houston. I did hear the plan was for it to be six lanes the whole way, but I could have heard that from a random stranger yelling in a loud bar. Basically, I don't have any hard evidence of that being the plan. We all know the section from the old downgrade from six to four just east of Brookshire to a point just east of the San Bernard River crossing is about to wrap up in the next year. A project to add a lane on the east side of San Antonio just wrapped up and they are currently adding a lane to Exit 599. There is still a significant section between the project of rural four lane freeway. I guess it will be like when the interstate highway system was built originally. They will incrementally work toward each other until the gap is filled, if that is the end goal. Now from Houston east to the Louisiana state line is still a mess. It is a nice freeway six lanes wide heading east out of Houston until you hit the construction northeast of Winnie. That section has been under construction for a while, but I think they are making progress. Then there is a section with no construction for a mile or two. Then you have to drive on the modified feeder road before you get to Beaumont. That section seems to be progressing the quickest. Through Beaumont and Vidor you have at least six lanes. Then you reach Orange. That's the real mess. I was through there in 2020 and 2022 and I swear nothing was changed. Nothing like headed westbound and you immediately get thrown into a tight windy stretch of interstate with the worst pavement you have ever seen as your welcome card into Texas. I am convinced this is one of those Texas Permanant Construction Zones. Now with Louisiana working on their part to add a lane from the state line to the pre-existing six lane section that starts just east of mile marker 10, we can conceivably have at least six lanes (three in each direction) on I-10 from the San Bernard River crossing to US-165 just east of Iowa, LA in the next five years (the one gap would be the Calcasieu River Bridge and approaches, which is slated to be replaced but I have no idea the time table on that). Its 212 miles but seems so much longer than that.
Second point, yes, I-12 should be at least six lanes for its entire route. I can't think of another interstate with such extreme constant traffic.
Quote from: Hunty2022 on November 30, 2022, 08:35:26 AM
I-64 from Charlottesville to Short Pump.
I have driven the section of I-64 between Staunton and Richmond countless times, and it is honestly one of the segments of interstate in Virginia I feel does
not need widening.
Even during busy weekends, it always moves at 70+ mph and does not carry a significant amount of truck traffic. I've never had an issue with that highway except during an accident, which is unavoidable anywhere.
The entire length of I-81 in Virginia (325 miles) and the remaining 4 lane portion between Bottoms Bridge and Williamsburg (29 miles) is a much greater need for 6 lanes than between Staunton and Richmond.
Widening I-64 to 8 lanes between Williamsburg and Newport News, and widening I-95 to 8 lanes between Richmond and Northern Virginia is a higher need than widening that portion of I-64 to 6 lanes.
** ONE EXCEPTION: Afton Mountain. At minimum, climbing lanes are needed on the uphill portions, and ideally should be 6 lanes throughout. Perhaps Charlottesville may warrant 6 lanes as traffic increases as well. But the remainder is adequate at 4 lanes. **
Quote from: MikieTimT on November 30, 2022, 08:58:56 AM
I-40 in Arkansas between Little Rock and Memphis needs it pretty badly as it's 38K AADT (2021) with 64% trucks. Once I-30 between Texarkana and Little Rock is 6 laned, there'll be some notable LOS degradation. And when I-69/I-369 in Texas gets done, it and I-30 will need 8 laning without I-69 in Arkansas and Mississippi.
I feel that I-40 is a higher priority and would get widened before I-30 is ever expanded any further.
I haven't delved into Texas Interstates in detail, but a casual look at TxDOT's statewide planning map suggests I-10 racks up AADTs consistently above 30,000 VPD all the way from the Louisiana state line west to the end of the US 87 overlap at Comfort, a distance of about 360 miles that includes the urban segments through Houston and San Antonio.
Quote from: Urban Prairie Schooner on November 27, 2022, 01:37:27 PM
If not already mentioned, I-20 in East Texas, post haste.
Agreed. I drove from Shreveport to Dallas last summer and it was terrible long before I got even close to the metroplex. So many trucks...
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 30, 2022, 05:29:38 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on November 30, 2022, 08:58:56 AM
I-40 in Arkansas between Little Rock and Memphis needs it pretty badly as it's 38K AADT (2021) with 64% trucks. Once I-30 between Texarkana and Little Rock is 6 laned, there'll be some notable LOS degradation. And when I-69/I-369 in Texas gets done, it and I-30 will need 8 laning without I-69 in Arkansas and Mississippi.
I feel that I-40 is a higher priority and would get widened before I-30 is ever expanded any further.
It's scheduled to start in a few years on the segments near LR and West Memphis and work toward each other over a likely excruciatingly long time. The big river bridges are already widened, just currently striped for 4 lanes.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on November 30, 2022, 05:21:06 PM
Quote from: achilles765 on November 27, 2022, 12:23:20 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 07, 2021, 05:26:51 PM
I-10 is being expanded to 6 lanes out to US-77. Long term plans call to keep going to San Antonio. It's happening... they're making significant progress 20-30 miles at a time.
Honestly I think I-10 should be 6-10 lanes from San Antonio all the way to the Mississippi state line. And all of I-12 too.
...
Second point, yes, I-12 should be at least six lanes for its entire route. I can't think of another interstate with such extreme constant traffic.
I-12 has been mentioned a few times, how much of it is 6-lanes already and what are the traffic volumes like on the 4-lane sections? I guess I wouldn't have expected that much traffic because all New Orleans traffic would take I-10, but maybe there's more than I'm giving credit for.
Quote from: MikieTimT on December 01, 2022, 10:36:20 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 30, 2022, 05:29:38 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on November 30, 2022, 08:58:56 AM
I-40 in Arkansas between Little Rock and Memphis needs it pretty badly as it's 38K AADT (2021) with 64% trucks. Once I-30 between Texarkana and Little Rock is 6 laned, there'll be some notable LOS degradation. And when I-69/I-369 in Texas gets done, it and I-30 will need 8 laning without I-69 in Arkansas and Mississippi.
I feel that I-40 is a higher priority and would get widened before I-30 is ever expanded any further.
It's scheduled to start in a few years on the segments near LR and West Memphis and work toward each other over a likely excruciatingly long time. The big river bridges are already widened, just currently striped for 4 lanes.
In the meantime I'd like to see one or two stretches in the middle for passing lanes just to break the logjam. The White River is almost halfway and the stretch between Brinkley and Hazen would be a logical spot.
Quote from: Road Hog on December 02, 2022, 08:43:40 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on December 01, 2022, 10:36:20 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 30, 2022, 05:29:38 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on November 30, 2022, 08:58:56 AM
I-40 in Arkansas between Little Rock and Memphis needs it pretty badly as it's 38K AADT (2021) with 64% trucks. Once I-30 between Texarkana and Little Rock is 6 laned, there'll be some notable LOS degradation. And when I-69/I-369 in Texas gets done, it and I-30 will need 8 laning without I-69 in Arkansas and Mississippi.
I feel that I-40 is a higher priority and would get widened before I-30 is ever expanded any further.
It's scheduled to start in a few years on the segments near LR and West Memphis and work toward each other over a likely excruciatingly long time. The big river bridges are already widened, just currently striped for 4 lanes.
In the meantime I'd like to see one or two stretches in the middle for passing lanes just to break the logjam. The White River is almost halfway and the stretch between Brinkley and Hazen would be a logical spot.
I feel like the resulting bottleneck where it narrows back would produce enough of a backup to make it not worth it.
Quote from: MikieTimT on December 01, 2022, 10:36:20 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 30, 2022, 05:29:38 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on November 30, 2022, 08:58:56 AM
I-40 in Arkansas between Little Rock and Memphis needs it pretty badly as it's 38K AADT (2021) with 64% trucks. Once I-30 between Texarkana and Little Rock is 6 laned, there'll be some notable LOS degradation. And when I-69/I-369 in Texas gets done, it and I-30 will need 8 laning without I-69 in Arkansas and Mississippi.
I feel that I-40 is a higher priority and would get widened before I-30 is ever expanded any further.
It's scheduled to start in a few years on the segments near LR and West Memphis and work toward each other over a likely excruciatingly long time. The big river bridges are already widened, just currently striped for 4 lanes.
Are there actual plans to widen I-30 (in AR and/or TX)?
Quote from: US 89 on December 02, 2022, 08:48:02 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on December 02, 2022, 08:43:40 PM
In the meantime I'd like to see one or two stretches in the middle for passing lanes just to break the logjam. The White River is almost halfway and the stretch between Brinkley and Hazen would be a logical spot.
I feel like the resulting bottleneck where it narrows back would produce enough of a backup to make it not worth it.
Even with only 38k AADT? The Thruway has a single six-lane segment with 60k AADT flanked by four-lane segments of 30k and 40k, and I've never seen a backup at either end unless it's related to an incident, but maybe that's just because so much traffic is exiting. Even so, I don't think there would be recurring problems with a lane drop unless volumes got considerably higher than that (which could happen, say on summer weekends or holidays, but not regularly).
^ I used the entire portion of I-12 this past summer, and it was nothing but a long bottleneck. The six lane portions moved well, but the 4 lane sections were tight. Moving, but very heavy.
It definitely warrants 6 lanes throughout.
On I-30, it's being widened to six lanes down to the US 70 split (Exit 111) and there's some work being done in Texarkana on the Texas side. Closer to Dallas, I-30 is being widened in Rockwall County up to the Hunt County line, but that's it.
Quote from: webny99 on November 22, 2022, 01:37:06 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on November 22, 2022, 01:21:14 PM
I-85 from Commerce, GA to Northlake, SC .The incredible growth in that corridor with all the trucks mandate six lanes.
The bridges from GA into SC are also badly in need of replacement.
I want to say it's a good thing I haven't been there that often, but the only good thing about it is that I wouldn't see if it's as bad as something like the Tappan Zee Bridge when it was declining.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on December 04, 2022, 05:04:25 AM
Quote from: webny99 on November 22, 2022, 01:37:06 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on November 22, 2022, 01:21:14 PM
I-85 from Commerce, GA to Northlake, SC .The incredible growth in that corridor with all the trucks mandate six lanes.
The bridges from GA into SC are also badly in need of replacement.
I want to say it's a good thing I haven't been there that often, but the only good thing about it is that I wouldn't see if it's as bad as something like the Tappan Zee Bridge when it was declining.
For a relatively rural bridge, it would be pretty tough to match the Tappan Zee in terms of congestion...
Quote from: webny99 on December 04, 2022, 02:14:38 PM
For a relatively rural bridge, it would be pretty tough to match the Tappan Zee in terms of congestion...
I thought you were talking more about the
condition of the bridge. I remember when I found out the old US 301 Truss Bridge over Nottaway River was in such pathetic condition that I would've felt safer crossing the Tappan Zee even in its deteriorated condition at the time. That bridge got even less traffic than I-85 at the Georgia-South Carolina state line.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on December 04, 2022, 06:04:54 PM
Quote from: webny99 on December 04, 2022, 02:14:38 PM
For a relatively rural bridge, it would be pretty tough to match the Tappan Zee in terms of congestion...
I thought you were talking more about the condition of the bridge. I remember when I found out the old US 301 Truss Bridge over Nottaway River was in such pathetic condition that I would've felt safer crossing the Tappan Zee even in its deteriorated condition at the time. That bridge got even less traffic than I-85 at the Georgia-South Carolina state line.
Sorry, I should have been more clear... I was indeed talking about them needing to be replaced because they're in poor condition. They don't carry the same type of volume as the Tappan Zee, but I do think they should be six-laned if they are replaced.
Quote from: webny99 on December 04, 2022, 09:58:27 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on December 04, 2022, 06:04:54 PM
Quote from: webny99 on December 04, 2022, 02:14:38 PM
For a relatively rural bridge, it would be pretty tough to match the Tappan Zee in terms of congestion...
I thought you were talking more about the condition of the bridge. I remember when I found out the old US 301 Truss Bridge over Nottaway River was in such pathetic condition that I would've felt safer crossing the Tappan Zee even in its deteriorated condition at the time. That bridge got even less traffic than I-85 at the Georgia-South Carolina state line.
Sorry, I should have been more clear... I was talking about them needing to be replaced because they're in poor condition, but I think they should be six-laned if they are replaced.
Right now GDOT and SCDOT are jointly working on completely replacing the I-20 bridges over the Savannah River in the Augusta/North Augusta, and widening the roadway from 4 to 6 lanes from GA Exit 200 to past SC Exit 1. I suppose after this is done, they may team up to work on the I-85 bridges.
Quote from: Road Hog on December 04, 2022, 03:26:28 AM
On I-30, it's being widened to six lanes down to the US 70 split (Exit 111) and there's some work being done in Texarkana on the Texas side. Closer to Dallas, I-30 is being widened in Rockwall County up to the Hunt County line, but that's it.
Even in the more rural parts of I-30 in Arkansas, there's 32K AADT with 58% of the traffic being trucks (2021 AADT). Micropassing trucks are a huge bottleneck anytime you've got numbers like that on a 4 lane interstate. And any accidents tying up the lanes in one direction typically cause backups for dozens of miles as they're likely to involve trucks. It'll have to happen before US-59 in Texas is upgraded to I-69/I-369 as I don't see Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi having I-69 completed in enough time (or maybe even at all) to prevent the counts from jumping to near 50K AADT on both I-30 and I-40 east of Little Rock.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 02, 2022, 10:46:28 PM
^ I used the entire portion of I-12 this past summer, and it was nothing but a long bottleneck. The six lane portions moved well, but the 4 lane sections were tight. Moving, but very heavy.
It definitely warrants 6 lanes throughout.
We last drove I-12 a year ago escaping from Baton Rouge. Our son and family moved back to St. Petersburg, ending a year and a half in La. There were portions of the highway that were in the process of being widened, a section or two with 6 lanes but only 4 in use, and a long stretch of just 4 lanes. On one trip, we sat in stand-still traffic for over an hour because a wreck blocked both lanes and the shoulder. At least with an extra lane emergency services can clear things up a little quicker.
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on November 27, 2022, 01:54:30 PM
I'm sure it's been mentioned, but I would include I-81 from Scranton, PA all the way south to its end with I-40 in Dandridge, TN.
I agree, and I also think I-95 from the Savannah River to Petersburg, Virginia, needs six lanes. I know there was this argument over whether I-95 or I-81 should be more of a priority in Virginia, but I'm not going to favor one or the other.
Actually, I'm leaning towards the 2-2-2-2 cars only vs truck lanes in Virginia.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 02, 2022, 10:46:28 PM
^ I used the entire portion of I-12 this past summer, and it was nothing but a long bottleneck. The six lane portions moved well, but the 4 lane sections were tight. Moving, but very heavy.
It definitely warrants 6 lanes throughout.
Its one of those roads where you are driving 60-70 mph, but your jammed in tight and you are sweating the whole way.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on December 06, 2022, 10:31:40 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 02, 2022, 10:46:28 PM
^ I used the entire portion of I-12 this past summer, and it was nothing but a long bottleneck. The six lane portions moved well, but the 4 lane sections were tight. Moving, but very heavy.
It definitely warrants 6 lanes throughout.
Its one of those roads where you are driving 60-70 mph, but your jammed in tight and you are sweating the whole way.
That's also much of the NY Thruway during summer, weekends, and other peak travel periods. Truck volumes are manageable compared to further south and west, but you rarely get an open stretch and if you do, it won't be long before faster traffic fills the road ahead.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on December 06, 2022, 09:00:21 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on November 27, 2022, 01:54:30 PM
I'm sure it's been mentioned, but I would include I-81 from Scranton, PA all the way south to its end with I-40 in Dandridge, TN.
I agree, and I also think I-95 from the Savannah River to Petersburg, Virginia, needs six lanes. I know there was this argument over whether I-95 or I-81 should be more of a priority in Virginia, but I'm not going to favor one or the other.
Actually, I'm leaning towards the 2-2-2-2 cars only vs truck lanes in Virginia.
The argument about I-95 was in regards to the existing six lane portion north of Richmond. While it is six lanes, it carries well over 100,000 AADT and is often congested.
I-81 only carries 40,000 AADT but only has 4 lanes and significantly higher truck volumes. Congestion is frequent during peak weekends and this issue spans through the entire 325 mile stretch in Virginia, except in the few six lane portions, where it moves quite well.
Honestly, from what i remember and have experienced, most of the routes in our Texas triangle could benefit from this. Not just I-10 from San Antonio to the Mississippi state line, but also the entire 289 miles of I-45 from Galveston all the way to Dallas. I mean it already is from Galveston to north of Conroe but the stretch between Conroe and Dallas is always packed with people rushing by at 75-80 mph.
All of I-35 from at least San Antonio to Oklahoma, including all of I-35E and I-35W.
Heck I'd even say it wouldn't be insane to do it for I-37 too.
^ From my experience, I-37 gets a decent amount of traffic, but is more than adequate with 4 lanes, and I've never experienced recurring congestion having driven that route numerous times. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I've never seen it. There are certainly more pressing needs than widening that highway for 100+ miles to 6 lanes.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 08, 2022, 08:29:56 AM
^ From my experience, I-37 gets a decent amount of traffic, but is more than adequate with 4 lanes, and I've never experienced recurring congestion having driven that route numerous times. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I've never seen it. There are certainly more pressing needs than widening that highway for 100+ miles to 6 lanes.
I also didn't encounter any slowdowns or congestion on I-37 when I drove its entire length back in 2017. I-10 and I-45 would be much higher priority IMO.
I-45 is well on its way, with Conroe to Huntsville now being 6-lanes, plus 6-lanes south of Dallas as far as Streetman, leaving a gap of exactly 100 miles.
Quote from: webny99 on December 08, 2022, 09:11:45 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 08, 2022, 08:29:56 AM
^ From my experience, I-37 gets a decent amount of traffic, but is more than adequate with 4 lanes, and I've never experienced recurring congestion having driven that route numerous times. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I've never seen it. There are certainly more pressing needs than widening that highway for 100+ miles to 6 lanes.
I also didn't encounter any slowdowns or congestion on I-37 when I drove its entire length back in 2017. I-10 and I-45 would be much higher priority IMO.
I-45 is well on its way, with Conroe to Huntsville now being 6-lanes, plus 6-lanes south of Dallas as far as Streetman, leaving a gap of exactly 100 miles.
I-37 used to be a rural interstate experience in the 80s and 90s. The last handful of trips I have taken to Corpus Christi and back, the road is jam packed constantly. Yes, there are no slowdowns, but bumper to bumper 70 mile an hour traffic. There are too many people in this state and too many of them want to go to Port Aransas for the weekend. I would agree four lanes is adequate, but if the money is there, adding an extra two lanes would be nice.
Defining the Texas Triangle as having its vertices at DFW, Houston, and San Antonio, with I-35, I-10, and I-45 forming the legs, here is the situation:
* AADT on I-35 never goes below 30,000 VPD between San Antonio and DFW and traffic on rural segments is typically at least double that value. It is in the process of being upgraded to a minimum six lanes.
* AADT on I-10 never goes below 30,000 VPD between San Antonio and Houston (as noted upthread), though it does come close to that threshold in the more rural areas. It is relatively low priority for widening.
* AADT on I-45 stays consistently above 30,000 VPD between Houston and DFW, though there is an extended length between Corsicana and Huntsville where it is generally under 40,000 VPD. It is being widened through Montgomery County, just north of Houston; it has an AADT of around 150,000 through Conroe, the county seat.
As for I-37, its AADT is below, though close to, the 30,000 VPD threshold between Pleasanton and the US 77 interchange just to the northwest of Corpus Christi. Unpleasant as it can get on holidays and summer weekends--and this is an illustration of how the distribution of traffic in time as well as space can play a role in whether a facility meets criteria for widening that are based on carrying a design hour volume at a given level of service--I do not see it receiving attention before the Texas Triangle routes.
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 08, 2022, 12:56:23 PM
* AADT on I-35 never goes below 30,000 VPD between San Antonio and DFW and traffic on rural segments is typically at least double that value. It is in the process of being upgraded to a minimum six lanes.
I-35 is already a minimum of six lanes between the I-35E/W southern split and San Antonio. Major work was completed over the last decade or two to accomplish this. I believe work is ongoing to widen I-35E to 6 lanes as well. Work is underway / planned through Austin and Waco to widen it to 8 lanes or greater in those urban centers.
Quote
* AADT on I-10 never goes below 30,000 VPD between San Antonio and Houston (as noted upthread), though it does come close to that threshold in the more rural areas. It is relatively low priority for widening.
Low priority, but 50+ miles are under construction stretching well outside of the Houston metro to the west, and continuing to be extended eastward out of San Antonio.
Quote
As for I-37, its AADT is below, though close to, the 30,000 VPD threshold between Pleasanton and the US 77 interchange just to the northwest of Corpus Christi. Unpleasant as it can get on holidays and summer weekends--and this is an illustration of how the distribution of traffic in time as well as space can play a role in whether a facility meets criteria for widening that are based on carrying a design hour volume at a given level of service--I do not see it receiving attention before the Texas Triangle routes.
Agreed... perhaps in the 20-30 horizon, but it's a priority after I-10, I-35, and I-45 are fully widened to 6 lanes minimum in the Triangle.
US-77 northeast of Corpus Christi has some rural portions that carry significant amounts of traffic... upgrading those to limited access (I-69E) will also be a competing priority, from a safety standpoint. Not enough to warrant 6 lanes... for now.
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 08, 2022, 12:56:23 PM
* AADT on I-45 stays consistently above 30,000 VPD between Houston and DFW, though there is an extended length between Corsicana and Huntsville where it is generally under 40,000 VPD. It is being widened through Montgomery County, just north of Houston; it has an AADT of around 150,000 through Conroe, the county seat.
Per Street View from earlier this year, minimum six lanes appears to be substantially complete as far as TX 19 (Huntsville) with an apparent widening underway in the Huntsville area.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 08, 2022, 01:21:13 PM
I believe work is ongoing to widen I-35E to 6 lanes as well. Work is underway / planned through Austin and Waco to widen it to 8 lanes or greater in those urban centers.
It appears that the southernmost section of I-35E is currently being widened. I haven't verified but I believe this will complete at least 6-lanes from there to Dallas. I-35W is still 4-lanes south of Burleson.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 08, 2022, 01:21:13 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 08, 2022, 12:56:23 PM
As for I-37, its AADT is below, though close to, the 30,000 VPD threshold between Pleasanton and the US 77 interchange just to the northwest of Corpus Christi. Unpleasant as it can get on holidays and summer weekends--and this is an illustration of how the distribution of traffic in time as well as space can play a role in whether a facility meets criteria for widening that are based on carrying a design hour volume at a given level of service--I do not see it receiving attention before the Texas Triangle routes.
Agreed... perhaps in the 20-30 horizon, but it's a priority after I-10, I-35, and I-45 are fully widened to 6 lanes minimum in the Triangle.
US-77 northeast of Corpus Christi has some rural portions that carry significant amounts of traffic... upgrading those to limited access (I-69E) will also be a competing priority, from a safety standpoint. Not enough to warrant 6 lanes... for now.
As an aside from the six-laning topic, what is the US 77/US 59 corridor like between Corpus Christi and Houston? Are there any good alternate routes? My guess would be that this corridor handles similar volumes to I-37, in which case upgrading it to a full freeway would be a higher priority than an I-37 widening.
Quote from: webny99 on December 08, 2022, 04:11:13 PMAs an aside from the six-laning topic, what is the US 77/US 59 corridor like between Corpus Christi and Houston? Are there any good alternate routes? My guess would be that this corridor handles similar volumes to I-37, in which case upgrading it to a full freeway would be a higher priority than an I-37 widening.
Along the rural lengths between Victoria and Sinton (US 77 only), the volumes are slightly over half those seen on I-37. Between Victoria and Rosenberg (southwest of Houston) (US 59 only), they are more substantial--generally in the 25,000 to 35,000 VPD range. US 59 has been upgraded to full freeway southwest of Houston at least as far as Kendleton, but there appear still to be flat intersections in rural areas further out.
Quote from: webny99 on December 08, 2022, 03:57:53 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 08, 2022, 12:56:23 PM
* AADT on I-45 stays consistently above 30,000 VPD between Houston and DFW, though there is an extended length between Corsicana and Huntsville where it is generally under 40,000 VPD. It is being widened through Montgomery County, just north of Houston; it has an AADT of around 150,000 through Conroe, the county seat.
Per Street View from earlier this year, minimum six lanes appears to be substantially complete as far as TX 19 (Huntsville) with an apparent widening underway in the Huntsville area.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 08, 2022, 01:21:13 PM
I believe work is ongoing to widen I-35E to 6 lanes as well. Work is underway / planned through Austin and Waco to widen it to 8 lanes or greater in those urban centers.
It appears that the southernmost section of I-35E is currently being widened. I haven't verified but I believe this will complete at least 6-lanes from there to Dallas. I-35W is still 4-lanes south of Burleson.
Are there any plans to expand I-35W south of Fort Worth?
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 08, 2022, 04:28:09 PM
Quote from: webny99 on December 08, 2022, 04:11:13 PMAs an aside from the six-laning topic, what is the US 77/US 59 corridor like between Corpus Christi and Houston? Are there any good alternate routes? My guess would be that this corridor handles similar volumes to I-37, in which case upgrading it to a full freeway would be a higher priority than an I-37 widening.
Along the rural lengths between Victoria and Sinton (US 77 only), the volumes are slightly over half those seen on I-37. Between Victoria and Rosenberg (southwest of Houston) (US 59 only), they are more substantial--generally in the 25,000 to 35,000 VPD range. US 59 has been upgraded to full freeway southwest of Houston at least as far as Kendleton, but there appear still to be flat intersections in rural areas further out.
True, I'd guess they're in the 15,000 - 20,000 AADT range. But it is starting to get to the warrants for freeway upgrades.
The plus at least is that there are very few substantial intersections, there are no traffic signals (not counting Refugio and Odem that need bypasses), and interchanges and grade separations exist at busier intersections.
It easily (though can be substantially busy regardless) can handle the traffic with a 75 mph speed limit.
As far as US-59, the freeway has been built out to Kendleton along with being widened to 6 lanes, and construction is currently underway to extend the limited access further south to Wharton.
I-85 from the Durham county line heading "south" towards I-40 is in desperate need of a 3rd lane in each direction. Afternoon rush hour almost every day creates a big choke point where NC 147 merges into 85 south. This creates a situation of 5 total traffic lanes merging down to 2. The road becomes rural after crossing the Durham/Orange county line, and 85 narrows to 4 lanes total for about 10 miles until the merge with 40, then its 8 lanes to Greensboro. The setup seems rather silly to me, since 85 is both a long distance route and local commuter route at that point.
Quote from: fillup420 on December 08, 2022, 05:33:39 PM
I-85 from the Durham county line heading "south" towards I-40 is in desperate need of a 3rd lane in each direction. Afternoon rush hour almost every day creates a big choke point where NC 147 merges into 85 south. This creates a situation of 5 total traffic lanes merging down to 2. The road becomes rural after crossing the Durham/Orange county line, and 85 narrows to 4 lanes total for about 10 miles until the merge with 40, then its 8 lanes to Greensboro. The setup seems rather silly to me, since 85 is both a long distance route and local commuter route at that point.
This section of I-85 has made the Top Five on NCDOT's STIP (or equivalent) list off-and-on ever since I moved here in early 2000. In days gone by, roads were graded by Peak VPHPD (vehicles per hour per direction), such that when you divide by the number of lanes you get a rough estimate of rush hour traffic density (vehicles per second). Combine that with average speed during the peak, and you get a good calculation of congestion per lane. I don't want to get into the politics behind it, but the notion of calculating Peak VPHPD (or releasing that statistic to the public) is now taboo. But I-40 between Durham and Hillsborough has consistently had a greater AADT count that I-85 between Durham and Hillsborough since 2000.
With the congestion on the Durham Freeway since the start of the East End Connector (I-885), RTP traffic (Research Triangle Park) has been forced to take I-40. (Before then, the two routes were roughly equivalent in mileage and time between The Split and RTP). I-85 -to- Durham Freeway -to- RTP will never return as a comparable option, since I-885 is now pouring too much traffic down the Durham Freeway portion and traffic jams up back of that merge.
But it was an eyeopener that on Friday, October 28 that WPTF announced on its first traffic report of the afternoon (12:08PM) that "the 'usual' backup on I-40 at Fifteen-Five-Oh-One was 10 minutes". What that really meant was "Leaf Looker" vacationers leaving work early were already choking up I-40 where the [northbound] lanes merge from three down to two at the Orange County line. But it is still a shocker that this gets jammed up by 3:15PM every workday.
^^^
Instead of the whole ball of wax, NCDOT really needs to widen I-85 [westbound] from the Orange County line to Exit 170, and between the two Hillsborough exits (Exit 165 Hampton Pointe and Exit 164 South Churton Street). But figuring out where exactly to widen I-85 [eastbound] as a quick solution is a different ball of wax. The worst pinch points are consistently the bridge over South Churton Street, the upgrade after Exit 165 (Hampton Pointe), and the bridge over US-70 at Exit 170 plus that onramp merge. I'm thinking that climbing lanes would help in the latter two cases. But the solution really requires widening all the way from The Split -to- the crest beyond the Lawrence Road overpass (which is almost half of the [eastbound] widening project, and pretty much all of the most costly sections).
I've always wondered if instead of widening both lanes of I-40 (which started in earnest after Thanksgiving), NCDOT could have gotten bigger bang for the buck by widening the [northbound] lanes of I-40 first and then the [westbound] lanes of I-85 next. Morning rush hour is usually hectic, but the different schedules between hospital hours (7AM), techie hours (8AM) and banker hours (9AM) spreads the morning rush over a longer window. The evening rush upgrade on Occoneechee Mountain is a problem on both I-40 and I-85.
Quote from: webny99 on December 08, 2022, 03:57:53 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 08, 2022, 12:56:23 PM
* AADT on I-45 stays consistently above 30,000 VPD between Houston and DFW, though there is an extended length between Corsicana and Huntsville where it is generally under 40,000 VPD. It is being widened through Montgomery County, just north of Houston; it has an AADT of around 150,000 through Conroe, the county seat.
Per Street View from earlier this year, minimum six lanes appears to be substantially complete as far as TX 19 (Huntsville) with an apparent widening underway in the Huntsville area.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 08, 2022, 01:21:13 PM
I believe work is ongoing to widen I-35E to 6 lanes as well. Work is underway / planned through Austin and Waco to widen it to 8 lanes or greater in those urban centers.
It appears that the southernmost section of I-35E is currently being widened. I haven't verified but I believe this will complete at least 6-lanes from there to Dallas. I-35W is still 4-lanes south of Burleson.
I-35E is now 6 lanes all the way south to the Ellis-Hill county line. A major widening project to fill the last 4-lane gap through Waxahachie is finally wrapping up. There will be a short 4-lane stretch in Hill County leading up to the split, but traffic in this section is lighter. South of the split, it's all 6-lane now at least.
Quote from: Road Hog on December 08, 2022, 10:21:53 PM
Quote from: webny99 on December 08, 2022, 03:57:53 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 08, 2022, 01:21:13 PM
I believe work is ongoing to widen I-35E to 6 lanes as well. Work is underway / planned through Austin and Waco to widen it to 8 lanes or greater in those urban centers.
It appears that the southernmost section of I-35E is currently being widened. I haven't verified but I believe this will complete at least 6-lanes from there to Dallas. I-35W is still 4-lanes south of Burleson.
I-35E is now 6 lanes all the way south to the Ellis-Hill county line. A major widening project to fill the last 4-lane gap through Waxahachie is finally wrapping up. There will be a short 4-lane stretch in Hill County leading up to the split, but traffic in this section is lighter. South of the split, it's all 6-lane now at least.
:thumbsup: That's great to hear.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 08, 2022, 08:20:33 PM
Quote from: fillup420 on December 08, 2022, 05:33:39 PM
I-85 from the Durham county line heading "south" towards I-40 is in desperate need of a 3rd lane in each direction. Afternoon rush hour almost every day creates a big choke point where NC 147 merges into 85 south. This creates a situation of 5 total traffic lanes merging down to 2. The road becomes rural after crossing the Durham/Orange county line, and 85 narrows to 4 lanes total for about 10 miles until the merge with 40, then its 8 lanes to Greensboro. The setup seems rather silly to me, since 85 is both a long distance route and local commuter route at that point.
This section of I-85 has made the Top Five on NCDOT's STIP (or equivalent) list off-and-on ever since I moved here in early 2000. In days gone by, roads were graded by Peak VPHPD (vehicles per hour per direction), such that when you divide by the number of lanes you get a rough estimate of rush hour traffic density (vehicles per second). Combine that with average speed during the peak, and you get a good calculation of congestion per lane. I don't want to get into the politics behind it, but the notion of calculating Peak VPHPD (or releasing that statistic to the public) is now taboo. But I-40 between Durham and Hillsborough has consistently had a greater AADT count that I-85 between Durham and Hillsborough since 2000.
Wow, it is surprising that both I-40 and I-85 are still 4-lanes after their split. What are the AADT counts like on their respective 4-lane sections?
^ Construction recently began and is underway to widen I-40 between I-85 and US-15 to six lanes.
I-85, on the other hand, has no widening programmed, despite its need.
As far as traffic volumes... I-40 has 54,000 AADT east of the split but quickly jumps to 60,500 AADT at Old NC-86.
I-85 has 47,000 AADT east / north of the split.
Both highways volumes increase as they continue eastward.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 09, 2022, 10:32:32 AM
^ Construction recently began and is underway to widen I-40 between I-85 and US-15 to six lanes.
I-85, on the other hand, has no widening programmed, despite its need.
As far as traffic volumes... I-40 has 54,000 AADT east of the split but quickly jumps to 60,500 AADT at Old NC-86.
I-85 has 47,000 AADT east / north of the split.
Both highways volumes increase as they continue eastward.
That's actually more manageable than I was expecting. Both could certainly could use widening, but it's not completely crazy like some of the 4-lane freeways in Philly or Pittsburgh. The bigger issue is with I-85 seems to be the merge with so many lanes funneling into just 2 lanes. And then of course if both were widened, that may just shift the congestion to west of where they join.
^ I-85 is 6 lanes immediately east of where it splits from I-40, then drops to 4 lanes. So that merge would be unaffected.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 09, 2022, 01:21:19 PM
^ I-85 is 6 lanes immediately east of where it splits from I-40, then drops to 4 lanes. So that merge would be unaffected.
Although more traffic would be able to reach the merge with I-40 at a faster rate, since the 4-lane section currently constrains it.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 08, 2022, 08:20:33 PM
Quote from: fillup420 on December 08, 2022, 05:33:39 PM
I-85 from the Durham county line heading "south" towards I-40 is in desperate need of a 3rd lane in each direction. Afternoon rush hour almost every day creates a big choke point where NC 147 merges into 85 south. This creates a situation of 5 total traffic lanes merging down to 2. The road becomes rural after crossing the Durham/Orange county line, and 85 narrows to 4 lanes total for about 10 miles until the merge with 40, then its 8 lanes to Greensboro. The setup seems rather silly to me, since 85 is both a long distance route and local commuter route at that point.
This section of I-85 has made the Top Five on NCDOT's STIP (or equivalent) list off-and-on ever since I moved here in early 2000. In days gone by, roads were graded by Peak VPHPD (vehicles per hour per direction), such that when you divide by the number of lanes you get a rough estimate of rush hour traffic density (vehicles per second). Combine that with average speed during the peak, and you get a good calculation of congestion per lane. I don't want to get into the politics behind it, but the notion of calculating Peak VPHPD (or releasing that statistic to the public) is now taboo. But I-40 between Durham and Hillsborough has consistently had a greater AADT count that I-85 between Durham and Hillsborough since 2000.
With the congestion on the Durham Freeway since the start of the East End Connector (I-885), RTP traffic (Research Triangle Park) has been forced to take I-40. (Before then, the two routes were roughly equivalent in mileage and time between The Split and RTP). I-85 -to- Durham Freeway -to- RTP will never return as a comparable option, since I-885 is now pouring too much traffic down the Durham Freeway portion and traffic jams up back of that merge.
But it was an eyeopener that on Friday, October 28 that WPTF announced on its first traffic report of the afternoon (12:08PM) that "the 'usual' backup on I-40 at Fifteen-Five-Oh-One was 10 minutes". What that really meant was "Leaf Looker" vacationers leaving work early were already choking up I-40 where the [northbound] lanes merge from three down to two at the Orange County line. But it is still a shocker that this gets jammed up by 3:15PM every workday.
Can confirm.
Quote from: webny99 on December 09, 2022, 01:32:27 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 09, 2022, 01:21:19 PM
^ I-85 is 6 lanes immediately east of where it splits from I-40, then drops to 4 lanes. So that merge would be unaffected.
Although more traffic would be able to reach the merge with I-40 at a faster rate, since the 4-lane section currently constrains it.
There's about 1.2 miles of 3 lane westbound on I-85 before the I-40 lanes come in, so traffic would likely disperse across all the lanes by that point.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 09, 2022, 01:38:54 PM
Quote from: webny99 on December 09, 2022, 01:32:27 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 09, 2022, 01:21:19 PM
^ I-85 is 6 lanes immediately east of where it splits from I-40, then drops to 4 lanes. So that merge would be unaffected.
Although more traffic would be able to reach the merge with I-40 at a faster rate, since the 4-lane section currently constrains it.
There's about 1.2 miles of 3 lane westbound on I-85 before the I-40 lanes come in, so traffic would likely disperse across all the lanes by that point.
Traffic would be dispersed across all 3 lanes, but there's no exits in between so it would still just be the same volume that was contained in the 2 lanes. Extending a third lane back to the Durham Fwy would allow three *full* lanes of traffic to hit the I-40 merge at once, and likewise for I-40 if it was widened.
^ I-40 is being widened, but I believe it will still drop to 2 lanes at the flyover.
Just drove I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis yesterday and it is so much worse than I remembered. There were several mile-long slowdowns simply because of the overall truck volume. The merge down to one lane approaching the I-55 multiplex was particularly bad in that regard. There had to be more trucks than cars at certain points. And I got stuck for over an hour behind what I assume was a huge accident. The new 75 mph speed limit helps, though. Three lanes in each direction can't come quickly enough.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 09, 2022, 01:21:19 PM
^ I-85 is 6 lanes immediately east of where it splits from I-40, then drops to 4 lanes. So that merge would be unaffected.
Quote from: webny99 on December 09, 2022, 01:32:27 PM
Although more traffic would be able to reach the merge with I-40 at a faster rate, since the 4-lane section currently constrains it.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 09, 2022, 01:38:54 PM
There's about 1.2 miles of 3 lane westbound on I-85 before the I-40 lanes come in, so traffic would likely disperse across all the lanes by that point.
Quote from: webny99 on December 09, 2022, 01:55:45 PM
Traffic would be dispersed across all 3 lanes, but there's no exits in between so it would still just be the same volume that was contained in the 2 lanes. Extending a third lane back to the Durham Fwy would allow three *full* lanes of traffic to hit the I-40 merge at once, and likewise for I-40 if it was widened.
There's seldom any trouble on I-85 or I-40 heading towards The Spine, as both Interstates are coming off the summit of Occonechee Mountain and flattening out onto the Piedmont. It's less than a 100-foot drop in elevation, but enough to relieve the pain of trucks struggling to make the other upgrades coming this way.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 09, 2022, 02:00:46 PM
^ I-40 is being widened, but I believe it will still drop to 2 lanes at the flyover.
Relatively soon, the merge will drop from three lanes heading [westbound] on both I-85 and I-40 onto the four lanes of The Spine, so it makes sense to start dropping them somewhere before you actually hit the merge. The problem is that travellers already have a habit of trying to pass on the right side as locals start to line up in the left lane to try to access the [fast lanes] of I-85. I predict that this will be a madhouse after the widening of I-40 is completed, because then there will be [two right lanes] for the speedsters to whiz around the folks staging in the left lane.
Looking at the existing merges, they seem to all be on the right, but wouldn't it make sense to have the lane drop on the left (especially if it's a through lane ending, as will be the case on I-40)?
Quote from: webny99 on December 09, 2022, 10:12:32 PM
Looking at the existing merges, they seem to all be on the right, but wouldn't it make sense to have the lane drop on the left (especially if it's a through lane ending, as will be the case on I-40)?
Not sure. The lane drop at US-15/501 (Exit 270) on I-40 [northbound] approaching the Orange County line was on the left until about a year ago. That one was compounded by the onramp from US-15/501 ending about the same location. In this case, you had folks passing in both the left lane and the on-ramp acceleration lane to try to get past the slower traffic in the two continuation lanes of I-40 (you also had most of the locals lining up into the center lane prior to the lane drop). The new arrangement has the right lane as an Exit Only onto the US-15/501 exit ramp. This does work much better.
Okay, what about I-85 between Durham and Petersburg, if that hasn't already been covered? How would you deal with the interchange with I-95?
Plus, with all the talk about I-10 being widened in Mississippi, what about Alabama and the rest of Florida?
^ I'm not exactly sure of the peak weekend situation, but I-85 is adequate between Petersburg and Durham I believe.
With the exception of a few mile stretches of highway between Durham and the Virginia state line, the highway carries around or less than 30,000 AADT depending on the area. In Virginia, it carries under 30,000 AADT.
I don't see any needs to widen the highway at any point.
Petersburg itself is a different situation and that interchange.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on December 10, 2022, 01:16:13 PM
Okay, what about I-85 between Durham and Petersburg, if that hasn't already been covered? How would you deal with the interchange with I-95?
Plus, with all the talk about I-10 being widened in Mississippi, what about Alabama and the rest of Florida?
I suppose I-85 will need to be widened at some point given the significant growth along its corridor. The section from Durham to Petersburg seems to be the most rural, at least for now.
In Alabama, I-10 could be widened east of Mobile to the Florida border.
In Florida, I-10 is already six lanes in parts of Pensacola and Tallahassee. I'm sure the population of North Florida has grown since I was last there, but I'm not sure if it needs to be widened as a rule outside of urban/exurban areas.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on December 10, 2022, 01:16:13 PM
Okay, what about I-85 between Durham and Petersburg, if that hasn't already been covered? How would you deal with the interchange with I-95?
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 10, 2022, 01:29:00 PM
^ I'm not exactly sure of the peak weekend situation, but I-85 is adequate between Petersburg and Durham I believe.
The new I-885 is changing a lot of the roadway dynamics in the Triangle. It wouldn't surprise me that by this time next year, there will be real need to widen I-85 from Durham -to- Oxford, which would require additional lanes over the twin bridges at Falls Lake. We might be saying the same thing on US-64 (Future I-87) and US-264 (Future I-587) between Knightdale and Rocky Mount//Wilson. All of which makes me wonder if it is cheating to include this rapidly growing area under "Rural Freeways" (including Orange County on this side).
Well, shame on me for not realizing how new the East End Connector freeway is. I could definitely see that changing things and its impact may not be fully realized yet. I-885/NC 147 heading south from Durham to I-40 still being 4 lanes is also surprising to me.
As for "rural freeways", we've been lenient in this thread with including anything that would qualify as suburban. Especially in fast growing areas, there are corridors that are quickly becoming developed so they may not feel rural now as they once were, but we definitely still want to include them. We're mostly just excluding urban freeways as those tend to have less long-distance traffic and various other physical/ROW constraints to widening.
Quote from: CoreySamson on December 09, 2022, 02:43:15 PM
Just drove I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis yesterday and it is so much worse than I remembered. There were several mile-long slowdowns simply because of the overall truck volume. The merge down to one lane approaching the I-55 multiplex was particularly bad in that regard. There had to be more trucks than cars at certain points. And I got stuck for over an hour behind what I assume was a huge accident. The new 75 mph speed limit helps, though. Three lanes in each direction can't come quickly enough.
2021 AADT for that entire stretch shows that 57-58% of the traffic between LR and Memphis is trucks even in the rural segments. You didn't imagine it. It's that bad.
Quote from: MikieTimT on December 12, 2022, 02:06:42 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on December 09, 2022, 02:43:15 PM
Just drove I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis yesterday and it is so much worse than I remembered. There were several mile-long slowdowns simply because of the overall truck volume. The merge down to one lane approaching the I-55 multiplex was particularly bad in that regard. There had to be more trucks than cars at certain points. And I got stuck for over an hour behind what I assume was a huge accident. The new 75 mph speed limit helps, though. Three lanes in each direction can't come quickly enough.
2021 AADT for that entire stretch shows that 57-58% of the traffic between LR and Memphis is trucks even in the rural segments. You didn't imagine it. It's that bad.
My baseline expectation would be that the rural segments would have the highest truck percentage so that makes sense. With that kind of truck volumes I can see 6-lanes being needed regardless, but what are the overall AADT volumes?
Quote from: webny99 on December 12, 2022, 04:21:05 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on December 12, 2022, 02:06:42 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on December 09, 2022, 02:43:15 PM
Just drove I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis yesterday and it is so much worse than I remembered. There were several mile-long slowdowns simply because of the overall truck volume. The merge down to one lane approaching the I-55 multiplex was particularly bad in that regard. There had to be more trucks than cars at certain points. And I got stuck for over an hour behind what I assume was a huge accident. The new 75 mph speed limit helps, though. Three lanes in each direction can't come quickly enough.
2021 AADT for that entire stretch shows that 57-58% of the traffic between LR and Memphis is trucks even in the rural segments. You didn't imagine it. It's that bad.
My baseline expectation would be that the rural segments would have the highest truck percentage so that makes sense. With that kind of truck volumes I can see 6-lanes being needed regardless, but what are the overall AADT volumes?
I believe I've seen volume figures of 38k AADT for that stretch of road elsewhere in this thread, but otherwise, not sure.
38k would be very similar to Rochester-Syracuse on the Thruway which has much lower truck volumes, so I would certainly say it's warranted. I believe I-30 heading west (southwest) out of Little Rock was also mentioned earlier.
Meanwhile, browsing Street View just now I was surprised to see that I-40 heading west (north) out of Little Rock is already 6-lanes to Conway. I wouldn't imagine that 6-lanes is needed west of there given that most long haul traffic to Texas would be taking I-30, although I-40 is an important connector to NW AR and the Great Plains states.
Quote from: webny99 on December 12, 2022, 04:41:04 PM
38k would be very similar to Rochester-Syracuse on the Thruway which has much lower truck volumes, so I would certainly say it's warranted. I believe I-30 heading west (southwest) out of Little Rock was also mentioned earlier.
Meanwhile, browsing Street View just now I was surprised to see that I-40 heading west (north) out of Little Rock is already 6-lanes to Conway. I wouldn't imagine that 6-lanes is needed west of there given that most long haul traffic to Texas would be taking I-30, although I-40 is an important connector to NW AR and the Great Plains states.
My guess is that it is six lanes because of daily commuter traffic.
I-80 in Nebraska between Lincoln and Grand Island.
Quote from: webny99 on December 12, 2022, 04:41:04 PM
Meanwhile, browsing Street View just now I was surprised to see that I-40 heading west (north) out of Little Rock is already 6-lanes to Conway. I wouldn't imagine that 6-lanes is needed west of there given that most long haul traffic to Texas would be taking I-30, although I-40 is an important connector to NW AR and the Great Plains states.
It's commuter / urban / local traffic between Conway and Little Rock.
As for I-40 East of Little Rock, that stretch certainly warrants six lanes all the way to Memphis. Think of I-81, but instead of 35-40% of the traffic being trucks, it's almost 60%.
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 12, 2022, 04:57:04 PM
I-80 in Nebraska between Lincoln and Grand Island.
No, they need 29,000 lanes.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 12, 2022, 04:51:32 PM
Quote from: webny99 on December 12, 2022, 04:41:04 PM
38k would be very similar to Rochester-Syracuse on the Thruway which has much lower truck volumes, so I would certainly say it's warranted. I believe I-30 heading west (southwest) out of Little Rock was also mentioned earlier.
Meanwhile, browsing Street View just now I was surprised to see that I-40 heading west (north) out of Little Rock is already 6-lanes to Conway. I wouldn't imagine that 6-lanes is needed west of there given that most long haul traffic to Texas would be taking I-30, although I-40 is an important connector to NW AR and the Great Plains states.
My guess is that it is six lanes because of daily commuter traffic.
I would agree. Traffic lightened up considerably on that section of I-40 west of Conway when I drove it last week.
I think I-30 in Texas needs six lanes in rural spots between Dallas and Texarkana. I-10 too could be six laned from Houston to Beaumont for sure if they're not addressing it already.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 12, 2022, 10:33:42 PM
I think I-30 in Texas needs six lanes in rural spots between Dallas and Texarkana. I-10 too could be six laned from Houston to Beaumont for sure if they're not addressing it already.
I believe current and ongoing construction will complete a six lane minimum interstate between Columbus, TX (75 miles west of Houston) and Lake Charles, LA.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 12, 2022, 09:56:50 PM
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on December 12, 2022, 04:57:04 PM
I-80 in Nebraska between Lincoln and Grand Island.
No, they need 29,000 lanes.
I-80 is the most congested with truck traffic in the US, with I-5 and I-40 in southern California pretty close by. Next would be the segment of I-40 between LR and West Memphis as both ends of that segment branch off to some pretty major trade areas. This is according to the Estimated Average FAF Daily Volumes for Trucks on National Highway System 2017 (https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/faf_truck_volumes_2017/Estimated%20Average%20Daily%20FAF%20Truck%20Volume%20(1_All%20Commodities)%202017.pdf), which is the most recent map they have info for.
Quote from: CoreySamson on December 09, 2022, 02:43:15 PM
Just drove I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis yesterday and it is so much worse than I remembered. There were several mile-long slowdowns simply because of the overall truck volume. The merge down to one lane approaching the I-55 multiplex was particularly bad in that regard. There had to be more trucks than cars at certain points. And I got stuck for over an hour behind what I assume was a huge accident. The new 75 mph speed limit helps, though. Three lanes in each direction can't come quickly enough.
US 70 is a good alternative.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 13, 2022, 11:48:35 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on December 09, 2022, 02:43:15 PM
Just drove I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis yesterday and it is so much worse than I remembered. There were several mile-long slowdowns simply because of the overall truck volume. The merge down to one lane approaching the I-55 multiplex was particularly bad in that regard. There had to be more trucks than cars at certain points. And I got stuck for over an hour behind what I assume was a huge accident. The new 75 mph speed limit helps, though. Three lanes in each direction can't come quickly enough.
US 70 is a good alternative.
Depending where you're coming from, US 64 between Bald Knob and Marion is also a good alternate route. Very light traffic and no trucks whatsoever, although you gotta watch out for combines during combine SZN.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 13, 2022, 11:48:35 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on December 09, 2022, 02:43:15 PM
Just drove I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis yesterday and it is so much worse than I remembered. There were several mile-long slowdowns simply because of the overall truck volume. The merge down to one lane approaching the I-55 multiplex was particularly bad in that regard. There had to be more trucks than cars at certain points. And I got stuck for over an hour behind what I assume was a huge accident. The new 75 mph speed limit helps, though. Three lanes in each direction can't come quickly enough.
US 70 is a good alternative.
You must be trolling. Alternative? That adds an hour to the trip, and that's when there isn't farm equipment plugging up the works. Only time I've ever been on US-70 was due to a detour brought on by an accident.
^ He's trolling.
Quote from: Road Hog on December 14, 2022, 02:09:43 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 13, 2022, 11:48:35 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on December 09, 2022, 02:43:15 PM
Just drove I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis yesterday and it is so much worse than I remembered. There were several mile-long slowdowns simply because of the overall truck volume. The merge down to one lane approaching the I-55 multiplex was particularly bad in that regard. There had to be more trucks than cars at certain points. And I got stuck for over an hour behind what I assume was a huge accident. The new 75 mph speed limit helps, though. Three lanes in each direction can't come quickly enough.
US 70 is a good alternative.
Depending where you're coming from, US 64 between Bald Knob and Marion is also a good alternate route. Very light traffic and no trucks whatsoever, although you gotta watch out for combines during combine SZN.
US 64 is a good route through there as well.
Quote from: MikieTimT on December 14, 2022, 02:51:24 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 13, 2022, 11:48:35 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on December 09, 2022, 02:43:15 PM
Just drove I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis yesterday and it is so much worse than I remembered. There were several mile-long slowdowns simply because of the overall truck volume. The merge down to one lane approaching the I-55 multiplex was particularly bad in that regard. There had to be more trucks than cars at certain points. And I got stuck for over an hour behind what I assume was a huge accident. The new 75 mph speed limit helps, though. Three lanes in each direction can't come quickly enough.
US 70 is a good alternative.
You must be trolling. Alternative? That adds an hour to the trip, and that's when there isn't farm equipment plugging up the works. Only time I've ever been on US-70 was due to a detour brought on by an accident.
He is simply horrified that Arkansas or the feds might spend one dollar towards expanding or otherwise improving I-40.
Quote from: MikieTimT on December 14, 2022, 02:51:24 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 13, 2022, 11:48:35 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on December 09, 2022, 02:43:15 PM
Just drove I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis yesterday and it is so much worse than I remembered. There were several mile-long slowdowns simply because of the overall truck volume. The merge down to one lane approaching the I-55 multiplex was particularly bad in that regard. There had to be more trucks than cars at certain points. And I got stuck for over an hour behind what I assume was a huge accident. The new 75 mph speed limit helps, though. Three lanes in each direction can't come quickly enough.
US 70 is a good alternative.
You must be trolling. Alternative? That adds an hour to the trip, and that's when there isn't farm equipment plugging up the works. Only time I've ever been on US-70 was due to a detour brought on by an accident.
I just looked on Google Maps and put in avoid highways. This is the route they say to take from Memphis to Little Rock.
Start out on US-61 south, then take US-49 north to US-79 south to Stuttgart then take US-165 to US-70. That would add on about 50 miles and an hour and a half to the trip.
^ Well yeah, according to our expert, Avalanchez71, a route that is 2 hours longer with no congestion is reason the main route should not be addressed at all.
Quote from: webny99 on January 01, 2019, 12:58:05 PM
Generally, volumes on a given stretch must be above 30K in order to be considered for six-laning.
In the 4+ years since starting this thread, I've come to accept 40k AADT as the unofficial threshold for six-laning a rural freeway. Some states have widened or plan to widen segments with lower AADT volumes and/or unusually high percentages of truck traffic, but those are the exception, not the rule.
But in doing a deep dive into the Thruway, I wanted to get even more specific and come up with an hourly threshold for peak times. I came up with a very rough figure of 1800 vph per direction or 3600 vph for the entire roadway.
As an example, I-90 between Exit 44 (NY 332) and Exit 43 (NY 21) has a 2022 AADT of 43,264. Using the 3600 vph rate, the following hours qualified:
Using year-round AADT: Sun 12-4PM; Fri 2-6PM (8 hours total)
Using summer* AADT: Sun 10AM-6PM; Mon/Thurs 12-6PM; Tues/Wed 3-5PM; Fri 10AM-7PM; Sat 10AM-5PM (40 hours total)
*June 23rd-Sept 4th
I disagree. Plenty of roads where the ADT might only be 15k a day but a 3 lane widening would improve safety and perhaps suffice for holiday and weekend traffic whereas most of the time it's not as packed. Still worth it. Plus I enjoy more lanes.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 20, 2023, 03:41:48 PM
Plus I enjoy more lanes.
I enjoy them if they're necessary. If not, I much prefer a two lane road.
I enjoy more lanes if people actually know how to keep right.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 20, 2023, 03:41:48 PM
I disagree. Plenty of roads where the ADT might only be 15k a day but a 3 lane widening would improve safety and perhaps suffice for holiday and weekend traffic whereas most of the time it's not as packed. Still worth it. Plus I enjoy more lanes.
Any road with 15k AADT (7.5k per direction) does not need six lanes, even for holiday/weekend traffic. There are plenty of
two-lane roads busier than that.
If you're talking 15k per direction/30k total then there is a conversation to be had, as seen in states such as Ohio and Nebraska where portions of the Ohio Turnpike and I-80 have already been widened or widening in the planning stages. For the Northeast, though, it's pointless to set the threshold as low as 30k when there are so many busier segments to consider widening first, including some over twice as busy.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 20, 2023, 03:41:48 PM
Still worth it. Plus I enjoy more lanes.
The question is, how much is it worth to you to enjoy more lanes? How high should the gas tax go? How much should the toll be?
Traditionally, widenings have been considered justified if they would result in the design hour volume (traditionally defined as the 30th highest hour in the design year) being accommodated at a LOS that meets the agency's criterion for the location (Caltrans, for example, used to require LOS B in rural areas and LOS D in urban areas). We just don't have enough holidays in the calendar for holiday traffic to influence DHV, so traffic during the peak period on a day in August is often used as a proxy for the 30th highest hour.
The 30th highest hour rule does mean that metropolitan areas with high percentages of residents who go out of town for the holidays--Los Angeles, perhaps?--tend to lose out in terms of congestion-free travel on or around those days.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 20, 2023, 07:04:17 PM
Traditionally, widenings have been considered justified if they would result in the design hour volume (traditionally defined as the 30th highest hour in the design year) being accommodated at a LOS that meets the agency's criterion for the location (Caltrans, for example, used to require LOS B in rural areas and LOS D in urban areas). We just don't have enough holidays in the calendar for holiday traffic to influence DHV, so traffic during the peak period on a day in August is often used as a proxy for the 30th highest hour.
The 30th highest hour rule does mean that metropolitan areas with high percentages of residents who go out of town for the holidays--Los Angeles, perhaps?--tend to lose out in terms of congestion-free travel on or around those days.
Wisconsin is cheap as they utilize the 200th highest hour instead.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 20, 2023, 07:04:17 PM
Traditionally, widenings have been considered justified if they would result in the design hour volume (traditionally defined as the 30th highest hour in the design year) being accommodated at a LOS that meets the agency's criterion for the location (Caltrans, for example, used to require LOS B in rural areas and LOS D in urban areas). We just don't have enough holidays in the calendar for holiday traffic to influence DHV, so traffic during the peak period on a day in August is often used as a proxy for the 30th highest hour.
Day of the week is also a factor here as well. I've found from Thruway traffic data that Fridays are typically the busiest travel day of the week, followed by the other weekend days, and then the other weekdays, with Tuesday typically being the lightest travel day.
An August Friday, for example, is likely to rank as one of the busiest travel days of the year, full stop. Meanwhile, an August Tuesday may rank as one of the busiest
Tuesdays of the year, but would not rank highly among all 365 days.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 20, 2023, 07:04:17 PM
The 30th highest hour rule does mean that metropolitan areas with high percentages of residents who go out of town for the holidays--Los Angeles, perhaps?--tend to lose out in terms of congestion-free travel on or around those days.
I tend to think Los Angeles is a good example, not because a particularly high percentage of residents leave town (although that may be true as well), but because the region is more or less surrounded by mountains, so high quality routes heading out of the area are limited. Any traffic leaving the metro area will generally find themselves on one of just six routes - I-5 or I-15 north, I-5 or I-15 south, US 101 north (west), or I-10 east. Contrast with NYC, which has, by my count, 14 such routes.
Quote from: Big John on September 20, 2023, 07:09:21 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 20, 2023, 07:04:17 PM
Traditionally, widenings have been considered justified if they would result in the design hour volume (traditionally defined as the 30th highest hour in the design year) being accommodated at a LOS that meets the agency's criterion for the location (Caltrans, for example, used to require LOS B in rural areas and LOS D in urban areas). We just don't have enough holidays in the calendar for holiday traffic to influence DHV, so traffic during the peak period on a day in August is often used as a proxy for the 30th highest hour.
The 30th highest hour rule does mean that metropolitan areas with high percentages of residents who go out of town for the holidays--Los Angeles, perhaps?--tend to lose out in terms of congestion-free travel on or around those days.
Wisconsin is cheap as they utilize the 200th highest hour instead.
I know I'm an outlier here, but I've often thought that using the 30th highest hour of traffic was a bit too much. There are, on average, 8,766 hours in a year, and going with 30 excludes only the top 0.3% of those hours. Going with the 200th highest hour excludes the top 2.2%, which seems a bit more reasonable, although I'd probably go with 5%, admittedly without access to any data, which would be somewhere around the 438th highest hour.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on September 21, 2023, 11:33:20 AMI know I'm an outlier here, but I've often thought that using the 30th highest hour of traffic was a bit too much. There are, on average, 8,766 hours in a year, and going with 30 excludes only the top 0.3% of those hours. Going with the 200th highest hour excludes the top 2.2%, which seems a bit more reasonable, although I'd probably go with 5%, admittedly without access to any data, which would be somewhere around the 438th highest hour.
AIUI, the 30th highest hour has been a consensus rule since at least the 1950's (it is mentioned in Matson's
Traffic Engineering, published in 1955) since it typically falls around a knee in the curve of hourly volumes plotted against hours ordered from highest to lowest. The difference between 1st and 30th is more likely to translate into a difference in the capacity needed to maintain a given LOS than, say, between 30th and 60th.
I am aware of one project where the state DOT opted to use the 100th highest hour instead of the 30th specifically to make the planned improvement more affordable. That was the Sterling Highway (SR 1) near Cooper Landing, Alaska, where the less stringent criterion allowed the use of two lanes with occasional passing lanes instead of four lanes divided in a tight valley. However, the location in Alaska translates into a much greater difference between summer and winter volumes than is typically seen in more temperate climates.
The LOS criterion is another variable--the 30th highest hour with a loose standard can mean roughly the same number of hours of delay in the design year as, say, the 100th highest hour with a tight standard.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on September 20, 2023, 03:46:17 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 20, 2023, 03:41:48 PM
Plus I enjoy more lanes.
I enjoy them if they're necessary. If not, I much prefer a two lane road.
Well, yeah, that's what I mean. I'm not advocating for more lanes just for the sake of it. I also just like bigger highways but again I wouldn't support one if it wasn't needed.
Quote from: webny99 on September 20, 2023, 05:48:51 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 20, 2023, 03:41:48 PM
I disagree. Plenty of roads where the ADT might only be 15k a day but a 3 lane widening would improve safety and perhaps suffice for holiday and weekend traffic whereas most of the time it's not as packed. Still worth it. Plus I enjoy more lanes.
Any road with 15k AADT (7.5k per direction) does not need six lanes, even for holiday/weekend traffic. There are plenty of two-lane roads busier than that.
If you're talking 15k per direction/30k total then there is a conversation to be had, as seen in states such as Ohio and Nebraska where portions of the Ohio Turnpike and I-80 have already been widened or widening in the planning stages. For the Northeast, though, it's pointless to set the threshold as low as 30k when there are so many busier segments to consider widening first, including some over twice as busy.
It all depends on the situation in my opinion.
Maybe if money grew on trees...
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 21, 2023, 01:38:58 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on September 21, 2023, 11:33:20 AMI know I'm an outlier here, but I've often thought that using the 30th highest hour of traffic was a bit too much. There are, on average, 8,766 hours in a year, and going with 30 excludes only the top 0.3% of those hours. Going with the 200th highest hour excludes the top 2.2%, which seems a bit more reasonable, although I'd probably go with 5%, admittedly without access to any data, which would be somewhere around the 438th highest hour.
AIUI, the 30th highest hour has been a consensus rule since at least the 1950's (it is mentioned in Matson's Traffic Engineering, published in 1955) since it typically falls around a knee in the curve of hourly volumes plotted against hours ordered from highest to lowest. The difference between 1st and 30th is more likely to translate into a difference in the capacity needed to maintain a given LOS than, say, between 30th and 60th.
Thanks for this and the rest of your contextualization here, in particular the wiggle room afforded. But still, again on my own personal level, I'm not really sold on the idea that the highest level of traffic the road gets in normal use is the best conceptual norm to have. Accepting some overcapacity issues for 5% of the time, as I arbitrarily placed it, is more reasonable.
That said, as you point out, that may not matter all that much. The charts I've looked at online show a pretty gently rising slope up to that 30th hour. I haven't found any, though, that go further back than the 200th hour or so, so who knows what's down there.
I was fairly certain we had a thread for rural freeways that need 8 lanes, but can't turn it up with a forum or Google search...
Anyways, I think there's a very strong case for 8 lanes on the Mass Pike between I-84 at Sturbridge and I-290 at Worcester. That one stretch carries basically all long distance traffic between Boston/points north and the rest of the country, and consistently backs up eastbound at the I-84 merge point and westbound at the I-290/I-395 merge point. It's just too much for 6 lanes to realistically handle when you consider that I-84 and I-290 are both busy enough for 6 lanes on their own.
I'll add one for eight lanes... I-95 between Ashland and Fredericksburg is a major contender. The same for I-95 between Baltimore and the Delaware state line.
Quote from: webny99 on November 27, 2023, 08:38:54 PM
I was fairly certain we had a thread for rural freeways that need 8 lanes, but can't turn it up with a forum or Google search...
Anyways, I think there's a very strong case for 8 lanes on the Mass Pike between I-84 at Sturbridge and I-290 at Worcester. That one stretch carries basically all long distance traffic between Boston/points north and the rest of the country, and consistently backs up eastbound at the I-84 merge point and westbound at the I-290/I-395 merge point. It's just too much for 6 lanes to realistically handle when you consider that I-84 and I-290 are both busy enough for 6 lanes on their own.
I agree. If anything, the Pike needs 8 Agnes from I-84 all the way to I-95. Any improvements, however, will have to overcome the same logistical, financial, environmental, and community opposition challenges that have doomed most post-1970 highway expansion plans.
I would like to nominate I-70 between Pickerington and Zanesville. Going east to west, traffic counts start at 33k, increase to 50k at Etna, and are 98k by the time you pass the exit at Ohio 256, where 6 laning begins in the Columbus metro. This was made more pressing by the recent accident just east of Etna that took the lives of 6 people.
Quote from: carbaugh2 on November 28, 2023, 12:47:14 PM
I would like to nominate I-70 between Pickerington and Zanesville. Going east to west, traffic counts start at 33k, increase to 50k at Etna, and are 98k by the time you pass the exit at Ohio 256, where 6 laning begins in the Columbus metro. This was made more pressing by the recent accident just east of Etna that took the lives of 6 people.
Agreed, at the very least it would make sense to extend 6 lanes to the existing 6 lane stretch near Buckeye Lake. When I drove that stretch coming from the east I exited at OH 13 and was surprised to see 6 lanes already, but was even more surprised to later learn that the 6 lanes there
don't extend into Columbus.
Quote from: webny99 on November 28, 2023, 01:14:17 PM
Quote from: carbaugh2 on November 28, 2023, 12:47:14 PM
I would like to nominate I-70 between Pickerington and Zanesville. Going east to west, traffic counts start at 33k, increase to 50k at Etna, and are 98k by the time you pass the exit at Ohio 256, where 6 laning begins in the Columbus metro. This was made more pressing by the recent accident just east of Etna that took the lives of 6 people.
Agreed, at the very least it would make sense to extend 6 lanes to the existing 6 lane stretch near Buckeye Lake. When I drove that stretch coming from the east I exited at OH 13 and was surprised to see 6 lanes already, but was even more surprised to later learn that the 6 lanes there don't extend into Columbus.
The section between Buckeye Lake and Brownsville was widened back in the 1990s or 2000s to create a truck lane for the large hills through that stretch. It's been so long that I have forgotten what it looked like with only 4 lanes.
ODOT is currently reconstructing I-70 through Zanesville and is keeping it at 4 lanes due to right of way limitations (read as costs), so I have trouble believing it will ever be 6 lanes through there.
iPhone
An easy one.
all of I-15 between Barstow and the junction with N US-93 near Apex.
I-85 in NC, between the eastern I-40 split and the Durham county line.