Rural Freeways That Need Six Lanes

[thspfc]

All of I-41 and all of I-94 will soon need to be six lanes in Wisconsin. For I-94, the remaining portions are between Waukesha and Cottage Grove, and between Portage and Minnesota. For I-41, it's between the NW MKE suburbs and Oshkosh, and parts between Appleton and Green Bay that are in process of being widened.

[3467]

For Rick Powell.I asked that about 55 and how 4 lane Illinois 29 moved up so quickly not even an NHS  route to 4 lane and was told huh you know roads around Springfield tend to get built.......Oh and 72. .......

[froggie]

all of I-94 will soon need to be six lanes in Wisconsin.

What are you basing this on?  Elk Mound to Tomah is under the OP's 30,000 AADT criteria (which is low given typical LOS D volumes).  WisDOT's own traffic volume forecasts keep it under 30K from Eau Claire to Tomah through 2030 and still under 30K through most of Jackson and Monroe Counties through 2045.

[webny99]

all of I-94 will soon need to be six lanes in Wisconsin.

What are you basing this on?  Elk Mound to Tomah is under the OP's 30,000 AADT criteria (which is low given typical LOS D volumes).  WisDOT's own traffic volume forecasts keep it under 30K from Eau Claire to Tomah through 2030 and still under 30K through most of Jackson and Monroe Counties through 2045.

Yeah, north/west of Tomah didn't seem to have any traffic issues the few times I've taken that route into the Twin Cities.
I can't speak for Milwaukee > Madison, but I would think it would be a higher priority than Tomah > Elk Mound.

[Joe The Dragon]

all of I-94 will soon need to be six lanes in Wisconsin.

What are you basing this on?  Elk Mound to Tomah is under the OP's 30,000 AADT criteria (which is low given typical LOS D volumes).  WisDOT's own traffic volume forecasts keep it under 30K from Eau Claire to Tomah through 2030 and still under 30K through most of Jackson and Monroe Counties through 2045.

Yeah, north/west of Tomah didn't seem to have any traffic issues the few times I've taken that route into the Twin Cities.
I can't speak for Milwaukee > Madison, but I would think it would be a higher priority than Tomah > Elk Mound.

What about Madison ---> Wisconsin Dells

[webny99]

What about Madison ---> Wisconsin Dells

I believe that is already six lanes, or at least under construction.

[Big John]

What about Madison ---> Wisconsin Dells

I believe that is already six lanes, or at least under construction.

Madison to Portage is 6 lanes.  Portage to Wis. Dells is 4 lanes.

[mgk920]

all of I-94 will soon need to be six lanes in Wisconsin.

What are you basing this on?  Elk Mound to Tomah is under the OP's 30,000 AADT criteria (which is low given typical LOS D volumes).  WisDOT's own traffic volume forecasts keep it under 30K from Eau Claire to Tomah through 2030 and still under 30K through most of Jackson and Monroe Counties through 2045.

Yeah, north/west of Tomah didn't seem to have any traffic issues the few times I've taken that route into the Twin Cities.
I can't speak for Milwaukee > Madison, but I would think it would be a higher priority than Tomah > Elk Mound.

What about Madison ---> Wisconsin Dells

IMHO, the need is eight lanes for the entire I-39/90/94 triplex and six lanes for the I-90/94 duplex between I-39 (Cascade interchange near Portage) and the I-90/94 split at Tomah.

Four lanes is just fine for I-94 between Tomah and WI 29 at Elk Mound.

Mike

[roadfro]

I-15 should be at least six lanes from I-40 to NV 215.

Nevada has done its part. I-15 is three or more lanes from the Primm interchange (CA state line) past I-215/CC-215, clear to Speedway Blvd north of the greater Las Vegas area.

[Avalanchez71]

If folks would just drive the speed limit no one would need to worry about additional lane capacity.  Stay in your lane and quit weaving.  Those are the folks that cause the back ups.

[Plutonic Panda]

If folks would just drive the speed limit no one would need to worry about additional lane capacity.  Stay in your lane and quit weaving.  Those are the folks that cause the back ups.

if folks would drive faster and better it would increase the capacity. Cars moving at 100 MPH through a lane will allow that lane to push through more cars than ones going 70MPH.

What causes backups is people traveling slower than the speed of traffic which impedes it. Myself, I get frustrated with some dick in the passing lane creeping which I'll often end up weaving. You'll get a whole group of cars who will follow each other doing that though when that happens with me I'll often back off as I no longer will race in traffic.

[webny99]

If folks would just drive the speed limit no one would need to worry about additional lane capacity.  Stay in your lane and quit weaving.  Those are the folks that cause the back ups.

Um, people don't usually weave just for fun. They weave because somebody's moving slowly on the left and they want to get past. If slower traffic kept to the right, there would never be a need for anyone to weave.

[froggie]

If folks would just drive the speed limit no one would need to worry about additional lane capacity.  Stay in your lane and quit weaving.  Those are the folks that cause the back ups.

if folks would drive faster and better it would increase the capacity. Cars moving at 100 MPH through a lane will allow that lane to push through more cars than ones going 70MPH.

The reality is a bit more nuanced.  As a general rule, as travel speeds increase, the average distance drivers put between them and the vehicle in front of them also increases, so you wind up with slightly less throughput as a result.

[X99]

I'm actually kind of surprised that this hasn't been added yet (yes, I went through all ten pages first).

Interstate 90 in South Dakota, between mileposts 29 and 65, Sturgis to Box Elder. I don't know if it's been officially proposed, but a bunch of different sources said they wanted it.
Their main reason for this is for the motorcycle rally.
My main reason is that it's kinda dumb that two local roads are wider than the local interstate. (Omaha Street (SD 44) and West Main Street both have six-lane sections.)

[Flint1979]

If folks would just drive the speed limit no one would need to worry about additional lane capacity.  Stay in your lane and quit weaving.  Those are the folks that cause the back ups.

Um, people don't usually weave just for fun. They weave because somebody's moving slowly on the left and they want to get past. If slower traffic kept to the right, there would never be a need for anyone to weave.

This exactly and I see it all the time driving in Michigan, it's highly annoying to have to do that. I always wonder what people were thinking when they made the lane change to get in the left lane in the first place.

[D-Dey65]

I-75 maintains at least 6 lanes between Chattanooga, TN and Naples, FL, a distance of 735 miles (with a couple of half-mile 4-lane sections at major junctions, but 6-lanes everywhere else).

FDOT is still working on six-laning the stretch from Exit 301 to the Sumter County Rest Areas, which was supposed to be over in April 2019. The month is almost over and it's still not done partially due to things like storm delays, but I still think they'll be over before the summer.

[Avalanchez71]

Six lanes  in rural areas just kills the rural character of the area.

[Beltway]

Six lanes  in rural areas just kills the rural character of the area.

If so, how does four lanes not kill the rural character of the area?

[AlexandriaVA]

Six lanes  in rural areas just kills the rural character of the area.

If so, how does four lanes not kill the rural character of the area?

It does indeed kill the rural character of the area. It cuts across formerly pristine land, for the majority purpose of bringing people through the region (i.e. transcontinental freight), not to the region. It is analogous to when railroads were laid across the central US, cutting off former cattle grazing land and migration routes.

There are numerous examples of rural interstates having issues with animal migration (e.g. special crossing corridors with fencing, or underpasses) which I think speaks to the fact that they are a negative impact on the rural scene.

I'm not saying get rid of them, but simply acknowledge their negative impacts.

Rural areas need non-expressway routes, in order to improve local commerce. Lord knows that small towns suffer enough these days as it is (particularly in downstate Virginia).

[Rothman]

That certainly is a unique idea that rural areas need more non-expressway routes to improve local commerce.

From what I've seen, rural communities are dying because the industries that caused them to exist have reduced compensation to remain competitive, moved out or just shut down.  Not sure how building more dinky roads helps them to rebound.

[michravera]

If folks would just drive the speed limit no one would need to worry about additional lane capacity.  Stay in your lane and quit weaving.  Those are the folks that cause the back ups.

if folks would drive faster and better it would increase the capacity. Cars moving at 100 MPH through a lane will allow that lane to push through more cars than ones going 70MPH.

The reality is a bit more nuanced.  As a general rule, as travel speeds increase, the average distance drivers put between them and the vehicle in front of them also increases, so you wind up with slightly less throughput as a result.

The maximum capacity of a road is achieved at the maximum safe speed at which motorists can keep a 2 second cushion. This means that the safe speed is actually irrelevant to the throughput and tends to top out at 1800 vehicles per lane per hour.

You can get SLIGHTLY better throughput at a MUCH lower level of service at speeds at which motorists don't feel the need to keep a 2-second cushion (like 15 MPH), but that is no way to run a road with an 80 MPH design speed.

[Rothman]

I thought the FHWA's "pocket guide" assigned capacity per speed limit:  Something like 2250 per lane per hour at 55 mph, 2300 at 60 mph, 2350 at 65 mph and then 2400 at 70 mph?

(totally IIRC, as I am sitting in a Sunday School class right now)

[hotdogPi]

If there's a 2-second cushion, higher speeds mean more vehicles (although it approaches a constant), because of the lengths of the cars themselves.

[jakeroot]

Six lanes in rural areas just kills the rural character of the area.

If so, how does four lanes not kill the rural character of the area?

I agree. It's not really the number of lanes. To me, it's more about the width of the ROW, or more precisely, the width of the median.

In Europe, where ROW is really expensive, you have six-lane motorways but with very narrow medians. Total horizontal width is usually less, or equal to, a typical four-lane rural freeway in the US:

[jakeroot]

If there's a 2-second cushion, higher speeds mean more vehicles (although it approaches a constant), because of the lengths of the cars themselves.

My understanding is that there is not constant cushion. It grows alongside speed (though not as much as the government may think it does). At 70, assuming a 2-second gap, that's about 200 feet between cars. At 20, you don't really need to leave more than about a second of following distance, if that. Still only about 30 feet. Because of all the wasted space at 70, freeways are not running at their highest capacity. Probably why freeways slow way down at rush hour.

IIRC, because humans are not very wise, we leave tiny following distances at freeway speeds up to around 55 or 60; at those speeds, two things occur: high capacity on account of the speed, and high capacity on account of the lack of wasted space. As far as I know, this is why urban speed limits remain lower than rural areas, beyond physical restrictions. Big reason that I've always supported variable speed limits, so you can have higher limits during off hours.