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: I-66 HO/T Lanes  (Read 93084 times)

AlexandriaVA

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1276
  • Location: Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 01:43:56 PM
Re: I-66 HO/T Lanes
« Reply #475 on: December 24, 2020, 11:05:10 AM »

Transurban selling some of their position in the local HOT lanes: https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/transurban-readies-for-buying-spree-with-2-8b-us-road-sale-20201217-p56oce.html

Seems like it has more to do with needing to raise money to undertake other projects than anything to do with revenues on the local HOT lanes themselves.
Logged

VTGoose

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 377
  • Age: 2017
  • Location: Blacksburg, VA
  • Last Login: September 17, 2021, 10:05:12 AM
Re: I-66 HO/T Lanes
« Reply #476 on: December 24, 2020, 11:35:04 AM »


Will there be traffic lights at the ends of the ramps trying to cut across?

That was my thought, too. Yeah, it's a rendering, but if put into practice that is an awful short stretch to execute a lane change from the ramp to run through the roundabout. If through traffic is heavy it looks like the ramp could get backed up pretty quick -- especially with someone who doesn't handle roundabouts well.
Logged
"Get in the fast lane, grandma!  The bingo game is ready to roll!"

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13306
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 05:27:05 PM
Re: I-66 HO/T Lanes
« Reply #477 on: December 24, 2020, 12:42:03 PM »

....

CompUSA

....

Are you perchance referring to Micro Center, which is located in the Pan Am shopping center just south of there at the intersection of Nutley and Route 29? That store is still there (been there at least since 1992; I worked there during the summer of 1993). The nearest CompUSA to the Vienna Metro was near Tysons just west of the Koons car dealership at the junction of Routes 7 and 123. I remember before they changed the name to CompUSA—it was the SoftWarehouse and it was generally thought they changed the name because of the implication that they only sold software, not hardware.

Yep, I've got them confused.  Do you remember Micro Center having a good high-tech bookstore?  ....

Sorry, I can’t say as I recall because it’s simply been too many years. I do remember a section off to one side that had loads of magazines, so there may well have been books in there too. That area is now a video game section. I just don’t remember for certain anymore. I do occasionally still go to that store, just not as often because nowadays it’s so easy to get stuff online and also because I have less time and patience for tinkering with a PC than I did as a college student.
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

AlexandriaVA

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1276
  • Location: Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 01:43:56 PM
Re: I-66 HO/T Lanes
« Reply #478 on: December 24, 2020, 12:44:28 PM »

MircoCenter is still incredibly popular among hardware enthusiasts. I've had out-of-town in laws come to the DC area, and some of the men specifically carved out half a day to browse the selections there. And they came from NYC - hardly a retail desert.
Logged

NJRoadfan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1597
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 06:53:59 PM
Re: I-66 HO/T Lanes
« Reply #479 on: December 26, 2020, 11:05:36 PM »

The NYC area actually has four MicroCenters. Two long standing locations in Brooklyn and in Paterson, NJ and two newer locations in Flushing Queens and Yonkers.
Logged

bluecountry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 365
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 10:30:21 PM
Re: I-66 HO/T Lanes
« Reply #480 on: March 22, 2021, 07:27:55 AM »

So question on Rt 29/66 area:
-They removed the old bridges
-Are they going to expand Route 29 so that as it goes under 66, it has at least 3 southbound lanes?
-Currently it is awful, 29 south goes from 4 lanes southbound to only 2 under 66 before suddenly adding a lane for the 66 exit.
I would be quite disappointed if in doing all the work they are doing, they cant at least add a 3rd southbound auxiliary lane for the 66 west exit.
Logged

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3538
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 51
  • Last Login: Today at 06:55:14 PM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: I-66 HO/T Lanes
« Reply #481 on: March 22, 2021, 08:27:50 AM »

So question on Rt 29/66 area:
-They removed the old bridges
-Are they going to expand Route 29 so that as it goes under 66, it has at least 3 southbound lanes?
-Currently it is awful, 29 south goes from 4 lanes southbound to only 2 under 66 before suddenly adding a lane for the 66 exit.
I would be quite disappointed if in doing all the work they are doing, they cant at least add a 3rd southbound auxiliary lane for the 66 west exit.

This page suggests 29 widening is not specifically part of the project - http://outside.transform66.org/about_the_project/project_sections/route_29_centreville.asp
Logged

davewiecking

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 504
  • Age: 64
  • Location: Bethesda, MD
  • Last Login: Today at 07:40:27 PM
Re: I-66 HO/T Lanes
« Reply #482 on: March 22, 2021, 10:42:36 AM »

So question on Rt 29/66 area:
-They removed the old bridges
-Are they going to expand Route 29 so that as it goes under 66, it has at least 3 southbound lanes?
-Currently it is awful, 29 south goes from 4 lanes southbound to only 2 under 66 before suddenly adding a lane for the 66 exit.
I would be quite disappointed if in doing all the work they are doing, they cant at least add a 3rd southbound auxiliary lane for the 66 west exit.

This page suggests 29 widening is not specifically part of the project - http://outside.transform66.org/about_the_project/project_sections/route_29_centreville.asp

“Widen Route 29 under I-66 for additional lanes to be added to Route 29 in the future” suggests that the work will happen at some point, but oddly is not part of the larger project.
Logged

bluecountry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 365
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 10:30:21 PM
Re: I-66 HO/T Lanes
« Reply #483 on: March 25, 2021, 02:58:52 PM »

So question on Rt 29/66 area:
-They removed the old bridges
-Are they going to expand Route 29 so that as it goes under 66, it has at least 3 southbound lanes?
-Currently it is awful, 29 south goes from 4 lanes southbound to only 2 under 66 before suddenly adding a lane for the 66 exit.
I would be quite disappointed if in doing all the work they are doing, they cant at least add a 3rd southbound auxiliary lane for the 66 west exit.

This page suggests 29 widening is not specifically part of the project - http://outside.transform66.org/about_the_project/project_sections/route_29_centreville.asp

“Widen Route 29 under I-66 for additional lanes to be added to Route 29 in the future” suggests that the work will happen at some point, but oddly is not part of the larger project.
That is assine.
They tore down 2 old bridges and have been re-doing that whole area, it makes no sense to keep that bottleneck.
Logged

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13306
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 05:27:05 PM
Re: I-66 HO/T Lanes
« Reply #484 on: March 25, 2021, 03:11:56 PM »

Maybe (I'm just speculating with no factual basis) they think the HO/T lanes might make I-66 traffic improve enough that people now using Route 29 as a bailout or alternate route will feel less need to do so, thus making widening less urgent?
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3538
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 51
  • Last Login: Today at 06:55:14 PM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: I-66 HO/T Lanes
« Reply #485 on: March 25, 2021, 03:30:20 PM »

Maybe (I'm just speculating with no factual basis) they think the HO/T lanes might make I-66 traffic improve enough that people now using Route 29 as a bailout or alternate route will feel less need to do so, thus making widening less urgent?

The flip side is that waiting to do the widening event later could be construed as a compensation event since an improved 29 might siphon traffic off of the 66 Express Lanes.

IIRC correctly, though, the compensation event is avoided if VDOT offers the toll operator the opportunity to do the work themselves.

But yeah, given that 29 south of this has 3 lanes, it makes no sense to not get a 3rd through lane under 66 while they're at it...
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11910
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 09:01:10 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: I-66 HO/T Lanes
« Reply #486 on: March 25, 2021, 03:33:49 PM »

Given the volume of traffic that goes between 29 South and 66 East at the Gainesville interchange, I disagree with the need for a 3rd lane on 29 underneath 66...especially southbound 29.  You'd have to end that lane before the ramps from 66 merge or else you'd be creating an untenable merging/weaving situation between 66 and 55.
Logged

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13306
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 05:27:05 PM
Re: I-66 HO/T Lanes
« Reply #487 on: March 25, 2021, 04:04:59 PM »

Given the volume of traffic that goes between 29 South and 66 East at the Gainesville interchange, I disagree with the need for a 3rd lane on 29 underneath 66...especially southbound 29.  You'd have to end that lane before the ramps from 66 merge or else you'd be creating an untenable merging/weaving situation between 66 and 55.


bluecountry is talking about where 29 passes under I-66 in Centreville, not in Gainesville. Exit 52. Note the HO/T construction project will not involve replacing I-66's overpasses at Gainesville, whereas bluecountry specifically referred to removing old overpasses (presumably meaning the George Fortune Jr. Memorial Bridges that carry I-66 over Route 29 at Exit 52). That Centreville interchange is the only place I-66 passes over Route 29 within the HO/T project limits.
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

Dirt Roads

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1003
  • Location: Central North Carolina
  • Last Login: Today at 08:01:07 PM
Re: I-66 HO/T Lanes
« Reply #488 on: March 25, 2021, 07:56:01 PM »

Given the volume of traffic that goes between 29 South and 66 East at the Gainesville interchange, I disagree with the need for a 3rd lane on 29 underneath 66...especially southbound 29.  You'd have to end that lane before the ramps from 66 merge or else you'd be creating an untenable merging/weaving situation between 66 and 55.

bluecountry is talking about where 29 passes under I-66 in Centreville, not in Gainesville. Exit 52. Note the HO/T construction project will not involve replacing I-66's overpasses at Gainesville, whereas bluecountry specifically referred to removing old overpasses (presumably meaning the George Fortune Jr. Memorial Bridges that carry I-66 over Route 29 at Exit 52). That Centreville interchange is the only place I-66 passes over Route 29 within the HO/T project limits.

It doesn't surprise me that the US-29 underpass at Centreville is still a bottleneck.  Some 30 years ago, the folks in Prince Bill were pushing hard to keep US-29 restricted to two lanes between Centreville and the four-lane west of the Gainesville exit.  There were almost as many of the "Save Manassas Battlefield" bumper stickers as there were "Don't Fairfax Loudoun".  But as slow as that can be, I have used US-29 as a "scenic bypass" of I-66 literally hundreds of times over the years. 
Logged

bluecountry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 365
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 10:30:21 PM
Re: I-66 HO/T Lanes
« Reply #489 on: March 26, 2021, 07:24:15 AM »

All I am saying is, 29 south under 66 in Centreville should be 3 lanes, with one being an aux exit for 66 west.
Currently 29 quickly goes from 4 to 2 lanes, before adding a short exit to 66 w.
They should have 29 south be 3 lanes with the right lane as an exit.
Logged

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13306
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 05:27:05 PM
Re: I-66 HO/T Lanes
« Reply #490 on: March 26, 2021, 08:17:36 AM »

I would argue it really goes from three lanes to two. There are four lanes on the brief segment between Route 28 and Centrewood Drive; the right lane becomes right-turn-only there. West of that light, a fourth lane joins on the right (to provide a free-flow right turn onto Route 29), but it's an auxiliary lane (denoted by short skip lines) that again turns off at the next light, after which another fourth lane joins on the right (to provide another free-flow right turn), but it's again an auxiliary lane that becomes exit-only onto eastbound I-66. The exit-only sign appears immediately after that lane joins.

Of course, Northern Virginia drivers being the way they are, I'm sure there are people who will be using southbound 29 who will get over into the exit-only lane, race down to the end, and then try to shove back in to cut the line.

With that said, you make a good point that it would make sense to have the third lane continue under I-66 as an exit-only lane, though I wonder whether the presence of a bike trail on the right side of the road where that third lane would go has any relevance.
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

Jmiles32

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 558
  • Age: 21
  • Location: Blacksburg, VA
  • Last Login: August 14, 2021, 11:24:15 PM
Re: I-66 HO/T Lanes
« Reply #491 on: March 28, 2021, 01:59:47 PM »

Given the volume of traffic that goes between 29 South and 66 East at the Gainesville interchange, I disagree with the need for a 3rd lane on 29 underneath 66...especially southbound 29.  You'd have to end that lane before the ramps from 66 merge or else you'd be creating an untenable merging/weaving situation between 66 and 55.

bluecountry is talking about where 29 passes under I-66 in Centreville, not in Gainesville. Exit 52. Note the HO/T construction project will not involve replacing I-66's overpasses at Gainesville, whereas bluecountry specifically referred to removing old overpasses (presumably meaning the George Fortune Jr. Memorial Bridges that carry I-66 over Route 29 at Exit 52). That Centreville interchange is the only place I-66 passes over Route 29 within the HO/T project limits.

It doesn't surprise me that the US-29 underpass at Centreville is still a bottleneck.  Some 30 years ago, the folks in Prince Bill were pushing hard to keep US-29 restricted to two lanes between Centreville and the four-lane west of the Gainesville exit.  There were almost as many of the "Save Manassas Battlefield" bumper stickers as there were "Don't Fairfax Loudoun".  But as slow as that can be, I have used US-29 as a "scenic bypass" of I-66 literally hundreds of times over the years.

Will be interesting to see how the completed I-66 HOT lanes impact the current two lane US-29/VA-234 bottleneck through the battlefield (which I consider to be one of the worst in all of Northern Virginia). Will a four lane battlefield bypass still be needed?
Logged
Aspiring Transportation Planner at Virginia Tech. Go Hokies!

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11077
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: September 18, 2021, 10:01:18 PM
Re: I-66 HO/T Lanes
« Reply #492 on: March 29, 2021, 11:03:27 AM »

Given the volume of traffic that goes between 29 South and 66 East at the Gainesville interchange, I disagree with the need for a 3rd lane on 29 underneath 66...especially southbound 29.  You'd have to end that lane before the ramps from 66 merge or else you'd be creating an untenable merging/weaving situation between 66 and 55.

Wasn't there at some point a proposal to move the U.S. 29 designation off of Lee Highway and onto I-66 from Gainesville (I-66 Exit 43) to Centreville (I-66 Exit 52) to reduce traffic through the Manassas Battlefield (including the signalized intersection at VA-234) and then downgrade former U.S. 29 to a secondary system road?

Under such a scheme,  U.S. 29 southbound would follow the cloverleaf ramp onto westbound I-66 at Centreville.

I have not heard more about it in many years.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2021, 11:07:40 AM by cpzilliacus »
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3538
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 51
  • Last Login: Today at 06:55:14 PM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: I-66 HO/T Lanes
« Reply #493 on: March 29, 2021, 11:14:33 AM »

Given the volume of traffic that goes between 29 South and 66 East at the Gainesville interchange, I disagree with the need for a 3rd lane on 29 underneath 66...especially southbound 29.  You'd have to end that lane before the ramps from 66 merge or else you'd be creating an untenable merging/weaving situation between 66 and 55.



Wasn't there at some point a proposal to move the U.S. 29 designation off of Lee Highway and onto I-66 from Gainesville (I-66 Exit 43) to Centreville (I-66 Exit 52) to reduce traffic through the Manassas Battlefield (including the signalized intersection at VA-234) and then downgrade former U.S. 29 to a secondary system road?

Under such a scheme,  U.S. 29 southbound would follow the cloverleaf ramp onto westbound I-66 at Centreville.

I have not heard more about it in many years.

Most of what I see is 2013 or earlier - looks like they want to build a 29 bypass around the north of the battlefield to connect with the relocated VA 234:

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/NorthernVirginia/N-S_CIM_Presentation.pdf

Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11077
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: September 18, 2021, 10:01:18 PM
Re: I-66 HO/T Lanes
« Reply #494 on: March 29, 2021, 12:33:25 PM »

Given the volume of traffic that goes between 29 South and 66 East at the Gainesville interchange, I disagree with the need for a 3rd lane on 29 underneath 66...especially southbound 29.  You'd have to end that lane before the ramps from 66 merge or else you'd be creating an untenable merging/weaving situation between 66 and 55.



Wasn't there at some point a proposal to move the U.S. 29 designation off of Lee Highway and onto I-66 from Gainesville (I-66 Exit 43) to Centreville (I-66 Exit 52) to reduce traffic through the Manassas Battlefield (including the signalized intersection at VA-234) and then downgrade former U.S. 29 to a secondary system road?

Under such a scheme,  U.S. 29 southbound would follow the cloverleaf ramp onto westbound I-66 at Centreville.

I have not heard more about it in many years.

Most of what I see is 2013 or earlier - looks like they want to build a 29 bypass around the north of the battlefield to connect with the relocated VA 234:

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/NorthernVirginia/N-S_CIM_Presentation.pd


BiCounty (and before that, TriCounty) Parkway.  Have not heard much about any of that of late.

IIRC, there was a a lot of NIMBY opposition to these projects.

What I was referring to was much simpler - just a change in signage, but no added capacity.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2021, 12:39:32 PM by cpzilliacus »
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Jmiles32

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 558
  • Age: 21
  • Location: Blacksburg, VA
  • Last Login: August 14, 2021, 11:24:15 PM
Re: I-66 HO/T Lanes
« Reply #495 on: March 29, 2021, 04:16:16 PM »

Given the volume of traffic that goes between 29 South and 66 East at the Gainesville interchange, I disagree with the need for a 3rd lane on 29 underneath 66...especially southbound 29.  You'd have to end that lane before the ramps from 66 merge or else you'd be creating an untenable merging/weaving situation between 66 and 55.



Wasn't there at some point a proposal to move the U.S. 29 designation off of Lee Highway and onto I-66 from Gainesville (I-66 Exit 43) to Centreville (I-66 Exit 52) to reduce traffic through the Manassas Battlefield (including the signalized intersection at VA-234) and then downgrade former U.S. 29 to a secondary system road?

Under such a scheme,  U.S. 29 southbound would follow the cloverleaf ramp onto westbound I-66 at Centreville.

I have not heard more about it in many years.

Most of what I see is 2013 or earlier - looks like they want to build a 29 bypass around the north of the battlefield to connect with the relocated VA 234:

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/NorthernVirginia/N-S_CIM_Presentation.pd


BiCounty (and before that, TriCounty) Parkway.  Have not heard much about any of that of late.

IIRC, there was a a lot of NIMBY opposition to these projects.

What I was referring to was much simpler - just a change in signage, but no added capacity.

Would a change in signage really deter that many people from using US-29 through the battlefield especially if a majority of those people are frequent commuters and know that the roadway, whatever it would called, still connects back to I-66? Could only see this happening if US-29 was somehow made discontinuous through the battlefield which after the competition of the I-66 HOT lanes may be made possible who knows. At least there would be an alternative East/West route nearby. VA-234 on the other hand, a north/south connection between Prince William and Loudoun, Virginia's #2 and soon to be #3 most populated localities, not so much. With of the recent growth in South Riding, calling VA-28 and US-15 alternative routes is pushing it. Thus its interesting to me how even with hardly any intersections or exits, the bi county parkway is controversial enough to be off of PWC's thoroughfare plan while the east/west part of the battlefield bypass is on it even though it would theoretically never connect back to US-29 and imo be pretty useless.

Speaking of the thoroughfare plan and battlefield bypass, an interesting item on there is the idea of southern battlefield bypass in which a four lane road would branch off of US-29 at Pageland road, follow Pageland road south next to existing I-66, extend past Groveton road, pick up at the existing Battlefield Parkway in the vicinity of Exit 47 (BUS-234), follow Vandor Lane, and then somehow connect back to US-29 near its intersection with Bull Run Post Office road.

In terms of likelihood of every being completed, I'd put both the northern and southern battlefield bypass as being pretty low chance due to the likelihood  of it triggering a compensation event. VDOT also likely wouldn't want to make improvements to a road parallel to roadway in which will soon have around $3 billion worth of improvements. The bi county parkway, while currently dead is actually imo the most likely of the three if Western Prince William County were to ever go democrat. However, the time window for that is quickly closing as that project gets ever more expensive with every passing year.

https://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/dot/Documents/Thoroughfare%20Plan%20April%202016.pdf
Logged
Aspiring Transportation Planner at Virginia Tech. Go Hokies!

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11910
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 09:01:10 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: I-66 HO/T Lanes
« Reply #496 on: March 30, 2021, 10:08:50 AM »

NPS has long desired to close both 29 and 234 through the park and make them both discontinuous...in no small part because traffic from both is negatively impacting the Stone House.  Besides the northern bypass that Mike posted, there have been two proposals I'm aware of on the south side...one would simply colocate 29 onto 66 between the Gainesville and Centreville interchanges.  The other proposal would keep 29 separate from 66 but effectively make it a north frontage road for 66 by tying the existing frontage roads (including Bulloch Dr and Battleview Pkwy in the 234 vicinity) together, then cutting northeast along or near SR 621 back to the existing 4 lane on 29.

The biggest opposition has been those folks along Pageland Ln, as they don't want a 4-lane highway along that corridor, although some sort of improved corridor there and tying into Exit 44 is the only way you'd be realistically get 234 out of the park proper.
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11077
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: September 18, 2021, 10:01:18 PM
Re: I-66 HO/T Lanes
« Reply #497 on: March 30, 2021, 12:36:52 PM »

NPS has long desired to close both 29 and 234 through the park and make them both discontinuous...in no small part because traffic from both is negatively impacting the Stone House.

I doubt that is going to happen without a BiCounty or TriCounty Parkway.  And with one of those, it might be that current 29 and 234 get downgraded to NPS motor roads, but I doubt that they get a total closure of either one.

Besides the northern bypass that Mike posted, there have been two proposals I'm aware of on the south side...one would simply colocate 29 onto 66 between the Gainesville and Centreville interchanges.  The other proposal would keep 29 separate from 66 but effectively make it a north frontage road for 66 by tying the existing frontage roads (including Bulloch Dr and Battleview Pkwy in the 234 vicinity) together, then cutting northeast along or near SR 621 back to the existing 4 lane on 29.

The biggest opposition has been those folks along Pageland Ln, as they don't want a 4-lane highway along that corridor, although some sort of improved corridor there and tying into Exit 44 is the only way you'd be realistically get 234 out of the park proper.

I agree.   And that opposition was encouraged by the PEC - never mind that Prince William County is not part of the PEC's self-proclaimed "service area" (I suppose PWC is too diverse and too middle class for the PEC's taste).
« Last Edit: April 01, 2021, 03:58:47 PM by cpzilliacus »
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11910
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 09:01:10 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: I-66 HO/T Lanes
« Reply #498 on: April 01, 2021, 01:10:56 PM »

While a Bi-County or Tri-County Parkway might be optimal, I don't think you need either to get 29 and 234 traffic out of the park.  It can be done with a minimalist approach:

  • Reroute 29 onto 66 between Gainesville and Centreville. Completion of the 66 Ho/T Lane project will make this feasible.
  • A 2-lane bypass for 234 on the west side of the park, whether a direct upgrade of Pageland Ln or a new alignment.
  • Tie SR 659 more directly into 234 West towards Catharpin.

With these accomplished, I believe you successfully CAN close 29 and 234 through the park, leaving only those segments needed to connect to parking/access points open.  The Stone House parking lot can be relocated to the southeast corner of the 29/234 intersection with 234 closed/removed between it and the Matthews Hill parking area on the north side.  29 as a general rule could be closed between Groveton and the Stone Bridge, though there are a few park-related buildings and locations that might need localized access retained.
Logged

Jmiles32

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 558
  • Age: 21
  • Location: Blacksburg, VA
  • Last Login: August 14, 2021, 11:24:15 PM
Re: I-66 HO/T Lanes
« Reply #499 on: April 01, 2021, 06:58:07 PM »

While a Bi-County or Tri-County Parkway might be optimal, I don't think you need either to get 29 and 234 traffic out of the park.  It can be done with a minimalist approach:

  • Reroute 29 onto 66 between Gainesville and Centreville. Completion of the 66 Ho/T Lane project will make this feasible.
  • A 2-lane bypass for 234 on the west side of the park, whether a direct upgrade of Pageland Ln or a new alignment.
  • Tie SR 659 more directly into 234 West towards Catharpin.

With these accomplished, I believe you successfully CAN close 29 and 234 through the park, leaving only those segments needed to connect to parking/access points open.  The Stone House parking lot can be relocated to the southeast corner of the 29/234 intersection with 234 closed/removed between it and the Matthews Hill parking area on the north side.  29 as a general rule could be closed between Groveton and the Stone Bridge, though there are a few park-related buildings and locations that might need localized access retained.

I agree that is certainly worth taking a look at closing US-29 through the battlefield and rerouting onto I-66 once the HOT lanes are completed. Regarding VA-234, I think that tieing a four lane bi county parkway into Gum Spring Road (SR-659) around the quarry via part of Pageland Lane and then splitting off diagonally to the northeast around Thornton Drive is the way to go instead of tieing into Northstar Blvd via all of Pageland Lane and Sanders Lane. Would seemingly have far less property impacts.
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.