Many of today's major construction projects are designed to alleviate bottlenecks, improve geometry, and/or add capacity to the road network. In most cases, such spot improvements achieve said objective, improve traffic flow, time passes, and little thought is given to the impact on other areas of the corridor(s).
In contrast, there are some cases where a project helps traffic flow in one area, thereby moving the constraint downstream, to another area which actually had minimal congestion until the project down the road improved flow into the area! The recent NY 531 Terminus Improvement Project (https://www.dot.ny.gov/531) in the town of Ogden, NY, is a classic example. Previously, Brockport-bound (westbound) traffic had to make a right turn at the end of NY 531, followed by an immediate left turn onto NY 31. The second stoplight only permitted so many vehicles to turn left per cycle, meaning there was never an overload onto NY 31. In fact, those two consecutive turns were the bottleneck, with traffic backing well onto the freeway portion of NY 531. Now, westbound traffic can proceed straight through the NY 531/NY 36 intersection, i.e. NY 31 was re-aligned so the dominant traffic flow doesn't have to make any turns. The traffic signal at NY 531/NY 36 is padded with a lot of green space for east-west traffic, so as much traffic as NY 531 can handle, can flow through the intersection and onto NY 31. All of a sudden, all this traffic that was previously released in small batches, is now continually flowing onto NY 31. Which is bad news for the NY 31/NY 260 intersection (located two miles downstream), which can no longer handle the volumes, and has become the new bottleneck, with back-ups of up to a mile every weekday afternoon.
(Yes, NY 531 most definitely should have been continued as a freeway all the way to Brockport, and I would not be here composing this post, but that is another matter altogether...)
Any other examples of a construction project alleviating one problem only to cause another one, just as bad, down the road?
I made a thread about this a while back. In Indianapolis, they turned us 31 into an interstate, they fucked up the lane configuration, and didn't expand 465 where the highway ends, now it backs up at that interchange every day.
The best example I can think of would be I-15 in Utah County. Before any reconstruction of I-15 happened, the whole thing was 3 lanes in each direction plus one HOT lane, which was undeniably inadequate. Eventually, the part south of SR-73 was reconstructed and widened in the I-15 CORE project, and a few years later the same was done north of SR-92 in the Point Project. That left a 3+1 bottleneck between SR-73 and SR-92, with 4+1 or 5+1 configurations on either side. This is finally being fixed as part of the I-15 Tech Corridor project, which should be done in a couple years.
Does the Hillside Strangler count here?
Quote from: inkyatari on October 29, 2018, 11:31:25 AM
Does the Hillside Strangler count here?
I'd say it's the quintessential project for this thread. IDOT moves the merge point east of Mannheim, traffic issue is the same as before.
NJ Turnpike's multiple extensions of the Car / Truck lane setup southward come to min. Of course it's not quite moving the problem downstream as much as the problem reappearing downstream some time afterward as traffic volumes increase.
In CT, the widened I-95 south between Exits 15-14 with a long aux lane. The choke point used to be at the Exit 15 on-ramp. NOW, the choke point is down at the Exit 13 on-ramp because traffic is flowing at exits 15-14. There are NO plans on fixing Exit 13, so we are stuck with it for now.
Also in CT, in 1993 when the Baldwin Bridge was replaced with an 8-lane structure, I-95 on either side failed to be widened, so you still have essentially 2 thru lanes in each direction with the rest being operational lanes. Granted, it gives traffic entering I-95 NB more time to merge, but as soon as you're touched down on the east bank, you have 1/4 mile before the 3rd lane ends and you're right back to two lanes.
Widening as part of an early phase of the "Q" Bridge project took care of I-95 out to Exit 54 in Branford. But once you're 3/4 mile or so from that interchange, the backup starts. So it just got pushed a few miles further east of where the 3-lane section used to end at Exit 51/East Haven.
Almost all of them, thanks to the wave of development that crops up with the new road.
I'm positive we had this discussion a while back, although obviously it's always something that can be updated.
Edited to add: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21680.0
Quote from: Bruce on October 30, 2018, 02:33:08 PM
Almost all of them, thanks to the wave of development that crops up with the new road.
Which started with train commuting, which made moving out of cities possible in the 1800's.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 30, 2018, 10:44:37 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 30, 2018, 02:33:08 PM
Almost all of them, thanks to the wave of development that crops up with the new road.
Which started with train commuting, which made moving out of cities possible in the 1800's.
And, as an example:
Riverside, Illinois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverside,_Illinois). Specifically designed as a bedroom community in 1869, connected to the Loop via train.
Quote from: Brandon on October 31, 2018, 11:52:15 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 30, 2018, 10:44:37 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 30, 2018, 02:33:08 PM
Almost all of them, thanks to the wave of development that crops up with the new road.
Which started with train commuting, which made moving out of cities possible in the 1800's.
And, as an example:
Riverside, Illinois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverside,_Illinois). Specifically designed as a bedroom community in 1869, connected to the Loop via train.
And Frank Lloyd Wright moved to Oak Park in order to get out of the city.
Traffic isnt my primary concern with highway design. Safety and flow characteristics are. A well designed interchange that allows for straighforward movements can still back up during rush hour but if the flow of traffic is steady then I'd consider it a win. Short off ramps, weaving interchanges, substandard interchanges and thoughtless design make the traffic more stop and go. That's why I don't think adding a lane to the Merritt/W. Cross Parkways will make the daily congestion lighter. You'd still have a winding carriageway and abrupt ingresses and egresses to deal with and more than ever those are what slow downs motorists. Traffic backs up before a hill, then flies down the other side. Bottleneck before a sharp bend left, relieved soon after. Rinse and repeat.
Quote from: Brandon on October 29, 2018, 12:28:37 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on October 29, 2018, 11:31:25 AM
Does the Hillside Strangler count here?
I'd say it's the quintessential project for this thread. IDOT moves the merge point east of Mannheim, traffic issue is the same as before.
Runner up will be the Kennedy from Harlem eastward inbound once they finish the extra lane expansion
US-169 at I-494 in Eden Prairie, MN
Until a few years ago, it was a signalized intersection for US-169, and rush hour traffic would always choke on southbound 169 at the lights (3 in a row..one for each direction of 494, and a light just barely south of that for 78th St)
Now, it's a freeway-to-freeway interchange, with a flyover going from 494 West to 169 South (and stumps suggest another flyover from 494 East to 169 North is in the future). The flyover traffic merges into 169 South...then ramp traffic from 494 East merges in...now each has their own utility lane, but then the lane from 494 E ends, then the lane from 494 W eventually feeds right into Exit 119.
So you have 4 lanes merging into 2... in the span of about 3/4-mile.
The gridlock didn't disappear. It's just a slight bit further south.
Quote from: Brandon on October 29, 2018, 12:28:37 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on October 29, 2018, 11:31:25 AM
Does the Hillside Strangler count here?
I'd say it's the quintessential project for this thread. IDOT moves the merge point east of Mannheim, traffic issue is the same as before.
This is the first thing that came to mind. I-15 at SR-92 was the second, and that was also covered upthread. So good job guys lol
Moving the traffic jam on I-290 farther east might have been advantageous just because it took some of the jamming out of the interchange with I-294/88. People going from EB I-88 to NB I-294, for example, may have to suffer less as a result. You knew IDOT/ISTHA knew they were just relocating the traffic jam. But maybe doing that could be a helpful thing for people other than those going from I-88 EB to I-290 EB.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on November 06, 2018, 09:24:47 AM
Quote from: Brandon on October 29, 2018, 12:28:37 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on October 29, 2018, 11:31:25 AM
Does the Hillside Strangler count here?
I'd say it's the quintessential project for this thread. IDOT moves the merge point east of Mannheim, traffic issue is the same as before.
This is the first thing that came to mind. I-15 at SR-92 was the second, and that was also covered upthread. So good job guys lol
Moving the traffic jam on I-290 farther east might have been advantageous just because it took some of the jamming out of the interchange with I-294/88. People going from EB I-88 to NB I-294, for example, may have to suffer less as a result. You knew IDOT/ISTHA knew they were just relocating the traffic jam. But maybe doing that could be a helpful thing for people other than those going from I-88 EB to I-290 EB.
IMHO, I think getting rid of the side by side 294 / 290 for the two or so miles is key to solving this problem.
Quote from: inkyatari on November 06, 2018, 11:21:13 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on November 06, 2018, 09:24:47 AM
Quote from: Brandon on October 29, 2018, 12:28:37 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on October 29, 2018, 11:31:25 AM
Does the Hillside Strangler count here?
I'd say it's the quintessential project for this thread. IDOT moves the merge point east of Mannheim, traffic issue is the same as before.
This is the first thing that came to mind. I-15 at SR-92 was the second, and that was also covered upthread. So good job guys lol
Moving the traffic jam on I-290 farther east might have been advantageous just because it took some of the jamming out of the interchange with I-294/88. People going from EB I-88 to NB I-294, for example, may have to suffer less as a result. You knew IDOT/ISTHA knew they were just relocating the traffic jam. But maybe doing that could be a helpful thing for people other than those going from I-88 EB to I-290 EB.
IMHO, I think getting rid of the side by side 294 / 290 for the two or so miles is key to solving this problem.
Actually, that might make it worse. Instead of keeping the two traffic streams separate as they are now (and are at I-88 and I-355), you would introduce a massive amount of merging. And with the way the locals love to lane jockey, it would be a nightmare.
Don't cross the streams.
Quote from: Brandon on November 06, 2018, 12:41:36 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on November 06, 2018, 11:21:13 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on November 06, 2018, 09:24:47 AM
Quote from: Brandon on October 29, 2018, 12:28:37 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on October 29, 2018, 11:31:25 AM
Does the Hillside Strangler count here?
I'd say it's the quintessential project for this thread. IDOT moves the merge point east of Mannheim, traffic issue is the same as before.
This is the first thing that came to mind. I-15 at SR-92 was the second, and that was also covered upthread. So good job guys lol
Moving the traffic jam on I-290 farther east might have been advantageous just because it took some of the jamming out of the interchange with I-294/88. People going from EB I-88 to NB I-294, for example, may have to suffer less as a result. You knew IDOT/ISTHA knew they were just relocating the traffic jam. But maybe doing that could be a helpful thing for people other than those going from I-88 EB to I-290 EB.
IMHO, I think getting rid of the side by side 294 / 290 for the two or so miles is key to solving this problem.
Actually, that might make it worse. Instead of keeping the two traffic streams separate as they are now (and are at I-88 and I-355), you would introduce a massive amount of merging. And with the way the locals love to lane jockey, it would be a nightmare.
Don't cross the streams.
Never... EVER.... cross those streams. It's bad enough as is, but if these merges occurred that section would be gridlock 12 hours a day
^ Not necessarily. There's definitely a very slim chance we'll survive...
Quote from: inkyatari on November 06, 2018, 11:21:13 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on November 06, 2018, 09:24:47 AM
Quote from: Brandon on October 29, 2018, 12:28:37 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on October 29, 2018, 11:31:25 AM
Does the Hillside Strangler count here?
I'd say it's the quintessential project for this thread. IDOT moves the merge point east of Mannheim, traffic issue is the same as before.
This is the first thing that came to mind. I-15 at SR-92 was the second, and that was also covered upthread. So good job guys lol
Moving the traffic jam on I-290 farther east might have been advantageous just because it took some of the jamming out of the interchange with I-294/88. People going from EB I-88 to NB I-294, for example, may have to suffer less as a result. You knew IDOT/ISTHA knew they were just relocating the traffic jam. But maybe doing that could be a helpful thing for people other than those going from I-88 EB to I-290 EB.
IMHO, I think getting rid of the side by side 294 / 290 for the two or so miles is key to solving this problem.
IL-tollway is paying the big $$$ to fix it.
https://www.illinoistollway.com/outreach/projects-in-your-community/central-tri-state-tollway-i-294/290-88-interchange-project
PA 28 in Pittsburgh. The segment between I-279 and Millvale used to be a dangerous four-lane undivided highway with signalized intersections at the 31st and 40th Street Bridges. When it wasn't slammed with traffic, it had an extremely high crash and fatality rate. To illustrate what a failure of civil engineering it was, traffic flow improved during the reconstruction. Now that it's been reconstructed halfway to Interstate standards, the bottleneck that used to exist there has now moved north to the Highland Park Bridge, where the highway briefly drops a lane at the off-ramps and adds it back at the on-ramps. The good news is, PennDOT has already designed the upgraded interchange, which will be reconstructed very soon.
Quote from: DJ Particle on November 06, 2018, 03:33:46 AM
US-169 at I-494 in Eden Prairie, MN
Until a few years ago, it was a signalized intersection for US-169, and rush hour traffic would always choke on southbound 169 at the lights (3 in a row..one for each direction of 494, and a light just barely south of that for 78th St)
Now, it's a freeway-to-freeway interchange, with a flyover going from 494 West to 169 South (and stumps suggest another flyover from 494 East to 169 North is in the future). The flyover traffic merges into 169 South...then ramp traffic from 494 East merges in...now each has their own utility lane, but then the lane from 494 E ends, then the lane from 494 W eventually feeds right into Exit 119.
So you have 4 lanes merging into 2... in the span of about 3/4-mile.
The gridlock didn't disappear. It's just a slight bit further south.
You also have the rebuilt Crosstown Commons where a massive part of the problem with the old interchange was the eastbound MN 62 lane drop at Lyndale. So what did they do instead of, you know, making it two thru lanes through the whole interchange?
Move the lane drop to Nicollet instead.
^ MnDOT was already breaking the bank as it was on the Crosstown project. To properly address the issue would have required extending the project limit to Cedar, replacing the Portland bridge, filling in some wetlands on the north side of Legion Lake, addressing both the frontage roads and the Bloomington ramps, and all in all would have added several tens-of-millions of dollars to the price tag....easily $30 million, probably more.
Quote from: froggie on February 27, 2019, 07:16:59 PM
^ MnDOT was already breaking the bank as it was on the Crosstown project. To properly address the issue would have required extending the project limit to Cedar, replacing the Portland bridge, filling in some wetlands on the north side of Legion Lake, addressing both the frontage roads and the Bloomington ramps, and all in all would have added several tens-of-millions of dollars to the price tag....easily $30 million, probably more.
On the other hand, the way the concrete was laid down suggests that it's still coming in the indeterminate future. Same with a future third thru lane for MN-62 west of the Commons. So at least in that case, more improvements are in the long-term plans.
Another example has developed on Rochester's west side with the completion of the I-490/I-390/NY 390/NY 31 interchange reconstruction (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21278.msg2314090#msg2314090). This interchange used to be congested on the southbound approach. Now, southbound traffic flows freely through the interchange - and even has multiple options to pass through the interchange with the old roadway left in place for the NY 31 to I-390 SB movement.
Which is great, except that morning traffic now overwhelms I-390 SB approaching the employment hubs at Exit 16, often slowing things up from the Exit 17 merge all the way back to I-490. And the fact that ROC airport is busiest in the early morning doesn't help things at the 17 and 18 merge points. So although a full widening isn't necessarily justified, an auxiliary lane from Exit 18 to 17 is definitely needed as a direct result of the aforementioned project.
CDOT's extension of the I-25 HOT lanes north from US 36 to 120th Ave and beyond has caused this. Before, the southbound lanes north of 84th Avenue was the natural bottleneck. With the HOT relief valve, there is a lot more congestion at US 36 EB to I-25 SB now in the morning and often even on weekend evenings as well.
Another move was the US 6/I-25 interchange reconstruction. All WB US 6 traffic from I-25 narrows from three lanes to 1 to merge onto the 6th Avenue Freeway mainline. It moved the congestion from the I-25 to US 6 merge out to west of Federal Blvd.
Another I-25 improvement at US 85/Santa Fe moved the congestion. Prior to reconstruction, US 85 NB had a free-flowing left entrance that became the left lane of the I-25 mainline NB. The I-25 NB mainline necked down to 3 lanes, so congested started southeast. The reconstruction made a full 4-lane cross-section on I-25 NB and US 85 NB now has a two-lane flyover ramp that merges on the right-hand side of I-25. This improvement moved the I-25 congestion point downstream about a half mile to the new flyover merge point, and it created nearly constant daily US 85 NB congestion on the flyover ramp even outside of rush hour times.
I feel like the I-87/Northway project at exit 4 adding the aux lane to exit 5 is this. It used to be that there was a backup at exit 4, then things moved, then there was a backup at 6-7. Now, the backup at exit 4 is considerably lessoned, but there's a noticeable slowing of traffic at exit 5 now that didn't exist before.
Almost any freeway or interchange project in Metro Atlanta has or would do little more than moving traffic problems downstream. There is just not enough capacity on most of the existing freeway system to accommodate traffic demand. Fixing interchanges may improve safety and localized operations, but at some point all of the traffic will have to squeeze back into the existing lane configurations.
I am figuring the ongoing reconstruction that has been going on for years centered on the I-285/SR 400 interchange will primarily just relocate most of the existing congestion.
^^ A major component of Atlanta's traffic problems is they use a funnel system instead of a grid system.
Quote from: ET21 on November 01, 2018, 08:57:21 AM
Quote from: Brandon on October 29, 2018, 12:28:37 PM
Quote from: inkyatari on October 29, 2018, 11:31:25 AM
Does the Hillside Strangler count here?
I'd say it's the quintessential project for this thread. IDOT moves the merge point east of Mannheim, traffic issue is the same as before.
Runner up will be the Kennedy from Harlem eastward inbound once they finish the extra lane expansion
Can confirm, this does back up frequently during rush hour now
This is basically just every extension of the I-95 HOV lanes in Virginia
Quote from: Big John on November 29, 2023, 02:55:06 PM
^^ A major component of Atlanta's traffic problems is they use a funnel system instead of a grid system.
That, and the fact that Atlanta is a 6,000,000 metropolitan area with the highway network of a 2,000,000 metropolitan area.
What kills Atlanta is that the surface arterials suck. A big chunk of the surface roads are winding two-lane roads or four lane roads without left turn lanes. Even the bigger ones that do exist are usually stoplight hell. They simply aren't that useful, which pushes more traffic onto the interstates.
Contrast that to a place like Denver, where there is a huge grid network of high-quality arterials that can serve as an effective alternate to the freeways through town, which lightens the demand on them some. Like any big city, the freeways will still get congested especially at peak hours, but anyone who's spent significant time in both cities will tell you Atlanta is worse.
Yeah I've always wondered why the agencies in Georgia/Atlanta that determine the traffic light timing won't at least coordinate the lights.
Quote from: US 89 on December 03, 2023, 08:24:51 PM
What kills Atlanta is that the surface arterials suck. A big chunk of the surface roads are winding two-lane roads or four lane roads without left turn lanes. Even the bigger ones that do exist are usually stoplight hell. They simply aren't that useful, which pushes more traffic onto the interstates.
This actually sounds a lot like the mainland portions of the NYC metro area.
The right lane runners ruin it every time. The I-65 choke point in Williamson County, TN was around exit 65 until a few years ago. They added lanes between exit 65 and exit 59 and the choke point is now there. However, the traffic still gets backed-up around Exit 65 anyway. So now the additional lanes do nothing. Then the folks that know that the lane is going to end run the right lane to the last minute and choke off traffic behind them. If they would have merged earlier and stayed in their lane, the traffic would flow.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 21, 2024, 01:54:29 AM
The right lane runners ruin it every time. The I-65 choke point in Williamson County, TN was around exit 65 until a few years ago. They added lanes between exit 65 and exit 59 and the choke point is now there. However, the traffic still gets backed-up around Exit 65 anyway. So now the additional lanes do nothing. Then the folks that know that the lane is going to end run the right lane to the last minute and choke off traffic behind them. If they would have merged earlier and stayed in their lane, the traffic would flow.
No. Zipper merge at the merge point is more efficient.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 21, 2024, 01:54:29 AM
The right lane runners ruin it every time. The I-65 choke point in Williamson County, TN was around exit 65 until a few years ago. They added lanes between exit 65 and exit 59 and the choke point is now there. However, the traffic still gets backed-up around Exit 65 anyway. So now the additional lanes do nothing. Then the folks that know that the lane is going to end run the right lane to the last minute and choke off traffic behind them. If they would have merged earlier and stayed in their lane, the traffic would flow.
Looks like it's because the freeway goes from 4 lanes + HOV to 3 lanes + HOV at that point. TnDOT would probably be better off extending the right lane further south.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 21, 2024, 01:54:29 AM
The right lane runners ruin it every time. The I-65 choke point in Williamson County, TN was around exit 65 until a few years ago. They added lanes between exit 65 and exit 59 and the choke point is now there. However, the traffic still gets backed-up around Exit 65 anyway. So now the additional lanes do nothing. Then the folks that know that the lane is going to end run the right lane to the last minute and choke off traffic behind them. If they would have merged earlier and stayed in their lane, the traffic would flow.
Why build the lane at all, then? Actually, why not take it a step further? Because the "merge early" crowd cannot agree when anyone is supposed to merge beyond the general principle that "nobody should get over any later than I do," obviously all roads must have only a single lane in each direction in order to pacify the early-mergers.
Quote from: US 89 on December 03, 2023, 08:24:51 PM
What kills Atlanta is that the surface arterials suck. A big chunk of the surface roads are winding two-lane roads or four lane roads without left turn lanes. Even the bigger ones that do exist are usually stoplight hell. They simply aren't that useful, which pushes more traffic onto the interstates.
Contrast that to a place like Denver, where there is a huge grid network of high-quality arterials that can serve as an effective alternate to the freeways through town, which lightens the demand on them some. Like any big city, the freeways will still get congested especially at peak hours, but anyone who's spent significant time in both cities will tell you Atlanta is worse.
The Atlanta area was established looooong before cars were in anyones' wildest dreams, so the transport network reflected that time's reality. OTOH, Denver was developed in a different era under the Northwest Ordinance grid.
Mike
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 21, 2024, 01:54:29 AM
The right lane runners ruin it every time. The I-65 choke point in Williamson County, TN was around exit 65 until a few years ago. They added lanes between exit 65 and exit 59 and the choke point is now there. However, the traffic still gets backed-up around Exit 65 anyway. So now the additional lanes do nothing. Then the folks that know that the lane is going to end run the right lane to the last minute and choke off traffic behind them. If they would have merged earlier and stayed in their lane, the traffic would flow.
Like every other time this is pointed out, it doesn't matter where they merge over, traffic would slow down at that point.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 21, 2024, 01:54:29 AM
The right lane runners ruin it every time. The I-65 choke point in Williamson County, TN was around exit 65 until a few years ago. They added lanes between exit 65 and exit 59 and the choke point is now there. However, the traffic still gets backed-up around Exit 65 anyway. So now the additional lanes do nothing. Then the folks that know that the lane is going to end run the right lane to the last minute and choke off traffic behind them. If they would have merged earlier and stayed in their lane, the traffic would flow.
I will pile on and say that right lane runners is a misnomer to begin with, BUT this also seems like a flawed design because it should be the left lane that ends instead of the right lane. The HOV lane complicates things somewhat, but it could still be done.
Quote from: US 89 on December 03, 2023, 08:24:51 PM
What kills Atlanta is that the surface arterials suck. A big chunk of the surface roads are winding two-lane roads or four lane roads without left turn lanes. Even the bigger ones that do exist are usually stoplight hell. They simply aren't that useful, which pushes more traffic onto the interstates.
Contrast that to a place like Denver, where there is a huge grid network of high-quality arterials that can serve as an effective alternate to the freeways through town, which lightens the demand on them some. Like any big city, the freeways will still get congested especially at peak hours, but anyone who's spent significant time in both cities will tell you Atlanta is worse.
The area southwest of Atlanta is brutal for this, and a great example of how to not fix a traffic problem. GDOT added express lanes to 75 from McDonough to I-675, but made them reversible due to space constraints, so now one direction lacks express lane access half the day, so its not uncommon for NB traffic to back up to Locust Grove as an example. It also shifted the SB bottleneck from the SB 75/675 merge when the lanes are open to when they end and traffic has to merge left back into the mainline. And, unlike the express lanes on the north side of Atlanta where 75 is significantly wider, 75 is only 6 lanes South of 675, so congestion is a lot more common. To make the issue even worse, most of the surface roads in Henry County are 2 lanes like you mentioned despite all the subdivision growth, there's no reliable route for local traffic to take.