Virginia

[Beltway]

There is something I think I also remember, maybe someone can help me out with this: wasn't there for a short time in the late 80's/early 90's a RUNAWAY TRUCK RAMP at the Belvidere toll plaza SB?

Yes there was and I wish I had taken a photo of it, although it looked unremarkable from ground level.
Basically about 1,000 feet long and rising to a height of about 10 feet at the end and with retaining walls on the side and end.  Not meant for high speed trucks, probably 25 mph or less, as a few trucks had lost their brakes and crashed into a toll booth.  There is a long grade to the north of the toll plaza of about 2%.

Ahh thanks!!! There was a discussion last month on a Facebook page about I-95 and someone brought up the  RPT. So I mentioned the truck ramp and this dude on there (ironically he said he's been driving trucks for over 30 years) denied that it ever existed. I was like I KNOW WHAT I SAW! I wish you had a picture of it too.. If I'm not mistaken this could very well have been the only truck ramp to exist anywhere on I-95. Or are there any in Maine or something?

I have lived in the Richmond-Petersburg area since 1977 and passed this site many times.

Probably was the only one on I-95.  The combination of a mainline toll plaza and a major highway grade near the toll plaza.  The toll plaza itself was on a level grade and that is always the goal of highway designers.

[1995hoo]

VDOT posted another "then and now" video comparing the pre-construction Springfield Interchange in 1999 to the completed project in 2007, although it's worth noting the express lane ramps were not constructed for a few more years (they opened in November 2012). Those ramps make the Beltway interchange look more impressive.

Either way, today marks 16 years that I've lived at my current address a few miles east of there, and I still think it's easily the most effective road improvement I've seen.

http://youtu.be/bbr7_z_8k24

[D-Dey65]

Even though a large portion of traffic gets off at VA-3(Exit 130) and the project's southern merge area will be "long", I still don't like the idea of six lanes choking back down to three. IMO there needs to be at least one or two auxiliary lanes that stretch from the project's southern terminus to the US-1/US-17 exit(126).

What bugs me is the elimination of the west-to-south loop ramp at US 17/BUS US 17 (Exit 133), in spite of the fact that cloverleaf interchanges are outdated. Either way, I hope I can get some decent pics of the Fredericksburg Welcome Center before the project is started.

[Beltway]

Even though a large portion of traffic gets off at VA-3(Exit 130) and the project's southern merge area will be "long", I still don't like the idea of six lanes choking back down to three. IMO there needs to be at least one or two auxiliary lanes that stretch from the project's southern terminus to the US-1/US-17 exit(126).

What bugs me is the elimination of the west-to-south loop ramp at US 17/BUS US 17 (Exit 133), in spite of the fact that cloverleaf interchanges are outdated. Either way, I hope I can get some decent pics of the Fredericksburg Welcome Center before the project is started.

Cloverleaf interchanges are not outdated, the issue is having sufficient auxiliary lane length between the two loops.  VA I-295 has a lot of cloverleaf interchanges and they are expansive due to late-Interstate-era design standards, and they have plenty of merge room.

That said, I don't like it one bit even on older smaller designs when they eliminate a loop and then create an at-grade signalized intersection where there was none previously.

[JJBers]

I can't believe we've manged to get 99 pages of discussion on a state...

[D-Dey65]

I can't believe we've manged to get 99 pages of discussion on a state...

Oh, we'll get more, and on other states too.

[74/171FAN]

US 29 north of Charlottesville is now 6 lanes from Polo Grounds Rd to Towncenter Dr.  Also the Berkmar Drive extension opened Sunday.  (Charlottesville Newsplex)

[JJBers]

I can't believe we've manged to get 99 pages of discussion on a state...

Oh, we'll get more, and on other states too.

Well, we already got one state over 100, and this is most likely next. Connecticut (92) and Florida (94) are coming close behind

[Beltway]

I can't believe we've manged to get 99 pages of discussion on a state...

Oh, we'll get more, and on other states too.

Well, we already got one state over 100, and this is most likely next. Connecticut (92) and Florida (94) are coming close behind

This thread started 8 1/2 years ago ... not surprising that it could average a page per month.

[1995hoo]

Heh. I see this thread being on page 50. I have the forum set to display the maximum possible number of posts per page so as to reduce the number of pages I have to click through to read a thread.

[cpzilliacus]

Even though a large portion of traffic gets off at VA-3(Exit 130) and the project's southern merge area will be "long", I still don't like the idea of six lanes choking back down to three. IMO there needs to be at least one or two auxiliary lanes that stretch from the project's southern terminus to the US-1/US-17 exit(126).

What bugs me is the elimination of the west-to-south loop ramp at US 17/BUS US 17 (Exit 133), in spite of the fact that cloverleaf interchanges are outdated. Either way, I hope I can get some decent pics of the Fredericksburg Welcome Center before the project is started.

Cloverleaf interchanges are not outdated, the issue is having sufficient auxiliary lane length between the two loops.  VA I-295 has a lot of cloverleaf interchanges and they are expansive due to late-Interstate-era design standards, and they have plenty of merge room.

That said, I don't like it one bit even on older smaller designs when they eliminate a loop and then create an at-grade signalized intersection where there was none previously.

The problem with cloverleafs is the weaving required, which can be bad even with more room for same.

There are some old (original to the freeway) cloverleafs on the Prince George's County part of I-95/I-495 that have outlived their usefulness, but may  not get replaced because of the great cost involved. 

MD-4 (Pennsylvania Avenue Extended)

Baltimore Washington Parkway

And one on I-695 in  Anne Arundel County  that  may  be the worst remaining full cloverleaf in the state, at the MD-295 interchange.

[VTGoose]

The problem with cloverleafs is the weaving required, which can be bad even with more room for same.

There are some old (original to the freeway) cloverleafs on the Prince George's County part of I-95/I-495 that have outlived their usefulness, but may  not get replaced because of the great cost involved. 

This is a long-standing complaint about some of the interchanges in Roanoke on I-581 -- especially the busy Hershberger Rd./southbound 581 ramps, which serve the airport and traffic headed downtown. There is a short combined on/off merge area, which most times isn't difficult to navigate, but if there is a lot of traffic combined with people who don't know how to merge (the main complaint) it gets messy. Further south, the Orange Ave. exit is problematic, especially with people who are sticking with the right lane to exit just beyond that exit onto Williamson Rd. VDOT claims all is well and all the ramps are up to standards, so no "fix" is in sight (not that there needs to be, given the massive need to fix sections of nearby I-81).

Bruce in Blacksburg

[plain]

Totally agreed about cloverleafs not being suitable for urban areas. To me Cloverleaf Interchanges has advantages only at major rural juctions, like I-70 at I-81(the C/D lanes helps here also) or I-85 at US 58, where there's not as much traffic and there's plenty of room for the interchange to be large enough for wearing to be more fluid.

Cloverleafs in urban/suburban areas has never been a good idea, as many highway departments have come to realize over the last couple decades. VDOT had to add flyovers on I-295 at both I-64 junctions (Exit 28 despite the C/D lanes, & Exit 53). Definitely should've planned better junctions on this road, especially at interstate to interstate junctions and especially given the fact that failed loops already existed in both Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads by 1980. And now they might have to consider a flyover from I-295 SB to US 360 EB because of traffic backing up onto the interstate for that movement during the rush (already bad and will get worse).

I like Ontario's Parclo Interchanges over a full cloverleaf. While it involves signals on the surface streets, I'd take that over the dangers of weaving on a busy highway.

[Beltway]

Cloverleaf interchanges are not outdated, the issue is having sufficient auxiliary lane length between the two loops.  VA I-295 has a lot of cloverleaf interchanges and they are expansive due to late-Interstate-era design standards, and they have plenty of merge room.
That said, I don't like it one bit even on older smaller designs when they eliminate a loop and then create an at-grade signalized intersection where there was none previously.

The problem with cloverleafs is the weaving required, which can be bad even with more room for same.

There are some old (original to the freeway) cloverleafs on the Prince George's County part of I-95/I-495 that have outlived their usefulness, but may  not get replaced because of the great cost involved. 

I agree that older cloverleaf interchanges with short auxiliary lanes between the loops present problems with merging especially under heavy traffic.

Solutions are limited --
1) Expand the cloverleaf interchange layout if affordable right-of-way is available
2) Eliminate two loops and replace with two signalized intersections
3) Eliminate two loops and replace with two semi-directional ramps
4) Replace interchange with SPUI
5) Build new ramp-connectors as has been done on several VA I-81 interchanges to replace a loop
6) Build a new interchange nearby (a mile or so away) to relieve or replace the older interchange

Nearly all of these encounter feasibility issues with regard to high construction cost and/or high right-of-way cost.  Number 2 is the only one that does not have high costs, but IMHO the "solution" is worse than the "problem" in most cases.

Regarding VDOT adding flyovers on I-295 at both I-64 junctions, the northern segment of I-295 was completed in 1981 and it was at least 1995 before the existing ramps started having congestion problems.  Should the original designs have included semi-directional ramps?  Maybe.

[Beltway]

http://www.enr.com/articles/42285-virginia-transportation-plan-calls-for-182b-in-spending

Virginia Transportation Plan Calls for $18.2B in Spending
July 5, 2017

Virginia will spend $18.6 billion to study, develop and build more than 3,600 transportation projects through 2023 under the latest Six-Year Improvement Program approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board.

More than $15.2 billion will go to highway projects, with $1.1 billion earmarked for "state of good repair"  efforts statewide. The program also incorporates projects prioritized under Virginia's highly acclaimed Smart Scale scoring system, and provides the Virginia Dept. of Transportation with a budget of $5.4 billion for FY 2018, which begins July 1, 2017.

Major work to be funded during the six-year period includes the $600-million first phase of the I-64 Southside Widening and High Rise Bridge project in Chesapeake, and the $108-million, 6.2-mile second phase of the U.S. Route 460 Connector in Buchanan County. The highway total also allocates nearly $4 billion for the state's role in public-private partnerships, such as extending the I-95 Express Lanes to Fredericksburg.

Rail and public transportation programs will receive $3.4 billion over the next six years, with $2.6 billion set aside for public-transportation projects and $817 million for rail initiatives.

Virginia's Six-Year Improvement Program sets funding allocations for the state's public transportation systems for the immediate fiscal year, and planned funding for the following five fiscal years. The program is updated annually to reflect updated revenue estimates, revised priorities and changes in project schedules and costs.

[74/171FAN]

Contract awarded for I-95/SR 630 Interchange and SR 630 Widening at Stafford CH.

Note that the 4th general lane addition to I-95 that was to be a part of this project was not included due to the funding not being secured for this add-on...

The project has begun with the groundbreaking yesterday.

[Beltway]

What happened with the left shoulder widening project on I-95 between VA-619 and VA-123?  That was awarded about 3 years ago to install full 10 foot wide left shoulders on the original 1964 design where the general purpose roadways had 3 foot wide left shoulders.

They did a fine job on about 3/4 of the length each way with modern shoulders installed.  However in each direction there are two segments of considerable length where the shoulder has not yet been widened. 

[VTGoose]

Another step in eliminating a traffic light on U.S. 460 starts tonight (Monday, July 10) when the beams for the new overpass in Blacksburg are put in place (but there is still a lot of work to do; at times it looks like Branch only has about 5 guys working on this at any one time). Eventually Southgate Drive will shift east and the at-grade intersection with traffic light will be removed. That will make for a (somewhat) uninterrupted trip from I-81 west to Narrows before encountering a traffic light (next lights are in West Virginia adjacent to and at the WV Turnpike interchange).

Bruce in Blacksburg

-------

U.S. 460 closed nightly beginning this evening

Alternating lanes of the U.S. 460 bypass from Southgate Drive north to Exit 5 (South Main Street) will be closed between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m. nightly beginning the week of July 10, (weather permitting), until work placing the bridge beams for the new Southgate interchange is completed. Traffic will be detoured through the Corporate Research Center along Research Center Drive. 

*West Rte. 460 will be closed on Monday and Tuesday, July 10 and July 11 between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m. The instructions for the Route 460 West detour is noted below.

*East Rte. 460 will be closed on Wednesday and Thursday, July 12 and July 13 between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m. The instructions for the East Rte. 460 Detour is also noted below.

There will be numerous slow roll operations will be utilized on Route 460 West between the hours of 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. during this road closure in order to move the beams to the off-loading location at the bridges.

[Beltway]

Another step in eliminating a traffic light on U.S. 460 starts tonight (Monday, July 10) when the beams for the new overpass in Blacksburg are put in place (but there is still a lot of work to do; at times it looks like Branch only has about 5 guys working on this at any one time). Eventually Southgate Drive will shift east and the at-grade intersection with traffic light will be removed. That will make for a (somewhat) uninterrupted trip from I-81 west to Narrows before encountering a traffic light (next lights are in West Virginia adjacent to and at the WV Turnpike interchange).
Bruce in Blacksburg

I was thinking that there was a signal at the north end of the Blacksburg Bypass between US-460 and Business US-460, but I just checked it on Google Maps Street View and I see that there is no signal.  I am a bit surprised that it would not need one.

[74/171FAN]

I was thinking that there was a signal at the north end of the Blacksburg Bypass between US-460 and Business US-460, but I just checked it on Google Maps Street View and I see that there is no signal.  I am a bit surprised that it would not need one.

See this thread for more discussion on the plans on what is being done at that intersection.

[Beltway]

I was thinking that there was a signal at the north end of the Blacksburg Bypass between US-460 and Business US-460, but I just checked it on Google Maps Street View and I see that there is no signal.  I am a bit surprised that it would not need one.

See this thread for more discussion on the plans on what is being done at that intersection.

An interchange would seem the logical way to upgrade the intersection where a bypass connects to the business route.  But a signal would have been installed years ago if traffic warranted it, you would think.  A basic 4-ramp interchange nowadays is about a $25 million project so that would be a factor.

[VTGoose]

I was thinking that there was a signal at the north end of the Blacksburg Bypass between US-460 and Business US-460, but I just checked it on Google Maps Street View and I see that there is no signal.  I am a bit surprised that it would not need one.

See this thread for more discussion on the plans on what is being done at that intersection.

An interchange would seem the logical way to upgrade the intersection where a bypass connects to the business route.  But a signal would have been installed years ago if traffic warranted it, you would think.  A basic 4-ramp interchange nowadays is about a $25 million project so that would be a factor.

The referenced thread sums up the issue pretty well. The shifted interchange to the east was about the best solution for all involved but was not well supported by the town government or the transportation board reps (who barely acknowledged that they were aware that there was a problem). Because of the location of that intersection, there really isn't a good solution to fix what is in place -- topography is a bitch. Westbound traffic is coming off the end of a long flat straightaway (and regular drivers on the road know they have a long slog up Brush Mountain so are adverse to reducing speed by much) that then drops downhill before curving to head up the mountain. Eastbound traffic is coming off said Brush Mountain and face a righthand curve and uphill run at the N. Main intersection. Dropping in a traffic light is a solution on one level but it all adds a lot of problems on another level. Unless there is a series of "Be prepared to stop when flashing" signals from near the bottom of the grade and around the curve, there will be speeding vehicles that won't be able to safely stop for a red light and will probably blow through it (it happens at Southgate even with good sight distance to the "prepare to stop" sign and the light itself). Same goes for traffic going west, with the addition of people who decide not to stop and lose momentum to get up the mountain. I expect there to continue to be bad accidents at that intersection and the vicinity even after the latest "fixes" are applied.

Bruce in Blacksburg

[VTGoose]

Another step in eliminating a traffic light on U.S. 460 starts tonight (Monday, July 10) when the beams for the new overpass in Blacksburg are put in place (but there is still a lot of work to do; at times it looks like Branch only has about 5 guys working on this at any one time). Eventually Southgate Drive will shift east and the at-grade intersection with traffic light will be removed. That will make for a (somewhat) uninterrupted trip from I-81 west to Narrows before encountering a traffic light (next lights are in West Virginia adjacent to and at the WV Turnpike interchange).

Here is the Virginia Tech press release on the setting of the beams, with photos and a time-lapse video.

http://vtnews.vt.edu/photo-galleries/460-bridge-installation.html

Trivial factoid -- the "Hokie stone" facing on the bridge piers and abutments is fake, the pattern was impressed into the concrete as part of the forms when it was poured. This is both a cost-savings (the actual limestone blocks, plus the stone masons, don't come cheap) and a material savings (the university-owned quarry that produces the stone has changed operation to extend its life, producing thinner 4-inch wide blocks instead of the full-thickness structural blocks that used to be used to face campus buildings).

Bruce in Blacksburg

-------

U.S. 460 closed nightly beginning this evening

Alternating lanes of the U.S. 460 bypass from Southgate Drive north to Exit 5 (South Main Street) will be closed between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m. nightly beginning the week of July 10, (weather permitting), until work placing the bridge beams for the new Southgate interchange is completed. Traffic will be detoured through the Corporate Research Center along Research Center Drive. 

*West Rte. 460 will be closed on Monday and Tuesday, July 10 and July 11 between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m. The instructions for the Route 460 West detour is noted below.

*East Rte. 460 will be closed on Wednesday and Thursday, July 12 and July 13 between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m. The instructions for the East Rte. 460 Detour is also noted below.

There will be numerous slow roll operations will be utilized on Route 460 West between the hours of 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. during this road closure in order to move the beams to the off-loading location at the bridges.
[/quote]

[Beltway]

http://vtnews.vt.edu/photo-galleries/460-bridge-installation.html
Trivial factoid -- the "Hokie stone" facing on the bridge piers and abutments is fake, the pattern was impressed into the concrete as part of the forms when it was poured. This is both a cost-savings (the actual limestone blocks, plus the stone masons, don't come cheap) and a material savings (the university-owned quarry that produces the stone has changed operation to extend its life, producing thinner 4-inch wide blocks instead of the full-thickness structural blocks that used to be used to face campus buildings).
Bruce in Blacksburg

Still it is a nice looking bridge, that they put that much aesthetic treatment into the bridge, in the road facing girders, the piers and the abutments.

In the last 20 years few new bridges get any aesthetic treatment at all, I don't recall seeing any on the 20-some bridges replaced in the I-495 HOT Lanes Project.  Plain post and lintel design; not to denigrate the utilitarian design that has its own engineering elegance, but no aesthetic treatment.

The I-95 Shirley Highway reconstruction 1965 to 1975 had at least light aesthetic treatment in its new bridges.

[74/171FAN]

VDOT's Website: COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD AWARDS CONTRACT FOR I-64 WIDENING PROJECT IN HENRICO AND NEW KENT

The project will widen Interstate 64 between Interstate 295 (Exit 200) in Henrico and Bottoms Bridge (Exit 205) in New Kent. When completed, the project is expected to provide immediate congestion relief and enhanced safety to the roadway corridor. Improvements include adding a 12-foot wide travel lane and a 10-foot wide shoulder in both directions in the median of the existing roadway, widening the bridges over the Chickahominy River and improving the acceleration and deceleration lanes at the truck weigh station.

As a design-build project, the project team will begin construction before design work is completed, which greatly reduces the overall time necessary to complete the project.

Following the award, a notice to proceed will be issued in August 2017. The estimated completion date for the project is late summer 2019.