Virginia

[sprjus4]

The project to replace the Denbigh Boulevard bridge over I-64 is also now under construction.

https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/denbighblvdbridge.asp

This project will replace the structurally-deficient Denbigh Boulevard Bridge over Interstate 64 and CSX Railway between Warwick Boulevard and Jefferson Avenue in Newport News with a new bridge that meets current geometric and design standards.

The project includes demolition of the existing bridge, and construction a new bridge with four 12-foot lanes, a 16-foot raised median and two 8.5-foot sidewalks, as well as new roadway approaches and stormwater management facilities.

The $23 million construction contract was awarded to Corman Kokosing Construction Company of Annapolis Junction, MD on January 16, 2019.

I would hope that bridge, and the Atkinson Blvd bridge are being designed to accommodate an ultimate 8-lane roadway on I-64. The Atkinson Blvd area on I-64 has room for ultimate 8-lane, and hopefully the bridge piers are in the center of the median, not two sets directly in front of the left shoulders, because if they choose that design, there would be no room to widen into the median compared to if they center the piers.

The current Denbigh Blvd bridge area on I-64 does not have any room to build 8-lanes through there, so hopefully the replacement will give room to the outside for widening in the future.

[Beltway]

I would hope that bridge, and the Atkinson Blvd bridge are being designed to accommodate an ultimate 8-lane roadway on I-64. The Atkinson Blvd area on I-64 has room for ultimate 8-lane, and hopefully the bridge piers are in the center of the median, not two sets directly in front of the left shoulders, because if they choose that design, there would be no room to widen into the median compared to if they center the piers.
The current Denbigh Blvd bridge area on I-64 does not have any room to build 8-lanes through there, so hopefully the replacement will give room to the outside for widening in the future.

Yes, the project map shows the bridge and the piers are far enough apart that there will be space for 8 lanes.

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/hampton_roads/Denbigh_Boulevard/Denbigh_Boulevard_Bridge_Replacement_Project_Brochure.pdf

I drove down the service road and looked under the bridge, and tried to figure why not make the bridge shorter, eliminate the western three spans that don't cross any road or railroad or water.  Maybe because open embankments would be too close to the service roads and houses, and a fill with retaining walls might cost the same or more than a bridge.  I would have to ask the project engineers.

Railroads usually require more vertical clearance than for a highway.  Modern railroad clearances might raise the bridge higher than the one built in the 1960s, and that may be why the bridge is that long, the top of the vertical curve on the bridge may be west of the railroad, so it takes some distance to bring the highway back to ground level.

Addition from project brochure:
The proposed bridge will be built at an elevation that will accommodate the required vertical clearances over the CSX railroad and the future widening of I-64.

[sprjus4]

I would hope that bridge, and the Atkinson Blvd bridge are being designed to accommodate an ultimate 8-lane roadway on I-64. The Atkinson Blvd area on I-64 has room for ultimate 8-lane, and hopefully the bridge piers are in the center of the median, not two sets directly in front of the left shoulders, because if they choose that design, there would be no room to widen into the median compared to if they center the piers.
The current Denbigh Blvd bridge area on I-64 does not have any room to build 8-lanes through there, so hopefully the replacement will give room to the outside for widening in the future.

Yes, the project map shows the bridge and the piers are far enough apart that there will be space for 8 lanes.

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/hampton_roads/Denbigh_Boulevard/Denbigh_Boulevard_Bridge_Replacement_Project_Brochure.pdf

I drove down the service road and looked under the bridge, and tried to figure why not make the bridge shorter, eliminate the western three spans that don't cross any road or railroad or water.  Maybe because open embankments would be too close to the service roads and houses, and a fill with retaining walls might cost the same or more than a bridge.  I would have to ask the project engineers.

Railroads usually require more vertical clearance than for a highway.  Modern railroad clearances might raise the bridge higher than the one built in the 1960s, and that may be why the bridge is that long, the top of the vertical curve on the bridge may be west of the railroad, so it takes some distance to bring the highway back to ground level.

My guess would be poor soil. Similar issues existed when they expanded 2-lane Dominion Blvd into a freeway. That's the reason that there's very little sloping but rather mostly retaining wall. That area had poor soils for traditional construction with required more advanced and complicated designs to make it work.

They probably determined constructing a bridge structure over the area then trying to either fill it with retaining wall or creating a regular slope would be easier and more cost efficient. Plus the original bridge follows the same design, so they probably just wanted to stick with the existing design than to re-evaluate the area environmentally for changes in design.

[Beltway]

Railroads usually require more vertical clearance than for a highway.  Modern railroad clearances might raise the bridge higher than the one built in the 1960s, and that may be why the bridge is that long, the top of the vertical curve on the bridge may be west of the railroad, so it takes some distance to bring the highway back to ground level.

My guess would be poor soil. Similar issues existed when they expanded 2-lane Dominion Blvd into a freeway. That's the reason that there's very little sloping but rather mostly retaining wall. That area had poor soils for traditional construction with required more advanced and complicated designs to make it work.
They probably determined constructing a bridge structure over the area then trying to either fill it with retaining wall or creating a regular slope would be easier and more cost efficient. Plus the original bridge follows the same design, so they probably just wanted to stick with the existing design than to re-evaluate the area environmentally for changes in design.

Dominion Blvd. is down near the water table and much of it is 10 feet or less above sea level.  Lots of organics in the soil there and that makes it inadequate for supporting a highway.  Need to either undercut 5 feet depth or more and replace with good soil (with higher bearing ratios) or build a bridge over it.

That soil under the Denbigh Blvd. bridge looks good and is doesn't look wet, but looks from the surface doesn't resolve what is underneath.

[sprjus4]

Dominion Blvd. is down near the water table and much of it is 10 feet or less above sea level.  Lots of organics in the soil there and that makes it inadequate for supporting a highway.  Need to either undercut 5 feet depth or more and replace with good soil (with higher bearing ratios) or build a bridge over it.

That's the reason they used retaining wall mainly, and also probably is the reason the southbound Veterans Bridge is longer than the northbound one. It's a flat grade for some distance before it actually rises, so it's likely just traversing over poor soil that was not able to be filled on the southbound lanes, though was able to for the northbound ones.

Nonetheless, they got past the obstacle of poor soils and they did a good job building a great highway and bridge, a huge improvement over the previous 2-lane road. What surprises me more is that they did not shrink the footprint similar to how they did on the Expressway, it maintains a 46 foot median and full cross section through the entire area, and one can easily maintain 60 mph. The roadways shift here and there, and that's a result of trying to maintain the old roads footprint, but the shifts are gradual enough that high-speed can be maintained.

Yet they shifted the footprint south of Scenic Pkwy from the original planned 46 feet to 35 feet, though that was to stay in existing right of way rather than to purchase more. Quite frankly, I would have preferred they bought the additional right of way to maintain the wide median, but from a cost standpoint and the fact the city was doing this on a tight budget, I understand why they didn't. The money used on that stretch was originally programmed to widen a narrow non-limited-access 2-lane urban arterial that carries 20,000 AADT, Mt Pleasant Rd, to 4-lanes, but was shifted to instead widen a rural limited-access 2-lane road with 10,000 AADT to 4-lanes. I'm supportive of both projects, but priority wise, the money should have stayed with Mt. Pleasant Rd, and this project later. Today Mt Pleasant Rd continues to be a daily bottleneck and is getting a small bandaid by the city by being expanded to 3-lanes with a center turn lane beginning next year. And now the costs for an overall 4-lane have doubled from $20 million to $50 million, and remains unfunded. And that was only Phase 1 for 1 mile. Phase 2 would go another 2.5 miles to Centerville Tpke, and those costs are over $50 million too. If only they stuck with Plan A...

[Beltway]

That's the reason they used retaining wall mainly, and also probably is the reason the southbound Veterans Bridge is longer than the northbound one. It's a flat grade for some distance before it actually rises, so it's likely just traversing over poor soil that was not able to be filled on the southbound lanes, though was able to for the northbound ones.

About 720 feet shorter, and I had figured that was because they utilized the causeway for the original 2-lane highway.  The rest is bridged because the roadway quickly rises much higher than the original highway.  The parallel bridge didn't have that to take advantage of so that bridge is longer.

[sprjus4]

Something I had been looking at for some time now... rest area locations on Virginia's interstates.

There's areas where rest areas are 20-30 miles from each other, and others generally 50-70 miles apart. It's usually a rule of thumb to have rest areas about 50-70 miles apart from each, or about an hour of driving time, and the location of most Virginia rest areas follow this. However, I noticed in some instances, rest areas are 100+ miles apart. A few notable areas are I-95 south where it's 107 miles between the Ladysmith Safety Rest Area southbound and the North Carolina Welcome Center, I-81 north where it's 103 miles between the Ironto Safety Rest northbound and the Mount Sydney Safety Rest Area northbound, and I-64 east and west where it's 97 miles between the New Kent Safety Rest Area and the Currituck Welcome Center on NC-168.

Has VDOT ever looked at constructing new rest areas to bridge the gap between these long distances? Some locations that could work are I-95 Southbound at Carson, in the same general area there's a northbound rest area, I-81 Northbound at Fairfield, in the same general area there's a southbound rest area, and I-64 in both directions in the Newport News / Yorktown area, north of Jefferson Ave and the 8-lane section of I-64. Another location could be on VA-168 northbound in Chesapeake, north of the toll plaza though still on the toll road, a location for a Virginia Welcome Center, though that stretch of freeway is owned and operated by the City of Chesapeake, and would be constructed by them, not VDOT. The toll road has AADT around 10,000, though spikes up to 30,000 - 40,000 daily traffic (mostly consisting of long-distance tourist traffic) during peak weekends, ditto to I-64 in Newport News regarding the long-distance traffic.

Just curious, and hopefully this fits in the Virginia thread.

[amroad17]

Most states are closing rest areas to save on costs.  This is due to more services at interchanges.  When the Interstate system first opened, most interchanges were barren of any services--most services were in a nearby town or city.  The interchanges looked like I-69 does between Evansville and Bloomington now.

There is no reason to build more rest areas along our Interstate highways and state freeways.  50-70 miles seem to be the norm now, with a few exceptions. 
-   127 miles on I-75 southbound between Georgetown, KY and the Tennessee Welcome Center
-   113 miles on I-75 southbound between the Tennessee Welcome Center and the Athens, TN rest area (likewise, 115 miles on I-75 northbound between Athens and the Kentucky Welcome Center)
-   103 miles on I-74 east/west between the Lizton rest area and the Batesville rest area (even though Indianapolis is between the two)

Some states (Ohio, Indiana, and even Virginia) are using former rest areas as truck parking areas.  Just install a few street lights, have a paved area to park, and have a few porta-potties, without having to man the area for anywhere from 12-24 hours, and you have a truck parking area!

[D-Dey65]

Some states (Ohio, Indiana, and even Virginia) are using former rest areas as truck parking areas.  Just install a few street lights, have a paved area to park, and have a few porta-potties, without having to man the area for anywhere from 12-24 hours, and you have a truck parking area!

Oh, South Carolina is big on that. But the fact that a lot of those services at the interchanges are for customers only, makes a good case for keeping the ones that they have.  So I agree with not building more along I-95 in Virginia. I could go along with the 50-70 mile rule, but in the case of the New England Thruway I still think a service area at the former toll plaza in New Rochelle is a good idea even so close to the Connecticut State Line.

[Beltway]

Something I had been looking at for some time now... rest area locations on Virginia's interstates.
There's areas where rest areas are 20-30 miles from each other, and others generally 50-70 miles apart. It's usually a rule of thumb to have rest areas about 50-70 miles apart from each, or about an hour of driving time, and the location of most Virginia rest areas follow this.

The original plan in this state was to have Interstate highway safety rest areas about 25 to 30 miles apart excepting major metro areas.

You can see this on I-85 and I-95 SB north of Richmond and in a few other areas.

Construction costs and sewage treatment needs intervened and later safety rest areas were built on about 50 to 60 mile spacing excepting major metro areas.

Major metro areas pretty near anywhere in the U.S. don't have safety rest areas on metropolitan Interstate highways, because of the land needed and the commercial establishments nearby.  So, none on I-64 east of Williamsburg, none in the Richmond-Petersburg metro as of ~1960 limits, none in the D.C. metro as of ~1960 limits.

The Davis Travel Center off I-95 Exit 31 is the de facto SB I-95 safety rest area for that area and has large restrooms and a convenience store that is open to the public 24/7.

Fairfield NB I-81/I-64 MP 199 is the one obvious 'hole' in the Virginia Interstate system, and building a safety rest area there would plug a hole on both Interstate highways.

I have actually wondered if building 2 or 3 safety rest areas along I-495 Capital Beltway could be accomplished, as it would make things a lot easier for travelers.  But I for example know that at Exit 13 Ritchie-Marlboro Road there are 24/7 convenience stores right near the interchange and they have public rest rooms in addition to the food and rest offerings, and this is on the I-95 corridor.

Maryland has its own issues with no safety rest areas on I-270 or on I-70 between Frederick and Baltimore, and that makes for triple digit mile spacing or near to that for trips like VA I-95/I-495/I-270/I-70, and I-70/I-695/I-95 North.

[sprjus4]

The Davis Travel Center off I-95 Exit 31 is the de facto SB I-95 safety rest area for that area and has large restrooms and a convenience store that is open to the public 24/7.

I've always wondered, when US-301 was upgraded to I-95 between Emporia and Petersburg in the late 70s and early 80s, why was a safety rest area only constructed northbound on this stretch? It's always seemed off to me that none was constructed for southbound traffic. Or if they wanted just one rest area, they could have placed it off an interchange, so both directions could exit then access it.

Though as you said, present-day it's not much of an issue due to the travel center existing, but obviously when I-95 was just built, it was more of an issue when that did not exist, and only northbound had a rest area, meanwhile southbound had to travel another 35 miles to the North Carolina Welcome Center just south of the state line, or any businesses that may have existed off US-58 if any at the time.

You can see this on I-85 and I-95 SB north of Richmond and in a few other areas.

I've always thought for a 68 mile interstate highway, 3 rest areas is a bit much... It's not a bad thing, just an overbuild. I wouldn't be surprised if the Alberta Safety Rest Area gets closed if a tight budget calls for it in the future. There's still only about 50 miles at that point between the North Carolina / Virginia Welcome Center and the Dinwiddie Safety Rest Area.

Major metro areas pretty near anywhere in the U.S. don't have safety rest areas on metropolitan Interstate highways, because of the land needed and the commercial establishments nearby.  So, none on I-64 east of Williamsburg, none in the Richmond-Petersburg metro as of ~1960 limits, none in the D.C. metro as of ~1960 limits.

I-66 has a rest area at Manassas, though probably still rural when it was constructed. As for Hampton Roads, I would still say a rest area on VA-168 north of the toll plaza could work as that area is rural, though again, that's for Chesapeake to do if ever, not VDOT. Toll revenue on the Expressway could be used to fund and maintain such facility. The Currituck Welcome Center south of the state line could be a reason not to build such a facility however, though I will say that welcome center seems to act more for southbound traffic rather than northbound, though it is easily accessible from both directions.

One example of something similar is I-26 where there as a Tennessee Welcome Center accessible from both directions on the Tennessee side, and another North Carolina Welcome Center southbound. Also I-10 has a Welcome Center for both directions on the Mississippi side, and another westbound Louisiana Welcome Center in the other state.

A rest area on I-64 in the Yorktown / North Newport News would be ideal, the freeway is still generally a rural 6-lane 65 mph facility with a wide grassy median, and exits distanced 3-5 miles apart, though does have a lot of neighboring suburban development and military facilities on the east side that makes it hard to find any ideal space for a safety rest area.

Any money towards the I-64 corridor should be put towards 6-lanes all the way to Richmond though, not wasted on some safety rest area facilities. The traffic on I-64 has gotten horrible, and just keeps getting worse. Constant recurring congestion in the rural areas, and when it does pick up speed, people like to do 60 - 67 mph in both lanes and not allow traffic wanting to do 75 - 80 mph to pass. And on a good day, when you do finally get up to 75 - 80 mph, you get caught behind a few cars in both lanes doing 60 - 67 mph again when there's a clear gap in front of them. When it opens up to 6-lanes though south of Williamsburg, it flows a lot smoother, lots of room to pass, and even on busy days, it's packed but maintains speed and no recurring congestion.

[1995hoo]

The Manassas one was definitely way out in the sticks back then. So was Dulles Airport, for that matter! Leesburg was pretty much considered a day trip destination, or perhaps somewhere you might consider going on a Sunday drive.

[Beltway]

The Davis Travel Center off I-95 Exit 31 is the de facto SB I-95 safety rest area for that area and has large restrooms and a convenience store that is open to the public 24/7.

I've always wondered, when US-301 was upgraded to I-95 between Emporia and Petersburg in the late 70s and early 80s, why was a safety rest area only constructed northbound on this stretch? It's always seemed off to me that none was constructed for southbound traffic. Or if they wanted just one rest area, they could have placed it off an interchange, so both directions could exit then access it.

I don't think that Virginia has any that don't connect directly to the highway.  If it was near the one at Carson, there is old US-301, wetlands, and the nearness of the CSXT railroad mainline on the west side of the highway that would complicate things.

The NB rest area was graded, drained and paved in the 1977-1980 project for I-95, but the buildings and other finishings were in built in 1992 if I recall.

The most feasible area for such a SB rest area would have been down near the VA-602 area near Davis Travel Center, which in the 1970s was David Truck Stop (or some name similar) but it too was open 24/7 and had public rest rooms that were ok.

I've always thought for a 68 mile interstate [I-85] highway, 3 rest areas is a bit much... It's not a bad thing, just an overbuild. I wouldn't be surprised if the Alberta Safety Rest Area gets closed if a tight budget calls for it in the future. There's still only about 50 miles at that point between the North Carolina / Virginia Welcome Center and the Dinwiddie Safety Rest Area.

I like things the way they are on I-85, modest sized rest areas that seem to have plenty of capacity spread over them to where they do not need major expansion.  Keep them open!

The I-85 NB Welcome Center was completely rebuilt about 2002 and that is good.

As for Hampton Roads, I would still say a rest area on VA-168 north of the toll plaza could work as that area is rural, though again, that's for Chesapeake to do if ever, not VDOT. Toll revenue on the Expressway could be used to fund and maintain such facility. The Currituck Welcome Center south of the state line could be a reason not to build such a facility however, though I will say that welcome center seems to act more for southbound traffic rather than northbound, though it is easily accessible from both directions.

Plus a major service station.  It is not an Interstate highway, but like with US-13 at the Maryland border, a rest area entering Virginia might be well worth it.

[sprjus4]

I don't think that Virginia has any that don't connect directly to the highway.

Doesn't mean they couldn't have done it. It's been done countless times in many other states, and works. Nothing beats driving off the highway directly into the rest area via a slip ramp, though sometimes you have to exit at a surface street, and turn into the rest area.

EDIT - US-29 Northbound in Danville, VA] has a Welcome Center off an exit, accessible from both directions. I don't think it's an official VDOT maintained rest area, though it's still a rest area and has signage from the highway indicating "Visitor Information Center - Restrooms / Vending - Next Exit". Similarly, though not in Virginia, North Carolina has a US-29 Piedmont Triad Welcome Center just south of the state line, again, accessed from both directions off the exit.

If it was near the one at Carson, there is old US-301, wetlands, and the nearness of the CSXT railroad mainline on the west side of the highway that would complicate things.

The NB rest area was graded, drained and paved in the 1977-1980 project for I-95, but the buildings and other finishings were in built in 1992 if I recall.

The most feasible area for such a SB rest area would have been down near the VA-602 area near Davis Travel Center, which in the 1970s was David Truck Stop (or some name similar) but it too was open 24/7 and had public rest rooms that were ok.

I was thinking this location south of the VA-667 overpass could work as well, in the same general area as the northbound rest area. US-301 would need to be relocated behind the rest area, though it could work.

I like things the way they are on I-85, modest sized rest areas that seem to have plenty of capacity spread over them to where they do not need major expansion.  Keep them open!

I like the setup too, however I'm just pointing out if VDOT ever had a tight maintenance budget and needed to close some rest areas, one of them would be a good candidate. However, if they are having no issues with maintaining them, I'm fully supportive of leaving them as well.

The I-85 NB Welcome Center was completely rebuilt about 2002 and that is good.

IIRC, the I-85 Welcome Center has the same design used on the rebuild of the I-64 New Kent Safety Rest Areas in 2008 east of Richmond.

Plus a major service station.  It is not an Interstate highway, but like with US-13 at the Maryland border, a rest area entering Virginia might be well worth it.

Not an interstate highway, though an interstate-standard freeway that serves long-distance interstate traffic during peak times. North Carolina has numerous non-interstate rest areas, many on non-interstate freeways, and many others on arterial roadways from the main highway. A nearby example is the US-17 Dismal Swamp Welcome Center south of the Virginia border, accessible from both directions. It's a nice place to stop when heading down US-17, roughly 30 minutes from I-64 / I-464.

Could even be used to deter drivers from avoiding the tolls if adequate signage is posted before the VA-168 / VA-168 Business split off. Distract drivers that a rest area is ahead and not thinking about turning off.

I like the idea too, but the hard part would be convincing the city to actually build one. I'd assume a rest area would cost $5 - $15 million to construct, and again would be funded from toll revenue.

[Beltway]

If it was near the one at Carson, there is old US-301, wetlands, and the nearness of the CSXT railroad mainline on the west side of the highway that would complicate things.  The NB rest area was graded, drained and paved in the 1977-1980 project for I-95, but the buildings and other finishings were in built in 1992 if I recall.  The most feasible area for such a SB rest area would have been down near the VA-602 area near Davis Travel Center, which in the 1970s was David Truck Stop (or some name similar) but it too was open 24/7 and had public rest rooms that were ok.

I was thinking this location south of the VA-667 overpass could work as well, in the same general area as the northbound rest area. US-301 would need to be relocated behind the rest area, though it could work.

The safety rest area concept was developed when most new rural Interstate highways had basically no services along the way to stop at.  Commercial services were developed over a period of decades and many such highways are well served today.  Nevertheless nearly every safety rest area still provides a valuable role.

That said, the Davis Travel Center provides all and more than what a safety rest area can provide.  It is well signed from the highway, is a few hundred yards from the highway, is well lit and safe.  I don't think that building a new safety rest area is going to be justified financially considering the facilities that are already there nearby.

[Beltway]

The Manassas one was definitely way out in the sticks back then. So was Dulles Airport, for that matter! Leesburg was pretty much considered a day trip destination, or perhaps somewhere you might consider going on a Sunday drive.

Cities like Manassas and Leesburg and Woodbridge were considered "satellite cities" of the D.C. area back in the 1960s.

[AlexandriaVA]

I have actually wondered if building 2 or 3 safety rest areas along I-495 Capital Beltway could be accomplished, as it would make things a lot easier for travelers.

Where, how, and most importantly, why?

[LM117]

New laws taking effect today.

https://wtop.com/virginia/2019/06/new-virginia-laws-start-monday/

[AlexandriaVA]

The Manassas one was definitely way out in the sticks back then. So was Dulles Airport, for that matter! Leesburg was pretty much considered a day trip destination, or perhaps somewhere you might consider going on a Sunday drive.

Cities like Manassas and Leesburg and Woodbridge were considered "satellite cities" of the D.C. area back in the 1960s.

I don't really ever get out to those places, but certainly Woodbridge and Manassas are simply bedroom communities at this point. Leesburg is a little closer to farm country, but certainly all development on the east side of it has to be geared towards DC commuters. No VRE in Leesburg (although the W&OD used to run out that way).

[kevinb1994]

The Manassas one was definitely way out in the sticks back then. So was Dulles Airport, for that matter! Leesburg was pretty much considered a day trip destination, or perhaps somewhere you might consider going on a Sunday drive.

Cities like Manassas and Leesburg and Woodbridge were considered "satellite cities" of the D.C. area back in the 1960s.

I don't really ever get out to those places, but certainly Woodbridge and Manassas are simply bedroom communities at this point. Leesburg is a little closer to farm country, but certainly all development on the east side of it has to be geared towards DC commuters. No VRE in Leesburg (although the W&OD used to run out that way).

The Silver Line will run close enough to the Burg, though.

[AlexandriaVA]

The Manassas one was definitely way out in the sticks back then. So was Dulles Airport, for that matter! Leesburg was pretty much considered a day trip destination, or perhaps somewhere you might consider going on a Sunday drive.

Cities like Manassas and Leesburg and Woodbridge were considered "satellite cities" of the D.C. area back in the 1960s.

I don't really ever get out to those places, but certainly Woodbridge and Manassas are simply bedroom communities at this point. Leesburg is a little closer to farm country, but certainly all development on the east side of it has to be geared towards DC commuters. No VRE in Leesburg (although the W&OD used to run out that way).

The Silver Line will run close enough to the Burg, though.

If you consider 15 minutes in non-rush hour conditions (per google maps) "close" then sure.

[kevinb1994]

The Manassas one was definitely way out in the sticks back then. So was Dulles Airport, for that matter! Leesburg was pretty much considered a day trip destination, or perhaps somewhere you might consider going on a Sunday drive.

Cities like Manassas and Leesburg and Woodbridge were considered "satellite cities" of the D.C. area back in the 1960s.

I don't really ever get out to those places, but certainly Woodbridge and Manassas are simply bedroom communities at this point. Leesburg is a little closer to farm country, but certainly all development on the east side of it has to be geared towards DC commuters. No VRE in Leesburg (although the W&OD used to run out that way).

The Silver Line will run close enough to the Burg, though.

If you consider 15 minutes in non-rush hour conditions (per google maps) "close" then sure.

At least it may save you money on car insurance...

[Beltway]

I have actually wondered if building 2 or 3 safety rest areas along I-495 Capital Beltway could be accomplished, as it would make things a lot easier for travelers.

Where, how, and most importantly, why?

The first two are more addressed to when the highway was built and soon afterward, when things were cheaper to build and there was more open land available.

Why -- there isn't a need for places to stop and rest and use public restrooms when traveling thru the area?

It has only been the last few years that those convenience stores have been built near Exit 13 Ritchie-Marlboro Road, and the vast majority of long distance travelers on I-95 would have no clue that they are available.

[VTGoose]

Something I had been looking at for some time now... rest area locations on Virginia's interstates.

There's areas where rest areas are 20-30 miles from each other, and others generally 50-70 miles apart. It's usually a rule of thumb to have rest areas about 50-70 miles apart from each, or about an hour of driving time, and the location of most Virginia rest areas follow this. However, I noticed in some instances, rest areas are 100+ miles apart. A few notable areas are . . . I-81 north where it's 103 miles between the Ironto Safety Rest northbound and the Mount Sydney Safety Rest Area northbound

Has VDOT ever looked at constructing new rest areas to bridge the gap between these long distances? . . . I-81 Northbound at Fairfield, in the same general area there's a southbound rest area

The Roanoke Times had a article about the lack of a northbound rest area a few years ago (but its archive sucks, which makes finding the story difficult). I seem to remember that the ability to build a rest stop in that section of I-81 was stymied by a lack of available land and a lack of funds. It isn't really a pressing problem since there are a number of exits with lots of services, including the ever-growing White's Truck Stop at Raphine.

Another longish gap is on I-77. There is the rest area/welcome center at the North Carolina state line, but the next rest area isn't until one gets to the one at Rocky Gap around MP60. Going south, there is the adjacent rest area/welcome center with the next available rest area at the North Carolina rest area/welcome center. While not a major gap for I-77, it is a big gap for those who get on I-77 from I-81. The closest rest area on I-81 going south is at Radford at MP109 and going north, it's the cars-only rest area at MP61 at Rural Retreat. Granted, Wytheville is in the middle to provide lots of services, but for a quick bathroom break one must have iron kidneys. There were plans for north and south rest areas just south of Fort Chiswell (junction with I-81) but other than grading nothing else has been done there.

On the other side of the coin, North Carolina closed six rest areas on I-77 north of Charlotte in favor of one in-the-median rest area in Iredale County. From various trips, it doesn't look like truck parking capacity was increased from what was available in the closed rest areas.

Bruce in Blacksburg

[Beltway]

Another longish gap is on I-77. There is the rest area/welcome center at the North Carolina state line, but the next rest area isn't until one gets to the one at Rocky Gap around MP60. Going south, there is the adjacent rest area/welcome center with the next available rest area at the North Carolina rest area/welcome center. While not a major gap for I-77, it is a big gap for those who get on I-77 from I-81. The closest rest area on I-81 going south is at Radford at MP109 and going north, it's the cars-only rest area at MP61 at Rural Retreat. Granted, Wytheville is in the middle to provide lots of services, but for a quick bathroom break one must have iron kidneys. There were plans for north and south rest areas just south of Fort Chiswell (junction with I-81) but other than grading nothing else has been done there.

These two rest areas were graded and drained when I-77 was built in the late 1970s, and they are visible on Google Maps Satellite View.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I77_Map_NC_I81_XL.jpg
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I77_VA_Aerial_Photos.html

They would have provided service on the I-77 route as well as between southerly I-77 and both directions of I-81.