Is this real-world possible?

[stlsuburb 2]

So, I was thinking....

So, MODOT (Missouri Department of Transportation) is thinking about selling off I-70 between STL and KC to a private company to make it a turnpike. If a company bought it, would it be real-world possible to have(or just a pigment of my imagination):

4 lanes each direction

2 lanes for regular traffic (semi trucks, vans, priuses etc.)

2 lanes of high-speed traffic (85 MPH minimum, reasonable and prudent speed limit based on driver skill) These lanes more like express lanes with exits in major towns (Kingdom City, Columbia etc) and heavy grading (banked turns, wider lanes)

Or does this exist?

[Wiecher 192]

I don't know why anyone would give an interstate highway to a private company.

But for the rest, everything is possible, but I don't know if it's practical.

Low speed traffic keeps right lane on normal highways anyway, and if you make a separate highway for this category, it will only be used by trucks and cars with trailers. Maybe only on very busy freight transport routes. And why are Priuses and vans in your low speed category?

Even if your plan would be carried out, if would never be done by a private company, because it's more expensive than a normal highway and a risk because it has never been done before. They want to make profit.

[VeegoVyego 0]

I don't know why anyone would give an interstate highway to a private company.

But for the rest, everything is possible, but I don't know if it's practical.

Low speed traffic keeps right lane on normal highways anyway, and if you make a separate highway for this category, it will only be used by trucks and cars with trailers. Maybe only on very busy freight transport routes. And why are Priuses and vans in your low speed category?

Even if your plan would be carried out, if would never be done by a private company, because it's more expensive than a normal highway and a risk because it has never been done before. They want to make profit.

Indiana leased their toll road to an Australian/Spanish group.

It saves the state on road maintenance, paying toll attendants, etc.

So, I was thinking....

So, MODOT (Missouri Department of Transportation) is thinking about selling off I-70 between STL and KC to a private company to make it a turnpike. If a company bought it, would it be real-world possible to have(or just a pigment of my imagination):

4 lanes each direction

2 lanes for regular traffic (semi trucks, vans, priuses etc.)

2 lanes of high-speed traffic (85 MPH minimum, reasonable and prudent speed limit based on driver skill) These lanes more like express lanes with exits in major towns (Kingdom City, Columbia etc) and heavy grading (banked turns, wider lanes)

Or does this exist?

It would be hard to police. But, I think it would be very doable.

I'd say what you need in this country is a HUGE and I mean MASSIVE campaign to simply reteach all American drivers to "Drive Right."

If you're not actively passing get out of the fricking left lane.

It's horrible in just about every region I've driven in.

I catch myself doing it even though I try to get over when I see someone coming up.

[Wiimeiser 452]

If I were in charge I'd get it eTolled. Much more efficient. I'm hoping e-Tags will be tied with cars one day.

[Xyloxadoria 1,098]

So, I was thinking....

So, MODOT (Missouri Department of Transportation) is thinking about selling off I-70 between STL and KC to a private company to make it a turnpike. If a company bought it, would it be real-world possible to have(or just a pigment of my imagination):

4 lanes each direction

2 lanes for regular traffic (semi trucks, vans, priuses etc.)

2 lanes of high-speed traffic (85 MPH minimum, reasonable and prudent speed limit based on driver skill) These lanes more like express lanes with exits in major towns (Kingdom City, Columbia etc) and heavy grading (banked turns, wider lanes)

Or does this exist?

They are actually alredy planning this. I was working with the company that is planning to do this as a intern when it was initally proposed. Theres a full article about it here

But basically without the article, heres how it would work:

The plan was for trucks (which are considred to be larger and slower) to have their own middle lanes, then cars would drive faster on the outer lanes (trucks could too but they would have to drive over a certian speed:

And this is how an exit would work:

[AcmeSigns 97]

I'd say what you need in this country is a HUGE and I mean MASSIVE campaign to simply reteach all American drivers to "Drive Right."

If you're not actively passing get out of the fricking left lane.

It's horrible in just about every region I've driven in.

I catch myself doing it even though I try to get over when I see someone coming up.

Once you get out of the really populated California areas, Interstate5 through California, Oregon & Washington is mostly a two lane Interstate. While almost no one observes it (and the State Police don't really seem to enforce it) Oregon has signs posted that state the left lane is for passing only. In theory everyone (cars, semis, motorhomes, vehicles with trailers) drives in the right lane until you need to pass (or, occasionally move over for merging traffic). It sounds stupid & troublesome but it works so, so well. If people could only understand the genius of it's simplicity.

[TekindusT 3,809]

Once you get out of the really populated California areas, Interstate5 through California, Oregon & Washington is mostly a two lane Interstate. While almost no one observes it (and the State Police don't really seem to enforce it) Oregon has signs posted that state the left lane is for passing only. In theory everyone (cars, semis, motorhomes, vehicles with trailers) drives in the right lane until you need to pass (or, occasionally move over for merging traffic). It sounds stupid & troublesome but it works so, so well. If people could only understand the genius of it's simplicity.

Theoretically, this happens also in Europe (at least, where I live), or this is what the driving school book says. In practice, trucks, motorhomes and other slow vehicles use the right lane and cars and motorbikes use the left lane unless there is barely no traffic.

[I. Lostalim 589]

4 lanes each direction

2 lanes for regular traffic (semi trucks, vans, priuses etc.)

2 lanes of high-speed traffic (85 MPH minimum, reasonable and prudent speed limit based on driver skill) These lanes more like express lanes with exits in major towns (Kingdom City, Columbia etc) and heavy grading (banked turns, wider lanes)

Or does this exist?

Oh, yes they do!

In San Diego, they have 4 lanes in each direction and sometimes 2 lane carpool in each direction in the center. Altogether the freeway/highway is 8 lanes.

[Ltw 401]

In Europe this already happens. In European countries freight trucks drive at the right (in most places they aren't even allowed to drive at the left) and the left lane is for faster traffic. There is no barrier between the freight trucks and other traffic. This has pros and cons. The pros are definitely that you can switch easily, if there is a barrier you have to drive slow until you can switch to the other lane. Cons could be that the difference in speed are getting bigger which could be unsafe (never experienced unsafe situations though). To give you an example, in the Netherlands the left lane is usually 130km/h, the right lane is 80km/h, this difference of 50km/h could be dangerous. In Germany there is no speed limit on most highways, in my experience the speed on the left lane is between 150km/h and 160km/h which causes a much bigger difference.

Looking at planning itself it is absolutely possible. In Utrecht they also split the highway with more barriers, but then the two outer lanes are for Utrecht and the inner lanes are for traffic to Amsterdam/Arnhem. This is the same principle but with another purpose. I believe there is no law in the US which forbids to overtake at the right, in Europe this is the case. This makes situations much easier to assess at higher speeds (in Germany this is still difficult though ). If you want to make the speed 85Mph without a huge increase of casualties you should also make rules like these. This makes it not only a spatial discussion, but also political. That could be a problem.

[AcmeSigns 97]

The only time I've ever seen the trucks-use-right-lane rule broken was heading east through Nevada. There's a strong crosswind so trucks use the left lane (there's only 2 each way). That way, if they get buffeted by a crosswind they get pushed into the median (really nothing more than an unpaved part of the desert) and not traffic.

[Jimmy Buzaid 53]

There is a collector express type thing on the Jersey Turnpike (NJ I-95). Trucks need to use the collector while cars can use either one. But all exits can be used by either one. There are no crossovers.

[Linoa06 1,374]

I don't know why anyone would give an interstate highway to a private company.

But for the rest, everything is possible, but I don't know if it's practical.

Low speed traffic keeps right lane on normal highways anyway, and if you make a separate highway for this category, it will only be used by trucks and cars with trailers. Maybe only on very busy freight transport routes. And why are Priuses and vans in your low speed category?

Even if your plan would be carried out, if would never be done by a private company, because it's more expensive than a normal highway and a risk because it has never been done before. They want to make profit.

A few highways in France are managed by private companies, and I can't stand the extra price. Seriously, $10 for a 10 km stretch through Paris' CBD?!

I know some highways have a local and express service (I'm thinking of DC's ringway?), and some more rural highways sometimes have extra slow lanes for trailers and stuff.

However, I'm not sure a private company would take the extra risk...it costs enough to build a highway as it is, even though if it's enough of a bottleneck traffic should be more than enough to turn a profit from. I'm thinking of Le Havre, France, where all the highways (that's four) are tolled, including two bridges, and I'm sure they broke even a LONG time ago.

[jason w 14]

I'm against that highway exit proposal shown in a picture above because it is extremely sprawling, even in rural area where space is plentiful. Just look at it. It goes almost as far as the eye can see and it's as wide as two highway exits next to each other. Yeah, it helps traffic flow, but traffic in rural areas is not bad enough for that to begin with. Not only is it sprawling, but it would cost millions more than regular exits. Highways are not a good investment people. Light rail is a good investment and it has a promising future. Highways do not.

[raynev1 1,886]

I'm against that highway exit proposal shown in a picture above because it is extremely sprawling, even in rural area where space is plentiful. Just look at it. It goes almost as far as the eye can see and it's as wide as two highway exits next to each other. Yeah, it helps traffic flow, but traffic in rural areas is not bad enough for that to begin with. Not only is it sprawling, but it would cost millions more than regular exits. Highways are not a good investment people. Light rail is a good investment and it has a promising future. Highways do not.

I would have to agree , all the way around . Less accidents and faster A to B .

[AIX 270]

Highways are not a good investment people. Light rail is a good investment and it has a promising future. Highways do not.

I live in a city that has light rail sprawling all over the places (Portland, Oregon). Light rail functions well (in terms of speed and capacity) if it is very well planned and scheduled (to interface with local buses). HOWEVER, from a *COST* stand point, light rail is ridiculously expensive. It is expensive to build ($1.5 billion for a new line here only a few miles long) and expensive to operate. If you break it down to a $/passenger and bring in revenue from fares, light rail is a horrible investment. You can achieve high-speed light rail-quality service using dedicated busways and hybrid articulated buses for a fraction of the cost.

As for the design above, I like it from a safety standpoint. I would employ it in corridors that have significant trucking/shipping traffic. The design above could be compacted to use less space (I have done so in SC4).

[carlux_24 2]

I don't know why anyone would give an interstate highway to a private company.

But for the rest, everything is possible, but I don't know if it's practical.

Low speed traffic keeps right lane on normal highways anyway, and if you make a separate highway for this category, it will only be used by trucks and cars with trailers. Maybe only on very busy freight transport routes. And why are Priuses and vans in your low speed category?

Even if your plan would be carried out, if would never be done by a private company, because it's more expensive than a normal highway and a risk because it has never been done before. They want to make profit.

in italy all of the highways are private... in fact you spend a lot to travel in all the country and the road and other stuff really sucks.... and they're keep increasing the price!

[LivingInThePast 364]

Well, in Texas, they recently opened a tollway with an 85 mph speed limit, but it's the MAXIMUM, not the minimum.

[nhgriffith 179]

I also believe in Texas they actually enforce the "Left Lane is for Passing" law whereby if you're in the left lane and you're not passing someone, you're getting a ticket.

 

 

Throughout Northwest Arkansas, there are a few interstate traffic problems partially relating to this.

 

First of all, the area is significantly hilly.  It's easy to tell the difference between a semi-truck driver that drives the route regularly and one that doesn't, because the one that doesn't will pull out to pass and then the two trucks will sit side-by-side struggling to get up the next hill because the truck trying to pass didn't realize he didn't have enough room to pass before the next uphill.  So now these two trucks "race" up the hill at 45-50 mph side by side on a 70mph interstate.

 

Part of the traffic issue is simply over-congestion.  The bulk of the people live in Fayetteville, the southern most of several pretty connected cities.  And then they all work in the cities farther north.  Springdale (just north of Fayetteville) is the Tyson Foods headquarters, and has LOTS of Tyson plants.  Lowell (just north of Springdale) is the JB Hunt trucking headquarters.  And Bentonville (a bit north of Lowell) is of course home of Wal-Mart, the largest corporation in the world.  So there's a lot of traffic going back and forth, and there's only two lanes in each direction except for one very short section at the southernmost end of Fayetteville (which makes no sense at all).

 

 

But by far, the biggest traffic issue in Northwest Arkansas relates to on and offramps.  First of all, at several exits, the off-ramps and the roads they dump on to are not big enough to handle all of the traffic.  A prime example is I-540 NB Exit #86.  Off of this exit is Northwest Arkansas Community College, Bentonville High School, and multiple Wal-Mart Corporate Campuses.  The NB off-ramp sees the bulk of the traffic.  It's a 3-lane offramp, and at rush hour, people will be park on the shoulder of I-540 all the way back to Exit #85 (yea, an entire mile) trying to exit here.  And the biggest problem (for me when I go this way) is that I-540 overpasses the road for Exit #85... so the hill blocks your vision of how backed up it is to let you know whether it'd be more efficient to get off at #85 and go through north Rogers to get into south Bentonville...lol...

 

But beyond this construction issue, there's a larger issue which hampers the through traffic.  No one has any idea at all how to use on and off-ramps.  Every single on-ramp has acceleration lanes.  Yet many people only make it up to 40mph-50mph by the end of the offramp then pull out into traffic.  Traffic that flows at 70mph until the next on-ramp... then everyone slams on their brakes to let some yayhoo in, and everything slows down to 30mph or worse.

 

And off-ramps have a similar problem.  While there are no deceleration lanes, with a few exceptions (like Exit #86), the off-ramps themselves tend to give more than plenty of space to slow all the way down quite gently.  Yet despite this, people slowdown to as slow as 50mph before actually exiting.

 

We're completely defeating the purpose of having the Interstate.  The point of an interstate is that when you're on it, you're going 70MPH, and you use the off-ramp to slow down and the on-ramp to speed up.  And if you can't get your vehicle up to 70mph by the end of the on-ramp, you need to find a different route.  If a semi-truck can get up to 60mph by the end of the on-ramp, you better bet that your BMW will get to 70MPH...