Rural Freeways That Need Six Lanes

[webny99]

I was fairly certain we had a thread for rural freeways that need 8 lanes, but can't turn it up with a forum or Google search...

Anyways, I think there's a very strong case for 8 lanes on the Mass Pike between I-84 at Sturbridge and I-290 at Worcester. That one stretch carries basically all long distance traffic between Boston/points north and the rest of the country, and consistently backs up eastbound at the I-84 merge point and westbound at the I-290/I-395 merge point. It's just too much for 6 lanes to realistically handle when you consider that I-84 and I-290 are both busy enough for 6 lanes on their own.

[sprjus4]

I'll add one for eight lanes... I-95 between Ashland and Fredericksburg is a major contender. The same for I-95 between Baltimore and the Delaware state line.

[Ted$8roadFan]

I was fairly certain we had a thread for rural freeways that need 8 lanes, but can't turn it up with a forum or Google search...

Anyways, I think there's a very strong case for 8 lanes on the Mass Pike between I-84 at Sturbridge and I-290 at Worcester. That one stretch carries basically all long distance traffic between Boston/points north and the rest of the country, and consistently backs up eastbound at the I-84 merge point and westbound at the I-290/I-395 merge point. It's just too much for 6 lanes to realistically handle when you consider that I-84 and I-290 are both busy enough for 6 lanes on their own.

I agree. If anything, the Pike needs 8 Agnes from I-84 all the way to I-95. Any improvements, however, will have to overcome the same logistical, financial, environmental, and community opposition challenges that have doomed most post-1970 highway expansion plans.

[carbaugh2]

I would like to nominate I-70 between Pickerington and Zanesville. Going east to west, traffic counts start at 33k, increase to 50k at Etna, and are 98k by the time you pass the exit at Ohio 256, where 6 laning begins in the Columbus metro. This was made more pressing by the recent accident just east of Etna that took the lives of 6 people.

[webny99]

I would like to nominate I-70 between Pickerington and Zanesville. Going east to west, traffic counts start at 33k, increase to 50k at Etna, and are 98k by the time you pass the exit at Ohio 256, where 6 laning begins in the Columbus metro. This was made more pressing by the recent accident just east of Etna that took the lives of 6 people.

Agreed, at the very least it would make sense to extend 6 lanes to the existing 6 lane stretch near Buckeye Lake. When I drove that stretch coming from the east I exited at OH 13 and was surprised to see 6 lanes already, but was even more surprised to later learn that the 6 lanes there don't extend into Columbus.

[carbaugh2]

I would like to nominate I-70 between Pickerington and Zanesville. Going east to west, traffic counts start at 33k, increase to 50k at Etna, and are 98k by the time you pass the exit at Ohio 256, where 6 laning begins in the Columbus metro. This was made more pressing by the recent accident just east of Etna that took the lives of 6 people.

Agreed, at the very least it would make sense to extend 6 lanes to the existing 6 lane stretch near Buckeye Lake. When I drove that stretch coming from the east I exited at OH 13 and was surprised to see 6 lanes already, but was even more surprised to later learn that the 6 lanes there don't extend into Columbus.

The section between Buckeye Lake and Brownsville was widened back in the 1990s or 2000s to create a truck lane for the large hills through that stretch. It's been so long that I have forgotten what it looked like with only 4 lanes.

ODOT is currently reconstructing I-70 through Zanesville and is keeping it at 4 lanes due to right of way limitations (read as costs), so I have trouble believing it will ever be 6 lanes through there.


iPhone

[dbz77]

An easy one.

all of I-15 between Barstow and the junction with N US-93 near Apex.

[fillup420]

I-85 in NC, between the eastern I-40 split and the Durham county line.

[webny99]

One that I find increasingly bothersome is the 19-mile stretch of I-81 between I-83 and I-78 east of Harrisburg. I-83 and I-78 feed traffic onto that stretch from both ends so it makes sense to have 6 through lanes between the the two major junctions, and it is more than warranted based on traffic volumes.

[Rothman]

One that I find increasingly bothersome is the 19-mile stretch of I-81 between I-83 and I-78 east of Harrisburg. I-83 and I-78 feed traffic onto that stretch from both ends so it makes sense to have 6 through lanes between the the two major junctions, and it is more than warranted based on traffic volumes.

I'd want three from I-78 to WV...

[Beltway]

One that I find increasingly bothersome is the 19-mile stretch of I-81 between I-83 and I-78 east of Harrisburg. I-83 and I-78 feed traffic onto that stretch from both ends so it makes sense to have 6 through lanes between the the two major junctions, and it is more than warranted based on traffic volumes.

I-81 between I-40 in Tennessee and I-78 east of Harrisburg.

Should all be six lanes and in some places more.

[sprjus4]

One that I find increasingly bothersome is the 19-mile stretch of I-81 between I-83 and I-78 east of Harrisburg. I-83 and I-78 feed traffic onto that stretch from both ends so it makes sense to have 6 through lanes between the the two major junctions, and it is more than warranted based on traffic volumes.

I'd want three from I-78 to WV...

Just WV? I want three from I-78 to I-40.

[freebrickproductions]

It's almost certainly been mentioned before, but I-65 has large rural stretches that need six lanes, especially north of Montgomery.

[webny99]

I'd want three from I-78 to WV...

Just WV? I want three from I-78 to I-40.

I-81 between I-40 in Tennessee and I-78 east of Harrisburg.

Should all be six lanes and in some places more.

That would be nice to have, but it can't all be done at once.

In PA, I'd prioritize I-78 to I-83 and then focus on the Carlisle area before working south to MD. I know there are quite a few projects in VA so some of this may already be happening, but I'd start with I-66 to Corridor H, then focus on the Winchester area, the I-64 overlap, and the Roanoke area to I-77, then fill in the remaining gaps north of Roanoke. I'd save Wytheville to Bristol for last.  In TN, I'd widen north of I-26 first before working south to I-40, but frankly TN has higher priorities than I-81, namely: the I-40/I-75 overlap (widening to 8+ lanes), I-65 north of Nashville, I-24 in the Chattanooga area and north of Nashville, and I-75 from Chattanooga to Knoxville.

[Road Hog]

Did I-30 over T-Day weekend and I am now more than ever convinced that extra lanes are needed. Numerous micropassing trucks.

[Beltway]

I-81 between I-40 in Tennessee and I-78 east of Harrisburg.
Should all be six lanes and in some places more.

That would be nice to have, but it can't all be done at once.
In PA, I'd prioritize I-78 to I-83 and then focus on the Carlisle area before working south to MD. I know there are quite a few projects in VA so some of this may already be happening, but I'd start with I-66 to Corridor H, then focus on the Winchester area, the I-64 overlap, and the Roanoke area to I-77, then fill in the remaining gaps north of Roanoke. I'd save Wytheville to Bristol for last.  In TN, I'd widen north of I-26 first before working south to I-40, but frankly TN has higher priorities than I-81, namely: the I-40/I-75 overlap (widening to 8+ lanes), I-65 north of Nashville, I-24 in the Chattanooga area and north of Nashville, and I-75 from Chattanooga to Knoxville.

We need a special federal aid program for rural Interstate widening projects.  The current piecemeal bit by bit approach is not cutting it -- it takes forever.

The TEA-21 of 1998 ISRRPP pilot program for tolls to widen three state-length routes went nowhere with no takers, so there is no interest in converting a toll-free rural Interstate highway to being tolled.

This would be separate from current FHWA programs. It would identify rural 4-lane Interstate corridors that warrant 6-lane widening. The time horizon would be about 10 years for each corridor to study, NEPA EIS, design and construct.

For example -- TN, VA, WV, MD and PA apply to have I-81 widened under this program.

After FHWA approval, the funding will be provided at 90% federal to get it all widened within 10 years. The PA section would be all that south of the I-81/I-78 interchange. Now that would be about $10 billion but this is vitally needed to provide a 21st century Interstate highway corridor. Could call it Interstate 2050 design.

Most of the routes east of the Mississippi River need 6-lane widening (or more in some cases).

There would be enough national federal aid funding to do up to 20 routes in the next 10 years. Funding mechanisms beyond what currently exist would be developed for this.

[vdeane]

I-81 between I-40 in Tennessee and I-78 east of Harrisburg.
Should all be six lanes and in some places more.

That would be nice to have, but it can't all be done at once.
In PA, I'd prioritize I-78 to I-83 and then focus on the Carlisle area before working south to MD. I know there are quite a few projects in VA so some of this may already be happening, but I'd start with I-66 to Corridor H, then focus on the Winchester area, the I-64 overlap, and the Roanoke area to I-77, then fill in the remaining gaps north of Roanoke. I'd save Wytheville to Bristol for last.  In TN, I'd widen north of I-26 first before working south to I-40, but frankly TN has higher priorities than I-81, namely: the I-40/I-75 overlap (widening to 8+ lanes), I-65 north of Nashville, I-24 in the Chattanooga area and north of Nashville, and I-75 from Chattanooga to Knoxville.

We need a special federal aid program for rural Interstate widening projects.  The current piecemeal bit by bit approach is not cutting it -- it takes forever.

The TEA-21 of 1998 ISRRPP pilot program for tolls to widen three state-length routes went nowhere with no takers, so there is no interest in converting a toll-free rural Interstate highway to being tolled.

This would be separate from current FHWA programs. It would identify rural 4-lane Interstate corridors that warrant 6-lane widening. The time horizon would be about 10 years for each corridor to study, NEPA EIS, design and construct.

For example -- TN, VA, WV, MD and PA apply to have I-81 widened under this program.

After FHWA approval, the funding will be provided at 90% federal to get it all widened within 10 years. The PA section would be all that south of the I-81/I-78 interchange. Now that would be about $10 billion but this is vitally needed to provide a 21st century Interstate highway corridor. Could call it Interstate 2050 design.

Most of the routes east of the Mississippi River need 6-lane widening (or more in some cases).

There would be enough national federal aid funding to do up to 20 routes in the next 10 years. Funding mechanisms beyond what currently exist would be developed for this.

Is that 10 years from conceiving the project to construction completion or to construction starting, with another 10 to finish construction?  Either way feels very aggressive (just look at the controversy surrounding widening NY 17), but the former seems downright impossible.

[webny99]

The PA section would be all that south of the I-81/I-78 interchange.

FWIW, I'd prioritize I-81 in the Scranton area (PA 29 north to I-84) for widening too. Not exactly rural, but sorely needed, and in fact Avoca to I-84 is already planned.

I-84 north to Clarks Summit could also use widening but it's a narrow and winding stretch so it would be highly complex and expensive, plus the Scranton Beltway will provide an alternate, so it's a much lower priority.

[Beltway]

There would be enough national federal aid funding to do up to 20 routes in the next 10 years. Funding mechanisms beyond what currently exist would be developed for this.

Is that 10 years from conceiving the project to construction completion or to construction starting, with another 10 to finish construction?  Either way feels very aggressive (just look at the controversy surrounding widening NY 17), but the former seems downright impossible.

It would put it back on par with the original Interstate Highway System.

Many of the corridors were rolled out within 10 years or so.

Not 30 or 40 years.

This time we are not talking about new highways -- but the widening of existing.

[webny99]

I know there are quite a few projects in VA so some of this may already be happening, but I'd start with I-66 to Corridor H, then focus on the Winchester area, the I-64 overlap, and the Roanoke area to I-77, then fill in the remaining gaps north of Roanoke. I'd save Wytheville to Bristol for last.

Taking a look at conditions this past weekend, I think this overall approach is justified. To get a bit more detailed, I would prioritize widening of I-81 in VA as follows:

1A. Christiansburg to Roanoke
1B. Strasburg (Corridor H) to I-66
2. Lexington to Staunton (I-64 overlap)
3. I-77 to Christiansburg
4. Staunton to Harrisonburg
5. Harrisonburg to Strasburg
6. Roanoke to Lexington
7. I-66 to WV line
8. Bristol to Wytheville

[vdeane]

There would be enough national federal aid funding to do up to 20 routes in the next 10 years. Funding mechanisms beyond what currently exist would be developed for this.

Is that 10 years from conceiving the project to construction completion or to construction starting, with another 10 to finish construction?  Either way feels very aggressive (just look at the controversy surrounding widening NY 17), but the former seems downright impossible.

It would put it back on par with the original Interstate Highway System.

Many of the corridors were rolled out within 10 years or so.

Not 30 or 40 years.

This time we are not talking about new highways -- but the widening of existing.

The original interstate system didn't have to deal with NEPA.  It didn't need public involvement.  An engineer would just draw a line on a map and that's what was built.

I think it's ironic that you're looking to go back to that given how much you've complained about the lack of public comment on the Key Bridge rebuild.  Or are you not aware of the reasons that projects take so long these days (the ones that aren't related to funding, that is)?

[Beltway]

It would put it back on par with the original Interstate Highway System.
Many of the corridors were rolled out within 10 years or so.
Not 30 or 40 years.
This time we are not talking about new highways -- but the widening of existing.

The original interstate system didn't have to deal with NEPA.  It didn't need public involvement.  An engineer would just draw a line on a map and that's what was built.
I think it's ironic that you're looking to go back to that given how much you've complained about the lack of public comment on the Key Bridge rebuild.  Or are you not aware of the reasons that projects take so long these days (the ones that aren't related to funding, that is)?

About 30% of the total Interstate system mileage was built under NEPA which was enacted  in 1969, and about 50% of the urban and metropolitical mileage.

Besides, there was still public involvement and state and local political involvement, pre-NEPA.

I don't think it too optimistic to go from beginning of EIS/location studies to a completed highway in 10 years -- especially when widening within existing R/W.

[architect77]

I-85 in NC, between the eastern I-40 split and the Durham county line.

That section is 8 miles in length. I often think about what someone from the Northeast thinks about driving South on I-85 for the first time. They enter NC on an old 4 lane I-85 until reaching Durham where briefly it's 8 lanes but then back to this 4 lane section. They are likely not happy believing they will continue on a mere 4-lane bare minimum highway through the entire state, then bamm, they are treated to 8 lanes and 6 lanes until almost at the SC border, 170 miles away.

[webny99]

I-85 in NC, between the eastern I-40 split and the Durham county line.

That section is 8 miles in length. I often think about what someone from the Northeast thinks about driving South on I-85 for the first time. They enter NC on an old 4 lane I-85 until reaching Durham where briefly it's 8 lanes but then back to this 4 lane section. They are likely not happy believing they will continue on a mere 4-lane bare minimum highway through the entire state, then bamm, they are treated to 8 lanes and 6 lanes until almost at the SC border, 170 miles away.

True, although I still think the biggest shock of all, not just in NC but perhaps on the entire interstate system (?), is this completely collapsing from five lanes to two in less than a mile, creating a stunning epitome of a bottleneck.

[sprjus4]

I don't think it too optimistic to go from beginning of EIS/location studies to a completed highway in 10 years -- especially when widening within existing R/W.

I-64 between Richmond and Williamsburg, I-70 across Missouri (200+ miles!), all of the I-81 segments underway or soon to be... 10 years is not unreasonable at all. It's funding that is the holdup for everything.