Indiana Notes

[sprjus4]

I-95 between Richmond and Fredericksburg is on the verge of needing 8 lanes during peak periods, it definitely needs 8 lanes north of there to DC... I couldn't imagine if that stretch of I-95 was still only 2 lanes in each direction. It would be a nightmare, far worse than it is now.

I often complain about "only" having 6 lanes... but I guess it's good it's at least that!

I-64 between Richmond and Williamsburg sits at 4 lanes... it's a nightmare during peak periods and always packed (though moving at least 55-65 mph when off peak - always caught behind platoons that insist at maintaining below the 70 mph speed limit in both lanes with wide swaths of nothing in front of them) regardless of when you travel it... VDOT plans to expand the highway to 6 lanes but the only thing preventing that ~30 mile segment from beginning construction is funding.

[silverback1065]

"preserving the ruralness" means " I don't want you to build this highway"

[Avalanchez71]

Once you add another lane you get more traffic.  More traffic means you will want more lanes.  Holding the line works.

I've used this example before, and I'll use it again.

I drove I-95 between Florida and North Carolina during a peak weekend during this past spring. Traffic was heavy on the 6 lane Georgia and Florida portions, but was moving at least 70 mph, and often times 75-85 mph. Very dense, but fast. Come into the 3rd lane drop and into 4 lane South Carolina, that dense traffic was moving between 45-60 mph, and often stop and go.

But sure, rural widening "doesn't work".

And this isn't even complaining about truck traffic. My closest equivalent personally experiencing with would be I-81. There are areas that are 6 lanes but it's mostly 4 lanes throughout. In the 4 lane areas, there's countless times with trucks micropassing for miles on end with no escape. Stuck at 62-65 mph for miles on end. Then when one does move over, you open up to 80 mph, then stuck behind the next platoon. On the 6 lane sections, this is happening all the time in the right two lanes, but the third lane is wide open and allows easy passing while trucks can do their games without interrupting car traffic. Amazing how it works.

80 85 MPH in VA is reckless driving, FYI.  They can take you straight to a magistrate as well.

[jmacswimmer]

Once you add another lane you get more traffic.  More traffic means you will want more lanes.  Holding the line works.

I've used this example before, and I'll use it again.

I drove I-95 between Florida and North Carolina during a peak weekend during this past spring. Traffic was heavy on the 6 lane Georgia and Florida portions, but was moving at least 70 mph, and often times 75-85 mph. Very dense, but fast. Come into the 3rd lane drop and into 4 lane South Carolina, that dense traffic was moving between 45-60 mph, and often stop and go.

But sure, rural widening "doesn't work".

And this isn't even complaining about truck traffic. My closest equivalent personally experiencing with would be I-81. There are areas that are 6 lanes but it's mostly 4 lanes throughout. In the 4 lane areas, there's countless times with trucks micropassing for miles on end with no escape. Stuck at 62-65 mph for miles on end. Then when one does move over, you open up to 80 mph, then stuck behind the next platoon. On the 6 lane sections, this is happening all the time in the right two lanes, but the third lane is wide open and allows easy passing while trucks can do their games without interrupting car traffic. Amazing how it works.

80 MPH in VA is reckless driving, FYI.  They can take you straight to a magistrate as well.

Not anymore

[Avalanchez71]

Once you add another lane you get more traffic.  More traffic means you will want more lanes.  Holding the line works.

I've used this example before, and I'll use it again.

I drove I-95 between Florida and North Carolina during a peak weekend during this past spring. Traffic was heavy on the 6 lane Georgia and Florida portions, but was moving at least 70 mph, and often times 75-85 mph. Very dense, but fast. Come into the 3rd lane drop and into 4 lane South Carolina, that dense traffic was moving between 45-60 mph, and often stop and go.

But sure, rural widening "doesn't work".

And this isn't even complaining about truck traffic. My closest equivalent personally experiencing with would be I-81. There are areas that are 6 lanes but it's mostly 4 lanes throughout. In the 4 lane areas, there's countless times with trucks micropassing for miles on end with no escape. Stuck at 62-65 mph for miles on end. Then when one does move over, you open up to 80 mph, then stuck behind the next platoon. On the 6 lane sections, this is happening all the time in the right two lanes, but the third lane is wide open and allows easy passing while trucks can do their games without interrupting car traffic. Amazing how it works.

80 MPH in VA is reckless driving, FYI.  They can take you straight to a magistrate as well.

Not anymore

Thank you for the update.  I should have checked first prior to posting for an update on the law.  I know that for years they were trying to change it but the VSP lobby had a vice grip on that law.

[JoePCool14]

"preserving the ruralness" means " I don't want you to build this highway"

In most cases, yeah, it probably does. But that does bring up the way rural interstates get six-laned. Sometimes they are built with tall concrete medians which can destroy the rural feel of the highway, and understandably, this isn't really always desirable.

This discussion has been had on other threads, but where possible, driving on six-laned rural Interstates should still feel rural, not urban.

Also, we're heading back to Chicago again today on I-65, so we'll see how that goes.

[Avalanchez71]

"preserving the ruralness" means " I don't want you to build this highway"

In most cases, yeah, it probably does. But that does bring up the way rural interstates get six-laned. Sometimes they are built with tall concrete medians which can destroy the rural feel of the highway, and understandably, this isn't really always desirable.

This discussion has been had on other threads, but where possible, driving on six-laned rural Interstates should still feel rural, not urban.

Also, we're heading back to Chicago again today on I-65, so we'll see how that goes.

I just take US 41 in lieu of I-65.

[sprjus4]

"preserving the ruralness" means " I don't want you to build this highway"

In most cases, yeah, it probably does. But that does bring up the way rural interstates get six-laned. Sometimes they are built with tall concrete medians which can destroy the rural feel of the highway, and understandably, this isn't really always desirable.

This discussion has been had on other threads, but where possible, driving on six-laned rural Interstates should still feel rural, not urban.

Also, we're heading back to Chicago again today on I-65, so we'll see how that goes.

I just take US 41 in lieu of I-65.

And then claim I-65 doesn't need widening. Maybe if you're constantly taking alternative routes to avoid the interstate traffic, it says something about the interstate.

[sprjus4]

Once you add another lane you get more traffic.  More traffic means you will want more lanes.  Holding the line works.

I've used this example before, and I'll use it again.

I drove I-95 between Florida and North Carolina during a peak weekend during this past spring. Traffic was heavy on the 6 lane Georgia and Florida portions, but was moving at least 70 mph, and often times 75-85 mph. Very dense, but fast. Come into the 3rd lane drop and into 4 lane South Carolina, that dense traffic was moving between 45-60 mph, and often stop and go.

But sure, rural widening "doesn't work".

And this isn't even complaining about truck traffic. My closest equivalent personally experiencing with would be I-81. There are areas that are 6 lanes but it's mostly 4 lanes throughout. In the 4 lane areas, there's countless times with trucks micropassing for miles on end with no escape. Stuck at 62-65 mph for miles on end. Then when one does move over, you open up to 80 mph, then stuck behind the next platoon. On the 6 lane sections, this is happening all the time in the right two lanes, but the third lane is wide open and allows easy passing while trucks can do their games without interrupting car traffic. Amazing how it works.

80 85 MPH in VA is reckless driving, FYI.  They can take you straight to a magistrate as well.

And your point is? I've driven 90 mph before 

It's funny how you constantly dodge the information being passed in the post that would hurt any of your arguments, then cherry pick other information to get on about. You claim to have been a politician before - but won't indicate specifically what - and honestly, given this behavior, I'd believe it.

[NWI_Irish96]

Once you add another lane you get more traffic.  More traffic means you will want more lanes.  Holding the line works.

Going from 2-3 lanes means you get a lane that trucks are not allowed to be in. That is a huge difference regardless of whether or not traffic increases.

The lack of a response to this statement has been noted and entered into the record as agreed to by all parties.

[sprjus4]

Once you add another lane you get more traffic.  More traffic means you will want more lanes.  Holding the line works.

Going from 2-3 lanes means you get a lane that trucks are not allowed to be in. That is a huge difference regardless of whether or not traffic increases.

The lack of a response to this statement has been noted and entered into the record as agreed to by all parties.

As well as most of the well-rounded arguments that support 6 lane widening. He can only counter scenarios, not real-life examples that have actually proven very successful.

[Avalanchez71]

The interstate system was set up for commerce and defense.  I say let the trucks have the interstate. 

[Avalanchez71]

Once you add another lane you get more traffic.  More traffic means you will want more lanes.  Holding the line works.

Going from 2-3 lanes means you get a lane that trucks are not allowed to be in. That is a huge difference regardless of whether or not traffic increases.

The lack of a response to this statement has been noted and entered into the record as agreed to by all parties.

As well as most of the well-rounded arguments that support 6 lane widening. He can only counter scenarios, not real-life examples that have actually proven very successful.

I-24 was widened from 4 lanes to 8 lanes to Murfreesboro under the auspices of growth.  The lanes were needed to handle the capacity and the traffic flow.  Well guess what people are constantly complaining about the traffic in this corridor.  It is no better now then when it was four lanes.  Now they want more.  More lanes does not equal relief.  These capacity issues will not change until driver behavior changes.  You can't wait to merge until the last second and expect not to affect traffic.

[SkyPesos]

The interstate system was set up for commerce and defense.  I say let the trucks have the interstate.

If we're trying to get as much passenger cars off the interstate as we can, it would be easier to do if the country's passenger rail system is drastically better than it is currently.

[NWI_Irish96]

The interstate system was set up for commerce and defense.  I say let the trucks have the interstate. 

That's fine, if only trucking companies pay for them.

[NWI_Irish96]

Once you add another lane you get more traffic.  More traffic means you will want more lanes.  Holding the line works.

Going from 2-3 lanes means you get a lane that trucks are not allowed to be in. That is a huge difference regardless of whether or not traffic increases.

The lack of a response to this statement has been noted and entered into the record as agreed to by all parties.

As well as most of the well-rounded arguments that support 6 lane widening. He can only counter scenarios, not real-life examples that have actually proven very successful.

I-24 was widened from 4 lanes to 8 lanes to Murfreesboro under the auspices of growth.  The lanes were needed to handle the capacity and the traffic flow.  Well guess what people are constantly complaining about the traffic in this corridor.  It is no better now then when it was four lanes.  Now they want more.  More lanes does not equal relief.  These capacity issues will not change until driver behavior changes.  You can't wait to merge until the last second and expect not to affect traffic.

Per Wikipedia and other sources, Murfeesboro is located in the Nashville Metropolitan Area. As such, it is not rural and not relevant to the discussion of adding lanes to rural freeways.

[sprjus4]

Once you add another lane you get more traffic.  More traffic means you will want more lanes.  Holding the line works.

Going from 2-3 lanes means you get a lane that trucks are not allowed to be in. That is a huge difference regardless of whether or not traffic increases.

The lack of a response to this statement has been noted and entered into the record as agreed to by all parties.

As well as most of the well-rounded arguments that support 6 lane widening. He can only counter scenarios, not real-life examples that have actually proven very successful.

I-24 was widened from 4 lanes to 8 lanes to Murfreesboro under the auspices of growth.  The lanes were needed to handle the capacity and the traffic flow.  Well guess what people are constantly complaining about the traffic in this corridor.  It is no better now then when it was four lanes.  Now they want more.  More lanes does not equal relief.  These capacity issues will not change until driver behavior changes.  You can't wait to merge until the last second and expect not to affect traffic.

Per Wikipedia and other sources, Murfeesboro is located in the Nashville Metropolitan Area. As such, it is not rural and not relevant to the discussion of adding lanes to rural freeways.

In addition, it feeds into the induced demand fallacy. The highway got more congested because of rapid growth adding more vehicles to the highway. The highway would be far worse today if it was only 4 lanes. But they'll claim the added lanes is the only reason congestion increased, not the growth around it.

The interstate system was set up for commerce and defense.  I say let the trucks have the interstate. 

The was only part of the reason. Automobiles had been clogging city streets and rural routes that were substandard. A system of new roads were needed to handle this demand and provide city bypasses / through routes. The interstate highway system today provides just as equally a role for automobiles as it does freight and commerce. Everybody is paying gas taxes to fund these roads and expansions. It's not just the trucks.

Adding third lanes in heavy truck areas (which you're still continuing to ignore the 3rd lane argument for long distance rural corridors like I-95 that carry heavy volumes of traffic - see my Georgia and Florida example you continue to ignore) allows easier passage of trucks and can cut down on road rage, drivers attempting dangerous maneuvers to get in front of trucks, plus rolling backups, sudden slowdowns, etc. It significantly improves safety as well as reliability on the corridor. These are important factors, again, you continue to ignore and disregard. Your arguments are weak minded and don't reflect reality, and it shows every time you post.

[Avalanchez71]

Once you add another lane you get more traffic.  More traffic means you will want more lanes.  Holding the line works.

Going from 2-3 lanes means you get a lane that trucks are not allowed to be in. That is a huge difference regardless of whether or not traffic increases.

The lack of a response to this statement has been noted and entered into the record as agreed to by all parties.

As well as most of the well-rounded arguments that support 6 lane widening. He can only counter scenarios, not real-life examples that have actually proven very successful.

I-24 was widened from 4 lanes to 8 lanes to Murfreesboro under the auspices of growth.  The lanes were needed to handle the capacity and the traffic flow.  Well guess what people are constantly complaining about the traffic in this corridor.  It is no better now then when it was four lanes.  Now they want more.  More lanes does not equal relief.  These capacity issues will not change until driver behavior changes.  You can't wait to merge until the last second and expect not to affect traffic.

Per Wikipedia and other sources, Murfeesboro is located in the Nashville Metropolitan Area. As such, it is not rural and not relevant to the discussion of adding lanes to rural freeways.

In addition, it feeds into the induced demand fallacy. The highway got more congested because of rapid growth adding more vehicles to the highway. The highway would be far worse today if it was only 4 lanes. But they'll claim the added lanes is the only reason congestion increased, not the growth around it.

The interstate system was set up for commerce and defense.  I say let the trucks have the interstate. 

The was only part of the reason. Automobiles had been clogging city streets and rural routes that were substandard. A system of new roads were needed to handle this demand and provide city bypasses / through routes. The interstate highway system today provides just as equally a role for automobiles as it does freight and commerce. Everybody is paying gas taxes to fund these roads and expansions. It's not just the trucks.

Adding third lanes in heavy truck areas (which you're still continuing to ignore the 3rd lane argument for long distance rural corridors like I-95 that carry heavy volumes of traffic - see my Georgia and Florida example you continue to ignore) allows easier passage of trucks and can cut down on road rage, drivers attempting dangerous maneuvers to get in front of trucks, plus rolling backups, sudden slowdowns, etc. It significantly improves safety as well as reliability on the corridor. These are important factors, again, you continue to ignore and disregard. Your arguments are weak minded and don't reflect reality, and it shows every time you post.

The issue is not lane capacity it is driver behavior.  We continue to reward driver behavior with additional capacity and the expense of the tax payer.

[sprjus4]

The issue is not lane capacity it is driver behavior.  We continue to reward driver behavior with additional capacity and the expense of the tax payer.

You ignored just about every piece of the post you quoted.

Having rolling backups of trucks going 60-62 mph in both lanes on a 70-75 mph highway is not acceptable. With high truck volumes, 6 lanes is warranted. Period.

[Avalanchez71]

The issue is not lane capacity it is driver behavior.  We continue to reward driver behavior with additional capacity and the expense of the tax payer.

You ignored just about every piece of the post you quoted.

Having rolling backups of trucks going 60-62 mph in both lanes on a 70-75 mph highway is not acceptable. With high truck volumes, 6 lanes is warranted. Period.

I am speaking of a vehicle that decides to whip between two semis to shave 10 seconds off a commute.  That is the driver behavior that I am speaking of that should not be rewarded.

[NWI_Irish96]

Once you add another lane you get more traffic.  More traffic means you will want more lanes.  Holding the line works.

Going from 2-3 lanes means you get a lane that trucks are not allowed to be in. That is a huge difference regardless of whether or not traffic increases.

The lack of a response to this statement has been noted and entered into the record as agreed to by all parties.

As well as most of the well-rounded arguments that support 6 lane widening. He can only counter scenarios, not real-life examples that have actually proven very successful.

I-24 was widened from 4 lanes to 8 lanes to Murfreesboro under the auspices of growth.  The lanes were needed to handle the capacity and the traffic flow.  Well guess what people are constantly complaining about the traffic in this corridor.  It is no better now then when it was four lanes.  Now they want more.  More lanes does not equal relief.  These capacity issues will not change until driver behavior changes.  You can't wait to merge until the last second and expect not to affect traffic.

Per Wikipedia and other sources, Murfeesboro is located in the Nashville Metropolitan Area. As such, it is not rural and not relevant to the discussion of adding lanes to rural freeways.

In addition, it feeds into the induced demand fallacy. The highway got more congested because of rapid growth adding more vehicles to the highway. The highway would be far worse today if it was only 4 lanes. But they'll claim the added lanes is the only reason congestion increased, not the growth around it.

The interstate system was set up for commerce and defense.  I say let the trucks have the interstate. 

The was only part of the reason. Automobiles had been clogging city streets and rural routes that were substandard. A system of new roads were needed to handle this demand and provide city bypasses / through routes. The interstate highway system today provides just as equally a role for automobiles as it does freight and commerce. Everybody is paying gas taxes to fund these roads and expansions. It's not just the trucks.

Adding third lanes in heavy truck areas (which you're still continuing to ignore the 3rd lane argument for long distance rural corridors like I-95 that carry heavy volumes of traffic - see my Georgia and Florida example you continue to ignore) allows easier passage of trucks and can cut down on road rage, drivers attempting dangerous maneuvers to get in front of trucks, plus rolling backups, sudden slowdowns, etc. It significantly improves safety as well as reliability on the corridor. These are important factors, again, you continue to ignore and disregard. Your arguments are weak minded and don't reflect reality, and it shows every time you post.

The issue is not lane capacity it is driver behavior.  We continue to reward driver behavior with additional capacity and the expense of the tax payer.

You're essentially saying that 99% of the drivers should be forced to suffer longer trips just to spite the 1% who drive dangerously.

[sprjus4]

I am speaking of a vehicle that decides to whip between two semis to shave 10 seconds off a commute.  That is the driver behavior that I am speaking of that should not be rewarded.

I've cut between gaps before (when there's enough space to safely do so) and got ahead of a truck positioned in the left lane to sit there for 20 minutes micropassing another truck going 62.4 mph at 62.5 mph, get ahead one mile, and see a whole bunch of nothingness behind me because everyone got stuck behind those two trucks. It definitely pays off when it can be done, far more than "10 seconds".

Of course, if the infrastructure was properly built up, there would be a third lane and none of this would be an issue.

[ukfan758]

"preserving the ruralness" means " I don't want you to build this highway"

In most cases, yeah, it probably does. But that does bring up the way rural interstates get six-laned. Sometimes they are built with tall concrete medians which can destroy the rural feel of the highway, and understandably, this isn't really always desirable.

This discussion has been had on other threads, but where possible, driving on six-laned rural Interstates should still feel rural, not urban.

Also, we're heading back to Chicago again today on I-65, so we'll see how that goes.

I'll take sacrificing "ruralness"  if it means an out of control semi truck will crash into a tall concrete barrier and stay on their side rather than plow straight through guardrail or cable barrier into oncoming traffic.

[I-55]

"preserving the ruralness" means " I don't want you to build this highway"

In most cases, yeah, it probably does. But that does bring up the way rural interstates get six-laned. Sometimes they are built with tall concrete medians which can destroy the rural feel of the highway, and understandably, this isn't really always desirable.

This discussion has been had on other threads, but where possible, driving on six-laned rural Interstates should still feel rural, not urban.

Also, we're heading back to Chicago again today on I-65, so we'll see how that goes.

I'll take sacrificing "ruralness"  if it means an out of control semi truck will crash into a tall concrete barrier and stay on their side rather than plow straight through guardrail or cable barrier into oncoming traffic.

And if you want "ruralness" there are a plethora of county roads you can take instead.

[SSOWorld]

the 1-laned county roads?