This is a question I've been thinking about. Are states building too many new highways that are unnecessary, or just plain overkill? Is it worth building all of this new stuff when the state is usually broke or close to it, and the feds couldn't care less about roads anymore? What are some examples of this in your state? I personally don't have any for Indiana, other than the Ohio River bridges project. I have plenty of proposed examples, but I don't think that pertains here. I see states like Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi in particular building freeways that seem to have a small purpose, but will looking at their finances, seem like a bad idea. Should states focus more on fixing what they have, or continue on new terrain roadways? Or is it feasible to do both? Interested in your opinions.
The states that are building a lot (NC, TX, FL) really need it. Most states are either building too few or are already adequate.
^ 1, those states will still need to maintain those new facilities, and there is evidence that regular road maintenance is starting to get short shrift in at least two of those states, not to mention others that have been on a road-building boom over the past 20 years (MS and WI being two examples).
There's also a reason why Texas and Florida have gone heavily into toll roads. Because their current/recent budgets couldn't handle building those new roads as toll-free.
Quote from: froggie on September 14, 2018, 10:53:14 AM
^ 1, those states will still need to maintain those new facilities, and there is evidence that regular road maintenance is starting to get short shrift in at least two of those states, not to mention others that have been on a road-building boom over the past 20 years (MS and WI being two examples).
There's also a reason why Texas and Florida have gone heavily into toll roads. Because their current/recent budgets couldn't handle building those new roads as toll-free.
Which always brings the question of adequate payment for services. Population keeps growing, so does the use of infrastructure.
Tolls, while disliked, are a good way to make sure balance adds up. If a road with plenty of traffic doesn't generate adequate revenue to pay for maintenance and construction - something is not right: tax or toll
must generate that revenue. If money are diverted, that is one thing. If rates are too low, that is the other.
There hasn't been any serious road building in my neck of the woods in a long time. Mostly there are widenings and interchange improvements, and those are most certainly needed.
In the northeast, many planned expressways/freeways were never built for various reasons. As a result, the existing expressways that were built are bearing additional loads due to the absence of those fore-mentioned facilities.
Adding insult to injury, the promises to widen/expand the existing highways to compensate for the above unbuilt roads (note: mass transit was never intended to be the catch-all) either never happened or took decades long to finally become reality.
The problem described here is not that states are building too many new facilities, it is that they are failing to also fund maintenance.
Part of this is the lack of will from the populace to accept those costs. The federal gas tax has lost over 40% of its value due to inflation since it was last raised, and real revenues from it have been reduced even more due to cars gradually becoming more fuel efficient. But everyone thinks gas is already too expensive so any suggestion to correct for this problem is politically a non-starter.
Similar problems exist on the state level in much of the country, though states that have made the responsible decision to raise their gas taxes are better for it. Pennsylvania, for example, had built up a significant maintenance backlog but several years ago they voted to raise their gas tax. PA is now one of the most expensive states to buy gas in but guess what? Their bridges are getting fixed and their potholes are getting filled. More states need to follow their example.
Is this why Connecticut roads might be better than their Rhode Island counterparts? I'mm not sure what the difference in tax rates are, but I find cheaper gas in Rhode Island (and even cheaper gas in Mass. but my commute won't get close to Seekonk starting next month.)
Oregon loves to not build new roadway facilities most of the time, unless if it is light rail.
LG-TP260
Boise is one of the fastest growing cities in the country and we're looking at about three miles of new freeway (along Idaho 16, to connect it from 20/26/Chinden to I-84) and finally widening I-84 from four to six lanes through Nampa-Caldwell. And that's about it. If it were 1960 we'd probably be building a lot more with this growth rate but those big roads just don't pay for themselves and it's in the interest of all the cities in the valley to promote infill/density and not encourage sprawl by building more freeways.
Lack of space/preservation/funding are why you don't have any new freeways in New England. What our region needs is more intercity rail (especially E-W) and more effective HOV lane strategies. If driving could be the "last mile/first mile" portion of the commute that would be so much better.
^Now I think I know why you posted this topic:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=23616.msg2355122#msg2355122
I look at some of the projects being done in Columbus and think "Is this going to be enough?" And there are some big time expansions all being done at the same time, not including a few that have recently wrapped up. I really think the growth of the area is outpacing the ability of the DOT to keep up.
Are there any states that don't need new facilities? I'm thinking possibly ME, VT, ND, SD, MT, KS, and WY. These are all rural low-population states, although Kansas is on the list partially for being slightly overbuilt (relative to the rest of the country) in the Kansas City area. I would include WV, except they're already improving several corridors, and they're doing it well. ID is growing rapidly. AK is a wildcard. I initially included NH on the list, but I can think of several possible improvements, so I took it off.
California has been eking out new facilities a few miles at a time for the past quarter century since the state's last major urban freeway project (not counting the OC toll roads), I-105, was opened to traffic. Since the emphasis in the greater L.A. area -- primarily south of the mountains -- has been on various transit modes (LR, MetroRail, the busways, etc.) rather than either new facilities or expansion of existing ones -- unless the old facility was so substandard that something had to be done (e.g. I-5 between i-710 and OC). In all likelihood, the completion of the CA 71 freeway in Pomona between CA 60 and I-10 will be the last freeway mileage built south of the San Gabriels for the foreseeable future.
The Bay area, never terribly welcoming of new freeways, displays much the same dynamics -- at least until one gets to the east side of the Coast Range. Except for addressing longstanding "bottlenecks" (such as the 101/237 interchange), not a lot is being done in the realm of roadway expansion; to do so would provoke a political backlash. But the housing crisis has created a different scenario out in Brentwood and along the I-580/I-205 composite corridor; new roads are being built (the CA 4 extension) and existing ones modified/expanded to accommodate the vastly increasing levels of commuter traffic (Vasco Road as an example). But as anyone who's utilized many of the new facilities can attest, they don't look or function like historic urban freeways -- fewer interchanges, less general-purpose lanes, and "staged" construction -- cross traffic with signals initially, interchanges later. When new construction does happen, it tends to be precipitated by necessity: either development (in this case relatively affordable exurban housing/associated commercial) has overwhelmed the existing surface roadway network or one or another regional limited-access arteries has become so extraordinarily clogged that establishment of a relief route becomes necessary. Within the greater Bay Area environs, that scenario is playing out with the farthest outlying exurbs (Brentwood, Discovery Bay) still within the metro area, where housing costs are about a third less than in San Jose or the adjoining employment centers. While housing seekers can still cut another 20-25% off their housing costs by locating another 30 miles east in the area between Tracy and Stockton, the outlying Contra Costa County 'burbs offer a potential compromise between cost and a hellish commute -- cut that 30 miles off for $100-150K housing expense (essentially trading a known capital cost for continuing and likely variable self-labor costs). The aforementioned Vasco Road and the other N-S arteries providing access to I-205 and I-580 out in the Tracy area all feed into I-580 near Livermore en route to the "Silicon Valley" employment arc that stretches in a semi-circle around the south end of the Bay from southern Fremont on the east side to Redwood City on the west side Peninsula. While I-580 itself is undergoing incremental expansion, alternate/transit facilities (BART extension, expanding the ACE commuter rail service) are in the forefront of measures to address this -- both in terms of PR and visibility -- illustrating the current priorities of both state and local government. However, the incremental extension/expansion of the CA 4 corridor east from the Concord/Pittsburg area and "dovetailing" into the Vasco Road connector south to I-580 also shows that at least some attention is being paid to address the fact that only a portion of the influx into the outlying housing will be availing themselves of public transportation; the remainder will still require roads to get them where they need to go.
Where this incremental approach to roadbuilding has played out most successfully is with interregional facilities such as the CA 99 and CA 58 corridors; the last at-grade cross-traffic on the former was eliminated last year with the opening of the south Merced freeway; the northern reaches of that facility in Stanislaus and San Joaquin counties, where the "spillover" housing from the Bay is sited are also being expanded one segment at a time to accommodate the addition of commuter traffic to the longstanding regional and/or commercial load. But CA 58 poses a unique situation for Caltrans and its localized counterparts -- it's a major commercial connector that is out of the commuter "orbit". So far they've resisted any calls for a comprehensive corridor upgrading to Interstate (or quasi-) standards in favor of an approach that echoes corridor development in the upper Midwest -- freeways in the more populated areas and divided expressways in the interim. Of course, much of the corridor was "built out" in the '60's and '70's, when freeway construction was commonplace, so there's considerably more freeway mileage along the route than in their Midwest counterparts. Nevertheless, current activity is geared toward eliminating the remaining 2-lane segments of the corridor rather than upgrading the expressway portions to freeway -- a prioritization of safety and measured capacity increases over expediting development of a potential Interstate. Even with the increased revenue afforded by last years' gas tax increase (which may not survive the upcoming election), Caltrans is still in "eke-out" mode; most of the new influx of funds are being directed to rehabilitation of existing roads. Now -- whether more ambitious plans are forwarded if perchance the increased taxation base is allowed to continue is simply TBD; but if that occurs, the form (accelerated road development or enhanced transit modes) that would take is also up for grabs, so to speak!
Quote from: 1 on September 16, 2018, 08:14:18 AM
Are there any states that don't need new facilities? I'm thinking possibly ME, VT, ND, SD, MT, KS, and WY. These are all rural low-population states, although Kansas is on the list partially for being slightly overbuilt (relative to the rest of the country) in the Kansas City area. I would include WV, except they're already improving several corridors, and they're doing it well. ID is growing rapidly. AK is a wildcard. I initially included NH on the list, but I can think of several possible improvements, so I took it off.
Maine can definitely use some improvements around Portland. There has already been talk of running a toll-spur off the Maine Tpke towards Gorham. The commute in and out of Portland to the west is getting to be a pretty large mess. I'd argue a small extension of I-395 eastward is warranted as well.
Quote from: SectorZ on September 16, 2018, 10:04:14 AM
Quote from: 1 on September 16, 2018, 08:14:18 AM
Are there any states that don't need new facilities? I'm thinking possibly ME, VT, ND, SD, MT, KS, and WY. These are all rural low-population states, although Kansas is on the list partially for being slightly overbuilt (relative to the rest of the country) in the Kansas City area. I would include WV, except they're already improving several corridors, and they're doing it well. ID is growing rapidly. AK is a wildcard. I initially included NH on the list, but I can think of several possible improvements, so I took it off.
Maine can definitely use some improvements around Portland. There has already been talk of running a toll-spur off the Maine Tpke towards Gorham. The commute in and out of Portland to the west is getting to be a pretty large mess. I'd argue a small extension of I-395 eastward is warranted as well.
At one point that I-395 extension was considered a first step toward a freeway facility extending along ME 9 to the border crossing of NB 101 west of Calais. Clearly, that project has been "back-burnered" for the time being, but is it still technically active? (in
Holy Grail terms,
"I'm not dead yet")?
Quote from: 1 on September 16, 2018, 08:14:18 AM
Are there any states that don't need new facilities? I'm thinking possibly ME, VT, ND, SD, MT, KS, and WY. These are all rural low-population states, although Kansas is on the list partially for being slightly overbuilt (relative to the rest of the country) in the Kansas City area. I would include WV, except they're already improving several corridors, and they're doing it well. ID is growing rapidly. AK is a wildcard. I initially included NH on the list, but I can think of several possible improvements, so I took it off.
And just how is the Kansas City area overbuilt on the Kansas side? I can think of a few additional facilities that would be very useful - such as getting an alternative to I-435.
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 16, 2018, 10:46:21 AM
Quote from: 1 on September 16, 2018, 08:14:18 AM
Are there any states that don't need new facilities? I'm thinking possibly ME, VT, ND, SD, MT, KS, and WY. These are all rural low-population states, although Kansas is on the list partially for being slightly overbuilt (relative to the rest of the country) in the Kansas City area. I would include WV, except they're already improving several corridors, and they're doing it well. ID is growing rapidly. AK is a wildcard. I initially included NH on the list, but I can think of several possible improvements, so I took it off.
And just how is the Kansas City area overbuilt on the Kansas side? I can think of a few additional facilities that would be very useful - such as getting an alternative to I-435.
For some reason, I thought that Kansas City's freeway network was as dense as the Twin Cities' network. Looking at it again, it doesn't quite seem to be that way.
Also, "overbuilt" in relative terms. Many other major cities are underbuilt.
If I was king of Kentucky, I'd scrap some of the urban interstate projects (such as building the two DDIs on I-71/75 in northern Kentucky) in favor of better connections between county seats, and linking them to the interstate and parkway system, especially in the mountains. When it's easier to get to Harlan from Knoxville than it is Lexington, you have a problem.
Quote from: 1 on September 16, 2018, 08:14:18 AMAre there any states that don't need new facilities? I'm thinking possibly ME, VT, ND, SD, MT, KS, and WY. These are all rural low-population states, although Kansas is on the list partially for being slightly overbuilt (relative to the rest of the country) in the Kansas City area.
Kansas is, if anything, underbuilt in KC. And while some of the new four-lane rural facilities (not all freeway) have sub-10,000 projected AADTs, Kingman is on its way to becoming a farm-country Breezewood.
There is an international dimension to this. Our roadway system is capital-starved with a longlist of at least 40 recognized freight bottlenecks. Meanwhile, the Chinese are building ambitious facilities equivalent in scope to the Eisenhower tunnel and Glenwood Canyon every year, not every decade, every once in a generation, or once in a lifetime (like we are). And the Chinese don't get hung up on roads versus transit, roads versus long-distance passenger rail, expressways versus local service roads--they are investing heavily across all fronts.
Quote from: 1 on September 16, 2018, 08:14:18 AMAK is a wildcard.
Alaska needs more in Anchorage (it is not for nothing that it is called "Los Anchorage") and areas that are within a day's drive of it, but can otherwise get by with passing lanes on the lengths of the Richardson and Alaska Highways that see mainly long-distance trunk traffic. Part of the issue is that traffic concentrates heavily in the summer months, so projects often have to be descoped so that acceptable LOS is achieved with traffic volumes at the 100th highest hour instead of the more usual 30th, just to get them to fit within the budget.
Michigan really doesn't have any pressing needs for ground-up facilities, but there are plenty of existing roads that need expansion or complete rebuilds (looking at you, Ann Arbor loop)
Quote from: 6a on September 16, 2018, 08:06:46 AM
I look at some of the projects being done in Columbus and think "Is this going to be enough?" And there are some big time expansions all being done at the same time, not including a few that have recently wrapped up. I really think the growth of the area is outpacing the ability of the DOT to keep up.
How is Colombus's traffic? Indy's is great, only a few bottlenecks, which is surprising for a city its size.
Too many? :-D NY, without a question, needs more, especially Upstate which seems to be fairly consistently left on the back burner.
VT is a primarily rural state, but some passing lanes or widening would be nice on roads that see a lot of long distance traffic, such as VT 7.
As far as states that don't need new facilities at all, definitely the Dakotas, especially ND. The area of SD around Rapid City and Rushmore, however, sees a lot of congestion. It would have been nice, for example, if Truck 16 had been built as a full freeway bypass of Rapid City. Heavy development has turned it into an urban arterial, and the high speed limits are almost impossible to reach, much less maintain. I wouldn't necessarily put Montana on the list. Alt 93 around Kalispell was sorely needed. Wyoming, however, is probably fine with no new facilities.
Every other state west of the Mississippi is either fast-growing (CA, OR, WA, ID, NV, AZ, CO, TX), has underbuilt infrastructure to begin with (NM), or has a number of sizeable cities meaning future upgrades/new construction shouldn't be ruled out (OK, KS, NE, LA, AR, MO, MN). That leaves the ones I mentioned above, and possibly Iowa, which seems to have planned sufficiently; I don't foresee much new construction being needed there.
East of the Mississippi, Kentucky is actually the first state that comes to mind, with its many parkways crisscrossing primarily rural areas; urban areas might need new facilities, but I can't speak for those. Other states in the South are fast-growing; the primary exceptions are MS, AL, and TN, all of which seem to be investing in their infrastructure and have sizeable cities that need the investment. Michigan doesn't need more infrastructure, necessarily, but they need to maintain what they have a lot better. IL, IN, and OH definitely aren't overbuilding. The traditional East Coast states, from Virginia north, and including PA, need investment, with the possible exception of Maine, which has been discussed.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 16, 2018, 04:26:43 PM
Our roadway system is capital-starved with a longlist of at least 40 recognized freight bottlenecks.
Do you have more information on this? I'd be interested if so.
Quote from: 1 on September 16, 2018, 08:14:18 AM
Are there any states that don't need new facilities?
I would include WV, except they're already improving several corridors, and they're doing it well.
To be honest, WV is about done.
US 35 is a very necessary project and is nearing completion.
The 6 lane of I-64 in eastern Putnam County is needed, but the rest is really adequate as is.
There is some road work needed in the eastern panhandle.
Corridor H will be a game changer, taking an hour or more off a trip to DC for a significant part of the country.
The rest of the proposed projects are pointless.
The "Coalfield Expressway" (US 121) Beckley to Grundy, VA; the "King Coal Highway" and "Tolsia Highway" (so-called I73/73, actually US 52) (Kenova to Bluefield) pass through land that, but for coal, would have been unpopulated for all time and will take mere minutes off the trips between their endpoints on existing roads. The money would be better spent in encouraging the remnant population there that has not had the same sense as the majority which left, to finally leave. Same can be said for any further building of the waste that was Logan County's WV 10 project.
Quote from: jon daly on September 15, 2018, 09:29:48 AMIs this why Connecticut roads might be better than their Rhode Island counterparts? I'm not sure what the difference in tax rates are, but I find cheaper gas in Rhode Island (and even cheaper gas in Mass. but my commute won't get close to Seekonk starting next month.)
Another issue with gas taxes is
where are the monies actually going? By that, I mean are such going to a dedicated highway or transportation fund (preferred) or is it being thrown into a catch-all
general fund where the potential to use (more like
raid) the monies towards other matters not at all related to transportation. IIRC,
both CT & RI are still doing such (throwing their gas tax monies into a general fund) have done such for
decades. Therein lies part of the problem.
Had all the urban freeways been built decades back, then yeah, we could say that. But now I'm arguing for the opposite: not enough roads to go around.
Quote from: webny99 on September 18, 2018, 08:51:27 AMQuote from: J N Winkler on September 16, 2018, 04:26:43 PM
Our roadway system is capital-starved with a longlist of at least 40 recognized freight bottlenecks.
Do you have more information on this? I'd be interested if so.
American Highway Users' Alliance top-50 list from 2015 (https://www.highways.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/unclogging-study2015-hi-res.pdf) (some of the bottlenecks listed, but by no means the majority, are receiving capacity expansions and other improvements)
Oklahoma DOT planning document (excerpt) that describes how bottlenecks are identified using HPMS data (https://ok.gov/odot/documents/Freight_Bottlenecks_Mobility_Issues_OKFreightPlan2018_2022.pdf)
American Transportation Research Institute's 2017 list of 100 top truck bottlenecks (http://atri-online.org/2017/01/17/2017-top-100-truck-bottleneck-list/)
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 18, 2018, 09:58:16 AMAnother issue with gas taxes is where are the monies actually going? By that, I mean are such going to a dedicated highway or transportation fund (preferred) or is it being thrown into a catch-all general fund where the potential to use (more like raid) the monies towards other matters not at all related to transportation.
It should be noted that the lockbox approach is not inconsistent with occasional raids for other purposes. Kansas has long dedicated fuel tax revenues to the highways but, before Brownback, occasionally borrowed from the highway account to balance the budget. Such borrowings were typically small (I think the largest was $30 million under Sebelius) and repaid a few years later. Under Brownback, however, we resorted to what the press called "the Bank of KDOT" to cover the budget gaps opened by the tax cuts. Now $2 billion is outstanding, which has forced re-scoping of a $8 billion highway program, and it is currently an open question--under study by a state transportation investment taskforce--whether the money will be repaid.
In the early days of the fuel tax as the fiscal mainstay for highway construction and maintenance, a distinction was drawn between states that hypothecated as a matter of law and those that did so through constitutional amendment. Kansas was apparently the first to resort to the latter, which is seen as committing the legislature more securely to a policy of spending highway user revenues only on the highways. But I also think much depends on how the constitutional amendment is worded and enforced. If the courts allow the legislature to loan itself money that is supposed to be used for the highways, then . . .
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 18, 2018, 09:58:16 AM
Quote from: jon daly on September 15, 2018, 09:29:48 AMIs this why Connecticut roads might be better than their Rhode Island counterparts? I'm not sure what the difference in tax rates are, but I find cheaper gas in Rhode Island (and even cheaper gas in Mass. but my commute won't get close to Seekonk starting next month.)
Another issue with gas taxes is where are the monies actually going? By that, I mean are such going to a dedicated highway or transportation fund (preferred) or is it being thrown into a catch-all general fund where the potential to use (more like raid) the monies towards other matters not at all related to transportation. IIRC, both CT & RI are still doing such (throwing their gas tax monies into a general fund) have done such for decades. Therein lies part of the problem.
Well, let me play devil's advocate:
Sales tax is a significant source of revenue for many states/localities, and is in fact a part of general tax. Multiple types of taxes are there for multiple reasons, and sales/VAT is an easy one to collect - one may consider it as a flat-rate part of income tax. So there is no reason to specifically exclude gas from the sales tax nor direct those funds anywhere outside general fund. And sales tax on gas in NY, for example, accounts to about 25-30% of all taxes collected on gas.
In case of NYS we also have NYS Petroleum Business Tax and excise tax, and I have hard time trying to trace where they go.. But none of these is a specific road fuel tax...
Quote from: kalvado on September 18, 2018, 10:59:18 AM
The issue with the gas tax going to a general (non-transportation) fund has more often than not turned into a
robbing Peter to pay Paul scenario. If motorists see their gas tax increases but don't see too much in terms of road/transportation improvements; they're going to get outright skeptical regarding future increases.
Similar can be said regarding increasing or adding tolls. I can list three major highway-related (non-earthquake-related) collapses that occurred on toll facilities. Again, if there's even a
perception of toll monies being misused/misappropriated; motorists are, again, going to be skeptical regarding any proposed toll increases and/or adding tolls onto existing free highways.
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 18, 2018, 07:55:15 AM
Quote from: 6a on September 16, 2018, 08:06:46 AM
I look at some of the projects being done in Columbus and think "Is this going to be enough?" And there are some big time expansions all being done at the same time, not including a few that have recently wrapped up. I really think the growth of the area is outpacing the ability of the DOT to keep up.
How is Colombus's traffic? Indy's is great, only a few bottlenecks, which is surprising for a city its size.
I don't have any stats to back this up; it's all just from experience. Columbus is worse than Indy, but not at the level of, say, Charlotte. And certainly nowhere near an Atlanta or Chicago.
A good part of our problem currently is the ongoing construction and expansion of the freeway system. Right now the entire length of I-71 from downtown south to just past I-270 is being widened, along with the interchange at 270 being reconfigured. A 7 mile stretch of I-270 on the west side is being widened. Work continues on the I-70/71 overlap downtown. US 33 is being widened SE of I-270.
Recently finished projects include I-270's exits with US 23 and SR 315, and I-270 and US 33 on the NW side all being reconfigured. I-70 near I-270 on the west side being widened, and I-71 widened further south of I-270, along with the exit at US 36/SR 37. That last one ended up with the exit-only lane being at least a mile long!
The biggest problem here is simply the amount of people moving in. At the 2010 census, the population gain in the city of Columbus alone (not metro area) made up for the losses for the rest of the top ten in the state. So while traffic certainly isn't unbearable here, it most definitely is getting worse. And there seems to be absolutely no will to explore any kind of mass transit.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 18, 2018, 11:30:14 AM
Quote from: kalvado on September 18, 2018, 10:59:18 AM
The issue with the gas tax going to a general (non-transportation) fund has more often than not turned into a robbing Peter to pay Paul scenario. If motorists see their gas tax increases but don't see too much in terms of road/transportation improvements; they're going to get outright skeptical regarding future increases.
Similar can be said regarding increasing or adding tolls. I can list three major highway-related (non-earthquake-related) collapses that occurred on toll facilities. Again, if there's even a perception of toll monies being misused/misappropriated; motorists are, again, going to be skeptical regarding any proposed toll increases and/or adding tolls onto existing free highways.
Well, there need to be a good understanding of gas-specific taxes vs general taxes on goods including gas.
Of course, when a tax increase is being discussed, someone would say that "a huge portion of gas tax goes into general fund!" - which is true... to some extent.
Quote from: 6a on September 18, 2018, 11:41:59 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 18, 2018, 07:55:15 AM
Quote from: 6a on September 16, 2018, 08:06:46 AM
I look at some of the projects being done in Columbus and think "Is this going to be enough?" And there are some big time expansions all being done at the same time, not including a few that have recently wrapped up. I really think the growth of the area is outpacing the ability of the DOT to keep up.
How is Colombus's traffic? Indy's is great, only a few bottlenecks, which is surprising for a city its size.
I don't have any stats to back this up; it's all just from experience. Columbus is worse than Indy, but not at the level of, say, Charlotte. And certainly nowhere near an Atlanta or Chicago.
A good part of our problem currently is the ongoing construction and expansion of the freeway system. Right now the entire length of I-71 from downtown south to just past I-270 is being widened, along with the interchange at 270 being reconfigured. A 7 mile stretch of I-270 on the west side is being widened. Work continues on the I-70/71 overlap downtown. US 33 is being widened SE of I-270.
Recently finished projects include I-270's exits with US 23 and SR 315, and I-270 and US 33 on the NW side all being reconfigured. I-70 near I-270 on the west side being widened, and I-71 widened further south of I-270, along with the exit at US 36/SR 37. That last one ended up with the exit-only lane being at least a mile long!
The biggest problem here is simply the amount of people moving in. At the 2010 census, the population gain in the city of Columbus alone (not metro area) made up for the losses for the rest of the top ten in the state. So while traffic certainly isn't unbearable here, it most definitely is getting worse. And there seems to be absolutely no will to explore any kind of mass transit.
what happened to charlottes freeway system? the entire southeast side of town is missing freeway access to downtown. did they cancel a ton of freeways back in the day?
Quote from: SP Cook on September 18, 2018, 09:57:29 AM
To be honest, WV is about done.
US 35 is a very necessary project and is nearing completion.
The 6 lane of I-64 in eastern Putnam County is needed, but the rest is really adequate as is.
If the Turnpike is not at the point, it will soon be at the point, to where it has the traffic volumes to where it needs to be widened to 6 lanes throughout.
If so, the serpentine alignment thru the low valleys on the northern section, should be studied to see if a relocation at higher elevations would provide a straighter and more level alignment. Expensive to build? Yep. But the need is fast approaching.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 18, 2018, 10:28:44 AM
American Highway Users' Alliance top-50 list from 2015 (https://www.highways.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/unclogging-study2015-hi-res.pdf) (some of the bottlenecks listed, but by no means the majority, are receiving capacity expansions and other improvements)
Good link! This one was resolved in 2016, with the Parallel Midtown Tunnel and the MLK Freeway Extension --
38 - Virginia Norfolk US58 at Martin Luther King Fwy in Portsmouth
MN probably needs another Mississippi crossing or two between Minneapolis and St. Cloud. One of those crossings (planned to be located between MN 24 and MN 25) has been sitting in the toolchest for years, but another one closer to the northwest metro has also started being explored, though will probably not happen for decades.
Quote from: Beltway on September 18, 2018, 01:47:34 PM
If the Turnpike is not at the point, it will soon be at the point, to where it has the traffic volumes to where it needs to be widened to 6 lanes throughout.
If so, the serpentine alignment thru the low valleys on the northern section, should be studied to see if a relocation at higher elevations would provide a straighter and more level alignment. Expensive to build? Yep. But the need is fast approaching.
The traffic volumes on the turnpike are actually similar to other four lane interstates. The perception is caused by several issues:
- The construction of the 4 lane was totally malpracticed. All of the other interstates in the mountains were mostly very rural areas and they blasted away with impunity. On the turnpike they tried to keep the existing two lane, built to 1950s standards, open and mostly just built a second set of lanes, with vastly limited blasting. Thus the dangerous northern third of the road, twisty and with no median, making it difficult to drive at actual interstate speeds; with any minor accident causing unacceptable delays.
- The toll facilities are grossly inadequate and understaffed on heavy traffic times, such as holidays. This is because the management is both corrupt and inept. They do not care.
Arkansas has the 18th largest road network, but comes up close to last in wealth in most measures. They could stand to turn several rural state highways back to the counties in exchange for bridge building, but since it's near the center of the country, there will always be the need for many federal facilities to transit the state for those trying to get to other parts of the country. And there are 3 areas of the state that are growing fairly rapidly, and of those, only Little Rock is well represented by its road network. Jonesboro and NWA still need substantial improvement in facilities to prevent hamstringing their growth.