Rural Freeways That Need Six Lanes

[michravera]

I-215 in California comes to mind mostly because the rural parts are largely being absorbed as suburban outgrowth.  I was really surprised I-215 south of Cajon Pass was still only four lanes when I drove it yesterday.

I not only would agree with you about I-215, but it is hard to think of any true freeway in California that ought not to be at least 6 lanes. Maybe some sections of I-5 in the extreme north. Maybe some newly upgraded freeways like CASR-198. But not that very many.

[Flint1979]

The one thing that I have noticed is that the more lanes built just attracts more traffic.  I have witnessed this in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee.  So why bother in the first place.

Attracts more traffic? The traffic is already there. Adding more lanes is adding more capacity for traffic to move.

[thspfc]

The one thing that I have noticed is that the more lanes built just attracts more traffic.  I have witnessed this in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee.  So why bother in the first place.

Attracts more traffic? The traffic is already there. Adding more lanes is adding more capacity for traffic to move.

I read a book called "traffic" by Tom Vanderbilt (would recommend it to any roadgeek), and the "more lanes means more cars" idea was a central concept of the book. It is true, it's not a cheeky lie. That being said, it doesn't mean that freeways should never be widened, because there is a time and place where that is the best option.

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^ it's not a lie but it's disingenuous. It doesn't tell the whole story. That's like saying building more homes only allows more people to live in a city. It's true but an extremely simplistic statement that doesn't tell the whole picture.

[jeffandnicole]

The one thing that I have noticed is that the more lanes built just attracts more traffic.  I have witnessed this in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee.  So why bother in the first place.

Attracts more traffic? The traffic is already there. Adding more lanes is adding more capacity for traffic to move.

I read a book called "traffic" by Tom Vanderbilt (would recommend it to any roadgeek), and the "more lanes means more cars" idea was a central concept of the book. It is true, it's not a cheeky lie. That being said, it doesn't mean that freeways should never be widened, because there is a time and place where that is the best option.

Under that theory, the interstate system should have never been built.

[Rothman]

Also, not every road is congested by a long shot (and some have seen traffic even diminish), so, yes, it is a cheeky lie.

[Flint1979]

Also Georgia, Florida and Tennessee have seen significant population growth so how does this even add up? Adding more lanes attracts more traffic and he's seen it in the states mentioned. Ok and population growth is also going to add more traffic. Florida has grown by almost 3 million people since 2010 so how is that a good example? Georgia and Tennessee have both grown since 2010 as well. It doesn't make a good example when there are going to be more people on the highways because of population growth.

[Max Rockatansky]

I-215 in California comes to mind mostly because the rural parts are largely being absorbed as suburban outgrowth.  I was really surprised I-215 south of Cajon Pass was still only four lanes when I drove it yesterday.

I not only would agree with you about I-215, but it is hard to think of any true freeway in California that ought not to be at least 6 lanes. Maybe some sections of I-5 in the extreme north. Maybe some newly upgraded freeways like CASR-198. But not that very many.

Interestingly the Visalia segment of freeway on CA 198 pretty old and I still wouldn't upgrade even with the city approaching 150,000 people.  The western segment of freeway from Hanford to Lemoore is probably has the quickest pace of any freeway in California.  I've heard arguments for expansion of I-505 but aside from maybe the last two-three southern miles I don't see the need.  CA 120 between 99 and 5 seems to manage its traffic capacity well with just four lanes. 

[RobbieL2415]

My suggestions:
I-90, from Boston to Buffalo
I-91, Northampton, MA to Greenfield, MA
I-84, Waterbury, CT to Scranton, PA
I-395 (CT), Norwich to Killingly*
I-490, Gates to Le Roy, NY

[wanderer2575]

I also think that's more a result of the reduced median and not the visual effect of having six lanes.

They're about to convert a four-lane divided non-limited-access highway in South Texas with a wide median into a four-lane interstate highway by constructing the freeway lanes in the wide median. This will result in 40+ miles of two lanes in each direction with jersey barrier and no grassy median whatsoever in an isolated rural area. Even better, they're reserving right of way on the OUTSIDE for future 6-laning. Why not reserve on the inside, then have a 46 foot grassy median initially, then jersey barrier when 6-laned? It just makes more sense in my mind, and would keep a rural feel for decades to come, as that highway will not need widening anytime soon as far as I'm aware.

Gotta love TXDOT though!

Maybe because they think retrofitting a stormwater drainage system will cost way too much more later than constructing it now?

[TheStranger]

Interestingly the Visalia segment of freeway on CA 198 pretty old and I still wouldn't upgrade even with the city approaching 150,000 people.  The western segment of freeway from Hanford to Lemoore is probably has the quickest pace of any freeway in California.  I've heard arguments for expansion of I-505 but aside from maybe the last two-three southern miles I don't see the need.  CA 120 between 99 and 5 seems to manage its traffic capacity well with just four lanes. 

505 is pretty deserted north of Winters from what I remember of that freeway.

The times I've taken 120, it's busy but not unmanageable in that 5 to 99 stretch.    Like a third lane would be nice, but not super necessary.  I do feel like 205/120 make one neat corridor between Altamont/Livermore and 99 and that the lane configuration on the part of 5 between two could be shuffled a bit to be more of a dual/dual setup (with 205/120 becoming a seamless route that way).

With some talk of 120 being built out as an expressway near Oakdale, will that ever connect to the current 120/99 freeway to freeway junction?  Since right now drivers have to go on 99 briefly then use an exit to continue onto 120 east.

[webny99]

I-490, Gates to Le Roy, NY

I'm all for six lane highways and everything, but I did get a chuckle out of that one!
Unlike the Thruway, which needs six lanes from roughly Easter to Thanksgiving, that stretch of I-490 literally only needs to be widened for the 8 Bills games per year and that's it. I've driven it many, many times and have never encountered any recurring traffic issues. In fact, it was even down to two lanes a few years ago for some bridge replacements between Exits 4 and 5, and it still moved along OK (or at least much better than the Thruway would under those conditions).
You could make a case for Exit 5 to Exit 6, especially given commuter traffic, but not really west of Exit 5.
For context, NY 31 near Brockport carries more traffic than I-490 west of Exit 4, and NY 31 is a two-lane road.

Traffic volumes for I-490 per NYS Traffic Data Viewer:

At Thruway	15,355
MM 2	14,720
MM 5	18,875
MM 8	20,131
MM 12	27,637
MM 15	37,703

On the other hand, while we're on the subject of I-490, volumes on the stretch from Exit 25 to Exit 27 are cresting 70,000: double the volumes of the Thruway segments that I have complained about, and quadruple the volumes of I-490 near LeRoy. So, when it comes to priorities, Exit 25 to Exit 27 is the clear choice. That segment is also the only interruption to a six-lane corridor between downtown and the eastbound Thruway, whereas we already have I-390 as a six-lane connection to the westbound Thruway.

MM 31	72,614
MM 33	61,332
MM 35*	36,361
At Thruway	36,427

*Already six lanes at this location

[golden eagle]

I've felt as if I-57 needs more lanes through the Chicago suburbs. Maybe not to Kankakee.

[Mark68]

This may have been mentioned upthread, but after having driven it last week, I-15 from the NV border to Barstow DEFINITELY needs 6 lanes. Too many trucks, too many hills (Halloran Summit & Mountain Pass immediately come to mind). NDOT did their part south of Vegas, Caltrans needs to do their part north of I-40.

Also, I would include the entirety of I-15 from St. George to Vegas as well. The problem is...the Virgin River Gorge. I don't see adding additional lanes there without MAJOR expense (and environmental impact). So I would just say that NDOT needs to widen I-15 to 6 lanes for its entire (rural) length in Nevada.

[Revive 755]

I've felt as if I-57 needs more lanes through the Chicago suburbs. Maybe not to Kankakee.

It needs at least 6 down to US 30, but IMHO there should be at least preparations for a future six laning down to Kankakee.  It appears the corridor is trying to turn suburban (going off the subdivisions popping up at the interchanges between US 30 and Kankakee).

[berberry]

The effect of additional lanes attracting so much additional traffic that travel times don't improve or get worse is VERY well documented. It's the reason many cities are controlling access to freeways at the on-ramps. Only with traffic controls like that can we insure that adding lanes to an urban freeway will reduce travel times and improve the travel experience.

However, I think that's not so true on most rural freeways. I'm sure there are rural places where lanes could be added without adding controls, and the travel experience would be improved, especially if it's a route where no current, reasonable alternative route exists. I'm not an engineer so I can't say this with authority, but it does seem that unless there is pent-up demand currently using other routes, as happens in cities, then the potential for massive increase in traffic would be less.

[inkyatari]

I've felt as if I-57 needs more lanes through the Chicago suburbs. Maybe not to Kankakee.

It needs at least 6 down to US 30, but IMHO there should be at least preparations for a future six laning down to Kankakee.  It appears the corridor is trying to turn suburban (going off the subdivisions popping up at the interchanges between US 30 and Kankakee).

When I left the K3 area about ten years ago, bus service was started to the  University Park Metra line. There's been talk of extending Metra to K3 (I think just local officials, but it seems to me to be a no-brainer.) I absolutely agree with widening 57, though I'd widen it to Sauk Trail, and prep for a widening to Kankakee.

[Stephane Dumas]

Hwy-401 6 between Kingston and Oshawa might need 6 lanes as well as TCH-20 between Longueuil and Lévis.

[sprjus4]

Today is a good peak travel day to take a look on Google Maps and see some of the 4-lane freeways that need 6-lanes and have congestion issues on heavy travel times.

I-81 in Virginia, I-95 in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, I-77 in Virginia, I-64/I-77 overlap in West Virginia, etc.

[skluth]

Today is a good peak travel day to take a look on Google Maps and see some of the 4-lane freeways that need 6-lanes and have congestion issues on heavy travel times.

I-81 in Virginia, I-95 in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, I-77 in Virginia, I-64/I-77 overlap in West Virginia, etc.

I-81 has needed six lanes through most of Virginia (at least from the Potomac to Roanoke) for at least the last 15 years. It wouldn't surprise me if it's needed to the Tennessee border, but I'm less familiar with traffic there. But since I-81 is a de facto bypass of the Philly-DC area with a higher percentage of truck traffic than many interstates, it could probably use widening from Scranton south.

I-95 is already six lanes north of Richmond (and I think north of Petersburg). It's bad both weekdays and every summer weekend. The area around Emporia is bad, but part of that is just Emporia with so much traffic maneuvering around all the US 58 interchange. A better US 58/I-95 connection instead of that cloverleaf would do more for traffic than widening to six lanes.

Widening the WV Turnpike would be ungodly expensive. It's already squeezing through some of the terrain. I just don't see it.

[sprjus4]

I-95 is already six lanes north of Richmond (and I think north of Petersburg). It's bad both weekdays and every summer weekend.

That stretch needs to be expanded to 8-lanes, at least from I-295 to Woodbridge. Traffic counts range between 100,000 - 200,000 AADT, definitely in the 8-lane warrants. I-295 has 8-lanes between I-64 and I-95 and only has 80,000 AADT, and never has congestion (correction - congestion is usually formed when traffic is squeezed to 2-lanes funneling onto I-95. But that's it)

I-295 is my favorite part about driving between Norfolk and DC - always moves at least 70 mph even on the busiest of days. And going to US-460, it empties out significantly south of I-64 - a very nice bonus.

If they had built the US-460 toll road, that would have been even better - $3 - $5 to drive on a 70 mph interstate-standard freeway between Petersburg and Suffolk. But of course, that went down the drain thanks to corruption in Richmond.

The area around Emporia is bad, but part of that is just Emporia with so much traffic maneuvering around all the US 58 interchange. A better US 58/I-95 connection instead of that cloverleaf would do more for traffic than widening to six lanes.

In the long run, the entire stretch of I-95 between the Georgia / South Carolina state line and I-295 needs to be expanded to 6-lanes. SCDOT and NCDOT have plans to do this - NCDOT has about 40 miles of expansion from 4-lanes to 8-lanes funded to begin next year. SCDOT is pushing for 6-lanes between the state line and I-26. Nothing so far in Virginia, though traffic issues appear to less south of Richmond. VDOT's biggest focus needs to be and should be between Woodbridge and Fredericksburg at this time.

VDOT completed a "US-58 Arterial Management Plan" which recommend where innovative intersections should be built along the corridor, etc. and one of the concepts was to modify the I-95 interchange in a Diverging Diamond interchange using the existing bridges and ramps.

https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/hampton_roads/Rt_58_Arterial_Management_Study/Final_Recs_Emporia_Greensville.pdf

Widening the WV Turnpike would be ungodly expensive. It's already squeezing through some of the terrain. I just don't see it.

Ideally it's needed, but certainly not feasible - I agree on that part.

[Roadgeekteen]

I'm surprised that the WV turnpike needs six lanes.

[Beltway]

I-81 has needed six lanes through most of Virginia (at least from the Potomac to Roanoke) for at least the last 15 years. It wouldn't surprise me if it's needed to the Tennessee border, but I'm less familiar with traffic there. But since I-81 is a de facto bypass of the Philly-DC area with a higher percentage of truck traffic than many interstates, it could probably use widening from Scranton south.

My experience and observation is that I-81 has consistent and similar traffic issues all the way between TN I-40 and PA I-78.  My "20 highest weekends and holidays" guideline.  Needs minimum of 6 lanes all the way.

If they had built the US-460 toll road, that would have been even better - $3 - $5 to drive on a 70 mph interstate-standard freeway between Petersburg and Suffolk. But of course, that went down the drain thanks to corruption in Richmond.

Don't blame Richmond for the governor that sits there (McAuliffe that was responsible for that debacle), he was elected in a statewide election! 

[sprjus4]

Don't blame Richmond for the governor that sits there (McAuliffe that was responsible for that debacle), he was elected in a statewide election! 

Mostly by the urban population centers, notably North Virginia.

Most of Virginia did not vote for him. But most of Virginia is rural. The small portion of Virginia that did vote for him is urban population centers including Hampton Roads, Richmond, and North Virginia and population wise he won.

[Beltway]

Don't blame Richmond for the governor that sits there (McAuliffe that was responsible for that debacle), he was elected in a statewide election! 

Mostly by the urban population centers, notably North Virginia.
Most of Virginia did not vote for him. But most of Virginia is rural. The small portion of Virginia that did vote for him is urban population centers including Hampton Roads, Richmond, and North Virginia and population wise he won.

ESPECIALLY Northern Virginia with its 2 million population disproportionally represented by recent immigrants from Yankee states and other countries, and federal workers of which many are public sector union members.