Virginia

[sprjus4]

Downtown Tunnel users do directly benefit from the 4-lane Midtown Tunnel.

I hate to say it, but the thousands of commuters who use the tunnel daily, sit in miles of traffic, and have had a burden placed on them since 2014 don't believe that. That's why HRTPO has formed a group to study ways to fund $1.4 billion to fully buy out the tolls and eliminate them permanently on both facilities. I support the efforts, and hopefully it can go forward in the future.

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

My point was the MLK Freeway would have been a toll road as well if it weren't for the US 460 relocation money funding the rest which were originally supposed to be covered by tolls on that facility.

[Beltway]

Downtown Tunnel users do directly benefit from the 4-lane Midtown Tunnel.

I hate to say it, but the thousands of commuters who use the tunnel daily, sit in miles of traffic, and have had a burden placed on them since 2014 don't believe that.

Then they need to be educated.  There would be a major traffic imbalance if the Midtown Tunnel was tolled and the Downtown Tunnel was untolled, and to the detriment of the Downtown Tunnel users.  The upgraded Midtown Tunnel and the MLK provide a major relief route to the Downtown Tunnel.

That's why HRTPO has formed a group to study ways to fund $1.4 billion to fully buy out the tolls and eliminate them permanently on both facilities. I support the efforts, and hopefully it can go forward in the future.

Good luck, that is a very large sum.  Given the unique nature of the port and military installations in the area, and its impact on what needs to be built to cross the waters, IMHO the FHWA should provide at least $1 billion over and above VDOT's normal FHWA allocations for that project.  I don't know if they would ever do that retroactively, though.

[froggie]

^ If using the heavy military presence as your justification, that $1 billion would need to come from DoD, not FHWA.  Not that that shouldn't happen.  I also believe DoD should be contribute at least 9-digits to the HRBT expansion.

In full disclosure, I'm retired Navy and did two tours in Norfolk.

[Beltway]

If using the heavy military presence as your justification, that $1 billion would need to come from DoD, not FHWA.  Not that that shouldn't happen.  I also believe DoD should be contribute at least 9-digits to the HRBT expansion.
In full disclosure, I'm retired Navy and did two tours in Norfolk.

Yes, the largest naval base in the world, and has been since at least WW II, plus major Army, Air Force, Marine and Coast Guard bases in the area.  Tunnels built to satisfy Navy requirements, that are far more expensive than bridges.

That is right about FHWA, the money would come from the General Fund of the Government.  BTW, 9 digits is 100 million or more, I think you meant 10 digits, and I agree about the HRBT, plus add the I-564 bridge-tunnel and I-664 bridge-tunnel expansion, should those projects be built.

[froggie]

^ I doubt you'd convince Congress to put $1B in the DoD budget to "pay the Navy's share" for those projects.  But something on the order of 9 digits isn't out of the question....*IF* you could convince the DoD brass to agree to request it.

The problem then becomes that you've now set a precedent for other areas with heavy or even moderate military presence to demand DoD help fund their road improvements.  You'd then wind up with a wide swath of funding demands to DoD for projects that aren't on the bases.

[hbelkins]

^ I doubt you'd convince Congress to put $1B in the DoD budget to "pay the Navy's share" for those projects.  But something on the order of 9 digits isn't out of the question....*IF* you could convince the DoD brass to agree to request it.

The problem then becomes that you've now set a precedent for other areas with heavy or even moderate military presence to demand DoD help fund their road improvements.  You'd then wind up with a wide swath of funding demands to DoD for projects that aren't on the bases.

Kentucky committed a large sum of money to improvements in Hardin and Meade counties when BRAC was announced and the impacts on Fort Knox were made known. I'm not sure how much money the feds (FHWA vs. DOD) contributed to those projects.

[Mapmikey]

BRAC funds definitely contributed $ to improvements on I-395 around the Mark Center in Arlington and also to improvements for MD 355 in the vicinity of Walter Reed in Bethesda which was expanded in the recent BRAC reorganization.

IIRC at least one of those fundings came after complaints from local officials...

[jakeroot]

The rebuilding of two I-5 interchanges in Tacoma that are primarily for access to Joint-Base Lewis-McChord and Camp Murray, as well as off-base housing, is completely funded by local gas taxes:

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/I5/MountsRdThorneLn/default.htm (scroll to bottom of page -- "CWA" is Connecting Washington Account, which is sourced from gas taxes).

[Beltway]

I doubt you'd convince Congress to put $1B in the DoD budget to "pay the Navy's share" for those projects.  But something on the order of 9 digits isn't out of the question....*IF* you could convince the DoD brass to agree to request it.
The problem then becomes that you've now set a precedent for other areas with heavy or even moderate military presence to demand DoD help fund their road improvements.  You'd then wind up with a wide swath of funding demands to DoD for projects that aren't on the bases.

This is somewhat unique in that I don't know of any other place where the Navy made tunnels a requirement, and given the width of the Hampton Roads estuary and Chesapeake Bay, and the number of crossings needed thereof, provides especially high costs.

What would be fair ... 90% federal funding?  80%?  60%?  I would argue at least 50% and preferably higher.

[Beltway]

BRAC funds definitely contributed $ to improvements on I-395 around the Mark Center in Arlington and also to improvements for MD 355 in the vicinity of Walter Reed in Bethesda which was expanded in the recent BRAC reorganization.

Also around the Fort Belvoir area, and to the Fairfax County Parkway, and other roads.

[sprjus4]

Meetings scheduled in March in regards to the U.S. Route 58 Arterial Management Study in Suffolk, Franklin, and Emporia.

http://www.virginiadot.org/VDOT/Projects/asset_upload_file697_136441.pdf

When the final draft of the study is released, it will include a conceptual long-term vision and alignment of relocating or upgrading U.S. Route 58 to interstate standards between Suffolk and I-95. No funding has been identified for an improvement this large though, so it may be years off before ever constructed. How to tackle Emporia is the real question. It's likely if an interstate is ever constructed along U.S. 58, the existing bypass will be extended to wrap around to the north side, a large cloverleaf (and one flyover from US 58 West to I-95 South) interchange with I-95, and tie back in west of the developed areas, to accommodate traffic heading west of I-95 as well. This study's results of upgrading U.S. Route 58 may lead into a further study strictly focused on upgrading U.S. 58 to interstate standards, though only if it's determined a necessity in the next 20 years or so. The current study's scope is making safety improvements along the corridor, short-term upgrades, etc.

[Beltway]

Meetings scheduled in March in regards to the U.S. Route 58 Arterial Management Study in Suffolk, Franklin, and Emporia.
When the final draft of the study is released, it will include a conceptual long-term vision and alignment of relocating or upgrading U.S. Route 58 to interstate standards between Suffolk and I-95. No funding has been identified for an improvement this large though, so it may be years off before ever constructed. How to tackle Emporia is the real question. It's likely if an interstate is ever constructed along U.S. 58, the existing bypass will be extended to wrap around to the north side, a large cloverleaf (and one flyover from US 58 West to I-95 South) interchange with I-95, and tie back in west of the developed areas, to accommodate traffic heading west of I-95 as well. This study's results of upgrading U.S. Route 58 may lead into a further study strictly focused on upgrading U.S. 58 to interstate standards, though only if it's determined a necessity in the next 20 years or so. The current study's scope is making safety improvements along the corridor, short-term upgrades, etc.

Looks like at least 2,000 miles of highway is in the following program --
VDOT Arterial Preservation Program
http://www.virginiadot.org/programs/vdot_arterial_preservation_program.asp

The Arterial Preservation Network includes segments of selected major highways that are part of the Corridors of Statewide Significance (CoSS) system or are functionally classified as principal or other principal arterials.

US-58 is a CoSS.  I have run mapping software on the route and the segment that I was focusing on actually does not have much delay.  That is the 8 miles between the Holland and Suffolk bypasses, and the mapping software gives 9 minutes of travel time, so that means that the traffic signals don't cause much delay.  Peak traffic will be addressed by the 3.5 mile 6-lane widening and access management project starting in 2020.  The biggest recent improvement there was the Suffolk Southwest Bypass, which opened in 2003, and the big improvement for US-58 was that it relegated a 4-phase signalized intersection at the end of the east-west bypass to a minor signalized local movement.

For improving thru traffic travel time probably the most 'bang for the buck' would be upgrading the 24 miles between the Emporia and Courtland bypasses to Interstate standards, and connecting the Courtland and Franklin bypasses with a seamless freeway segment.  Largely rural construction.  The paved right shoulders on the two bypasses look like they are 8 feet wide and would need to be widened to 10 feet.  Except for the curve at the Blackwater River all the rest of the 39 miles to the east end of the Franklin Bypass should be postable at 70 mph, assuming of course that the new freeway construction meets that design speed.

[sprjus4]

Peak traffic will be addressed by the 3.5 mile 6-lane widening and access management project starting in 2020.

Debatable. If the traffic signals are all timed to provide continuous movement, it may well work. 30,000 AADT. One concern I've noted is on peak weekends for holidays, etc. I've ran into situations frequently where I'm coming back to Hampton Roads from I-95 and I've sat in traffic for well over 15 minutes and 3 miles of distance crawling along. Cleared through the area to realize, there's no wreck, just a sh*t ton of cars on the roadway. Hopefully a 6-lane will address this problem fully.

The biggest recent improvement there was the Suffolk Southwest Bypass, which opened in 2003, and the big improvement for US-58 was that it relegated a 4-phase signalized intersection at the end of the east-west bypass to a minor signalized local movement.

Can't say that the bypass did much improvement for U.S. Route 58... That intersection was already a local movement. The bypass simply built ramps over the existing roadway, the intersection is still in place as it was before 2003. The bypass was built for U.S. Route 13, which at the time, the main thru movement was through downtown Suffolk on what is now U.S. Route 13 Business.

For improving thru traffic travel time probably the most 'bang for the buck' would be upgrading the 24 miles between the Emporia and Courtland bypasses to Interstate standards, and connecting the Courtland and Franklin bypasses with a seamless freeway segment.  Largely rural construction.  The paved right shoulders on the two bypasses look like they are 8 feet wide and would need to be widened to 10 feet.

I'd have to disagree on that, though I do agree the entire corridor should eventually be upgraded if funds are available. It would likely cost $1 billion or more for the rural segment (the connect the bypass segment is $200 million alone IIRC), and would simply allow a 70 MPH speed limit over the existing 60 MPH. The prioritized segment should be between the Franklin and Suffolk bypasses, about 16 miles long. That would cost between $500 million and $1 billion and would allow a 45 - 55 MPH segment with numerous of traffic signals and local traffic to be bypassed by a 70 MPH freeway, and I believe that should be the first piece constructed. That segment also has 20,000 - 30,000 AADT, whereas it's under 15,000 AADT for the rural segments. I understand the 6 lane widening will help, however the bypass should still be a priority over there as opposed to a rural area already posted 60 MPH with light traffic.

Except for the curve at the Blackwater River all the rest of the 39 miles to the east end of the Franklin Bypass should be postable at 70 mph, assuming of course that the new freeway construction meets that design speed.

That segment should be postable at 70 MPH as well... I've never had any issues taking that curve. Take this example along the U.S. Route 64 freeway over the Tar River in Tarboro, NC. It's a tighter curve, about 2,510 ft radius (as opposed to U.S. Route 58 which is about 2,710 ft) and posted at 70 MPH. That example also has auxiliary lanes and exits on both sides of the bridge & curve.

The Franklin Bypass needs some improvements before it's being posted 70 MPH, notably the U.S. Route 258 interchange. Those curves aren't pleasant taking at 70 MPH.

Here's a conceptual alignment on a reconstruction which would involve fixing that curve and providing wider ramps that meet a 70 MPH design speed.


A few other notes about the Franklin and Courtland bypasses. At the VA-671 / U.S. 58 interchange, both of the off-ramps would need to be lengthened significantly to meet a higher design speed. The ramps at the VA-714 / U.S. 58 interchange in the southeast quadrant need to be relocated to the southeast to provide a longer ramp, again to meet a 70 MPH design speed. On the Courtland bypass, the ramps at the VA-35 interchange on the western side need to be relocated to provide longer acceleration and deceleration distances for 70 MPH. The median on the two bypasses is also questionable for the rural environment, though could be workable.

[froggie]

sprjus is right about the signal at the end of the Suffolk bypass.  It was a 3-leg intersection before the Southwest Suffolk Bypass was built, and it remains a 3-leg intersection.

For improving thru traffic travel time probably the most 'bang for the buck' would be upgrading the 24 miles between the Emporia and Courtland bypasses to Interstate standards, and connecting the Courtland and Franklin bypasses with a seamless freeway segment.

I would agree with the latter given the commercial buildup on the edge of Courtland and the signal next to Food Lion, but there's very little need from a traffic perspective for upgrading between Courtland and Emporia.  Courtland-Franklin would by far be the biggest bang-for-the-buck.  I'd argue #2 would go to Franklin-Holland, though even that section is primarily safety-based and not traffic-based.

[Beltway]

sprjus is right about the signal at the end of the Suffolk bypass.  It was a 3-leg intersection before the Southwest Suffolk Bypass was built, and it remains a 3-leg intersection.

The heavy local movement between both directions of US-58 and Turnlington Road via Kilby Shores Drive was largely replaced by the bypass extension and the new ramps.  While that intersection physically looks similar it is now phased heavily toward favoring the US-58 thru traffic.

US-58 to Bus. US-58 to Kilby Shores Drive to Turnlington Road to US-13 was the heavy local movement that was replaced by the bypass extension.

A few other notes about the Franklin and Courtland bypasses. At the VA-671 / U.S. 58 interchange, both of the off-ramps would need to be lengthened significantly to meet a higher design speed. The ramps at the VA-714 / U.S. 58 interchange in the southeast quadrant need to be relocated to the southeast to provide a longer ramp, again to meet a 70 MPH design speed. On the Courtland bypass, the ramps at the VA-35 interchange on the western side need to be relocated to provide longer acceleration and deceleration distances for 70 MPH. The median on the two bypasses is also questionable for the rural environment, though could be workable.

Is this an engineering analysis?  Those bypasses work fine at 60 mph.  No reason why they couldn't handle another 10 mph.

[sprjus4]

The heavy local movement between both directions of US-58 and Turnlington Road via Kilby Shores Drive was largely replaced by the bypass extension and the new ramps.  While that intersection physically looks similar it is now phased heavily toward favoring the US-58 thru traffic.

US-58 to Bus. US-58 to Kilby Shores Drive to Turnlington Road to US-13 was the heavy local movement that was replaced by the bypass extension.

Would have to agree. The way you made it sound though is that the physical intersection was reconstructed, when it wasn't.

2002 traffic volumes show 5,400 AADT on Turlington Road between US-13 and Kilby Shores Drive.

2004 traffic volumes show 2,200 AADT on that same segment, and the bypass had 8,000 AADT. Today, the bypass has 13,000 AADT, and Turlington Road is the same.

Is this an engineering analysis?

From personal experience driving US 58 frequently and have done 70 MPH, those ramps are slightly short for that fast speed, having to quickly decelerate and short ramps onto the highway. I wouldn't recommend those short ramps be incorporated into a modern 21st century long-distance freeway / interstate in this manner.

Those bypasses work fine at 60 mph.  No reason why they couldn't handle another 10 mph.

For a 70 MPH posted speed limit, the minimum radius for a loop ramp should be at least 230 feet. The exit ramp at VA-714 in the southeast quadrant has a 180 feet radius, and would likely have to be relocated (along with the adjacent entrance ramp) to the southeast. The ramps on the northwest side has a 280 feet radius, and is fine. As for leg ramps, preferably should be at least 1,000 feet long from the point it leaves the highway to where it intersects the crossroad. The westbound off ramp at VA-671 and the ramps in the western quadrant at the VA-35 interchange are only about 800 feet long, and would likely have to be extended slightly.

Here's a concept on what would have to happen -

[Beltway]

Those bypasses work fine at 60 mph.  No reason why they couldn't handle another 10 mph.

For a 70 MPH posted speed limit, the minimum radius for a loop ramp should be at least 230 feet.

Where did you get that spec from?   Loop ramps usually are not one simple curve, usually they have 3 curves, with the middle curve being the sharpest.

The exit ramp at VA-714 in the southeast quadrant has a 180 feet radius, and would likely have to be relocated (along with the adjacent entrance ramp) to the southeast. The ramps on the northwest side has a 280 feet radius, and is fine. As for leg ramps, preferably should be at least 1,000 feet long from the point it leaves the highway to where it intersects the crossroad. The westbound off ramp at VA-671 and the ramps in the western quadrant at the VA-35 interchange are only about 800 feet long, and would likely have to be extended slightly.

Where did you get those specs from?  In the case of finger ramps and loop ramps, if the length or curvature is below the desired amount then that can be addressed by lengthening the acceleration or deceleration lane, to give ample overall length to provide a smooth transition to or from full highway speed.

[froggie]

Those bypasses work fine at 60 mph.  No reason why they couldn't handle another 10 mph.

For a 70 MPH posted speed limit, the minimum radius for a loop ramp should be at least 230 feet.

Where did you get that spec from?   Loop ramps usually are not one simple curve, usually they have 3 curves, with the middle curve being the sharpest.

I'd like to know as well.  For ramps, the only thing the mainline speed would really have any bearing on is the length of the accel/decel lanes.

[Alps]

AASHTO has a "green book" specifically for Interstate highways. It's a smaller guide. The reference could be somewhere in there - keep in mind he said "should", this is a design rec but routinely violated in constrained spaces. I doubt it would stop a highway from Interstate conversion as long as proper ramp lengths are provided.

[sprjus4]

Where did you get that spec from?   Loop ramps usually are not one simple curve, usually they have 3 curves, with the middle curve being the sharpest.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1504A_Report_2017.pdf - Page 24 (PDF) "it is recommended that the substandard loop be reconstructed to desirable interstate standards (30 mph, 230' radius)"

As a basis for a 30 MPH design speed, a minimum of radius of 230 feet would be needed. On a 70 MPH interstate highway, that would be desired as much as possible. The study did mention "desirable", so it's not required, but just a preference in a safety perspective.

On U.S. Route 70, an interchange was recently reconstructed with a loop similar to the one in the southeast quadrant of the VA-714 interchange, and now that it's being incorporated into I-42 and a 70 MPH interstate highway, the feasibility study for that road specifically includes relocating the ramp to provide a wider radius and a faster design speed.

Granted, it could be incorporated into 70 MPH, however it's just a recommendation for the higher speed. For example, the study I posted recommended the curvature be widened for safety reasons, however it's currently posted at 70 MPH, and that loop is not stopping it. However, the interchange at U.S. Route 258 would need to be fully reconstructed in the manner I suggested or similar. That interchange has safety deficiencies and from my experience, couldn't handle 70 MPH on those curves. 65 MPH maybe, but no higher.

I doubt it would stop a highway from Interstate conversion as long as proper ramp lengths are provided.

It's not against interstate standards at all, it's just a recommendation for an interstate highway being posted at 70 MPH. If an interstate highway was posted 55 MPH through there, the entire bypass would be up to standard, including the U.S. 258 interchange. For a 70 MPH highway however, at least that interchange would need a full overhaul. The one in question about the loops is a preference, but not required, even at 70 MPH.

[Beltway]

Where did you get that spec from?   Loop ramps usually are not one simple curve, usually they have 3 curves, with the middle curve being the sharpest.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1504A_Report_2017.pdf - Page 24 (PDF) "it is recommended that the substandard loop be reconstructed to desirable interstate standards (30 mph, 230' radius)"

Sorry, after seeing what NCDOT did at Asheboro, I am not going to accept them as any national standard of Interstate highway standards.

Look at the US-50/US-301 freeway on Kent Island, MD.  Tight curves on ramps built to minimize impacts to existing adjacent development as much as possible, and very long acceleration and deceleration lanes.  This is not an Interstate route and the speed limit is 60 mph, but such a design could be used on a 70 mph Interstate highway with long enough acceleration and deceleration lanes.  Likewise the bypass at Franklin would not need any interchange overhauls, but possibly safety projects to lengthen some of the acceleration and deceleration lanes.

[sprjus4]

Likewise the bypass at Franklin would not need any interchange overhauls, but possibly safety projects to lengthen some of the acceleration and deceleration lanes.

*except the U.S. 258 interchange. Extending acceleration lanes isn't the issue, it's the geometric design of the highway.

Sorry, after seeing what NCDOT did at Asheboro, I am not going to accept them as any national standard of Interstate highway standards.

The feasibility study was done by another agency, not NCDOT themselves. Also, all of the standards indicated on that study come from the Green Book. I'll dig through it if you really don't want to believe it, but that's what is.

Criteria for Improvements
- AASHTO Green Book, AASHTO Interstate Guide,
and NCDOT Design Manual, Standards
- Typical Section
- Bridges
- Widening Alternatives (Wendell to Zebulon)
- Adjacent MPO and NCDOT projects

Criteria for replacing bridges:
- Older that 1970
- Poor sufficiency rating
- "Functionally Obsolete"  — i.e. doesn't meet standards, doesn't have enough width, doesn't' have enough vertical clearance
- Design Changes

Mainline Typical Section:
- # of travel lanes (4, 6 or 8): Capacity/LOS, Cost, Life Expect.
- Paved shoulders (4', 10', 12')
- Median protection (G/R, Cable, Barrier)
- >=46' Median / Concrete Barrier Section
- >=posted 70-mph Vertical, Horizontal/Superelevation (as-builts)
- Plus: 30-mph Loop Ramps (R=230')
- Plus: Interchange Ramp widths (16')

http://www.ucprpo.org/Documents/feasibility/FS-1504A%20RKK_P2_DsnMtg_Presentation_Attendees.pdf

If you're going to not accept NCDOT anymore because of a design exception granted by the FHWA and AASHTO, then you can do that, but I really don't see why. This is a study to upgrade that section of US-64 to full interstate highway standards, and notes replacing many bridges, widening ramps, realigning ramps all to meet 70 MPH (well to modern 70 MPH limits, the highway is already posted at 70 MPH, though needs improvements to be safer) speed limits, and proper interstate standards indicated by AASHTO standards. There's conceptual improvements provided in the feasibility study. There's a lot more proposed than just widening shoulders. That's why it's projected to cost over $300 million for the US-64 existing freeway leg of I-87 alone. There's no "exceptions" in there.

Look at the US-50/US-301 freeway on Kent Island, MD.  Tight curves on ramps built to minimize impacts to existing adjacent development as much as possible, and very long acceleration and deceleration lanes.  This is not an Interstate route and the speed limit is 60 mph, but such a design could be used on a 70 mph Interstate highway with long enough acceleration and deceleration lanes.

That is a fairly urbanized highway, and has a 55 MPH speed limit, not 60 MPH. It for sure could not handle 70 MPH, and a design in that alignment would be poor for a rural area. Even with long acceleration and deceleration lanes, you're flowing at 70 MPH in the right lane, and someone comes to the right doing 20 MPH, and using human instinct, they'll merge in as soon as there's a clear space, even if still at 35 MPH speeding up. You can't just provide a super long acceleration lane and expect it to be used all the way to the end. Not to mention, most of those "long acceleration lanes" are auxiliary lanes, the ones with actual deceleration and acceleration lanes are about 600 to 700 feet long, and certainly at 70 MPH would involve breaking hard. A ramp should provide you up to about the speed limit, so when you flow on the highway, you can smoothly merge in. It's a lot safer.

[Beltway]

Likewise the bypass at Franklin would not need any interchange overhauls, but possibly safety projects to lengthen some of the acceleration and deceleration lanes.

*except the U.S. 258 interchange. Extending acceleration lanes isn't the issue, it's the geometric design of the highway.

Wrong.

Sorry, after seeing what NCDOT did at Asheboro, I am not going to accept them as any national standard of Interstate highway standards.

The feasibility study was done by another agency, not NCDOT themselves. Also, all of the standards indicated on that study come from the Green Book. I'll dig through it if you really don't want to believe it, but that's what is.

The study was commissioned by NCDOT, conducted by civil engineering consultant Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP, and reviewed / signed off / approved by NCDOT employees.  IOW it belongs to NCDOT lock, stock and barrel.

If you're going to not accept NCDOT anymore because of a design exception granted by the FHWA and AASHTO, then you can do that, but I really don't see why.

Now I didn't go so far as say I would not accept them anymore.  They have done a good job in highway administration many ways and areas.

It is the combination of questionable highway design claims by yourself, and your using NCDOT as a source for design standards for ramps on an Interstate highway.  Asheboro really detracts from their Interstate design philosophies and makes me question how many other places have they cheated on designs, including on items not visible to the naked eye such as pavement designs and bridge structural designs.

Three people have explained to you how that lengthening of accell and decell lanes on those ramps could address your concerns.

Look at the US-50/US-301 freeway on Kent Island, MD.  Tight curves on ramps built to minimize impacts to existing adjacent development as much as possible, and very long acceleration and deceleration lanes.  This is not an Interstate route and the speed limit is 60 mph, but such a design could be used on a 70 mph Interstate highway with long enough acceleration and deceleration lanes.

That is a fairly urbanized highway, and has a 55 MPH speed limit, not 60 MPH. It for sure could not handle 70 MPH, and a design in that alignment would be poor for a rural area. Even with long acceleration and deceleration lanes, you're flowing at 70 MPH in the right lane, and someone comes to the right doing 20 MPH, and using human instinct, they'll merge in as soon as there's a clear space, even if still at 35 MPH speeding up. 

Yes it could and does, and it is not "urbanized" but happened to have a smattering of rural development near the original 4-lane at-grade expressway, and they didn't want to be bought out.  This is one of the projects that I watched closely while in planning and under construction (compl. 1991).

Traffic on that highway often runs at 65 to 70 mph, and people don't just dart out into a freeway lane when they are going 25 mph and there is a very long accell lane ahead of them.
 

[Alex]

There is a BGS on I-564 WB that says NIT Gate 1 with something covered underneath. 

But the more important discovery is that I-564 now has exit numbers:
1 - Intermodal Connector
2 - Terminal Blvd
3 - I64

I inquired with VDOT about the Interstate 564 exit numbering last month and got a response:

Thank you for your inquiry on the I-564 exits. The following reflects what will be signed on I-564 at the completion of the I-564 Intermodal Connector Project (currently estimated for spring/early summer):


·         Exit 1 will be to NIT North Gate and Naval Station Norfolk Gates 5 & 6

·         Exit 2 will be to Terminal Blvd (Rte 406 West)

·         Exit 3 will be to I-64 (East & West) and Granby Street

·         Exit 4 will be to Little Creek Road (Rte 165)


Note that motorists on 564 will encounter Exit 2 (Terminal Blvd) before they get to Exit 1 (the Intermodal to NIT/Naval Station Norfolk). The rules of the interstate numbering system dictated the exits to be numbered that way.

The sign for Exit 1 to NIT North Gate went up in December 2017 for the opening of the Intermodal Connector to port traffic. I've not found an answer for when the Exit 4 sign went up, but I have updated the VDOT web page to better reflect the actual exits from I-564: http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/exit-numbers-564.asp

[sprjus4]

Yes it could and does, and it is not "urbanized" but happened to have a smattering of rural development near the original 4-lane at-grade expressway, and they didn't want to be bought out.  This is one of the projects that I watched closely while in planning and under construction (compl. 1991).

When you're trying to prove a substandard 60 MPH freeway can handle 70 MPH, using a 55 MPH RIRO freeway and claiming "it could handle 70 MPH" as your backing support doesn't help you that much. Provide an example of a freeway in this design actually posted at 70 MPH, then I'll believe you more.

Weren't you the one who said US-17 in Chesapeake couldn't be posted at 65 MPH or 70 MPH if it was a rural freeway with about 5 or 6 rural design interchanges, yet you're advocating this 25 MPH RIRO every 1/2 mile 6-lane expressway could be posted at 70 MPH? The hypocrisy here is real.

Traffic on that highway often runs at 65 to 70 mph

So I-64 on the Hampton Roads Beltway should be 70 MPH? Traffic flows 70 MPH daily during rush hour between the base and I-464, and there's no issues.
VA-168 and US-17 should also be 70 MPH then. Most people drive that fast. Hell, every freeway in Hampton Roads, and every urban area should be 70 MPH if that's the standard we're using.

and people don't just dart out into a freeway lane when they are going 25 mph and there is a very long accell lane ahead of them.

I've driven this highway before. They do. I've seen it. Frequently. I know this because either A) my speed decreases from 65 MPH to 40 MPH, or I have to quickly weave in the middle lane to go around them.