News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Virginia

Started by Alex, February 04, 2009, 12:22:16 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

sprjus4

#3825
Quote from: Jmiles32 on April 19, 2019, 03:09:11 PM
Here are VDOT's plans for the Bowers Hill Interchange:
https://www.dailypress.com/news/politics/dp-nws-bowers-hill-20190418-story.html
QuoteAdditional lanes and barriers to separate the streams of traffic that currently weave their way through the Bowers Hill interchange are state highway officials' proposed fix for one of Hampton Roads's worst bottlenecks.

They're going to recommend that approach rather than a costlier rebuilding of most of the interchange, including new flyovers and exit ramps, Jennifer Salyers, location studies project manager at the Virginia Department of Transportation, told the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Thursday.

The recommended alternative includes new barriers to separate traffic headed to I-664 and U.S. 58 as it moves off of Interstate 264, as well as for traffic moving onto I-64 and I-264 from U.S. 58.

It calls for an additional lane in each direction of I-64 and I-664, as well as a new ramp between U.S. 58 east and I-264 east and a new two lane ramp to connect I-64 to I-264 and U.S. 58.

Slayton said this approach would cost about $450 million, or two-thirds the likely expense of rebuilding the interchange. VDOT would need to acquire only about half the right of way, or 8.8 acres, and the project would affect only about a quarter of the wetlands that would be impacted by the rebuilding. But it would require relocating 11 homes, compared to three, and three businesses, compared to none.

I saw that article too... Besides this, I've not seen anywhere else official stating this was the preferred alternative.

Obviously, it's cheaper, though the full re-build would be the best option IMHO in the long run.

This is a detailed graphic of the braided ramps option (the cheaper one)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9iKvysfOHA

Here's the full re-build (the more expensive one)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fB2c9CWZis

The braided ramps would cost $450 million, and full reconstruction would be $632 million. It's important to note these costs have been inflated to be in 2032 dollars, not 2019 dollars. Way more detailed cost information is on the Alternatives Technical Report, linked below.

The full Environmental Assessment is on the the Bowers Hill Interchange website - http://bowershillinterchange.com

The Alternative Technical Report contains detailed drawings of the improvements, which may be easier to understand.


plain

Quote from: froggie on April 19, 2019, 02:10:11 PM
"5 miles east of Edgerton" would put the new signal at SR 634.  Sound about right?

Here it is.

https://goo.gl/maps/W3m82wHGHy1vsfiY8
Newark born, Richmond bred

sprjus4

Quote from: plain on April 19, 2019, 03:25:07 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 19, 2019, 02:10:11 PM
"5 miles east of Edgerton" would put the new signal at SR 634.  Sound about right?

Here it is.

https://goo.gl/maps/W3m82wHGHy1vsfiY8
That signal was temporary to accommodate the large amount of traffic accessing the power plant while it was under construction. That signal was removed a couple years ago after it was completed.

plain

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 03:28:41 PM
Quote from: plain on April 19, 2019, 03:25:07 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 19, 2019, 02:10:11 PM
"5 miles east of Edgerton" would put the new signal at SR 634.  Sound about right?

Here it is.

https://goo.gl/maps/W3m82wHGHy1vsfiY8
That signal was temporary to accommodate the large amount of traffic accessing the power plant while it was under construction. That signal was removed a couple years ago after it was completed.

It was still there when I went through there last summer during a trip to Charlotte from Newport News.
Newark born, Richmond bred

sprjus4

Quote from: plain on April 19, 2019, 03:33:43 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 03:28:41 PM
Quote from: plain on April 19, 2019, 03:25:07 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 19, 2019, 02:10:11 PM
"5 miles east of Edgerton" would put the new signal at SR 634.  Sound about right?

Here it is.

https://goo.gl/maps/W3m82wHGHy1vsfiY8
That signal was temporary to accommodate the large amount of traffic accessing the power plant while it was under construction. That signal was removed a couple years ago after it was completed.

It was still there when I went through there last summer during a trip to Charlotte from Newport News.
There was another signal added here when a second power station was being constructed. That was removed a few months ago. That's probably what you're thinking of. I drove US-58 between Hampton Roads and Martinsville back in December, and I believe there were not any signals in these two locations anymore. My memory is a little blurry on this, so I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain they were both removed.

I'm not planning to drive this stretch of US-58 anytime soon, so let's hope either someone else does, or street view comes through and figures this out.

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 02:51:05 PM
The only issue is cost - $172,525,000 (as of 2015, likely higher now). Here's the study. It was recommended as the preferred alternative in that particular study.

I have seen that study and that cost, but I find it hard to believe that 2 miles of relocated 4-lane highway and one interchange will even cost 1/2 of that.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Jmiles32

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 03:24:34 PM
I saw that article too... Besides this, I've not seen anywhere else official stating this was the preferred alternative.

Obviously, it's cheaper, though the full re-build would be the best option IMHO in the long run.

This is a detailed graphic of the braided ramps option (the cheaper one)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9iKvysfOHA

Here's the full re-build (the more expensive one)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fB2c9CWZis

The braided ramps would cost $450 million, and full reconstruction would be $632 million. It's important to note these costs have been inflated to be in 2032 dollars, not 2019 dollars. Way more detailed cost information is on the Alternatives Technical Report, linked below.

The full Environmental Assessment is on the the Bowers Hill Interchange website - http://bowershillinterchange.com

The Alternative Technical Report contains detailed drawings of the improvements, which may be easier to understand.

Oh ok thank you for the clarification and yes I also agree that a full reconstruction would be the better option. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the cheaper version is chosen. Any idea when a decision will be made?
Aspiring Transportation Planner at Virginia Tech. Go Hokies!

sprjus4

Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 04:41:33 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 02:51:05 PM
The only issue is cost - $172,525,000 (as of 2015, likely higher now). Here's the study. It was recommended as the preferred alternative in that particular study.

I have seen that study and that cost, but I find it hard to believe that 2 miles of relocated 4-lane highway and one interchange will even cost 1/2 of that.
For 2.5 miles, it's about $60 million per mile. Likely one reason of the high costs is because of the wetlands and the Nottoway Swamp it will cross. Two 3,000 - 5,000 feet or so bridges will likely be needed to traverse over this area, plus the compensation of wetlands that will be needed. Not to mention, in the middle of that, you have to likely raise Storys Station Rd to cross over this elevated US-58 structure or somehow have it pass underneath. And the interchange at Camp Pkwy, which will likely cost $20 million or so.

Upgrading the existing alignment or choosing another alignment with less impact would be needed to reduce costs.

sprjus4

Quote from: Jmiles32 on April 19, 2019, 04:44:13 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 03:24:34 PM
I saw that article too... Besides this, I've not seen anywhere else official stating this was the preferred alternative.

Obviously, it's cheaper, though the full re-build would be the best option IMHO in the long run.

This is a detailed graphic of the braided ramps option (the cheaper one)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9iKvysfOHA

Here's the full re-build (the more expensive one)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fB2c9CWZis

The braided ramps would cost $450 million, and full reconstruction would be $632 million. It's important to note these costs have been inflated to be in 2032 dollars, not 2019 dollars. Way more detailed cost information is on the Alternatives Technical Report, linked below.

The full Environmental Assessment is on the the Bowers Hill Interchange website - http://bowershillinterchange.com

The Alternative Technical Report contains detailed drawings of the improvements, which may be easier to understand.

Oh ok thank you for the clarification and yes I also agree that a full reconstruction would be the better option. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the cheaper version is chosen. Any idea when a decision will be made?
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/hampton_roads/BHI_Public_Hearing_May_2019/use6_Bowers_Hill_Schedule-Next_Steps_LPH_Boards-draft6.pdf

CTB will chose the Preferred Alternative in the summer.

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 05:08:04 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 04:41:33 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 02:51:05 PM
The only issue is cost - $172,525,000 (as of 2015, likely higher now). Here's the study. It was recommended as the preferred alternative in that particular study.
I have seen that study and that cost, but I find it hard to believe that 2 miles of relocated 4-lane highway and one interchange will even cost 1/2 of that.
For 2.5 miles, it's about $60 million per mile.
And it should be less than $30 million per mile.

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 05:08:04 PM
Likely one reason of the high costs is because of the wetlands and the Nottoway Swamp it will cross. Two 3,000 - 5,000 feet or so bridges will likely be needed to traverse over this area, plus the compensation of wetlands that will be needed.

Disagree.  Looking at the aerial, a single 4-lane bridge 400 feet long should cross the wetlands without needing to destroy any wetlands.

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 05:08:04 PM
Not to mention, in the middle of that, you have to likely raise Storys Station Rd to cross over this elevated US-58 structure or somehow have it pass underneath. And the interchange at Camp Pkwy, which will likely cost $20 million or so.

A regular embankment and overpass for Storys Station Road over US-58.  The limited-access right-of-way for the Camp Parkway interchange was acquired when the Franklin Bypass was built.

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 05:08:04 PM
Upgrading the existing alignment or choosing another alignment with less impact would be needed to reduce costs.

Upgrading the existing alignment will have its own high costs, for right-of-way and construction.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 08:39:58 PM
And it should be less than $30 million per mile.
I don't think the study would lie. There's probably reasons it's so high. It was an engineering estimate, not some quickly came up with number.

Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 08:39:58 PM
Disagree.  Looking at the aerial, a single 4-lane bridge 400 feet long should cross the wetlands without needing to destroy any wetlands.
Hard to say, but whatever bridge or however long said bridge is, it'd likely be two 2-lane bridges. The study indicated a depressed median alternative was preferred over a median barrier alternative (the design the Franklin and Courtland bypasses use). If US-58 was built as a full interstate highway between Hampton Roads and I-95 or I-85, a depressed median would be preferred over an urban, median barrier design.

Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 08:39:58 PM
The limited-access right-of-way for the Camp Parkway interchange was acquired when the Franklin Bypass was built.
Not quite. Right of way was acquired for a trumpet interchange using the existing alignment. Looking at the Southampton County property map, and generally looking at it, here's how an interchange would fit in -


A diamond interchange would be required if a bypass was constructed, with new right of way. If the existing alignment was upgraded to interstate standards, then this would indeed work.

Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 08:39:58 PM
Upgrading the existing alignment will have its own high costs, for right-of-way and construction.
Right of way costs would be higher, for the properties on the north side that would need to be acquired. Construction would be lower though because the "eastbound" (current westbound) lanes would already be built, they would just need reconstruction. Also, no need to clear an entire new path through the wetlands & forested area for a highway, simply a new 2-lane + 10 foot shoulder carriageway 60 or 70 feet north of the existing one.

I'd be interested to see an engineering estimate for using the existing alignment as well, instead of only a bypass.

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 09:14:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 08:39:58 PM
And it should be less than $30 million per mile.
I don't think the study would lie. There's probably reasons it's so high. It was an engineering estimate, not some quickly came up with number.

I'm not saying that anyone was lying.  Just mistaken in some ways.  It is not really clear whether VDOT conducted the study or whether it was validated after completion.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Alps

Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 09:29:15 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 09:14:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 08:39:58 PM
And it should be less than $30 million per mile.
I don't think the study would lie. There's probably reasons it's so high. It was an engineering estimate, not some quickly came up with number.

I'm not saying that anyone was lying.  Just mistaken in some ways.  It is not really clear whether VDOT conducted the study or whether it was validated after completion.
It's an engineer's estimate. Engineers used engineering principles. I'm sure it's pretty sound. Have you personally read the report?

Beltway

Quote from: Alps on April 20, 2019, 12:49:11 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 09:29:15 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 09:14:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 08:39:58 PM
And it should be less than $30 million per mile.
I don't think the study would lie. There's probably reasons it's so high. It was an engineering estimate, not some quickly came up with number.
I'm not saying that anyone was lying.  Just mistaken in some ways.  It is not really clear whether VDOT conducted the study or whether it was validated after completion.
It's an engineer's estimate. Engineers used engineering principles. I'm sure it's pretty sound. Have you personally read the report?

You're sure?  Engineers never make mistakes?  Engineers in fact produced that total figure listed in the document?
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Alps

Quote from: Beltway on April 20, 2019, 07:53:56 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 20, 2019, 12:49:11 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 09:29:15 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 09:14:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 08:39:58 PM
And it should be less than $30 million per mile.
I don't think the study would lie. There's probably reasons it's so high. It was an engineering estimate, not some quickly came up with number.
I'm not saying that anyone was lying.  Just mistaken in some ways.  It is not really clear whether VDOT conducted the study or whether it was validated after completion.
It's an engineer's estimate. Engineers used engineering principles. I'm sure it's pretty sound. Have you personally read the report?

You're sure?  Engineers never make mistakes?  Engineers in fact produced that total figure listed in the document?
"I'm sure it's pretty sound" != "It must be perfect"

D-Dey65

New Topic: I mentioned that my recently proposed road trip to NYC and back was going to include a detour to VA 161 so I could take the Boulevard Bridge, and I did. I will be posting the images on the Wikimedia Commons hopefully before the month is over.


plain

Quote from: D-Dey65 on April 20, 2019, 11:45:19 PM
New Topic: I mentioned that my recently proposed road trip to NYC and back was going to include a detour to VA 161 so I could take the Boulevard Bridge, and I did. I will be posting the images on the Wikimedia Commons hopefully before the month is over.
This reminds me of a pic I found online a few years back of the toll plaza. I'm thinking this was not long after it was moved off the bridge and placed on the northern end.


SM-S820L

Newark born, Richmond bred

Beltway

#3842
Quote from: Alps on April 20, 2019, 09:44:19 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 20, 2019, 07:53:56 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 20, 2019, 12:49:11 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 09:29:15 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 09:14:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 08:39:58 PM
And it should be less than $30 million per mile.
I don't think the study would lie. There's probably reasons it's so high. It was an engineering estimate, not some quickly came up with number.
I'm not saying that anyone was lying.  Just mistaken in some ways.  It is not really clear whether VDOT conducted the study or whether it was validated after completion.
It's an engineer's estimate. Engineers used engineering principles. I'm sure it's pretty sound. Have you personally read the report?
You're sure?  Engineers never make mistakes?  Engineers in fact produced that total figure listed in the document?
"I'm sure it's pretty sound" != "It must be perfect"

I'm not saying that those entities can't reliably produce sound engineering studies.

Here are my concerns which go back a couple years when I first saw this report, and just now am I speaking out.

This 2.5-mile segment of rural freeway is not major in the overall scheme of things, and it doesn't bypass a town, and the existing highway is a 4-lane highway.  However, it would be a valuable improvement, and would link a 3-mile freeway town bypass with a 10-mile freeway town bypass, into a 16-mile seamless freeway, it would address the problems on the existing 4-lane highway segment (which could easily take $20+ million for basic improvements), and it would complete a link in a future US-58 freeway corridor.  The new Courtland interchange is configured to accept this bypass extension without further modification.  The other needed interchange at the west end of the Franklin Bypass would tie Camp Parkway into the existing 4-lane highway and provide ramps for the seamless freeway to and from this seamless segment of Business US-58.

So this $172 million figure appears in a county board of supervisors' report.  No matter how valuable this segment would be, I can't imagine supporting allocating that much funding to this project.

So this figure looks to me like it was intended to shut off and kill off any discussion about building this project.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 26, 2019, 06:28:12 PM
Speed limit raising on U.S. Route 301 between Port Royal and Bowling Green from 55 MPH to 60 MPH.

https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/caroline/caroline-board-oks-speed-limit-increase-on-a-p-hill/article_1f866d5b-44fe-5d54-a7ce-8965726b0ccb.html

Glad to see some more of these increases coming along.

Update on this increase... the 55 MPH signage will be replaced with 60 MPH signage tomorrow.
QuoteVDOT SET TO INSTALL NEW SPEED LIMIT SIGNS ON ROUTE 301 IN CAROLINE COUNTY ON APRIL 25
Drivers should be alert to the new 60 mph speed limit on Route 301 between just north of Route 608 to just south of Route 17


FREDERICKSBURG, Va. — The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) crews will install new speed limit signs on a portion of Route 301 in Caroline County on Thursday, April 25.

Drivers should be alert to the speed limit increase from 55 mph to 60 mph on an 8.8 mile section of Route 301 from 0.76 mile north of Route 608 to 0.34 mile south of Route 17.   

VDOT crews will install the new speed limit signs along the shoulder on Route 301 between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m.  All travel lanes will remain open in the work zone.

In the event of inclement weather, the sign installation will take place on Friday, April 26.
http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/fredericksburg/2019/vdot-set-to-install-new-speed-limit-signs-on-route-301-in-caroline-county-on-april-254-24-2019.asp

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 24, 2019, 07:33:37 PM
Speed limit raising on U.S. Route 301 between Port Royal and Bowling Green from 55 MPH to 60 MPH.

I went thru there 2 weeks ago and was wondering why it wasn't yet 60.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

Quote from: Beltway on April 24, 2019, 08:30:02 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 24, 2019, 07:33:37 PM
Speed limit raising on U.S. Route 301 between Port Royal and Bowling Green from 55 MPH to 60 MPH.

I went thru there 2 weeks ago and was wondering why it wasn't yet 60.
I had assumed when it was announced to be increased to 60 MPH last month, it would've been done two or three days later, I don't get why they waited a month.

Back in December, VDOT announced I-64 between Hampton Roads Center Pkwy and Jefferson Ave was being increased from 60 MPH to 65 MPH, and they put up the new signage two days after that. They weren't stalling or waiting around for anything.

Beltway

It also appears that the 70 mph limit on I-95 was extended 2 miles south, from just south of VA-54 Ashland to just north of Parham Road.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

MASTERNC

Quote from: Beltway on April 24, 2019, 08:58:17 PM
It also appears that the 70 mph limit on I-95 was extended 2 miles south, from just south of VA-54 Ashland to just north of Parham Road.

Seems a lot longer than 2 miles - Parham Road is south of I-295

sprjus4

Quote from: MASTERNC on April 24, 2019, 09:18:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 24, 2019, 08:58:17 PM
It also appears that the 70 mph limit on I-95 was extended 2 miles south, from just south of VA-54 Ashland to just north of Parham Road.

Seems a lot longer than 2 miles - Parham Road is south of I-295
That's more like 9 miles.

Interesting, I suppose the improvements and the interchange expansion recently completed in that area made that stretch of I-95 able to safely handle 70 MPH.

I believe this would also be the first 70 MPH stretch to enter inside the "beltway" (VA-288, I-295). Nice bonus for area commuters up that way.

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 24, 2019, 09:33:52 PM
Quote from: MASTERNC on April 24, 2019, 09:18:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 24, 2019, 08:58:17 PM
It also appears that the 70 mph limit on I-95 was extended 2 miles south, from just south of VA-54 Ashland to just north of Parham Road.
Seems a lot longer than 2 miles - Parham Road is south of I-295
That's more like 9 miles.
Interesting, I suppose the improvements and the interchange expansion recently completed in that area made that stretch of I-95 able to safely handle 70 MPH.
I believe this would also be the first 70 MPH stretch to enter inside the "beltway" (VA-288, I-295). Nice bonus for area commuters up that way.

Correction:  to just north of VA-656 Lewistown Road.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.