News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Rural Freeways That Need Six Lanes

Started by webny99, January 01, 2019, 12:58:05 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

sprjus4

Quote from: Beltway on January 03, 2019, 06:17:21 PM
I have a public hearing brochure, about 65% of the length had outside widening, to preserve the wide median where they already had wide right-of-way.  I don't recall the exact opening sequence, but none of the first short segments had the new lane opened until continuous openings could be accomplished from one of the two 6- to 4-lane pre-existing transitions.  I would say that all the openings were in the 1984-87 range.  Back then 58 miles could be widened for $160 million!
Geesh, $160 million today widens 5 miles at most. I wish they still would do the outside widening concept, I-64 from Newport News to Williamsburg used to be lined with trees in the median, and a nice aesthetic appearance. Because of inside widening, now it's 30-60 ft median, all the way up past Williamsburg. The even wider stretches north of there will hopefully retain some trees unless they tear all them down. The median is wider than 200 ft in many locations, and 500 ft at Exit 220.

Question (if you know) - why did they build highways like that in the past, lined w/ trees & over 100 ft wide, and why do they use consistent and smaller medians now? Does it have something to do w/ cost or something?

Quote from: Beltway on January 03, 2019, 06:17:21 PM
Changes in life activities and priorities.  I hadn't really envisioned not continuing the rapid pace of new articles.  In the last few years I did complete the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project article, and a major addition to the article about the Midtown Tunnel corridor with the material about the parallel tunnel project and MLK Freeway Extension.  But I am definitely going to keep the websites online in the future.
Ah, I understand. I wish there were more sites like yours out there, especially for Virginia stuff. Very useful & well organized.


webny99

Are there any rural four lane stretches of I-95 left in Florida?

I-95 should really be a minimum of six lanes from Miami all the way to I-26 in SC. Georgia has done their part. SC has been discussed. Not sure how much Florida has left.

sprjus4

#77
Quote from: webny99 on January 04, 2019, 05:11:58 PM
Are there any rural four lane stretches of I-95 left in Florida?
None are left, sections of I-95 in Florida are 8+ lanes wide, but all 382 miles are at least 6 lanes.

Quote from: webny99 on January 04, 2019, 05:11:58 PM
I-95 should really be a minimum of six lanes from Miami all the way to I-26 in SC. Georgia has done their part. SC has been discussed. Not sure how much Florida has left.
It should be a minimum of 6 lanes from Miami all the way up to Richmond, VA, then a minimum of 8 lanes from Richmond northwards.
NCDOT has plans to widen their entire stretch to 6 lanes, and about 25 miles are currently funded between Fayetteville and I-40 to be widened from 4 lanes to 8 lanes. That project should begin in the next few months. About $147 million of the total $700+ million project was funded by a grant awarded this past summer. Originally, the project was supposed to begin in 10+ years, but now it's starting this year.

No word from VDOT about anything, but it should definitely start from Washington heading south.

froggie

^ Not quite.  Reconstruction of the I-4 and US 92 interchanges has things down to 4 lanes, though that should be wrapping up this spring.

webny99

Quote from: Ian on January 02, 2019, 10:33:48 PM
An example from Maine that comes to mind is the stretch of I-295 from the Falmouth Spur (exit 11) to the US 1 connector (exit 28) in Brunswick. This segment has progressively gotten more congested over the years, especially through the summer months. You could also argue that it should be six lanes further north to ME 196 (exit 31) in Topsham.

Volumes on that stretch appear to be in the high 20K's - getting close to the threshold. I imagine traffic is a lot more seasonal there than it is in most places, thanks to tourists from the Bos-Wash corridor making their way up to Maine during the summer months!

froggie

^ Mostly southern New England license plates...not much from beyond NYC.

webny99

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 04, 2019, 05:22:36 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 04, 2019, 05:11:58 PM
I-95 should really be a minimum of six lanes from Miami all the way to I-26 in SC. Georgia has done their part. SC has been discussed. Not sure how much Florida has left.
It should be a minimum of 6 lanes from Miami all the way up to Richmond, VA, then a minimum of 8 lanes from Richmond northwards.

Refer to froggie's map (Reply #37) for some great info in this regard.
I agree that six lanes the whole way would be great, but the SC line to I-26 is clearly the highest priority.

If NC gets their act together (which I'm sure they will, given their love for new freeways and red and blue shields!), then the segments in SC will become a more serious bottleneck.

webny99

Quote from: froggie on January 04, 2019, 05:41:40 PM
^ Mostly southern New England license plates...not much from beyond NYC.

Needless to say, I've never been to Maine, but it is certainly on the top of my list of places to visit!

I know of at least a few New Yorkers that vacationed in Maine this past summer, but I suppose those on the far side of NYC tend to head to the Jersey shore, or points south, instead.

Beltway

So about how many miles are we up to, perhaps 12,000 out of the 48,000 miles of Interstate highway, that need to be widened to 6 lanes?
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Beltway

#84
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 04, 2019, 05:08:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 03, 2019, 06:17:21 PM
I have a public hearing brochure, about 65% of the length had outside widening, to preserve the wide median where they already had wide right-of-way.  I don't recall the exact opening sequence, but none of the first short segments had the new lane opened until continuous openings could be accomplished from one of the two 6- to 4-lane pre-existing transitions.  I would say that all the openings were in the 1984-87 range.  Back then 58 miles could be widened for $160 million!
Geesh, $160 million today widens 5 miles at most. I wish they still would do the outside widening concept, I-64 from Newport News to Williamsburg used to be lined with trees in the median, and a nice aesthetic appearance. Because of inside widening, now it's 30-60 ft median, all the way up past Williamsburg. The even wider stretches north of there will hopefully retain some trees unless they tear all them down. The median is wider than 200 ft in many locations, and 500 ft at Exit 220.

Partly because the newly widened segments between Bland Boulevard and the southern VA-199 interchange, are "congestion relief" projects to add a lane each way in the median with only minimal construction to the outside, thus saving major costs, getting it done sooner, and having a much simpler environmental impact document.  Some time in the future a lane each way will be added on the outside, with major interchange improvements, needing a full EIS document, to provide the 8-lane highway that was the ultimate plan 5 to 10 years ago.  So the existing right-of-way was pretty much spoken for.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 04, 2019, 05:08:05 PM
Question (if you know) - why did they build highways like that in the past, lined w/ trees & over 100 ft wide, and why do they use consistent and smaller medians now? Does it have something to do w/ cost or something?

Obvious cost savings, plus environmental impacts.  Medians on new highways got wider and wider from the 1950s to the 1970s, and they started getting narrower and narrower.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

adventurernumber1

It would definitely be good to have I-95 at a minimum of six lanes all the way from Miami to the Northeast Megalopolis (D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City, etc.). This would definitely make that extremely long, multi-state stretch of I-95 the longest stretch of interstate in the country that has a sustained minimum of at least six lanes. It would be expensive as hell and would not be an easy task whatsoever, but it would help traffic congestion going down the east coast on I-95 immensely.

Where to start? As others have noted, good starting places could include I-95 in South Carolina between Georgia and I-26 - Interstate 95 in North Carolina close to Fayetteville - or I-95 in Virginia from Richmond to the D.C. area - granted I think much (or all) of that is already at least six lanes, but as it was noted upthread, it could be useful to widen that even more to 8 lanes.
Now alternating between different highway shields for my avatar - my previous highway shield avatar for the last few years was US 76.

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/127322363@N08/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-vJ3qa8R-cc44Cv6ohio1g

Bickendan

Quote from: WhitePoleRD on January 04, 2019, 01:30:16 PM
Quote from: 3467 on January 01, 2019, 06:52:34 PM
Interstate 180 in Illinois

Thank you for making me guffaw out loud while my students are taking a test.
Be glad that Interstate 180 in Wyoming wasn't nominated.

Tarkus

#87
I-10 from Chandler to Casa Grande in Arizona. 'Nuff said.

Also, I-82 between Yakima and Ellensburg in Washington, at least in some places, as it goes over 3 summits in all of about 30 miles.  I've routinely seen a truck going 25mph jump into the left lane to pass another truck doing 20mph, and that gets ugly, with all the car traffic doing at least 75-80, clustered in that same left lane.

sprjus4

#88
Quote from: Beltway on January 04, 2019, 10:49:47 PM
Partly because the newly widened segments between Bland Boulevard and the southern VA-199 interchange, are "congestion relief" projects to add a lane each way in the median with only minimal construction to the outside, thus saving major costs, getting it done sooner, and having a much simpler environmental impact document.  Some time in the future a lane each way will be added on the outside, with major interchange improvements, needing a full EIS document, to provide the 8-lane highway that was the ultimate plan 5 to 10 years ago.  So the existing right-of-way was pretty much spoken for.
Oh, I never realized the intent was to have 8-lanes all the way up. I would agree the 6 lanes (the one segment open) works fine, but I guess eventually it'll have to expand. One interesting thing I've noticed driving up it was there are portions of soundwall which leave no room for expansion, and the median doesn't have any either. But other portions do leave expansion room. Here's one example of no room - https://goo.gl/AupL3s , and with room - https://goo.gl/uJMPYf . I guess it was just immediate to stay within R/W, or they could also do all the widening in those portions to the west, and shift the locations of the lanes. But that would definitely be a $300 million+ project just for those 6 miles, especially if you include the Fort Eustis interchange reconfiguration.

Also, I don't think I've ever seen a median design that is used here. Looks like a combination of having drainage in the median where a grass strip would be too small, and at the same time providing aesthetics. The raised part is 10 ft wide, whereas just south of this is 16 ft wide, and the standard grass strip w/ guardrail.

1995hoo

Quote from: froggie on January 04, 2019, 05:39:00 PM
^ Not quite.  Reconstruction of the I-4 and US 92 interchanges has things down to 4 lanes, though that should be wrapping up this spring.


There's also a brief four-lane segment related to construction just south of Fort Pierce where the lanes shift and there's sort of a "cattle chute"  configuration due to jersey barriers on both sides. I couldn't quite tell what they were doing (my focus was on the road due to traffic) and I haven't looked it up, but it's clearly a temporary situation until the work is done.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 07:50:23 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 04, 2019, 10:49:47 PM
Partly because the newly widened segments between Bland Boulevard and the southern VA-199 interchange, are "congestion relief" projects to add a lane each way in the median with only minimal construction to the outside, thus saving major costs, getting it done sooner, and having a much simpler environmental impact document.  Some time in the future a lane each way will be added on the outside, with major interchange improvements, needing a full EIS document, to provide the 8-lane highway that was the ultimate plan 5 to 10 years ago.  So the existing right-of-way was pretty much spoken for.
Oh, I never realized the intent was to have 8-lanes all the way up. I would agree the 6 lanes (the one segment open) works fine, but I guess eventually it'll have to expand. One interesting thing I've noticed driving up it was there are portions of soundwall which leave no room for expansion, and the median doesn't have any either. But other portions do leave expansion room. Here's one example of no room - https://goo.gl/AupL3s , and with room - https://goo.gl/uJMPYf . I guess it was just immediate to stay within R/W, or they could also do all the widening in those portions to the west, and shift the locations of the lanes. But that would definitely be a $300 million+ project just for those 6 miles, especially if you include the Fort Eustis interchange reconfiguration.

They could probably do it for around $25 million per mile.  At that point it would require more right-of-way, as can be seen in the aerial view some houses would need to be removed as well.  Those sound barriers are of a light enough design that the columns and walls could be reused and relocated.

AADTs range from 93,000 to 80,000 advancing from VA-143 to VA-199, so a 20-year design would definitely be in the 8-lane range, and the plan was for the inner lane each way to be HOV.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 07:50:23 AM
Also, I don't think I've ever seen a median design that is used here. Looks like a combination of having drainage in the median where a grass strip would be too small, and at the same time providing aesthetics. The raised part is 10 ft wide, whereas just south of this is 16 ft wide, and the standard grass strip w/ guardrail.

That was a result of adding a lane each way in the median where it didn't compute to a 26-foot median (two 12-foot shoulders and a 2-foot median barrier).  It is wider than that but not wide enough for an open grassed median.

Plus there is an elevation difference between the two roadways.  So they used two one-sided concrete barriers and a grassed area in between.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 09:25:43 AM
They could probably do it for around $25 million per mile.  At that point it would require more right-of-way, as can be seen in the aerial view some houses would need to be removed as well.  Those sound barriers are of a light enough design that the columns and walls could be reused and relocated.

AADTs range from 93,000 to 80,000 advancing from VA-143 to VA-199, so a 20-year design would definitely be in the 8-lane range, and the plan was for the inner lane each way to be HOV.
From the looks of it, I wouldn't see anywhere homes would need to be removed. An 8-lane build would likely involve adding one 16 ft (HOV) lane and 12 ft shoulder in each direction & a 2 ft barrier, 58 feet total. The median is at least 40 feet wide, and could be fully used. The rest could be added to the outside of either one roadway or split between both. In cases the median is 58 feet or wider (a lot of it is), all of it could be constructed to the inside. One obstacle, the Denbigh Blvd overpass, is scheduled to be replaced, and hopefully they'll leave room for outside expansion on the southbound lanes.

Interestingly enough, Segment 2 of the widening (schedule to open this Spring), has about 2 miles of outside widening on the northbound lanes, even though there's plenty of room to the inside to widen. Anyways, that would leave at least 50-55 ft of median.

Segment 3 on the other hand (looking at project plans) uses all inside widening, and while it will generally have a 50-80 ft median, there's about 3 miles that will have a 40 ft median, and I assume will use the two barriers with grass in the middle concept seen in Segment 1. Also, the overpasses will be retained, and the left median will actually shrink down to 4 ft under a couple of them, similar to how shoulders shrink to go over narrower overpasses. Weird to see a substandard design used on this, but it will save at least $25 million. The Queens Creek Bridge though is being fully replaced due to deteriorating structure. It also has some weird designs for sound walls, hopefully they are straightened out - http://i64widening.org/documents/november_2018_cim/aerial_board_3_with_sound_walls.pdf

As for costs, I wouldn't say it's $25 million per mile for widening. Segment 3 (8 miles) is costing about $311 million, which is about $39 million per mile.

Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 09:25:43 AM
That was a result of adding a lane each way in the median where it didn't compute to a 26-foot median (two 12-foot shoulders and a 2-foot median barrier).  It is wider than that but not wide enough for an open grassed median.

Plus there is an elevation difference between the two roadways.  So they used two one-sided concrete barriers and a grassed area in between.
Huh, I've never noticed that elevation difference. You would think it would've been graded the same.

wriddle082

SCDOT has recently committed to widening all of I-26 to six lanes from greater Columbia to greater Charleston (right now needs it from Sandy Run to Summerville), as well as widening I-95 to six lanes from the GA line to the US 17 North interchange towards Beaufort and Charleston:

http://info2.scdot.org/SCDOTPress/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2782

I know it doesn't include 95 all the way to 26, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.  And living near 26, I know for a fact that it's consistently clogged with trucks hauling cargo containers to/from the Port of Charleston pretty much 24/7, which is one of the few Atlantic sea ports currently capable of accepting Panamax cargo ships.

pugnamedmax

I-95 in CT from the Baldwin Bridge (exit 70) to the I-395 split (exit 76) needs six lanes. Summer traffic ranged from 31200 to 40600 VPD there in 2014. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be nice to have six lanes all the way from New Haven to New London, but the stretch from Branford at the end of the current six lanes to the Baldwin Bridge mostly hovers right around 30000 VPD and is not as strong of a candidate. Just getting some relief in the former stretch would be a start. The DOT has tentatively planned to do this, but I'm doubtful it will happen for at least 20 years.

sprjus4

#94
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 04, 2019, 11:36:30 PM
It would definitely be good to have I-95 at a minimum of six lanes all the way from Miami to the Northeast Megalopolis (D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City, etc.). This would definitely make that extremely long, multi-state stretch of I-95 the longest stretch of interstate in the country that has a sustained minimum of at least six lanes. It would be expensive as hell and would not be an easy task whatsoever, but it would help traffic congestion going down the east coast on I-95 immensely.
Agreed. One area that will always have congestion though is D.C. and Baltimore, even with widenings. I believe a 80 - 100 mile long toll road stretching the east side of D.C. (paralleling U.S. 301, starting at Ruther Glen) then tying into the Chesapeake Bay Bridge at U.S. 50 would severely relieve congestion for thru-traffic, a road similar to the New Jersey Turnpike. Very expensive, $5-8 billion most likely, however tolls + likely federal / state funding would repay that cost.

Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 04, 2019, 11:36:30 PM
Where to start? As others have noted, good starting places could include I-95 in South Carolina between Georgia and I-26 - Interstate 95 in North Carolina close to Fayetteville - or I-95 in Virginia from Richmond to the D.C. area - granted I think much (or all) of that is already at least six lanes, but as it was noted upthread, it could be useful to widen that even more to 8 lanes.
The portion of I-95 between Fayetteville and I-40 (25 miles) is fully funded to widen from 4 lanes to 8 (a massive improvement), and another 20 miles near Lumberton is also funded (or close to being fully funded) for expansion from 4 to 8 lanes.

I-295 (the Richmond Bypass) is 6-lanes from Hopewell (just north of Petersburg) to I-64, 8 lanes from I-64 to I-95, then back on I-95 north of Richmond, it is 6 lanes all the way to U.S.1 near Woodbridge (south of D.C), 8 lanes from there to north of Baltimore (a few 6 lane sections in this at major interchanges, but mainly 8 lanes continuous), then finally back to 6 lanes north of Baltimore.

Agreed the remaining 6 lane sections (Richmond - DC) (Baltimore - north) need to be widened to 8 lanes, plus HO/T lanes in urban areas when exceeding 8 general purpose (free) lanes.

Beltway

#95
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 10:53:10 AM
From the looks of it, I wouldn't see anywhere homes would need to be removed.

The section/link you posted, looks like it would be, or would be very close to some houses.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 10:53:10 AM
An 8-lane build would likely involve adding one 16 ft (HOV) lane and 12 ft shoulder in each direction & a 2 ft barrier, 58 feet total. The median is at least 40 feet wide, and could be fully used. The rest could be added to the outside of either one roadway or split between both. In cases the median is 58 feet or wider (a lot of it is), all of it could be constructed to the inside. One obstacle, the Denbigh Blvd overpass, is scheduled to be replaced, and hopefully they'll leave room for outside expansion on the southbound lanes.
Interestingly enough, Segment 2 of the widening (schedule to open this Spring), has about 2 miles of outside widening on the northbound lanes, even though there's plenty of room to the inside to widen. Anyways, that would leave at least 50-55 ft of median.
Segment 3 on the other hand (looking at project plans) uses all inside widening, and while it will generally have a 50-80 ft median, there's about 3 miles that will have a 40 ft median, and I assume will use the two barriers with grass in the middle concept seen in Segment 1. Also, the overpasses will be retained, and the left median will actually shrink down to 4 ft under a couple of them, similar to how shoulders shrink to go over narrower overpasses. Weird to see a substandard design used on this, but it will save at least $25 million. The Queens Creek Bridge though is being fully replaced due to deteriorating structure. It also has some weird designs for sound walls, hopefully they are straightened out - http://i64widening.org/documents/november_2018_cim/aerial_board_3_with_sound_walls.pdf

The left exit WB at Exit 243 is being retained in these projects, but the right side is adjacent to federal military property.  I would presume that the future outside widening will address that as well as negotiate with the US DOD to acquire the needed right-of-way, and they are hard for a state to deal with.

Whether driving it or viewing the design plans, it is apparent that the median width is variable with considerable differences in width.  Some places inside widening will use all the median and other places there will still be a 50 or 60 foot median.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 10:53:10 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 09:25:43 AM
Plus there is an elevation difference between the two roadways.  So they used two one-sided concrete barriers and a grassed area in between.
Huh, I've never noticed that elevation difference. You would think it would've been graded the same.

Independently graded roadways, that is the highway engineering term.  Varying in median width as well as elevation.  On curves if the roadways are at the same elevation the left edges will be different due to superelevation (banking) of the curve.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 01:05:39 PM
The left exit WB at Exit 243 is being retained in these projects, but the right side is adjacent to federal military property.  I would presume that the future outside widening will address that as well as negotiate with the US DOD to acquire the needed right-of-way, and they are hard for a state to deal with.
I don't know if the design had anything to do with the military property, as most was still done on existing R/W. The left exit was most likely retained because they did not want to severely modify the interchanges. In the future, they could raise WB I-64 over the ramp, and swing the exit around to the right side. If HOV lanes are part of the next 8-laning, then that's going to have to happen, unless they want some weird situation with traffic using the HOV lane simply to exit (I-264 to I-64 in Norfolk, a mistake).

Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 01:05:39 PM
Independently graded roadways, that is the highway engineering term.  Varying in median width as well as elevation.  On curves if the roadways are at the same elevation the left edges will be different due to superelevation (banking) of the curve.
I suppose if they were spread out enough the grades would not have matched perfectly. Nowadays, it seems they try to grade it all the same for both roadways, mainly because there's no barrier (trees in this instance) in between.

sprjus4

Kind of old (9 yrs ago), but found information of I-95 as part of the Virginia Statewide Multimodal Freight Study done in 2010.

The study basically gave recommendations to major interstates / U.S. routes across Virginia for future projects. There's some interesting "recommendations" to I-95 I never would've thought of, but here they are -

- Widen from North Carolina State Line to Exit 11 (U.S. 58) to 6 lanes.
- Widen from Exit 41 (VA-35) to Exit 46 (I-295 South) to 6 lanes.
- Widen from Exit 86 (VA-656) to three miles south of Exit 126 (VA-608 overpass) to 8 lanes.
- Construct a 2 lane C/D road in each direction from three miles south of Exit 126 (VA-608 overpass) to Exit 152 (VA-234), along with a 2 reversible HO/T lanes in the median.
- Widen from Exit 152 (VA-234) to Exit 160 (VA-123) to 8 lanes, and widen the existing HO/T lanes to 3 lanes.
- Construct a 2 lane C/D road in each direction from Exit 170 (I-395/495) to the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, along with 2 HO/T lanes in each direction.

Figured the 8 laning was pretty obvious, but I like the idea of 10 lanes between Dumfries and Fredericksburg, and splitting local and thru traffic for 30 miles, plus HO/T lanes. IMHO, they need to extend this sort of concept from Dumfries all the way to I-395, and tie into the proposed ones on I-95 / I-495. HO/T lanes, plus local / thru lanes allow up to 7-9 lanes in each direction, and splits different traffic types. This would severely relieve congestion. Also, the 6 lanes from NC to Emporia, and VA-35 and I-295 is interesting.

Study - http://www.vtrans.org/resources/vsmmfs-ii_i95.pdf

webny99

Quote from: Beltway on January 04, 2019, 10:37:55 PM
So about how many miles are we up to, perhaps 12,000 out of the 48,000 miles of Interstate highway, that need to be widened to 6 lanes?

25% seems a bit high.

We will get a final mileage count at some point, but my guess is closer to ~7,000.

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 04:33:31 PM
Kind of old (9 yrs ago), but found information of I-95 as part of the Virginia Statewide Multimodal Freight Study done in 2010.

That was for 2030 needs.  Still a long ways off, but they need to start many years before that because they can't build it all at once.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.