Virginia

[Takumi]

Grand Caverns wasn’t bad. It’s in Grottoes, a bit southeast of Harrisonburg just off US 340. Taking VA 253 out of Harrisonburg will put you right there.

There are a few more caverns, but other than Dixie Caverns no names come to mind. I’ve only been to Luray and Grand.

[MillTheRoadgeek]

I couldn't disagree more.
1) The 234 bypass stinks, it needs to be limited access.  Moreover it is N-S directionally.

2) Rt 28 is the major corridor from the Dulles area/Dulles Toll Road/I-66/and central FFX-Tysons-even inner Arl and DC to points west in PW and south in PW and Stafford.  It is appropriately becoming a limited access road from Bull Run to Rt 7 before it becomes a gridlocked stop and go local business route in town that is completely inadequate.  This is not just a rush hour issue, think weekend getaways to I-95; West FFX and PWC lack a needed freeway to connect them to I-95.  28 is being used as this and the result is immense suffering (and safety) issues.
-The bypass is SOLEY needed as this is a thru route and a continuation of an existing freeway.  The bypass as planned will take existing traffic already there and move it smoothly through Manassas (where it can exit) to Bristow (where it can exit) to 234 (where it can also exit in route to 95).  This is SO so needed and will not induce as the demand is there NOW.
-In fact it will give the business and residents of Manassas on 28 a needed breather and improve their quality of life.

3) The other bypass to the south of 28, I was with DOT, we already studied it, bad choice.
-It costs more, it has many more wetland, parkland, and green space takings.
-It reduces 28 traffic less as it focuses more on routing people to 234-95 as opposed to Manassas, Bristow, as well as 234-95.

I can see, as I also disagree. I am hoping that we're doing this in a friendly manner, that's for sure.

The 234 bypass is certainly a nice road and all, but as mentioned earlier I do lament how they're not planning for the entire route (at least through the 294/234 Bus. intersection complex) to be completely grade-separated. At the very least, we are getting a few new interchanges. Orientation-wise, I can presume this was the only convenient corridor for such - things do happen for a reason.

I do agree that 28 is a major corridor - that point I do support. It is a shame how it isn't being upgraded thoroughly through Fairfax, and that the other problems add weight to it. I'll certainly take it as a last resort option though. Wouldn't want sprawl to increase out in Nokesville/Catlett (though from sprawl, I'd certainly like to see new retail centers  )
As for the third option, are you speaking of the Alt 9 (1/2) plan presented a while back? I'll admit that one was a very mediocre idea. On top of skirting close to Bull Run for longer and becoming host to some eminent domain problems, the routing for it just didn't make that much sense. Even Alt 4 has a partial bypass (Godwin Dr) and a clear strip of land going for it.

My dream would be for Braddock Road to become a limited access parkway west of Shirley Gate.
-Braddock would have an interchange @ Shirley Gate and all points west...it would be renamed 'Braddock Parkway'
-It would extend over I-66, dumping traffic on I-66 before connecting with Stone Road.
-This would allow US 29 in Centreville to become a more walkable revitalized village.

I'm not sure about that one. There are points where it's pretty entrenched within development. Though it's past overdue for an overpass over 66, that I know.

While I agree that the VA-234 bypass stinks and should be light free north of VA-294/Brentsville Road, the notion that VA-28 will be limited access between the Bull Run and US-29 is basically nonexistent since there doesn't appear to be any plans to remove any of the lights through Centreville due to it being a more 'residential" area. Do I agree with this plan or lack thereof? No. Is it unfortunately tough reality? Yes. Next, to be clear, the bypass will not be a freeway and will have at grade intersections on both the planned part and the existing one (Godwin Drive) will no current plans to change this. Finally, I am still not convinced that this bypass will take much if any existing traffic off of VA-28 and will instead take the traffic off of VA-234 and make VA-28 north of the bull run even worse (and the soon to be constructed 3rd lane obsolete) when the bypass and regular VA-28 meet back up. All this does is entice commuters in Bristow to take the bypass/VA-28 all the way to I-66 instead of first using VA-234. If this bypass is built, current VA-28 in Manassas will still have problems. As I've said before, I believe that the best option here is the one not currently on the table that is to construct a new southbound only roadway a block west of current VA-28 and make this part northbound only with 3 lanes in each direction and an additional BRT/HOT lane. Improvements should then also be made to VA-234 such as constructing interchanges at Sudley Manor Drive and University Blvd...oh wait

There have been a few proposals for alternative intersections up the corridor, as well as even interchanges such as at New Braddock. I don't believe they'll come to fruition with the current 6-8-lane widening plan. Those I will argue to be necessary if the traffic light backup starts around there. Other than that, good points and it's what I expected of the bypass. I'm definitely counting on this one to bring improvements to the current area.

[tweet]1316137137725726728[/tweet]?s=21

They could have convert US-50 as a mini-freeway with the adjacents streets being turned into one-way streets but I can already hear the Nimbys saying "how dare you?".

Actually, it already is somewhat of an expressway over in Arlington. There are a few interchanges dotted along the road, with a sizable frontage road network also included. I argue that it would work well in Falls Church, albeit sinking 50 may be a challenge.

[1995hoo]

A potential problem with making Route 50 a higher-speed limited-access road in that area is preventing pedestrians from trying to cross. That's been a huge problem in the Seven Corners area over the years, to the point where they wound up putting up chain-link fences even after building a pedestrian overpass because people were still trying to run across the road instead of using the bridge. VDOT's study cited the substantial immigrant population in that area–they suspected that people used to traffic patterns in other countries (in the case of Seven Corners, predominantly Vietnam) may be unfamiliar with US traffic patterns and driver behavior such that they don't appreciate how dangerous it is to try to run across that sort of highway. The area further west to which that tweet refers is, as the tweet itself indicates, another area with a large immigrant population, so if VDOT is correct about that being a factor, they'll have to plan for the same sort of considerations.

[Rothman]

Heh.  I used to live by Seven Corners...a long time ago, I suppose.  I don't remember the pedestrian bridge.

[sprjus4]

Heh.  I used to live by Seven Corners...a long time ago, I suppose.  I don't remember the pedestrian bridge.

It was still under construction in 2007 - 2008 Street View imagery, so it wasn't there before then.

[1995hoo]

Heh.  I used to live by Seven Corners...a long time ago, I suppose.  I don't remember the pedestrian bridge.

Heh, I've lived in this area long enough to remember when the Seven Corners mall wasn't a has-been. Woodies and Garfinckel's were the two anchors there and Lord & Taylor were across Route 7.

[cpzilliacus]

Heh.  I used to live by Seven Corners...a long time ago, I suppose.  I don't remember the pedestrian bridge.

Heh, I've lived in this area long enough to remember when the Seven Corners mall wasn't a has-been. Woodies and Garfinckel's were the two anchors there and Lord & Taylor were across Route 7.

There was a great (IMO) restaurant that served "Chinese" cuisine called the Inn of the Seven Immortals in Seven Corners (I think it was in a stand-alone building on the property).  It has been gone for a long time now. 

I think the same people also owned the Moon Palace on Wisconsin Avenue, N.W. near Macomb Street in the District of Columbia.

[cpzilliacus]

For those that might be planning a trip on the Blue Ridge Parkway in Virginia, you might want to be aware that a section of the motor road is closed south of Roanoke due to a large slope failure that has made the parkway impassible.   

It is currently closed from U.S. 220 (milepost 121) south to Adney Gap (milepost 136), and has been closed since May 2020.

Details here (this is from September).

The National Park Service says that a total closure for the next 12 to 18 months will be required for repairs (details here).

[1995hoo]

Heh.  I used to live by Seven Corners...a long time ago, I suppose.  I don't remember the pedestrian bridge.

Heh, I've lived in this area long enough to remember when the Seven Corners mall wasn't a has-been. Woodies and Garfinckel's were the two anchors there and Lord & Taylor were across Route 7.

There was a great (IMO) restaurant that served "Chinese" cuisine called the Inn of the Seven Immortals in Seven Corners (I think it was in a stand-alone building on the property).  It has been gone for a long time now. 

I think the same people also owned the Moon Palace on Wisconsin Avenue, N.W. near Macomb Street in the District of Columbia.

That name sounds familiar, but it's not a place I would ever have eaten. The only Chinese restaurant to which my parents ever took us was Duck Chang's on John Marr Drive in Annandale. It's still there, but the last time I went there a few years ago it was disappointing.

[cpzilliacus]

That name sounds familiar, but it's not a place I would ever have eaten. The only Chinese restaurant to which my parents ever took us was Duck Chang's on John Marr Drive in Annandale. It's still there, but the last time I went there a few years ago it was disappointing.

It was a place that made "Chinese" food made for North Americans, well before we heard of (for example) Sichuan cuisine or Cantonese cuisine (I think "Chinese" food here is largely based on Cantonese). 

[AlexandriaVA]

Duck Chang's allegedly pioneered a type of quick-service Peking duck; rather than the 1-2 days needed to fully prep it, he could somehow do it in time for customer's orders (presumably with his own prepping of the duck).

I'll note that Peking (AKA Beijing) Duck is very much a Beijing-style cuisine, specifically imperial cuisine.

Previous commenter is correct that *most* Chinese restaurants in the US have a heavily (and I mean *heavily*) adapted Catonese influence, which dates all the way back to railroad workers coming into San Francisco.

Modern restaurants cover a much wider range of cuisines - Peter Chang's in Northern VA and Richmond specializes in Sichuan (which is nothing like Cantonese).

[cpzilliacus]

Modern restaurants cover a much wider range of cuisines - Peter Chang's in Northern VA and Richmond specializes in Sichuan (which is nothing like Cantonese).

Sichuan is great - for those that like spicy food (which I do).

[VTGoose]

I'll drop this in here since it is a Smart Road/VDOT project with some pretty neat aspects:

https://video.vt.edu/media/t/1_8dt0dudr/91886671

"The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute is working with the Virginia Department of Transportation to develop the work zone of the future, improving work zone safety through new technology."

[1995hoo]

VDOT's Twitter account comes up with some nice old pictures.

https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1319660128912756736?s=20

[cpzilliacus]

VDOT's Twitter account comes up with some nice old pictures.

https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1319660128912756736?s=20

U.S. 250 between Staunton and Monterey has plenty of sharp curves and switchbacks.  I read someplace that this dates back to the early days in the 19th Century, when the road was engineered and built as the Staunton-Parkersburg Turnpike with relatively gentle grades but lots of those curves (there are plenty more of them west of here across Highland County).

[Bitmapped]

VDOT's Twitter account comes up with some nice old pictures.

https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1319660128912756736?s=20

U.S. 250 between Staunton and Monterey has plenty of sharp curves and switchbacks.  I read someplace that this dates back the its early days in the 19th Century, when the road was engineered and built as the Staunton-Parkersburg Turnpike with relatively gentle grades but lots of those curves (there are plenty more of them west here across Highland County).

My impression is that US 250 basically picks up the Staunton-Parkersburg Turnpike alignment around West Augusta, VA. (VA 254 is named Parkersburg Turnpike coming out of Staunton.) From there to the WV state line, US 250 follows the Turnpike's alignment with minimal changes such as the bypass around part of McDowell.

In West Virginia, US 250 follows an upgraded and/or realigned Turnpike west to Beverly where they permanently split. (The Turnpike follows CR 37/8 west out of town.) Some notes:
1. Between the VA line and Bartow, Pocahontas CR 3 is the original Turnpike. US 250 was built on a new alignment in the 1930s at a lower elevation along Little River.
2. US 250 follows the Turnpike west to Durbin.
3. The Turnpike followed CR 250/13, CR 250/11, and CR 1 west out of Durbin. The current route out of Durbin dates to the 1950s.
4. The Turnpike and US 250 reconnect at the top of the climb out of the West Fork Greenbrier River Valley and are synonymous over Back Allegheny Mountain into Randolph County. They split just shy of Shavers Fork, where the Turnpike followed CR 250/4 across the river at Cheat Bridge, over White Top, and back to the current US 250 along Red Run. US 250 was rebuilt along a longer route but much flatter route beside Shavers Fork in the 1930s.
5. US 250 and the Turnpike follow each other down Cheat Mountain, through Huttonsville, and up to Beverly with a couple minor realignments to straighten out curves here and there.

[VTGoose]

While we are talking history . . .  The Library of Virginia has a great online archive of Virginia newspapers (https://virginiachronicle.com/)that I have mined for several years for historical data. While looking for something else, I happened on this story about a new highway from Washington, D.C. to Bristol.

Bruce in Blacksburg

--------

Tazewell Republican, Volume 20, Number 31, 3 August 1911, pg. 1

PROPOSED HIGHWAY

Will Extend From the National Capital to Bristol, Tennessee.

At the meeting of the Memphis-to-Bristol Highway Commissioners in Bristol last Friday night steps were taken to organize an association whose purpose will be to promote the building of a great national highway between Bristol and Washington, connecting at Bristol with the highway which is now to be built across the entire State of Tennessee. The extension of this highway to Washington will make one stretch of stone highway a thousand miles long. Secretary Runnels, of the Bristol Board of Trade, offered the resolution, which started this movement, and the people of all the Virginia counties are asked to join in the work. Secretary Gilbert, of the Memphis-to-Bristol Commission, visited Washington recently, and he states that he was then given assurances by government authorities that the government would lend hearty cooperation to such a movement. In view of the fact that many Virginia counties are now constructing stone roads, there is every reason to believe that the time is not distant when there will be a great highway between Washington and Memphis, extending through the entire State of Virginia via Richmond, Lynchburg, Roanoke and Bristol.

As a result of the adoption of the resolution looking to the organization of the Bristol-to-Washington Highway Association, the secretary of the Bristol Board of Trade has begun correspondence with boards of trade, chambers of commerce and other commercial organizations throughout Virginia, with a view to have large delegations in Bristol from all the towns and cities on the 11th of August, when the association will be organized. A special invitation has been sent to P. St. J. Wilson, State Highway Commissioner of Virginia, to be in attendance.

It is believed that this will mark the beginning of a whirlwind campaign to put Virginia in condition to extend the great highway to the gates of the National Capital without delay.

[Dirt Roads]

While we are talking history . . .  The Library of Virginia has a great online archive of Virginia newspapers (https://virginiachronicle.com/)that I have mined for several years for historical data. While looking for something else, I happened on this story about a new highway from Washington, D.C. to Bristol.

Bruce in Blacksburg

--------

Tazewell Republican, Volume 20, Number 31, 3 August 1911, pg. 1

PROPOSED HIGHWAY

Will Extend From the National Capital to Bristol, Tennessee.

At the meeting of the Memphis-to-Bristol Highway Commissioners in Bristol last Friday night steps were taken to organize an association whose purpose will be to promote the building of a great national highway between Bristol and Washington, connecting at Bristol with the highway which is now to be built across the entire State of Tennessee. The extension of this highway to Washington will make one stretch of stone highway a thousand miles long. Secretary Runnels, of the Bristol Board of Trade, offered the resolution, which started this movement, and the people of all the Virginia counties are asked to join in the work. Secretary Gilbert, of the Memphis-to-Bristol Commission, visited Washington recently, and he states that he was then given assurances by government authorities that the government would lend hearty cooperation to such a movement. In view of the fact that many Virginia counties are now constructing stone roads, there is every reason to believe that the time is not distant when there will be a great highway between Washington and Memphis, extending through the entire State of Virginia via Richmond, Lynchburg, Roanoke and Bristol.

As a result of the adoption of the resolution looking to the organization of the Bristol-to-Washington Highway Association, the secretary of the Bristol Board of Trade has begun correspondence with boards of trade, chambers of commerce and other commercial organizations throughout Virginia, with a view to have large delegations in Bristol from all the towns and cities on the 11th of August, when the association will be organized. A special invitation has been sent to P. St. J. Wilson, State Highway Commissioner of Virginia, to be in attendance.

It is believed that this will mark the beginning of a whirlwind campaign to put Virginia in condition to extend the great highway to the gates of the National Capital without delay.

Ah, the early vision for what became the Lee Highway.  But alas, the Valley of Virginia and the Shenandoah Valley were easier to negotiate than crossing the Blue Ridge and snaking through the foothills.  I'm always amazed how easy the US-460 crossing is at aptly named Blue Ridge, Virginia (used both by the N&W and the Virginian), at an elevation of only about 1250 feet.  But getting from Bedford/Lynchburg to Charlottesville was certainly no piece of cake (think US-221 and US-29).  The US-211 crossing at New Market Gap at just over 1800 feet was not the easiest point to cross, but definitely worked out for less terrain over the entire route.  Snickers Gap on VA-7, with an elevation of about 1050, and the adjacent Ashby's Gap on US-50 with an elevation of about 1025 were probably the easiest of all of the Blue Ridge crossings (but too far north for a road from Bristol to D.C.)

[sprjus4]

VDOT and the CTB have released their initial recommendations for the I-64 / I-664 Corridor Improvement Study which covers the entire length of I-64 from the West Virginia line to Hampton Roads, along the entirety of I-664.

Recommended largely were spot interchange improvements such as acceleration / deceleration lane extensions, curve advisories (specifically west of I-81), along with a few truck climbing lanes and general purpose widening.

Some of the most notable proposals include:
* MM 26-28 - Construct Truck Climbing Lane (westbound only)
* MM 44-48 - Construct Truck Climbing Lane (westbound only)
* I-81 / I-64 Staunton Interchange - Re-purpose the I-64 East merge to have the left lane drop, and one lane each from I-81 North and I-81 South continue as thru lanes. The current situation has both lanes from I-81 South continue as thru lanes, with the one lane from I-81 North dropping.
* MM 100-105 - Construct Truck Climbing Lane (westbound only) (Afton Mountain)
* MM 184-186 - Widen to 8 lanes
* MM 205-211 - Segment VII - Widen to 6 lanes
* MM 211-218 - Segment VI - Widen to 6 lanes
* MM 218-224 - Segment V - Widen to 6 lanes
* MM 224-233 - Segment IV - Widen to 6 lanes
* I-64 / US-13 Interchange - Widen I-64 East to 5 lanes between US-13 and I-264, widen US-13 South to I-64 East ramp to 2 lanes, raise I-64 bridges over VA-165 & US-58
* I-64 / I-464 Interchange - Construct flyover from I-64 East to I-464 South (VA-168 / US-17)

As far as I-664 projects, a couple acceleration / deceleration proposals plus a couple auxiliary lanes on the Peninsula - that's about it.

Thoughts overall...
I'm surprised with some of the truck climbing lane proposals west of I-81... I will grant there are steeper grades that slow trucks, but the traffic volumes are so low they usually don't present issues - at least not enough to warrant widening. Good to see some continued push for Afton Mountain truck climbing lanes - where traffic volumes are high enough that slow trucks do cause a hazard - though this should be definitely be in both directions on the inclines - it's not a one direction issue, it's both.

As far as Richmond to Williamsburg goes, I'm surprised, given the nature of these "Corridor Improvement Studies" that didn't recommend much in the way of lane widening for I-81 and even I-95 north of Fredericksburg - but pleased that they did include full six lane widening for this stretch which is desperately needed.

In the Hampton Roads are in particular, not much recommendations in particular, largely given the planned Express Lane network which will overhaul many of these substandard highway segments - though will not add any general purpose capacity. A couple notable features in particular would be the I-64 East 5 lane widening between US-13 and I-264, and the I-64 East to I-464 South (VA-168 / US-17) flyover. Both of these are major bottlenecks during the afternoon rush hour, and have gotten significantly worse over the last decade. I'm slightly disappointed with the I-64 to I-464 flyover proposal, which they included a graphic of in a CTB presentation, which would create a left entrance / merge scenario for traffic bound to VA-168 South, while retaining the existing loop ramp for US-17 South traffic. Such a project would help relieve congestion to some extent at the interchange - though would fail to address it in many other areas (particularly the weave of I-464 North to I-64 and I-64 to I-464 South traffic - which will only continue to increase as growth along the US-17 corridor does, and especially in the long term of I-87 to NC is constructed) and implement a low speed, tight flyover into the left lane of high-speed traffic on I-464 South. In my opinion, this interchange is due for a massive overhaul, with both bridges over I-64 being fully replaced, at least two flyovers constructed from I-64 East to I-464 South, tying to both US-17 and VA-168 South (fully eliminating the loop ramp), and from I-464 North to I-64 East, and at least some sort of braided ramp system similar to Greenbrier between the I-464 and VA-168 Business interchange. It would be more expensive, though would be much better set for the long-term than the current proposal, and address all of the problematic areas. Below is a diagram provided in the CTB presentation of the proposal.



The study offers no recommendations for the I-264 interchange, Bowers Hill Interchange, or practically any of I-664, though I imagine this is because they are all currently being studied as individual projects - something that needs to eventually happen to the Oak Grove (I-464) interchange as a whole.

Website: https://www.i-64-664publicinfo.com/

[Alps]

I spy a US 168 shield.

[sprjus4]

I spy a US 168 shield.

Oddly enough, they recently installed a new one in Norfolk on I-264 last year.

That diagram also appears to reference "Rt 17 WB"  / "Rt 168 EB"  and has "I-64 EB"  on what is actually I-64 West.

[Jmiles32]

VDOT and the CTB have released their initial recommendations for the I-64 / I-664 Corridor Improvement Study which covers the entire length of I-64 from the West Virginia line to Hampton Roads, along the entirety of I-664.

Recommended largely were spot interchange improvements such as acceleration / deceleration lane extensions, curve advisories (specifically west of I-81), along with a few truck climbing lanes and general purpose widening.

Some of the most notable proposals include:
* MM 26-28 - Construct Truck Climbing Lane (westbound only)
* MM 44-48 - Construct Truck Climbing Lane (westbound only)
* I-81 / I-64 Staunton Interchange - Re-purpose the I-64 East merge to have the left lane drop, and one lane each from I-81 North and I-81 South continue as thru lanes. The current situation has both lanes from I-81 South continue as thru lanes, with the one lane from I-81 North dropping.
* MM 100-105 - Construct Truck Climbing Lane (westbound only) (Afton Mountain)
* MM 184-186 - Widen to 8 lanes
* MM 205-211 - Segment VII - Widen to 6 lanes
* MM 211-218 - Segment VI - Widen to 6 lanes
* MM 218-224 - Segment V - Widen to 6 lanes
* MM 224-233 - Segment IV - Widen to 6 lanes
* I-64 / US-13 Interchange - Widen I-64 East to 5 lanes between US-13 and I-264, widen US-13 South to I-64 East ramp to 2 lanes, raise I-64 bridges over VA-165 & US-58
* I-64 / I-464 Interchange - Construct flyover from I-64 East to I-464 South (VA-168 / US-17)

As far as I-664 projects, a couple acceleration / deceleration proposals plus a couple auxiliary lanes on the Peninsula - that's about it.

Thoughts overall...
I'm surprised with some of the truck climbing lane proposals west of I-81... I will grant there are steeper grades that slow trucks, but the traffic volumes are so low they usually don't present issues - at least not enough to warrant widening. Good to see some continued push for Afton Mountain truck climbing lanes - where traffic volumes are high enough that slow trucks do cause a hazard - though this should be definitely be in both directions on the inclines - it's not a one direction issue, it's both.

As far as Richmond to Williamsburg goes, I'm surprised, given the nature of these "Corridor Improvement Studies" that didn't recommend much in the way of lane widening for I-81 and even I-95 north of Fredericksburg - but pleased that they did include full six lane widening for this stretch which is desperately needed.

In the Hampton Roads are in particular, not much recommendations in particular, largely given the planned Express Lane network which will overhaul many of these substandard highway segments - though will not add any general purpose capacity. A couple notable features in particular would be the I-64 East 5 lane widening between US-13 and I-264, and the I-64 East to I-464 South (VA-168 / US-17) flyover. Both of these are major bottlenecks during the afternoon rush hour, and have gotten significantly worse over the last decade. I'm slightly disappointed with the I-64 to I-464 flyover proposal, which they included a graphic of in a CTB presentation, which would create a left entrance / merge scenario for traffic bound to VA-168 South, while retaining the existing loop ramp for US-17 South traffic. Such a project would help relieve congestion to some extent at the interchange - though would fail to address it in many other areas (particularly the weave of I-464 North to I-64 and I-64 to I-464 South traffic - which will only continue to increase as growth along the US-17 corridor does, and especially in the long term of I-87 to NC is constructed) and implement a low speed, tight flyover into the left lane of high-speed traffic on I-464 South. In my opinion, this interchange is due for a massive overhaul, with both bridges over I-64 being fully replaced, at least two flyovers constructed from I-64 East to I-464 South, tying to both US-17 and VA-168 South (fully eliminating the loop ramp), and from I-464 North to I-64 East, and at least some sort of braided ramp system similar to Greenbrier between the I-464 and VA-168 Business interchange. It would be more expensive, though would be much better set for the long-term than the current proposal, and address all of the problematic areas. Below is a diagram provided in the CTB presentation of the proposal.



The study offers no recommendations for the I-264 interchange, Bowers Hill Interchange, or practically any of I-664, though I imagine this is because they are all currently being studied as individual projects - something that needs to eventually happen to the Oak Grove (I-464) interchange as a whole.

Website: https://www.i-64-664publicinfo.com/

Overall fairly pleased with these initial study recommendations with my only complaints being the lack of improvements on I-664 (barely any) and the lack of a recommendation for phase 2 of the high-rise bridge project. Surprised that the Oak Grove interchange isn't getting a bigger overhaul (although I'd prefer the state be cheap there than on I-64 widening between Richmond and Williamsburg) and hopefully the Bowers Hill and I-264 interchanges will continue to be improved as planned. Regarding the truck climbing lanes west of I-81, I would also agree that these probably aren't necessary and would instead like to see that funding redirected for an eastbound truck climbing lane up both Afton Mountain and up Ragged Mountain (just after Exit 114). Also, I would add to the notable proposals list that I-64 near Richmond will be getting auxiliary lanes between pretty much every exit between US-250 (Short Pump) and the I-95 interchange.

[bluecountry]

I can see, as I also disagree. I am hoping that we're doing this in a friendly manner, that's for sure.

The 234 bypass is certainly a nice road and all, but as mentioned earlier I do lament how they're not planning for the entire route (at least through the 294/234 Bus. intersection complex) to be completely grade-separated. At the very least, we are getting a few new interchanges. Orientation-wise, I can presume this was the only convenient corridor for such - things do happen for a reason.

I do agree that 28 is a major corridor - that point I do support. It is a shame how it isn't being upgraded thoroughly through Fairfax, and that the other problems add weight to it. I'll certainly take it as a last resort option though. Wouldn't want sprawl to increase out in Nokesville/Catlett (though from sprawl, I'd certainly like to see new retail centers  )
As for the third option, are you speaking of the Alt 9 (1/2) plan presented a while back? I'll admit that one was a very mediocre idea. On top of skirting close to Bull Run for longer and becoming host to some eminent domain problems, the routing for it just didn't make that much sense. Even Alt 4 has a partial bypass (Godwin Dr) and a clear strip of land going for it.

I think they DO want to upgrade the whole 234/294 intersection.
Also, FFX IS upgrading all of RT 28 from Bull Run to Loudoun.

Fixed quote.  -Mark

[Jmiles32]

VDOT and the CTB have released their initial recommendations for the I-64 / I-664 Corridor Improvement Study which covers the entire length of I-64 from the West Virginia line to Hampton Roads, along the entirety of I-664.

Forgot to mention this earlier but according to the recent I-64 / I-664 Corridor Improvement Study video, VDOT plans to conduct similar corridor improvement studies on I-77, I-85, I-295, and I-66. I obviously don't expect these to be done for quite a while but it will be interesting to see what type of improvements are recommended. Will probably be small things like traffic management, acceleration/deacceleration lane extensions, and possibly some truck climbing lanes, but we shall see.

[sprjus4]

I feel like I-77 will involve some sort of widening and truck climbing lanes in area.

Can't see virtually anything for I-85 or I-295 - those highways are perfectly adequate.