Apologies if similar threads have been started before, but it's a Sunday so whatever.
Please provide a concise description on where you see MAJOR developments in the US Interstate System in the next 25-50 years. I'll jump right to my general thoughts:
1) The 'bones' of the system are largely complete. I don't think we will see many, if any, new corridors built.
1a) Some current US Highway and state highways, if they are at freeway or near-Interstate standards, may be converted. However new rights-of-way will be rare.
2) There will be continued removal or trenching of Interstate spurs into central cities, but total lane-miles will increase due to expansion of routes in suburbs of main cities.
2a) The tradition of toll-free Interstates in urban areas will be eroded with the continued addition of toll lanes or HOT lanes, but not on a comprehensive basis.
3) Besides periodic maintenance, rural Interstates will see very few changes. Someone driving on a rural Interstate in 2060, particularly west of the Mississippi, will have much of the same experience as in 1960 (road-wise).
3a) Poor states may try to "give back" Interstates to the federal government to remove the burden of maintenance.
4) Interstates will slowly adopt technology-based services (i.e. GPS and Bluetooth recognition) into design and standards, but slow to adopt due to installation costs and maintenance schedules (i.e. traffic-prediction modeling in urban areas before rural areas).
4a) Rural interstates will be the first to allow computer-driven vehicles.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 28, 2016, 02:51:05 PM
1) The 'bones' of the system are largely complete. I don't think we will see many, if any, new corridors built.
I-11 in Arizona is likely going to be partially be on new ROW. But the plan south of I-10 starts to erode, and the planned extension to the Mexican border is really a, IMHO, misguided longshot. And that's due to it trying to go on new ROW.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 28, 2016, 02:51:05 PM
2) There will be continued removal or trenching of Interstate spurs into central cities, but total lane-miles will increase due to expansion of routes in suburbs of main cities.
2a) The tradition of toll-free Interstates in urban areas will be eroded with the continued addition of toll lanes or HOT lanes, but not on a comprehensive basis.
I think with the suburban trend reversing, there will be less demand for new suburban freeways. But I don't think the wealthy people moving into the cities will be accept new corridors there, either. In the end, I think the trends are pushing more toward public transit, especially with a younger generation that's very much more open to the concept than their parents were. This is more of a sociological discussion than I'm really qualified to talk about though, so it's really just speculation on my part.
I also think that HOT lanes are a fad that will pass within the next 15 years. Agencies will heavily invest in them, they won't return quite as well as predicted, and they'll start to be eliminated.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 28, 2016, 02:51:05 PM
3a) Poor states may try to "give back" Interstates to the federal government to remove the burden of maintenance.
Impossible, since these were never federal highways to begin with and have always been state-owned. Besides, they are maintained with the help of federal dollars.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 28, 2016, 04:43:01 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 28, 2016, 02:51:05 PM
3a) Poor states may try to "give back" Interstates to the federal government to remove the burden of maintenance.
Impossible, since these were never federal highways to begin with and have always been state-owned. Besides, they are maintained with the help of federal dollars.
90% federal capital subsidy
Major for Oregon would see I-5 made a 6-lane from south Salem to just south of Eugene at the I5/SR 58 interchange. What's needed is much more than that though.
Rick
Agree with points 1, 1a, 2, 2a.
Agree that the experience of rural interstate driving won't change much, however some of the busier rural interstates will continue to go from 4 lanes to 6.
Driverless cars will start on special applications. Closed ROW, no general traffic, probably low speed or indoor. Maybe golf carts, shuttle loops at airports. The wide world of crazy acting other drivers, weather conditions is way too much for computerized cars and will remain so for a long time.
Poor states might try to give back interstates, but it's not going to happen. The Feds don't have any money either. They seem more likely to get the Feds out of the road business entirely, or possibly be a small organization setting standards and collecting statistics rather than funding any construction or maintenance.
I see VA, NC and SC tolling interstate 95 like Delaware at the state lines. Other states around the country May do same
(1) I see most corridors connecting metro areas of greater than 500K expanding from 4 to 6+ lanes by 2050 if they haven't done so already.
(2) I see new Interstate corridors being established -- on a regular basis -- in states where the political will to do so is high and ongoing -- and where funding, by whatever methodology the state uses to do so, seems consistently available (NC, TX as examples). States with the political will but without such funding success (e.g., AR, MO) will only do so -- and very incrementally -- when available funds trickle in. Development of multistate corridors will depend upon the will/funding "matrix" of the "weakest link" of the states involved (unless loans and/or subsides are part of the package).
(3) Political maneuvering will be part & parcel of any attempt to decommission and remove urban Interstate mileage. Some states will undoubtedly attempt to transfer the "value" of the truncated facility to other routes or projects; an example would be if the "value" of a removed I-81 in Syracuse would be applied to construction of I-86 east of Binghamton (in a similar manner re the transfer of funds from cancelled New Orleans I-loops to I-49 development in LA).
(4) Tolling will remain a political "hot potato" on both state and national levels. In metro regions, HOT lanes will likely find their way to a high percentage of both radial routes and beltways. As far as "price of admission" tolling at state lines, such has been discussed since the turn of the century -- and despite states' cries of impoverishment, has yet to be manifested (and is unlikely to occur, at least near-term). I-95 was a tolled facility for much of its DE mileage since day one, and despite its on/off history as such, is publicly recognized as an "original" tolled road, attracting less controversy as a result. Measures -- even draconian ones -- would be needed to forestall shunpiking -- and it's not likely that any state wants the negative publicity endemic to such activities.
This thread is a good "jumping off" point for more detailed discussion of future Interstate specifics. If I have the time in the next few days, I'll probably initiate a thread where posters, including myself, can speculate -- with an eye toward realistic projections -- about what Interstate developmental activities -- specific as to routes and regions -- might be expected in the foreseeable future, given the presently available info that could provide the basis for such projections. Since it IS speculative, I'll most likely be posting in the fictional section -- at least for the time being.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 28, 2016, 05:10:06 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 28, 2016, 04:43:01 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 28, 2016, 02:51:05 PM
3a) Poor states may try to "give back" Interstates to the federal government to remove the burden of maintenance.
Impossible, since these were never federal highways to begin with and have always been state-owned. Besides, they are maintained with the help of federal dollars.
90% federal capital subsidy
That was the original agreement about splitting the costs, not about ownership. The 90-10 split is long done, and most money comes from the states for maintenance.
It's hard to say for sure without going through each state's transportation budget line by line, but empirical evidence in the few states I'm familiar with suggests that a majority of Interstate maintenance funding still comes from FHWA.
That said, the statement that the Interstates are state-owned and not Federally-owned is mostly correct. There are a few oddballs here and there, like I-83 in Baltimore belonging to the city vice MD SHA.
IMHO,
Tolling currently "free" interstates remains a goal of a certain segment, but at the end of the day it will take national and the state political action of which there does not seem to be a current majority in favor. I do not see it happening. As with anything a political solution to road funding will happen, over and over.
However "HOT" lanes will continue to proliferate and many new highways will be built via tolls. As cities grow, one should expect that their new suburbs will be served by toll roads.
I see more lanes being added to overburdened interstates like 81, 95 and 85 in the east.
As to new construction on new ground, really the key is to look at the population in 1955, the population today, and what the population will be in future times. The nation continues its move south. A new move to the mountain states is well underway. While not losing total population, California finally seems "full" and is experiencing a massive brain drain as skilled workers are leaving and being replaced by unskilled immigrants. Texas is booming as are the Carolinas. Several cities are expanding outward to engulf their beltways and bypasses and thus becoming unavoidable. New cities are becoming large enough to need their first beltway or bypass. New bypasses of entire metro areas, such as Atlanta, via a toll will be needed. The economy is becoming more intergrated to northern Mexico and the stuff Texas is doing is SE Texas will have to be finished.
As to rural new construction.
Phoenix-Las Vegas
Jacksonville-Gainesville-I-75
Fort Myers-Orlando
Tampa-Tallahassee (the desire to retire to Florida remains strong and the so-called "Forgotten Coast" is the next place to be developed)
I-95- Myrtle Beach
Rocky Mount-Norfolk
Rocky Mount-Nags Head (again the original 95 was built in an era where the Carolina coasts were undeveloped, new roads to allow that area to grow are needed)
Quote from: SP Cook on August 29, 2016, 09:13:03 AM
IMHO,
Tolling currently "free" interstates remains a goal of a certain segment, but at the end of the day it will take national and the state political action of which there does not seem to be a current majority in favor. I do not see it happening. As with anything a political solution to road funding will happen, over and over.
Seems that the root cause is not enough funding for transportation. So in order to keep things going, either driving has to get more taxed (gas, mileage, tolls, whatever) or general fund (which is also not doing good) has to be diverted to road funding.
None of these actions are a way to win elections, though. So I wouldn't be surprised to see more road degradation.
Quote from: kalvado on August 29, 2016, 09:31:49 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 29, 2016, 09:13:03 AM
IMHO,
Tolling currently "free" interstates remains a goal of a certain segment, but at the end of the day it will take national and the state political action of which there does not seem to be a current majority in favor. I do not see it happening. As with anything a political solution to road funding will happen, over and over.
Seems that the root cause is not enough funding for transportation. So in order to keep things going, either driving has to get more taxed (gas, mileage, tolls, whatever) or general fund (which is also not doing good) has to be diverted to road funding.
None of these actions are a way to win elections, though. So I wouldn't be surprised to see more road degradation.
Our highways aren't even in that bad of shape. I honestly don't see what everyone is complaining about.
Quote from: US 41 on August 29, 2016, 09:36:30 AM
Our highways aren't even in that bad of shape. I honestly don't see what everyone is complaining about.
One thing to remember - they need maintenance to stay that way, and getting old is not making maintenance cheaper.
And problem may not be apparent to the driver. Remember per DOT about 20% of US bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete
Yep. Even a bridge that looks brand new because the deck has been replaced in the last few years can look really scary when you look at the substructure in the right places.
I hope tolling is not the wave of the future. I will be shunpiking.
Quote from: Brandon on August 29, 2016, 06:52:53 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 28, 2016, 05:10:06 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 28, 2016, 04:43:01 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 28, 2016, 02:51:05 PM
3a) Poor states may try to "give back" Interstates to the federal government to remove the burden of maintenance.
Impossible, since these were never federal highways to begin with and have always been state-owned. Besides, they are maintained with the help of federal dollars.
90% federal capital subsidy
That was the original agreement about splitting the costs, not about ownership. The 90-10 split is long done, and most money comes from the states for maintenance.
Partially true. Yes, interstates were never owned by the federal government, but the 90-10 split is definitely still around. Despite IM (Interstate Maintenance) funds being done away with when MAP-21 was enacted, the funds were essentially absorbed into the National Highway Performance Program (renewed by FAST) which does still allow the 90-10 split for interstate projects.
When I say "own", I'm not talking about the actual title/charter, I'm talking about the initial equity. If a party puts up 90% of the capital costs of something, it was "their" asset, even if they deed/title/gift it away immediately.
In other words, how many Interstates would have been built if not for the 90% subsidy?
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 30, 2016, 10:39:26 AM
When I say "own", I'm not talking about the actual title/charter, I'm talking about the initial equity. If a party puts up 90% of the capital costs of something, it was "their" asset, even if they deed/title/gift it away immediately.
Your definition of ownership is not one I have ever heard during my career at NYSDOT, especially since there was never transfer of ownership at all between the feds and states. The states owns the facility and it was merely funded with reimbursable funds from the Feds. Keep in mind that federal funds have been and are first-instanced by the states.
That said, there's no stopping you from writing your own dictionary.
Again, take my counterfactual if the 90% subsidy weren't in place. How many of these "state-owned" Interstates would have been built?
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 30, 2016, 11:08:18 AM
Again, take my counterfactual if the 90% subsidy weren't in place. How many of these "state-owned" Interstates would have been built?
That is kind of a "fictional highways" type post, in reverse. Probably we would have seen many states go the toll road route. We would also have seen a lot of states go with lesser standards (at-grades, stop lights) especially in the west. Mostly we would just have a poorer society, with businesses still bound to railroad monopolist and people to urban slumlords.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 30, 2016, 11:08:18 AM
Again, take my counterfactual if the 90% subsidy weren't in place. How many of these "state-owned" Interstates would have been built?
No need for the quotes, they were and are state-owned.
Very few would have been built if the Feds hadn't reimbursed the states for them, but that has no relevance whatsoever as to who actually owns them and is responsible for them.
HOT Lanes! Considering GPS travel among careless drivers these will be implemented in all major metro areas as they can charge whatever they want and get an endless supply of customers.
As the technology improves enough for autonomous (self-driving) vehicles to start being used by mainstream consumers, there will start to be a demand for exclusive lanes for them so that vehicles could travel at higher speeds with shorter distances between them. This role will be initially filled by converting HOT/HOV lanes to autonomous vehicles only. Later on, as the proportion of autonomous vehicles increases to become the majority of all vehicles on the road, there may be a movement to convert most or all interstates (and other freeways) to the exclusive use of autonomous vehicles. The limited access, higher design speeds, and relative uniformity of design features on interstates are all important factors in providing a safe and efficient guideway for autonomous vehicles, and given the expense of providing a brand new system just for them, I imagine it would be much more likely that existing highways would be converted to autonomous use instead. This would enable much higher speed long-distance travel, and also allow much higher densities on urban interstates without congestion.
Just because the money was federal doesn't mean it just appeared by magic. If the Feds hadn't put in the 90% match, there would probably have been no Federal gas tax, or at least much lower. So most states would probably have higher state gas taxes and be funding major routes out of that.
However, the low-traffic rural interstates would have been built to lower standards: some cross traffic, perhaps only 2 lanes instead of 4.
Quote from: kkt on August 30, 2016, 01:39:04 PM
Just because the money was federal doesn't mean it just appeared by magic. If the Feds hadn't put in the 90% match, there would probably have been no Federal gas tax, or at least much lower. So most states would probably have higher state gas taxes and be funding major routes out of that.
However, the low-traffic rural interstates would have been built to lower standards: some cross traffic, perhaps only 2 lanes instead of 4.
Not quite sure I agree with that. How many interstates were built through states that don't particularly benefit from them? I'm thinking about I-95 in the Carolinas, I-70 in Utah, and could probably come up with a few others if I thought hard enough.
What benefit would it have been for South Carolina to build I-95 to help travel between the northeast and Florida? How much benefit would the state's residents get as opposed to passers-through?
Quote from: hbelkins on August 30, 2016, 02:46:24 PM
Quote from: kkt on August 30, 2016, 01:39:04 PM
Just because the money was federal doesn't mean it just appeared by magic. If the Feds hadn't put in the 90% match, there would probably have been no Federal gas tax, or at least much lower. So most states would probably have higher state gas taxes and be funding major routes out of that.
However, the low-traffic rural interstates would have been built to lower standards: some cross traffic, perhaps only 2 lanes instead of 4.
Not quite sure I agree with that. How many interstates were built through states that don't particularly benefit from them? I'm thinking about I-95 in the Carolinas, I-70 in Utah, and could probably come up with a few others if I thought hard enough.
What benefit would it have been for South Carolina to build I-95 to help travel between the northeast and Florida? How much benefit would the state's residents get as opposed to passers-through?
Perhaps they would have built it following US 1 through Raleigh, Columbia, and Augusta?
If it's seen as only benefiting out of state travelers, they could make it a toll road.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 30, 2016, 02:46:24 PM
Quote from: kkt on August 30, 2016, 01:39:04 PM
Just because the money was federal doesn't mean it just appeared by magic. If the Feds hadn't put in the 90% match, there would probably have been no Federal gas tax, or at least much lower. So most states would probably have higher state gas taxes and be funding major routes out of that.
However, the low-traffic rural interstates would have been built to lower standards: some cross traffic, perhaps only 2 lanes instead of 4.
Not quite sure I agree with that. How many interstates were built through states that don't particularly benefit from them? I'm thinking about I-95 in the Carolinas, I-70 in Utah, and could probably come up with a few others if I thought hard enough.
What benefit would it have been for South Carolina to build I-95 to help travel between the northeast and Florida? How much benefit would the state's residents get as opposed to passers-through?
Gas tax from out of state drivers, sales tax and hotel tax as well
South Carolina maintains 26 about the same as 95, 26 links Charleston to Columbia and Spartanburg, SC major cities.
At least NC has done a lot of upgrades on i85.
Georgia has fully six laned 95 which carries traffic to and from Florida mainly.
Gas tax from passers thru and hotel motel and general sales taxes are certainly not nothing, but there remain plenty of interstates where the state took one for the team, so to speak. What does I-77 (very expensive cuts, one and a half tunnels) do for Virginia?
It is also somewhat of an overstatement when one looks at linking "the big cities" of a state together as the biggest deal in the world. Certainly, that is a thing, and it benefits politicians, state workers, ball teams playing in playoffs, fans of good ole state U, and others, but in many cases regular people in disparate parts of a state do not, and do not want to, interact all that much. Getting tied to a market, even one across state lines, if often much more important.
Tolls will rule the interstate system for the next 50 years, unfortunately. :-/ Time to prepare for shunpike.
I don't believe travelers on I-95 in NC will have to worry about tolls anytime soon. Governor Easley proposed that very idea and it died a pretty quick death. The legislative members from the I-95 corridor counties, a mixture of both parties, were vehemently opposed to tolling I-95 in any form or fashion. The two governors that came after him, one Democrat and one Republican, wouldn't even speak of it in a public setting.
Other than the new routes that have already passed Congress recently, I don't see any major happenings on the Interstate system in the next 25 years. Heck, I don't consider my I-42 (yeah I act like I own it now-lol) to be major, it only goes from Raleigh to eastern NC-and it probably won't be completed until after the OP's 25 year window has closed anyway. Same for the southern I-87. I don't ever see it getting into Virginia, and if it somehow does, definitely not in the 25 year window.
[edit: It took me so long to type my thoughts I forgot that the OP said "25-50 years"]
I guess my definition of major might be a little to restrictive, though. If you want to impress me, get I-20, I-30, and I-70 at least close to both coasts (I don't expect to see sand collecting at the base of the END signs, lol). If they make that happen, I'll consider that major. But I really don't see any of those things happening.
Now, on the technology side, I believe we are heading towards automated vehicles allowed on the Interstate system, and it could be sooner than we think, especially in commercial trucking. I can foresee road trains of several trucks in a row plodding along in the right lane on rural interstates to be taken over by drivers when they get close to their urban destinations for the actual delivery of the goods, and I don't think that is every far into the future.
On the private car side we are already seeing GPS units with traffic updates and road closure information that is pretty much in real time. My Garmin Nuvi 2698LMT was pretty much on point during a sudden snow squall on I-40 back in February. I think further refinements on this technology are right around the corner.
I think most things will be minor, not major.
Safety improvements, mainly. More and more cable barriers in the median, tight loop ramps replaced by three-level interchanges, cloverleaves replaced by parclos, etc.
Widening some rural stretches where traffic is thick. I anticipate several of these being funded by adding tolls.
Open-road tolling extended to rural Interstates.
Removal of rest areas.
Quote from: jwolfer on August 28, 2016, 09:44:40 PM
I see VA, NC and SC tolling interstate 95 like Delaware at the state lines. Other states around the country May do same
Delaware gets away with it because the Delaware Turnpike was built with no federal dollars.
FHWA is not likely to approve that on any freeway built with federal dollars.
Quote from: slorydn1 on September 24, 2016, 06:34:10 PM
I don't believe travelers on I-95 in NC will have to worry about tolls anytime soon. Governor Easley proposed that very idea and it died a pretty quick death. The legislative members from the I-95 corridor counties, a mixture of both parties, were vehemently opposed to tolling I-95 in any form or fashion. The two governors that came after him, one Democrat and one Republican, wouldn't even speak of it in a public setting.
I-95 across most of North Carolina is a terrible freeway - its early and substandard overall design, substandard interchanges and above all a need to widen from the current four lanes to at least six and probably eight are all needed, and there's not enough dollars available from the traditional sources to fund same.
So what to do?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 25, 2016, 11:10:30 AM
Quote from: slorydn1 on September 24, 2016, 06:34:10 PM
I don't believe travelers on I-95 in NC will have to worry about tolls anytime soon. Governor Easley proposed that very idea and it died a pretty quick death. The legislative members from the I-95 corridor counties, a mixture of both parties, were vehemently opposed to tolling I-95 in any form or fashion. The two governors that came after him, one Democrat and one Republican, wouldn't even speak of it in a public setting.
I-95 across most of North Carolina is a terrible freeway - its early and substandard overall design, substandard interchanges and above all a need to widen from the current four lanes to at least six and probably eight are all needed, and there's not enough dollars available from the traditional sources to fund same.
So what to do?
Published traffic counts on I-95 in NC seem to be in 30-40K range mostly with some areas peaking at 50.. I am not sure if that warrant 6 lanes, not to talk about 8.
Few mile of urban stretches are somewhat different story, but then so are the costs..
Quote from: kphoger on September 24, 2016, 07:02:24 PMRemoval of rest areas.
On that issue, I don't think the trend has been consistently in one direction. It is certainly true that many states have closed rest areas, but others (e.g., Iowa and Texas) have been refurbishing them and installing modern amenities like wifi. I suspect the impetus for rest area closures in states that are currently considering them will become much weaker if, and when, there is an increase in the federal gas tax that is adequate to meet identified highway infrastructure needs.
Quote from: kalvado on September 25, 2016, 01:46:48 PM
Published traffic counts on I-95 in NC seem to be in 30-40K range mostly with some areas peaking at 50.. I am not sure if that warrant 6 lanes, not to talk about 8.
Few mile of urban stretches are somewhat different story, but then so are the costs..
Having driven I-95 across North Carolina many times, there are several problems with much of the freeway in that state, including:
0. Your citation of traffic volumes does not take into account estimates of
future traffic, nor the percentage of commercial vehicle traffic, especially tractor-trailer combinations.
1. Drivers Nestoring (
see Wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nestor) about the late John Oliver Nestor, MD) in the left lane for mile after mile, causing "rolling" backups, made worse by commercial vehicles (though they are not generally the ones doing the Nestoring).
2.
Many substandard interchanges along I-95 in North Carolina that need
total reconstruction. EDIT: Like this (https://www.google.com/maps/place/35%C2%B030'14.8%22N+78%C2%B019'16.1%22W/@35.504103,-78.3255087,16z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d35.504103!4d-78.321126) and these (https://www.google.com/maps/place/35%C2%B017'41.4%22N+78%C2%B036'08.0%22W/@35.294835,-78.6109771,15z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d35.294835!4d-78.602217).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 05, 2016, 10:37:20 AM
Quote from: kalvado on September 25, 2016, 01:46:48 PM
Published traffic counts on I-95 in NC seem to be in 30-40K range mostly with some areas peaking at 50.. I am not sure if that warrant 6 lanes, not to talk about 8.
Few mile of urban stretches are somewhat different story, but then so are the costs..
Having driven I-95 across North Carolina many times, there are several problems with much of the freeway in that state, including:
0. Your citation of traffic volumes does not take into account estimates of future traffic, nor of percentage of commercial vehicle traffic, especially tractor-trailer combinations.
1. Drivers Nestoring (see Wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nestor) about the late John Oliver Nestor, MD) in the left lane for mile after mile, causing "rolling" backups, made worse by commercial vehicles (though they are not generally the ones doing the Nestoring).
2. Many substandard interchanges along I-95 in North Carolina that need total reconstruction.
I assume tolls would be especially effective in eliminating (1)...
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 05, 2016, 10:37:20 AM
Quote from: kalvado on September 25, 2016, 01:46:48 PM
Published traffic counts on I-95 in NC seem to be in 30-40K range mostly with some areas peaking at 50.. I am not sure if that warrant 6 lanes, not to talk about 8.
Few mile of urban stretches are somewhat different story, but then so are the costs..
Having driven I-95 across North Carolina many times, there are several problems with much of the freeway in that state, including:
0. Your citation of traffic volumes does not take into account estimates of future traffic, nor of percentage of commercial vehicle traffic, especially tractor-trailer combinations.
1. Drivers Nestoring (see Wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nestor) about the late John Oliver Nestor, MD) in the left lane for mile after mile, causing "rolling" backups, made worse by commercial vehicles (though they are not generally the ones doing the Nestoring).
2. Many substandard interchanges along I-95 in North Carolina that need total reconstruction.
Nestoring, while an excuse to have at least 3 lanes, wouldn't be a reason to provide 3 lanes. How do you justify having a 3rd lane to reduce the changes of getting behind 2 vehicles going the same speed, especially when those vehicles are travelling at or above the speed limit? And since the justification of a 3rd lane depends on either peak hour or overall traffic volumes, the overall average of that traffic isn't going to fluctuate much because of this Nestoring.
Quote from: kalvado on October 05, 2016, 11:55:59 AM
I assume tolls would be especially effective in eliminating (1)...
Don't count on it - I have experienced sometimes severe Nestoring on the two lanes each way sections of the Pennsylvania Turnpike East-West mainline, especially between New Stanton and Breezewood.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 05, 2016, 10:37:20 AM
Quote from: kalvado on September 25, 2016, 01:46:48 PM
Published traffic counts on I-95 in NC seem to be in 30-40K range mostly with some areas peaking at 50.. I am not sure if that warrant 6 lanes, not to talk about 8.
Few mile of urban stretches are somewhat different story, but then so are the costs..
Having driven I-95 across North Carolina many times, there are several problems with much of the freeway in that state, including:
0. Your citation of traffic volumes does not take into account estimates of future traffic, nor the percentage of commercial vehicle traffic, especially tractor-trailer combinations.
1. Drivers Nestoring (see Wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nestor) about the late John Oliver Nestor, MD) in the left lane for mile after mile, causing "rolling" backups, made worse by commercial vehicles (though they are not generally the ones doing the Nestoring).
2. Many substandard interchanges along I-95 in North Carolina that need total reconstruction. EDIT: Like this (https://www.google.com/maps/place/35%C2%B030'14.8%22N+78%C2%B019'16.1%22W/@35.504103,-78.3255087,16z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d35.504103!4d-78.321126) and these (https://www.google.com/maps/place/35%C2%B017'41.4%22N+78%C2%B036'08.0%22W/@35.294835,-78.6109771,15z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d35.294835!4d-78.602217).
The second example (Dunn, Exit 72/US 421) is the first section of I-95 built in NC in 1959. There is a growth among the interchanges but the freeway and interchanges have remained the same for
57 years.
The first example (Smithfield/Selma, Exit 95/US 70 Bus.) has not changed for 56 years.
Basically, the section from Exit 70 south of Dunn to Exit 79 in Benson has stayed the same for 57 years. The last time I drove through there was 2005 and noticed the substandardness of that stretch of I-95. It was rather interesting to see the
very early interstate finished product, however, this section
does need to be modernized as well as the section near Smithfield and Selma--especially with US 70 upgraded to I-42. In fact, I-95 needs to be modernized between Exit 56 north of Fayetteville to Exit 107 in Kenly. It doesn't have to be six lanes, but four lanes with a wider median. You can see on Google how the median is very narrow in the section mentioned above. I-95 south of Exit 56 and north of Exit 107 have the wider medians (because those sections were completed in 1980 and 1978, respectively).
Now the cost of this would be in the billions because many bridges would have to be raised/rebuilt and there would have to be some property acquisitions at some interchanges. I know that traffic counts are not extremely high through these sections, however, something should be done in preparation for future increases in traffic counts. With hindsight being 20/20, what NC should have done was modernize I-95 in the 1980's and 1990's instead of trying to build US 220 and US 311 to interstate standards just so an I-sign could be posted. Right now I-73 and I-74 are seemingly safer to travel on than the above mentioned substandard section of I-95.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 05, 2016, 12:18:11 PM
Nestoring, while an excuse to have at least 3 lanes, wouldn't be a reason to provide 3 lanes. How do you justify having a 3rd lane to reduce the changes of getting behind 2 vehicles going the same speed, especially when those vehicles are travelling at or above the speed limit? And since the justification of a 3rd lane depends on either peak hour or overall traffic volumes, the overall average of that traffic isn't going to fluctuate much because of this Nestoring.
Three lanes makes Nestoring much more difficult.
Even the most-clueless and Nestoring-prone drivers appear to stay out of the left lane when there are three or more lanes present (not sure why this is).
I am not sure why, but Nestoring is generally not a "team sport." It's usually one or two clueless people one behind the other in the left lane. Note however that the late Dr. Nestor himself liked to Nestor in the left lane of a three-lane or four-lane cross-section of freeway, but he was doing this deliberately.
Most Nestorers appear not doing it to impede others, but because they are either clueless, or (in some cases) because they are intimidated by traffic entering the freeway from the right (this may be especially acute along long sections of the North Carolina part of I-95, where there are no acceleration lanes at all for entering traffic).