Median Widths that are Extremely Wide

[Beltway]

This was a feature of the 1960s and 1970s on some new Interstate highways.

By extremely wide, I mean 300 feet or more; and 500 to 600 feet are not uncommon. In places where terrain was not an issue, and the feature was not for containing a stream.

Any ideas as to why designers were able to get authorization to consume so much land for right-of-way?

150 feet or so is plenty wide enough to have a nice landscaped treed median.

[Rothman]

Some discussion here...

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13821.0

[oscar]

^ In the deserts of the rural West, the land needed for a super-wide median may already be publicly-owned and cheap, and perhaps unsuitable for trees or landscaping. Such a median might have other advantages, such as letting motorists use high beams without blinding oncoming traffic (still need to switch to low beams when overtaking vehicles in the same direction). But mostly, no reason not to have a super-wide median.

[vdeane]

Some discussion here...

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13821.0

I like how the old thread referenced here itself has a post referencing an even older thread.

[Rothman]

Some discussion here...

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13821.0

I like how the old thread referenced here itself has a post referencing an even older thread.

We really, really care about wide medians.

[Beltway]

^ In the deserts of the rural West, the land needed for a super-wide median may already be publicly-owned and cheap, and perhaps unsuitable for trees or landscaping. Such a median might have other advantages, such as letting motorists use high beams without blinding oncoming traffic (still need to switch to low beams when overtaking vehicles in the same direction). But mostly, no reason not to have a super-wide median.

I was thinking of here in Virginia and in nearby states. Federally owned western lands is another matter.

I have not run an inventory, but at least 1/3 of the rural Interstate mileage in Virginia fits into this category. Long stretches just on I-95 and I-64.

My list of possible reasons --
1. Rural land back then was generally cheap and many owners of large tracts including lumber companies (they own a lot of land in Virginia) may have welcomed selling some of their land when they had more than they needed.
2. Topography in certain areas may have been such that independently graded roadways may have benefited from greater width when it came to balancing cut and fill excavation volumes.
3. The idea of making a median wide enough that even in winter there are enough trees to completely block view of the opposing roadway and headlight glare at night.
4. Maintaining at least 200 feet of natural ground between the roadways may have been better for good drainage as well as wildlife habitats. Even in gently rolling terrain in eastern Virginia there are cuts and fills up to 30 feet deep or so, and those would encroach on median natural ground.
5. Better aesthetics than with a narrower median.
6. Designers that just wanted to do it because they liked it and there was no opposition to doing it.

The idea of completely blocking oncoming headlights is weak -- a 150 foot wide median is fine for minimizing headlight glare.

Better aesthetics is rather subjective. Note that by the late 1970s medians on new rural Interstates were getting narrower in many places.

I think a rural tree-lined median is better for multiple reasons, just that I have wondered why they needed to go much beyond 150 feet or so.

Mountainous terrain like on VA I-77 and VA I-64 is another matter -- fitting the highway into the terrain and balancing cuts and fills may often benefit from wider median separations.

[sprjus4]

I find it interesting that some highways, such as the US-58 Suffolk Bypass has some sections that only have a standard 60 ft width median, yet have tall enough trees that often block opposing headlight glare. This is seemingly not a preferred option these days, with wide clear zones making trees unsuitable in smaller medians like this.

Some parts have a forested median, others don't.

[Beltway]

I find it interesting that some highways, such as the US-58 Suffolk Bypass has some sections that only have a standard 60 ft width median, yet have tall enough trees that often block opposing headlight glare. This is seemingly not a preferred option these days, with wide clear zones making trees unsuitable in smaller medians like this.
Some parts have a forested median, others don't.

I could have also mentioned four-lane rural arterial highways. The Suffolk Bypass itself is a freeway that was completed in 1974. It does have an 8-foot left shoulder on that treed section and a guardrail.

The difference being that it is not an Interstate System highway and it reflects the design standards of the time for the arterial classification.

Wide medians are common on Virginia four-lane rural arterial highways.

[ClassicHasClass]

Some discussion here...

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13821.0

I like how the old thread referenced here itself has a post referencing an even older thread.

We really, really care about wide medians.

I like big medians and I cannot lie.