Rural Freeways That Need Six Lanes

[mgk920]

These so called "iconic" cities - San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Seattle, New York, Boston, Washington, could also be labeled as too expensive.   If no one doing the service work - retail, restaurants, convenience stores, etc. can afford to live there - it does not bode well for the place.

Ditto police, fire and other emergency services, public works, etc.  I consider this to be a fatal flaw in the entire concept of zoning for land use control.

Mike

[froggie]

^ It's not just zoning (which can technically be changed, and often is).  NIMBYs have become a big factor as well.

[Beltway]

These so called "iconic" cities - San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Seattle, New York, Boston, Washington, could also be labeled as too expensive.   If no one doing the service work - retail, restaurants, convenience stores, etc. can afford to live there - it does not bode well for the place.   

Chicago and Philadelphia might feel 'slighted' by being omitted from the list of "iconic" cities!   

[thspfc]

These so called "iconic" cities - San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Seattle, New York, Boston, Washington, could also be labeled as too expensive.   If no one doing the service work - retail, restaurants, convenience stores, etc. can afford to live there - it does not bode well for the place.   

Chicago and Philadelphia might feel 'slighted' by being omitted from the list of "iconic" cities!   

That wasn't the point of the post.

[SectorZ]

These so called "iconic" cities - San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Seattle, New York, Boston, Washington, could also be labeled as too expensive.   If no one doing the service work - retail, restaurants, convenience stores, etc. can afford to live there - it does not bode well for the place.

Ditto police, fire and other emergency services, public works, etc.  I consider this to be a fatal flaw in the entire concept of zoning for land use control.

Mike

Especially when cities like Boston force their municipal employees to live in the city of Boston.

[sprjus4]

Don't know if this was mentioned yet, but the New Jersey Turnpike could use 6-lanes down to the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Or even better - continue the 3-3-3-3 roadway all the way down.

[mrsman]

Don't know if this was mentioned yet, but the New Jersey Turnpike could use 6-lanes down to the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Or even better - continue the 3-3-3-3 roadway all the way down.

6 lanes yes. 8 lanes OK, even as 2-2-2-2.  12 lanes no.

A good portion of the NJTP traffic is now exiting to follow I-95. If 6 lanes of NB NJTP had to merge with 3 lanes of I-95 NB into 6 lanes of I-95/NJTP, we'd have problems.

There would also be problems on the southern end.  I-295 has to merge into NJTP and then there are only 4 lanes in each direction on the Delaware Memorial Bridge.

The way I see it, if two highways merge in, and the merged highway is not adjustable, the maximum that each of the two highways can be is one lane more (each) that what is available on the merge.

That was hard to understand, here's an example:

Del Mem Bridge is 4 lanes southbound.  Assume this won't be widened.  (The lanes of NJTP-1) + (the lanes of 295 - 1) <= (lanes of the bridge).

So a 4 lane NJTP SB with a 2 lane 295 SB would work.  A 3 lane NJTP SB and a 3 lane 295 SB would also work.  (A total of 6 lanes SB).  This means that on both the NJTP and 295, one lane each would end around the merge point before entering the bridge.  If any of the roadways were wider, going SB, it would create too much merging delay at this point.

So the total lanes SB must be 6 or less to avoid cramming the bridge.  Since we are dealing with both NJTP and 295 and 295 can't be less than 2 lanes, NJTP can only be a maximum of 4 SB lanes.

[mgk920]

^ It's not just zoning (which can technically be changed, and often is).  NIMBYs have become a big factor as well.

IMHO, the NIMBY effect plays a big part in this growing failure of zoning.

Mike

[Road Hog]

These so called "iconic" cities - San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Seattle, New York, Boston, Washington, could also be labeled as too expensive.   If no one doing the service work - retail, restaurants, convenience stores, etc. can afford to live there - it does not bode well for the place.

You said Seattle twice.

[thspfc]

These so called "iconic" cities - San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Seattle, New York, Boston, Washington, could also be labeled as too expensive.   If no one doing the service work - retail, restaurants, convenience stores, etc. can afford to live there - it does not bode well for the place.

You said Seattle twice.

[webny99]

^ The only thing less necessary than what you were responding to, was your response. 

Don't know if this was mentioned yet, but the New Jersey Turnpike could use 6-lanes down to the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Or even better - continue the 3-3-3-3 roadway all the way down.

6 lanes yes. 8 lanes OK, even as 2-2-2-2.  12 lanes no.

Totally agree. In addition to the argument you laid out regarding the Del Mem Bridge being a constraint, also keep in mind that I-295 serves a lot of the local traffic south of NJTP Exit 6 (which happens to be where the 3-3-3-3 setup ends - certainly not mere coincidence!).

When you consider I-295 as part of the same corridor as the NJTP, having 6 lanes on I-295 and 6 on the Turnpike, essentially does the same thing as having 12 lanes in a 3-3-3-3 setup. The way the traffic is split up (local on I-295/long distance on NJTP vs trucks on outer roadway/cars on inner roadway) is different, but the same traffic volumes can be handled either way. Going up to 12 lanes on the Turnpike would be like going to 18 lanes total, which is just completely unnecessary. With the Philly traffic having already exited the Turnpike and not rejoining until south of Wilmington, the traffic volumes needed to justify more than six lanes just aren't there.

[tolbs17]

Don't know if this was mentioned yet, but the New Jersey Turnpike could use 6-lanes down to the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Or even better - continue the 3-3-3-3 roadway all the way down.

6 lanes yes. 8 lanes OK, even as 2-2-2-2.  12 lanes no.

A good portion of the NJTP traffic is now exiting to follow I-95. If 6 lanes of NB NJTP had to merge with 3 lanes of I-95 NB into 6 lanes of I-95/NJTP, we'd have problems.

There would also be problems on the southern end.  I-295 has to merge into NJTP and then there are only 4 lanes in each direction on the Delaware Memorial Bridge.

The way I see it, if two highways merge in, and the merged highway is not adjustable, the maximum that each of the two highways can be is one lane more (each) that what is available on the merge.

That was hard to understand, here's an example:

Del Mem Bridge is 4 lanes southbound.  Assume this won't be widened.  (The lanes of NJTP-1) + (the lanes of 295 - 1) <= (lanes of the bridge).

So a 4 lane NJTP SB with a 2 lane 295 SB would work.  A 3 lane NJTP SB and a 3 lane 295 SB would also work.  (A total of 6 lanes SB).  This means that on both the NJTP and 295, one lane each would end around the merge point before entering the bridge.  If any of the roadways were wider, going SB, it would create too much merging delay at this point.

So the total lanes SB must be 6 or less to avoid cramming the bridge.  Since we are dealing with both NJTP and 295 and 295 can't be less than 2 lanes, NJTP can only be a maximum of 4 SB lanes.

I say just keep doing 6 lanes. Traffic capacity there isn't that high and it's not a problem really. 2-2-2-2 would be nice but 3-3-3-3, no.

[Beltway]

So the total lanes SB must be 6 or less to avoid cramming the bridge.  Since we are dealing with both NJTP and 295 and 295 can't be less than 2 lanes, NJTP can only be a maximum of 4 SB lanes.

I say just keep doing 6 lanes. Traffic capacity there isn't that high and it's not a problem really. 2-2-2-2 would be nice but 3-3-3-3, no.

It doesn't need more than 6 lanes (3 each way).

[tolbs17]

So the total lanes SB must be 6 or less to avoid cramming the bridge.  Since we are dealing with both NJTP and 295 and 295 can't be less than 2 lanes, NJTP can only be a maximum of 4 SB lanes.

I say just keep doing 6 lanes. Traffic capacity there isn't that high and it's not a problem really. 2-2-2-2 would be nice but 3-3-3-3, no.

It doesn't need more than 6 lanes (3 each way).

Agree with you. 6 lanes is good enough. Widen it again in the future when there's more traffic.

[webny99]

Could we get a full list of all six-laning projects currently in progress?
-Alabama: I-20/59 near Tuscaloosa
-Ohio: I-75 south of Exit 157, portions of I-80/90 near Toledo
-Wisconsin: I-90/39 from the Illinois line to Madison

[webny99]

Six-Laning of Rural Freeways, Execution, Where Needed; State Rankings:

Above Average:
Ohio
Kentucky
Georgia
Florida
Texas
Colorado

Average:
Minnesota
Illinois
Wisconsin
Michigan
Alabama
North Carolina

Below Average:
New York
Pennsylvania
Indiana
Virginia
Tennessee
South Carolina

Unknown:
Massachusetts
Connecticut
New Jersey
Maryland
West Virginia
Mississippi
Louisiana
Arkansas
Missouri
Iowa
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma
New Mexico
Arizona
Nevada
Utah
Idaho
Washington
Oregon
California

Not Needed/Sufficient:
Maine
Vermont
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Delaware
North Dakota
South Dakota
Wyoming
Montana

[froggie]

^ Please define "above/below average".

[Beltway]

Could we get a full list of all six-laning projects currently in progress?

Virginia has 62 miles under construction (and 389 miles completed in the past).  About 60 miles of I-81 should be under construction within the next 2 years.

Route   Limit                         Limit     Description                               Compl.   Miles   Comment
64   Mallory Street in Hampton   I-564     4 lanes widened to 6 and 8   2025   9   HRBT Expansion
64   I-264/I-664 Bowers Hill   East of I-464   4 lanes widened to 6   2022   9   High-Rise Br.
64   West of VA-199 Exit 234   West of VA-199 Exit 242   4 lanes widened to 6   2021   8   Segment 3
66   US-29 at Gainesville   I-495 Beltway   8 lanes widened to 10   2021   22
95   VA-3 at Fredericksburg   N. of US-17 at Falmouth   6 lanes widened to 3-3-3-2   2023   4
95   US-17 at Falmouth   VA-610 at Garrisonville   6 lanes widened to 3-2-3   2022   10

Excel format here --
http://www.capital-beltway.com/VA-Freeway-Widening-Projects.xlsm

[sprjus4]

Route   Limit                         Limit     Description                               Compl.   Miles   Comment
64   Mallory Street in Hampton   I-564     4 lanes widened to 6 and 8   2025   9   HRBT Expansion
64   I-264/I-664 Bowers Hill   East of I-464   4 lanes widened to 6   2022   9   High-Rise Br.
64   West of VA-199 Exit 234   West of VA-199 Exit 242   4 lanes widened to 6   2021   8   Segment 3
66   US-29 at Gainesville   I-495 Beltway   8 lanes widened to 10   2021   22
95   VA-3 at Fredericksburg   N. of US-17 at Falmouth   6 lanes widened to 3-3-3-2   2023   4
95   US-17 at Falmouth   VA-610 at Garrisonville   6 lanes widened to 3-2-3   2022   10

Excel format here --
http://www.capital-beltway.com/VA-Freeway-Widening-Projects.xlsm

Important to note that the bolded projects (66% of them) are only adding HO/T lane (tolled) capacity, no general purpose capacity.

[Beltway]

Route   Limit                         Limit     Description                               Compl.   Miles   Comment
64   Mallory Street in Hampton   I-564     4 lanes widened to 6 and 8   2025   9   HRBT Expansion
64   I-264/I-664 Bowers Hill   East of I-464   4 lanes widened to 6   2022   9   High-Rise Br.
64   West of VA-199 Exit 234   West of VA-199 Exit 242   4 lanes widened to 6   2021   8   Segment 3
66   US-29 at Gainesville   I-495 Beltway   8 lanes widened to 10   2021   22
95   VA-3 at Fredericksburg   N. of US-17 at Falmouth   6 lanes widened to 3-3-3-2   2023   4
95   US-17 at Falmouth   VA-610 at Garrisonville   6 lanes widened to 3-2-3   2022   10

Important to note that the bolded projects (66% of them) are only adding HO/T lane (tolled) capacity, no general purpose capacity.

Important to who?   It is a large increase in peak direction capacity on I-95, and in both directions on the others.

They are Interstate widening projects.

Just because you are cheap about using tollroads doesn't mean that other people are.

[sprjus4]

Important to who?   It is a large increase in peak direction capacity on I-95, and in both directions on the others.

Well those daily 5+ mile backups really show the increase of capacity...

Just because you are cheap about using tollroads doesn't mean that other people are.

Trust me, a lot of people are and a lot avoid toll roads at all costs. That is evident around here with Dominion Blvd, the Chesapeake Expressway, and the tunnels.

[Revive 755]

Could we get a full list of all six-laning projects currently in progress?
-Alabama: I-20/59 near Tuscaloosa
-Ohio: I-75 south of Exit 157, portions of I-80/90 near Toledo
-Wisconsin: I-90/39 from the Illinois line to Madison

Illinois:  I-57 has a five mile stretch being widened near Johnston City.
Indiana:  Part of I-65 near Seymour

[Beltway]

Important to who?   It is a large increase in peak direction capacity on I-95, and in both directions on the others.

Well those daily 5+ mile backups really show the increase of capacity...

All you do is complain. 

Note that I-95 has had 141 miles of widening completed and 14 miles under construction.  The auxiliary route I-495 has had 39 miles of widening completed (and that means that parts have been widened more than once), and my table didn't track the Springfield Interchange Project as one of the widening projects. 

Before you complain that "most were a long time ago" be advised that those lanes are still doing their handiwork today and going forward!

Just because you are cheap about using tollroads doesn't mean that other people are.

Trust me, a lot of people are and a lot avoid toll roads at all costs. That is evident around here with Dominion Blvd, the Chesapeake Expressway, and the tunnels.

Time to call you out on your attitude about tolls.  Based on your various trip descriptions and roads you have seen, you probably drive at least 20,000 miles per year, maybe 25,000 or more.  Even a good used car costs at least $15,000 nowadays.  Even an entry level technician job pays at least $30,000 yearly (or about $15/hr) nowadays.

Most everybody likes to economize where they can, but frankly IMO you need to loosen up some about using tollroads.  With E-ZPass it simply becomes part of a monthly bill that is part of the cost of driving.

These are my last 4 trips to the MD Eastern Shore and IMO it was well worth the convenience, not a lot of congestion on the GP but there were some spots, and when I exited I did not feel shortchanged.
7/8/2019 9:13:02 AM    95 NB EXPRESS LANES   -13.65  Monday
7/8/2019 8:58:08 PM      95 SB EXPRESS LANES    -6.90
8/1/2019 9:51 am        95 NB Express Lanes         -9.30  Thursday
8/1/2019 9:13 pm        95 SB Express Lanes         -8.20
8/20/2019 9:41:29 AM  95 NB EXPRESS LANES    -12.75  Tuesday
8/20/2019 8:58:16 PM  95 SB EXPRESS LANES    -10.65
8/31/2019 7:30    AM        95 General Purpose NB      0.00  Saturday
8/31/2019 6:30 PM       95 General Purpose SB           0.00

Don't be cheap.

[sprjus4]

Note that I-95 has had 141 miles of widening completed and 14 miles under construction.  The auxiliary route I-495 has had 39 miles of widening completed (and that means that parts have been widened more than once), and my table didn't track the Springfield Interchange Project as one of the widening projects.

Just out of curiosity, how much of that has been general purpose expansion, and how much has been HO/T capacity?

I'm not against HO/T lanes, I've said that before, it's just the fact that there needs to be a mix of HO/T lanes and general purpose expansion, and as of lately, it's been merely HO/T lanes, and nothing but HO/T lanes.

HO/T lanes add capacity and can be considered widening projects, but I prefer to distinguish HO/T capacity addition from general purpose addition, hence why I made my previous post. It's not the same as a general purpose widening, and doesn't add the full amount of capacity as a general purpose widening would to the overall highway. Sure, the toll lanes fly at highway speeds, but the general purpose lanes still crawl, and only increase speeds -slightly-. A general purpose expansion on the other hand doesn't offer the toll incentive to fly at highway speeds, but overall the traffic flow is moving faster. That's why I feel it's important to distinguish those two types of capacity expansions and not to interchange (pun intended) them.

Time to call you out on your attitude about tolls.  Based on your various trip descriptions and roads you have seen, you probably drive at least 20,000 miles per year, maybe 25,000 or more.  Even a good used car costs at least $15,000 nowadays.  Even an entry level technician job pays at least $30,000 yearly (or about $15/hr) nowadays.

Most everybody likes to economize where they can, but frankly IMO you need to loosen up some about using tollroads.  With E-ZPass it simply becomes part of a monthly bill that is part of the cost of driving.

These are my last 4 trips to the MD Eastern Shore and IMO it was well worth the convenience, not a lot of congestion on the GP but there were some spots, and when I exited I did not feel shortchanged.
7/8/2019 9:13:02 AM    95 NB EXPRESS LANES   -13.65  Monday
7/8/2019 8:58:08 PM      95 SB EXPRESS LANES    -6.90
8/1/2019 9:51 am        95 NB Express Lanes         -9.30  Thursday
8/1/2019 9:13 pm        95 SB Express Lanes         -8.20
8/20/2019 9:41:29 AM  95 NB EXPRESS LANES    -12.75  Tuesday
8/20/2019 8:58:16 PM  95 SB EXPRESS LANES    -10.65
8/31/2019 7:30    AM        95 General Purpose NB      0.00  Saturday
8/31/2019 6:30 PM       95 General Purpose SB           0.00

Don't be cheap.

I'm not against paying most tolls, especially if it's a reasonable price. For example, I used the TX-130 toll road to bypass Austin when traveling on I-35 between Dallas and San Antonio this past summer on a Friday during afternoon peak. ~$19 for 90 miles of 80-85 mph toll road via toll-by-plate. To me, that was worth it. There was some congestion on the toll road, but it was always moving at least 40 mph and it was only a small section, and that section that has congestion issues is currently under construction to add a third lane in each direction. Comparing that to my other trips through Austin on the free I-35 at peak hours where it's mostly a standstill for miles and miles on end, it was definitely worth it, and I would definitely do it again.

More locally, if they had built the ~50 mile US-460 toll road, I would have gladly paid the ~$4-6 toll that was proposed to bypass the mess on I-64 on every trip. If they built an outer DC toll road ~80-90 miles long with a ~$15-20 toll, I'd gladly use it for that price.

What I'm against is the price gauging techniques used during peak hours (usually at least $20, a lot of times $30 one-way tolls for the entire trip, only about ~30 miles.) the time I mostly used I-95 (I used to use I-95 multiple times per month, though as of lately I haven't been traveling up that way regularly). For me, I'd rather sit in traffic than pay that amount, as I'm not really in a hurry to get anywhere.

[hotdogPi]

What I'm against is the price gouging techniques used during peak hours (usually at least $20, a lot of times $30 one-way tolls for the entire trip, only about ~30 miles.) the time I mostly used I-95 (I used to use I-95 multiple times per month, though as of lately I haven't been traveling up that way regularly). For me, I'd rather sit in traffic than pay that amount, as I'm not really in a hurry to get anywhere.

The price seems ridiculous, but if the tolls were lower, the toll lanes would be just as congested as the main lanes.