Mapping 6+ lane freeways

[vdeane]

Now that New Jersey is in, what's the ruling on whether Jersey freeways count or not?

[neroute2]

Now that New Jersey is in, what's the ruling on whether Jersey freeways count or not?

I didn't include them when I mapped NJ because they're not freeways. If we decide to include them, I or someone else can add them.

PS: NJ 21 needs a point at the south end of the freeway; I made a thread requesting it but got no response.

[SSOWorld]

I see - or rather I didn't.

I slobbed up California and threw it in.  The most unstable ones are 58 (which seems to be getting more open), 99, and 101 which all are under heavy construction expanding them beyond 4 lanes.

EDIT: 3 PRs exist for 6lane on 6/11.  Will have to take care to not erase any (neroute2 and I have large changes over multiple states)

[froggie]

How does one want to handle HOV lanes - say you have 2 GP Lanes and 1 HOV each way?

I believe froggie stated yes to that.  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33329.msg2845998#msg2845998)

Jayhawk made that call.  I merely agreed with him when others disagreed, and pointed out what some agencies think.

[webny99]

It's great to see this project happening. Two comments on NY:

1. I-490 6-8 should count IMO. I can see the argument against including 7-8 because of the combined exits (although I think the EB lane extending beyond the exit is a better argument for including it than if it was an exit only lane), but 6-7 definitely counts.

2. If I-490 8-9 counts, then I-481 3-4 should also count. Similar length and situation, and I-481 SB even keeps its third lane through Exit 3.

[vdeane]

It's great to see this project happening. Two comments on NY:

1. I-490 6-8 should count IMO. I can see the argument against including 7-8 because of the combined exits (although I think the EB lane extending beyond the exit is a better argument for including it than if it was an exit only lane), but 6-7 definitely counts.

2. If I-490 8-9 counts, then I-481 3-4 should also count. Similar length and situation, and I-481 SB even keeps its third lane through Exit 3.

Yeah, it's the combined interchange.  NB 7B and 8 are the same, which makes the three lanes there essentially an aux lane between 6 and 7, and we're only including those if they're over two miles.  To that end, I must have forgotten about the lane drop within exit 9 when I mapped that, so 8-9 should be removed.

[cl94]

I'm making tweaks to NV/CA as I find them. Notably, I-80 on the west side of Reno is still mostly 5 lanes, with the 6th lane still in the planning stages, while I-5 between Stockton and Sacramento still has a 20-mile gap in the 6-lane.

For I-80 in Sparks, Exits 18-21 have auxiliary lanes between every interchange, but it (for the time being, at least) drops to 4-5 within each interchange. Under the aux lane rule, I'd assume this stretch would be listed as 4 lanes, but we can pretty easily make it 6. This point will become moot when 80 is widened through Sparks a few years down the road.

I-580 north of Carson City has a pair of climbing lanes over Lakeview Summit. These could be considered either auxiliary or normal lanes depending on how you look at it, but they are only about a mile long.

US 395 north of I-80 is about to have its 6-lane segment extended north; I'll keep tabs on this project and add that when the additional SB lane is built.

[webny99]

It's great to see this project happening. Two comments on NY:

1. I-490 6-8 should count IMO. I can see the argument against including 7-8 because of the combined exits (although I think the EB lane extending beyond the exit is a better argument for including it than if it was an exit only lane), but 6-7 definitely counts.

2. If I-490 8-9 counts, then I-481 3-4 should also count. Similar length and situation, and I-481 SB even keeps its third lane through Exit 3.

Yeah, it's the combined interchange.  NB 7B and 8 are the same, which makes the three lanes there essentially an aux lane between 6 and 7, and we're only including those if they're over two miles.  To that end, I must have forgotten about the lane drop within exit 9 when I mapped that, so 8-9 should be removed.

It's an interesting one, because it is worth distinguishing from an auxiliary lane IMO. It feels and functions like a normal six-lane freeway on that stretch, especially WB. It has much more in common with NY17 through Goshen than NY390 24-25, for example. And technically, Exit 8 doesn't exist EB, so 6-7 could be counted on that basis. (To extend the Goshen comparison, we would still count 122A-123 if the EB 124 off-ramp was removed.)

[SSOWorld]

I'm making tweaks to NV/CA as I find them. Notably, I-80 on the west side of Reno is still mostly 5 lanes, with the 6th lane still in the planning stages, while I-5 between Stockton and Sacramento still has a 20-mile gap in the 6-lane.

For I-80 in Sparks, Exits 18-21 have auxiliary lanes between every interchange, but it (for the time being, at least) drops to 4-5 within each interchange. Under the aux lane rule, I'd assume this stretch would be listed as 4 lanes, but we can pretty easily make it 6. This point will become moot when 80 is widened through Sparks a few years down the road.

I-580 north of Carson City has a pair of climbing lanes over Lakeview Summit. These could be considered either auxiliary or normal lanes depending on how you look at it, but they are only about a mile long.

US 395 north of I-80 is about to have its 6-lane segment extended north; I'll keep tabs on this project and add that when the additional SB lane is built.

Thank you.

[Bickendan]

For Oregon:
I-5: +x5(OR99E) 299A
299B 300A
+x61 OR/WA

I-84: I-5 +x7(US30)
9A 17
(+x7(US30) 8 is 5 lane; 17A 18 is the Sandy River Bridge and likely only counts as aux lanes)

I-205: I-5 3
9 OR/WA

I-405: 1 +x1(US26)
2B I-5(302B)

US 26: 62 74

US 30: VauSt I-405(3)

[vdeane]

It's great to see this project happening. Two comments on NY:

1. I-490 6-8 should count IMO. I can see the argument against including 7-8 because of the combined exits (although I think the EB lane extending beyond the exit is a better argument for including it than if it was an exit only lane), but 6-7 definitely counts.

2. If I-490 8-9 counts, then I-481 3-4 should also count. Similar length and situation, and I-481 SB even keeps its third lane through Exit 3.

Yeah, it's the combined interchange.  NB 7B and 8 are the same, which makes the three lanes there essentially an aux lane between 6 and 7, and we're only including those if they're over two miles.  To that end, I must have forgotten about the lane drop within exit 9 when I mapped that, so 8-9 should be removed.

It's an interesting one, because it is worth distinguishing from an auxiliary lane IMO. It feels and functions like a normal six-lane freeway on that stretch, especially WB. It has much more in common with NY17 through Goshen than NY390 24-25, for example. And technically, Exit 8 doesn't exist EB, so 6-7 could be counted on that basis. (To extend the Goshen comparison, we would still count 122A-123 if the EB 124 off-ramp was removed.)

Honestly, I don't disagree that it functions that way.  One of the limitations of the way they set up the rules, especially given that the third lane EB ends right around where the cloverleaf ramp would come in if 7 and 8 were separate interchanges in that direction.

[froggie]

It's great to see this project happening. Two comments on NY:

1. I-490 6-8 should count IMO. I can see the argument against including 7-8 because of the combined exits (although I think the EB lane extending beyond the exit is a better argument for including it than if it was an exit only lane), but 6-7 definitely counts.

2. If I-490 8-9 counts, then I-481 3-4 should also count. Similar length and situation, and I-481 SB even keeps its third lane through Exit 3.

Yeah, it's the combined interchange.  NB 7B and 8 are the same, which makes the three lanes there essentially an aux lane between 6 and 7, and we're only including those if they're over two miles.  To that end, I must have forgotten about the lane drop within exit 9 when I mapped that, so 8-9 should be removed.

After reviewing, I would be inclined to include 490 6-8, but not 8-9.  481 3-4 is a hard no.

[Bickendan]

Oregon correction:
I-5: +x5(OR99E) -> +x4(OR99E)
Add: 194 195 (Eugene's 6 lane segment extends slightly past both interchanges)

OR 217: US26 2A
6 7

[neroute2]

I did spot checks of Montana, Vermont, and Wyoming, and couldn't find any in those states. Otherwise, I think every U.S. state has something mapped.

[neroute2]

Was IL I-90 recently reconfigured at 84? Everything I can find shows 6 lanes continuing into the merge with I-94, but https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&u=6lane&r=il.i090 currently has a gap. Maybe it's this project, but unless it's going to be permanently reduced after construction, I don't think a gap makes sense.