Virginia

[froggie]

In some ways, it has.  For example, the completed segments of 295 around Fayetteville are signed as NC 295 instead of an Interstate in part because they built substandard shoulder widths into some of the bridges (in particular the Cape Fear River bridge).

[LM117]

In some ways, it has.  For example, the completed segments of 295 around Fayetteville are signed as NC 295 instead of an Interstate in part because they built substandard shoulder widths into some of the bridges (in particular the Cape Fear River bridge).

FHWA apparently granted waivers because according to FHWA's interstate logs, it's officially an interstate. Whether the signs have been changed yet, I don't know.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table02.cfm

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table03.cfm

[sprjus4]

In some ways, it has.  For example, the completed segments of 295 around Fayetteville are signed as NC 295 instead of an Interstate in part because they built substandard shoulder widths into some of the bridges (in particular the Cape Fear River bridge).

FHWA apparently granted waivers because according to FHWA's interstate logs, it's officially an interstate. Whether the signs have been changed yet, I don't know.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table02.cfm

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table03.cfm

Last I was there a few months back, it was still NC-295.

I think NCDOT is waiting until it reconnects back to I-95 to sign it as I-295.

The official interstate standards do state that bridges over 200 ft in length can have 4 ft shoulders. So technically, I-295 does meet interstate standards. It's a preference in most cases to carry the 10 ft shoulder over bridges, but it is not required.

[plain]

It would be nice to see it 8-laned, but that would be pretty involved especially at the historic Sixth Mt. Zion Baptist Church.

I've thought about that as well. Since VDOT is thinking about creating a half-diamond on the NB side at US 1/301 (per their study), maybe they could do it on the SB side as well, though both cases may create a clusterfuck on Belvidere St. But at least this way the entire existing cross section by Mt. Zion Church can be utilized better for through traffic for 95 and 64 without the need for further widening. All that would need to be done here is a reconstruction of the Chamberlayne Pkwy overpass.

If not a full 8 lane 95/64 overlap then VDOT could create long auxiliary lanes between Exit 76 and Exit 78, but then again that would force I-64 traffic into the #3 lane at each end of this.

[1995hoo]

https://twitter.com/vadot/status/1150766678827053056?s=21

It seems like this survey is less about improving I-95 and more about convincing drivers to switch to mass transit. That might be fine if your destination was the DC Metro Area, Hampton Roads, or some other metropolitan area seeking such a network, but it has nothing to do with those driving from the deep south to the northeast.

And I was ready for the chance to advocate reviving I-95 through DC. 

I didn't look at the survey, I just posted the tweet here because I thought it might interest someone. Frankly, I had forgotten about it until just now. The date of my post with the embedded tweet–July 15–was the day before my father's funeral Mass, so as you can imagine I've been focused on other matters for the past few weeks.

[NE2]

Hey VDOT, how about not giving Amazon free advertising?

[AlexandriaVA]

VDOT's about to have a whole lot more $$ to spend, thanks to Amazon

Incidentally, most of the projects in the neighborhood which will house Amazon, Crystal City (now known as "National Landing" but I say it should be called "Amazon City") are road deconstructions/lane reductions (being performed by Arlington County, not VDOT).

[sprjus4]

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/071819%20TPO%20Action%20Summary.pdf

Work on the I-64 Southside Widening project, including the High-Rise Bridge, was halted in June due to permitting issues. It is unclear how the shutdown will affect the schedule.

Wonder how long this will last...

[sprjus4]

I-64 widening east of Richmond between Exits 200 and 205 appears to almost be completed... the project schedule says it will be done by the end of the year, but judging by this traffic camera, and driving through there last week, it could be open as early as August or September.



It appears this widening did not add a full left shoulder unlike the other ones, only 4 ft.

[plain]

I-64 widening east of Richmond between Exits 200 and 205 appears to almost be completed... the project schedule says it will be done by the end of the year, but judging by this traffic camera, and driving through there last week, it could be open as early as August or September.



It appears this widening did not add a full left shoulder unlike the other ones, only 4 ft.

I went through yesterday evening en route to the Williamsburg area. The bridges over the Chickahominy River doesn't seem as advanced timeline-wise as the rest of the project, most likely this will determine when the whole thing opens up.

Also of note: there now appears to be APL's on the WB side approaching the I-295 interchange. I'll try to check them out tomorrow on my way back to Richmond if traffic is looking good.



Also and as an aside: US 60 between Busch Gardens and Newport News (the 2-lane section) is finally being repaved.

[Beltway]

I-64 widening east of Richmond between Exits 200 and 205 appears to almost be completed... the project schedule says it will be done by the end of the year, but judging by this traffic camera, and driving through there last week, it could be open as early as August or September.
It appears this widening did not add a full left shoulder unlike the other ones, only 4 ft.

It didn't and I don't know why; probably what I would call a "local design decision", where the designer didn't look at the big picture.  This section was one of the ones planned for 8 lanes but that is not a justification.  I was wondering when someone else would notice this.

The widening segments east of VA-199 are all getting full left shoulders.

[sprjus4]

I-64 widening east of Richmond between Exits 200 and 205 appears to almost be completed... the project schedule says it will be done by the end of the year, but judging by this traffic camera, and driving through there last week, it could be open as early as August or September.
It appears this widening did not add a full left shoulder unlike the other ones, only 4 ft.

It didn't and I don't know why; probably what I would call a "local design decision", where the designer didn't look at the big picture.  This section was one of the ones planned for 8 lanes but that is not a justification.  I was wondering when someone else would notice this.

The widening segments east of VA-199 are all getting full left shoulders.

If it is indeed planned for 8-lanes, my guess would be this widening is simply acting as an "auxiliary lane" between I-295 (Exit 200) and VA-249 (Exit 205), not a thru travel lane, which in that case wouldn't need a full left shoulder. The 8-lane widening would actually add a third thru travel lane, and allow it to have 3 GP lanes + 1 auxiliary lane each way.

But then again, the I-95 northbound widening in the same district north of I-295 to 4-lanes also only got a 4 foot left shoulder... so I don't know. Maybe Richmond district doesn't have a big thing for left shoulders?

Once the full 6-lanes from Hampton Roads reaches here, there will likely need to be -another- thru travel lane added through this segment, unless they'll some how tie it into this widening, removing that auxiliary lane scenario. The ultimate goal of 3 thru travel lanes and 1 auxiliary lane each way in this segment though seems it would work the best as opposed to 3 thru travel lanes and no auxiliary lane.

Either way, full shoulder or not, once this "auxiliary lane" opens to traffic in this segment, hopefully it will relieve this heavily congested segment. I think it's safe to say this is probably one of the worst remaining 4-lane segments between I-295 and Williamsburg. I usually have no problems traveling the rural stretch (well, it's packed and needs 6-lanes, but it generally maintains 60 - 70 mph) but find myself taking US-60 a lot to avoid this particular section due to reported congestion.

[sprjus4]

Also of note: there now appears to be APL's on the WB side approaching the I-295 interchange. I'll try to check them out tomorrow on my way back to Richmond if traffic is looking good.

That's correct, it is APL signage. It was posted sometime late June to replace the traditional signage that was there previously.

[D-Dey65]

Regarding rest areas, given trucker time/rest requirements and the general lack of truck parking in many states and metropolitan areas, I'd argue that preservation of existing rest areas should continue in order to provide such truck parking.

It's not just "commercial services" that drives the need for such facilities.

Knowing this, do you think there should be an extra parking area for RV's separate from the truck parking area along the southbound Ladysmith I-95 rest area, just like the northbound one?

https://www.google.com/maps/place/38°01'03.0%22N+77°30'55.1%22W/@37.9824275,-77.4983525,1828m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d38.0175!4d-77.5153?hl=en

[Beltway]

Probably what I would call a "local design decision", where the designer didn't look at the big picture.  This section was one of the ones planned for 8 lanes but that is not a justification.  I was wondering when someone else would notice this.
The widening segments east of VA-199 are all getting full left shoulders.

If it is indeed planned for 8-lanes, my guess would be this widening is simply acting as an "auxiliary lane" between I-295 (Exit 200) and VA-249 (Exit 205), not a thru travel lane, which in that case wouldn't need a full left shoulder. The 8-lane widening would actually add a third thru travel lane, and allow it to have 3 GP lanes + 1 auxiliary lane each way.

I can't imagine an auxiliary lane 5 miles long.  The ultimate 8 lanes is a function of the high projected volumes east of I-295 to VA-156.  Ultimately I-64 will be widened to 6 lanes between VA-156 and I-295.

The recent widening of I-64 west of I-295 got 12-foot left shoulders.

But then again, the I-95 northbound widening in the same district north of I-295 to 4-lanes also only got a 4 foot left shoulder... so I don't know. Maybe Richmond district doesn't have a big thing for left shoulders?

That is only 0.7 mile of the NBL, so I wouldn't use that as any prevailing practice.

[sprjus4]

I can't imagine an auxiliary lane 5 miles long.

When you actually look at the distance between the ramp gores, it's only 3 miles.

I would say it's an auxiliary lane just based on the way it's signed, the way there's two thru lanes and one lane connecting the two interchanges. If it wasn't an auxiliary lane, it would've been done the way it was done in Hampton Roads where the 3rd lane continued past the interchange and then drops off from the left. Instead, it's designed so the new lane and the existing inside lane continue as thru lanes, and the outside lanes becomes exit only.

It's an auxiliary lane setup at least now.

[Alps]

I can't imagine an auxiliary lane 5 miles long.

When you actually look at the distance between the ramp gores, it's only 3 miles.

I would say it's an auxiliary lane just based on the way it's signed, the way there's two thru lanes and one lane connecting the two interchanges. If it wasn't an auxiliary lane, it would've been done the way it was done in Hampton Roads where the 3rd lane continued past the interchange and then drops off from the left. Instead, it's designed so the new lane and the existing inside lane continue as thru lanes, and the outside lanes becomes exit only.

It's an auxiliary lane setup at least now.

As per the AASHTO Green Book, something more than 2 miles long is a travel lane, not an auxiliary lane. This is based on interchange signing starting 2 miles prior with the first advance sign. Therefore, it's a travel lane and requires a full shoulder.

[Beltway]

I can't imagine an auxiliary lane 5 miles long.

When you actually look at the distance between the ramp gores, it's only 3 miles.
I would say it's an auxiliary lane just based on the way it's signed, the way there's two thru lanes and one lane connecting the two interchanges. If it wasn't an auxiliary lane, it would've been done the way it was done in Hampton Roads where the 3rd lane continued past the interchange and then drops off from the left. Instead, it's designed so the new lane and the existing inside lane continue as thru lanes, and the outside lanes becomes exit only.

The inside 3rd lane widening continues to just east of VA-249 at Bottoms Bridge and then ends temporarily.  When the 3rd lane is extended eastward in future projects none will be considered auxiliary.

Fixed typo as VA-249 was written as VA-149.  -Mark

[Beltway]

As per the AASHTO Green Book, something more than 2 miles long is a travel lane, not an auxiliary lane. This is based on interchange signing starting 2 miles prior with the first advance sign. Therefore, it's a travel lane and requires a full shoulder.

Cases like this, I would suspect to be a "local design decision", that was not caught and overridden by the design reviewers in Central Office. 

[froggie]

From the above-referenced camera image, looks like it will still have a full right shoulder.

Also, unless Interstate design standards have changed since 2005, a left shoulder of 10 feet is recommended on 6+ lane Interstates, but only 4 feet is required.

[Beltway]

From the above-referenced camera image, looks like it will still have a full right shoulder.
Also, unless Interstate design standards have changed since 2005, a left shoulder of 10 feet is recommended on 6+ lane Interstates, but only 4 feet is required.

They probably haven't, but full left shoulders have been the normal standard since the 1970s on Interstate roadways with 3 or more lanes. 

Why have shoulder standards if they can be easily waived, especially on a median that has ample space for full left shoulders?

[famartin]

From the above-referenced camera image, looks like it will still have a full right shoulder.
Also, unless Interstate design standards have changed since 2005, a left shoulder of 10 feet is recommended on 6+ lane Interstates, but only 4 feet is required.

They probably haven't, but full left shoulders have been the normal standard since the 1970s on Interstate roadways with 3 or more lanes. 

Why have shoulder standards if they can be easily waived, especially on a median that has ample space for full left shoulders?

While I see the advantage to left shoulders, honestly I think they sometimes encourage people to pull off there too much, which is more of a safety hazard than doing so on the right shoulder.

[Beltway]

While I see the advantage to left shoulders, honestly I think they sometimes encourage people to pull off there too much, which is more of a safety hazard than doing so on the right shoulder.

The whole idea is that with 3 or more lanes it is difficult or impossible in heavy traffic to cross from the left lane to the right shoulder in heavy traffic.

I once had to fix a sudden flat, replace with the spare, on the grass median for that very reason.

[famartin]

While I see the advantage to left shoulders, honestly I think they sometimes encourage people to pull off there too much, which is more of a safety hazard than doing so on the right shoulder.

The whole idea is that with 3 or more lanes it is difficult or impossible in heavy traffic to cross from the left lane to the right shoulder in heavy traffic.

I once had to fix a sudden flat, replace with the spare, on the grass median for that very reason.

Hence their advantage. However, I've seen people do that to text or call someone or just check maps, which really should be avoided.

[sprjus4]

They probably haven't, but full left shoulders have been the normal standard since the 1970s on Interstate roadways with 3 or more lanes.

I-464 doesn't have a full left shoulder and it was built in the late 80s. The 6-lane stretch of I-264 near the Oceanfront that was widened in the 80s doesn't have a full left shoulder either. Granted, it was still the VA-44 toll road then, but if they were strict about shoulders, they would have widened them to 10 ft upon being designated I-264.

Why have shoulder standards if they can be easily waived, especially on a median that has ample space for full left shoulders?

It's kind of the same thing with bridges. Bridges over 200 ft in length are allowed to have a reduced shoulder of 4 ft on both sides.

Again, most states will still go forward in build full shoulders either way, especially on busier highways, but it's not required.