This can include cutting lanes, adding stuff to discourage trucks, and of course outright closing roads. Just so we have an idea of the scope of this thread.
Some examples to kick things off:
-Beach Drive in DC works way better as a trail than a road. It used to have increasingly asinine rules on when you could enter and drive the road, because Google kept trying to recommend it as a shortcut (it isn't). During COVID the NPS closed the road to all cars, which is better than trying to tack on more rules.
-Covered bridges closed to traffic. These things are antiques, and the roads they're typically placed on are pretty minor. I'm not going to shed tears if I can't drive across a covered bridge, since they were meant to be walked across.
In general, I'm OK with any road diet that eliminates an undivided four-lane road with no turning lanes in favor of a two-lane road with a center turn lane. A good example is the US 127 routing through Harrodsburg.
I'm surprised at the number of people who favor not rebuilding the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Maryland.
Carson City, NV did a beautiful job with Carson Street, the main north-south street passing in front of all the state government buildings. They went from four lanes with a center divider to two lanes with a center turn lane, in particular creating a much more pedestrian-friendly space.
That street used to be mainline US 50 and US 395. They did the work after Interstate 580 had been extended far enough south to allow through traffic to bypass downtown. For local traffic, Stewart Street is a four-lane north-south artery not far to the east, and a roundabout was installed at the south end of the downtown to help divert northbound traffic onto Stewart.
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 11, 2024, 12:09:37 PMCovered bridges closed to traffic. These things are antiques, and the roads they're typically placed on are pretty minor. I'm not going to shed tears if I can't drive across a covered bridge, since they were meant to be walked across.
Huh? A 14 foot wide bridge is meant to be walked across? Wouldn't, say, a 6 feet wide bridge be meant for that?
Also, most covered bridges were built decades ago, when larger roads weren't around. They were the way to get horses, buggies, and eventually cars across steams and rivers.
I think VDOT did a reasonably good job with a portion of Kingstowne Village Parkway in Fairfax County. May 2023 Street View here (https://maps.app.goo.gl/VPxQoExMoUN9GLcg9); pre–"road diet" August 2014 Street View here (https://maps.app.goo.gl/5wNqXg5kt4bUcRgU9). VDOT said the traffic counts were too low to warrant a four-lane road through there, and I've found it to have no negative impact whatsoever on traffic flow. People who live at that end of Kingstowne have complained, however, that they cannot legally pass "slowpokes." Those same people were going 50–55 mph or more on that road (speed limit was, and is, 35) prior to the "road diet," so I don't have much sympathy for their complaint—and some of them just pass over the double yellow line anyway if they think someone isn't going sufficiently in excess of the speed limit. I don't like to speed through there for several reasons, including there being an uncontrolled crosswalk just over the hill visible in the distance in those Street View images and there being little kids living in the neighborhoods behind the camera viewpoint who might chase a ball out into the road or the like.
The National Park Service has also narrowed the southern part of the George Washington Memorial Parkway to a single lane for most of the distance between just south of the City of Alexandria and a short distance north of Mount Vernon (there doesn't seem to be current Street View imagery showing the change). It doesn't bother me in the least, but it's another road where some people have complained that it makes it too hard for them to speed (which was no doubt part of the idea).
Ocean Blvd in Myrtle Beach, was 4 lanes but was reduced to 2 lanes with a center turn lane. The section between 8th and 16th Ave N would be a good candidate for widened sidewalks since there is already a heavy pedestrian presence.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 11, 2024, 02:10:02 PMIn general, I'm OK with any road diet that eliminates an undivided four-lane road with no turning lanes in favor of a two-lane road with a center turn lane. A good example is the US 127 routing through Harrodsburg.
I'm surprised at the number of people who favor not rebuilding the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Maryland.
I'm also surpirsed to hear it. Is this related to the issue of who is to pay for it? (US, MD, or a combination) or is there any argument about closing it completely in the same vein as I-81 in Syracuse? I would say that I-695 is truly necessary as an efficient bypass for the hazmats.
There are four expressway routings of east-west travel across Baltimore to connect Frederick/DC/Annapolis to Philly/New York. [While this is normally thought of as north-south, local to Baltimore this is an east-west path mostly.] The I-95 tunnel is best, but does not allow Hazmats. The Harbor tunnel at this point is superfluous. I-695 via the northern suburbs is quite congested and adds significant mileage from I-95 to I-95, so that only leaves the Key Bridge.
It is true that traffic overall has adjusted to the closure of the Key Bridge, and given how long a repalcement will take, traffic will have to adjust anyway. But we have to think beyond just the cars and think of the hazmats and large vehicles that would clog up I-695 through Towson.
I recall that old US 50 in East Sacramento (Folsom Boulevard) got reduced in the 2010s from four lane with no shoulders, to two-lane with center turning lane.
Even with the inevitable "can't pass anyone" setup that creates, I never found that to be too congested since all the commute traffic has been on the current US 50 (El Dorado Freeway) since the 1970s.
Out here in South San Francisco, a section of Hillside Boulevard went from being four-lane to two-lane with painted median/turning lane, but this coincided with a stoplight replacing a decades-old stop sign near the elementary school I used to go to, so traffic flow has remained pretty good in that area.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 11, 2024, 03:08:55 PMQuote from: noelbotevera on July 11, 2024, 12:09:37 PMCovered bridges closed to traffic. These things are antiques, and the roads they're typically placed on are pretty minor. I'm not going to shed tears if I can't drive across a covered bridge, since they were meant to be walked across.
Huh? A 14 foot wide bridge is meant to be walked across? Wouldn't, say, a 6 feet wide bridge be meant for that?
Also, most covered bridges were built decades ago, when larger roads weren't around. They were the way to get horses, buggies, and eventually cars across steams and rivers.
Most covered bridges were around before cars, except if they were rebuilt later at some point. Unless riding a horse counts as "driving", then I'd hazard that most bridge designers would assume that you'd be walking or riding across a covered bridge.
Hillsdale Avenue between Camden Avenue and Almaden Expressway in San Jose was built out in the 1960s as six lanes as part of the Santa Clara County Expressway System (although it already had residences along stretches of it).
A couple of years ago they reduced it from six lanes/center turn lane/parking to four lanes/parking/bike lanes/limited protected left turn lanes. Despite the weeping and gnashing of teeth, the feared gridlock never occurred, and the traffic has calmed (speed limit is 40, previously people regularly went 50+, much less common now).
Quote from: mrsman on July 11, 2024, 03:39:47 PMQuote from: hbelkins on July 11, 2024, 02:10:02 PMIn general, I'm OK with any road diet that eliminates an undivided four-lane road with no turning lanes in favor of a two-lane road with a center turn lane. A good example is the US 127 routing through Harrodsburg.
I'm surprised at the number of people who favor not rebuilding the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Maryland.
I'm also surpirsed to hear it. Is this related to the issue of who is to pay for it? (US, MD, or a combination) or is there any argument about closing it completely in the same vein as I-81 in Syracuse? I would say that I-695 is truly necessary as an efficient bypass for the hazmats.
There are four expressway routings of east-west travel across Baltimore to connect Frederick/DC/Annapolis to Philly/New York. [While this is normally thought of as north-south, local to Baltimore this is an east-west path mostly.] The I-95 tunnel is best, but does not allow Hazmats. The Harbor tunnel at this point is superfluous. I-695 via the northern suburbs is quite congested and adds significant mileage from I-95 to I-95, so that only leaves the Key Bridge.
It is true that traffic overall has adjusted to the closure of the Key Bridge, and given how long a repalcement will take, traffic will have to adjust anyway. But we have to think beyond just the cars and think of the hazmats and large vehicles that would clog up I-695 through Towson.
The one roadgeek is recall espousing such a position is Beltway, and his position is essentially tunnel or bust because he views the platforms that protect the piers from ships as "unproven technology" that is a "waste of money" that will "get people killed". And that it's just fine to force hazmats to use the northern half of I-695 or take surface roads through downtown.
Quote from: gonealookin on July 11, 2024, 02:26:53 PMCarson City, NV did a beautiful job with Carson Street, the main north-south street passing in front of all the state government buildings. They went from four lanes with a center divider to two lanes with a center turn lane, in particular creating a much more pedestrian-friendly space.
That street used to be mainline US 50 and US 395. They did the work after Interstate 580 had been extended far enough south to allow through traffic to bypass downtown. For local traffic, Stewart Street is a four-lane north-south artery not far to the east, and a roundabout was installed at the south end of the downtown to help divert northbound traffic onto Stewart.
Carson Street in Carson City and Virginia Street in Reno are excellent examples of this. Both added a decent amount of street parking with the projects as well, which helps local businesses. With thru traffic gone, there isn't the demand for 4+ lanes (up to 6 in some places for Carson Street), and it helps to encourage traffic to use the new bypass.
I prefer my road diet consist of unsurfaced and mountainous stuff...
I generally like seeing four lane undivided surface roads/streets being restriped as two lanes with a shared center left turn lane, it really improves traffic flow, as vehicles are no longer delayed by having to stop for other vehicles waiting to turn left in the left lane. Doing that also allows for the creation of a striped bicycle lane on each side.
One such restriping was about a year ago on College Ave through downtown Appleton, WI (the city's main street), It was reduced from four lanes undivided to two lanes with left turn lanes at the intersections and pre-existing parallel parking. The restriping also left behind room for a striped dedicated bicycle lane on each side. Ironically, this was 'real life traffic tested' over the years as after snowstorms, snow would be plowed to the center of the street, taking away a lane in each direction, to be loaded up and trucked away later. So far so good.
Yes, I consider undivided four lane roads to be obsolete.
Mike
Quote from: DTComposer on July 11, 2024, 05:15:45 PMHillsdale Avenue between Camden Avenue and Almaden Expressway in San Jose was built out in the 1960s as six lanes as part of the Santa Clara County Expressway System (although it already had residences along stretches of it)
Was the reason Hillsdale was never upgraded to full expressway basically those houses? Did Santa Clara County originally imagine this stretch to be more similar to Lawrence or Capitol expressways?
Kinda interesting to see the surface-expressway belt route around SJ along Capitol/Hillsdale/San Tomas/Montague in light of the fact that the county did once propose to do full freeway upgrades for the expressways (which got nixed in the 1970s). Wonder how much the completion of 85 east of Saratoga helped negate the need for Hillsdale as a through route.
Quote from: mgk920 on July 11, 2024, 11:06:36 PMI generally like seeing four lane undivided surface roads/streets being restriped as two lanes with a shared center left turn lane, it really improves traffic flow, as vehicles are no longer delayed by having to stop for other vehicles waiting to turn left in the left lane. Doing that also allows for the creation of a striped bicycle lane on each side.
In many places, you end up with a road in which thousands of cars pass a particular point in the course of a day, and the new bike lanes see maybe a few dozen bicycles. The end result only looks like a win only if you ignore the fact that it now takes longer for cars to drive the length of the road because there's only room for half as many cars at a time.
They just repaved Dixie Highway in Saginaw County between Bridgeport and Birch Run. It was four lanes (two in each direction) with no turning lane. For part of it they took out the left lanes and made a center turning lane with one lane in each direction. At first I thought this is stupid but then as I thought about it I thought it does seem safer now with the turning lane at least. So I guess I'm ok with that.
Quote from: mgk920 on July 11, 2024, 11:06:36 PMYes, I consider undivided four lane roads to be obsolete.
Especially from a safety standpoint, i.e. head-on collision risk.
Quote from: epzik8 on July 13, 2024, 05:27:25 PMQuote from: mgk920 on July 11, 2024, 11:06:36 PMYes, I consider undivided four lane roads to be obsolete.
Especially from a safety standpoint, i.e. head-on collision risk.
MA says, "Pfft."
My actual non-sarcastic answer is currently unfolding on Pacific Southwest:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=35004.0
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 14, 2024, 03:30:04 PMMy actual non-sarcastic answer is currently unfolding on Pacific Southwest:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=35004.0
I'm personally a fan of closing roads through parks, unless they're pretty dang important. I think you could just upgrade the roads surrounding the park to service Wilshire Boulevard traffic, but it sounds like Wilshire Boulevard isn't that important at this point. Could then use the space for trees, a playground, or expanding that lake.
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 15, 2024, 10:49:37 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on July 14, 2024, 03:30:04 PMMy actual non-sarcastic answer is currently unfolding on Pacific Southwest:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=35004.0
I'm personally a fan of closing roads through parks, unless they're pretty dang important. I think you could just upgrade the roads surrounding the park to service Wilshire Boulevard traffic, but it sounds like Wilshire Boulevard isn't that important at this point. Could then use the space for trees, a playground, or expanding that lake.
Yes, that was pretty much my assessment. If I recall correctly the lake used to occupy the space that Wilshire now occupies. I don't see it solving all the problems the park has, but I don't see it hurting either.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 12, 2024, 03:23:19 AMQuote from: DTComposer on July 11, 2024, 05:15:45 PMHillsdale Avenue between Camden Avenue and Almaden Expressway in San Jose was built out in the 1960s as six lanes as part of the Santa Clara County Expressway System (although it already had residences along stretches of it)
Was the reason Hillsdale was never upgraded to full expressway basically those houses? Did Santa Clara County originally imagine this stretch to be more similar to Lawrence or Capitol expressways?
I can't tell - there are planning maps and aerials from 1959 referring to it as "Hillsdale Expressway" - and Historical Aerials shows the ROW dedicated for 6+ lanes even as the houses are being built. If I were to guess I'd say the eventual plan might have been for 6 lanes and separate frontage roads for the houses.
Also, the planning maps and such are all coming from Santa Clara County, and the city of San Jose was annexing and developing this area so quickly in the '60s - I don't know how much coordination/cooperation there was between them.
QuoteKinda interesting to see the surface-expressway belt route around SJ along Capitol/Hillsdale/San Tomas/Montague in light of the fact that the county did once propose to do full freeway upgrades for the expressways (which got nixed in the 1970s). Wonder how much the completion of 85 east of Saratoga helped negate the need for Hillsdale as a through route.
It certainly helped, although it was the roads to the south/west of 85 (Saratoga-Sunnyvale, Saratoga-Los Gatos, and Blossom Hill) that really saw relief when 85 was completed.
I will say that Camden Avenue between 17 and Hillsdale was always busy and has remained so.
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 11, 2024, 04:20:48 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on July 11, 2024, 03:08:55 PMQuote from: noelbotevera on July 11, 2024, 12:09:37 PMCovered bridges closed to traffic. These things are antiques, and the roads they're typically placed on are pretty minor. I'm not going to shed tears if I can't drive across a covered bridge, since they were meant to be walked across.
Huh? A 14 foot wide bridge is meant to be walked across? Wouldn't, say, a 6 feet wide bridge be meant for that?
Also, most covered bridges were built decades ago, when larger roads weren't around. They were the way to get horses, buggies, and eventually cars across steams and rivers.
Most covered bridges were around before cars, except if they were rebuilt later at some point. Unless riding a horse counts as "driving", then I'd hazard that most bridge designers would assume that you'd be walking or riding across a covered bridge.
Wagons were a thing. That's why roads and bridges were built wide enough to accommodate them.
The last two covered bridges on the state highway system in California were active until 1950:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2023/01/the-last-covered-bridges-of-california.html?m=1
Even today, I can think of several sparsely traveled state highways which could accommodate a simple covered bridge. Off the top of my head there no true covered bridges acting active roadway in California (facade bridges like Roberts Ferry don't count in my book).
Quote from: mgk920 on July 11, 2024, 11:06:36 PMI generally like seeing four lane undivided surface roads/streets being restriped as two lanes with a shared center left turn lane, it really improves traffic flow, as vehicles are no longer delayed by having to stop for other vehicles waiting to turn left in the left lane. Doing that also allows for the creation of a striped bicycle lane on each side.
One such restriping was about a year ago on College Ave through downtown Appleton, WI (the city's main street), It was reduced from four lanes undivided to two lanes with left turn lanes at the intersections and pre-existing parallel parking. The restriping also left behind room for a striped dedicated bicycle lane on each side. Ironically, this was 'real life traffic tested' over the years as after snowstorms, snow would be plowed to the center of the street, taking away a lane in each direction, to be loaded up and trucked away later. So far so good.
Yes, I consider undivided four lane roads to be obsolete.
Mike
Agreed, it sucks when there's no dedicated left turn lanes. It's also dangerous if cars from opposing sides want to turn left. Sometimes you're just about to make your left turn and someone darts out from behind the opposing left-turning car to go straight. I would much prefer a three-lane road instead.
I would love to see Fairway Rd in Kitchener between Morgan and River converted to three lanes: GSV (https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4306409,-80.4315127,3a,23.7y,37.81h,88.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfECwmEOQBmgM6I5rycK-Hg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu)
You can see in the streetview how all the cars heading toward River are in the left lane because the right lane becomes right-turn only at River. But often you'll get cars who need to turn left onto one of the side streets and it causes backups for everyone behind who wants to keep going straight. Then you have people moving to the right lane to get around, and some people fly up the right lane to get ahead. It would be much safer with a centre left-turn lane.
I'm a big fan of road diets, and I wish my area had many more! The most prominent one here is King St through Uptown Waterloo (reduced from 4 to 2-lanes, reduction of on-street parking, addition of separated bike lanes behind bollards): Before (https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4651534,-80.5223431,3a,75y,176.57h,80.69t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sywqIJxT333ECAyzxWp5TRg!2e0!5s20150801T000000!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205409&entry=ttu) and after (https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4651613,-80.5223906,3a,69.8y,176.57h,80.69t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s3lTDUXvctlX55cH1cwW1Eg!2e0!5s20230801T000000!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu)
I really wish they routed our LRT along King St in downtown Kitchener and made it vehicle-free (except local access like deliveries and residents), but alas, they instead split the tracks on neighbouring Charles and Duke instead. King in downtown is still decent though, only two lanes and feels pretty narrow: GSV (https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4501343,-80.4899076,3a,75y,121.78h,88.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZSSXuu-w-yxdmSZWwAHyWA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu)
Another one that desperately needs a road diet are the dual one-ways Erb and Bridgeport in Waterloo. Each one is three-lanes, and they're resident streets! There's even an elementary school here: GSV (https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4716606,-80.5077658,3a,73.9y,263.93h,90.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sflDVFlgs-r7r0CrpcGA6xQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu). They recently made it 40 km/h near the school, as if that will be effective to slow cars down. :pan:
Westmount (especially between Glasgow and Erb) is another one that could benefit from a road diet. It has all the already noted problems from the lack of left turn lanes, plus because the corridor is narrow, the lanes are very narrow. I think it would work much better with one lane in each direction and a center turn lane. (Though I seem to recall hearing something about the region trying it during Covid and nimbies having a fit because they didn't want bike lanes? That was before I moved to KW, though)
Quote from: epzik8 on July 13, 2024, 05:27:25 PMQuote from: mgk920 on July 11, 2024, 11:06:36 PMYes, I consider undivided four lane roads to be obsolete.
Especially from a safety standpoint, i.e. head-on collision risk.
On roads that have a freeway/expressway parallel, I'd agree. Otherwise, capacity drops considerably when you consider that there is no longer any legal way to get around slow moving vehicles.
They've been trying to do a road diet test on a already divided business route near here in Muskegon, MI. No one likes it. Absolutely no reason, they say it's for pedestrians but theres already a very wide bike path running parallel to the road and it really isn't hard to cross a divided road.
AADT is around 15,000
(https://i.imgur.com/wyFzN73.png)
Quote from: 7/8 on July 25, 2024, 09:06:39 AMAgreed, it sucks when there's no dedicated left turn lanes. It's also dangerous if cars from opposing sides want to turn left. Sometimes you're just about to make your left turn and someone darts out from behind the opposing left-turning car to go straight. I would much prefer a three-lane road instead.
I would love to see Fairway Rd in Kitchener between Morgan and River converted to three lanes: GSV (https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4306409,-80.4315127,3a,23.7y,37.81h,88.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfECwmEOQBmgM6I5rycK-Hg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu)
You can see in the streetview how all the cars heading toward River are in the left lane because the right lane becomes right-turn only at River. But often you'll get cars who need to turn left onto one of the side streets and it causes backups for everyone behind who wants to keep going straight. Then you have people moving to the right lane to get around, and some people fly up the right lane to get ahead. It would be much safer with a centre left-turn lane.
This seems very similar to
this stretch of NY 286 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/PoXqdL5d4JTxf7136) in my area. It is a major rat race at times - as I've described here before, it's not uncommon at all to make 4-5 lane changes while navigating this 1-mile stretch due to varying queue lengths at the signals, varying speeds between the lanes, and left turning traffic at the stoplights, side streets, and businesses/churches. I agree three lanes would be safer than what exists currently (not just for cars, but also bikers), but with an AADT approaching 20k and this being a major commuter route, the platoons of traffic would be so long it would be almost impossible to get out from the side streets, and the lines for the traffic lights would end up crawling every time there's a right turning vehicle and creating long backups. What's really needed here is a full rebuild with five lanes and proper shoulders, but that will probably never happen.
Quote from: 7/8 on July 25, 2024, 09:23:35 AMAnother one that desperately needs a road diet are the dual one-ways Erb and Bridgeport in Waterloo. Each one is three-lanes, and they're resident streets! There's even an elementary school here: GSV (https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4716606,-80.5077658,3a,73.9y,263.93h,90.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sflDVFlgs-r7r0CrpcGA6xQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu). They recently made it 40 km/h near the school, as if that will be effective to slow cars down.
Wow! Those lanes look quite narrow. Do traffic volumes really warrant three lanes here? Two thru lanes with proper shoulders and turning lanes at intersections where needed would seem to make a whole lot more sense.
Quote from: MikieTimT on July 25, 2024, 03:16:06 PMQuote from: epzik8 on July 13, 2024, 05:27:25 PMQuote from: mgk920 on July 11, 2024, 11:06:36 PMYes, I consider undivided four lane roads to be obsolete.
Especially from a safety standpoint, i.e. head-on collision risk.
On roads that have a freeway/expressway parallel, I'd agree. Otherwise, capacity drops considerably when you consider that there is no longer any legal way to get around slow moving vehicles.
I wouldn't go so far as to say undivided four-lane roads are obsolete. In most cases, if four lanes are warranted, then a TWLTL is also warranted. But four lanes undivided does have limited utility in some cases, such as
this stretch of NY 404 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/t1VyDdkEWnjaZjmU9), or
this stretch of RR 57/Thorold Stone Rd (https://maps.app.goo.gl/1h1M2G1HwCVC9s1K9) in Ontario. In essence, it's probably warranted if all three of the following apply:
- Volumes are too much for two lanes to handle
- Side streets/businesses/driveways exist but are intermittent and not too closely spaced, so it's not worth creating a TWLTL
- Traffic is localized enough that a divided highway requiring U-turn movements is unnecessary/impractical
(That being said... one time I was on a four-lane road in heavy traffic I had a driver zoom up besides me into the
oncoming left lane to make a left turn, passing other left turners in the process and barely squeaking through the intersection before oncoming traffic arrived. He got a lengthy honk from me, one of the rare honking instances of "major safety hazard
and major personal irritation". It did occur to me that this never would have happened on a three-lane road, or if it did, he would have at least been in the TWLTL instead of the oncoming lane.)
Quote from: webny99 on July 26, 2024, 09:07:23 AMQuote from: MikieTimT on July 25, 2024, 03:16:06 PMQuote from: epzik8 on July 13, 2024, 05:27:25 PMQuote from: mgk920 on July 11, 2024, 11:06:36 PMYes, I consider undivided four lane roads to be obsolete.
Especially from a safety standpoint, i.e. head-on collision risk.
On roads that have a freeway/expressway parallel, I'd agree. Otherwise, capacity drops considerably when you consider that there is no longer any legal way to get around slow moving vehicles.
I wouldn't go so far as to say undivided four-lane roads are obsolete. In most cases, if four lanes are warranted, then a TWLTL is also warranted. But four lanes undivided does have limited utility in some cases, such as this stretch of NY 404 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/t1VyDdkEWnjaZjmU9), or this stretch of RR 57/Thorold Stone Rd (https://maps.app.goo.gl/1h1M2G1HwCVC9s1K9) in Ontario. In essence, it's probably warranted if all three of the following apply:
- Volumes are too much for two lanes to handle
- Side streets/businesses/driveways exist but are intermittent and not too closely spaced, so it's not worth creating a TWLTL
- Traffic is localized enough that a divided highway requiring U-turn movements is unnecessary/impractical
(That being said... one time I was on a four-lane road in heavy traffic I had a driver zoom up besides me into the oncoming left lane to make a left turn, passing other left turners in the process and barely squeaking through the intersection before oncoming traffic arrived. He got a lengthy honk from me, one of the rare honking instances of "major safety hazard and major personal irritation". It did occur to me that this never would have happened on a three-lane road, or if it did, he would have at least been in the TWLTL instead of the oncoming lane.)
When through traffic volume on the street warrants four lanes, IMHO, it also warrants a shared center left turn lane.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on July 26, 2024, 10:44:59 AMWhen through traffic volume on the street warrants four lanes, IMHO, it also warrants a shared center left turn lane.
That's often the case, but not always, such as in the two examples I cited.
Quote from: webny99 on July 26, 2024, 09:07:23 AMI wouldn't go so far as to say undivided four-lane roads are obsolete. In most cases, if four lanes are warranted, then a TWLTL is also warranted. But four lanes undivided does have limited utility in some cases, such as this stretch of NY 404 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/t1VyDdkEWnjaZjmU9), or this stretch of RR 57/Thorold Stone Rd (https://maps.app.goo.gl/1h1M2G1HwCVC9s1K9) in Ontario. In essence, it's probably warranted if all three of the following apply:
- Volumes are too much for two lanes to handle
- Side streets/businesses/driveways exist but are intermittent and not too closely spaced, so it's not worth creating a TWLTL
- Traffic is localized enough that a divided highway requiring U-turn movements is unnecessary/impractical
Isn't NY 404 at the bottom the hill one of the most dangerous roads in the entire Rochester area? There have been multiple crashes so bad that the whole road from Winton to Plank was closed until the investigation/cleanup finished.
Quote from: vdeane on July 26, 2024, 12:36:16 PMQuote from: webny99 on July 26, 2024, 09:07:23 AMI wouldn't go so far as to say undivided four-lane roads are obsolete. In most cases, if four lanes are warranted, then a TWLTL is also warranted. But four lanes undivided does have limited utility in some cases, such as this stretch of NY 404 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/t1VyDdkEWnjaZjmU9), or this stretch of RR 57/Thorold Stone Rd (https://maps.app.goo.gl/1h1M2G1HwCVC9s1K9) in Ontario. In essence, it's probably warranted if all three of the following apply:
- Volumes are too much for two lanes to handle
- Side streets/businesses/driveways exist but are intermittent and not too closely spaced, so it's not worth creating a TWLTL
- Traffic is localized enough that a divided highway requiring U-turn movements is unnecessary/impractical
Isn't NY 404 at the bottom the hill one of the most dangerous roads in the entire Rochester area? There have been multiple crashes so bad that the whole road from Winton to Plank was closed until the investigation/cleanup finished.
The bottom of the hill is, yes, due to a combination of poor sightlines, high speeds (the limit is 45 on the Penfield side, and traffic regularly does 55-60 even in the 40 mph zone), and left turns to/from the local businesses. The new TWLTL on the east side of the hill that was put in during construction of the new apartment complex should definitely be extended to Bay Creek.
To my earlier post, though, I actually think the 1/2 mile stretch from Orchard Park Rd to Bay Creek
is an acceptable stretch for no TWLTL or divider to exist, while the stretch from Bay Creek to the existing TWLTL near Southpoint Marina is very much
not. It just goes to show that while there are acceptable locations for four lane undivided roadways, they're highly context-dependent and usually limited to short stretches of 1-2 miles or less.
Quote from: webny99 on July 26, 2024, 01:16:19 PMQuote from: vdeane on July 26, 2024, 12:36:16 PMQuote from: webny99 on July 26, 2024, 09:07:23 AMI wouldn't go so far as to say undivided four-lane roads are obsolete. In most cases, if four lanes are warranted, then a TWLTL is also warranted. But four lanes undivided does have limited utility in some cases, such as this stretch of NY 404 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/t1VyDdkEWnjaZjmU9), or this stretch of RR 57/Thorold Stone Rd (https://maps.app.goo.gl/1h1M2G1HwCVC9s1K9) in Ontario. In essence, it's probably warranted if all three of the following apply:
- Volumes are too much for two lanes to handle
- Side streets/businesses/driveways exist but are intermittent and not too closely spaced, so it's not worth creating a TWLTL
- Traffic is localized enough that a divided highway requiring U-turn movements is unnecessary/impractical
Isn't NY 404 at the bottom the hill one of the most dangerous roads in the entire Rochester area? There have been multiple crashes so bad that the whole road from Winton to Plank was closed until the investigation/cleanup finished.
The bottom of the hill is, yes, due to a combination of poor sightlines, high speeds (the limit is 45 on the Penfield side, and traffic regularly does 55-60 even in the 40 mph zone), and left turns to/from the local businesses. The new TWLTL on the east side of the hill that was put in during construction of the new apartment complex should definitely be extended to Bay Creek.
To my earlier post, though, I actually think the 1/2 mile stretch from Orchard Park Rd to Bay Creek is an acceptable stretch for no TWLTL or divider to exist, while the stretch from Bay Creek to the existing TWLTL near Southpoint Marina is very much not. It just goes to show that while there are acceptable locations for four lane undivided roadways, they're highly context-dependent and usually limited to short stretches of 1-2 miles or less.
I would extend the TWLTL past the other businesses and houses, which would leave only a quarter mile on the hill which wouldn't have it. Not exactly a lot.
The idea of four-lane undivided streets being obsolete is insane to me because that describes just about every major arterial in the Oklahoma City metro. And a good chunk of the ones in Kansas City, too, so it's not just Oklahoma being cheap.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 27, 2024, 01:21:01 PMThe idea of four-lane undivided streets being obsolete is insane to me because that describes just about every major arterial in the Oklahoma City metro. And a good chunk of the ones in Kansas City, too, so it's not just Oklahoma being cheap.
I mean, when was the last time Oklahoma was an example of anything good? :awesomeface:
I think it's a bit more specific than that, though... it's specifically four-lane roads
with no turn lanes. Where all traffic that turns left must wait for a gap in the left traffic lane, blocking that lane. In my experience, the arterials in Oklahoma (which I'm not really a fan of anyway, to be honest) at least have turn lanes at traffic lights. Westmount Road, which I referred to earlier looks like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4555537,-80.5288365,3a,31.3y,321.51h,86.31t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBsGNXDkl65BIgOcX4lnhSw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DBsGNXDkl65BIgOcX4lnhSw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D321.51427750688407%26pitch%3D3.6923434462945863%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu). If there's a bus in the right lane, and left-turning traffic in the left lane (both of which are often the case during commute time in the morning), you're not going anywhere for a while. In this case, you could improve traffic flow by reducing the number of lanes, because it would give you the space to have turn lanes and space for the buses to pull out of the traffic lane while they're stopped.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 27, 2024, 01:21:01 PMThe idea of four-lane undivided streets being obsolete is insane to me because that describes just about every major arterial in the Oklahoma City metro. And a good chunk of the ones in Kansas City, too, so it's not just Oklahoma being cheap.
Three words: Salt Lake City.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 11, 2024, 02:10:02 PMIn general, I'm OK with any road diet that eliminates an undivided four-lane road with no turning lanes in favor of a two-lane road with a center turn lane. A good example is the US 127 routing through Harrodsburg.
They recently did one to US 30 between 2nd and 7th St in Astoria (only old GSV (https://maps.app.goo.gl/1pSMPHkBC2LfJ3GBA)), and also added a second marked crosswalk with a median. I believe it was approved after a bicyclist was killed by a truck, but the lone marked crosswalk was considered a bit unsafe before.
When it was complete I was a bit concerned it wouldn't hold up to summer (tourist) traffic, but there's been only minor issues so far. It also stopped notable speeding (>10 over) and made it much easier to turn out of side streets (TWLTL + better radius and sight lines for right turns).
Quote from: mgk920 on July 11, 2024, 11:06:36 PMI generally like seeing four lane undivided surface roads/streets being restriped as two lanes with a shared center left turn lane, it really improves traffic flow, as vehicles are no longer delayed by having to stop for other vehicles waiting to turn left in the left lane. Doing that also allows for the creation of a striped bicycle lane on each side.
One such restriping was about a year ago on College Ave through downtown Appleton, WI (the city's main street), It was reduced from four lanes undivided to two lanes with left turn lanes at the intersections and pre-existing parallel parking. The restriping also left behind room for a striped dedicated bicycle lane on each side. Ironically, this was 'real life traffic tested' over the years as after snowstorms, snow would be plowed to the center of the street, taking away a lane in each direction, to be loaded up and trucked away later. So far so good.
Yes, I consider undivided four lane roads to be obsolete.
Expanding a bit on this thought, I wouldn't mind seeing WisDOT and the City of Appleton look into doing something like that on Richmond Street (WI 47) on Appleton's northwest side. The street was widened to four lanes undivided and concrete repaved in the late 1980s (it needed it!), but the city council at that time rejected the center left turn lane north of Winnebago St that WisDOT wanted due to the street then needing additional ROW and the affects that that would have on the adjoining residential property owners. The council never repeated that mistake in later projects.
Mike
Couple that come to mind:
-Sheriden Expressway downgrade to Sheridan Blvd., Bronx, NY.
-Inner Loop removal in Rochester, NY
- Four lanes to two lanes with bike lanes on Main St., Hartford, CT
I'm really not too happy with the Hollywood Boulevard diet in East Hollywood. It appears they may eventually want to do this all the way to La Brea. LADOT just seems to operate with impunity and do whatever the fuck it is they want to do. I watch their meetings If they ever have any and Try to keep up with what it is they have planned. Out of the blue, they just decided one day to make the right through lane on Hollywood Boulevard a right turn lane at Gower Street, and then after that, it resumed to a four-lane road up until when they decided to permanently narrow it to one lane each way to the 101 with the eastbound lanes of Hollywood Boulevard from the 1 oh one to Gower Being two lanes.
Now Hollywood Boulevard is one lane each way from the 101 to Vermont. It has increased congestion and made travel times longer. Initially, I was pretty upset with it, but traffic still does flow for the most part and it adds 3 to 5 minutes at minimum of drive time.
The set up is what pisses me off. They claim to do this to make streets more friendly for pedestrians and reduce card dependency but that's a bunch of bullshit. There's One lane each way, A middle turn lane, Parking spaces, And a bike lane up against the curb.
I rarely see cyclist, but maybe they'll start using it more in the future who knows. They put up these ugly white plastic non-reinforced bollards. You can run over them and they'll flip back up. Do not ask me how I know. I've already seen a bunch of road rage flying down the middle turn lane. Overall, I'm not happy with it and I wish it would go back to four lanes.
But what makes me maddest is they claim this will reduce card dependency well why have parking lanes? They should've built parking structures to remove street parking. The parking lanes should be bus lanes. I do use this particular bus route which is either the 212 or the 217. The buses get Caught in the traffic jams that have greatly increased since they narrowed the road.
I will say it is a road diet I can live with. I just wish they would've done a better job with it. They did repave the road, which is nice but they used blacktop asphalt. I wish they would've used concrete, which would've reduced the urban island effect. They should've put landscape medians in and added some trees, which would stop people from flying down the middle turn lane which I witness almost every time I drive this road now which is several times a day. And of course, as I said, I wish they would've implemented bus lanes where the parking lanes are at. Build fully enclosed bus shelters. And increase frequencies.
It's just seems like typical LADOT crap Where they pretend to make the city more multimodal but they're either liars and just are doing pork barrel projects, don't know what they're doing, or just being cheap.
Quote from: webny99 on July 26, 2024, 08:29:10 AMQuote from: 7/8 on July 25, 2024, 09:23:35 AMAnother one that desperately needs a road diet are the dual one-ways Erb and Bridgeport in Waterloo. Each one is three-lanes, and they're resident streets! There's even an elementary school here: GSV (https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4716606,-80.5077658,3a,73.9y,263.93h,90.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sflDVFlgs-r7r0CrpcGA6xQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu). They recently made it 40 km/h near the school, as if that will be effective to slow cars down.
Wow! Those lanes look quite narrow. Do traffic volumes really warrant three lanes here? Two thru lanes with proper shoulders and turning lanes at intersections where needed would seem to make a whole lot more sense.
I actually don't find the lanes too narrow when I drive them. Unfortunately I'm not sure how to get an accurate measurement of them since I can't find the engineering plans on the City of
Waterloo's Interactive Map. Personally I think two lanes would be plenty, but I also lean more urbanist than most of the forum, so make of that what you will. :D
Quote from: algorerhythms on July 27, 2024, 04:02:16 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on July 27, 2024, 01:21:01 PMThe idea of four-lane undivided streets being obsolete is insane to me because that describes just about every major arterial in the Oklahoma City metro. And a good chunk of the ones in Kansas City, too, so it's not just Oklahoma being cheap.
I mean, when was the last time Oklahoma was an example of anything good? :awesomeface:
I think it's a bit more specific than that, though... it's specifically four-lane roads with no turn lanes. Where all traffic that turns left must wait for a gap in the left traffic lane, blocking that lane. In my experience, the arterials in Oklahoma (which I'm not really a fan of anyway, to be honest) at least have turn lanes at traffic lights. Westmount Road, which I referred to earlier looks like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4555537,-80.5288365,3a,31.3y,321.51h,86.31t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBsGNXDkl65BIgOcX4lnhSw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DBsGNXDkl65BIgOcX4lnhSw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D321.51427750688407%26pitch%3D3.6923434462945863%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu). If there's a bus in the right lane, and left-turning traffic in the left lane (both of which are often the case during commute time in the morning), you're not going anywhere for a while. In this case, you could improve traffic flow by reducing the number of lanes, because it would give you the space to have turn lanes and space for the buses to pull out of the traffic lane while they're stopped.
Yes that stretch of Westmount is poorly done. I just checked the latest engineering drawing on
Kitchener's Interactive Map (dated 2001) and the road width is roughly 11.4m, meaning the lane widths average 2.85m. Considering the Region prefers 3.35-3.65m on new roads, that's quite narrow! Having said that, I think 3.65m is too wide for City/Region streets, since it encourages speeding.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 27, 2024, 01:21:01 PMThe idea of four-lane undivided streets being obsolete is insane to me because that describes just about every major arterial in the Oklahoma City metro. And a good chunk of the ones in Kansas City, too, so it's not just Oklahoma being cheap.
I wish OKC would take a queue from Dallas and wide and many of its roads to six lanes. But that's a lot to ask for given the fact most of them don't even have a turning lane. Urban planning in Oklahoma City is just horrible in general. Way too many curb cuts. Literally curb cuts right up against a major intersection.
If OKC did what that other poster, who doesn't like undivided four-lane roads wants, Almost every major in the city would be narrowed to one lane each way. That would be horrific.
But on a more positive note, even though OKC is still building undivided four-lane roads, They do seem to be building more and more turning lanes. Still concepts like a right turn lane seem to be completely foreign.
From what I've seen in experience, OKC has just about the worst mass transit of any large city I've ever seen. Yes, it's getting better and there's more projects proposed, But the last thing OKC should be doing is focusing on diets and making it harder to drive.
In general, I'm not a fan of road diets but there are some that makes sense. And even if I don't like them, Especially in LA, A case can be made because there is a decent enough metro out here.
And one thing I hate about road diets and I notice this a lot in LA, Is they are touted As a way to make a city, more friendly to pedestrians and less card dependent. But almost every single diet I've ever seen in LA, A car is Converted into a parking lane sometimes with a bike lane. I just don't see how that makes the city less car dependent.
Another thing LA is doing that is driving me absolutely crazy is adding speed humps everywhere. It's causing road rage. Some people come to a complete crawl over them, especially delivery vans and then floor it. I guess for the people that live near those things if a speeding card didn't kill you the asthma from the increased congestion of more stop and go traffic will. I jest, kinda. But there's no way that is an adding and creating more air pollution.
They are also very big on trading these bike boxes like near the intersection where I live at Hawthorn and La Brea In Hollywood. They did this pre-pandemic. During rush-hour, it has made traffic backups much more worse on this residential street given the fact they banned right turns. I rarely see cyclist ever using this correctly, and I honestly can't remember the last time I ever have.
They claim it's about safety, but yet 500 feet to the south, you have Lanewood Boulevard Across the street a little strip mall that is two stories. A lot of people run across La Brea, which has speeding cars usually going the speed limit. And they don't think to put a pedestrian crossing there so people can safely cross.
They're also proposing a road diet on Forest lawn Drive. Whoopty fucking do. So now you'll have some idiot, tourist or some old person that'll be doing 10 under the speed limit that you'll either have to stick behind or illegally pass them lest you want to spend 5 miles behind a slow poke. Even if traffic counts, don't warrant four lanes. It's nice to have them to pass slower traffic.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 30, 2024, 05:23:43 PMI wish OKC would take a queue from Dallas and wide and many of its roads to six lanes. But that's a lot to ask for given the fact most of them don't even have a turning lane. Urban planning in Oklahoma City is just horrible in general. Way too many curb cuts. Literally curb cuts right up against a major intersection.
One of the things I'm loving about Las Vegas are the well-designed six-lane arterials everywhere. Las Vegas and Clark County are very good about providing median barriers to reduce the number of conflict points. U-turns are also pretty generously allowed, so the medians aren't much of an obstacle. 45 mph speed limits are also pretty awesome.
I think this treatment might be a little bit overkill for some of OKC/Norman's streets, but I think it would definitely be an improvement to many of them.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 30, 2024, 07:56:18 PMOne of the things I'm loving about Las Vegas are the well-designed six-lane arterials everywhere. Las Vegas and Clark County are very good about providing median barriers to reduce the number of conflict points. U-turns are also pretty generously allowed, so the medians aren't much of an obstacle. 45 mph speed limits are also pretty awesome.
I think this treatment might be a little bit overkill for some of OKC/Norman's streets, but I think it would definitely be an improvement to many of them.
With the caveat that the Rochester area is fairly sprawling and not as densely populated as most large cities, I find this interesting because our only six-lane arterials (Jefferson Rd in Henrietta and W Ridge Rd in Greece), have a downright terrible reputation. I'll often hear complaints about them, even among non-roadgeeks, and it's criticism I tend to agree with: they're congested and slow-moving, signal timing is poor, having to U-turn to get anywhere is annoying, and they're even more prone to weaving/excessive lane changing than four lane arterials. I know some people who will go to great lengths to avoid driving on them at all, so I'm curious what, if anything, is done differently in Nevada to handle these issues.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 30, 2024, 07:56:18 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on July 30, 2024, 05:23:43 PMI wish OKC would take a queue from Dallas and wide and many of its roads to six lanes. But that's a lot to ask for given the fact most of them don't even have a turning lane. Urban planning in Oklahoma City is just horrible in general. Way too many curb cuts. Literally curb cuts right up against a major intersection.
One of the things I'm loving about Las Vegas are the well-designed six-lane arterials everywhere. Las Vegas and Clark County are very good about providing median barriers to reduce the number of conflict points. U-turns are also pretty generously allowed, so the medians aren't much of an obstacle. 45 mph speed limits are also pretty awesome.
I think this treatment might be a little bit overkill for some of OKC/Norman's streets, but I think it would definitely be an improvement to many of them.
I definitely think parts of May Avenue and Western could benefit from this. Though there would be right away issues and some parts of the city. So much of the city still doesn't even have fucking sidewalks. It's hilarious to see a bus stop off of the street in the middle of the grass with no sidewalk whatsoever. I'm not sure if I've seen ever seen that anywhere in a city.
Quote from: webny99 on July 26, 2024, 09:07:23 AMQuote from: MikieTimT on July 25, 2024, 03:16:06 PMQuote from: epzik8 on July 13, 2024, 05:27:25 PMQuote from: mgk920 on July 11, 2024, 11:06:36 PMYes, I consider undivided four lane roads to be obsolete.
Especially from a safety standpoint, i.e. head-on collision risk.
On roads that have a freeway/expressway parallel, I'd agree. Otherwise, capacity drops considerably when you consider that there is no longer any legal way to get around slow moving vehicles.
I wouldn't go so far as to say undivided four-lane roads are obsolete. In most cases, if four lanes are warranted, then a TWLTL is also warranted. But four lanes undivided does have limited utility in some cases, such as this stretch of NY 404 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/t1VyDdkEWnjaZjmU9), or this stretch of RR 57/Thorold Stone Rd (https://maps.app.goo.gl/1h1M2G1HwCVC9s1K9) in Ontario. In essence, it's probably warranted if all three of the following apply:
- Volumes are too much for two lanes to handle
- Side streets/businesses/driveways exist but are intermittent and not too closely spaced, so it's not worth creating a TWLTL
- Traffic is localized enough that a divided highway requiring U-turn movements is unnecessary/impractical
(That being said... one time I was on a four-lane road in heavy traffic I had a driver zoom up besides me into the oncoming left lane to make a left turn, passing other left turners in the process and barely squeaking through the intersection before oncoming traffic arrived. He got a lengthy honk from me, one of the rare honking instances of "major safety hazard and major personal irritation". It did occur to me that this never would have happened on a three-lane road, or if it did, he would have at least been in the TWLTL instead of the oncoming lane.)
People in 49 states have a disparaging term for a highway with 5 lanes.
Quote from: Road Hog on August 03, 2024, 07:47:18 PMQuote from: webny99 on July 26, 2024, 09:07:23 AMQuote from: MikieTimT on July 25, 2024, 03:16:06 PMQuote from: epzik8 on July 13, 2024, 05:27:25 PMQuote from: mgk920 on July 11, 2024, 11:06:36 PMYes, I consider undivided four lane roads to be obsolete.
Especially from a safety standpoint, i.e. head-on collision risk.
On roads that have a freeway/expressway parallel, I'd agree. Otherwise, capacity drops considerably when you consider that there is no longer any legal way to get around slow moving vehicles.
I wouldn't go so far as to say undivided four-lane roads are obsolete. In most cases, if four lanes are warranted, then a TWLTL is also warranted. But four lanes undivided does have limited utility in some cases, such as this stretch of NY 404 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/t1VyDdkEWnjaZjmU9), or this stretch of RR 57/Thorold Stone Rd (https://maps.app.goo.gl/1h1M2G1HwCVC9s1K9) in Ontario. In essence, it's probably warranted if all three of the following apply:
- Volumes are too much for two lanes to handle
- Side streets/businesses/driveways exist but are intermittent and not too closely spaced, so it's not worth creating a TWLTL
- Traffic is localized enough that a divided highway requiring U-turn movements is unnecessary/impractical
(That being said... one time I was on a four-lane road in heavy traffic I had a driver zoom up besides me into the oncoming left lane to make a left turn, passing other left turners in the process and barely squeaking through the intersection before oncoming traffic arrived. He got a lengthy honk from me, one of the rare honking instances of "major safety hazard and major personal irritation". It did occur to me that this never would have happened on a three-lane road, or if it did, he would have at least been in the TWLTL instead of the oncoming lane.)
People in 49 states have a disparaging term for a highway with 5 lanes.
Which is a misused term in these instances. A TWLTL is not the same thing as an actual passing lane that can be used in either direction.