Virginia

[Beltway]

All those houses near the Shula Road intersection would lose their easy and close access to US-29.  Most residents would likely object.

A couple of things - the interchange with US 29 / Highwayview Road is one mile north of this location. Secondly, a high speed frontage road would be constructed parallel to the freeway, or existing US 29 would be the frontage road, along the entire distance, providing access.
Second, I've said it before, you worked on I-95 in Central Virginia south of Richmond. That segment is 18 miles long, and has 4 interchanges. Besides properties at the interchange locations, every single home along the route and cross-roads intersect the frontage road, with no access to the US 301 freeway mainline (I-95). They have to travel a distance to reach an interchange to get onto the US 301 freeway mainline (I-95). Before, they had easy and close access. Now, they don't. No different here. It's this design concept that's been used for decades in highway engineering - upgrading an arterial roadway into an interstate highway / freeway.

It's not I-95 and US-301 remains open on the west side of the highway and it is not the 1970s.  You want to extend the US-29 Altavista-Hurt Bypass for 2 miles and sever the close and direct access of about 40 homes.  Public involvement on such a project study will undoubtedly have a variety of opinions and goals that are different from yours.

US-29 is a major north-south long-distance route, and is slated to become a freeway one day between Danville and Lynchburg. Constructing freeway designs now will help and save money in the future.

Like when?  It is not yet in any long-range plan, and building bits and pieces may have no significant aggregate benefit.
 

[jakeroot]

I guess I'm weird. I quite like it when agencies have limited budgets and are forced to think outside the box. Sometimes I feel like grade separation is too obvious, when there are other solutions that could potentially be just as fulfilling, without costing as much.

In my area of Washington State (I'm more familiar with my home state than I am with Virginia for the time being), an eight block stretch of road was recently switched to FYAs from doghouse signals, and an adaptive signal system installed (another step beyond typical detection systems). Although all the intersections remain of the typical design, the capacity of the roadway was improved somewhere around 10-20%, which is a huge improvement that was achieved without having to add any lanes. The signals now operate with random phasing (sometimes leading, sometimes lagging, usually combo of both) as it's literally adapting to conditions on the fly. It's a very impressive setup, especially as it was relatively cheap.

If VDOT had, say, $100M to spend on intersection improvements, I'd rather they spent $12.5M on eight intersections, instead of $25M on four intersections. Or, worse, $50M on two intersections because of a costly overpass.

I agree to some extent. The only issues with "innovative" intersections are they are only band-aids in these examples. On other highways, they can work quite fine.

US-29 is a major north-south long-distance route, and is slated to become a freeway one day between Danville and Lynchburg. Constructing freeway designs now will help and save money in the future.

US 460 / US 460 Business intersection is a major turning movement. The innovative intersection IIRC cuts off a roadway, and provides harder access. Safety issues still exist here. An interchange with a bridge and ramps would eliminate these safety issues, make it way easier to access the highway from a major junction point. Now, per se, one of the minor intersections north of this location could handle an innovative intersection without issue. But at a major junction, an "innovative" intersection does not provide adequate capacity, does not address all safety issues, and truly is only a band-aid solution.

By all means, build these intersections. But be prepared to have a long-term solution that can easily be built, and don't treat these intersections are permanent.

If the ultimate plan is for the road to be a freeway, then I would agree that they should probably work towards that goal instead of something else.

But if there are no long-term goals for a specific road, I see no reason not to be creative in the interim, especially at a "dangerous" intersection that could use some more creative layouts that limit turns or whatnot.

[sprjus4]

It's not I-95 and US-301 remains open on the west side of the highway and it is not the 1970s.  You want to extend the US-29 Altavista-Hurt Bypass for 2 miles and sever the close and direct access of about 40 homes.  Public involvement on such a project study will undoubtedly have a variety of opinions and goals that are different from yours.

It was one concept and of course there's other options. But it's important to note, my concept has a two-lane frontage road on the entire west side, and part uses the existing US 29. The new location frontage road might not be the old road, but it can still be designed with two 12 foot lanes, and 4 foot paved shoulders, and act very efficiently, just like US-301 does. That's essentially how I-95 is today - Mainline freeway in the middle, and a two-lane frontage road on the entire west side.

Every part of I-95 that has an overpass with a connection to US-301, restricted access to the mainline, that has to travel to reach one of the 4 interchanges. Just like US 301, traffic from the residential area will have a parallel frontage road serving the corridor to reach the mainline interchange.

Like when?  It is not yet in any long-range plan, and building bits and pieces may have no significant aggregate benefit.

If the ultimate plan is for the road to be a freeway, then I would agree that they should probably work towards that goal instead of something else.

But if there are no long-term goals for a specific road, I see no reason not to be creative in the interim, especially at a "dangerous" intersection that could use some more creative layouts that limit turns or whatnot.

http://virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Culpeper/Route_29/final/Chapt_5.pdf

The US 29 Corridor Study completed back in 2009 identified "The vision for Route 29 from North Carolina to Amherst County is to develop the road as a limited access highway with grade separated interchanges."

The concept lays out -
- Constructing new freeway between Danville and Chatham bypasses
- Constructing new freeway between Chatham and Gretna bypasses
- Upgrading existing US 29 to freeway between Gretna and Altavista bypasses
- Constructing new freeway between Altavista and Lynchburg / Madison Heights bypasses

The VDOT web page identified -
"The goal is to create a Route 29 corridor blueprint that includes a short-term action plan, intermediate recommendations and a vision plan that identifies long-range goals, policies and recommendations."

"The results of the study will be used to help establish local, regional and statewide goals for a long-range transportation blueprint that will form the basis for future projects along the Route 29 corridor."

https://web.archive.org/web/20180601023627/http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/lynchburg/route_29_corridor_study.asp

It may not be on any official plans at the moment, however the long-range goal is to eventually develop that roadway as a limited-access freeway. It doesn't have to be one project to do that, but building phases & small projects over time will eventually create one continuous limited-access freeway / interstate (I-785) between Greensboro (and really from I-85, I-40, and I-73), through Danville to Lynchburg.

I just believe an at-grade intersection improvement seems to go against the vision, or if they are going to build an at-grade intersection improvement, they at least consider how a long-term improvement could be implemented later on (I.E. overpass, interchange, etc.).

[Beltway]

It's not I-95 and US-301 remains open on the west side of the highway and it is not the 1970s.  You want to extend the US-29 Altavista-Hurt Bypass for 2 miles and sever the close and direct access of about 40 homes.  Public involvement on such a project study will undoubtedly have a variety of opinions and goals that are different from yours.

It was one concept and of course there's other options. But it's important to note, my concept has a two-lane frontage road on the entire west side, and part uses the existing US 29.

Your "concepts" never seem to take into account things like public involvement and the desires of the people who live there. 

[sprjus4]

Your "concepts" never seem to take into account things like public involvement and the desires of the people who live there.

Well, the "concept" for a US 29 freeway between Lynchburg and North Carolina did not include an interchange at this location. It has one about 3-4 miles south of here, presumably with a frontage road serving it.

You don't need an interchange at every public roadway. Frontage roads exist. Overpasses exist. You're trying to make the I-95 upgrade seem different than this idea, when in reality it's the same exact concept - a continuous frontage road to serve every home and business along it, and to direct it to an interchange location to access the mainline. You act like these home owners have to drive out of the way to access the roadway. Following a 55 MPH frontage road in the direction of travel to reach a public interchange to enter a 65 or 70 MPH freeway in that same direction isn't an "inconvenience". Hell, a lot of frontage roads require you drive the opposite direction of desired travel, to then reach the interchange to drive the other way.

[Beltway]

Your "concepts" never seem to take into account things like public involvement and the desires of the people who live there.

Well, the "concept" for a US 29 freeway between Lynchburg and North Carolina did not include an interchange at this location. It has one about 3-4 miles south of here, presumably with a frontage road serving it.
You don't need an interchange at every public roadway. Frontage roads exist. Overpasses exist. You're trying to make the I-95 upgrade seem different than this idea, when in reality it's the same exact concept - a continuous frontage road to serve every home and business along it, and to direct it to an interchange location to access the mainline. You act like these home owners have to drive out of the way to access the roadway. Following a 55 MPH frontage road in the direction of travel to reach a public interchange to enter a 65 or 70 MPH freeway in that same direction isn't an "inconvenience". Hell, a lot of frontage roads require you drive the opposite direction of desired travel, to then reach the interchange to drive the other way.

I have said this repeatedly, and it doesn't seem to be sinking in.   US-301 between Jarratt and VA-35 is not a "frontage road", it is the original 2-lane US-301 with a few short relocations for interchanges and overpasses, and it does retain the 4-lane divided for 1.5 miles near Carson where I-95 was relocated for 1.7 miles.

So the westside access along I-95, is a primary highway US-301 like it always has been, and it doesn't carry enough traffic to prevent full highway speeds thruout.

[sprjus4]

I have said this repeatedly, and it doesn't seem to be sinking in.   US-301 between Jarratt and VA-35 is not a "frontage road", it is the original 2-lane US-301 with a few short relocations for interchanges and overpasses, and it does retain the 4-lane divided for 1.5 miles near Carson where I-95 was relocated for 1.7 miles.

You need to look at the concept I provided again. About 1 mile of roadway is relocated slightly to the west to allow a mainline US-29 freeway to use the existing alignment. The other mile south of there retains the existing US-29, and converts the northbound lanes + new alignment into the mainline freeway.

I want you to tell me how these two options will result in traffic flowing differently, more opposition, than the other.

1) keeping US-29 open on original alignment, and building US 29 freeway over the existing northbound lanes + new alignment (exactly as I-95 did)
2) shifting two-lane US 29 to the west by 40 feet to serve as a continous frontage road (like US 301 serves).

The build and design is obviously different, but they end up resulting in the same configuration - 2-lane continuous road serving properties and 4-lane freeway parallel to it.

You act like constructing continuous frontage road is a practice that should never be used, even though it's used all the time as well. The best part about it - it does the same exact thing as US 301 does, it's just shifted from the original alignment slightly.

Obviously, in this instance, it's preferred to have the existing 2-lane US-29 open and not use it for the freeway, however tracks on the east side require that a frontage road be constructed. The parts where there's not tracks directly next to the highway, the existing alignment is used. But it results in the same configuration, as I've stated many times. That frontage road would have two 12 foot lanes, and 4 foot paved shoulders, because it would be designed to carry a decent amount of traffic (as opposed to a 16 foot strip of pavement that 1 or 2 cars use each day).

[sprjus4]

US-301 between Jarratt and VA-35 is not a "frontage road", it is the original 2-lane US-301

Here's another concept of a freeway upgrade, if the existing roadway must be retained. For the entire distance, the new northbound lanes are built 60 feet to the east of the existing roadway, and the existing northbound lanes are upgraded into southbound lanes. The existing southbound roadway is retained, and re-striped to be a 2-way US-29. At certain locations, the tracks are relocated to provide ample space for the new northbound lanes.

Typical Section for Mainline - 12 foot travel lanes, 10 foot right paved shoulders, 4 foot left paved shoulders, 60 foot grassy median, 70 MPH speed limit.

https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/US_Route_29_Freeway/sF6YWHPSLQ

Map Key -
Red - U.S. Route 29 Mainline
Pink - Other Roadways
Blue - Bridge
Green - Ramp
Brown - Relocated Railroad Track

[74/171FAN]

Beltway and sprjus4, even though this conversation seems civilized right now, make sure to be careful and not turn this into another I-87 thread or I will lock it temporarily. 

[Beltway]

I have said this repeatedly, and it doesn't seem to be sinking in.   US-301 between Jarratt and VA-35 is not a "frontage road", it is the original 2-lane US-301 with a few short relocations for interchanges and overpasses, and it does retain the 4-lane divided for 1.5 miles near Carson where I-95 was relocated for 1.7 miles.

You need to look at the concept I provided again. About 1 mile of roadway is relocated slightly to the west to allow a mainline US-29 freeway to use the existing alignment. The other mile south of there retains the existing US-29, and converts the northbound lanes + new alignment into the mainline freeway.

I don't see the point of upgrading a mile or two of highway in the fashion that you suggest.  Once again, you aren't taking into account concepts like public involvement and resident input that would be a necessary part of any such official project study.

[sprjus4]

I don't see the point of upgrading a mile or two of highway in the fashion that you suggest.

Look at the new concept on the interactive map I linked above. Same exact concept as I-95.

Any freeway upgrade would be apart of upgrading between North Carolina and Lynchburg, the segment between Altavista and Gretna would be one phase likely. The map depicts about half of that, to specifically show how traffic would access US-29 mainline when and if Shula Dr is given an overpass with no connections.

Once again, you aren't taking into account concepts like public involvement and resident input that would be a necessary part of any such official project study.

It's a concept I drafted based on a logical alignment, not a preferred alternative in an EIS. Factors like public involvement, environmental, etc. aren't tackled in a basic draw up like this. That's what a EIS and public involvement refine, and come up with a preferred alternative that works around and with those things. I just don't see the logical point to have a RIRO interchange on a rural 70 MPH major north-south freeway corridor, built in the 21st century, especially when a full one exists a mile north, and 55 MPH frontage roads would lead to the south.

Let me ask, why wasn't there an interchange constructed at Lansing Rd along I-95 in the 1980 upgrade? https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0511401,-77.3791308,1784m/data=!3m1!1e3 There's a lot of homes cluttered around here, and an interchange would be beneficial. How do they all access I-95?

[Beltway]

Let me ask, why wasn't there an interchange constructed at Lansing Rd along I-95 in the 1980 upgrade? https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0511401,-77.3791308,1784m/data=!3m1!1e3 There's a lot of homes cluttered around here, and an interchange would be beneficial. How do they all access I-95?

US-301 to the north and south, some using VA-604 and VA-623.  Knowing the area 40 years ago nearly all that was rural then and the vast majority of the homes especially to the east of I-95 have been built since then. 

[sprjus4]

US-301 to the north and south, some using VA-604 and VA-623.

And 2-lane retained US-29 would serve the corridor in my proposal. No different.

[74/171FAN]

Locking temporarily for a cooldown.  I also cleaned up the above personal insults. 

[Alps]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLumK87nGxE

[74/171FAN]

Unlocking after 27 hour cooldown because I was still at work at 24 hours.

[Takumi]

Let me ask, why wasn't there an interchange constructed at Lansing Rd along I-95 in the 1980 upgrade?

It's only a mile or so to the Carson interchange (exit 38), which has more homes and businesses in the vicinity.

[sprjus4]

It's only a mile or so to the Carson interchange (exit 38), which has more homes and businesses in the vicinity.

I know. My point was that closing Shula Dr and providing access at the existing interchange and a southerly interchange outlined in my conceptual alignment, and turning the existing US-29 into a local road would sufficiently work, in the same manner as this interchange does. You have to drive a mile to reach the highway, or you can take the old US-301.

[VTGoose]

But anything to save $10 million. VDOT doesn't even care, people complained, so they had to shoot a couple million to shut people up. They won't dedicate the true improvement. It's not I-81, or east of Charlottesville, so screw it.

You can take I-81 off that list -- our fine General Assembly, eyeing the upcoming elections this fall, caved to special interests (trucking lobbyists and business lobbyists) and their own special interest (they want to go back to the good life in the GA next January) and agreed to do yet another study of the problems with I-81. Everyone agreed that it is a problem highway and everyone agreed that improvements needed to be paid for but no one wanted to be on the wrong side of a vote to approve tolls or raise taxes. Conveniently the report is to be completed by December (after Election Day) to be ready for the 2020 session of the GA. The fate of the interstate will be a factor in some elections (mainly in the districts that I-81 runs through) but it will be overshadowed by other issues across the state and country. Even at that, funding may be iffy -- there was support from both Democrats and Republicans for tolls and/or taxes and funding measures still failed.

[sprjus4]

You can take I-81 off that list -- our fine General Assembly, eyeing the upcoming elections this fall, caved to special interests (trucking lobbyists and business lobbyists) and their own special interest (they want to go back to the good life in the GA next January) and agreed to do yet another study of the problems with I-81. Everyone agreed that it is a problem highway and everyone agreed that improvements needed to be paid for but no one wanted to be on the wrong side of a vote to approve tolls or raise taxes. Conveniently the report is to be completed by December (after Election Day) to be ready for the 2020 session of the GA. The fate of the interstate will be a factor in some elections (mainly in the districts that I-81 runs through) but it will be overshadowed by other issues across the state and country. Even at that, funding may be iffy -- there was support from both Democrats and Republicans for tolls and/or taxes and funding measures still failed.

Let's face it. I-81 will be 4 lanes in 2030.

They said in 2000 that by 2020 it'd be 6 or more lanes all throughout. We see how that went.

I support tolling to some extent, the way it was proposed was an interesting concept that only tolls long-distance traffic, like the West Virginia Turnpike. I would support having toll booths as an option as well as "Express Lanes" for E-ZPass (think VA-895 in Richmond), because with long-distance out of state travelers, not everybody owns an E-ZPass or wants to go through the complicated, expensive, and overall confusing Toll By Plate option. I, for one, avoid any all electronic toll roads that aren't E-ZPass, because I'm not going to deal with the whole system. I find it disappointing to see how many toll roads are turning to the all electronic option, no booth option. It creates so many issues on the customer side of things if they don't own the pass (which for the record, a lot of people coming from the west or south via I-81 are not going to own E-ZPass).

[Beltway]

Let's face it. I-81 will be 4 lanes in 2030.
They said in 2000 that by 2020 it'd be 6 or more lanes all throughout. We see how that went.

Fluor Virginia Inc. had a proposal in 2003 to add two lanes in the median of VA I-81 for $1.8 billion by 2011 for the entire length of the route, under the TEA-21 ISRRPP pilot project, and to pay for it entirely with tolls on cars and trucks.  Too bad that it wasn't supported enough to go forward.  Now they are looking at least $7 billion for a project like that due to the astronomical increases in highway construction costs.   S T U P I D

[sprjus4]

Fluor Virginia Inc. had a proposal in 2003 to add two lanes in the median of VA I-81 for $1.8 billion by 2011 for the entire length of the route, under the TEA-21 ISRRPP pilot project, and to pay for it entirely with tolls on cars and trucks.  Too bad that it wasn't supported enough to go forward.  Now they are looking at least $7 billion for a project like that due to the astronomical increases in highway construction costs.   S T U P I D

It's ridiculous. There's no set decision everybody will support, so they keep pushing it off for later. These people don't realize that costs are going way up, and by the time I-81 becomes a full gridlock (like I-95 is), it'll be tens of billions or more needed, and won't get any funding, or some extremely expensive tolls if anything is built years from now.

Speaking of I-95... in the same boat as I-81.

At least they're pushing forward with I-64 which is currently more of priority than I-81 (both 4 lanes, I-64 carries at least 60,000 AADT between Williamsburg and I-295, I-81 mainly 40,000 AADT), but I-81 needs to be on the radar as well.

----------------
And wow, 8 lanes the entire way for only $1.8 billion? That's only about $6 million per mile for 325 miles. That sounds like a good deal, shameful it didn't go. Nowadays, it'd be about $30 million per mile, so likely $10 billion in today's cost. Oh, that's only for 6 lanes. 8 lanes would be more likely.

[Beltway]

Fluor Virginia Inc. had a proposal in 2003 to add two lanes in the median of VA I-81 for $1.8 billion by 2011 for the entire length of the route, under the TEA-21 ISRRPP pilot project, and to pay for it entirely with tolls on cars and trucks.  Too bad that it wasn't supported enough to go forward.  Now they are looking at least $7 billion for a project like that due to the astronomical increases in highway construction costs.   S T U P I D

It's ridiculous. There's no set decision everybody will support, so they keep pushing it off for later. These people don't realize that costs are going way up, and by the time I-81 becomes a full gridlock (like I-95 is), it'll be tens of billions or more needed, and won't get any funding, or some extremely expensive tolls if anything is built years from now.

The same thing happened with the Midtown Tunnel and MLK Freeway extension.  In 1999 a proposal by a private enterprise called Hampton Roads Public-Private Development, to provide 90% or more of the funds, under the provisions of Virginia's PPTA, to build essentially what was just completed in 2017, except for the full rehabs of the Downtown Tunnels, the funds to be recouped through revenues from the re-tolling of the Midtown Tunnel and the Downtown Tunnel.  It was $600 million then and it cost $1.4 billion when it was finally built.  D U M B

[sprjus4]

The same thing happened with the Midtown Tunnel and MLK Freeway extension.  In 1999 a proposal by a private enterprise called Hampton Roads Public-Private Development, to provide 90% or more of the funds, under the provisions of Virginia's PPTA, to build essentially what was just completed in 2017, except for the full rehabs of the Downtown Tunnels, the funds to be recouped through revenues from the re-tolling of the Midtown Tunnel and the Downtown Tunnel.  It was $600 million then and it cost $1.4 billion when it was finally built.  D U M B

I thought the reason the Downtown Tunnel was tolled is because it did receive a full rehab? In my opinion, only the Midtown Tunnel should be tolled because that's all that got a substantial improvement (the new tunnel), whereas the Downtown Tunnel did not receive much, yet now 100,000 vehicles per day have to pay a toll to fund another tunnel they don't even use.

The MLK Freeway received public funding from what was supposed to go to the US 460 relocation, so that's not tolled, even today.

Another example - the Third Crossing projects. Those were discussed since the early 2000s, and I believe were only projected to cost about $3 billion for I-664 widening, the new location bridge-tunnel, and VA-164 Craney Island Connector. All of those projects today would cost north of $6 billion. The first piece of it, the 2.8 mile Intermodal Connector cost $170 million alone ($60 million per mile), and that includes a 100+ foot median for future mainline lanes to the future I-664 Connector. It will have a final typical section of 60 foot median when and if completed.

Now the question remains - how to pay for all this? Will HRPTO & HRTAC fund it like they've been doing with other multi-billion dollar projects around here, or will it have a little electronic sensor that deducts $3 from your E-ZPass account every time you go through? It would be nice if it was funded, however, if tolling is necessary, I say go for it.

[Beltway]

I thought the reason the Downtown Tunnel was tolled is because it did receive a full rehab? In my opinion, only the Midtown Tunnel should be tolled because that's all that got a substantial improvement (the new tunnel), whereas the Downtown Tunnel did not receive much, yet now 100,000 vehicles per day have to pay a toll to fund another tunnel they don't even use.

Traffic imbalance, has been discussed extensively.  And only about $60 million was needed for the rebabs.  Downtown Tunnel users do directly benefit from the 4-lane Midtown Tunnel.

The MLK Freeway received public funding from what was supposed to go to the US 460 relocation, so that's not tolled, even today.

The MLK Freeway received funding from the project as well, as it provides traffic support to both tunnels.