Virginia

[sprjus4]

That would be fantastically expensive for little gain.

The road carries close to 100,000 AADT. That could be close to 200,000 AADT in 20 years, which would warrant more capacity. It's a waste now, but it might be needed in 20 years, if traffic does increase.

The next Hampton Roads tunnel project will be to expand I-664 with two more 2-lane tubes, and to build the I-564 bridge-tunnel to I-664.

Most likely going in the order. If an HRBT got expanded again, that would beyond these projects, and if capacity warrants it. I'm now seeing that either way, the existing project would satisfy that. If an HRBT was to be expanded to 8 GP + 4 HO/T, that could be satisfied by the existing tunnels being 4 HO/T, the proposed 2 new tunnels here being split 4 to 2+2 GP like the Fort McHenry Tunnel is, then build another 2 two-lane tunnels.

http://hamptonroadscrossingstudy.org/documents/2017/fseis_appendix_b_alts_mapping.pdf
This is an interesting document. It shows schematics on how all of I-664 would be 8-laned, new tunnels, the I-564 Connector, etc. would be built. For the I-664 expansion, it shows two 2-lane tunnels for all general purpose, then a 4-lane bridge. It would split like the Fort McHenry Tunnel does. One option also shows this, plus a 2 lane tunnel for HO/T.

[Alps]

That would be fantastically expensive for little gain.

The road carries close to 100,000 AADT. That could be close to 200,000 AADT in 20 years, which would warrant more capacity. It's a waste now, but it might be needed in 20 years, if traffic does increase.

The next Hampton Roads tunnel project will be to expand I-664 with two more 2-lane tubes, and to build the I-564 bridge-tunnel to I-664.

Most likely going in the order. If an HRBT got expanded again, that would beyond these projects, and if capacity warrants it. I'm now seeing that either way, the existing project would satisfy that. If an HRBT was to be expanded to 8 GP + 4 HO/T, that could be satisfied by the existing tunnels being 4 HO/T, the proposed 2 new tunnels here being split 4 to 2+2 GP like the Fort McHenry Tunnel is, then build another 2 two-lane tunnels.

http://hamptonroadscrossingstudy.org/documents/2017/fseis_appendix_b_alts_mapping.pdf
This is an interesting document. It shows schematics on how all of I-664 would be 8-laned, new tunnels, the I-564 Connector, etc. would be built. For the I-664 expansion, it shows two 2-lane tunnels for all general purpose, then a 4-lane bridge. It would split like the Fort McHenry Tunnel does. One option also shows this, plus a 2 lane tunnel for HO/T.

Not to intervene between you two lovebirds, but "close to 100,000" right now (let's say 90,000), in 20 years at any reasonable growth rate, is only getting up to about 135,000. What you're also losing in this is that I-64 is still a constraint and will continue to be more and more of one. Traffic leaving the 7 cities wants to head northwest. Not northeast, not due west, northwest. I-64 needs to be at least 4 lanes each way from Richmond to Norfolk to consider adding multiple tubes at all of the crossings. Otherwise, all you're doing is backing people up from Williamsburg instead of at several intermediate points.

[sprjus4]

Not to intervene between you two lovebirds

Aren't you the mod who told us to stop name calling? 

but "close to 100,000" right now (let's say 90,000), in 20 years at any reasonable growth rate, is only getting up to about 135,000. What you're also losing in this is that I-64 is still a constraint and will continue to be more and more of one. Traffic leaving the 7 cities wants to head northwest. Not northeast, not due west, northwest. I-64 needs to be at least 4 lanes each way from Richmond to Norfolk to consider adding multiple tubes at all of the crossings. Otherwise, all you're doing is backing people up from Williamsburg instead of at several intermediate points.

Consider summer weekend traffic. That 100,000 number is already higher.

I-64 is 8-lanes between I-664 and Jefferson Ave (about 160,000 near I-664, then 120,000 near Jefferson). By 2021, it'll then be 3-lanes to VA-199, and by 2030, hopefully 6-lanes the entire distance between Williamsburg and I-295. Plans are to expand the recently done 6 lane section to 8 lanes up to Williamsburg in the future, which is about 90,000 - 100,000 AADT.

From Williamsburg northwards, 6-lanes will suffice, at about 60 - 70,000 AADT, could be up to 100,000 in 20 years. The expansion of the tubes combined with 4 lanes each way to Williamsburg or even to Jefferson today will be efficient.

I think it's a false statement to say all the traffic is heading northwest. There's a fair share of traffic that heads west on US-58 to I-95 and points south, or down US-17. It's not nearly as much as I-64 granted, but it's still there.

[Beltway]

Not to intervene between you two lovebirds, but "close to 100,000" right now (let's say 90,000), in 20 years at any reasonable growth rate, is only getting up to about 135,000. What you're also losing in this is that I-64 is still a constraint and will continue to be more and more of one. Traffic leaving the 7 cities wants to head northwest. Not northeast, not due west, northwest. I-64 needs to be at least 4 lanes each way from Richmond to Norfolk to consider adding multiple tubes at all of the crossings. Otherwise, all you're doing is backing people up from Williamsburg instead of at several intermediate points.

I-64 thru lower Hampton will have a tough time being widened to 8 lanes although it is possible.  I can't see it ever being wider than that; just look at Google Maps aerial to see the constraints and impacts to creeks, the environment and the residential areas.

Future cross-harbor expansion needs to be focused on I-664 widening and I-564 extension, and that is currently in the long-range plan.
 

[NE2]

There's a fair share of traffic that heads west on US-58 to I-95 and points south, or down US-17.

About 2 (trips, not percent) of that traffic goes down US 17 and then turns west on US 64 all the way to Raleigh.

[sprjus4]

About 2 (trips, not percent) of that traffic goes down US 17 and then turns west on US 64 all the way to Raleigh.

I said "down U.S. 17". Where did I mention "U.S. 64"? 

Coming up with things out of your head, trying to attack a completely different subject. Good job 

[Alps]

About 2 (trips, not percent) of that traffic goes down US 17 and then turns west on US 64 all the way to Raleigh.

I said "down U.S. 17". Where did I mention "U.S. 64"? 

Coming up with things out of your head, trying to attack a completely different subject. Good job 

Yup! I, for one, appreciate the I-87 allusion. Just for the lulz.

[LM117]

A proposed project to relocate the Shula Drive intersection on US-29 in northern Pittsylvania County just got a big bump.

(Behind paywall)

https://www.godanriver.com/news/pittsylvania_county/in-northern-end-of-county-road-project-to-relocate-crash/article_ec03d42c-356c-11e9-85a4-8bb79fe8c5e0.html

HURT – Over the past four years of living in their home, Steve and Vanessa Coffey said they've woken up in the middle of the night to the screams of people who have wrecked at the intersection of Shula Drive and U.S. 29 in northern Pittsylvania County, calling out for their children.

The intersection is less than a tenth of a mile from their house along Highwayview Road – the road that connects to the dangerous intersection. The couple said crashes "happen all the time."

It's a high-speed road with multiple vehicle turning onto it.

"From the time we moved down here, we've seen numerous crashes,"  said Vanessa Coffey. Including several where people are killed, she added.

Steve Coffey said, "Some aren't reported. We see the ones that spin out and then just pull out and keep driving."

Due to the significant number of wrecks – 21 in the seven years leading up to 2017 – at the intersections, talks in 2016 with the Virginia Department of Transportation led to the development of a plan to redesign and relocate the intersection.

However, without the funds for the $4.7 million project, the department settled on more feasible options like placing flashing caution signs at the intersection.

Now, the proposed Shula Drive intersection relocation project is in the running to be fully funded after receiving the second highest SmartScale score – the state system used to prioritize proposed road projects – in the district as they decide on what projects to prioritize for the 2020 fiscal year.

After review by VDOT, the Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment, and Department of Rail and Public Transportation, the Shula Drive project made the third round of recommended draft funding scenarios.

"This particular project is relocating further downstream to increase spacing and improve safety through turning movements and relocating traffic downstream,"  said Lynchburg District Planning Manager Rick Youngblood.

The Lynchburg District will receive $23.8 million to fund road projects for 2020, said Youngblood.

Because this is only a draft funding scenario, the money hasn't been guaranteed yet. The public involvement phase will be the next step.

Youngblood said a public meeting will be held in late March or early April where local government entities are invited to speak on behalf of their projects in front of VDOT and and Department of Rail and Public Transportation staff as well as the Commonwealth Transportation Board member – a 17-member state citizen board – for the district.

That citizen board will ultimately decide which projects are chosen for state funds.

To the Coffeys, the intersection is an issue of safety. Despite their close proximity to the intersection, they don't use it to access U.S. 29 or the area on the other side.

Vanessa Coffey said they prefer to drive an extra mile up to the overpass, where it's safer.

"We use the other one up there because of all the accidents over there,"  she said.

When he learned the project was finally in the running to receive funding, Steve Coffey said, "This is all a really good idea, and this is something that needs to be done."

Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors member Elton Blackstock, who represents the Staunton River district, said he was excited that the project could receive approval for the final funding.

"The community itself has in the past demanded changes, and we had a number of public meetings with public input,"  said Blackstock. "I think this is a result of all those meetings and public outcry."

With the caution lights in place, Blackstock said the implementation of the relocation would be the second phase of those conversations coming to fruition.

"I'm hoping that we would see less accidents and certainly fatalities at that intersection and help everyone who has been involved in that process,"  he said.

The Coffey's noted the northern end of Pittsylvania County is often forgotten when it comes to improvement projects and development.

Blackstock said Shula Drive's relocation would be one more project for the northern end accomplished, adding to things like the Wayside Park improvements, the Staunton River Regional Industrial Authority and the building of a new bridge between Altavista and Hurt.

The $33.4 million construction of a connector road to the Southern Virginia Mega Site at Berry Hill in Danville ranked third in the district to receive funding, requesting $30.9 million in funds through the SmartScale program.

Youngblood said if that project goes through, it will be funded through a separate pool of money from the district. Instead, those funds would come from a state pool as it received the highest economic development score in the state.

"That's how it received a justifiable score,"  he said.

Youngblood said at this stage in the process, it's the applicant's chance to voice their support.

"Being silent won't provide you any benefit,"  he said. "Now, you can have that dialogue with the appropriate staff representatives who will be the ultimate decision makers."

[sprjus4]

A proposed project to relocate the Shula Drive intersection on US-29 in northern Pittsylvania County just got a big bump.

(Behind paywall)

This is the plan for the project. It would be better in my opinion to also include a median acceleration lane for both of the offset intersections, to reduce crashes even more, similar to this one on US 17 at South Mills, NC.

Obviously, a full buildout would involve an overpass crossing US 29, though on a restricted budget, this is a good solution -for now-.

An overpass would likely involve a half mile of road relocated along with raising Shula Dr onto a two-lane, 300 feet long bridge over US 29 & the tracks. Likely a $10+ million project. It would also convert another 1 mile of US 29 into limited-access freeway.

[Beltway]

A proposed project to relocate the Shula Drive intersection on US-29 in northern Pittsylvania County just got a big bump.
(Behind paywall)

This is the plan for the project. It would be better in my opinion to also include a median acceleration lane for both of the offset intersections, to reduce crashes even more, similar to
Obviously, a full buildout would involve an overpass crossing US 29, though on a restricted budget, this is a good solution -for now-.
An overpass would likely involve a half mile of road relocated along with raising Shula Dr onto a two-lane, 300 feet long bridge over US 29 & the tracks. Likely a $10+ million project. It would also convert another 1 mile of US 29 into limited-access freeway.

So are they planning on keeping the existing intersection open?  Your overpass suggestion doesn't provide access to US-29, so presumably the existing crossover could be closed and RIRO ramps built at the current intersection.

[sprjus4]

So are they planning on keeping the existing intersection open?  Your overpass suggestion doesn't provide access to US-29, so presumably the existing crossover could be closed and RIRO ramps built at the current intersection.

With the current $4 million proposal, the western side would be closed off. The east side would stay open with a full-access T-intersection w/ US-29. The west side would be relocated to the plan I posted above. Two offset intersections to reduce conflict points.

With my overpass concept, for the interim, the entire intersection would remain in place, but with RIRO only, closing the median break. In the future, if US-29 is ever upgraded to a full freeway, the intersection would fully close. From my proposed overpass, the existing frontage road would provide access to a US-29 interchange for northerly access, and a future southerly frontage road if ever built would provide access to properties south of this intersection, likely leading to a southerly interchange at another location, allowing this one intersection to be fully closed.

Or, an interchange could be built at the overpass location in the future, however that would be a complex design, or would relocate US-29 slightly to the west.

Either way, with my concept, access would be provided one way or another, either via RIRO with the existing, or frontage roads with a full US-29 freeway build out.

[Beltway]

With the current $4 million proposal, the western side would be closed off. The east side would stay open with a full-access T-intersection w/ US-29. The west side would be relocated to the plan I posted above. Two offset intersections to reduce conflict points.
With my overpass concept, for the interim, the entire intersection would remain in place, but with RIRO only, closing the median break. In the future, if US-29 is ever upgraded to a full freeway, the intersection would fully close. From my proposed overpass, the existing frontage road would provide access to a US-29 interchange for northerly access, and a future southerly frontage road if ever built would provide access to properties south of this intersection, likely leading to a southerly interchange at another location, allowing this one intersection to be fully closed.

Proper RIRO would mean building 2 acceleration lanes and 2 deceleration lanes, and about 15 mph curves between the side road and the main road, and these lanes would need to be at least 600 feet long and preferably 1,000 feet long for smooth transition.

[sprjus4]

Proper RIRO would mean building 2 acceleration lanes and 2 deceleration lanes, and about 15 mph curves between the side road and the main road, and these lanes would need to be at least 600 feet long and preferably 1,000 feet long for smooth transition.

A full freeway upgrade would fully close the RIRO and intersection. Frontage roads (existing to the north, one would be built to the south) would lead to full interchanges providing access to US 29. If no freeway is built, and simply the overpass, a RIRO would work.

This design, used on the US-29 Danville Bypass (which is a freeway) could be used (the one on the south side, with basic turns, but acceleration lanes. Or, it could be straight up RIRO with no acceleration. That is also a common design, but the basic turn with acceleration (seen on the link above, south side) would be preferred. I'll draw a conceptual design tomorrow, along with how a freeway would work, etc.

[Beltway]

Proper RIRO would mean building 2 acceleration lanes and 2 deceleration lanes, and about 15 mph curves between the side road and the main road, and these lanes would need to be at least 600 feet long and preferably 1,000 feet long for smooth transition.

A full freeway upgrade would fully close the RIRO and intersection. Frontage roads (existing to the north, one would be built to the south) would lead to full interchanges providing access to US 29. If no freeway is built, and simply the overpass, a RIRO would work.
This design, used on the US-29 Danville Bypass (which is a freeway) could be used (the one on the south side, with basic turns, but acceleration lanes. Or, it could be straight up RIRO with no acceleration. That is also a common design, but the basic turn with acceleration (seen on the link above, south side) would be preferred. I'll draw a conceptual design tomorrow, along with how a freeway would work, etc.

If they are going to go to the effort of providing an overpass for the crossroad, then IMO they should consider that a freeway upgrade and at minimum construct the RIRO movements that I listed.  So that would be about 4,000 feet of 12-foot lane construction, plus channelization where the lane curves into the crossroad.

I have looked at the GMSV of the site, and it appears that when the Altavista-Hurt Bypass was built, that the southern connection to the pre-existing highway ran for about 3,500 feet south of the current Shula Drive intersection, reconstruction mostly along the pre-existing highway, with the limited access feature ending at that point (about 3,500 feet south of the current Shula Drive intersection). 

[VTGoose]

A proposed project to relocate the Shula Drive intersection on US-29 in northern Pittsylvania County just got a big bump.

(Behind paywall)

This is the plan for the project. It would be better in my opinion to also include a median acceleration lane for both of the offset intersections, to reduce crashes even more, similar to this one on US 17 at South Mills, NC.

Obviously, a full buildout would involve an overpass crossing US 29, though on a restricted budget, this is a good solution -for now-.

An overpass would likely involve a half mile of road relocated along with raising Shula Dr onto a two-lane, 300 feet long bridge over US 29 & the tracks. Likely a $10+ million project. It would also convert another 1 mile of US 29 into limited-access freeway.

VDOT sure likes its band-aids.

Of course, the tax-avoiding General Assembly doesn't help. I wonder if the people who see this "fix" are concerned that if the accident rate goes down then the intersection will be declared "safe" and no further improvements will be needed? The same thing happened here in Blacksburg, where N. Main Street connects to the U.S. 460 bypass. It is a bad intersection, with limited visibility to the east due to a grade in the bypass and with eastbound traffic coming down off a long, straight drop off Brush Mountain and into a curve. For years, residents and the local governments called for improvements due to the high number of accidents at the intersection. One solution was to build an overpass and interchange just east of the current intersection -- but that was too costly (and there was some VDOT/CTB maneuvering going on), so the solution everyone was stuck with was two R-cuts on either side of the intersection. It is cheap but not a total fix, there was just an accident at that intersection this week.

[jakeroot]

This is the plan for the project. It would be better in my opinion to also include a median acceleration lane for both of the offset intersections, to reduce crashes even more, similar to this one on US 17 at South Mills, NC.

Obviously, a full buildout would involve an overpass crossing US 29, though on a restricted budget, this is a good solution -for now-.

You wouldn't even need anything that dramatic. Something like this example on WA-3 near Montesano would be sufficiently cheap, but still helpful in reducing the need to accelerate fully within the through lanes.

My time driving in Virginia has been relatively limited, but I found it rather annoying how often one has to deal with drivers pulling out from a stop into these divided highways (which are relatively rare in WA overall, ergo I have very little experience driving them), since there is rarely any merge lane.

[sprjus4]

VDOT sure likes its band-aids.

Gotta love VDOT. You need $15 million for an overpass? Nah, only $4 million for an offset intersection. It'll be the same thing, just cheaper.

Here in Hampton Roads, an intersection in Virginia Beach at Indian River / Kempsville Rd has major congestion issues.

For an improvement, an improvement project was proposed. One would create an a grade-separated interchange with Indian River Rd having the overpass, which on the east side, continues onto a limited-access (non freeway, but no driveways) roadway. Estimated at $60 million and would've been a big improvement.

Instead they went with the at-grade cheap option. An extremely confusing hybrid of two non-traditional intersections. I thought the CFI (continuous flow intersection) built at Military Hwy / Northampton Blvd in Norfolk was bad, but this goes further. Funny, it was estimated at $10 million, it's costing about $25 million in reality. It's currently under construction.

The intersection will only cause confusion, and will not truly improve the intersection. An interchange with a SPUI (single point urban interchange) at Kempsville Rd and Indian River Rd free-flowing would relieve congestion way more, but it costs too much, so slap a band-aid on it.

Of course, the tax-avoiding General Assembly doesn't help. I wonder if the people who see this "fix" are concerned that if the accident rate goes down then the intersection will be declared "safe" and no further improvements will be needed? The same thing happened here in Blacksburg, where N. Main Street connects to the U.S. 460 bypass. It is a bad intersection, with limited visibility to the east due to a grade in the bypass and with eastbound traffic coming down off a long, straight drop off Brush Mountain and into a curve. For years, residents and the local governments called for improvements due to the high number of accidents at the intersection. One solution was to build an overpass and interchange just east of the current intersection -- but that was too costly (and there was some VDOT/CTB maneuvering going on), so the solution everyone was stuck with was two R-cuts on either side of the intersection. It is cheap but not a total fix, there was just an accident at that intersection this week.

I've read about that intersection. That's a joke of an improvement. It cuts people off, and while it makes it safer, and it makes it confusing and harder to navigate. If an interchange was built, it would have been way safer than this, and provided full movements.

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

[Beltway]

Gotta love VDOT. You need $15 million for an overpass? Nah, only $4 million for an offset intersection. It'll be the same thing, just cheaper.
Here in Hampton Roads, an intersection in Virginia Beach at Indian River / Kempsville Rd has major congestion issues.

At least no "road diets" yet like are all the rage in some states like Oregon and Kalifornia and New Yawk.  Of course some of them could be catagorized as "road anorexia/bulimia".       :-O===== ralph!

It's not like money isn't being spent, regarding the Altavista intersection discussion, I looked up the project to replace the Business US-29 bridge there over the Roanoke River, it is now under construction, $28 million to replace a 1930s era 1,700 foot 2-lane bridge and rebuild the approaches.  Highway construction has become obscenely expensive.

[sprjus4]

Gotta love VDOT. You need $15 million for an overpass? Nah, only $4 million for an offset intersection. It'll be the same thing, just cheaper.
Here in Hampton Roads, an intersection in Virginia Beach at Indian River / Kempsville Rd has major congestion issues.

At least no "road diets" yet like are all the rage in some states like Oregon and Kalifornia.  Of course some of them could be catagorized as "road anorexia/bulimia".   

Oh we've had our fair share too. Here's one near Downtown Norfolk done a few years back.

Norfolk wants to reduce Hampton Blvd (a major six-lane corridor between the Navy Base / Port of Virginia and Downtown Norfolk / US 58 / I-464 / I-264) to 4 lanes for a good portion to reduce accidents. It's 4 lanes south of ODU (Old Dominion University), but 6 lanes from there northward. They want to extend the 4 lanes through ODU and north of there, eliminating the 3rd lane in each direction. No care for traffic flow, just safety and easier bike access (they already have sidewalks?)

Ooh, here's a better idea. Let's make it 1 lane in each direction. That will please them!

[Beltway]

Norfolk wants to reduce Hampton Blvd (a major six-lane corridor between the Navy Base / Port of Virginia and Downtown Norfolk / US 58 / I-464 / I-264) to 4 lanes for a good portion to reduce accidents. It's 4 lanes south of ODU (Old Dominion University), but 6 lanes from there northward. They want to extend the 4 lanes through ODU and north of there, eliminating the 3rd lane in each direction. No care for traffic flow, just safety and easier bike access (they already have sidewalks?)

"Wanting to" is not in the same league as "doing it".

[sprjus4]

If they are going to go to the effort of providing an overpass for the crossroad, then IMO they should consider that a freeway upgrade and at minimum construct the RIRO movements that I listed.  So that would be about 4,000 feet of 12-foot lane construction, plus channelization where the lane curves into the crossroad.

For the interim, the example I used on the Danville Bypass would suffice. Since it only be interim, not permanent, a full build of ramps wouldn't be necessary as they'd be removed later. If this was the final build, then by all means, but the final buildout here is a freeway. If a full freeway build is done, here's a conceptual alignment, which would not require access at the existing intersection.

The sections where new northbound lanes would be constructed, and the existing southbound lanes would become a frontage road, a consistent 60 foot median would be provided with the new lanes. The sections with a frontage road built parallel with the existing roadway staying in place, it has about a 40 foot median.

That's about 3 miles of freeway upgrade. With the terrain involved, leveling, etc. this would likely be at least $100 - 120 million for 3 miles ($33 to 40 million per mile).

[Beltway]

If they are going to go to the effort of providing an overpass for the crossroad, then IMO they should consider that a freeway upgrade and at minimum construct the RIRO movements that I listed.  So that would be about 4,000 feet of 12-foot lane construction, plus channelization where the lane curves into the crossroad.

For the interim, the example I used on the Danville Bypass would suffice. Since it only be interim, not permanent, a full build of ramps wouldn't be necessary as they'd be removed later. If this was the final build, then by all means, but the final buildout here is a freeway. If a full freeway build is done, here's a conceptual alignment, which would not require access at the existing intersection.

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

[sprjus4]

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

A couple of things - the interchange with US 29 / Highwayview Road is one mile north of this location. Secondly, a high speed frontage road would be constructed parallel to the freeway, or existing US 29 would be the frontage road, along the entire distance, providing access.

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

[jakeroot]

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

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

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

[sprjus4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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