I decided to start a counter topic to the new and popular thread of rural freeways that need 6 lanes. Granted, there will probably be less examples of this and most are pretty obvious, but let's give it a shot.
I'll start by nominating I-95 north of Bangor, ME.
Most of Northern New England, period.
Quote from: signalman on January 05, 2019, 07:26:04 AM
Granted, there will probably be less examples of this and most are pretty obvious, but let's give it a shot.
Actually, I would think in terms of total mileage, there would be
more examples for this thread. At least, it's easier to paint with a broader brush (by submitting entire states, etc.). Of course, saying "never" as opposed to "not now" helps trim it down some.
My first submission: I-29, I-90, and I-94 through the Dakotas.
- U.S. 17 freeway bypasses at Windsor, Edenton, Elizabeth City, Warrenton
- U.S. 58 freeway bypasses at Franklin, Courtland, Clarksville, Danville, Martinsville, Meadows of Dan, Hillsville
- U.S. 29 freeway bypasses at Chatham, Gretna, Altavista, Lynchburg-Amherst.
^^ All examples above between 7,000 - 20,000 AADT ^^
- U.S. 74 between I-95 and Wilmington (the freeway segments). About 14,000 AADT.
Okay, I guess using freeway bypasses isn't that fair. That should be a rule - only freeways that link to an interstate highway, and interstate highways themselves. So here's some I can think of -
- I-795 between I-95 and Goldsboro. About 20,000 AADT
- I-73/74 between Asheboro and Rockingham. 9,000 - 16,000 AADT
- The newer U.S. 64 freeway built in the late 90s, early 2000s, in North Carolina between Princeville and Williamston. Traffic counts of 8,000 - 13,000 AADT. Granted, I-87 in the future could bring more traffic, but nothing to warrant widenings. On the opposite though, portions of U.S. 64 (I-87) between Rocky Mount and Raleigh definitely will need 6 lanes in the future, but that's a different topic.
- U.S. 421 freeway between I-77 and Wilkesboro. 14,000 - 18,000 AADT.
- VA-895 between I-95 and I-295. 8,000 - 17,000 AADT.
- I-64 between West Virginia and I-81. 8,000 - 20,000 AADT.
- VA-168 between Hillcrest Pkwy and Gallbush Rd in Chesapeake, Virginia. Currently a toll road, it carries 10,000 VPD. However, if tolls are removed, this might be a different story because the shunpiking route (a rural 2 lane road) carries 20,000+ VPD. The cities 2050 plan (though it will be tolled until 2051?) shows 6 lanes on this segment.
I-75 in the UP
Nearly all interstate mileage in Wyoming would qualify too.
CT 11
I-180 (IL)
It's not a true "freeway" even though West Virginia calls it one, but the first road that came to mind when I saw the subject line is Corridor H.
I-15 from Ogden, UT to Alberta.
iPhone
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 08:32:59 AM
- VA-895 between I-95 and I-295.
The James River Bridge is already wider than that, with 6 thru lanes between the I-95 southerly ramps and the toll plaza. The westerly portion of the bridge is painted for 4 lanes but is wide enough for 6 lanes.
Originally it was to be 6 lanes all the way to Laburnum Avenue, but that was trimmed to save costs. I can see a future need for 6 lanes between I-95 and Laburnum Avenue.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 08:32:59 AM
8,000 - 17,000 AADT.
I thought the 16,000 AADT was for the whole route. I see that VDOT's AADT book shows the 7,700 figure between Laburnum Avenue and I-295. I question that as on the highway it looks like it would be closer to the figure for west of Laburnum Avenue.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 08:32:59 AM
- I-64 between West Virginia and I-81. 8,000 - 20,000 AADT.
That is one of the first ones I thought of.
We can add all of I-68, other than perhaps about 5 miles in Cumberland.
I-70 in Utah
I-180 in Illinois
I-91 in Vermont
These came to mind:
I-80 from Fernley NV to around UT 36.
I-84 from Baker City to Ontario OR.
I-82 south of the Tri Cities.
I would add I-90 between Ellensburg, WA and Tomah, WI - where it rejoins I-94, except the segment around Spokane; i.e. between Ritzville, WA and Coeur d'Alene (CDA), ID.
Aside from the Spokane-CDA area, I-90 from the Cascades to Wisconsin is a long stretch of virtually no cities aside from rather smallish places like Missoula, Billings, Rapid City, and Sioux City.
Once you clear Snoqualmie Pass and the I-82 junction at Ellensburg while heading East the traffic drops off considerably until Ritzville where 395 joins 90 along with more heavy the local Spokane-CDA traffic. But once you pass Coeur d' Alene, the traffic again drops off considerably and stays low until it rejoins 94 at Tomah.
There are a few areas where a third truck lane might be justified in the Idaho Panhandle or in Western Montana because of steep grades (i.e Lookout Pass, Homestake Pass, etc) but that would about be it and even this is debatable since the volume of trucks on this corridor is less than on other East-West interstates like 80 or 40.
iPad
Quote from: stwoodbury on January 05, 2019, 09:20:50 AM
I-15 from Ogden, UT to Alberta.
It's already six lanes from Ogden to Brigham City. I can easily see six lanes being required in the future between Brigham City and the 15/84 split at Tremonton, as well as within Idaho Falls (maybe Pocatello and Great Falls too).
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 09:40:17 AM
The James River Bridge is already wider than that, with 6 thru lanes between the I-95 southerly ramps and the toll plaza. The westerly portion of the bridge is painted for 4 lanes but is wide enough for 6 lanes.
Originally it was to be 6 lanes all the way to Laburnum Avenue, but that was trimmed to save costs. I can see a future need for 6 lanes between I-95 and Laburnum Avenue.
Until traffic figures reach closer to 30-35,000 AADT, the current 4 lane would be adequate.
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 09:40:17 AM
I thought the 16,000 AADT was for the whole route. I see that VDOT's AADT book shows the 7,700 figure between Laburnum Avenue and I-295. I question that as on the highway it looks like it would be closer to the figure for west of Laburnum Avenue.
I feel like there's a calculation issue with those numbers. 10,000 AADT entering at Laburnum seems like a stretch, it's not like that area is heavily developed (yet). It most likely is around 10 - 16,000 AADT for the entire stretch, some of the numbers coming from Laburnum, but not 10,000. I feel like it would have more usage though if the tolls weren't $4.30 for 8 miles, little much.
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 09:40:17 AM
That is one of the first ones I thought of.
We can add all of I-68, other than perhaps about 5 miles in Cumberland.
I honestly thought I-64 was lightly traveled from West Virginia all the way to Richmond, but was surprised to learn up to 40,000 AADT use I-64 between I-81 and Richmond. Currently doesn't need widening, though in the long-term it may. Some segments that could work soon - VA-288 to U.S 522, U.S. 15 to U.S. 250 (west of Charlottesville), and Afton Mountain to I-81. Over 40,000 AADT, and Afton Mountain because climbing lanes are needed.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2019, 09:14:21 AM
It's not a true "freeway" even though West Virginia calls it one, but the first road that came to mind when I saw the subject line is Corridor H.
IMHO, West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky should build these new "Corridors" to interstate standards, or at least build the ramps at certain interchanges to meet standards. I see a lot of narrow ramps on these new roads. At-grade intersections work until the point all of these relocations of roads are all connected (whenever that happens) and actually create a major thru-traffic route, in which being set up as an interstate-grade road is very beneficial.
Quote from: stwoodbury on January 05, 2019, 11:11:14 AM
I would add I-90 between Ellensburg, WA and Tomah, WI - where it rejoins I-94, except the segment around Spokane; i.e. between Ritzville, WA and Coeur d'Alene (CDA), ID.
Aside from the Spokane-CDA area, I-90 from the Cascades to Wisconsin is a long stretch of virtually no cities aside from rather smallish places like Missoula, Billings, Rapid City, and Sioux City.
Once you clear Snoqualmie Pass and the I-82 junction at Ellensburg while heading East the traffic drops off considerably until Ritzville where 395 joins 90 along with more heavy the local Spokane-CDA traffic. But once you pass Coeur d' Alene, the traffic again drops off considerably and stays low until it rejoins 94 at Tomah.
There are a few areas where a third truck lane might be justified in the Idaho Panhandle or in Western Montana because of steep grades (i.e Lookout Pass, Homestake Pass, etc) but that would about be it and even this is debatable since the volume of trucks on this corridor is less than on other East-West interstates like 80 or 40.
iPad
Between Missoula, MT and Coeur d'Alene, ID on I-90 is my absolute favorite stretch of rural interstate, particularly around Wallace, ID. I could see retiring there in 20 years or so, assuming I live that long. If you can't drive it, you should Google Street View that area of I-90.
Quote from: MikieTimT on January 05, 2019, 11:43:37 AM
Quote from: stwoodbury on January 05, 2019, 11:11:14 AM
I would add I-90 between Ellensburg, WA and Tomah, WI - where it rejoins I-94, except the segment around Spokane; i.e. between Ritzville, WA and Coeur d'Alene (CDA), ID.
Aside from the Spokane-CDA area, I-90 from the Cascades to Wisconsin is a long stretch of virtually no cities aside from rather smallish places like Missoula, Billings, Rapid City, and Sioux City.
Once you clear Snoqualmie Pass and the I-82 junction at Ellensburg while heading East the traffic drops off considerably until Ritzville where 395 joins 90 along with more heavy the local Spokane-CDA traffic. But once you pass Coeur d' Alene, the traffic again drops off considerably and stays low until it rejoins 94 at Tomah.
There are a few areas where a third truck lane might be justified in the Idaho Panhandle or in Western Montana because of steep grades (i.e Lookout Pass, Homestake Pass, etc) but that would about be it and even this is debatable since the volume of trucks on this corridor is less than on other East-West interstates like 80 or 40.
iPad
Between Missoula, MT and Coeur d'Alene, ID on I-90 is my absolute favorite stretch of rural interstate, particularly around Wallace, ID. I could see retiring there in 20 years or so, assuming I live that long. If you can't drive it, you should Google Street View that area of I-90.
Never been there or seen it before, but it looks real nice on Street View. I would love a daily commute like that, nice and peaceful, and scenic views.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 11:28:27 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2019, 09:14:21 AM
It's not a true "freeway" even though West Virginia calls it one, but the first road that came to mind when I saw the subject line is Corridor H.
IMHO, West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky should build these new "Corridors" to interstate standards, or at least build the ramps at certain interchanges to meet standards. I see a lot of narrow ramps on these new roads. At-grade intersections work until the point all of these relocations of roads are all connected (whenever that happens) and actually create a major thru-traffic route, in which being set up as an interstate-grade road is very beneficial.
US 340, our local divided highway between Charles Town and Harpers Ferry, is also called a "freeway" despite the numerous traffic lights along that stretch.
iPad
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 11:49:30 AM
Quote from: MikieTimT on January 05, 2019, 11:43:37 AM
Quote from: stwoodbury on January 05, 2019, 11:11:14 AM
I would add I-90 between Ellensburg, WA and Tomah, WI - where it rejoins I-94, except the segment around Spokane; i.e. between Ritzville, WA and Coeur d'Alene (CDA), ID.
Aside from the Spokane-CDA area, I-90 from the Cascades to Wisconsin is a long stretch of virtually no cities aside from rather smallish places like Missoula, Billings, Rapid City, and Sioux City.
Once you clear Snoqualmie Pass and the I-82 junction at Ellensburg while heading East the traffic drops off considerably until Ritzville where 395 joins 90 along with more heavy the local Spokane-CDA traffic. But once you pass Coeur d' Alene, the traffic again drops off considerably and stays low until it rejoins 94 at Tomah.
There are a few areas where a third truck lane might be justified in the Idaho Panhandle or in Western Montana because of steep grades (i.e Lookout Pass, Homestake Pass, etc) but that would about be it and even this is debatable since the volume of trucks on this corridor is less than on other East-West interstates like 80 or 40.
iPad
Between Missoula, MT and Coeur d'Alene, ID on I-90 is my absolute favorite stretch of rural interstate, particularly around Wallace, ID. I could see retiring there in 20 years or so, assuming I live that long. If you can't drive it, you should Google Street View that area of I-90.
Never been there or seen it before, but it looks real nice on Street View. I would love a daily commute like that, nice and peaceful, and scenic views.
I was just in Spokane and North Idaho for Christmas and loved driving along I-90, US 95, and ID/MT 200 because of the relatively polite driving and low traffic volumes compared to where I currently live on the Western fringe of the DC area.
iPad
Quote from: stwoodbury on January 05, 2019, 11:11:14 AM
I would add I-90 between Ellensburg, WA and Tomah, WI - where it rejoins I-94, except the segment around Spokane; i.e. between Ritzville, WA and Coeur d'Alene (CDA), ID.
Aside from the Spokane-CDA area, I-90 from the Cascades to Wisconsin is a long stretch of virtually no cities aside from rather smallish places like Missoula, Billings, Rapid City, and Sioux City.
I wouldn't go with 'never' for I-90 around Sioux Falls - Google shows that city having a growing population.
Quote from: Revive 755 on January 05, 2019, 12:04:13 PM
Quote from: stwoodbury on January 05, 2019, 11:11:14 AM
I would add I-90 between Ellensburg, WA and Tomah, WI - where it rejoins I-94, except the segment around Spokane; i.e. between Ritzville, WA and Coeur d'Alene (CDA), ID.
Aside from the Spokane-CDA area, I-90 from the Cascades to Wisconsin is a long stretch of virtually no cities aside from rather smallish places like Missoula, Billings, Rapid City, and Sioux City.
I wouldn't go with 'never' for I-90 around Sioux Falls - Google shows that city having a growing population.
I agree.That along with Billings and Missoula generate substantial local traffic for a few miles at least and have the potential to grow in the future.
I meant to say Sioux Falls as opposed to Sioux City, by the way, which is not on 90.
iPhone
Quote from: stwoodbury on January 05, 2019, 11:53:09 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 11:28:27 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2019, 09:14:21 AM
It's not a true "freeway" even though West Virginia calls it one, but the first road that came to mind when I saw the subject line is Corridor H.
IMHO, West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky should build these new "Corridors" to interstate standards, or at least build the ramps at certain interchanges to meet standards. I see a lot of narrow ramps on these new roads. At-grade intersections work until the point all of these relocations of roads are all connected (whenever that happens) and actually create a major thru-traffic route, in which being set up as an interstate-grade road is very beneficial.
US 340, our local divided highway between Charles Town and Harpers Ferry, is also called a "freeway" despite the numerous traffic lights along that stretch.
Odd. It has limited-access, in regards to there's no private driveways on it, but not freeway standards. Maryland's portion is definitely a freeway though.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 11:24:00 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 09:40:17 AM
I thought the 16,000 AADT was for the whole route [895]. I see that VDOT's AADT book shows the 7,700 figure between Laburnum Avenue and I-295. I question that as on the highway it looks like it would be closer to the figure for west of Laburnum Avenue.
I feel like there's a calculation issue with those numbers. 10,000 AADT entering at Laburnum seems like a stretch, it's not like that area is heavily developed (yet). It most likely is around 10 - 16,000 AADT for the entire stretch, some of the numbers coming from Laburnum, but not 10,000. I feel like it would have more usage though if the tolls weren't $4.30 for 8 miles, little much.
The high toll is a function of the cost to build which included an expensive high-level bridge over the river, and the 92% private funding. Still is a very useful highway, and I use it when going to east of town.
The segment between Laburnum and Airport Drive was not tabulated in those AADT figures. The Airport Drive connection doesn't carry much traffic, but some of it would be to and from there.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 11:24:00 AM
I honestly thought I-64 was lightly traveled from West Virginia all the way to Richmond, but was surprised to learn up to 40,000 AADT use I-64 between I-81 and Richmond. Currently doesn't need widening, though in the long-term it may. Some segments that could work soon - VA-288 to U.S 522, U.S. 15 to U.S. 250 (west of Charlottesville), and Afton Mountain to I-81. Over 40,000 AADT, and Afton Mountain because climbing lanes are needed.
The segment between Charlottesville and Waynesboro, and perhaps to I-81, is getting in 6-lane territory. Other than a few miles east of Charlottesville and a few miles west of VA-288, while I-64 is fairly busy it is nowhere near needing 6 lanes, IMO.
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 12:47:47 PM
The high toll is a function of the cost to build which included an expensive high-level bridge over the river, and the 92% private funding. Still is a very useful highway, and I use it when going to east of town.
The segment between Laburnum and Airport Drive was not tabulated in those AADT figures. The Airport Drive connection doesn't carry much traffic, but some of it would be to and from there.
Agreed it is a good (and needed) connection, but there's likely traffic that shunpikes it via VA-10 (traffic volumes increase to 50,000 AADT exclusively between I-95 and I-295), and if the toll were lowered to a more reasonable rate, more traffic would likely use it, offsetting the lower toll with more traffic. Yes, using it one time isn't a big deal, and I would pay the toll too, but for a daily commuter, that toll one way would hurt. Every other toll in Richmond is under $1.00 and way more reasonable than VA-895, and honestly most other toll roads in Virginia.
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 12:47:47 PM
The segment between Charlottesville and Waynesboro, and perhaps to I-81, is getting in 6-lane territory. Other than a few miles east of Charlottesville and a few miles west of VA-288, while I-64 is fairly busy it is nowhere near needing 6 lanes, IMO.
Agreed, but the most prioritized (even now) would be Afton Mountain, and lack of climbing lanes. That's estimated to cost $51.4 million for 8 miles (that's $6 million per mile, which makes no sense). Last weekend, got stuck behind two trucks, one in the right lane doing 25 MPH, and the left lane doing 30 MPH. The speed limit is 65 MPH.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 12:34:54 PM
Quote from: stwoodbury on January 05, 2019, 11:53:09 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 11:28:27 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2019, 09:14:21 AM
It's not a true "freeway" even though West Virginia calls it one, but the first road that came to mind when I saw the subject line is Corridor H.
IMHO, West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky should build these new "Corridors" to interstate standards, or at least build the ramps at certain interchanges to meet standards. I see a lot of narrow ramps on these new roads. At-grade intersections work until the point all of these relocations of roads are all connected (whenever that happens) and actually create a major thru-traffic route, in which being set up as an interstate-grade road is very beneficial.
US 340, our local divided highway between Charles Town and Harpers Ferry, is also called a "freeway" despite the numerous traffic lights along that stretch.
Odd. It has limited-access, in regards to there's no private driveways on it, but not freeway standards. Maryland's portion is definitely a freeway though.
I've heard of "˜controlled access' highways, two lane or four lane; with limited overpasses and a ramp here and there and with at grade intersections with stop signs, circles, or occasional traffic lights, but no driveways or commercial parking lots, like US 195 between Spokane and Colfax. US 340 in WV is similar to that. After it crosses the Potomac into Maryland just east of Harpers Ferry it becomes a true limited access freeway all the way to I-70 in Frederick. But WV still calls their portion a freeway, the "˜William L. Wilson Freeway.'
iPhone
Quote from: stwoodbury on January 05, 2019, 01:24:26 PM
I've heard of "˜controlled access' highways, two lane or four lane, with limited overpasses and a ramp here and there, and occasional traffic lights, but no driveways or commercial parking lots, like US 195 between Spokane and Colfax. US 340 in WV is similar to that. After it crossed the Potomac into Maryland just east of Harpers Ferry it becomes a true limited access freeway all the way to I-70 in Frederick. But WV still calls it a freeway, the "˜William L. Wilson Freeway.'
Controlled-access and limited-access can be used interchangeably. Some consider "limited-access" to be a freeway, whereas others consider it to be an at-grade road with no private connections. Same goes for controlled-access, it can either be a freeway or at-grade with no private connections. Usually though, it's better to also describe what you are talking about.
I'd get "William L. Wilson Parkway", but freeway is very misleading. Reminds me of the "Fall Line Freeway" in Georgia that runs between Augusta and Columbus, sounds like a nice concept, you'd think a 70 MPH freeway between the two. In reality, it's just a four-lane divided highway that bypasses some towns, goes through others, and while it's 65 MPH in rural areas, it cranks back to 55 MPH in a lot of places, and 45-35 MPH through towns.
I 16 Macon to Savannah
I 10 San Antonio to El Paso
I 20 Ft Worth to I 10 junction
I 90 Rochester, MN to Seattle
I 94 Minneapolis to Billings
Quote from: allniter89 on January 05, 2019, 02:27:30 PM
I 16 Macon to Savannah
Ummm...AADT exceeds 30K on a lot of that, and never falls below 23K with current counts. And nearby metro areas like Atlanta are growing enough that I can easily see six lanes warranted there someday.
Quote from: US 89 on January 05, 2019, 11:19:29 AM
Quote from: stwoodbury on January 05, 2019, 09:20:50 AM
I-15 from Ogden, UT to Alberta.
It's already six lanes from Ogden to Brigham City. I can easily see six lanes being required in the future between Brigham City and the 15/84 split at Tremonton, as well as within Idaho Falls (maybe Pocatello and Great Falls too).
Ogden to Idaho Falls is still a fairly steady flow, but it is mostly four lanes, so maybe "never" would not qualify here. Also 84 seems to be a fairly steady flow all the way to Boise and the PNW coast, which would follow 15 until the 84 split. But north of Idaho Falls, especially where 20 veers off to Rexburg, this highway is almost devoid of traffic all the way to Butte where it briefly joins I-90. I have not driven on 15 past Butte, but I don't imagine that Great Falls or Helena would generate all that much heavy traffic beyond their immediate vicinities. Perhaps long distance traffic between Calgary or Edmonton and SLC, Vegas, or SoCal might amount to something but I didn't notice that south of Butte beyond an occasional cattle truck. Maybe this is different at other times.
Just about any stretch of Interstate; even in lightly populated States like Maine, Vermont, Montana, or Wyoming; will have an occasional city that might eventually require more than four lanes for a few miles, so just about any generalized long stretches (like I-15 north of Ogden or I-90 between Seattle and Minnesota) will have at least a couple exceptions.
iPhone
US-264 (Future I-587) in NC between Zebulon and Greenville.
Quote from: LM117 on January 05, 2019, 04:32:05 PM
US-264 (Future I-587) in NC between Zebulon and Greenville.
I wouldn't say never, it's up there in 20 - 30K AADT range. Not now, but in the future it's a possibility, especially if Greenville continues to grow larger.
Every current rural freeway. The decision to widen a freeway is always a value judgment and never a need
It's more of an expressway, so I'll put it down as an honourable mention: WA-3 between Aberdeen and the 101. It's great that it's divided and four-laned, but six lanes would be a ways off, if it was ever required. There's just so little growth in that stretch. Aberdeen's population has been steady for thirty years, and none of the other cities in the area have grown either. Not sure about the traffic counts between the 101 and I-5; WA-3's main purpose is to connect those two routes to avoid a detour around the Olympic Peninsula. Unless the 101 is getting busier, WA-3's traffic will remain steady.
It's not legally a freeway according to WSDOT maps, but there are a few stray signs that indicate otherwise: http://bit.ly/2CQOt0x.
In addition to I-64 west of I-81, another rural stretch of interstate in Virginia I'd like to nominate is I-85 south of US-460. Nothing over 25,000 AADT until you get close to Petersburg. Nothing much in terms of population or growth in between the Raleigh-Durham and Richmond metro areas either.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 01:15:07 PM
Agreed it is a good (and needed) connection, but there's likely traffic that shunpikes it via VA-10 (traffic volumes increase to 50,000 AADT exclusively between I-95 and I-295), and if the toll were lowered to a more reasonable rate, more traffic would likely use it, offsetting the lower toll with more traffic. Yes, using it one time isn't a big deal, and I would pay the toll too, but for a daily commuter, that toll one way would hurt. Every other toll in Richmond is under $1.00 and way more reasonable than VA-895, and honestly most other toll roads in Virginia.
If built as I-895 toll-free with the 90% FHWA Interstate 4R funding as was planned in the 1980s, it would undoubtedly carry about 30,000 AADT across the river and about 20,000 east of Laburnum. Maybe 5,000 more. But after it was funded under PPTA that federal funding was used elsewhere in the state (I think most went to the HOV extension projects on I-95 Springfield-Dumfries).
Unless 1) the state heavily subsidizes the debt service, or 2) puts all Richmond area toll roads into one pooled system, the toll will remain high.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 01:15:07 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 12:47:47 PM
The segment between Charlottesville and Waynesboro, and perhaps to I-81, is getting in 6-lane territory. Other than a few miles east of Charlottesville and a few miles west of VA-288, while I-64 is fairly busy it is nowhere near needing 6 lanes, IMO.
Agreed, but the most prioritized (even now) would be Afton Mountain, and lack of climbing lanes. That's estimated to cost $51.4 million for 8 miles (that's $6 million per mile, which makes no sense). Last weekend, got stuck behind two trucks, one in the right lane doing 25 MPH, and the left lane doing 30 MPH. The speed limit is 65 MPH.
It worked well enough for the first 25 years or so, when volumes were much lighter, and when trucks were limited to 72,000 pounds GVW. Now it needs more lanes.
Is there a project in the SYIP for that?
Quote from: US 89 on January 05, 2019, 03:16:14 PM
Quote from: allniter89 on January 05, 2019, 02:27:30 PM
I 16 Macon to Savannah
Ummm...AADT exceeds 30K on a lot of that, and never falls below 23K with current counts. And nearby metro areas like Atlanta are growing enough that I can easily see six lanes warranted there someday.
Yep. It's not needed right now, but I would definitely not say never.
In fact, I don't believe there is a single rural freeway in Georgia that fits this category (excluding one-off bypasses).
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 06:39:02 PM
Unless 1) the state heavily subsidizes the debt service, or 2) puts all Richmond area toll roads into one pooled system, the toll will remain high.
Balancing a lower toll with more traffic can work out to provide still sufficient revenue and offer driver's a cheaper rate, attracting more. There's a point in the middle where it begins to not work.
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 06:39:02 PM
It worked well enough for the first 25 years or so, when volumes were much lighter, and when trucks were limited to 72,000 pounds GVW. Now it needs more lanes.
Is there a project in the SYIP for that?
I don't believe so, the cost estimate (which I'd say closer to $200-250 million, not $51.4 million) came from the Virginia Statewide
Multimodal Freight Study back in 2010.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 07:38:59 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 06:39:02 PM
Unless 1) the state heavily subsidizes the debt service, or 2) puts all Richmond area toll roads into one pooled system, the toll will remain high.
Balancing a lower toll with more traffic can work out to provide still sufficient revenue and offer driver's a cheaper rate, attracting more. There's a point in the middle where it begins to not work.
They would have taken that into consideration in the studies. If say a $2 toll would have led to double the traffic they could have considered that.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 07:38:59 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 06:39:02 PM
It worked well enough for the first 25 years or so, when volumes were much lighter, and when trucks were limited to 72,000 pounds GVW. Now it needs more lanes.
Is there a project in the SYIP for that?
I don't believe so, the cost estimate (which I'd say closer to $200-250 million, not $51.4 million) came from the Virginia Statewide Multimodal Freight Study back in 2010.
$6 or 7 million a mile might have been possible 9 years ago. That particular study would not constitute an engineering estimate, though.
Quote from: corco on January 05, 2019, 05:11:05 PM
Every current rural freeway. The decision to widen a freeway is always a value judgment and never a need.
I'm trying to imagine I-95 between Philly and Baltimore with only four lanes. Certainly more of a need than a value judgment, if you ask me.
Quote from: allniter89 on January 05, 2019, 02:27:30 PM
I 94 Minneapolis to Billings
I-94 between St. Cloud and the Twin Cities is an eventuality, if not even further west than there.
I-10 between I-20 and Kerrville in TX. I'm just surprised that the corridor wasn't originally routed from Midland to San Antonio via San Angelo and Brady, which feature considerably greater population than along the present route, Ft. Stockton excepted.
Interstate 74 from St. Joseph, Illinois to Brownsburg, Indiana. I could see widening I-74 from Mahomet to St. Joseph in Champaign County, Illinois being necessary in a couple of decades, and I-74 from Brownsburg to the western I-74/I-465 junction in Indiana may need widening sooner than that.
I-84 between Portland and Ontario; Mountain Home (most likely Boise) and Tremonton.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 06, 2019, 12:44:29 AM
Quote from: allniter89 on January 05, 2019, 02:27:30 PM
I 94 Minneapolis to Billings
I-94 between St. Cloud and the Twin Cities is an eventuality, if not even further west than there.
Up to Clearwater is being actively planned now (with an interesting rationale behind it (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6510.msg2366475#msg2366475)). Long-range, you could make a case up to St. Augusta or perhaps MN 15. Up in Moorhead, it will depend how much (and how fast) Moorhead develops away from the river as to whether they extend 6 lanes out to Exit 6 (MN 336). West of I-29 may eventually get 6 lanes for a couple exits, but there isn't a need beyond West Fargo.
Quote from: corco on January 05, 2019, 05:11:05 PM
Every current rural freeway. The decision to widen a freeway is always a value judgment and never a need
Strongly disagree. When rural parts of I-70 in Missouri can't get above 40 mph or are even stopped (EB at the climb out of the Loutre River Valley has this frequently) due to the amount of vehicles, it's a need.
Quote from: Aaron Camp on January 06, 2019, 03:13:07 AM
Interstate 74 from St. Joseph, Illinois to Brownsburg, Indiana. I could see widening I-74 from Mahomet to St. Joseph in Champaign County, Illinois being necessary in a couple of decades, and I-74 from Brownsburg to the western I-74/I-465 junction in Indiana may need widening sooner than that.
I wouldn't go with 'never' for St. Joesph to Brownsburg, but 'very unlikely'. There could be a few future scenarios which would result in widening at least parts of this stretch:
1) Danville makes a significant turnaround and starts growing again.
2) Crawfordsville grows significantly.
3) I-74 starts picking up more traffic either bypassing I-70 (via I-72) or I-80.
4) Indiana builds a four lane connector to Lafayette, so more traffic starts using I-74 as an extension of the IN 25/US 24 corridor or to bypass part of I-65.
Quote from: Bickendan on January 06, 2019, 04:27:08 AM
I-84 between Portland and Ontario; Mountain Home (most likely Boise) and Tremonton.
It could be needed eventually to The Dalles for tourism, but I highly doubt it would ever happen.
I-82 south of tri-cities, and north of Yakima
I-182 Mp 0-3
US 395 Tri-Cities to Ritzville
I-90 George to Ritzville, Idaho and Cor D Alan's (can't spell it right) to Sioux Falls, with some exceptions (US 93 to MT 200, Billings to Laramie)
I-86 (Idaho)
OR 22 from exit 7-14 (current AADT is 15,000 or less and holding steady)
LG-TP260
Quote from: webny99 on January 05, 2019, 08:11:04 PM
Quote from: corco on January 05, 2019, 05:11:05 PM
Every current rural freeway. The decision to widen a freeway is always a value judgment and never a need.
I'm trying to imagine I-95 between Philly and Baltimore with only four lanes. Certainly more of a need than a value judgment, if you ask me.
I'm trying to imagine every single freeway in the U.S. shrinking to four lanes after it leaves an urban area. There's many stretches with up to 8-lanes for miles through rural areas, and there's good reason for that.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 07, 2019, 07:02:35 AM
Quote from: webny99 on January 05, 2019, 08:11:04 PM
Quote from: corco on January 05, 2019, 05:11:05 PM
Every current rural freeway. The decision to widen a freeway is always a value judgment and never a need.
I'm trying to imagine I-95 between Philly and Baltimore with only four lanes. Certainly more of a need than a value judgment, if you ask me.
I'm trying to imagine every single freeway in the U.S. shrinking to four lanes after it leaves an urban area. There's many stretches with up to 8-lanes for miles through rural areas, and there's good reason for that.
The I-95 Maryland and Delaware turnpikes were opened with 4 lanes in 1963. They were widened to 6 lanes by 1972 because of growing traffic congestion.
* Perhaps Interstate 25 in Wyoming between Cheyenne and I-90, save maybe for Casper. While, as noted upthread, most interstate mileage in Wyoming could qualify for this thread, this stretch of I-25 may be the most likely, since - while relatively low-traveled in this area - I-80 and I-90 are both cross-country routes carrying some coast-to-coast traffic.
Quote from: Eth on January 05, 2019, 07:30:15 PM
Quote from: US 89 on January 05, 2019, 03:16:14 PM
Quote from: allniter89 on January 05, 2019, 02:27:30 PM
I 16 Macon to Savannah
Ummm...AADT exceeds 30K on a lot of that, and never falls below 23K with current counts. And nearby metro areas like Atlanta are growing enough that I can easily see six lanes warranted there someday.
Yep. It's not needed right now, but I would definitely not say never.
In fact, I don't believe there is a single rural freeway in Georgia that fits this category (excluding one-off bypasses).
I agree. Interstate 16 is vital for many trucks going from the Savannah port to Atlanta and elsewhere. Especially since the Atlanta Metro Area is growing so monstrously fast, I suspect that the question is not if I-16 will be widened, but rather when it will be widened (thinking in the long-term). It is probably very tricky to submit some interstates in the Sun Belt to this thread (particularly in the South and on the West Coast), due to the rapid influx of population, industry, and more to the region that has been evident since halfway through the 20th Century, and is only continuing to occur. As a result, I agree that there is probably not a single mile of interstate in the state of Georgia that could be submitted to this thread, when thinking in the long-term.
Quote from: corco on January 05, 2019, 05:11:05 PM
Every current rural freeway. The decision to widen a freeway is always a value judgment and never a need
That's just not accurate. An interstate traversing rural territory does not necessarily mandate that it is impossible for it to still have the traffic counts to desperately necessitate it being more than 4 lanes. There are many rural interstates that absolutely need to be (and many are) more than 4 lanes, especially when having a lot of long-distance traffic (including trucks).
For example, all of Interstate 75 in south Georgia (i.e. south of Macon to the Florida Line) has thankfully been widened to a minimum of six lanes. It goes through the rural (save a couple of decent-sized cities such as Valdosta) farmland and coastal plains of southern Georgia. But it still has
tons of traffic, and the road couldn't bare to be 4 lanes any longer.
While being out of the proximity of a large city or metro area definitely makes it significantly more likely for a road to have low traffic counts, it does not mean that it still can't have high traffic counts in some cases. There are numerous stretches of rural freeway across the country that are in much need of widening to more than 4 lanes. While sometimes widening proposals for rural freeways are a value judgment, very many cases showcase a very legitimate need.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 07, 2019, 06:09:26 PM
Quote from: corco on January 05, 2019, 05:11:05 PM
Every current rural freeway. The decision to widen a freeway is always a value judgment and never a need
That's just not accurate.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 07, 2019, 07:02:35 AM
Quote from: webny99 on January 05, 2019, 08:11:04 PM
Quote from: corco on January 05, 2019, 05:11:05 PM
Every current rural freeway. The decision to widen a freeway is always a value judgment and never a need.
I'm trying to imagine I-95 between Philly and Baltimore with only four lanes. Certainly more of a need than a value judgment, if you ask me.
I'm trying to imagine every single freeway in the U.S. shrinking to four lanes after it leaves an urban area. There's many stretches with up to 8-lanes for miles through rural areas, and there's good reason for that.
I think you guys might be over-reading his comment. He's saying that widening is a value judgement, which virtually all widening jobs are. Agencies evaluate the economic and safety benefits to widening a road; as long as the math works out, the road gets widened. For every widened stretch of rural interstate, this math has worked out.
The difference between "value" and "need" is, to many, semantics, since there would seem to be value proposition if there was also a need. But if an agency found there to be no economic benefit to widening a road (too expensive relative to benefits), just because it was busy (and giving the appearance of necessity) doesn't necessarily make widening good value.
I-87 (the real one) north of Northway Exit 23. It's the least-traveled extended section of freeway in New York. None of it tops 20,000 and there is a section in Essex County (30-31) with an AADT around 6K.
I-88 (eastern) is another candidate. Other than climbing lanes in a few places, none of that will ever need more than 4 lanes. Most of that has an AADT under 20,000 with the Oneonta-Cobleskill section being under 10,000.
I'm inclined to say I-81 north of I-781, too. 781 has a higher AADT than the northern bit of 81 (which bottoms out under 5K on Wellesley Island). However, this MAY change if a US 11 bypass is ever built and said bypass ties into 81.
OP mentioned I-95 north of Bangor and I agree wholeheartedly. When I did that stretch NB on a summer morning, I saw NO other NB cars (or animals). It was "set cruise to 78 and watch for moose".
The only other stretch I have been on with traffic nearly that low (but NOT that low) was the aforementioned I-70 between US 89 and US 6 (across the San Rafael Swell), although climbing lanes would have been nice in a couple places due to people who don't know how to accelerate on hills. I-70 east of US 6 I might be able to see an eventual 6-lane on if UDOT ever gets their head out of their ass and widens the US 6 corridor.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 07, 2019, 06:27:01 PM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 07, 2019, 06:09:26 PM
Quote from: corco on January 05, 2019, 05:11:05 PM
Every current rural freeway. The decision to widen a freeway is always a value judgment and never a need
That's just not accurate.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 07, 2019, 07:02:35 AM
Quote from: webny99 on January 05, 2019, 08:11:04 PM
Quote from: corco on January 05, 2019, 05:11:05 PM
Every current rural freeway. The decision to widen a freeway is always a value judgment and never a need.
I'm trying to imagine I-95 between Philly and Baltimore with only four lanes. Certainly more of a need than a value judgment, if you ask me.
I'm trying to imagine every single freeway in the U.S. shrinking to four lanes after it leaves an urban area. There's many stretches with up to 8-lanes for miles through rural areas, and there's good reason for that.
I think you guys might be over-reading his comment. He's saying that widening is a value judgement, which virtually all widening jobs are. Agencies evaluate the economic and safety benefits to widening a road; as long as the math works out, the road gets widened. For every widened stretch of rural interstate, this math has worked out.
The difference between "value" and "need" is, to many, semantics, since there would seem to be value proposition if there was also a need. But if an agency found there to be no economic benefit to widening a road (too expensive relative to benefits), just because it was busy (and giving the appearance of necessity) doesn't necessarily make widening good value.
What other criteria are there, besides "busy" and variants thereof?
IMO, to the extent "need" and "value judgment" have different meanings, "need" is more applicable in most, if not all, cases of widening.
Quote from: webny99 on January 07, 2019, 08:23:35 PM
What other criteria are there, besides "busy" and variants thereof?
IMO, to the extent "need" and "value judgment" have different meanings, "need" is more applicable in most, if not all, cases of widening.
It's mostly a cost-to-benefit ratio exercise. This is more often a problem in urban areas where ROW and/or reconstruction can be too expensive relative to the economic benefit of an extra lane, or in rural areas that are geographically challenging to build through (increasing the cost). Adding lanes is not always a simple "add asphalt" exercise. It's entirely possible that in curvy areas, an additional outside lane would be too sharp, necessitating an entire rebuild of the freeway. With that knowledge, the responsible agency may be waiting for a certain "tipping point" where they're a bit happier to dump money into the road.
For example, if an agency wanted to add an auxiliary lane between two exits, it would be much easier and cheaper to do so if the two exits were on a relatively flat and straight alignment with one another. But if the entire carriageway needed rebuilding to add the lane (due to a curve or hill, or something else), it's unlikely the agency would hop to it until it was
really necessary.
This is a problem in the Seattle area, where our freeways run in very tight ROW's with some rather tight corners. Modifying freeways is a very expensive process, and thanks to that, WSDOT's "tipping point" for adding lanes is much higher than other regions. As a result, you see the state and local councils pushing alternative modes of transport to reduce the need for widening.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 08, 2019, 12:15:33 AM
Quote from: webny99 on January 07, 2019, 08:23:35 PM
What other criteria are there, besides "busy" and variants thereof?
IMO, to the extent "need" and "value judgment" have different meanings, "need" is more applicable in most, if not all, cases of widening.
It's mostly a cost-to-benefit ratio exercise. This is more often a problem in urban areas where ROW and/or reconstruction can be too expensive relative to the economic benefit of an extra lane, or in rural areas that are geographically challenging to build through (increasing the cost). Adding lanes is not always a simple "add asphalt" exercise. It's entirely possible that in curvy areas, an additional outside lane would be too sharp, necessitating an entire rebuild of the freeway. With that knowledge, the responsible agency may be waiting for a certain "tipping point" where they're a bit happier to dump money into the road.
For example, if an agency wanted to add an auxiliary lane between two exits, it would be much easier and cheaper to do so if the two exits were on a relatively flat and straight alignment with one another. But if the entire carriageway needed rebuilding to add the lane (due to a curve or hill, or something else), it's unlikely the agency would hop to it until it was really necessary.
Yeah, I actually agree with all of that. I just think such is mostly applicable in urban and suburban areas, where ROW is likely to be limited, freeways may have a lot of pre-existing curvature, and so forth.
Aside from mountain passes or areas with otherwise extreme terrain, I would expect the tipping point to be
lower - a lot lower - relative to average in rural areas. That is part of the reason I specific rural in my original thread; most rural widenings are not totally fictional/theoretical like a downtown freeway widening would be. Congestion is to be expected in or near large cities. When you start getting recurring slowdowns and traffic moving below speed in exurban and rural areas, though, it really isn't even a question of whether a widening should occur.
Quote from: webny99 on January 08, 2019, 08:24:06 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 08, 2019, 12:15:33 AM
For example, if an agency wanted to add an auxiliary lane between two exits, it would be much easier and cheaper to do so if the two exits were on a relatively flat and straight alignment with one another. But if the entire carriageway needed rebuilding to add the lane (due to a curve or hill, or something else), it's unlikely the agency would hop to it until it was really necessary.
Yeah, I actually agree with all of that. I just think such is mostly applicable in urban and suburban areas, where ROW is likely to be limited, freeways may have a lot of pre-existing curvature, and so forth.
Many of the original Interstate highways were built with open grass medians that are wide enough so that at least one lane and shoulder each way can be added without rebuilding the rest of the roadways.
^ That's generally the case, but depending on topography you still may need additional right-of-way even with an open median for retention basins to handle the additional runoff.
Quote from: webny99 on January 08, 2019, 08:24:06 AM
Aside from mountain passes or areas with otherwise extreme terrain, I would expect the tipping point to be lower - a lot lower - relative to average in rural areas. That is part of the reason I specific rural in my original thread; most rural widenings are not totally fictional/theoretical like a downtown freeway widening would be. Congestion is to be expected in or near large cities. When you start getting recurring slowdowns and traffic moving below speed in exurban and rural areas, though, it really isn't even a question of whether a widening should occur.
Makes sense to me. To be clear, in rural areas, the value of an added lane would be much higher since it's generally much cheaper to add it. But if, say, 12 cars use a particular stretch each day, obviously the state would never see an economic benefit from six-laning that stretch. Even if widening were cheap, there'd be very little value in it. It still all boils down to "value" but the factors within that value measurement are generally both less numerous and less restrictive in rural areas. Minus places like mountain passes, where tunnels and bridges (plus tight corners) are more common.
Quote from: froggie on January 08, 2019, 11:31:25 AM
^ That's generally the case, but depending on topography you still may need additional right-of-way even with an open median for retention basins to handle the additional runoff.
True, but it is not like the postulated massive expansion that inspired my comments.
US-31 north of North Muskegon
US-131 north of Cedar Springs
I-75 north of Standish
Any unbuilt portion of I-14 :bigass:
How about I-75 in Alligator Alley?
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 09, 2019, 09:11:18 PM
How about I-75 in Alligator Alley?
There's actually a surprising amount of traffic considering that the area it passes though has practically no development, and Florida is a growing state. Whether it's even
possible to widen it considering it goes through the Everglades is another matter.
Quote from: vdeane on January 09, 2019, 09:17:00 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 09, 2019, 09:11:18 PM
How about I-75 in Alligator Alley?
There's actually a surprising amount of traffic considering that the area it passes though has practically no development, and Florida is a growing state. Whether it's even possible to widen it considering it goes through the Everglades is another matter.
It's probably possible. The right of way and median are pretty wide all the way through and it's already four lanes but with how many people live in Miami and on the west side of the state it might make sense to widen it.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 13, 2019, 02:00:58 AM
Quote from: vdeane on January 09, 2019, 09:17:00 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 09, 2019, 09:11:18 PM
How about I-75 in Alligator Alley?
There's actually a surprising amount of traffic considering that the area it passes though has practically no development, and Florida is a growing state. Whether it's even possible to widen it considering it goes through the Everglades is another matter.
It's probably possible. The right of way and median are pretty wide all the way through and it's already four lanes but with how many people live in Miami and on the west side of the state it might make sense to widen it.
The most rural section carries about 24,000 AADT per 2017 FDOT traffic data. That is plenty busy, although other than maybe a couple weekends per year would not meet 6-lane warrants.
The median is about 70 feet wide so there is ample space for 2 more lanes.
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 08:17:51 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 13, 2019, 02:00:58 AM
Quote from: vdeane on January 09, 2019, 09:17:00 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 09, 2019, 09:11:18 PM
How about I-75 in Alligator Alley?
There's actually a surprising amount of traffic considering that the area it passes though has practically no development, and Florida is a growing state. Whether it's even possible to widen it considering it goes through the Everglades is another matter.
It's probably possible. The right of way and median are pretty wide all the way through and it's already four lanes but with how many people live in Miami and on the west side of the state it might make sense to widen it.
The most rural section carries about 24,000 AADT per 2017 FDOT traffic data. That is plenty busy, although other than maybe a couple weekends per year would not meet 6-lane warrants.
The median is about 70 feet wide so there is ample space for 2 more lanes.
That is very interesting, and I will admit that was a little surprising (though not too much) to hear.
The Everglades is an extremely desolate and environmentally-sensitive area, but I-75's traffic counts (including that predicted of the future) speak to the massive development on both sides of the Everglades - the very extensive Miami Metro Area to the east, and the rapidly growing population center of southwest Florida. I suspect both sides will only continue to grow at monstrous proportions, so I now could definitely see why I-75 being widened through the Everglades could indeed be warranted in the future.
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 08:17:51 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 13, 2019, 02:00:58 AM
Quote from: vdeane on January 09, 2019, 09:17:00 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 09, 2019, 09:11:18 PM
How about I-75 in Alligator Alley?
There's actually a surprising amount of traffic considering that the area it passes though has practically no development, and Florida is a growing state. Whether it's even possible to widen it considering it goes through the Everglades is another matter.
It's probably possible. The right of way and median are pretty wide all the way through and it's already four lanes but with how many people live in Miami and on the west side of the state it might make sense to widen it.
The most rural section carries about 24,000 AADT per 2017 FDOT traffic data. That is plenty busy, although other than maybe a couple weekends per year would not meet 6-lane warrants.
The median is about 70 feet wide so there is ample space for 2 more lanes.
The median through the Everglades is consistently 88 feet wide, so you could get away with adding a 12 ft lane + shoulder in each direction, and be left with 64 feet median, FDOT's "standard" on interstate highways / freeways.
I could see it happening in the next 20 years.
Quote from: ftballfan on January 08, 2019, 01:52:46 PM
US-31 north of North Muskegon
US-131 north of Cedar Springs
I-75 north of Standish
I'd adjust accordingly:
US-31 - Definitely north of Montague and Whitehall, it'll be a LONG time before 6-laning will be necessary. South of there, it ramps up considerably - I wouldn't rule out a need for 6-laning before 2070, particularly with weekend traffic and if the US-31 freeway linking Muskegon to Holland ever becomes a thing.
US-131 - I'd say the "Never" breakoff point would be Big Rapids. It's over 20,000 vpd now south of Morely, and 26,000 vpd south of Howard City. Just south of Cannonsville Rd, it's knocking on 30,000 vpd. Big Rapids is ~ 50 miles away from downtown GR, which puts you at about a 45 minute commute from Big Rapids (in ideal conditions). That's long but not unreasonable.
I-75 - Standish is about right. I could see 6-laning possible in 50 years south of there, but north of there you lose the vast majority of the traffic bound for the NE Lower Peninsula via US-23 or M-65, with the rest of it exiting at M-33 and West Branch. You get a bump in traffic with the M-55 multiplex, but it drops precipitously after that. You might see an occasional 3rd lane for climbing pop up in places north of Grayling (south to the US-127 split is already 6-laned).
For Michigan's "Never 6-lane" list, I'll add:
US-10 west of M-30 near Midland), aside from the existing 6-lane multiplex with US-127. In fact, I'd wager that M-20 becomes a 6-lane freeway west of M-30 before US-10 does. The only thing that might change that is if MDOT decides to 4-lane M-115 to Cadillac, which would pull Traverse City-bound traffic off I-75.
US-127 north of the US-10 split is definitely in the "Never 6-lane" camp - that is one lonely road north of Harrison. Considerable stretches of (2-lane) US-2 in the U.P. carries more traffic.
In Wisconsin:
US-12 - the freeway section in Walworth County between Genoa City and Elkhorn is pretty safe from 6-laning, at least until or unless Hwy 50 east of Lake Geneva or US-12 in Illinois are built out more.
In general, though, Wisconsin wasn't in the habit of turning lightly-trafficked stretches into freeway.
In Ohio:
SR-11 between I-90 (Ashtabula) and Cortland (near Warren and Youngstown) is pretty safe from 6-laning, unless something radically changes in the economy of that entire area (don't hold your breath).
SR-2 west of Sandusky won't grow in traffic significantly until and unless Ohio 4-lanes SR-2 to Oregon. There's little initiative to expand SR-2 when the Ohio Turnpike was recently 6-laned.
The US-20 Fremont and Norwalk bypasses certainly are in the "Never" camp.
Quote from: JREwing78 on January 13, 2019, 03:41:33 PM
Quote from: ftballfan on January 08, 2019, 01:52:46 PM
US-31 north of North Muskegon
US-131 north of Cedar Springs
I-75 north of Standish
I'd adjust accordingly:
US-31 - Definitely north of Montague and Whitehall, it'll be a LONG time before 6-laning will be necessary. South of there, it ramps up considerably - I wouldn't rule out a need for 6-laning before 2070, particularly with weekend traffic and if the US-31 freeway linking Muskegon to Holland ever becomes a thing.
US-131 - I'd say the "Never" breakoff point would be Big Rapids. It's over 20,000 vpd now south of Morely, and 26,000 vpd south of Howard City. Just south of Cannonsville Rd, it's knocking on 30,000 vpd. Big Rapids is ~ 50 miles away from downtown GR, which puts you at about a 45 minute commute from Big Rapids (in ideal conditions). That's long but not unreasonable.
I-75 - Standish is about right. I could see 6-laning possible in 50 years south of there, but north of there you lose the vast majority of the traffic bound for the NE Lower Peninsula via US-23 or M-65, with the rest of it exiting at M-33 and West Branch. You get a bump in traffic with the M-55 multiplex, but it drops precipitously after that. You might see an occasional 3rd lane for climbing pop up in places north of Grayling (south to the US-127 split is already 6-laned).
I always said that I-75 should be six lanes until the northern terminus of US-127. There isn't a need north of there but I would say between MM 164 where it switches between eight lanes and four lanes (the M-13 connector takes and gives one of the two lanes that I-75 loses and gains right there and the other lane just ends or starts there, depending on which direction you are traveling) and MM 188 where US-23 splits off near Standish should be six lanes and then north of that four lanes probably makes the most sense. I've used US-127's northern terminus because I know that's a major point where traffic volumes pickup and drop off, as is M-33 and US-23.
For US-131 I'd go with the northern split with M-46 and run it six lanes all the way to GR and four lanes north of Howard City.
I-75 in the U.P. will never need more than four lanes and the Mackinac Bridge has a daily VPD of around 12,000.
The lowest VPD I can find on I-75 anywhere is around 4,400 VPD between MM 359 and MM 377 in Michigan.
I-75 in Michigan starting at MM 162 (the eastern terminus of US-10) and going north sees the following traffic counts per day.
*South of the US-10/M-25 interchange I-75 has a VPD count of around 48,000.
*North of the US-10/M-25 interchange to MM 164 it drops down to around 32,000 and then around 29,000 north of MM 164.
*After MM 168 (Beaver Road) it drops down to around 18,000 which is kind of surprising because Beaver Road isn't a major exit it only has a Mobil gas station. It does lead to the Bay City State Park but anyone heading north will use M-13 to Beaver Road to get there.
*It drops as low as 15,000 before the US-23 split near Standish and then goes back up to around 19,000 north of that so I don't think that's a real big drop off point as it gains more traffic going north.
*After M-33 at MM 202 it goes down to about 14,000 and then drops off to around 8,700 north of the northern M-55 split going towards Houghton Lake. So I think found the drop off point however it does go back up to around 15,000 or so near US-127's northern terminus.
*It maintains about 15,000 or in that general area until the Mackinac Bridge and has very low traffic counts in the U.P. with about 7,900 being the highest in the Sault Ste. Marie area.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 13, 2019, 03:30:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 08:17:51 AM
The most rural section carries about 24,000 AADT per 2017 FDOT traffic data. That is plenty busy, although other than maybe a couple weekends per year would not meet 6-lane warrants.
The median is about 70 feet wide so there is ample space for 2 more lanes.
The median through the Everglades is consistently 88 feet wide, so you could get away with adding a 12 ft lane + shoulder in each direction, and be left with 64 feet median, FDOT's "standard" on interstate highways / freeways.
I could see it happening in the next 20 years.
My figure was an estimate from looking at Google aerials, just a quick estimate. Either figure provides plenty of space for 2 lanes and 2 full shoulders.
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 06:30:38 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 13, 2019, 03:30:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 08:17:51 AM
The most rural section carries about 24,000 AADT per 2017 FDOT traffic data. That is plenty busy, although other than maybe a couple weekends per year would not meet 6-lane warrants.
The median is about 70 feet wide so there is ample space for 2 more lanes.
The median through the Everglades is consistently 88 feet wide, so you could get away with adding a 12 ft lane + shoulder in each direction, and be left with 64 feet median, FDOT's "standard" on interstate highways / freeways.
I could see it happening in the next 20 years.
My figure was an estimate from looking at Google aerials, just a quick estimate. Either figure provides plenty of space for 2 lanes and 2 full shoulders.
That's how I did it as well. I couldn't remember and it's been years since I've been on that stretch of I-75.
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 06:30:38 PM
My figure was an estimate from looking at Google aerials, just a quick estimate. Either figure provides plenty of space for 2 lanes and 2 full shoulders.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 13, 2019, 07:31:31 PM
That's how I did it as well. I couldn't remember and it's been years since I've been on that stretch of I-75.
For future reference, you can right click and measure if you're on Google Maps. That's what I did.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 13, 2019, 08:05:02 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2019, 06:30:38 PM
My figure was an estimate from looking at Google aerials, just a quick estimate. Either figure provides plenty of space for 2 lanes and 2 full shoulders.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 13, 2019, 07:31:31 PM
That's how I did it as well. I couldn't remember and it's been years since I've been on that stretch of I-75.
For future reference, you can right click and measure if you're on Google Maps. That's what I did.
I use that feature on Google Maps too.
I've driven across the Everglades on I-75 fairly regularly in the past few years. It'd be relatively easy to use the median to widen it, and it's far more likely using the median would pass environmental muster than adding a lane on the outside (plus the latter might involve moving a lot of fencing if the berm had to be expanded).
I wouldn't be surprised at all if they do widen it at some point in the next ten years. Traffic isn't horrendous, but at the same time there's enough of it to make passing a hassle, and as noted before the growth of Naples and Fort Myers is only going to make traffic increase.
Quote from: webny99 on January 05, 2019, 08:32:39 AM
Quote from: signalman on January 05, 2019, 07:26:04 AM
Granted, there will probably be less examples of this and most are pretty obvious, but let's give it a shot.
Actually, I would think in terms of total mileage, there would be more examples for this thread. At least, it's easier to paint with a broader brush (by submitting entire states, etc.). Of course, saying "never" as opposed to "not now" helps trim it down some.
My first submission: I-29, I-90, and I-94 through the Dakotas.
That's... actually not entirely true. The stretch of I-90 from Spearfish to Rapid will eventually be upgraded, I-29 is already 6 lanes in Sioux Falls, and I-90 probably will be upgraded around Sioux Falls as well. The latest repave of I-90 (between Piedmont and Tilford) widened the median so they could upgrade to 6 lanes should the need arise.
Quote from: SD MapmanThat's... actually not entirely true. The stretch of I-90 from Spearfish to Rapid will eventually be upgraded, I-29 is already 6 lanes in Sioux Falls, and I-90 probably will be upgraded around Sioux Falls as well. The latest repave of I-90 (between Piedmont and Tilford) widened the median so they could upgrade to 6 lanes should the need arise.
Rebuilt between Spearfish and Rapid, probably, but not widened. Very little of the corridor sees more than 20K vpd, with some segments as low as 10K. Even within the Piedmont to Tilford segment you mentioned, traffic would have to more than double before you could start justifying 6 lanes.
I also don't see it happening for a long while (if ever) in Sioux Falls. I-90 in Sioux Falls has less than half the traffic that 29 and 229 do. And most of Sioux Falls' growth appears to be to the south, not the north. Unless/until that changes, there will be zero need to widen I-90.
I could eventually see the 6 lanes on I-29 extended south another exit or two. That's area that's largely rural right now, but is also in the zone of Sioux Falls' growth.
Interstate 43 between Elkhorn and Mukwonago, WI.