Nine "Wasteful" Highway Projects Across the U.S. Identified in New Report

[sprjus4]

else what happens to the vehicle that is entering the shoulder and then gets forced out back onto the roadway.

This applies to all of VDOT's interstate bridges that narrow the right shoulder.

Alabama stripes the shoulder in advance of the bridge to warn any potential vehicles that it ends.

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.2225745,-86.3937435,3a,75y,46.92h,74.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPP5HD9_Ud8E6Mrz9Zd_SeA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This should be used on every Virginia interstate where the left shoulder or right shoulder reduces size due to a narrow bridge.

[sprjus4]

Downtown was declining since the 1960's, long before even the first segments of 295 (between I-64 east & west of Richmond) was completed... suburbanization caused the decline.

I suppose I-295 helped suburbanization grow outward? There's a lot of newer developments going off I-295 and VA-288 nowadays.

But that growth was inevitable anyways. The interstate may have accelerated it some, but in the long run it provided good access for growth that was going to happen anyways.

That's why NC-540 is necessary. It may be rural now, but the growth is going to come and having good highway infrastructure is key. As proved by the first segment of NC-540, it may accelerate the growth some, but it's going to come eventually nonetheless.

The full loop will also serve as a bypass for I-40, I-87, US-1, and US-64 traffic wishing to avoid the core similar to the existing parts do today.

[Beltway]

else what happens to the vehicle that is entering the shoulder and then gets forced out back onto the roadway.

This applies to all of VDOT's interstate bridges that narrow the right shoulder.

Like whatever ones from pre-1970 or so still haven't been widened.

Alabama stripes the shoulder in advance of the bridge to warn any potential vehicles that it ends.
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.2225745,-86.3937435,3a,75y,46.92h,74.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPP5HD9_Ud8E6Mrz9Zd_SeA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

That is very little if any real warning.

[Henry]

Of all the projects listed, NC 540 is the one that needs to be completed. So far, the existing segments make up a 3/4 loop around the west, north and east sides of Raleigh, so only the south side is missing for now. And considering NCDOT's "I don't give a damn" attitude, it will very likely be completed sooner than later.

[sprjus4]

it will very likely be completed sooner than later.

Per NCDOT's website, construction begins on a good chunk of it late 2019 / early 2020.

[skluth]

Replacing the entire bridge just to satisfy a left shoulder is a waste of money IMO, and clearly VDOT sees it that way too. It may have been different in the past, but clearly now there's no interest to replace the entire structure just for a shoulder.

I would conclude nothing of the sort with just 2 examples, and 1960s Interstate bridges invariably have insufficient vertical clearances as well, in a addition to being obsolete and worn-out structures.  Unless you want to argue against full left shoulders, they should be full width for the entire length, else what happens to the vehicle that is entering the shoulder and then gets forced out back onto the roadway.

Any competent driver can deal with a slightly narrower shoulder, especially one that is still ten feet wide. This is not that big a deal except for obstinate extremists who willingly sabotage projects because they'd rather take their ball and go home than actually get work done. It may not be perfect and shouldn't be built by your standards, but most people live in the real world.

The bridges will eventually be replaced. The highway then can be widened. The bridges may even be rebuilt to accommodate additional lanes depending on the time frame and political winds when they are replaced. This is not uncommon. Why force rebuilding something only to rebuild it again in a few years when the highway will be widened? I don't want my taxpayer money wasted on a slightly wider shoulder with minimal benefits. If you want new unneeded bridges for a project, you can come up with private financing to pay for it. There are far more needed ways to spend limited highway funds.

[sprjus4]

Replacing the entire bridge just to satisfy a left shoulder is a waste of money IMO, and clearly VDOT sees it that way too. It may have been different in the past, but clearly now there's no interest to replace the entire structure just for a shoulder.

I would conclude nothing of the sort with just 2 examples, and 1960s Interstate bridges invariably have insufficient vertical clearances as well, in a addition to being obsolete and worn-out structures.  Unless you want to argue against full left shoulders, they should be full width for the entire length, else what happens to the vehicle that is entering the shoulder and then gets forced out back onto the roadway.

Any competent driver can deal with a slightly narrower shoulder, especially one that is still ten feet wide. This is not that big a deal except for obstinate extremists who willingly sabotage projects because they'd rather take their ball and go home than actually get work done. It may not be perfect and shouldn't be built by your standards, but most people live in the real world.

The bridges will eventually be replaced. The highway then can be widened. The bridges may even be rebuilt to accommodate additional lanes depending on the time frame and political winds when they are replaced. This is not uncommon. Why force rebuilding something only to rebuild it again in a few years when the highway will be widened? I don't want my taxpayer money wasted on a slightly wider shoulder with minimal benefits. If you want new unneeded bridges for a project, you can come up with private financing to pay for it. There are far more needed ways to spend limited highway funds.

It's actually being reduced from 12 feet to 4 feet, but only under the overpass. Most people, except road enthusiasts (and even I don't have an issue with it) don't think twice about it and they continue on their day and have no issue with it.

There's no plans to widen the highway beyond this project, but the bridges will eventually get replaced on their own when their time comes. There's no deficiencies or problems with the bridges simply due to "their age" , and don't need to be replaced at this moment.

Agreed, it's not worth wasting limited tax dollars. And you are correct, these projects like the I-64 widening is being funded through HRTAC which is funded through the tax increase strictly in Hampton Roads in 2013. Our tax dollars in Hampton Roads would be used to replace the bridges to satisfy the shoulder to appease someone in Richmond who does not even pay the increased tax that would have no benefit to the motoring public asides a nicer look (a fresh brand new bridge over the existing). Not worth the $20-$30 million more.

It may have "been VDOT's policy since the 70s" , but money wasn't limited and strict back then. Money was freely available, 90% by the federal government, and a bridge replacement was very cheap.

That's not the case anymore. Kudos to VDOT for retaining the bridges and using limited-tax dollars wisely in conjunction with existing infrastructure.

On the I-64 High Rise Bridge widening, they are replacing an overpass, but that is simply only because the new lanes couldn't fit under it, and not to mention the shoulder will be used as a lane during peak hours. That is a justified bridge replacement, not Williamsburg I-64.

[Beltway]

It's actually being reduced from 12 feet to 4 feet, but only under the overpass. Most people, except road enthusiasts (and even I don't have an issue with it) don't think twice about it and they continue on their day and have no issue with it.

FHWA, state DOTs, AASHTO, and highway engineers formulated these standards, and they are not "road enthusiasts" like certain people posting here.

Agreed, it's not worth wasting limited tax dollars. And you are correct, these projects like the I-64 widening is being funded through HRTAC which is funded through the tax increase strictly in Hampton Roads in 2013. Our tax dollars in Hampton Roads would be used to replace the bridges to satisfy the shoulder to appease someone in Richmond who does not even pay the increased tax that would have no benefit to the motoring public asides a nicer look (a fresh brand new bridge over the existing). Not worth the $20-$30 million more.

The anonymous poster continues to take his little shots at me.  The cost of the typical overpass would be more in the $5 to 10 million range for one thing, and these bridges are already over 50 years old and have very little life left in them, and now they are too narrow for 3 lanes and full shoulders underneath.  They need to go.

So what other standards are you going to cut?  Thinner pavement?  Thinner shoulders?  Narrower clear roadsides?  Weaker guardrail?  Smaller signs?

HRBT shows that VDOT is willing to pull out all the stops.  $3.6 billion.

It may have "been VDOT's policy since the 70s" , but money wasn't limited and strict back then. Money was freely available, 90% by the federal government, and a bridge replacement was very cheap.

Everything about that statement is wrong.   Money has always been limited and strict, never has been freely available, the 90% by the federal government was largely spoken for in new Interstate construction, and bridge replacement has never been cheap.  Road use taxes were much lower back then.

[sprjus4]

The cost of the typical overpass would be more in the $5 to 10 million range

Maybe 15 years ago they did. And these aren't just two rural 2-lane overpasses. VA-716 is, but VA-143 is a major 4-lane arterial and would be more expensive than VA-716.

The nearby Denbigh Ave overpass is being replaced and costs $23 million.

The US-11 overpass over I-81 is being replaced and costs $16 million.

If you figure $20 - $25 million for a 4-lane interstate highway overpass, and $10 - 15 million for a 2-lane interstate highway overpass, that's around $30 - $40 million to replace the VA-716 and VA-143 overpasses.

have very little life left in them

Baloney. Both bridges were both inspected back in 2017 and have no issues and are not structurally deficient.

You can't just make up facts like that simply because of their age and without any evidence. There's a lot of other factors.

Yes, a lot of Virginia's older interstate overpasses are structurally deficient and have issues - those are the ones being replaced like the I-95 overpasses that were recently replaced, US-11 over I-81, Denbigh over I-64, etc.

The VA-716 and VA-143 bridges are not structurally deficient and do not need to be replaced.

The widening project can accommodate three full travel lanes and has a design exception with the minimal shoulder underneath the structure. The bridges are in good condition and it would quite frankly be wasteful to replace them. If they rated structurally deficient, then I'm all for replacing them. But they are not and until they are, there's no need to replace them. When they do, then award the $30 - 40 million contract to replace them and complete the shoulders underneath.

bridge replacement has never been cheap.  Road use taxes were much lower back then.

Fallacy argument.

Bridge replacement costs were cheaper back in the day, and road user taxes were much lower because construction costs was much lower.

Money was more accessible. Road projects got built on a rapid pace. I-95 got widened to 6-lanes for very low cost and for a long distance in a course of 7 years. The amount of road, highway, and bridge building and the rapid pace and short time frames that they did that occurred between 1956 - 1990 is something that does not happen anymore. You know that.

[Beltway]

The cost of the typical overpass would be more in the $5 to 10 million range

Maybe 15 years ago they did. And these aren't just two rural 2-lane overpasses. VA-716 is, but VA-143 is a major 4-lane arterial and would be more expensive than VA-716.
The nearby Denbigh Ave overpass is being replaced and costs $23 million.
The US-11 overpass over I-81 is being replaced and costs $16 million.
If you figure $20 - $25 million for a 4-lane interstate highway overpass, and $10 - 15 million for a 2-lane interstate highway overpass, that's around $30 - $40 million to replace the VA-716 and VA-143 overpasses.

Nonsense.  The Denbigh Blvd. bridge is 4 lanes and has full sidewalks and is 3 times the length of a typical overpass.

$5 to 10 million range for a typical 2-lane overpass.

have very little life left in them

Baloney. Both bridges were both inspected back in 2017 and have no issues and are not structurally deficient.

Source?  After 50+ years they have lasted long past their design life and need major rehabs to have minimal functionality.

The VA-716 and VA-143 bridges are not structurally deficient and do not need to be replaced.

They are functionally obsolete and their horizontal and vertical traffic clearances do not meet current standards.

Stop defending inadequate and deficient highway features.

[Beltway]

That's right -- you listed one of the wrong bridges.
Besides, the widening project makes both functionally obsolete.

"The nearby Denbigh Ave overpass is being replaced and costs $23 million."

Divide that by (at least) 2, and you have $11 million for 4 lanes; then divide that by 2 to get for 2 lanes.

[hotdogPi]

That's right -- you listed one of the wrong bridges.
Besides, the widening project makes both functionally obsolete.

"The nearby Denbigh Ave overpass is being replaced and costs $23 million."

Divide that by (at least) 2, and you have $11 million for 4 lanes; then divide that by 2 to get for 2 lanes.

Are you sure that costs are linear? I would think that one 4-lane roadway would be less than twice as much as two 2-lane roadways due to economies of scale.

[sprjus4]

That's right -- you listed one of the wrong bridges.
Besides, the widening project makes both functionally obsolete.

I did... that's why I deleted the post to re-write it and correct the errors.

The VA-143 bridge appears to be "functionally obsolete" as in it does not have the capacity to handle the traffic. It's not "structurally deficient" - the claim you kept making.

The VA-716 bridge is not "functionally obsolete" nor "structurally deficient".

"The nearby Denbigh Ave overpass is being replaced and costs $23 million."

Divide that by (at least) 2, and you have $11 million for 4 lanes; then divide that by 2 to get for 2 lanes.

The VA-143 bridge would be replaced by a 5-lane bridge (3 northbound, 2 southbound) with sidewalks on either side and a 16 foot raised median so you're number is incorrect for that.

The US-11 overpass over I-81 is being replaced and costs $16 million.

You're 10-15 years behind. You're the same person who's claimed highways are built in Virginia for $20 - $30 million per mile, when in fact, again that's a 10-15 year old number.

If you can name a 2-lane or 4-lane bridge on the interstate highway system in Virginia that has been built for $5 - $10 million in the past 1-3 years I'll believe you.

It's closer to $10-15 million for a 2-lane, and $20-$25 million for a 4-lane.

Why are you hemming and hawing about this here? Sorry to ruin your love-affair with VDOT, but they're the ones doing this and currently building it. So talk to them. Looks like there might be some commitment issues 

That's right -- you listed one of the wrong bridges.
Besides, the widening project makes both functionally obsolete.

"The nearby Denbigh Ave overpass is being replaced and costs $23 million."

Divide that by (at least) 2, and you have $11 million for 4 lanes; then divide that by 2 to get for 2 lanes.

Are you sure that costs are linear? I would think that one 4-lane roadway would be less than twice as much as two 2-lane roadways due to economies of scale.

Any attempt to low-ball the numbers. He also assumed the VA-143 bridge was only 2-lanes without even looking. And that the bridges were structurally deficient simply because of age, which in fact they are not.

Funny how a former engineer is dividing the numbers and calling that a sound estimate. That's -not- how it works, and even me who's not an engineer knows that - and he knows it too.

[Beltway]

That's right -- you listed one of the wrong bridges.  Besides, the widening project makes both functionally obsolete.

I did... that's why I deleted the post to re-write it and correct the errors.
The VA-143 bridge appears to be "functionally obsolete" as in it does not have the capacity to handle the traffic. It's not "structurally deficient" - the claim you kept making.

I never claimed "structurally deficient", but it is "functionally obsolete" which is grounds for replacement.  I would also like to know the vertical clearance, as a 1965 Interstate highway bridge is almost certainly not high enough for ultimate truck clearances.

The VA-716 bridge is not "functionally obsolete" nor "structurally deficient".

It will be after this project is built, functionally obsolete.

"The nearby Denbigh Ave overpass is being replaced and costs $23 million."
Divide that by (at least) 2, and you have $11 million for 4 lanes; then divide that by 2 to get for 2 lanes.

The VA-143 bridge would be replaced by a 5-lane bridge (3 northbound, 2 southbound) with sidewalks on either side and a 16 foot raised median so you're number is incorrect for that.

That is a rough estimate, and who says it has to be 5 lanes?

It's closer to $10-15 million for a 2-lane, and $20-$25 million for a 4-lane.

The $23 million Denbigh Blvd. bridge is 4 lanes, has a raised median, full sidewalks on both sides, and is twice the length of the typical overpass.

Why are you hemming and hawing about this here? Sorry to ruin your love-affair with VDOT, but they're the ones doing this and currently building it. So talk to them. Looks like there might be some commitment issues 

More sniping from the anonymous poster.

"The nearby Denbigh Ave overpass is being replaced and costs $23 million."
Divide that by (at least) 2, and you have $11 million for 4 lanes; then divide that by 2 to get for 2 lanes.

Are you sure that costs are linear? I would think that one 4-lane roadway would be less than twice as much as two 2-lane roadways due to economies of scale.

The cost would be determined by an engineer's estimate.  If it had double the quantities of pay items, it would cost about double, economies of scale wouldn't make much difference on such a bridge project.

Funny how a former engineer is dividing the numbers and calling that a sound estimate. That's -not- how it works, and even me who's not an engineer knows that - and he knows it too.

I never called it more than a rough estimate.  I find it hilarious how you keep throwing all these cost estimates out like you are a senior highway engineer with ESP.

[sprjus4]

I never claimed "structurally deficient"

these bridges are already over 50 years old and have very little life left in them

1960s Interstate bridges <snip> in a addition to being obsolete and worn-out structures.

By now they need major renovation

I would also like to know the vertical clearance, as a 1965 Interstate highway bridge is almost certainly not high enough for ultimate truck clearances.

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/hampton_roads/64_deis/Final%20Environmental%20Impact%20Statement/I-64%20Final%20EIS%20December%202013.pdf

Figure 1-7. They are cited as "substandard vertical clearance", along with the newer 70s bridges.

Interestingly, this was in the comment section for the EIS -

As presented in both the P&N chapter and Traffic and Transportation, it is unclear whether or not the new roadway plan will specifically address all deficiencies, or if the deficiencies can be corrected to current design specifications. The P&N states that there are 12 structures that cross over I -64 that do not meet current vertical clearances. Are these to be corrected as part of the expansion?

VDOT's answer was -

The study cost estimates assume that the identified roadway geometric deficiencies would be corrected including the necessary reconstruction of deficient structures. This is stated in Chapter II - Alternatives Considered, Section C of this Final EIS in describing that all of the Alternatives retained for detailed study were specifically designed to meet the purpose and need. It is also described in the construction cost assumptions shown in the Alternatives Development Technical Memorandum, Section D. Cost Estimates, stating that it is assumed that all of the I-64 mainline and overhead bridges would be replaced. However, engineering design to address these structures would be further analyzed and refined during the final design phase for each operationally independent section and the necessary improvements to each would be identified and programmed as funding is identified. Additional information on the process for implementing operationally independent sections can be found in Appendix L - Phased Approach for Implementation - NEPA Process of this Final EIS. An operationally independent section can be built and function as a viable transportation facility even if the rest of the work described in this Final EIS is never built. In addition, as a result of further engineering design efforts it may be determined that full replacement or rebuild of certain structures may not be necessary depending on the improvements to the roadway sections that are happening in each area. The determination as to the type and extent of work needed for each structure to meet design criteria would be done as each structure is further analyzed.

You need to contact VDOT about this issue if you want to air your complaints somewhere. Engineers have determined the bridges do not need to be replaced. It's that simple.

Other bridges such as the Industrial Dr overpass in Segment 1 and the Queens Creek bridges in Segment 3 are on the other hand being replaced because those were truly structurally deficient and engineers determined they could not be widened.

and who says it has to be 5 lanes?

Well, it's currently four-lanes. There's 2 lanes heading southbound from Camp Perry, and 1 northbound lane to Camp Perry and one northbound on-ramp lane to I-64 West.

Presumably a replacement would feature 2 lanes in each direction to Camp Perry, plus the on-ramp lane - so 5-lanes.

And a roadway that wide would undoubtedly include pedestrian facilities such as a sidewalk, multi-use path, bike lane, etc.

The $23 million Denbigh Blvd. bridge is 4 lanes, has a raised median, full sidewalks on both sides, and is twice the length of the typical overpass.

Everything a VA-143 overpass replacement would have except the length. Can you please direct me to a recent interstate highway 4-lane bridge project in Virginia that was built in the last 1-3 years for $5 - $10 million?

[Beltway]

I never claimed "structurally deficient"

these bridges are already over 50 years old and have very little life left in them

1960s Interstate bridges <snip> in a addition to being obsolete and worn-out structures.

By now they need major renovation

All those can be true without it technically being "structurally deficient" today ... 2 or 3 years hence might be a very different story.

I would also like to know the vertical clearance, as a 1965 Interstate highway bridge is almost certainly not high enough for ultimate truck clearances.

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/hampton_roads/64_deis/Final%20Environmental%20Impact%20Statement/I-64%20Final%20EIS%20December%202013.pdf
Figure 1-7. They are cited as "substandard vertical clearance", along with the newer 70s bridges.

I didn't see any mention of the 1970s bridges.

You need to contact VDOT about this issue if you want to air your complaints somewhere. Engineers have determined the bridges do not need to be replaced. It's that simple.

"it may be determined that full replacement or rebuild of certain structures may not be necessary"

It is possible to replace one or two spans over I-64, and/or raise the superstructure, to provide the necessary clearance, without it being a "full replacement or rebuild".

Notice also that it is not an affirmative engineering statement ... words such as "may" and "may not".

The $23 million Denbigh Blvd. bridge is 4 lanes, has a raised median, full sidewalks on both sides, and is twice the length of the typical overpass.

Everything a VA-143 overpass replacement would have except the length. Can you please direct me to a recent interstate highway 4-lane bridge project in Virginia that was built in the last 1-3 years for $5 - $10 million?

Didn't claim that for *4* lanes.   Looks like the $23 million Denbigh Blvd. bridge is 850 feet long ... a typical overpass is about 250 feet long, so you can estimate accordingly.

[sprjus4]

I didn't see any mention of the 1970s bridges.

Look again. Green indicates substandard vertical clearance per the FEIS.

Didn't claim that for *4* lanes.   Looks like the $23 million Denbigh Blvd. bridge is 850 feet long ... a typical overpass is about 250 feet long, so you can estimate accordingly.

Can you please direct me to a recent interstate highway 2-lane bridge project in Virginia that was built in the last 1-3 years for $5 - $10 million?

Notice also that it is not an affirmative engineering statement ... words such as "may" and "may not".

Engineers designed the 6-lane project currently under construction. If they determined the bridges needed to be replaced, they would be getting replaced and new spans being constructed as we speak. But they are not.

[Beltway]

I didn't see any mention of the 1970s bridges.

Look again. Green indicates substandard vertical clearance per the FEIS.

"In addition, there are 12 bridges crossing over I-64 which do not possess the required minimum 16.5 feet of vertical clearance per current AASHTO and VDOT interstate design standards. "

"As previously stated, and shown in Figure I.7, there are currently horizontal/vertical roadway and bridge clearance issues on I-64.  If not corrected and combined with increased traffic volumes, these deficiencies would lead to exacerbated operational and safety concerns. "

But they don't say what the current clearances are.  Even 1979 is now 40 years old.  They are functionally obsolete.  To support modern trucking they all need to be at least that figure (IIRC on the WWB Project they used 18 or even 20 feet).

Didn't claim that for *4* lanes.   Looks like the $23 million Denbigh Blvd. bridge is 850 feet long ... a typical overpass is about 250 feet long, so you can estimate accordingly.

Can you please direct me to a recent interstate highway 2-lane bridge project in Virginia that was built in the last 1-3 years for $5 - $10 million?

"Construction began in September 2016 under a $2.7 million contract with English Construction.
The new bridge is 265 feet long and 32 feet wide.  The bridge approach road is rebuilt."
https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/rte_301_nottoway_river.asp

Overpass size bridge.

Notice also that it is not an affirmative engineering statement ... words such as "may" and "may not".

Engineers designed the 6-lane project currently under construction. If they determined the bridges needed to be replaced, they would be getting replaced and new spans being constructed as we speak. But they are not.

Highway engineers designed the project, but project element financial decisions were made be Financial Specialist and Budget Analyst personnel.

[sprjus4]

"Construction began in September 2016 under a $2.7 million contract with English Construction.
The new bridge is 265 feet long and 32 feet wide.  The bridge approach road is rebuilt."
https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/rte_301_nottoway_river.asp

Overpass size bridge.

Not an interstate highway overpass bridge.

The US-11 overpass over I-81 is being replaced and costs $16 million.

That is a two-lane interstate highway overpass bridge ^

When you can provide an interstate highway overpass bridge in Virginia either underway or built in the last 1-3 years for $5-10 million, I'll believe you.

US-301 is not an interstate highway overpass bridge. You only used it because there are no overpass bridges being built on the interstate system in Virginia for only $5-10 million.

I constantly say "in Virginia"  because in North Carolina an interstate highway overpass bridge is actually around only $4-6 million. But North Carolina is not Virginia and construction costs are undoubtably higher in Virginia as proven countless times.

[D-Dey65]

For the people in sprjus4's link from earlier to even claim that I-295 led to the decline of Downtown Richmond let's me know they have no clue about what they're talking about. Downtown was declining since the 1960's, long before even the first segments of 295 (between I-64 east & west of Richmond) was completed... suburbanization caused the decline. And downtown has made serious strides in the last decade, so their claims is still moot.

You should tell them that, even if you'd have to post as a guest.

[Beltway]

"Construction began in September 2016 under a $2.7 million contract with English Construction.
The new bridge is 265 feet long and 32 feet wide.  The bridge approach road is rebuilt."
https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/rte_301_nottoway_river.asp
Overpass size bridge.

Not an interstate highway overpass bridge.

I knew in advance that you would say that, you are predictable.

It is right next to I-95 and dimensionally and structurally equal to, or closely equal to, a typical 2-lane overpass bridge.

I don't know if there are any stand-alone project 2-lane Interstate highway overpass bridges built recently in Virginia.

[sprjus4]

you are predictable.

It was quite predictable that you would ignore the example provided.

The US-11 overpass over I-81 is being replaced and costs $16 million.

[Beltway]

you are predictable.

It was quite predictable that you would ignore the example provided.
The US-11 overpass over I-81 is being replaced and costs $16 million.

Did not ignore it.  It received one bid, for $12,560,729.22.
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/june/ctb_action_meeting_june_2019.pdf

It is 370 feet long, and the new bridge will be 3 lanes wide, and there is other work involved than the bridge.

A50 0011-082-752, B621,C501     Rockingham County
The primary purpose and need of this project is to replace the Route 11 Bridge over I-81.  The bridge was built in 1965.  Route 11 is a two lane roadway and has a current Average Daily Traffic of 3,600 vehicles per day (~ 2600 vehicles west bound and 1000 vehicles east bound per day).  An initial alignment and interchange alternative analysis was completed and a preferred alignment and interchange configuration was selected.  The proposed construction consists of building the new bridge approximately 60 feet to the south of the existing bridge and realigning the approaches.  Additionally, the intersection of the north bound I-81 exit and entrance ramps with Route 11 will be signalized to improve the traffic operations of the interchange. 
The project will replace the bridge with a single two-way two lane bridge with protected left turn lanes at about the same elevation as the existing crossing.
Fixed Completion Date: May 24, 2021
. . . .

"two lane bridge with protected left turn lanes" - two thru lanes and a median and left turn lanes on the bridge.

[D-Dey65]

Your "sprawl" is my "economic expansion."

When roads are involved, they call it "sprawl." When railroads are involved, they call it "growth."

[mrsman]

Your "sprawl" is my "economic expansion."

When roads are involved, they call it "sprawl." When railroads are involved, they call it "growth."

I've always hated this type of double-talk.  Growth in population would require investment in both roads and transit.  To suggest that when you widen a road and then more traffic comes, you have induced demand that was unnecessary and then at the same time demand more train service when the subways are crowded is disingenuous.