AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Virginia  (Read 1247142 times)

wriddle082

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1042
  • Give 'em the BIDNESS!

  • Age: 47
  • Location: Anymetro, Carolinas
  • Last Login: Today at 05:39:32 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #6200 on: April 28, 2022, 07:38:19 PM »

https://publicinput.com/Portal/N2538

Map of the improvements: https://rkk.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=e042a03eb7b64af7bd6499bccce87fab

The preferred alternative for the Bowers Hill Interchange Study is Alternative C, which adds one managed lane and a part-time drivable shoulder in each direction on I-664, which is consistent with the other managed lanes projects happening around the region.

I feel like improvements should focus more on US 58 than I-664.  The US 58 portion of the Suffolk Bypass needs at least three lanes in each direction, and the improvements that recently started just west of the bypass need to be continued further west to at least the Suffolk/Southampton line.  The truck traffic along this stretch going to/from the Port of Virginia to/from I-95 and I-85 is starting to become unbearable through Suffolk.  Also, they need to reconstruct the ancient I-95/US 58 cloverleaf in Emporia, but that’s probably asking for too much.
Logged

plain

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2008
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Richmond Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 12:54:29 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #6201 on: April 28, 2022, 08:36:12 PM »

I-664 definitely could use an additional lane (each direction), I drive it enough to know it's in trouble. But there's still going to be that rush hour bottleneck at the MMMBT...
Logged
Newark born, Richmond bred

kernals12

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2089
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: May 20, 2022, 09:58:37 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #6202 on: April 28, 2022, 08:41:49 PM »

https://publicinput.com/Portal/N2538

Map of the improvements: https://rkk.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=e042a03eb7b64af7bd6499bccce87fab

The preferred alternative for the Bowers Hill Interchange Study is Alternative C, which adds one managed lane and a part-time drivable shoulder in each direction on I-664, which is consistent with the other managed lanes projects happening around the region.
And it acknowledges the reality of the bottleneck at the MMMBT.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7516
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: May 20, 2022, 11:16:30 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #6203 on: April 28, 2022, 08:56:42 PM »

I-664 definitely could use an additional lane (each direction), I drive it enough to know it's in trouble. But there's still going to be that rush hour bottleneck at the MMMBT...
Unfortunately, that lane is going to merely an express / HOT lane. It is in line with what VDOT is doing in the Hampton Roads region for any new widening projects.

I-664 would function perfectly with 6 or 8 general purpose lanes, and before any induced demand argument arises, take a look at many 8 lane urban segments in the region that flow 65-70+ mph during rush hour without any problems and carry 100,000+ AADT.
Logged

kernals12

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2089
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: May 20, 2022, 09:58:37 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #6204 on: April 28, 2022, 09:10:24 PM »

I-664 definitely could use an additional lane (each direction), I drive it enough to know it's in trouble. But there's still going to be that rush hour bottleneck at the MMMBT...

Unfortunately, that lane is going to merely an express / HOT lane. It is in line with what VDOT is doing in the Hampton Roads region for any new widening projects.


I-664 would function perfectly with 6 or 8 general purpose lanes, and before any induced demand argument arises, take a look at many 8 lane urban segments in the region that flow 65-70+ mph during rush hour without any problems and carry 100,000+ AADT.

Is the HRBT just chopped liver to you?
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7516
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: May 20, 2022, 11:16:30 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #6205 on: April 28, 2022, 09:12:00 PM »

^ The HRBT is the exact same thing.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7516
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: May 20, 2022, 11:16:30 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #6206 on: April 28, 2022, 09:38:08 PM »

I feel like improvements should focus more on US 58 than I-664.  The US 58 portion of the Suffolk Bypass needs at least three lanes in each direction,
It's questionable that the entire bypass needs 6 lanes, though I can certainly understand east of either the US-460 or VA-10/32 interchanges.

The AADT between US-460 and VA-32 is 45,000, increasing to 55,000 east of there, then dropping back to around 47,000 east of VA-642. This is likely due to the fact the US-58 bypass is the only crossing of the Nansemond River in miles either direction. A good "small" project could be to add an auxiliary lane between VA-32 and VA-642 which would include widening / replacing the bridges over the river. That would cover roughly 1 mile. The next segment would be east of VA-642 to the eastern end of the bypass, around 2 miles, tying into the existing 6 lane arterial segment.

The need west of VA-32 or US-460 is certainly less, that stretch only carrying around 40,000 AADT which is plenty adequate on a 4 lane freeway. Any backups are caused due to the arterial segment to the west queuing, not the freeway itself.

Thankfully, the busiest portion of US-58, the stretch between Suffolk and Bowers Hill, was built out to 6 lanes in the 1970s and is more than adequate lane wise. Access control is another problem - though not nearly as big especially congestion wise, though it's slowly getting fixed. A flyover / interchange at the SPSA Regional Landfill is planned to begin in 2026 which would eliminate a dangerous left turn for trucks from the west to the facility, that currently have to cross 3 high-speed lanes of traffic.

The city of Chesapeake is pursuing a project in the near term that would add a series of RCUTs and close some median crossings closer to the airport just west of Bowers Hill.
https://smartportal.virginiahb2.org/#/public/applications/2022/smartScale/view/F30-0000007226-R01

Included in that link is a study that recommends constructing a full diamond interchange in the airport vicinity in the long term.

Quote
and the improvements that recently started just west of the bypass need to be continued further west to at least the Suffolk/Southampton line.  The truck traffic along this stretch going to/from the Port of Virginia to/from I-95 and I-85 is starting to become unbearable through Suffolk.
It's also questionable if the ongoing 6 lane arterial widening needs to extend beyond its current terminus. While that area is an issue, a true long term solution is needed - an interstate grade facility on new location bypassing that entire segment between Suffolk and Holland.

VDOT completed a study for the US-58 corridor between the western end of the Suffolk bypass and west of I-95 a few years ago. While recommendations were largely limited to spot upgrades such as innovative intersections, closing some crossings, etc. two pages of the final study report were dedicated to analyzing the potential of upgrading / relocating the entire corridor to interstate standards. VDOT estimated around $2.3 - $3.5 billion for such a project.

Additionally, the HRTPO has completed a "gateway analysis" over the past few months which analyzed three major potential projects - upgrading US-58 to interstate standards east of I-95 ("I-58"), upgrading US-17 to interstate standards to NC (I-87), and widening I-64 to Richmond. That report estimated $3 billion for an "I-58" project.

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/040622%20TTAC%2010_Presentation%20Hampton%20Roads%20Gateways%20Analysis.pdf

As a start, I would like to see a project pursued for a freeway connection between the western end of the Suffolk Bypass and the Holland or Franklin bypasses. The segment between Emporia and Courtland should be the last priority.
Quote
Also, they need to reconstruct the ancient I-95/US 58 cloverleaf in Emporia, but that’s probably asking for too much.
That area would be an interesting one to address, especially if US-58 is ever to be upgraded to a full freeway out to I-95. I imagine some sort of hybrid of using the existing bypass then splitting off to the north slightly near US-301 to a new freeway-to-freeway interchange with I-95, then tying back to the existing US-58 west of Emporia.

The US-58 corridor study referenced above recommended reconstructing that junction into a diverging diamond interchange.
Logged

wriddle082

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1042
  • Give 'em the BIDNESS!

  • Age: 47
  • Location: Anymetro, Carolinas
  • Last Login: Today at 05:39:32 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #6207 on: April 29, 2022, 02:45:06 PM »

I feel like improvements should focus more on US 58 than I-664.  The US 58 portion of the Suffolk Bypass needs at least three lanes in each direction,
It's questionable that the entire bypass needs 6 lanes, though I can certainly understand east of either the US-460 or VA-10/32 interchanges.

The AADT between US-460 and VA-32 is 45,000, increasing to 55,000 east of there, then dropping back to around 47,000 east of VA-642. This is likely due to the fact the US-58 bypass is the only crossing of the Nansemond River in miles either direction. A good "small" project could be to add an auxiliary lane between VA-32 and VA-642 which would include widening / replacing the bridges over the river. That would cover roughly 1 mile. The next segment would be east of VA-642 to the eastern end of the bypass, around 2 miles, tying into the existing 6 lane arterial segment.

The need west of VA-32 or US-460 is certainly less, that stretch only carrying around 40,000 AADT which is plenty adequate on a 4 lane freeway. Any backups are caused due to the arterial segment to the west queuing, not the freeway itself.

Thankfully, the busiest portion of US-58, the stretch between Suffolk and Bowers Hill, was built out to 6 lanes in the 1970s and is more than adequate lane wise. Access control is another problem - though not nearly as big especially congestion wise, though it's slowly getting fixed. A flyover / interchange at the SPSA Regional Landfill is planned to begin in 2026 which would eliminate a dangerous left turn for trucks from the west to the facility, that currently have to cross 3 high-speed lanes of traffic.

The city of Chesapeake is pursuing a project in the near term that would add a series of RCUTs and close some median crossings closer to the airport just west of Bowers Hill.
https://smartportal.virginiahb2.org/#/public/applications/2022/smartScale/view/F30-0000007226-R01

Included in that link is a study that recommends constructing a full diamond interchange in the airport vicinity in the long term.

Maybe it was just the roadwork on the west side of Suffolk, but the last time I was through there (and I'll be through there again in about an hour or so), Waze detoured me off of the Suffolk Bypass at Pitchkettle Rd and sent me on a couple of other streets back to 58 at Kenyon Rd.  The traffic light right after US 13 splits off had trucks backed up for at least a mile, and it was a similar situation in Emporia at the one traffic light before the I-95 cloverleaf (but I was able to sneak around most of them).

The stretch near the airport and landfill don't bother me nearly as much because they're three lanes in each direction, but I do see a need for a diamond at the airport, and maybe they can reconfigure the interchange with US 58 Business to allow for a new access point to the landfill.

Quote
Quote
and the improvements that recently started just west of the bypass need to be continued further west to at least the Suffolk/Southampton line.  The truck traffic along this stretch going to/from the Port of Virginia to/from I-95 and I-85 is starting to become unbearable through Suffolk.
It's also questionable if the ongoing 6 lane arterial widening needs to extend beyond its current terminus. While that area is an issue, a true long term solution is needed - an interstate grade facility on new location bypassing that entire segment between Suffolk and Holland.

VDOT completed a study for the US-58 corridor between the western end of the Suffolk bypass and west of I-95 a few years ago. While recommendations were largely limited to spot upgrades such as innovative intersections, closing some crossings, etc. two pages of the final study report were dedicated to analyzing the potential of upgrading / relocating the entire corridor to interstate standards. VDOT estimated around $2.3 - $3.5 billion for such a project.

Additionally, the HRTPO has completed a "gateway analysis" over the past few months which analyzed three major potential projects - upgrading US-58 to interstate standards east of I-95 ("I-58"), upgrading US-17 to interstate standards to NC (I-87), and widening I-64 to Richmond. That report estimated $3 billion for an "I-58" project.

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/040622%20TTAC%2010_Presentation%20Hampton%20Roads%20Gateways%20Analysis.pdf

As a start, I would like to see a project pursued for a freeway connection between the western end of the Suffolk Bypass and the Holland or Franklin bypasses. The segment between Emporia and Courtland should be the last priority.

Agreed.  Not nearly as heavy from Emporia to Courtland.

Quote
Quote
Also, they need to reconstruct the ancient I-95/US 58 cloverleaf in Emporia, but that’s probably asking for too much.
That area would be an interesting one to address, especially if US-58 is ever to be upgraded to a full freeway out to I-95. I imagine some sort of hybrid of using the existing bypass then splitting off to the north slightly near US-301 to a new freeway-to-freeway interchange with I-95, then tying back to the existing US-58 west of Emporia.

The US-58 corridor study referenced above recommended reconstructing that junction into a diverging diamond interchange.

Yeah I can see a DDI working here
Logged

Great Lakes Roads

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 699
  • Ain't nobody got time for that!!

  • Age: 22
  • Location: La Porte, Indiana
  • Last Login: Today at 03:52:26 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #6208 on: May 03, 2022, 05:33:44 PM »

https://www.potomaclocal.com/2022/05/03/i-95-e-zpass-lanes-extension-to-fredericksburg-delayed-1-year/

The I-95 express lanes extension to Fredericksburg has been delayed by a year due to "supply chain issues".
Logged

Declan127

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 37
  • us 104

  • Location: Rockaway Park, New York
  • Last Login: May 14, 2022, 09:28:53 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #6209 on: May 09, 2022, 07:57:10 PM »

Don't know if this has been addressed, but there seems to be a sign replacement on 95 NB just past I-85 (might be wrong) that as of mid-April just had the BGS on the side of the road uncovered facing 95.
Logged
Imma New Yoikah, fuggedaboudit!

kernals12

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2089
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: May 20, 2022, 09:58:37 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #6210 on: May 10, 2022, 09:24:20 PM »

https://www.potomaclocal.com/2022/05/03/i-95-e-zpass-lanes-extension-to-fredericksburg-delayed-1-year/

The I-95 express lanes extension to Fredericksburg has been delayed by a year due to "supply chain issues".

ugh. I'm sick of hearing about supply chain issues. Can we start calling them "supply ropes"?
Logged

bluecountry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 418
  • Last Login: Today at 01:28:01 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #6211 on: May 20, 2022, 02:54:41 PM »

So I'm confused on the ultimate 95 HOT lane configuration.

1.  Where is the 95 HOT lanes supposed to end in Stafford?
-When it ends, will 95 be just 3 lanes in each direction or will the HOT lane end directly connect to the 95 local/thru section at Route 17?

2.  The 95 local/thru going south, right now, seems to be a poor end design.
-It goes from being 3+3, to after Route 3 3+2 then a quick merge to just 3 lanes before the 126 exit.
-This is NOT the final design, is it, because my god the bottleneck.

IMO
#1.  95 should stay local/thru to exit 126, which should have an additional separate exit for 17 south
#2.  If not, then 95 needs to be 4 lanes to 126
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7516
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: May 20, 2022, 11:16:30 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #6212 on: May 20, 2022, 05:19:45 PM »

^ The I-95 reversible HO/T lanes will terminate in Fredericksburg. Going southbound, one lane will merge into the “through” general purpose lanes, and the other will flyover to connect with the “local” lanes. Going northbound, it will be the same entering from the local/thru into the HO/T lanes.

As far as the southbound merge, I agree. I don’t believe there are any immediate plans to address this, but they do eventually want to add a 4th lane southbound to US-17. That is not a fictional concept.
Logged

bluecountry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 418
  • Last Login: Today at 01:28:01 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #6213 on: May 20, 2022, 06:43:31 PM »

^ The I-95 reversible HO/T lanes will terminate in Fredericksburg. Going southbound, one lane will merge into the “through” general purpose lanes, and the other will flyover to connect with the “local” lanes. Going northbound, it will be the same entering from the local/thru into the HO/T lanes.

As far as the southbound merge, I agree. I don’t believe there are any immediate plans to address this, but they do eventually want to add a 4th lane southbound to US-17. That is not a fictional concept.

Thanks.
My god, what a HORRIBLE merge that will be after Route 3.
It is bad enough a lane is lost at Route 3.

Frankly why not just extend the Thru/Local to 126, and as I said, 126 NEEDS a separate exit for 17S, it can't siphon off with Rt 1 any longer.
Logged

Jmiles32

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 566
  • Age: 22
  • Location: Blacksburg, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:18:55 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #6214 on: Today at 12:18:32 AM »

^ The I-95 reversible HO/T lanes will terminate in Fredericksburg. Going southbound, one lane will merge into the “through” general purpose lanes, and the other will flyover to connect with the “local” lanes. Going northbound, it will be the same entering from the local/thru into the HO/T lanes.

As far as the southbound merge, I agree. I don’t believe there are any immediate plans to address this, but they do eventually want to add a 4th lane southbound to US-17. That is not a fictional concept.

Thanks.
My god, what a HORRIBLE merge that will be after Route 3.
It is bad enough a lane is lost at Route 3.

Frankly why not just extend the Thru/Local to 126, and as I said, 126 NEEDS a separate exit for 17S, it can't siphon off with Rt 1 any longer.

Agreed that the merge south of VA-3 is not ideal and will eventually need to be addressed in the form of a 4th southbound lane within the next 10 years. In regards to a separate exit for US-17, I would also add Celebrate Virginia Parkway, Harrison Road, and Courthouse Road (VA-208) to that list of possibilities as well. VA-3 west of I-95 is becoming increasingly unbearable and there needs to be other alternatives. If new exits were added (and there have been studies on this), then extending the Thru/Local lanes to just south of Exit 126 would be the way to go. Fredericksburg imo could use more I-95 exits that take pressure off of US-1 and VA-3. 
Logged
Aspiring Transportation Planner at Virginia Tech. Go Hokies!

 


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.