Virginia

[plain]

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/i-64_bridge_replacements_over_airport_dr..asp

VDOT wants to rebuild the I-64 bridges over VA 156 (Exit 197 Airport Drive). But more importantly they will also convert the existing cloverleaf interchange there into a Parclo interchange.

[Beltway]

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/i-64_bridge_replacements_over_airport_dr..asp
VDOT wants to rebuild the I-64 bridges over VA 156 (Exit 197 Airport Drive). But more importantly they will also convert the existing cloverleaf interchange there into a Parclo interchange.

I went to the design public hearing and filled out a comment form and said that I oppose removing those two loops.  The weaving lanes IMO are long enough a cloverleaf is still adequate.  The ultimate plan is to widen I-64 to 6 lanes between Airport Drive and I-295 and to provide a continuous 6 lanes on I-64 thru the area, and if they don't like the Airport Drive cloverleaf then there should be room for C-D lanes on I-64 thru that interchange.

[VTGoose]

However, I do not think there are any fjords in Virginia.

Only because they didn't hire Slartibartfast to design the state...

[plain]

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/i-64_bridge_replacements_over_airport_dr..asp
VDOT wants to rebuild the I-64 bridges over VA 156 (Exit 197 Airport Drive). But more importantly they will also convert the existing cloverleaf interchange there into a Parclo interchange.

I went to the design public hearing and filled out a comment form and said that I oppose removing those two loops.  The weaving lanes IMO are long enough a cloverleaf is still adequate.  The ultimate plan is to widen I-64 to 6 lanes between Airport Drive and I-295 and to provide a continuous 6 lanes on I-64 thru the area, and if they don't like the Airport Drive cloverleaf then there should be room for C-D lanes on I-64 thru that interchange.

I have mixed feelings about this project. Usually I feel like a parclo is an improvement over a cloverleaf in most cases but in this particular situation I'm not so sure because of the railroad crossing here. A signal between the interchange and that crossing might complicate things a bit. (Also, it screws my own personal dream of Airport Drive south of here becoming a freeway in the future  )

[cpzilliacus]

However, I do not think there are any fjords in Virginia.

Only because they didn't hire Slartibartfast to design the state...

:-)

Though famed road tunnel designer, engineer and Norwegian Ole Singstad did work on the designs of the Commonwealth's Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel and late in his life, the Big Walker Mountain Tunnel (he died before Big Walker Mountain opened to traffic).  He may also have worked on the design of the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel, but I am not certain about that.

[Beltway]

I went to the design public hearing and filled out a comment form and said that I oppose removing those two loops.  The weaving lanes IMO are long enough a cloverleaf is still adequate.  The ultimate plan is to widen I-64 to 6 lanes between Airport Drive and I-295 and to provide a continuous 6 lanes on I-64 thru the area, and if they don't like the Airport Drive cloverleaf then there should be room for C-D lanes on I-64 thru that interchange.

I have mixed feelings about this project. Usually I feel like a parclo is an improvement over a cloverleaf in most cases but in this particular situation I'm not so sure because of the railroad crossing here. A signal between the interchange and that crossing might complicate things a bit.

A cloverleaf with adequate merge lanes is well superior to a design that requires signals, two in this case.  I have serious issues with the "get rid of cloverleafs" movement.  Even short merge lanes can work adequately if they connect to C-D lanes and not the mainline.

[plain]

I went to the design public hearing and filled out a comment form and said that I oppose removing those two loops.  The weaving lanes IMO are long enough a cloverleaf is still adequate.  The ultimate plan is to widen I-64 to 6 lanes between Airport Drive and I-295 and to provide a continuous 6 lanes on I-64 thru the area, and if they don't like the Airport Drive cloverleaf then there should be room for C-D lanes on I-64 thru that interchange.

I have mixed feelings about this project. Usually I feel like a parclo is an improvement over a cloverleaf in most cases but in this particular situation I'm not so sure because of the railroad crossing here. A signal between the interchange and that crossing might complicate things a bit.

A cloverleaf with adequate merge lanes is well superior to a design that requires signals, two in this case.  I have serious issues with the "get rid of cloverleafs" movement.  Even short merge lanes can work adequately if they connect to C-D lanes and not the mainline.

Well, that's the thing...

Many cloverleafs, especially close-in urban, does indeed lack extended merge areas (most of the ones along VA 150 for example) which in those cases a parclo would be better. For large cloverleafs (like along I-295), the full clover is better, most of the time.

With this particular interchange on I-64, I could see the reasoning for a parclo given the fact that the added permanent lane on 64 WB originates from the loop ramp from the airport (instead of the ramp from Highland Springs).

[plain]

https://wtvr.com/2018/08/16/abnormal-sound-prompts-weight-restriction-inspection-at-norris-bridge/

I would say a 3-ton weight limit is pretty substantial, especially on a crossing as important as the Norris Bridge!

[cpzilliacus]

https://wtvr.com/2018/08/16/abnormal-sound-prompts-weight-restriction-inspection-at-norris-bridge/

I would say a 3-ton weight limit is pretty substantial, especially on a crossing as important as the Norris Bridge!

I think it is time for the Commonwealth to figure out a way to fund the replacement of this crossing, given the (long) distance of detour required if it is not available to counties on the eastern end of the Northern Neck (Lancaster and Northumberland).  I was not aware that it is classified as a "fracture critical" structure until reading the linked report above.

[Beltway]

https://wtvr.com/2018/08/16/abnormal-sound-prompts-weight-restriction-inspection-at-norris-bridge/
I would say a 3-ton weight limit is pretty substantial, especially on a crossing as important as the Norris Bridge!

I think it is time for the Commonwealth to figure out a way to fund the replacement of this crossing, given the (long) distance of detour required if it is not available to counties on the eastern end of the Northern Neck (Lancaster and Northumberland).  I was not aware that it is classified as a "fracture critical" structure until reading the linked report above.

That may be incorrect.  In any event, there was a lot of construction equipment on the bridge for a repaving operation.  The weight limits should be restored back to normal in a few days.

[froggie]

There was a lot of construction equipment on the I-35W bridge too when it went down...

[1995hoo]

When we went over the Norris Bridge on July 30, they were repaving and doing something with the barriers on the sides–there were what I'd describe as temporary wooden fences on each side of the roadway, at least on the northern half. Very odd-looking.

[Beltway]

There was a lot of construction equipment on the I-35W bridge too when it went down...

That was a major part of what caused the collapse --

Collapse of I-35W Highway Bridge
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/HAR0803.aspx

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota, was the inadequate load capacity, due to a design error by Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc., of the gusset plates at the U10 nodes, which failed under a combination of (1) substantial increases in the weight of the bridge, which resulted from previous bridge modifications, and (2) the traffic and concentrated construction loads on the bridge on the day of the collapse.  Contributing to the design error was the failure of Sverdrup & Parcel's quality control procedures to ensure that the appropriate main truss gusset plate calculations were performed for the I-35W bridge and the inadequate design review by Federal and State transportation officials.  Contributing to the accident was the generally accepted practice among Federal and State transportation officials of giving inadequate attention to gusset plates during inspections for conditions of distortion, such as bowing, and of excluding gusset plates in load rating analyses.

[cpzilliacus]

That may be incorrect.  In any event, there was a lot of construction equipment on the bridge for a repaving operation.  The weight limits should be restored back to normal in a few days.

Even if tolls have to be charged, I think the time may have come to replace this structure. It seems to have had some sort of construction or repair work going on every time I drive that way (which is not very often). 

I remember crossing it as a child when there was a toll to cross (might have been 50¢ or maybe $1 back then).  The very modest toll barrier was at the north end of the structure.

[plain]

The bridge will have to be replaced sometime in the next 15-20 years given the issues it has, but finding the money to do so will be challenging (VDOT is already set to spend $3 billion+ on the HRBT expansion). And yes, tolls will almost certainly be a must.

This is what states with very expensive infrastructure like Maryland and Virginia has to deal with constantly (Maryland didn't remove much of its tolls like Virginia did, though).

[BrianP]

The bridge will have to be replaced sometime in the next 15-20 years given the issues it has, but finding the money to do so will be challenging (VDOT is already set to spend $3 billion+ on the HRBT expansion). And yes, tolls will almost certainly be a must.

This is what states with very expensive infrastructure like Maryland and Virginia has to deal with constantly (Maryland didn't remove much of its tolls like Virginia did, though).

One analogous toll free situation in Maryland would be replacing the MD 4 bridge over the Patuxent River.  This bridge is not as old.  The upgrade is needed for lack of capacity.  But it does have an alternative that is an extra 50 miles long. 
http://apps.roads.maryland.gov/WebProjectLifeCycle/ProjectInformation.aspx?projectno=SM3511118

Of course the analogous tolled situation would be the US 301 Potomac River bridge. 

[Beltway]

[VA-3 Robert O. Norris Bridge]

Even if tolls have to be charged, I think the time may have come to replace this structure. It seems to have had some sort of construction or repair work going on every time I drive that way (which is not very often). 

Just the two recent rehab projects, repainting and servicing the truss structure, and repaving the roadway.

I remember crossing it as a child when there was a toll to cross (might have been 50¢ or maybe $1 back then).  The very modest toll barrier was at the north end of the structure.

The bridge cost something like $15 million to build in 1957.  We're looking at something like $200 million today to build a 2.2 mile 2-lane high level bridge.  I would opt for system preseravtion on this bridge.

[cpzilliacus]

The bridge will have to be replaced sometime in the next 15-20 years given the issues it has, but finding the money to do so will be challenging (VDOT is already set to spend $3 billion+ on the HRBT expansion). And yes, tolls will almost certainly be a must.

This is what states with very expensive infrastructure like Maryland and Virginia has to deal with constantly (Maryland didn't remove much of its tolls like Virginia did, though).

One analogous toll free situation in Maryland would be replacing the MD 4 bridge over the Patuxent River.  This bridge is not as old.  The upgrade is needed for lack of capacity.  But it does have an alternative that is an extra 50 miles long. 
http://apps.roads.maryland.gov/WebProjectLifeCycle/ProjectInformation.aspx?projectno=SM3511118

Of course the analogous tolled situation would be the US 301 Potomac River bridge.

The Thomas Johnson Bridge should be twinned or replaced for the operational reasons you mention.  I have never been  stuck there, though I have gotten  stuck in massive backups at the the U.S. 301 Harry W. Nice Bridge more than once - for construction as well as for crashes or a disabled vehicle. 

[Beltway]

I see this project is now under construction.  It is in the VDOT Six-Year Program but is locally adminstered so the contract was awarded by the City of Richmond.  The segment is 0.7 miles of 4-lane undivided arterial and will be widened in part to 5 lanes and in part to 4 lanes divided.  The segment is accident prone mainly due to not having a left turn lane.  There was some controversy as about 20 homeowners will lose part of their front yards.  I live 1/2 mile from here on another local street.

Forest Hill Avenue Improvement Project
http://www.richmondgov.com/PublicWorks/ForestHillImprovementProject.aspx

Quotes:

The city is currently developing construction plans for the Forest Hill Avenue Improvements project from the Powhite Parkway to Hathaway Road.  The goal for the project is to provide multimodal improvements through the corridor to improve safety and enhance livability along Forest Hill Avenue.

Federal funds will pay for the total project estimated to cost $12 million.
The current design phase is estimated to cost about $2 million.
Utility relocation and right of way is estimated at $1.5 million.
Construction will cost approximately $8.5 million.

Forest Hill Avenue is an urban minor arterial road serving regional traffic and the surrounding neighborhoods and the surrounding businesses.  It connects two major limited access highways, the Powhite Parkway and Chippenham Parkway and includes a significant business corridor.  The busy roadway carries and average daily traffic volume in excess of 33,000 vehicles (2009) and design year traffic of 44,400 vpd (2030).  Traffic projections severely impact safety and accessibility if no improvements are made.  With the recommended enhancements, the new roadway will provide a safe, multi-modal corridor for all users and improve livability.

Satellite-View Map
http://www.richmondgov.com/PublicWorks/images/mapForestHillProject.jpg
....

FOREST HILL AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS
http://syip.virginiadot.org/Pages/lineitemDetails.aspx?syp_scenario_id=244&line_item_id=37328
....

Forest Hill Avenue Improvement Project Lane Closures Start August 20th
https://rvahub.com/2018/08/17/forest-hill-avenue-improvement-project-lane-closures-start-august-20th/

[WillWeaverRVA]

I see this project is now under construction.  It is in the VDOT Six-Year Program but is locally adminstered so the contract was awarded by the City of Richmond.  The segment is 0.7 miles of 4-lane undivided arterial and will be widened in part to 5 lanes and in part to 4 lanes divided.  The segment is accident prone mainly due to not having a left turn lane.  There was some controversy as about 20 homeowners will lose part of their front yards.  I live 1/2 mile from here on another local street.

Forest Hill Avenue Improvement Project
http://www.richmondgov.com/PublicWorks/ForestHillImprovementProject.aspx

Quotes:

The city is currently developing construction plans for the Forest Hill Avenue Improvements project from the Powhite Parkway to Hathaway Road.  The goal for the project is to provide multimodal improvements through the corridor to improve safety and enhance livability along Forest Hill Avenue.

Federal funds will pay for the total project estimated to cost $12 million.
The current design phase is estimated to cost about $2 million.
Utility relocation and right of way is estimated at $1.5 million.
Construction will cost approximately $8.5 million.

Forest Hill Avenue is an urban minor arterial road serving regional traffic and the surrounding neighborhoods and the surrounding businesses.  It connects two major limited access highways, the Powhite Parkway and Chippenham Parkway and includes a significant business corridor.  The busy roadway carries and average daily traffic volume in excess of 33,000 vehicles (2009) and design year traffic of 44,400 vpd (2030).  Traffic projections severely impact safety and accessibility if no improvements are made.  With the recommended enhancements, the new roadway will provide a safe, multi-modal corridor for all users and improve livability.

Satellite-View Map
http://www.richmondgov.com/PublicWorks/images/mapForestHillProject.jpg
....

FOREST HILL AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS
http://syip.virginiadot.org/Pages/lineitemDetails.aspx?syp_scenario_id=244&line_item_id=37328
....

Forest Hill Avenue Improvement Project Lane Closures Start August 20th
https://rvahub.com/2018/08/17/forest-hill-avenue-improvement-project-lane-closures-start-august-20th/

I remember the many, many "S.O.S. - Save Our Street!" signs in front yards along this stretch. Unfortunately for them, these improvements are sorely needed and have been for a while now.

[Beltway]

Forest Hill Avenue Improvement Project Lane Closures Start August 20th

I remember the many, many "S.O.S. - Save Our Street!" signs in front yards along this stretch. Unfortunately for them, these improvements are sorely needed and have been for a while now.

The utility relocations look almost complete.  Poles and overhead lines moved back.  Long and very tedious construction of a new natural gas line under Forest Hill Avenue with the trenching and placement and backfilling and repaving.  The new natural gas line work has proceeded westward and now has passed beyond where WalMart is, and the contractor has been very slow and the work has taken a year and a half and the lane closures have really caused ongoing traffic congestion although normally not closed in peak hours.

[plain]

Forest Hill Avenue Improvement Project Lane Closures Start August 20th

I remember the many, many "S.O.S. - Save Our Street!" signs in front yards along this stretch. Unfortunately for them, these improvements are sorely needed and have been for a while now.

The utility relocations look almost complete.  Poles and overhead lines moved back.  Long and very tedious construction of a new natural gas line under Forest Hill Avenue with the trenching and placement and backfilling and repaving.  The new natural gas line work has proceeded westward and now has passed beyond where WalMart is, and the contractor has been very slow and the work has taken a year and a half and the lane closures have really caused ongoing traffic congestion although normally not closed in peak hours.

I was just about to say I thought they started this last year. They really seem to be dragging their heels with this project (though the rain didn't help things at all either).

[WillWeaverRVA]

Forest Hill Avenue Improvement Project Lane Closures Start August 20th

I remember the many, many "S.O.S. - Save Our Street!" signs in front yards along this stretch. Unfortunately for them, these improvements are sorely needed and have been for a while now.

The utility relocations look almost complete.  Poles and overhead lines moved back.  Long and very tedious construction of a new natural gas line under Forest Hill Avenue with the trenching and placement and backfilling and repaving.  The new natural gas line work has proceeded westward and now has passed beyond where WalMart is, and the contractor has been very slow and the work has taken a year and a half and the lane closures have really caused ongoing traffic congestion although normally not closed in peak hours.

The segment of Forest Hill Avenue by the Walmart has been pretty hairy during rush hour as of late, mainly due to people changing lanes at the last minute to avoid driving over steel plates. I go this way during my commute home, and it's definitely proven really annoying how slowly the contractor has been working on this project.

[mtantillo]

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/i-64_bridge_replacements_over_airport_dr..asp
VDOT wants to rebuild the I-64 bridges over VA 156 (Exit 197 Airport Drive). But more importantly they will also convert the existing cloverleaf interchange there into a Parclo interchange.

I went to the design public hearing and filled out a comment form and said that I oppose removing those two loops.  The weaving lanes IMO are long enough a cloverleaf is still adequate.  The ultimate plan is to widen I-64 to 6 lanes between Airport Drive and I-295 and to provide a continuous 6 lanes on I-64 thru the area, and if they don't like the Airport Drive cloverleaf then there should be room for C-D lanes on I-64 thru that interchange.

I have mixed feelings about this project. Usually I feel like a parclo is an improvement over a cloverleaf in most cases but in this particular situation I'm not so sure because of the railroad crossing here. A signal between the interchange and that crossing might complicate things a bit. (Also, it screws my own personal dream of Airport Drive south of here becoming a freeway in the future  )

I attended a session at the VASITE conference in Virginia Beach back in June that discussed cloverleaf removals. Believe it or not, sometime removing a cloverleaf and pushing traffic through a signal can actually increase the capacity of the roadway network by allowing the ramp movements to be multi-lane. Also, it is far, far, far safer for two groups of users: 1) non-motorized users....peds, bikes. They have a hard time crossing cloverleaf ramps as people drive pretty fast on those ramps. The days of designing solely for cars are over. 2) Those who need to immediately cross all the lanes...those people who enter the cross road on the right at speed and need to make a left soon thereafter will be forced to cut across lots of lanes. If they have the signal or even if they make a right on red, they're doing so at very low speed which gives more time to make lane changes to the left.

The one performance measure that suffers with signalized ramps is travel time for those entering or exiting. But VDOT seemed okay with the idea of increasing travel time if it would increase system capacity and improve safety. Most drivers only encounter one or two places on a trip where they exit or enter a highway, while they encounter many signals on arterials that they travel straight through. Thus it is better to prioritize the through movements at the expense of the ramp or side streets, as overall it will lead to more efficient traffic flow.

I was skeptical when i went into this presentation, but was sold after it was over. The authors made a convincing argument and had numbers to back it up.

[Rothman]

*skeptical*