I've spent a lot of time on the road the past 12 months, coast to coast. A thought that crossed my mind: Should all interstates be 6-lanes? I can't count how many times I've been stuck behind two semi-trucks or slow moving cars side by side, which can even cause traffic in the most remote areas. Seems like an 3rd lane each way is needed...if anything for safety reasons. Apologies if this topic has been discussed before.
Tunnels: hi :wave:
The mountain of money required to build new, or upgrade to, 6-lane tunnels is far greater than whatever barrier is being overcome, effectively halting any progress on the system.
HOWEVER, in less terrain-difficult areas, this may not be too far-fetched, but would still be highly expensive. Tolls or express lanes may be the only viable funding option in this case given the size of the overall system.
This standard could be beneficial in modernizing the system, streamlining capacity and safety, and even supporting National Defense (large military convoys wouldn't be as impeded by other traffic on 6-lane segments compared to 4-lane segments).
I love the concept, but I'm slightly concerned about implementation. Maybe it could be more beneficial if all NEW 2dis be 6 lanes?
Edited for clarity
Quote from: thisdj78 on March 13, 2024, 12:01:11 AM
I've spent a lot of time on the road the past 12 months, coast to coast. A thought that crossed my mind: Should all interstates be 6-lanes? I can't count how many times I've been stuck behind two semi-trucks or slow moving cars side by side, which can even cause traffic in the most remote areas. Seems like an 3rd lane each way is needed...if anything for safety reasons. Apologies if this topic has been discussed before.
Some interstates don't even deserve to be interstates (looking at you, I-180 of Illinois and of Wyoming), let alone 6 lanes of interstate
There are four-lane Interstates out west that were just two-lane freeways for a long time, and the traffic volumes barely qualify them for four lanes. For examples, I-70 in Utah between Salina and Green River (over 100 miles with no gas stations), and I-15 in northeastern Idaho/southwestern Montana.
I would prefer more six-lane rural Interstates if they were cost-justified, but some exceptions are needed, like the ones I mention above.
I'd say such a requirement would torpedo Interstate 11's chance of ever being extended north to Reno.
Quote from: ilpt4u on March 13, 2024, 12:25:41 AM
Some interstates don't even deserve to be interstates (looking at you, I-180 of Illinois and of Wyoming), let alone 6 lanes of interstate
I-180 can't get no respect! Although agreed that neither route warrants an I-designation and the one in IL could function as a 2-lane.
In IL alone, I-72, I-57 south of the I-24 split, and most of I-74 are perfectly fine as 4 lanes. The tollway system has widened all of its needy routes to 6 lanes or better, including the recent Jane Addams I-90 to Rockford. I-80 from the Quad Cities to I-39 and rural I-55 (except for the Bloomington-Normal, Springfield and Metro St Louis areas) are OK as 4-lanes. I'd say the most deficient sections in IL for 6-lane conversion are I-80 from I-39 to the new construction near Joliet (which will soon be 6/8 lanes thru Joliet), I-57 from Kankakee to I-80, I-55 from IL 113 to south of I-80, and I-55 on the east side of Springfield. At some point, I-39 from Rochelle to Rockford will need it.
Quote from: thisdj78 on March 13, 2024, 12:01:11 AM
I've spent a lot of time on the road the past 12 months, coast to coast. A thought that crossed my mind: Should all interstates be 6-lanes? I can't count how many times I've been stuck behind two semi-trucks or slow moving cars side by side, which can even cause traffic in the most remote areas. Seems like an 3rd lane each way is needed...if anything for safety reasons. Apologies if this topic has been discussed before.
No. It's an unrealistic expectation that travelling an interstate means you aren't inconvenienced by slow drivers.
No point in six laning any interstate when idiots turn it into a 4 lane highway by camping the middle lane or even worse, by camping the passing lane. The 3rd lane is just as much of a travel lane as the middle lane, move all the way to the right when done passing.
Waste of money and resources IMO.
It would literally be impossible to upgrade I-70 through the Eisenhower tunnel and Glenwood Canyon to six lanes
Quote from: thisdj78 on March 13, 2024, 12:01:11 AM
I've spent a lot of time on the road the past 12 months, coast to coast. A thought that crossed my mind: Should all interstates be 6-lanes? I can't count how many times I've been stuck behind two semi-trucks or slow moving cars side by side, which can even cause traffic in the most remote areas.
On six-lane Interstates, I can't count how many times I've been stuck behind three semi-trucks or slow moving cars side by side, which can even cause traffic in the most remote areas. Therefore, all Interstates should be eight lanes.
Quote from: kphoger on March 13, 2024, 10:48:43 AM
Quote from: thisdj78 on March 13, 2024, 12:01:11 AM
I've spent a lot of time on the road the past 12 months, coast to coast. A thought that crossed my mind: Should all interstates be 6-lanes? I can't count how many times I've been stuck behind two semi-trucks or slow moving cars side by side, which can even cause traffic in the most remote areas.
On six-lane Interstates, I can't count how many times I've been stuck behind three semi-trucks or slow moving cars side by side, which can even cause traffic in the most remote areas. Therefore, all Interstates should be eight lanes.
[insert New Urbanist "just one more lane" meme here]
I have sometimes felt this way in higher population areas of the country like CA, TX, and most of the east coast. Though there is still plenty of exceptions in those places too. But in my neck of the woods, hell no. Even the more moderately traffic areas of rural interstate here, like I-84 from Boise to Twin Falls, 4 lanes is totally fine. Sure, you occasionally get stuck behind a passing truck (usually here that means slowing down from 80 to 65 or 70 for like 30 seconds), but it's not really a problem.
My last drive from Boise to Ogden, UT, I probably lost a total of 2 minutes driving time due to "traffic", basically meaningless. Absolutely not worth investing serious money into (other than localized areas like Jerome to Twin Falls, or climbing lanes on hills). Head towards Oregon or Utah on I-84 and traffic levels drop even more, and then it's basically never a problem.
That's not even mentioning the less busy interstates around here like most of I-15 north of the I-84 split, I-86, Utah's I-70, etc.
If anything, sometimes 6 lane freeways seem to flow worse than 4 lanes when there's lighter traffic, because idiots think that gives them the green light to just camp in the middle lane even when they're not passing.
I'm curious what I'll feel about this after visiting some more "mid-density" areas on my road trip this summer, like Missouri and Minnesota.
Only way it makes sense is to outlaw trucks (and enforce it) in the leftmost lane each direction. Otherwise, there's still a likelihood that the rolling roadblocks go three wide.
Do agencies really consider "sometimes people have to drop down to the speed limit" as a reason for widening a highway?
Quote from: kphoger on March 13, 2024, 06:12:08 PM
Do agencies really consider "sometimes people have to drop down to the speed limit" as a reason for widening a highway?
Of course not and I agree with the point you're making. But couldn't a similar question be asked for justification of "limited access" highways in extreme remote rural areas?
I've driven on highways overseas in lightly populated areas that were 6-lanes,
so there had to be
some justification for it beyond my personal example of being stuck behind slow vehicles.
All Interstates should be one lane.
Quote from: thisdj78 on March 13, 2024, 07:09:26 PM
I've driven on highways overseas in lightly populated areas that were 6-lanes,
so there had to be some justification for it beyond my personal example of being stuck behind slow vehicles.
1. There may have been justification, but it may have been flimsy justification. Depending on the country, things like 'appearing modern' might be justification. This becomes easier to sell if there's heavy foreign investment in the project, such that the cost to country the highway is actually in is minimized. I'm specifically thinking of some highway projects in Africa that have been financed and even built by Asian firms.
2. Those highways may have been built when and where land was cheaper, materials were cheaper, labor was cheaper, legal and environmental hurdles were lower, the economy was stronger, etc, etc.
3. What counts as justifiable may have changed between then and now, and may differ from there to here.
4. I've driven on highways overseas in heavily populated areas that were 4-lanes, so there had to be some justification for their not having been widened.
Quote from: Rick Powell on March 13, 2024, 02:13:58 AM
I-80 from the Quad Cities to I-39 and rural I-55 (except for the Bloomington-Normal, Springfield and Metro St Louis areas) are OK as 4-lanes.
I-55 between IL 104 and IL 157 needs to go to at least six lanes, with auxiliary lanes in the Troy area. It's very noticeable how much traffic flow improves or degrades at IL 104 where the existing six lane section ends.
It might be easier to prohibit trucks occupying all lanes in a row unless they can pass and pull over in less than a minute. And if we ever get self-driving trucks, their own software could enforce that, even by causing the slow-poke to slow down a little more while being passed.
They don't all have to be 6-lane. Lots of 4-lane Autobahnen in Deutchland demand that LKW-Verkeher bleiben rechts. >
Quote from: pderocco on March 14, 2024, 12:36:53 AM
It might be easier to prohibit trucks occupying all lanes in a row unless they can pass and pull over in less than a minute.
That's ridiculous. Let's do some math. Someone tell me if I'm doing my math wrong.
The FMCSA recommends that, for speeds over 40 mph, a driver leave 2 seconds of following distance per 10 feet of vehicle length. For a 70-foot tractor-trailer combination, that comes to 14 seconds of safe following distance.
If we assume that the slow-moving vehicle is going 60 mph and the trucker is going 68 mph, then here are the distances each vehicle will have traveled within one minute:
slower vehicle @ 60 mph = 88 ft/sec → 5280 feet (1 mile)
passing truck @ 68 mph = 100 ft/sec → 6000 feet (1 mile + 720 feet)
At 68 mph, a 14-second following distance equals a 1400-foot following distance. So, even though the trucker is going a whopping 8 mph faster than the other vehicle, if he keeps a safe following distance before moving out to pass, then he will only have made it halfway to the back end of that slower vehicle (720 out of 1400 feet) before one minute has elapsed.
Quote from: pderocco on March 14, 2024, 12:36:53 AM
And if we ever get self-driving trucks, their own software could enforce that, even by causing the slow-poke to slow down a little more while being passed.
If all 100% of vehicles on the road are self-driving, yes. But...
1. If fewer than 100% of vehicles on the road are self-driving, then that slower vehicle might not maintain a constant speed anyway, so the truck's software could be wrong.
2. If 100% of vehicles on the road are self-driving, then who cares anymore about lane hogs?
How are you supposed to leave 14 seconds if you often can't even see 1/4 mile ahead due to a curve?
Quote from: 1 on March 14, 2024, 11:07:22 AM
How are you supposed to leave 14 seconds if you often can't even see 1/4 mile ahead due to a curve?
I suspect that the FMCSA would suggest, if you cannot see far enough to leave the recommended safe following distance, that you slow down to the point that the recommended safe following distance is within your field of vision.
Quote from: kphoger on March 14, 2024, 10:39:04 AM
The FMCSA recommends that, for speeds over 40 mph, a driver leave 2 seconds of following distance per 10 feet of vehicle length. For a 70-foot tractor-trailer combination, that comes to 14 seconds of safe following distance.
I suppose this could be up to interpretation, but I don't think this is true, since that would mean that this is the safe following distance for a truck directly under at the bridge at 60 mph, which seems excessive.
(https://i.imgur.com/oGVHpAr.png)
If you're going by here (https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/driver-safety/cmv-driving-tips-following-too-closely), the statement is:
QuoteIf you are driving below 40 mph, you should leave at least one second for every 10 feet of vehicle length. For a typical tractor-trailer, this results in 4 seconds between you and the leading vehicle. For speeds over 40 mph, you should leave one additional second
I don't think though that this is an additional second per 10 feet of vehicle length, but one additional second overall. So, that would mean, for a 70 foot vehicle, not 14 seconds but rather 8 seconds of following distance.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on March 14, 2024, 01:19:45 PM
If you're going by here (https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/driver-safety/cmv-driving-tips-following-too-closely), the statement is:
QuoteIf you are driving below 40 mph, you should leave at least one second for every 10 feet of vehicle length. For a typical tractor-trailer, this results in 4 seconds between you and the leading vehicle. For speeds over 40 mph, you should leave one additional second
I don't think though that this is an additional second per 10 feet of vehicle length, but one additional second overall. So, that would mean, for a 70 foot vehicle, not 14 seconds but rather 8 seconds of following distance.
Good interpretation. If we use that (which sounds right to me), then the trucker will have made it 90% of the way to the slower vehicle's rear bumper by the time he gets to the one-minute mark. Still ridiculous to expect him to have gotten back over already.
Quote from: kphoger on March 14, 2024, 02:26:52 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on March 14, 2024, 01:19:45 PM
If you're going by here (https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/driver-safety/cmv-driving-tips-following-too-closely), the statement is:
QuoteIf you are driving below 40 mph, you should leave at least one second for every 10 feet of vehicle length. For a typical tractor-trailer, this results in 4 seconds between you and the leading vehicle. For speeds over 40 mph, you should leave one additional second
I don't think though that this is an additional second per 10 feet of vehicle length, but one additional second overall. So, that would mean, for a 70 foot vehicle, not 14 seconds but rather 8 seconds of following distance.
Good interpretation. If we use that (which sounds right to me), then the trucker will have made it 90% of the way to the slower vehicle's rear bumper by the time he gets to the one-minute mark. Still ridiculous to expect him to have gotten back over already.
Perhaps, but 8 seconds of following distance is still quite a bit, and I would wager, more than is commonly given. It would be like starting to pass here when the truck is under the bridge. That is 20 dashed lines ahead.
(https://i.imgur.com/PjTxIiW.png)
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on March 14, 2024, 02:52:09 PM
Perhaps, but 8 seconds of following distance is still quite a bit, and I would wager, more than is commonly given.
I agree. But can you really imagine such a law actually being passed, considering what's recommended? And my scenario involves an 8mph speed differential. Imagine a 4mph speed differential instead.
Quote from: thisdj78 on March 13, 2024, 07:09:26 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 13, 2024, 06:12:08 PM
Do agencies really consider "sometimes people have to drop down to the speed limit" as a reason for widening a highway?
Of course not and I agree with the point you're making. But couldn't a similar question be asked for justification of "limited access" highways in extreme remote rural areas?
I've driven on highways overseas in lightly populated areas that were 6-lanes,
so there had to be some justification for it beyond my personal example of being stuck behind slow vehicles.
It's hard to know why there's lightly populated 6-lane freeways. Maybe they were built in anticipation of future growth that hasn't happened yet? Maybe there is a seasonal traffic generator and you just haven't been there at that time?
There are certainly some 4-lane freeways out west where it would just be silly to add two lanes.
Quote from: kphoger on March 14, 2024, 02:56:16 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on March 14, 2024, 02:52:09 PM
Perhaps, but 8 seconds of following distance is still quite a bit, and I would wager, more than is commonly given.
I agree. But can you really imagine such a law actually being passed, considering what's recommended? And my scenario involves an 8mph speed differential. Imagine a 4mph speed differential instead.
Fair enough. A law will definitely have to allow for people going by the book.
That said, I think it worth noting that the FMCSA just borrows its following distance information from the Virginia Department of Transportation, and the link posted to cite it is broken.
Where is the magic money going to originate from? Six-lanes takes away the natural feel of the rural environment.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 14, 2024, 06:39:54 PM
Six-lanes takes away the natural feel of the rural environment.
This reminds me of someone...
I'd argue some Interstates don't need four lanes, let alone six. Just look at I-95 in northern Maine.
In the most populated areas, yes.
In the most remote ones, no.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 14, 2024, 06:39:54 PM
Where is the magic money going to originate from? Six-lanes takes away the natural feel of the rural environment.
So you're saying we can end rural poverty by expanding interstates to six lanes? /s
Quote from: kphoger on March 14, 2024, 10:39:04 AM
The FMCSA recommends that, for speeds over 40 mph, a driver leave 2 seconds of following distance per 10 feet of vehicle length. For a 70-foot tractor-trailer combination, that comes to 14 seconds of safe following distance.
If we assume that the slow-moving vehicle is going 60 mph and the trucker is going 68 mph, then here are the distances each vehicle will have traveled within one minute:
slower vehicle @ 60 mph = 88 ft/sec → 5280 feet (1 mile)
passing truck @ 68 mph = 100 ft/sec → 6000 feet (1 mile + 720 feet)
Your math is wrong. 60mph is indeed 88fps, and 68mph is very close to 100fps. But 14 seconds is 1232ft at 88fps, and 1400ft at 100fps.
The easier way to calculate this is based on speed difference, for which you're using 8mph as an example. That's 11.733fps. or about 6 seconds to go the length of a 70ft truck. I would say that when trucks are lined up, they leave about their own length between them, maybe a little more. For one truck to get from that position behind another truck to that position ahead of the other truck takes moving four truck lengths relative to the other truck, which would be 24 seconds. If they kept two truck lengths between them, they'd have to move six truck lengths, which would be about 36 seconds. If they left much more, those gaps would have cars in them. So I don't think a minute is an unreasonable limit.
If one truck can only go 2mph faster than another (which is, shall we say, insufficiently rare), then you're talking 2 to 3 minutes. That agrees with my experience. If that's the best they can do, they should just settle back and go 2mph slower than they want, or wait until there are no cars within a mile behind them, which happens occasionally enough in light traffic.
Quote from: kkt on March 14, 2024, 03:07:19 PM
It's hard to know why there's lightly populated 6-lane freeways. Maybe they were built in anticipation of future growth that hasn't happened yet? Maybe there is a seasonal traffic generator and you just haven't been there at that time?
The argument for widening I-10 to 6 lanes in the Florida panhandle is exactly this: future traffic demand. The other reason is hurricane evacuation--while there may not be significant traffic now, there will be if Pensacola & Navarre have to evacuate inland.
https://nwflroads.com/projects/413062-4
Quote from: thisdj78 on March 13, 2024, 12:01:11 AM
I've spent a lot of time on the road the past 12 months, coast to coast. A thought that crossed my mind: Should all interstates be 6-lanes? I can't count how many times I've been stuck behind two semi-trucks or slow moving cars side by side, which can even cause traffic in the most remote areas. Seems like an 3rd lane each way is needed...if anything for safety reasons. Apologies if this topic has been discussed before.
Am of belief there is another thread with this very same topic. Although it might refer to "spot" widening of rural four lane segments. Might to a good idea to merge. Have mentioned the areas on I-10, near Benson, AZ and the need for prudent coherent addition of truck climbing lanes to the OUTSIDE in that area. All too often, the cheap way out is pursued, in terms of median elimination, and shifting and skewing is introduced.
Quote from: pderocco on March 15, 2024, 12:11:06 AM
Your math is wrong.
Figures. I knew someone would correct me.
Quote from: pderocco on March 14, 2024, 12:36:53 AM
It might be easier to prohibit trucks occupying all lanes in a row unless they can pass and pull over in less than a minute.
Quote from: pderocco on March 15, 2024, 12:11:06 AM
If one truck can only go 2mph faster than another ... then ... they should ... wait until there are no cars within a mile behind them ...
That would still be illegal under your proposed rule.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on March 14, 2024, 02:52:09 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 14, 2024, 02:26:52 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on March 14, 2024, 01:19:45 PM
If you're going by here (https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/driver-safety/cmv-driving-tips-following-too-closely), the statement is:
QuoteIf you are driving below 40 mph, you should leave at least one second for every 10 feet of vehicle length. For a typical tractor-trailer, this results in 4 seconds between you and the leading vehicle. For speeds over 40 mph, you should leave one additional second
I don't think though that this is an additional second per 10 feet of vehicle length, but one additional second overall. So, that would mean, for a 70 foot vehicle, not 14 seconds but rather 8 seconds of following distance.
Good interpretation. If we use that (which sounds right to me), then the trucker will have made it 90% of the way to the slower vehicle's rear bumper by the time he gets to the one-minute mark. Still ridiculous to expect him to have gotten back over already.
Perhaps, but 8 seconds of following distance is still quite a bit, and I would wager, more than is commonly given. It would be like starting to pass here when the truck is under the bridge. That is 20 dashed lines ahead.
(https://i.imgur.com/PjTxIiW.png)
I guarantee a bunch of cars would be passing on the right
FWIW, I find that the 2-second rule generally works out to around five skip lines or so. So 20 skip lines doesn't sound all that unreasonable to me for a trucker.
I sure wish most of them were. It seems like we're slowly moving in that direction anyways.
Quote from: kphoger on March 15, 2024, 01:22:04 PM
Quote from: pderocco on March 15, 2024, 12:11:06 AM
Your math is wrong.
Figures. I knew someone would correct me.
Quote from: pderocco on March 14, 2024, 12:36:53 AM
It might be easier to prohibit trucks occupying all lanes in a row unless they can pass and pull over in less than a minute.
Quote from: pderocco on March 15, 2024, 12:11:06 AM
If one truck can only go 2mph faster than another ... then ... they should ... wait until there are no cars within a mile behind them ...
That would still be illegal under your proposed rule.
I changed my proposal.
In a magical fantasy land where highway funding is limitless, I would rather see non-freeways be brought up to freeway standard rather than wasting widening on freeways that aren't heavily trafficked.
I can justify a widening if a lower-traffic road has significant weekend travel far above "normal" conditions that causes a safety concern. But there's an awful lot of Interstates that have such little traffic that, minus Federal mandates, would still be 2-lane highways today. They're already empty - they don't need any help!
It's not just about the construction costs - it also jacks up the maintenance costs (including snowplowing). In the northern Michigan hinterlands, for example, you'll frequently see MDOT keeping only one of the two travel lanes open during snowstorms.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on March 14, 2024, 09:41:11 PM
I'd argue some Interstates don't need four lanes, let alone six. Just look at I-95 in northern Maine.
Is I-95 only two lanes in parts of Maine? Or do you mean conceptually it could be just 2 lanes? To that point, I always wonder why I-95 wasn't built towards Quebec City vs New Brunswick.
If money is really gonna be free, I'd just love for interstates to get repaved once in a while. Hope that's not too wild to ask for!
Quote from: thisdj78 on March 16, 2024, 01:40:52 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on March 14, 2024, 09:41:11 PM
I'd argue some Interstates don't need four lanes, let alone six. Just look at I-95 in northern Maine.
Is I-95 only two lanes in parts of Maine? Or do you mean conceptually it could be just 2 lanes?
That was originally the case before the other 2 lanes were eventually built.
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 16, 2024, 12:07:07 AM
In a magical fantasy land where highway funding is limitless, I would rather see non-freeways be brought up to freeway standard rather than wasting widening on freeways that aren't heavily trafficked.
Alternatively, I'd like to see 2-lane US Highways or major State Roads be brought up to 4 lanes from 2. It may be overkill but there's nothing as frustrating as being stuck behind a slow car or truck on a 2-lane road in a no passing zone, with traffic from the opposite direction coming when you're in a passing zone. I would start with 2-lane sections on a road that's mainly 4 lanes (I.E. Florida State Road 60 between Indian Lake Estates and Yeehaw Junction)
Quote from: SilverMustang2011 on March 16, 2024, 08:14:16 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 16, 2024, 12:07:07 AM
In a magical fantasy land where highway funding is limitless, I would rather see non-freeways be brought up to freeway standard rather than wasting widening on freeways that aren't heavily trafficked.
Alternatively, I'd like to see 2-lane US Highways or major State Roads be brought up to 4 lanes from 2. It may be overkill but there's nothing as frustrating as being stuck behind a slow car or truck on a 2-lane road in a no passing zone, with traffic from the opposite direction coming when you're in a passing zone. I would start with 2-lane sections on a road that's mainly 4 lanes (I.E. Florida State Road 60 between Indian Lake Estates and Yeehaw Junction)
Highways shouldn't add lanes due to your frustrations.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 16, 2024, 08:32:27 PM
Quote from: SilverMustang2011 on March 16, 2024, 08:14:16 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 16, 2024, 12:07:07 AM
In a magical fantasy land where highway funding is limitless, I would rather see non-freeways be brought up to freeway standard rather than wasting widening on freeways that aren't heavily trafficked.
Alternatively, I'd like to see 2-lane US Highways or major State Roads be brought up to 4 lanes from 2. It may be overkill but there's nothing as frustrating as being stuck behind a slow car or truck on a 2-lane road in a no passing zone, with traffic from the opposite direction coming when you're in a passing zone. I would start with 2-lane sections on a road that's mainly 4 lanes (I.E. Florida State Road 60 between Indian Lake Estates and Yeehaw Junction)
Highways shouldn't add lanes due to your frustrations.
Perhaps not, but it *does* indicate a need for some kind of relief measure. It's a lot safer if your roadway has passing lanes or other measures to break up long platoons of cars, as it decreases the perceived need to recklessly pass other drivers. There's a reason long 2-lane highway stretches like US-2 or M-28 in the U.P. of Michigan have numerous passing lane sections. Being stuck behind Grandpa Joe doing 45 mph in his clapped-out Winnebago for 20 miles until you finally have a break to pass is a special kind of hell.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 16, 2024, 08:32:27 PM
Quote from: SilverMustang2011 on March 16, 2024, 08:14:16 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 16, 2024, 12:07:07 AM
In a magical fantasy land where highway funding is limitless, I would rather see non-freeways be brought up to freeway standard rather than wasting widening on freeways that aren't heavily trafficked.
Alternatively, I'd like to see 2-lane US Highways or major State Roads be brought up to 4 lanes from 2. It may be overkill but there's nothing as frustrating as being stuck behind a slow car or truck on a 2-lane road in a no passing zone, with traffic from the opposite direction coming when you're in a passing zone. I would start with 2-lane sections on a road that's mainly 4 lanes (I.E. Florida State Road 60 between Indian Lake Estates and Yeehaw Junction)
Highways shouldn't add lanes due to your frustrations.
Crazy how many states have added passing lanes on rural highways for... this very reason :-o :-o
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2024, 01:46:50 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 16, 2024, 08:32:27 PM
Quote from: SilverMustang2011 on March 16, 2024, 08:14:16 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 16, 2024, 12:07:07 AM
In a magical fantasy land where highway funding is limitless, I would rather see non-freeways be brought up to freeway standard rather than wasting widening on freeways that aren't heavily trafficked.
Alternatively, I'd like to see 2-lane US Highways or major State Roads be brought up to 4 lanes from 2. It may be overkill but there's nothing as frustrating as being stuck behind a slow car or truck on a 2-lane road in a no passing zone, with traffic from the opposite direction coming when you're in a passing zone. I would start with 2-lane sections on a road that's mainly 4 lanes (I.E. Florida State Road 60 between Indian Lake Estates and Yeehaw Junction)
Highways shouldn't add lanes due to your frustrations.
Crazy how many states have added passing lanes on rural highways for... this very reason :-o :-o
To satisfy people's personal whims?
^^ or passing whims
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2024, 01:46:50 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 16, 2024, 08:32:27 PM
Quote from: SilverMustang2011 on March 16, 2024, 08:14:16 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 16, 2024, 12:07:07 AM
In a magical fantasy land where highway funding is limitless, I would rather see non-freeways be brought up to freeway standard rather than wasting widening on freeways that aren't heavily trafficked.
Alternatively, I'd like to see 2-lane US Highways or major State Roads be brought up to 4 lanes from 2. It may be overkill but there's nothing as frustrating as being stuck behind a slow car or truck on a 2-lane road in a no passing zone, with traffic from the opposite direction coming when you're in a passing zone. I would start with 2-lane sections on a road that's mainly 4 lanes (I.E. Florida State Road 60 between Indian Lake Estates and Yeehaw Junction)
Highways shouldn't add lanes due to your frustrations.
Crazy how many states have added passing lanes on rural highways for... this very reason :-o :-o
They have added passing lanes in certain high traffic areas where traffic can back up on two lane highways. These are situations where traffic levels don't rise to expansion to a four lane highway.
That's very different than expanding major US and state two-lane highways to four lanes because of driver frustration. I mean I spent most of my adult life taking a relatively major two lane highway to work, and was oftentimes frustrated getting stuck behind a truck...or a slow driver...or farm equipment. In fact those instances outnumbered the times where I could go 63 in a 55 mph zone the entire way without slowing down. But at no point did I think "this should be four lanes" or "this should have passing lanes." It would have been a gigantic waste of resources.
Sometimes you're just going to be frustrated with traffic. Whether its grandma going exactly 55 mph on a two lane highway with five cars lining up behind her, or a truck going 66 mph passing another one going 65 mph on an interstate.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 17, 2024, 10:40:37 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2024, 01:46:50 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 16, 2024, 08:32:27 PM
Quote from: SilverMustang2011 on March 16, 2024, 08:14:16 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 16, 2024, 12:07:07 AM
In a magical fantasy land where highway funding is limitless, I would rather see non-freeways be brought up to freeway standard rather than wasting widening on freeways that aren't heavily trafficked.
Alternatively, I'd like to see 2-lane US Highways or major State Roads be brought up to 4 lanes from 2. It may be overkill but there's nothing as frustrating as being stuck behind a slow car or truck on a 2-lane road in a no passing zone, with traffic from the opposite direction coming when you're in a passing zone. I would start with 2-lane sections on a road that's mainly 4 lanes (I.E. Florida State Road 60 between Indian Lake Estates and Yeehaw Junction)
Highways shouldn't add lanes due to your frustrations.
Crazy how many states have added passing lanes on rural highways for... this very reason :-o :-o
They have added passing lanes in certain high traffic areas where traffic can back up on two lane highways. These are situations where traffic levels don't rise to expansion to a four lane highway.
That's very different than expanding major US and state two-lane highways to four lanes because of driver frustration. I mean I spent most of my adult life taking a relatively major two lane highway to work, and was oftentimes frustrated getting stuck behind a truck...or a slow driver...or farm equipment. In fact those instances outnumbered the times where I could go 63 in a 55 mph zone the entire way without slowing down. But at no point did I think "this should be four lanes" or "this should have passing lanes." It would have been a gigantic waste of resources.
Sometimes you're just going to be frustrated with traffic. Whether its grandma going exactly 55 mph on a two lane highway with five cars lining up behind her, or a truck going 66 mph passing another one going 65 mph on an interstate.
One other thing...we live in a world of limited resources. So sometimes the DOT's priorities don't align with ours. And that's OK too.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 17, 2024, 11:01:12 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 17, 2024, 10:40:37 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2024, 01:46:50 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 16, 2024, 08:32:27 PM
Quote from: SilverMustang2011 on March 16, 2024, 08:14:16 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 16, 2024, 12:07:07 AM
In a magical fantasy land where highway funding is limitless, I would rather see non-freeways be brought up to freeway standard rather than wasting widening on freeways that aren't heavily trafficked.
Alternatively, I'd like to see 2-lane US Highways or major State Roads be brought up to 4 lanes from 2. It may be overkill but there's nothing as frustrating as being stuck behind a slow car or truck on a 2-lane road in a no passing zone, with traffic from the opposite direction coming when you're in a passing zone. I would start with 2-lane sections on a road that's mainly 4 lanes (I.E. Florida State Road 60 between Indian Lake Estates and Yeehaw Junction)
Highways shouldn't add lanes due to your frustrations.
Crazy how many states have added passing lanes on rural highways for... this very reason :-o :-o
They have added passing lanes in certain high traffic areas where traffic can back up on two lane highways. These are situations where traffic levels don't rise to expansion to a four lane highway.
That's very different than expanding major US and state two-lane highways to four lanes because of driver frustration. I mean I spent most of my adult life taking a relatively major two lane highway to work, and was oftentimes frustrated getting stuck behind a truck...or a slow driver...or farm equipment. In fact those instances outnumbered the times where I could go 63 in a 55 mph zone the entire way without slowing down. But at no point did I think "this should be four lanes" or "this should have passing lanes." It would have been a gigantic waste of resources.
Sometimes you're just going to be frustrated with traffic. Whether its grandma going exactly 55 mph on a two lane highway with five cars lining up behind her, or a truck going 66 mph passing another one going 65 mph on an interstate.
One other thing...we live in a world of limited resources. So sometimes the DOT's priorities don't align with ours. And that's OK too.
And someone that doesn't travel every road of their state at all times won't see issues they're not familiar with. Their 2 minute delay because of a slow passing vehicle at a random location the one time in the past 3 years they travelled the road won't compare to a daily 15 minute delay with an accident rate 4x above normal. DOTs can't fix everything to perfection, but they're going to try to work on reasonable solutions to reasonable problems
It's important to focus on the role played by each individual mile of road. Generalized approaches like this won't be very helpful imo. Even when discussing different pieces of the Interstate Highway System, different stretches of roadway have wildly variable levels of traffic demand. And once a highway gets any wider than 6 lanes, other transportations modes besides roadways should be heavily considered, anyways.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 17, 2024, 11:01:12 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 17, 2024, 10:40:37 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2024, 01:46:50 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 16, 2024, 08:32:27 PM
Quote from: SilverMustang2011 on March 16, 2024, 08:14:16 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 16, 2024, 12:07:07 AM
In a magical fantasy land where highway funding is limitless, I would rather see non-freeways be brought up to freeway standard rather than wasting widening on freeways that aren't heavily trafficked.
Alternatively, I'd like to see 2-lane US Highways or major State Roads be brought up to 4 lanes from 2. It may be overkill but there's nothing as frustrating as being stuck behind a slow car or truck on a 2-lane road in a no passing zone, with traffic from the opposite direction coming when you're in a passing zone. I would start with 2-lane sections on a road that's mainly 4 lanes (I.E. Florida State Road 60 between Indian Lake Estates and Yeehaw Junction)
Highways shouldn't add lanes due to your frustrations.
Crazy how many states have added passing lanes on rural highways for... this very reason :-o :-o
They have added passing lanes in certain high traffic areas where traffic can back up on two lane highways. These are situations where traffic levels don't rise to expansion to a four lane highway.
That's very different than expanding major US and state two-lane highways to four lanes because of driver frustration. I mean I spent most of my adult life taking a relatively major two lane highway to work, and was oftentimes frustrated getting stuck behind a truck...or a slow driver...or farm equipment. In fact those instances outnumbered the times where I could go 63 in a 55 mph zone the entire way without slowing down. But at no point did I think "this should be four lanes" or "this should have passing lanes." It would have been a gigantic waste of resources.
Sometimes you're just going to be frustrated with traffic. Whether its grandma going exactly 55 mph on a two lane highway with five cars lining up behind her, or a truck going 66 mph passing another one going 65 mph on an interstate.
One other thing...we live in a world of limited resources. So sometimes the DOT's priorities don't align with ours. And that's OK too.
Why shouldn't they align with ours? They are there to serve the public are they not?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 17, 2024, 04:58:34 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 17, 2024, 11:01:12 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 17, 2024, 10:40:37 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2024, 01:46:50 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 16, 2024, 08:32:27 PM
Quote from: SilverMustang2011 on March 16, 2024, 08:14:16 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 16, 2024, 12:07:07 AM
In a magical fantasy land where highway funding is limitless, I would rather see non-freeways be brought up to freeway standard rather than wasting widening on freeways that aren't heavily trafficked.
Alternatively, I'd like to see 2-lane US Highways or major State Roads be brought up to 4 lanes from 2. It may be overkill but there's nothing as frustrating as being stuck behind a slow car or truck on a 2-lane road in a no passing zone, with traffic from the opposite direction coming when you're in a passing zone. I would start with 2-lane sections on a road that's mainly 4 lanes (I.E. Florida State Road 60 between Indian Lake Estates and Yeehaw Junction)
Highways shouldn't add lanes due to your frustrations.
Crazy how many states have added passing lanes on rural highways for... this very reason :-o :-o
They have added passing lanes in certain high traffic areas where traffic can back up on two lane highways. These are situations where traffic levels don't rise to expansion to a four lane highway.
That's very different than expanding major US and state two-lane highways to four lanes because of driver frustration. I mean I spent most of my adult life taking a relatively major two lane highway to work, and was oftentimes frustrated getting stuck behind a truck...or a slow driver...or farm equipment. In fact those instances outnumbered the times where I could go 63 in a 55 mph zone the entire way without slowing down. But at no point did I think "this should be four lanes" or "this should have passing lanes." It would have been a gigantic waste of resources.
Sometimes you're just going to be frustrated with traffic. Whether its grandma going exactly 55 mph on a two lane highway with five cars lining up behind her, or a truck going 66 mph passing another one going 65 mph on an interstate.
One other thing...we live in a world of limited resources. So sometimes the DOT's priorities don't align with ours. And that's OK too.
Why shouldn't they align with ours? They are there to serve the public are they not?
I meant ours as individuals. Not the collective will of the public. (Supported by data and balanced by available resources of course.)
Quote from: SilverMustang2011 on March 16, 2024, 08:14:16 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 16, 2024, 12:07:07 AM
In a magical fantasy land where highway funding is limitless, I would rather see non-freeways be brought up to freeway standard rather than wasting widening on freeways that aren't heavily trafficked.
Alternatively, I'd like to see 2-lane US Highways or major State Roads be brought up to 4 lanes from 2. It may be overkill but there's nothing as frustrating as being stuck behind a slow car or truck on a 2-lane road in a no passing zone, with traffic from the opposite direction coming when you're in a passing zone. I would start with 2-lane sections on a road that's mainly 4 lanes (I.E. Florida State Road 60 between Indian Lake Estates and Yeehaw Junction)
Or even actual left/right turn lanes at intersections so no one has to brake. Countless times where I've had to go from 60mph down to 0mph just because of one single turning car.
Quote from: michiganguy123 on March 17, 2024, 08:18:41 PM
Quote from: SilverMustang2011 on March 16, 2024, 08:14:16 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 16, 2024, 12:07:07 AM
In a magical fantasy land where highway funding is limitless, I would rather see non-freeways be brought up to freeway standard rather than wasting widening on freeways that aren't heavily trafficked.
Alternatively, I'd like to see 2-lane US Highways or major State Roads be brought up to 4 lanes from 2. It may be overkill but there's nothing as frustrating as being stuck behind a slow car or truck on a 2-lane road in a no passing zone, with traffic from the opposite direction coming when you're in a passing zone. I would start with 2-lane sections on a road that's mainly 4 lanes (I.E. Florida State Road 60 between Indian Lake Estates and Yeehaw Junction)
Or even actual left/right turn lanes at intersections so no one has to brake. Countless times where I've had to go from 60mph down to 0mph just because of one single turning car.
Yep. The Mackenzie Highway does that. Two travel lanes, but at any intersection, even just a private driveway, there's a right and left turn lane into it. Through traffic doesn't slow down.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 17, 2024, 04:58:34 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 17, 2024, 11:01:12 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 17, 2024, 10:40:37 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2024, 01:46:50 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 16, 2024, 08:32:27 PM
Quote from: SilverMustang2011 on March 16, 2024, 08:14:16 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 16, 2024, 12:07:07 AM
In a magical fantasy land where highway funding is limitless, I would rather see non-freeways be brought up to freeway standard rather than wasting widening on freeways that aren't heavily trafficked.
Alternatively, I'd like to see 2-lane US Highways or major State Roads be brought up to 4 lanes from 2. It may be overkill but there's nothing as frustrating as being stuck behind a slow car or truck on a 2-lane road in a no passing zone, with traffic from the opposite direction coming when you're in a passing zone. I would start with 2-lane sections on a road that's mainly 4 lanes (I.E. Florida State Road 60 between Indian Lake Estates and Yeehaw Junction)
Highways shouldn't add lanes due to your frustrations.
Crazy how many states have added passing lanes on rural highways for... this very reason :-o :-o
They have added passing lanes in certain high traffic areas where traffic can back up on two lane highways. These are situations where traffic levels don't rise to expansion to a four lane highway.
That's very different than expanding major US and state two-lane highways to four lanes because of driver frustration. I mean I spent most of my adult life taking a relatively major two lane highway to work, and was oftentimes frustrated getting stuck behind a truck...or a slow driver...or farm equipment. In fact those instances outnumbered the times where I could go 63 in a 55 mph zone the entire way without slowing down. But at no point did I think "this should be four lanes" or "this should have passing lanes." It would have been a gigantic waste of resources.
Sometimes you're just going to be frustrated with traffic. Whether its grandma going exactly 55 mph on a two lane highway with five cars lining up behind her, or a truck going 66 mph passing another one going 65 mph on an interstate.
One other thing...we live in a world of limited resources. So sometimes the DOT's priorities don't align with ours. And that's OK too.
Why shouldn't they align with ours? They are there to serve the public are they not?
Public lacks a statewide perspective. That's why DOTs need to bring expertise to bear to prioritize projects given limited resources.
If all interstates are to be six lanes than I-16 would be a total waste. I-49 north of Alexandria, LA also would be.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 17, 2024, 04:58:34 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 17, 2024, 11:01:12 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 17, 2024, 10:40:37 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2024, 01:46:50 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 16, 2024, 08:32:27 PM
Quote from: SilverMustang2011 on March 16, 2024, 08:14:16 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 16, 2024, 12:07:07 AM
In a magical fantasy land where highway funding is limitless, I would rather see non-freeways be brought up to freeway standard rather than wasting widening on freeways that aren't heavily trafficked.
Alternatively, I'd like to see 2-lane US Highways or major State Roads be brought up to 4 lanes from 2. It may be overkill but there's nothing as frustrating as being stuck behind a slow car or truck on a 2-lane road in a no passing zone, with traffic from the opposite direction coming when you're in a passing zone. I would start with 2-lane sections on a road that's mainly 4 lanes (I.E. Florida State Road 60 between Indian Lake Estates and Yeehaw Junction)
Highways shouldn't add lanes due to your frustrations.
Crazy how many states have added passing lanes on rural highways for... this very reason :-o :-o
They have added passing lanes in certain high traffic areas where traffic can back up on two lane highways. These are situations where traffic levels don't rise to expansion to a four lane highway.
That's very different than expanding major US and state two-lane highways to four lanes because of driver frustration. I mean I spent most of my adult life taking a relatively major two lane highway to work, and was oftentimes frustrated getting stuck behind a truck...or a slow driver...or farm equipment. In fact those instances outnumbered the times where I could go 63 in a 55 mph zone the entire way without slowing down. But at no point did I think "this should be four lanes" or "this should have passing lanes." It would have been a gigantic waste of resources.
Sometimes you're just going to be frustrated with traffic. Whether its grandma going exactly 55 mph on a two lane highway with five cars lining up behind her, or a truck going 66 mph passing another one going 65 mph on an interstate.
One other thing...we live in a world of limited resources. So sometimes the DOT's priorities don't align with ours. And that's OK too.
Why shouldn't they align with ours? They are there to serve the public are they not?
The public often doesn't have a single aligned priority. If you have the desire to see every interstate widened, and your neighbor has the desire to see no more expansion and a focus on mass transit instead, someone's gonna be unhappy.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 18, 2024, 07:57:42 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 17, 2024, 04:58:34 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 17, 2024, 11:01:12 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 17, 2024, 10:40:37 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2024, 01:46:50 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 16, 2024, 08:32:27 PM
Quote from: SilverMustang2011 on March 16, 2024, 08:14:16 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 16, 2024, 12:07:07 AM
In a magical fantasy land where highway funding is limitless, I would rather see non-freeways be brought up to freeway standard rather than wasting widening on freeways that aren't heavily trafficked.
Alternatively, I'd like to see 2-lane US Highways or major State Roads be brought up to 4 lanes from 2. It may be overkill but there's nothing as frustrating as being stuck behind a slow car or truck on a 2-lane road in a no passing zone, with traffic from the opposite direction coming when you're in a passing zone. I would start with 2-lane sections on a road that's mainly 4 lanes (I.E. Florida State Road 60 between Indian Lake Estates and Yeehaw Junction)
Highways shouldn't add lanes due to your frustrations.
Crazy how many states have added passing lanes on rural highways for... this very reason :-o :-o
They have added passing lanes in certain high traffic areas where traffic can back up on two lane highways. These are situations where traffic levels don't rise to expansion to a four lane highway.
That's very different than expanding major US and state two-lane highways to four lanes because of driver frustration. I mean I spent most of my adult life taking a relatively major two lane highway to work, and was oftentimes frustrated getting stuck behind a truck...or a slow driver...or farm equipment. In fact those instances outnumbered the times where I could go 63 in a 55 mph zone the entire way without slowing down. But at no point did I think "this should be four lanes" or "this should have passing lanes." It would have been a gigantic waste of resources.
Sometimes you're just going to be frustrated with traffic. Whether its grandma going exactly 55 mph on a two lane highway with five cars lining up behind her, or a truck going 66 mph passing another one going 65 mph on an interstate.
One other thing...we live in a world of limited resources. So sometimes the DOT's priorities don't align with ours. And that's OK too.
Why shouldn't they align with ours? They are there to serve the public are they not?
The public often doesn't have a single aligned priority. If you have the desire to see every interstate widened, and your neighbor has the desire to see no more expansion and a focus on mass transit instead, someone's gonna be unhappy.
Or...you think a tunnel should be built in the middle of a city and the city's residents disagree with you... :D
Quote from: Rothman on March 18, 2024, 09:12:17 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 18, 2024, 07:57:42 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 17, 2024, 04:58:34 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 17, 2024, 11:01:12 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 17, 2024, 10:40:37 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2024, 01:46:50 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 16, 2024, 08:32:27 PM
Quote from: SilverMustang2011 on March 16, 2024, 08:14:16 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 16, 2024, 12:07:07 AM
In a magical fantasy land where highway funding is limitless, I would rather see non-freeways be brought up to freeway standard rather than wasting widening on freeways that aren't heavily trafficked.
Alternatively, I'd like to see 2-lane US Highways or major State Roads be brought up to 4 lanes from 2. It may be overkill but there's nothing as frustrating as being stuck behind a slow car or truck on a 2-lane road in a no passing zone, with traffic from the opposite direction coming when you're in a passing zone. I would start with 2-lane sections on a road that's mainly 4 lanes (I.E. Florida State Road 60 between Indian Lake Estates and Yeehaw Junction)
Highways shouldn't add lanes due to your frustrations.
Crazy how many states have added passing lanes on rural highways for... this very reason :-o :-o
They have added passing lanes in certain high traffic areas where traffic can back up on two lane highways. These are situations where traffic levels don't rise to expansion to a four lane highway.
That's very different than expanding major US and state two-lane highways to four lanes because of driver frustration. I mean I spent most of my adult life taking a relatively major two lane highway to work, and was oftentimes frustrated getting stuck behind a truck...or a slow driver...or farm equipment. In fact those instances outnumbered the times where I could go 63 in a 55 mph zone the entire way without slowing down. But at no point did I think "this should be four lanes" or "this should have passing lanes." It would have been a gigantic waste of resources.
Sometimes you're just going to be frustrated with traffic. Whether its grandma going exactly 55 mph on a two lane highway with five cars lining up behind her, or a truck going 66 mph passing another one going 65 mph on an interstate.
One other thing...we live in a world of limited resources. So sometimes the DOT's priorities don't align with ours. And that's OK too.
Why shouldn't they align with ours? They are there to serve the public are they not?
The public often doesn't have a single aligned priority. If you have the desire to see every interstate widened, and your neighbor has the desire to see no more expansion and a focus on mass transit instead, someone's gonna be unhappy.
Or...you think a tunnel should be built in the middle of a city and the city's residents disagree with you... :D
Depends on the situation. In Austin, TX, expansion of I-35 is sorely needed and carries high traffic volumes. The city residents oppose it but Texas is still going forth with the project.
In the case of Syracuse, the traffic volumes don't warrant it, so they're not doing it. It varies project by project, case by case.
I thought Austin had changed its tune and now supports the project?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 18, 2024, 07:36:21 PM
I thought Austin had changed its tune and now supports the project?
There will still always be the opposition crowd.
Should all roads everywhere be 6-laned? :hmmm:
Quote from: kphoger on March 19, 2024, 10:58:56 AM
Should all roads everywhere be 6-laned? :hmmm:
I-80 in California is mostly 6 or more lanes from beginning to Forest Hill and frequently needs more. From Forest Hill, CA to Lincoln, NE it's mostly 4 lanes and it barely needs that. Similar things happen on I-15, -25, and -35. One size doesn't fit all. Not in swim trunks or Interstate Highways.
Quote from: SilverMustang2011 on March 16, 2024, 08:14:16 PM
I'd like to see 2-lane US Highways or major State Roads be brought up to 4 lanes from 2. It may be overkill but there's nothing as frustrating as being stuck behind a slow car or truck on a 2-lane road in a no passing zone, with traffic from the opposite direction coming when you're in a passing zone.
Yes, there is. It's more frustrating to be stuck behind
two slow cars or trucks that are side by side on a 4-lane road, with no ability to get around them even though the entire stretch of highway is one big passing zone.
For example, on busy 2-lane highways with periodic passing lanes, such as
US-400 in southeastern Kansas (https://maps.app.goo.gl/C8MKtPVGC1RnZWyk9), sometimes the number of slow vehicles in front of me is too many for everyone to pass everyone else, and then I still end up stuck behind one or two slow vehicles by the end of the passing lane. This would be solved by 6-laning these highways: then I wouldn't be stuck behind someone else who's trying to pass someone else.
And that's why all roads everywhere should be 6-laned. I think this is needed.
But what if you get stuck behind a person who's passing another person who's passing a slow person in the right lane? Clearly 8 lanes are needed. You might be held up by as much as five minutes passing at only the speed limit!
Quote from: kphoger on March 19, 2024, 03:42:44 PM
... then I wouldn't be stuck behind someone else who's trying to pass someone else.
That's a very generous assumption in many cases.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 18, 2024, 07:57:42 AM
The public often doesn't have a single aligned priority. If you have the desire to see every interstate widened, and your neighbor has the desire to see no more expansion and a focus on mass transit instead, someone's gonna be unhappy.
Well, at least Jeff and Nicole agree.
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 13, 2024, 10:50:46 PMQuote from: Rick Powell on March 13, 2024, 02:13:58 AMI-80 from the Quad Cities to I-39 and rural I-55 (except for the Bloomington-Normal, Springfield and Metro St Louis areas) are OK as 4-lanes.
I-55 between IL 104 and IL 157 needs to go to at least six lanes, with auxiliary lanes in the Troy area. It's very noticeable how much traffic flow improves or degrades at IL 104 where the existing six lane section ends.
I would even say I-80 through the Illinois Valley area (IL 26 to IL 71) could warrant 6 lanes. You have Princeton, Spring Valley, Peru, La Salle, Utica and Ottawa all lined up on that stretch. Those 6 cities combine for over 53k.
I-894 I don't think could handle 6 lanes with the space 4 lanes already takes up but who knows, they might do it, keyword being might
Quote from: WhyLifeIs4 on March 26, 2024, 02:04:03 PMI-894 I don't think could handle 6 lanes with the space 4 lanes already takes up but who knows, they might do it, keyword being might
Is there a part of I-894 that's only 4 lanes?
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 26, 2024, 05:30:01 PMQuote from: WhyLifeIs4 on March 26, 2024, 02:04:03 PMI-894 I don't think could handle 6 lanes with the space 4 lanes already takes up but who knows, they might do it, keyword being might
Is there a part of I-894 that's only 4 lanes?
If I recall, only at the Hales Interchange with I-43. Through traffic is 2 lanes each in the interchange.
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 26, 2024, 05:37:51 PMQuote from: sprjus4 on March 26, 2024, 05:30:01 PMQuote from: WhyLifeIs4 on March 26, 2024, 02:04:03 PMI-894 I don't think could handle 6 lanes with the space 4 lanes already takes up but who knows, they might do it, keyword being might
Is there a part of I-894 that's only 4 lanes?
If I recall, only at the Hales Interchange with I-43. Through traffic is 2 lanes each in the interchange.
Google Maps shows 6 lanes (3 lanes each way) through there. I can't find any part of I-894 that is only 4 lanes.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 26, 2024, 05:40:06 PMQuote from: hobsini2 on March 26, 2024, 05:37:51 PMQuote from: sprjus4 on March 26, 2024, 05:30:01 PMQuote from: WhyLifeIs4 on March 26, 2024, 02:04:03 PMI-894 I don't think could handle 6 lanes with the space 4 lanes already takes up but who knows, they might do it, keyword being might
Is there a part of I-894 that's only 4 lanes?
If I recall, only at the Hales Interchange with I-43. Through traffic is 2 lanes each in the interchange.
Google Maps shows 6 lanes (3 lanes each way) through there. I can't find any part of I-894 that is only 4 lanes.
That was once the case, but it has been expanded.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 26, 2024, 05:40:06 PMQuote from: hobsini2 on March 26, 2024, 05:37:51 PMQuote from: sprjus4 on March 26, 2024, 05:30:01 PMQuote from: WhyLifeIs4 on March 26, 2024, 02:04:03 PMI-894 I don't think could handle 6 lanes with the space 4 lanes already takes up but who knows, they might do it, keyword being might
Is there a part of I-894 that's only 4 lanes?
If I recall, only at the Hales Interchange with I-43. Through traffic is 2 lanes each in the interchange.
Google Maps shows 6 lanes (3 lanes each way) through there. I can't find any part of I-894 that is only 4 lanes.
That's right. They did stripe it as 3 lanes each way with no shoulders recently.
Wait i just realized that
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 26, 2024, 05:44:01 PMQuote from: sprjus4 on March 26, 2024, 05:40:06 PMQuote from: hobsini2 on March 26, 2024, 05:37:51 PMQuote from: sprjus4 on March 26, 2024, 05:30:01 PMQuote from: WhyLifeIs4 on March 26, 2024, 02:04:03 PMI-894 I don't think could handle 6 lanes with the space 4 lanes already takes up but who knows, they might do it, keyword being might
Is there a part of I-894 that's only 4 lanes?
If I recall, only at the Hales Interchange with I-43. Through traffic is 2 lanes each in the interchange.
Google Maps shows 6 lanes (3 lanes each way) through there. I can't find any part of I-894 that is only 4 lanes.
That's right. They did stripe it as 3 lanes each way with no shoulders recently.
I like the movie cars where when The main character was in the back of the pick up truck and they were driving all the way from. I think it was Indianapolis or maybe Daytona I can't remember they were driving West to Los Angeles and every single interstate they were on with three lanes each way.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 28, 2024, 03:59:01 PMI like the movie cars where when The main character was in the back of the pick up truck and they were driving all the way from. I think it was Indianapolis or maybe Daytona I can't remember they were driving West to Los Angeles and every single interstate they were on with three lanes each way.
First time I've seen someone not know who Lightning McQueen was.
Quote from: epzik8 on March 30, 2024, 03:54:00 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on March 28, 2024, 03:59:01 PMI like the movie cars where when The main character was in the back of the pick up truck and they were driving all the way from. I think it was Indianapolis or maybe Daytona I can't remember they were driving West to Los Angeles and every single interstate they were on with three lanes each way.
First time I've seen someone not know who Lightning McQueen was.
I just had to google it.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 28, 2024, 03:59:01 PMI like the movie cars where when The main character was in the back of the pick up truck and they were driving all the way from. I think it was Indianapolis or maybe Daytona I can't remember they were driving West to Los Angeles and every single interstate they were on with three lanes each way.
I'm sure that's down to not wanting to make more animation than they had to over a very minor point.
All Interstates should be 10 lanes. It's possible that one may encounter an egotistical driver whose sole purpose is to police the roads and go precisely the speed limit in the left lane and attempt to block people from passing, even in the most remote areas. Then there are semis micro passing and other vehicular obstacles. 10 lanes should suffice in allowing one to slalom around annoyances. This is murica, dammit. We deserve better!
Quote from: signalman on March 30, 2024, 08:46:01 PMAll Interstates should be 10 lanes. It's possible that one may encounter an egotistical driver whose sole purpose is to police the roads and go precisely the speed limit in the left lane and attempt to block people from passing, even in the most remote areas. Then there are semis micro passing and other vehicular obstacles. 10 lanes should suffice in allowing one to slalom around annoyances. This is murica, dammit. We deserve better!
And auxiliary lanes between every exit, no matter the length.
Anything under 30K ADV should be OK with 4 lanes as long as it's not a major trucking route. There's the rub, though.
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 26, 2024, 02:02:19 PMI would even say I-80 through the Illinois Valley area (IL 26 to IL 71) could warrant 6 lanes. You have Princeton, Spring Valley, Peru, La Salle, Utica and Ottawa all lined up on that stretch. Those 6 cities combine for over 53k.
IDOT has a long range plan to widen I-80 to 6 lanes between I-39 and I-55 based on a feasibility study done years ago. Every new bridge rehab in that stretch is made compatible with the additional lanes, including the re-done interchanges at Utica MP 81 and Seneca MP 105, as well as the stretch from MP 115 west of Brisbin Road to Minooka. I don't recall that they have looked any further west with a similar study.
Hopefully District 3 will soon convert the MP 115 to MP 122 stretch to 6 lanes to be compatible with the 6-8 lane section thru Joliet now being built. The shoulders of that section were built with pavement reinforcement and are 12' wide, and the bridges are all 6 lane compatible, so all it would take is the addition of new outside shoulders.
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 13, 2024, 10:50:46 PMQuote from: Rick Powell on March 13, 2024, 02:13:58 AMI-80 from the Quad Cities to I-39 and rural I-55 (except for the Bloomington-Normal, Springfield and Metro St Louis areas) are OK as 4-lanes.
I-55 between IL 104 and IL 157 needs to go to at least six lanes, with auxiliary lanes in the Troy area. It's very noticeable how much traffic flow improves or degrades at IL 104 where the existing six lane section ends.
I suspect that any lane additions will start along the I-55/70 multiplex from IL 157 and go north/east, and definitely could see adding lanes up through the Troy area at some point. It will be a long time if ever that the remaining gap to the Pawnee IL 104 exit will be closed with lane additions.
Quote from: epzik8 on March 30, 2024, 03:54:00 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on March 28, 2024, 03:59:01 PMI like the movie cars where when The main character was in the back of the pick up truck and they were driving all the way from. I think it was Indianapolis or maybe Daytona I can't remember they were driving West to Los Angeles and every single interstate they were on with three lanes each way.
First time I've seen someone not know who Lightning McQueen was.
Give me a break. I was drunk out of my mind and I just couldn't think at all other than the movie and remembering how happy seeing six lanes of all interstates made me. I'm aware of lightning McQueen. Come on.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 03, 2024, 01:24:57 AMQuote from: epzik8 on March 30, 2024, 03:54:00 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on March 28, 2024, 03:59:01 PMI like the movie cars where when The main character was in the back of the pick up truck and they were driving all the way from. I think it was Indianapolis or maybe Daytona I can't remember they were driving West to Los Angeles and every single interstate they were on with three lanes each way.
First time I've seen someone not know who Lightning McQueen was.
Give me a break. I was drunk out of my mind and I just couldn't think at all other than the movie and remembering how happy seeing six lanes of all interstates made me. I'm aware of lightning McQueen. Come on.
Hm. People posting drunk on here seems to be a common phenomenon.
Being under the influence does not absolve one from accountability for one's actions. Quite the opposite. :D
Quote from: Rothman on April 03, 2024, 07:01:50 AMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on April 03, 2024, 01:24:57 AMQuote from: epzik8 on March 30, 2024, 03:54:00 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on March 28, 2024, 03:59:01 PMI like the movie cars where when The main character was in the back of the pick up truck and they were driving all the way from. I think it was Indianapolis or maybe Daytona I can't remember they were driving West to Los Angeles and every single interstate they were on with three lanes each way.
First time I've seen someone not know who Lightning McQueen was.
Give me a break. I was drunk out of my mind and I just couldn't think at all other than the movie and remembering how happy seeing six lanes of all interstates made me. I'm aware of lightning McQueen. Come on.
Hm. People posting drunk on here seems to be a common phenomenon.
Being under the influence does not absolve one from accountability for one's actions. Quite the opposite. :D
I sure can't argue with that
Not all. But for sure IH 10 from San Antonio all the way to Jacksonville should be. All of IH 12, all of IH 37, 45, all of IH 35 in Texas needs to be at least eight lanes from Laredo to Oklahoma.
Quote from: achilles765 on April 03, 2024, 03:41:38 PMNot all. But for sure IH 10 from San Antonio all the way to Jacksonville should be. All of IH 12, all of IH 37, 45, all of IH 35 in Texas needs to be at least eight lanes from Laredo to Oklahoma.
Granted, I haven't driven I-37 on the most frequent basis, but does it really warrant 6 lanes? I don't think I've ever encountered traffic to the point it would warrant a multi-billion dollar expansion. Perhaps on a select few weekends, but I don't see it being a regular occurance.
Widening I-10 between Houston and San Antonio, and I-45 between Dallas and Houston is a much higher priority.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 03, 2024, 01:24:57 AMQuote from: epzik8 on March 30, 2024, 03:54:00 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on March 28, 2024, 03:59:01 PMI like the movie cars where when The main character was in the back of the pick up truck and they were driving all the way from. I think it was Indianapolis or maybe Daytona I can't remember they were driving West to Los Angeles and every single interstate they were on with three lanes each way.
First time I've seen someone not know who Lightning McQueen was.
Give me a break. I was drunk out of my mind and I just couldn't think at all other than the movie and remembering how happy seeing six lanes of all interstates made me. I'm aware of lightning McQueen. Come on.
I apologize.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 03, 2024, 09:55:00 PMQuote from: achilles765 on April 03, 2024, 03:41:38 PMNot all. But for sure IH 10 from San Antonio all the way to Jacksonville should be. All of IH 12, all of IH 37, 45, all of IH 35 in Texas needs to be at least eight lanes from Laredo to Oklahoma.
Granted, I haven't driven I-37 on the most frequent basis, but does it really warrant 6 lanes? I don't think I've ever encountered traffic to the point it would warrant a multi-billion dollar expansion. Perhaps on a select few weekends, but I don't see it being a regular occurance.
Widening I-10 between Houston and San Antonio, and I-45 between Dallas and Houston is a much higher priority.
Most of I-35 between San Antonio and Laredo also doesn't warrant six lanes.
Quote from: kphoger on April 05, 2024, 04:04:23 PMQuote from: sprjus4 on April 03, 2024, 09:55:00 PMQuote from: achilles765 on April 03, 2024, 03:41:38 PMNot all. But for sure IH 10 from San Antonio all the way to Jacksonville should be. All of IH 12, all of IH 37, 45, all of IH 35 in Texas needs to be at least eight lanes from Laredo to Oklahoma.
Granted, I haven't driven I-37 on the most frequent basis, but does it really warrant 6 lanes? I don't think I've ever encountered traffic to the point it would warrant a multi-billion dollar expansion. Perhaps on a select few weekends, but I don't see it being a regular occurance.
Widening I-10 between Houston and San Antonio, and I-45 between Dallas and Houston is a much higher priority.
Most of I-35 between San Antonio and Laredo also doesn't warrant six lanes.
I would much, much rather see I-35
eight-laned between San Antonio and Austin than six lanes anywhere south of San Antonio - and that applies to both I-35 and I-37. I've driven the length of I-37 twice and it's decently busy, but moves well and does not need to be a high priority for widening IMO.