Single-lane vs. multilane roads

[hotdogPi]

Around here, almost all surface roads are one lane in each direction. They have to be pretty important for them to be multilane (such as MA/NH 28) or connect to a major destination (Burlington Mall Rd. in Burlington, MA).

When I was in Florida, on the other hand, I saw that CR 486 in Citrus County was 3 lanes in each direction despite being somewhat minor. From what I understand, most of the country outside the Northeast is this way, although maybe not to the extent of Florida.

What is it like in your area?

[3467]

Lots of them . From continuous passing lanes in MO.to 4 lane expressways that are get close to interstate design. Michigan however is more like northeast.

[Max Rockatansky]

Out in Central California there are some literal single lane roads that have way too much traffic capacity and they tend to be common on the whole.  Two-lanes (one lane each direction) are generally the order of the day with a few exceptions here and there on segments of State Highway.  We really need a lot more four lane conversions like; CA 43 from CA 99 south to CA 198 or CA 41 south of CA 198 to CA 46.  There are a couple locally maintained roads like Jensen Avenue and Road 80 that are four lane arterial routes but are not the norm. 

[ozarkman417]

Numerous highways around here have been upgraded from two lane to four lane divided highways in the last 15 years, but only remain that way until a major point has been reached (US 60 is four lane from Springfield to I-55/57, or 65 is four-lane north to Buffalo, MO, and south to Harrison AR).
US-400 in eastern KS has the occasional passing lane but they mostly occur on hills, so trucks struggling to get up them can get passed.

[JKRhodes]

in Arizona (specifically Phoenix) the major streets are laid on a one-mile grid pattern with at least two lanes in each direction, commonly 3 lanes in the newer suburbs. It's not uncommon in the newer areas to see a really wide street adjacent to a new housing development, tapering  down to a skinny 2-lane road upstream and downstream of it.

[kphoger]

In my experience, Texas four-lanes highways that in other states would probably be two lanes with passing lanes;  Texas also adds passing lanes to highways that in other states would probably not have them.

[sprjus4]

In my experience, Texas four-lanes highways that in other states would probably be two lanes with passing lanes

Ditto with Virginia. The state has a network of 4-lane divided highways over 1,000 miles long, and a lot of them have AADTs under 10,000, a practice most states would just have 2-lanes with occasional passing.

Though, from experience, the 4-lanes I've seen in Texas are major corridors that warrant 4-lanes. Most others I've seen are 2-lane with passing, that something like that in Virginia per se would be 4-lane.

[skluth]

Out in Central California there are some literal single lane roads that have way too much traffic capacity and they tend to be common on the whole.  Two-lanes (one lane each direction) are generally the order of the day with a few exceptions here and there on segments of State Highway.  We really need a lot more four lane conversions like; CA 43 from CA 99 south to CA 198 or CA 41 south of CA 198 to CA 46.  There are a couple locally maintained roads like Jensen Avenue and Road 80 that are four lane arterial routes but are not the norm.

I think it depends on where you are in California. I agree many rural roads need improvements and widening. But the cities in the Coachella Valley are filled with wide boulevards with varying degrees of traffic. Old 111 and Ramon Road could use widening where they dip to two lanes each way. But most of the six lane boulevards (like Frank Sinatra, Gerald Ford, and Fred Waring) go for miles and are nowhere close to capacity. This encourages speeding and weaving around slower drivers who fail to comprehend slower traffic keeping to the right. I admit I'm sometimes one of the speeders because, well, it's freaking old people who don't know how to drive.

Palm Springs downsized the street going in front of my trailer court late last year. It was a lightly-traveled, four-lane road winding through about a mile of subdivision to a golf resort. It's now two lanes with a left turn lane and bike paths. I like it because there's no sidewalk on my side of the street and the bike path makes it safer. It wasn't the main road to the resort, so it's not like golfers were inconvenienced.

I think the original poster is experiencing how a lot of the US that's been subdivided over the last 50 years; giant one-mile squares (and occasionally large irregular shapes) with huge boulevards on each edge. It's almost non-existent in the NE, but gets more common the more south and west you go. It's almost all you see in much of newer Florida, Texas, Arizona, and California.

[Max Rockatansky]

Out in Central California there are some literal single lane roads that have way too much traffic capacity and they tend to be common on the whole.  Two-lanes (one lane each direction) are generally the order of the day with a few exceptions here and there on segments of State Highway.  We really need a lot more four lane conversions like; CA 43 from CA 99 south to CA 198 or CA 41 south of CA 198 to CA 46.  There are a couple locally maintained roads like Jensen Avenue and Road 80 that are four lane arterial routes but are not the norm.

I think it depends on where you are in California. I agree many rural roads need improvements and widening. But the cities in the Coachella Valley are filled with wide boulevards with varying degrees of traffic. Old 111 and Ramon Road could use widening where they dip to two lanes each way. But most of the six lane boulevards (like Frank Sinatra, Gerald Ford, and Fred Waring) go for miles and are nowhere close to capacity. This encourages speeding and weaving around slower drivers who fail to comprehend slower traffic keeping to the right. I admit I'm sometimes one of the speeders because, well, it's freaking old people who don't know how to drive.

Palm Springs downsized the street going in front of my trailer court late last year. It was a lightly-traveled, four-lane road winding through about a mile of subdivision to a golf resort. It's now two lanes with a left turn lane and bike paths. I like it because there's no sidewalk on my side of the street and the bike path makes it safer. It wasn't the main road to the resort, so it's not like golfers were inconvenienced.

I think the original poster is experiencing how a lot of the US that's been subdivided over the last 50 years; giant one-mile squares (and occasionally large irregular shapes) with huge boulevards on each edge. It's almost non-existent in the NE, but gets more common the more south and west you go. It's almost all you see in much of newer Florida, Texas, Arizona, and California.

Almost all of that can be attributed to older cities not being designed with automotive traffic in mind.  The newer cities in the Sunbelt and West Coast largely have grown mostly during the heyday of the car.  Phoenix and Las Vegas come to mind as other relatively young cities that generally have at least four-lane boulevard style roads or expressway styled highways.  Coachella Valley has a whole fits that same mold as well, I recall blasting down Palm Drive and other roads like it at 60 MPH speeds was pretty common place.  Even the relinquished parts of 111 still have the super boulevard vibe to them.

[webny99]

Around here, almost all surface roads are one lane in each direction. They have to be pretty important for them to be multilane (such as MA/NH 28) or connect to a major destination (Burlington Mall Rd. in Burlington, MA).

What is it like in your area?

Very similar, although maybe slightly reverted to the mean.

I believe this phenomenon has been noted before on the forum: Upstate NY and New England have the biggest/most notable lack of rural four-lane roads.
Every state handles it a bit differently. Ohio and Michigan are good about four-laning major long-haul non-freeways; NY and PA not so much.

Looking at urbanized areas, there is definitely an old city / new city dynamic. This spreads to the suburbs, too. In older (pre-1900) cities, suburbs weren't built with wider roads even when they easily could have been.  Probably because it didn't seem logical to have very wide roads in the suburbs while inner city traffic remains crammed on narrow streets; if the dense core can deal with one lane each way, certainly the outlying more sparsely populated areas can do the same! 

Suburbs of the following cities have more four- and six-lane roads per capita than Rochester and its Upstate counterparts: Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit, Chicago, Twin Cities. And San Antonio is in a whole separate ballpark, probably more comparable to Florida.

NYC (looking only at NY state, not NJ or CT), and Philadelphia, on the other hand, have less four- and six-lane roads per capita than the Upstate cities.

[Beltway]

Ditto with Virginia. The state has a network of 4-lane divided highways over 1,000 miles long, and a lot of them have AADTs under 10,000, a practice most states would just have 2-lanes with occasional passing.

Over 1,800 miles.   The major routes would have little in the way of sections under 10,000, such as US-29, US-460, US-13, most of US-17, and US-360 within 40 miles of Richmond.

[jakeroot]

Here in the Seattle area, it's a bit more like the northeast because of our awkward geometry (wide roads + hills don't necessarily mix well), but there are many, many arterials with 4+ lanes (two each direction). Quite a few have at least six lanes (three each direction)...can't think of any with eight lanes (four each direction).

When you get out of the city, it's honestly a good mix of everything. There are many major roads that are only two lanes (one each direction), but there's also a ton of roads that have 4+ lanes.

Apart from city grids, there's not really any Irvine-style grids with eight-hundred lanes in each direction. Tacoma has a bunch of arterials with four lanes (two each direction), but the suburbs mostly build two lane roads until widening is necessary. Grid systems are also not that common apart from the county grids, which are pretty widely-spaced (with windy bits in the middle), and are often bisected by roads that do not follow the grid.

Looking strictly at the Tacoma "metro area", most arterials are at least four lanes, but there are some major roads that are three or fewer lanes: Pioneer Way, Norpoint Way, Ruston Way, McKinley Ave, and both West Valley Hwy and East Valley Hwy in the Sumner/Pacific valley.

[debragga]

From what I've seen in North Louisiana, roads that need to be 4-lanes are 4-lanes, but no more than that if they have the traffic to warrant 6-laning (with the exception of I-20). But I'm not very well-traveled so I'm mostly comparing it to Texas, which is known for having lots of lanes when needed.

[Bruce]

Multi-lane collector/feeder roads are usually unnecessary for their volume and just worsen the experience for every user.

Like most American drivers, American roads almost always need to go on a huge diet for their own health and well-being.