Virginia

[Beltway]

This news release has not posted to the VDOT website yet, but I got it in e-mail today.
EIS completions and preliminary engineering completions are needed before projects are awarded.
I estimate that the awards will start in the next 6 to 12 months.

VDOT ANNOUNCES NEW INTERSTATE 81 PROGRAM DELIVERY DIRECTOR
Dave Covington, P.E., will oversee implementation of projects identified in the I-81 Corridor Improvement Plan
RICHMOND – Following the Interstate 81 Corridor Improvement Plan and new dedicated funding as a result of 2019 legislation, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Chief Engineer, Bart Thrasher, P.E., announced today that Dave Covington, P.E., will lead VDOT's implementation of projects and initiatives identified in the plan. As the new Interstate 81 program delivery director, Covington will oversee corridor-long strategy and program-level consistency as projects and initiatives from the plan are developed, constructed and prioritized by the I-81 Advisory Committee.
[rest not important enough to post]

[odditude]

reformatted so i could read it.

Ahh I was wondering how to code a table here ... thanks! 

I saved the source code.

The 042 and 016 are the internal county codes that VDOT utilizes.  The 'Dist.' is the segment length.

Is there an easy way to produce such a table or do you have to code it line by line?

ehh - depends on the source. in this case, there were tab characters between the values, so i replaced all tabs with the

Code Select Expand

[/td][td] tag combo, and then pasted a

Code Select Expand

[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]at the end of each line. add your

Code Select Expand

[table][tr][td] up front and your

Code Select Expand

[/td][/tr][/table] at the end, and you're good to go.

so it's manual, but it's not bad if the data's formatted sanely and you have a decent text editor (i use Notepad++). it probably took me longer to type this response!

[1995hoo]

Following up on the tweet I linked above, it seems I-95 will be down to a single northbound lane in the vicinity of Exit 133 this weekend.

[sprjus4]

Expect Major I-95 Northbound Delays at Fredericksburg Saturday, Sept. 21 - Sunday, Sept. 22

FREDERICKSBURG, Va. — Northbound travelers on Interstate 95 will encounter major travel delays in the Fredericksburg area beginning in late afternoon on Saturday, September 21 through the morning of Sunday, September 22.

Lane closures are needed for 18 consecutive hours of paving, lane striping and preparation to finish building the transition point for drivers to enter three temporary travel lanes for I-95 northbound in the median.

I-95 motorists are strongly encouraged to choose an alternate route to avoid delays, especially through travelers with destinations outside the Fredericksburg area.

What's Being Done

Construction crews need to replace the existing I-95 northbound overpass of Route 17 at Exit 133 in Stafford County over the next 12 months. Two existing Route 17 overpass bridges — northbound and southbound  — are being replaced as part of the I-95 Southbound Rappahannock River Crossing project.

To build the new overpass, all I-95 northbound traffic will be diverted to travel in temporary lanes in the median, parallel to the interstate.

The weekend work zone during Sept. 21-22 is the final step before the temporary lanes open. When lanes reopen at 10 a.m. Sunday, northbound I-95 traffic will begin traveling in the temporary lanes.

Over 18 hours, crews will put down around 2,000 tons of asphalt and 20,000 feet of lane markings, and place around 5,000 feet of concrete barriers.

What Drivers Can Expect

Beginning at 4 p.m. on Saturday, Sept. 21, I-95 northbound will be reduced to two lanes near the Rappahannock River bridge, which is located between the City of Fredericksburg and Stafford County.

I-95 northbound will be reduced to a single lane at 5 p.m. Saturday. The northbound exit ramp and entrance ramp at Exit 133, also known as a collector-distributor lane, will remain open. It will serve as a second northbound travel lane.

From 8:30 p.m. Saturday to 10 a.m. Sunday, Sept. 22, all I-95 northbound traffic will be diverted onto the collector-distributor lane.

Between 8:30 p.m. Saturday and 10 a.m. Sunday, northbound I-95 traffic can exit to Route 17, but Route 17 traffic cannot use the entrance ramps to access I-95 northbound. Detour signs for local traffic on Route 17 will be directed to use Route 1 northbound and Exit 136 (Centreport Parkway) to access I-95 northbound.

I-95 southbound will remain open in the Fredericksburg area during the Sept. 21-22 weekend work zone. Additionally, all I-95 southbound ramps at Exit 133 at Route 17 will remain open.

This work zone has been scheduled weather permitting. If the work zone is cancelled, it will be rescheduled for 4 p.m. Saturday, Sept. 28 through 10 a.m. Sunday, Sept. 29.

Weekend Work Zone

Performing this work in a single 18-hour period, during mostly overnight hours, will avoid disrupting travelers over multiple weeks of evening work.

These hours were identified using traffic analysis as the least disruptive time for work to be scheduled. Accomplishing the work over the weekend avoids delays to weekday commuter and commercial traffic.

To encourage travelers to use an alternate route, VDOT will:

Lift lane closures on Route 1 northbound in the Fredericksburg area during the work zone, and along Route 207 northbound in Caroline County and Route 301 northbound in Caroline and King George counties

Adjust signal timing on these alternate routes to meet additional demand

Use overhead message boards along the I-64, I-95, and I-295 corridors in Virginia to make motorists aware of lane closures ahead at Fredericksburg, and encourage travelers to use Exit 104 (Carmel Church) on I-95 to travel along Route 207 and Route 301

Stay Updated

Real-time updates on this work zone, lane closures and congestion will be available on 511Virginia.

Download the free mobile 511Virginia app for Apple and Android devices to stay connected, or visit www.511Virginia.org. Motorists also can reach 511Virginia by calling 511 from any phone in Virginia.

Follow VDOT Fredericksburg District on Twitter at @VaDOTFRED.

Project Background

Construction to build the $132 million I-95 Southbound Rappahannock River Crossing began in August 2018 and will be underway through May 2022.

The project seeks to reduce I-95 congestion in the Fredericksburg area by providing local traffic with additional lanes to travel between the Route 17 and Route 3 interchanges without merging into the interstate's general purpose lanes.

The Rappahannock River Crossing project will build three new general purpose lanes for I-95 southbound stretching six miles in the current median of I-95. The new lanes will begin in the vicinity of Truslow Road, just north of Exit 133 at Route 17 in Stafford. The new lanes will end 1.2 miles south of Exit 130 at Route 3 in Fredericksburg, in Spotsylvania County.

The three existing I-95 southbound lanes will be converted to carry those traveling to the Route 17 and Route 3 interchanges, as well as the Safety Rest Area and Virginia Welcome Center.

For additional information, please visit the project page on the Improve 95 website at www.Improve95.org

[sprjus4]

[rest not important enough to post]

The "success" of the Route 29 "Solutions" project.

[Beltway]

[rest not important enough to post]

The "success" of the Route 29 "Solutions" project.

From an engineering and construction management and project delivery standpoint, very successful.

From a network standpoint, it was designed to provide a good local circulation system for local traffic across and around that segment of US-29, but with minimal benefits to the thru traffic (even as defined as anything between the US-29 bypass and Ruckersville or beyond).

[Beltway]

Lane closures are needed for 18 consecutive hours of paving, lane striping and preparation to finish building the transition point for drivers to enter three temporary travel lanes for I-95 northbound in the median.
[...]
To build the new overpass, all I-95 northbound traffic will be diverted to travel in temporary lanes in the median, parallel to the interstate.
[...]
Over 18 hours, crews will put down around 2,000 tons of asphalt and 20,000 feet of lane markings, and place around 5,000 feet of concrete barriers.

That is the problem, a massive amount of paving work needed to complete the temporary 3-lane tie-in roadways.  That is about 150 dump truck loads of asphalt.

The WWB Project had a similar problem with the opening of the first new bridge.

[sprjus4]

New Ramp from I-64 West to I-264 East Opening to Traffic

NORFOLK -- The new flyover ramp from Interstate 64 west to Interstate 264 east will open to traffic this week, with final preparations for the traffic shift beginning at 10 p.m. on Thursday, Sept. 19, and the ramp open to traffic by 5 a.m. on Friday, Sept. 20.

After multiple pre-opening inspections and the completion of outstanding work, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has determined the ramp is now ready for the more than 100,000 vehicles expected to use it each day.

"We promised a quality product, and that's what we've delivered" said VDOT Hampton Roads District Engineer Chris Hall. "This ramp will play an important role in the improved functionality of the I-64/264 interchange for many years to come."

Motorists should be prepared to utilize the new traffic pattern for their morning commute on Friday, Sept. 20. Because it can take time for motorists to become accustomed to the new traffic pattern, VDOT encourages everyone traveling through the area to use caution and pay attention to signage.

How to Utilize the New Ramp

• Motorists traveling from I-64 west to mainline I-264 east should keep left to access the new flyover ramp, which will place traffic directly into the inside lanes of I-264 east.
• Motorists traveling from I-64 west to Newtown Road should keep right and follow the existing traffic pattern.

What the New Ramp Accomplishes

• The ramp will add capacity at the interchange and remove a conflict point by elevating traffic from the I-64 west ramp over the I-264 east collector-distributor road and placing motorists directly onto mainline I-264 east.
• This new traffic pattern will eliminate the jockeying that occurs between drivers leaving I-264 for Newtown Road and those merging onto I-264 from I-64 west.

Next Steps for the Interchange Improvements Project

• After the new ramp opens, the Phase I contractor will finish construction on mainline I-264 east, which will bring additional capacity to the interchange, and continue work on the sound wall beside I-64 east (Wall R) near Kidd Boulevard, among other items. Lane and ramp closures are possible throughout the project as construction continues, with a completion date of fall 2019.
• Phase II of the interchange improvements project is currently under construction and includes extending the new collector-distributor roadway built in Phase I from the Newtown Road interchange to the Witchduck Road interchange, re-configuring the south side of both interchanges to eliminate the weave movement and building a flyover across I-264 to connect Greenwich Road on the south side of the interstate with Cleveland Street on the north side. That phase is scheduled for completion in fall 2021.
  
  
  

Initially, the ramp will only be striped for one thru lane, though once Phase 2 is completed in Fall 2021, it will be re-striped to its final 2 thru lanes configuration.

[Beltway]

NORFOLK -- The new flyover ramp from Interstate 64 west to Interstate 264 east will open to traffic this week, with final preparations for the traffic shift beginning at 10 p.m. on Thursday, Sept. 19, and the ramp open to traffic by 5 a.m. on Friday, Sept. 20.

Initially, the ramp will only be striped for one thru lane, though once Phase 2 is completed in Fall 2021, it will be re-striped to its final 2 thru lanes configuration.

The reason for the long bridges, is because Nosehs Creek runs right alongside and any filled earthworks would compromise the water carrying ability of the creek to drain the land upstream.  That made the project hugely more expensive and also delayed it for years.

https://naturalatlas.com/creeks/nosehs-906616

[sprjus4]

Similar to the US-58 Arterial Management Study that was completed for US-58 between the Suffolk Bypass and the Greensville County / Brunswick County line, another study is currently underway for US-58 between the Greensville County / Brunswick County line and the Mecklenburg / Halifax County line.

Recommendations were presented in a public hearings last week, and its mostly the usual median crossover closure, RCUT here and there, restricting access at some locations, though the one that really stood out was the proposed improvements around the I-85 interchange area in South Hill.

The study recommends converting the existing full cloverleaf interchange (reconstructed only 17 years ago from the original partial cloverleaf into a full cloverleaf and also replaced the overpass bridges) into either a diverging diamond interchange or a diamond interchange, retaining one loop ramp from US-58 West to I-85 South, with roundabouts, along with installing a roundabout on the mainline at the US-58 / VA-618 intersection east of the I-85 interchange. It would also include widening the mainline for 1/2 mile to 6-lanes between I-85 and VA-618. This is similar to the other study's proposal for converting the I-95 / US-58 interchange into a diverging diamond.




Thoughts?

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/us_58_arterial_preservation_plan.asp

[sprjus4]

That made the project hugely more expensive and also delayed it for years.

If HRTAC was never created, this project would likely still be in "planning and design".

I'm glad to finally see it opening... it was needed 20 years ago and it's desperately needed today. That ramp is a nightmere, backs up for at least a mile on I-64, well outside of peak hours, and the worst during peak hours, and the weaving movement at Newtown Rd doesn't help.

Phase 2 will help even more, but the biggest project still hasn't started yet - Phase 3.

That is currently under detailed study & design and according to the I-264 Corridor Study completed a few years back, would cost ~$600 million. That would completely revamp the rest of the I-64 / I-264 interchange including moving left exits to the right, replacing some of the flyovers, and finally creating a continuous HOV system through the interchange. It currently ends on either side of the interchange to allow traffic to exit left.

There's also the Bowers Hill Interchange and the Oak Grove Interchange within the region that need massive overhauls as well, at least $1 billion for both, if not more.

[Mapmikey]

VA 169 between 2 blocks south of US 258 near Phoebus and VA 351 Buckroe Beach has been removed from the state highway system.

http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/sep/reso/10.pdf

They did not address whether either remaining segment of VA 169 would be renumbered or if VA 169 will become discontinuous.  VA 169 wasn't posted very well around the VA 351 segment anymore in recent years.  2019 GMSV shows no VA 169 postings at US 258 Phoebus anymore either.  2018 GMSV shows 1 shield in either direction on the segment removed from the highway system today.

[Beltway]

That made the project hugely more expensive and also delayed it for years.

If HRTAC was never created, this project would likely still be in "planning and design".

HRTAC is conceptually an 'overlay' of the road use tax and sales tax revenue/funding system historically utilized by VDOT/VDH&T/VDH.

It covers a huge area well beyond the Norfolk/Hampton Roads metro area, part of those taxes come from people outside of the HRTAC area, and that includes cars and trucks registered elsewhere including military personnel that often keep their cars registered in their home state, and including sales taxes that come from the large tourism component of people from outside of the area.

I am not trying to diminish HRTAC or say that any of their funds should be utilized outside of that area, just pointing out that they are doing an overlay of the statewide system, and they are getting part of their funding from people living outside of the HRTAC area.

They are actually a state-created agency --

The Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission (HRTAC) is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia in the United States that has the responsibility for funding several major traffic projects in the Hampton Roads area.  It was created by the Virginia General Assembly in 2014.
-- Wikipedia

I'm glad to finally see it opening... it was needed 20 years ago and it's desperately needed today. That ramp is a nightmere, backs up for at least a mile on I-64, well outside of peak hours, and the worst during peak hours, and the weaving movement at Newtown Rd doesn't help.

Did you see what I wrote about the local topography that necessitated those long and expensive bridges on that quadrant?

[Beltway]

[...]
at the end, and you're good to go.
so it's manual, but it's not bad if the data's formatted sanely and you have a decent text editor (i use Notepad++). it probably took me longer to type this response!

I did a lot of software development from about 1985-2002.  Sometimes it is tedious and you just have to "crank it out" and code line by line!

The result looks good for this board, how to copy from an Excel spreadsheet and put it in table format here.

[sprjus4]

HRTAC is conceptually an 'overlay' of the road use tax and sales tax revenue/funding system historically utilized by VDOT/VDH&T/VDH.

It covers a huge area well beyond the Norfolk/Hampton Roads metro area, part of those taxes come from people outside of the HRTAC area, and that includes cars and trucks registered elsewhere including military personnel that often keep their cars registered in their home state, and including sales taxes that come from the large tourism component of people from outside of the area.

I am not trying to diminish HRTAC or say that any of their funds should be utilized outside of that area, just pointing out that they are doing an overlay of the statewide system, and they are getting part of their funding from people living outside of the HRTAC area.

They are actually a state-created agency --

The Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission (HRTAC) is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia in the United States that has the responsibility for funding several major traffic projects in the Hampton Roads area.  It was created by the Virginia General Assembly in 2014.
-- Wikipedia

It's an overlay, but it essentially created a tax district for the Hampton Roads region as fuel taxes increased to fund it. Without the creation of the HRTAC and the tax district, a lot of the ongoing projects such as the I-264 / I-64 Interchange, HRBT Expansion, HRB Expansion, and other proposed mega-projects in the future wouldn't be possible, or would require some sort of tolling to assist it (a lot more than the proposed revenue from HO/T lanes).

There was an attempt to create a program similar to the HRTAC back in 2008, but it failed. Had it succeed, one of its key projects would have been funding the expansion of Dominion Blvd without requiring tolls. However, since that was ruled out and the Dominion Blvd project funding & tolls got secured before the HRTAC creation in 2013, it never got bought out, though in the future it could potentially if there's ever a desire to - the money is definitely there now. It was considered for a period earlier this year on buying out the Tunnels, though they determined it was not going to be pursued at this time... also important to consider that's $2 billion as opposed to only ~$300 million for Dominion Blvd, and also it's not a P3, it's owned by the city.

[plain]

A couple things here..

US 58: Unless they're thinking about new alignments near South Hill and Emporia, I have very negative thoughts about the interchange proposals. Trucks + more traffic signals = NO.

VA 169: The only useful thing about the designation nowadays is a route number to follow from the HRBT to Buckroe. If anything they should've decommissioned the segment north of VA 351. Might as well decommission the whole thing.

[sprjus4]

US 58: Unless they're thinking about new alignments near South Hill and Emporia, I have very negative thoughts about the interchange proposals. Trucks + more traffic signals = NO.

I can sort of see the Emporia proposal... the current interchange is beyond substandard and has no deceleration or acceleration lanes on US-58, but rather stop signs. The I-95 portion has acceleration lanes (obviously), but it's narrow and short distance due to the exiting loop departing. Something needs to happen here eventually.

As for South Hill, that interchange was completely reconstructed back around 2002 and built out to a full cloverleaf and the overpass bridges replaced. There's adequate acceleration and deceleration lanes, and the loops have large radius. The intersection with US-58 Business could definitely be reworked, but there's no other issues other than that. I don't see a need to reconstruct it, and quite frankly I don't see the need for any of the innovative intersections west of I-85, mostly due to the extremely low traffic counts, ~5,000 AADT. Just another way to be "innovative"  I guess though.

[plain]

US 58: Unless they're thinking about new alignments near South Hill and Emporia, I have very negative thoughts about the interchange proposals. Trucks + more traffic signals = NO.

I can sort of see the Emporia proposal... the current interchange is beyond substandard and has no deceleration or acceleration lanes on US-58, but rather stop signs. The I-95 portion has acceleration lanes (obviously), but it's narrow and short distance due to the exiting loop departing. Something needs to happen here eventually.

As for South Hill, that interchange was completely reconstructed back around 2002 and built out to a full cloverleaf and the overpass bridges replaced. There's adequate acceleration and deceleration lanes, and the loops have large radius. The intersection with US-58 Business could definitely be reworked, but there's no other issues other than that. I don't see a need to reconstruct it, and quite frankly I don't see the need for any of the innovative intersections east of I-85, mostly due to the extremely low traffic counts, ~5,000 AADT. Just another way to be "innovative"  I guess though.

I agree something needs to be done at Emporia. I don't think a DDI will cut it, though. It would be totally acceptable if there's a plan to bypass that interchange (something like froggie's proposal in the US 58 Concepts thread). I just don't like the idea of any type of diamond at either interstate junction.

Something about that 5000 AADT figure east of I-85 seems a bit low.

[Beltway]

Something about that 5000 AADT figure east of I-85 seems a bit low.

In the 8,400 to 9,200 range in Brunswick County for US-58.

[sprjus4]

Something about that 5000 AADT figure east of I-85 seems a bit low.

In the 8,400 to 9,200 range in Brunswick County for US-58.

*west

[odditude]

[...]
at the end, and you're good to go.
so it's manual, but it's not bad if the data's formatted sanely and you have a decent text editor (i use Notepad++). it probably took me longer to type this response!

I did a lot of software development from about 1985-2002.  Sometimes it is tedious and you just have to "crank it out" and code line by line!

The result looks good for this board, how to copy from an Excel spreadsheet and put it in table format here.

if you're coming from a spreadsheet and you're comfortable, just insert columns with the relevant tags before/between/after the data columns, and then have a final column that concatenates everything into a single text string with the row info. you can then just copy/paste that column and you've got your html/bbcode/wikicode/whatever table.

[Beltway]

Something about that 5000 AADT figure east of I-85 seems a bit low.

In the 8,400 to 9,200 range in Brunswick County for US-58.

*west

Drops to about 5,500 around Boydton. 
Just east of US 1-Big Fork is about 11,000.
The South Hill Bypass about 7,000.

[Jmiles32]

US 58: Unless they're thinking about new alignments near South Hill and Emporia, I have very negative thoughts about the interchange proposals. Trucks + more traffic signals = NO.

I can sort of see the Emporia proposal... the current interchange is beyond substandard and has no deceleration or acceleration lanes on US-58, but rather stop signs. The I-95 portion has acceleration lanes (obviously), but it's narrow and short distance due to the exiting loop departing. Something needs to happen here eventually.

As for South Hill, that interchange was completely reconstructed back around 2002 and built out to a full cloverleaf and the overpass bridges replaced. There's adequate acceleration and deceleration lanes, and the loops have large radius. The intersection with US-58 Business could definitely be reworked, but there's no other issues other than that. I don't see a need to reconstruct it, and quite frankly I don't see the need for any of the innovative intersections east of I-85, mostly due to the extremely low traffic counts, ~5,000 AADT. Just another way to be "innovative"  I guess though.

I agree something needs to be done at Emporia. I don't think a DDI will cut it, though. It would be totally acceptable if there's a plan to bypass that interchange (something like froggie's proposal in the US 58 Concepts thread). I just don't like the idea of any type of diamond at either interstate junction.

Something about that 5000 AADT figure east of I-85 seems a bit low.

Agreed. An upgraded or preferably relocated Emporia interchange should be prioritized first.   

[Jmiles32]

Interesting conflict over what seemed like a relatively straightforward project:
https://loudounnow.com/2019/09/04/battle-brews-over-possibility-of-rt-9-closure/

Hillsboro leaders are pushing ahead with a new plan to get their long-planned Pedestrian Safety and Traffic Calming Project under construction after the first round of bids came in too far over budget. But the proposal is coming under fire from out-of-state commuters who could be forced to find new routes to work.

Although town leaders were set to re-advertise for construction bids last Thursday, that action was delayed to allow the exploration of an alternative that could save millions of dollars while getting the work complete within a year–and two years earlier than expected.

To accomplish those goals, the Rt. 9 work zone in the town would have to be closed entirely to through traffic for nine to 11 months, starting as early as February. That would be expected to have the greatest impact on commuters from West Virginia and Maryland, responsible for about 16,000 of the 17,000 vehicles moving through the town each day.

That option was discussed with regional public safety leaders during an Aug. 28 briefing where Hillsboro Mayor Roger Vance and other project managers sought input on challenges that would come with the plan. Rather than a dialogue on the alternatives, the meeting sparked strong objections from Clarke County leaders, who issued a statement warning that diverting Rt. 9 traffic flowing from West Virginia and Maryland on to Rt. 7 and Rt. 340, as well as local roads, would have significant impact. A statement issued by the county warned that, "As a result of the additional traffic, more people will be injured or killed on these roads,"  and that "The cost of greatly increased traffic–EMS, law enforcement, and road maintenance—will be borne by the localities in which they occur."

Vance said he was surprised by the tone of the criticism and that elements of the statement were "a clear misrepresentation of the facts."  He said the town was "working closely with VDOT on alternatives to the maintenance of traffic plan to save time, ensure product quality, save taxpayer money and ensure a safer work zone."

While this project may alleviate slowdowns through Hillsboro, it does nothing to address the slowdowns occurring at the VA-287 light and the eastbound merge onto VA-7. In my opinion, a straight shot 4-lane bypass from just west of Hillsboro to VA-7 around the Round Hill area should've been built a long time ago. However, NIMBYism in Western Loudoun prevailed.

[Beltway]

While this project may alleviate slowdowns through Hillsboro, it does nothing to address the slowdowns occurring at the VA-287 light and the eastbound merge onto VA-7. In my opinion, a straight shot 4-lane bypass from just west of Hillsboro to VA-7 around the Round Hill area should've been built a long time ago. However, NIMBYism in Western Loudoun prevailed.

The RE/T groups opposed the building of a VA-9 bypass and/or 4-lane highway between the VA-7 bypass and WV.