Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Alex]

It might be time to say goodbye to DE Route 34, DelDOT looks poised to remove signage for it by this summer:

https://deldot.gov/projects/Studies/FaulklandRoadDeclassificatioofDE34/pdf/Faulkland.pdf

That's a bummer, I use SR 34 routinely when going back and forth toward Wilmington. Will still use it after SR 34 is decommissioned, but I liked the odd nature of the route with its dangling west end (which actually is well signed from Duncan Road).

There are not that many signs posted on the SR 34 mainline anymore, so removing them won't be much of an effort. Reading the document linked above, I have to question the rationale for removing Faulkland Road as a state route.

Residents and legislators believe that the designation as Delaware Route 34 may be increasing traffic volumes and heavy truck usage

Residents and legislators are wrong.

2002 AADT for SR 34:

• 4,156 - Duncan Road to SR 41
• 6,568 - SR 41 to Centerville Road
• 9,488 - Centerville Road to SR 100/Dupont Road

2015 AADT for SR 34:

• 3,464 - Duncan Road to SR 41
• 6,001 - SR 41 to Centerville Road
• 9,093 - Centerville Road to SR 100

The part west of Centerville Road has an 8% grade. Do trucks ever use that to connect between SR 41 and SR 141? I could see trucks using it to get to the Dupont Chestnut Run site, and that would not change with SR 34 removed.

Declassification of SR 34 may indirectly encourage drivers to use alternate routes such as SR 48 to the north, or SR 2 to the south

This is an inane statement, as SR 34 is the alternate route.

Thanks for posting this Alex.

[BrianP]

I would suggest that south of Milford they should just build a freeway that is west of US 113 and then have it at a shallow angle that the further south it goes it moves away from US 113 and closer to US 13 so it meets the NE corner of the Salisbury Bypass. 

This way both US 13 and 113 remain as independent routes and keep the interchanges like Turnpike distances where maybe only roads like US 9, DE 404, etc only have access to and from it.

I had the same kind of thought.  I thought about transitioning from the US 113 corridor to the US 13 corridor via US 9. Unfortunately I don't think that part of US 9 is used much by beach traffic. 

The latter part wouldn't be popular with locals.  If you're gonna build that then locals will want to use it too.  But of course rural interchange spacing would be fine (>= 3 mile spacing).

Also I really doubt you will get any freeway in MD along US 113 or US 13.  You could get spot improvements like interchanges at major crossings.  In other spots I think you would just get a super street kind of setup. 

Although Gov Hogan has been taking advantage of the previous Gov's gas tax increase to send a bit more money to the eastern shore.  See MD 404.

The only freeway segment I think would be likely for the eastern shore would be US 50 between US 301 and MD 404.  Even that will come piecemeal instead of all at once.  They've already broken it down into 8 phases.  And those look like they could be done independently. 

[Beltway]

Although Gov Hogan has been taking advantage of the previous Gov's gas tax increase to send a bit more money to the eastern shore.  See MD 404.

The only freeway segment I think would be likely for the eastern shore would be US 50 between US 301 and MD 404.  Even that will come piecemeal instead of all at once.  They've already broken it down into 8 phases.  And those look like they could be done independently. 

The recent MD-404 expansion and that segment of US-50 has been in official developmental phases since the 1970s, and given the costs of these projects, it takes a very long time to get them built.

It is not just a recent problem, the US-50 expansion and freeway upgrade between the Bay Bridge and US-301, while completed in 1991, was in official developmental phases since the early 1970s.

Part of the issue is that Delmarva traffic patterns are highly seasonal weighted toward the summer.  MD-404 had the summer traffic to warrant 4 lanes back in the 1970s, but only in the last 10 or 15 years had the off-season traffic grown to the point where 2 lanes was more and more inadequate year-round.

I really like the recent MD-404 expansion but it cost $200 million and it could have used 2 or 3 interchanges instead of the signalized intersections there now, there is enough cross traffic that there can be annoying minor delays at each; but then building them would have jacked up the cost.

A 6-lane freeway upgrade of US-50 (US-301 to MD-404) was designed in the 1970s and the plan was to have that built soon after the segment west of there was built … but here we are … still not built.  Just building the US-50/MD-404 interchange by itself would be a big improvement.

[sprjus4]

I would suggest that south of Milford they should just build a freeway that is west of US 113 and then have it at a shallow angle that the further south it goes it moves away from US 113 and closer to US 13 so it meets the NE corner of the Salisbury Bypass. 

This way both US 13 and 113 remain as independent routes and keep the interchanges like Turnpike distances where maybe only roads like US 9, DE 404, etc only have access to and from it.

That's sort of the concept I envisioned. It would leave the existing US-113 highway intact, not impact local traffic flow, and allow long-distance traffic to continue on freeway into Maryland, and if Maryland tied it seamlessly into the Salisbury Bypass, that would be even more efficient. US-13 south of Salisbury has mostly limited-access with frontage roads and public road access only, and would be an easier freeway upgrade if they wished to continue the concept to Pocomoke City, as opposed to the four-lane non-limited-access highway US-113 is in Maryland.

Then Virginia could construct limited-access tollway paralleling the existing US-13 closely (really closely similar to how DE-1 is to US-13 to minimize impacts) tying into the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel. It's not impossible, it's certainly workable, and if it was toll financed, it would definitely make it fundable. If it was tolled at $20 or so one-way for 200+ miles of 65-70 MPH limited-access freeway over existing 35-55 MPH US-13 with traffic signals & towns, I'm sure it would get a good amount of revenue to pay back toll bonds.

[Beltway]

That's sort of the concept I envisioned. It would leave the existing US-113 highway intact, not impact local traffic flow, and allow long-distance traffic to continue on freeway into Maryland, and if Maryland tied it seamlessly into the Salisbury Bypass, that would be even more efficient. US-13 south of Salisbury has mostly limited-access with frontage roads and public road access only, and would be an easier freeway upgrade if they wished to continue the concept to Pocomoke City, as opposed to the four-lane non-limited-access highway US-113 is in Maryland.

US-9 as pointed out is not a busy road.  It would not need a freeway paralleling it.

Then Virginia could construct limited-access tollway paralleling the existing US-13 closely (really closely similar to how DE-1 is to US-13 to minimize impacts) tying into the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel. It's not impossible, it's certainly workable, and if it was toll financed, it would definitely make it fundable. If it was tolled at $20 or so one-way for 200+ miles of 65-70 MPH limited-access freeway over existing 35-55 MPH US-13 with traffic signals & towns, I'm sure it would get a good amount of revenue to pay back toll bonds.

You're sure?  Probably more like $40 or $50 to pay back the bonds.  What about environmental impacts on that narrow strip of land?  That has been the main stated obstacle in the past.

I get an average speed of 51 mph on Goggle Maps between I-64 and Pocomoke City.  The access management project proposed for Eastern Shore US-13 back 15 years ago included a couple bypass extensions and a few interchanges, and in conjunction with 60 mph maximum speeds limits, could likely boost that average speed to 55 or 56 mph.

[Alps]

That's sort of the concept I envisioned. It would leave the existing US-113 highway intact, not impact local traffic flow, and allow long-distance traffic to continue on freeway into Maryland, and if Maryland tied it seamlessly into the Salisbury Bypass, that would be even more efficient. US-13 south of Salisbury has mostly limited-access with frontage roads and public road access only, and would be an easier freeway upgrade if they wished to continue the concept to Pocomoke City, as opposed to the four-lane non-limited-access highway US-113 is in Maryland.

US-9 as pointed out is not a busy road.  It would not need a freeway paralleling it.

Then Virginia could construct limited-access tollway paralleling the existing US-13 closely (really closely similar to how DE-1 is to US-13 to minimize impacts) tying into the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel. It's not impossible, it's certainly workable, and if it was toll financed, it would definitely make it fundable. If it was tolled at $20 or so one-way for 200+ miles of 65-70 MPH limited-access freeway over existing 35-55 MPH US-13 with traffic signals & towns, I'm sure it would get a good amount of revenue to pay back toll bonds.

You're sure?  Probably more like $40 or $50 to pay back the bonds.  What about environmental impacts on that narrow strip of land?  That has been the main stated obstacle in the past.

I get an average speed of 51 mph on Goggle Maps between I-64 and Pocomoke City.  The access management project proposed for Eastern Shore US-13 back 15 years ago included a couple bypass extensions and a few interchanges, and in conjunction with 60 mph maximum speeds limits, could likely boost that average speed to 55 or 56 mph.

No one was talking about US 9 having a freeway. $40-$50? You sure? Probably more like $20 to pay back the bonds. See, I can play that same game.

[jeffandnicole]

Heck, I just find enjoyment in how tolls can be estimated without discussing how much construction and future maintenance would actually cost.

Let's say the cost to build the road is $1 Billion, and they want to issue 20 year bonds, so the average payback will need to be $50,000,000 per year (I'm using extremely simple math here). 

If an estimated 1 vehicle per year will use the road, then the toll would need to be $50 million per vehicle just to pay off the bonds.

But if an estimated 100,000 vehicles per day were to use the road, that's 36,500,000 per year. Now the toll only needs to be about $1.37 per vehicle to go towards the bond payments.

And you need to add in money for maintenance, bond interest, and dozens of other expenses.

So, the point is, you can't just throw random numbers out there to say that's what the toll is going to be. 

[Alps]

Heck, I just find enjoyment in how tolls can be estimated without discussing how much construction and future maintenance would actually cost.

Let's say the cost to build the road is $1 Billion, and they want to issue 20 year bonds, so the average payback will need to be $50,000,000 per year (I'm using extremely simple math here). 

If an estimated 1 vehicle per year will use the road, then the toll would need to be $50 million per vehicle just to pay off the bonds.

But if an estimated 100,000 vehicles per day were to use the road, that's 36,500,000 per year. Now the toll only needs to be about $1.37 per vehicle to go towards the bond payments.

And you need to add in money for maintenance, bond interest, and dozens of other expenses.

So, the point is, you can't just throw random numbers out there to say that's what the toll is going to be. 

 

[jeffandnicole]

What I also see - a deep under-estimate of how much construction costs generally are. 

Yeah, I know you know all about that!

[sprjus4]

That's sort of the concept I envisioned. It would leave the existing US-113 highway intact, not impact local traffic flow, and allow long-distance traffic to continue on freeway into Maryland, and if Maryland tied it seamlessly into the Salisbury Bypass, that would be even more efficient. US-13 south of Salisbury has mostly limited-access with frontage roads and public road access only, and would be an easier freeway upgrade if they wished to continue the concept to Pocomoke City, as opposed to the four-lane non-limited-access highway US-113 is in Maryland.

US-9 as pointed out is not a busy road.  It would not need a freeway paralleling it.

Could you please bold the section in my quote where I say a freeway needs to be built for US 9?

Then Virginia could construct limited-access tollway paralleling the existing US-13 closely (really closely similar to how DE-1 is to US-13 to minimize impacts) tying into the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel. It's not impossible, it's certainly workable, and if it was toll financed, it would definitely make it fundable. If it was tolled at $20 or so one-way for 200+ miles of 65-70 MPH limited-access freeway over existing 35-55 MPH US-13 with traffic signals & towns, I'm sure it would get a good amount of revenue to pay back toll bonds.

You're sure?  Probably more like $40 or $50 to pay back the bonds.  What about environmental impacts on that narrow strip of land?  That has been the main stated obstacle in the past.

For the Virginia portion - about 65 miles of new location freeway. Using a $50 million per mile figure, about $3.2 billion. At 15 cents per mile, that's $9.75 total. State and federal funding would also support the project, in conjunction with toll bonds. It would not be fully toll dependent.

The environmental impacts certainly do exist. There's about 1.5 miles of farmland on either side of the existing corridor, or in some areas it's only on one side, and freeway could be constructed in that corridor. Take DE-1 for example. It was built parallel to US-13. Literally parallel in many areas, it runs right next to it or less than half a mile away from it, and crosses it many times. Such a design could be used here as well to reduce the footprint.

I get an average speed of 51 mph on Goggle Maps between I-64 and Pocomoke City.  The access management project proposed for Eastern Shore US-13 back 15 years ago included a couple bypass extensions and a few interchanges, and in conjunction with 60 mph maximum speeds limits, could likely boost that average speed to 55 or 56 mph.

Hard to say Google Maps estimates are always correct. I'll have to run an analysis basing each speed zone (55 MPH for xx miles, 45 MPH for xx miles, etc.) and get an average that way to get a detailed time. Also realize neither Google Maps nor the more detailed estimate factor in traffic signals. US-13 is 55 MPH in rural areas, though frequently drops to 35 MPH on town bypasses littered with businesses, traffic signals, etc. Not to mention the corridor carries about 20,000 AADT.

Heck, I just find enjoyment in how tolls can be estimated without discussing how much construction and future maintenance would actually cost.

Let's say the cost to build the road is $1 Billion, and they want to issue 20 year bonds, so the average payback will need to be $50,000,000 per year (I'm using extremely simple math here). 

If an estimated 1 vehicle per year will use the road, then the toll would need to be $50 million per vehicle just to pay off the bonds.

But if an estimated 100,000 vehicles per day were to use the road, that's 36,500,000 per year. Now the toll only needs to be about $1.37 per vehicle to go towards the bond payments.

And you need to add in money for maintenance, bond interest, and dozens of other expenses.

So, the point is, you can't just throw random numbers out there to say that's what the toll is going to be. 

See my analysis above. Using a high $50 million per mile estimate, it's about $3.2 billion. Using 15 cents per mile, that's about $9.75 total. Not to mention, a lot of the $3.2 billion would have come from state and federal sources if a project this large was undertaken. If you toll support all $3.2 billion, then you'd need an extremely high toll, which they wouldn't build a road knowing this.

[Beltway]

You're sure?  Probably more like $40 or $50 to pay back the bonds.  What about environmental impacts on that narrow strip of land?  That has been the main stated obstacle in the past.

For the Virginia portion - about 65 miles of new location freeway. Using a $50 million per mile figure, about $3.2 billion. At 15 cents per mile, that's $9.75 total. State and federal funding would also support the project, in conjunction with toll bonds. It would not be fully toll dependent.

You made sound like it would be fully toll funded.  What makes you think that there would be substantial amounts of state and federal funding?  Just how much federal funding is there on the ERT and HRBT?  Times are quite different from even 20 years ago.

What makes you think that it wouldn't be 30 or 40 cents per mile?  The obvious flaw in your figures is that there is no figure for traffic volume.

The environmental impacts certainly do exist. There's about 1.5 miles of farmland on either side of the existing corridor, or in some areas it's only on one side, and freeway could be constructed in that corridor. Take DE-1 for example. It was built parallel to US-13. Literally parallel in many areas, it runs right next to it or less than half a mile away from it, and crosses it many times. Such a design could be used here as well to reduce the footprint.

Delaware is -much- wider and higher than the Virginia Eastern Shore.  You don't seem to understand that it would be virtually impossible to build such a highway there under today's environmental regime, plus the opposition of the people who live there who want to keep the area as rural as possible.

[jeffandnicole]

See my analysis above. Using a high $50 million per mile estimate, it's about $3.2 billion. Using 15 cents per mile, that's about $9.75 total. Not to mention, a lot of the $3.2 billion would have come from state and federal sources if a project this large was undertaken. If you toll support all $3.2 billion, then you'd need an extremely high toll, which they wouldn't build a road knowing this.

The US 301 toll route in DE cost over $50 million per mile. While much of Delmarva is more rural, just the simple fact that this fictional road won't be built for many years will easily push the road well above your 'high' estimate of $50 million per mile.

[Beltway]

The US 301 toll route in DE cost over $50 million per mile. While much of Delmarva is more rural, just the simple fact that this fictional road won't be built for many years will easily push the road well above your 'high' estimate of $50 million per mile.

It could be less than $50 million per mile; I've actually done engineering estimates for construction on highway projects professionally, and in a nutshell you really don't know the total costs until you design the project and then add up all the costs.  This business of picking figures out of the air ("$50 million per mile") is really humorous in these threads.

The US-301 tollroad costs $4 for an automobile for 12 miles of freeway.  That is 33 cents per mile.  It is a fairly routine freeway with no major bridges or cuts or fills.
 

[Alps]

The US 301 toll route in DE cost over $50 million per mile. While much of Delmarva is more rural, just the simple fact that this fictional road won't be built for many years will easily push the road well above your 'high' estimate of $50 million per mile.

It could be less than $50 million per mile; I've actually done engineering estimates for construction on highway projects professionally, and in a nutshell you really don't know the total costs until you design the project and then add up all the costs.  This business of picking figures out of the air ("$50 million per mile") is really humorous in these threads.

The US-301 tollroad costs $4 for an automobile for 12 miles of freeway.  That is 33 cents per mile.  It is a fairly routine freeway with no major bridges or cuts or fills.
 

It costs $4 to cross the border, let's be real here.

[Alps]

You're sure?  Probably more like $40 or $50 to pay back the bonds.  What about environmental impacts on that narrow strip of land?  That has been the main stated obstacle in the past.

For the Virginia portion - about 65 miles of new location freeway. Using a $50 million per mile figure, about $3.2 billion. At 15 cents per mile, that's $9.75 total. State and federal funding would also support the project, in conjunction with toll bonds. It would not be fully toll dependent.

You made sound like it would be fully toll funded.  What makes you think that there would be substantial amounts of state and federal funding?  Just how much federal funding is there on the ERT and HRBT?  Times are quite different from even 20 years ago.

What makes you think that it wouldn't be 30 or 40 cents per mile?  The obvious flaw in your figures is that there is no figure for traffic volume.

What makes you think it wouldn't be federally funded? What makes you think it would be 30 or 40 cents per mile?

[Beltway]

For the Virginia portion - about 65 miles of new location freeway. Using a $50 million per mile figure, about $3.2 billion. At 15 cents per mile, that's $9.75 total. State and federal funding would also support the project, in conjunction with toll bonds. It would not be fully toll dependent.

You made sound like it would be fully toll funded.  What makes you think that there would be substantial amounts of state and federal funding?  Just how much federal funding is there on the ERT and HRBT?  Times are quite different from even 20 years ago.
What makes you think that it wouldn't be 30 or 40 cents per mile?  The obvious flaw in your figures is that there is no figure for traffic volume.

What makes you think it wouldn't be federally funded? '

Didn't say it wouldn't, just that nowadays on a project to project basis that many get low percentages or none.  Spread wide and thin.

Isn't it "cheating" to subsidize a tollroad construction rather than have it be fully self-supporting?

What makes you think it would be 30 or 40 cents per mile?

3.2 billion X 2.5 (amort.) = 8.0 billion (P&I) / 30 years / 365 days / 15,000 AADT = $48.70 toll

A 30-year loan at 6% interest would cost in total about 2.5x the amount of principal.

15,000 AADT for the tollway is generous, considering that the 4-lane US-13 would still be there, and I ignored what a toll like that would do to the usage levels.

If you want I will work in 10% large trucks and recompute that simple estimate... and see if that brings the car toll down by $5 or so.
 

[jeffandnicole]

Build a 4 lane crossing over the Delaware Bay, allowing a bypass of the general surrounding area of Philly, Balt and DC and the AADT will really go up.

And do you know what people in Delmarva, Eastern Shore of MD and coastal South Jersey don't want? That bypass to become a thing.

But without it, no one will ever spend the money for a highway with an estimated 15k daily traffic volume.

[Beltway]

I get an average speed of 51 mph on Goggle Maps between I-64 and Pocomoke City.  The access management project proposed for Eastern Shore US-13 back 15 years ago included a couple bypass extensions and a few interchanges, and in conjunction with 60 mph maximum speeds limits, could likely boost that average speed to 55 or 56 mph.

Hard to say Google Maps estimates are always correct. I'll have to run an analysis basing each speed zone (55 MPH for xx miles, 45 MPH for xx miles, etc.) and get an average that way to get a detailed time. Also realize neither Google Maps nor the more detailed estimate factor in traffic signals. US-13 is 55 MPH in rural areas, though frequently drops to 35 MPH on town bypasses littered with businesses, traffic signals, etc. Not to mention the corridor carries about 20,000 AADT.

CBBT is 8,800 AADT.  The next 30 miles trending from 10,000 at the south end gradually trending upward to about 14,000.  The next 35 miles mostly in the upper teens.

Google Maps certainly does include signals.  I just ran a 9-mile segment of US-60 Midlothian Turnpike with 14 signals and it does not compute to the speed limit of 45 mph, the average is 29 mph.  Based on there being some synchronization between signals, and based on my experiences there, that average sounds about right for this day of week and time of day.
 

[sprjus4]

CBBT is 8,800 AADT.  The next 30 miles trending from 10,000 at the south end gradually trending upward to about 14,000.  The next 35 miles mostly in the upper teens.

Between the US-60 Shore Dr / US-13 interchange in Virginia Beach to the Maryland State Line, it's 88 miles.

Did an analysis on the distance of each traffic count from the VDOT Traffic Counts map and here's what I got -

• 0 - 20 miles - 8,800 AADT
• 20 - 24 miles - 11,000 AADT
• 24 - 29 miles - 13,000 AADT
• 29 - 31 miles - 15,000 AADT
• 31 - 34 miles - 16,000 AADT
• 34 - 36 miles - 14,000 AADT
• 36 - 39 miles - 16,000 AADT
• 39 - 46 miles - 15,000 AADT
• 46 - 50 miles - 18,000 AADT
• 50 - 51 miles - 17,000 AADT
• 51 - 56 miles - 19,000 AADT
• 56 - 57 miles - 18,000 AADT
• 57 - 63 miles - 21,000 AADT
• 63 - 65 miles - 18,000 AADT
• 65 - 80 miles - 19,000 AADT
• 80 - 84 miles - 18,000 AADT
• 84 - 88 miles - 20,000 AADT

To conclude, of the entire 88 mile corridor from Virginia Beach to Maryland, 59 miles or 67% of the corridor has a volume at or over 15,000 AADT. Like you had done, if you cut 20 miles off and only consider the 68 miles on the Eastern Shore, 87% of the corridor carries at or over 15,000 AADT. 62% of the Eastern Shore portion of the corridor carries at or over 18,000 AADT. Certainly not "30 miles below 14,000 AADT, and 35 miles above". In reality, it's 9 miles below 15,000 AADT, and 59 miles above. 42 of those miles is at or above 18,000 AADT.

Google Maps certainly does include signals.  I just ran a 9-mile segment of US-60 Midlothian Turnpike with 14 signals and it does not compute to the speed limit of 45 mph, the average is 29 mph.  Based on there being some synchronization between signals, and based on my experiences there, that average sounds about right for this day of week and time of day.

Differences between urban and rural. I looked at that same stretch, and it detects traffic backup from the signals, creating red areas on the traffic map at each of them. On a highway like US-13 in a mainly rural environment with towns, there's not enough time for backup to be detected, but certainly when you're stopping at signal after signal through each town, it adds maybe 5 minutes or slightly more to your drive. I've added at least 5 or 10 minutes from this alone going up the Eastern Shore myself. Not significant, but it's there. I'll run a speed analysis as I've done on US-58 in the past to see what the travel time is without signals and using the official speed limits for each section.

[Beltway]

[…]
To conclude, of the entire 88 mile corridor from Virginia Beach to Maryland, 59 miles or 67% of the corridor has a volume at or over 15,000 AADT. Like you had done, if you cut 20 miles off and only consider the 68 miles on the Eastern Shore, 87% of the corridor carries at or over 15,000 AADT. 62% of the Eastern Shore portion of the corridor carries at or over 18,000 AADT. Certainly not "30 miles below 14,000 AADT, and 35 miles above". In reality, it's 9 miles below 15,000 AADT, and 59 miles above. 42 of those miles is at or above 18,000 AADT.

Doesn't really disagree with what I summarized.  Traffic growth there has historically been rather slow, there are no major cities and towns like in MD and DE, the high CBBT toll has always had a restricting factor on the volume of thru traffic and on volume of local traffic between the sides of the Bay.  Much of that US-13 volume in Accomack and Northampton counties is of a very local nature not well suited to freeway use.

Upgrading the existing highway along the lines of the Access Management Project of about 15 years ago, I think is the best way to handle this highway.  Consolidation of driveways where feasible, building J-cut intersections where feasible, building interchanges at selected strategic intersections, build the two bypass extensions, roadway segments less than 24 feet widened to 24 feet, build 10 foot paved right shoulders where not already in place, build 4 foot left shoulders where not already in place, build sufficient length right-turn and left-turn lanes, urban undivided 4-lane sections widened to 5 lanes with center lane for left-turn only, build median barriers in narrow medians, purchase limited access controls on pre-existing bypasses as they were built without that, add signal synchronization and loop-activated signals where feasible if not already in place.  That project was estimated at about $200 million for the 65 miles back then.

Google Maps certainly does include signals.  I just ran a 9-mile segment of US-60 Midlothian Turnpike with 14 signals and it does not compute to the speed limit of 45 mph, the average is 29 mph.  Based on there being some synchronization between signals, and based on my experiences there, that average sounds about right for this day of week and time of day.

Differences between urban and rural. I looked at that same stretch, and it detects traffic backup from the signals, creating red areas on the traffic map at each of them. On a highway like US-13 in a mainly rural environment with towns, there's not enough time for backup to be detected, but certainly when you're stopping at signal after signal through each town, it adds maybe 5 minutes or slightly more to your drive. I've added at least 5 or 10 minutes from this alone going up the Eastern Shore myself. Not significant, but it's there. I'll run a speed analysis as I've done on US-58 in the past to see what the travel time is without signals and using the official speed limits for each section.

I've checked rural corridors in the past and they are computed similarly.  There can be signal synchronization in some places, and loop-activated signals can provide a constant green phase on the main route that only changes when a vehicle comes to the signal on the side road.

Google Maps and other mapping software provides a decent enough basic estimate of travel times.  They can't just ignore signals when they want to provide the end-user with realistic travel times.
 

[sprjus4]

Upgrading the existing highway along the lines of the Access Management Project of about 15 years ago, I think is the best way to handle this highway.  Consolidation of driveways where feasible, building J-cut intersections where feasible, building interchanges at selected strategic intersections, build the two bypass extensions, roadway segments less than 24 feet widened to 24 feet, build 10 foot paved right shoulders where not already in place, build 4 foot left shoulders where not already in place, build sufficient length right-turn and left-turn lanes, urban undivided 4-lane sections widened to 5 lanes with center lane for left-turn only, build median barriers in narrow medians, purchase limited access controls on pre-existing bypasses as they were built without that, add signal synchronization and loop-activated signals where feasible if not already in place.  That project was estimated at about $200 million for the 65 miles back then.

I've taken a good look through that study, and that's honestly the next best approach to a freeway IMHO. Limiting the access on the entire corridor, constructing frontage roads in certain areas, widening the median to 50 feet where it's currently smaller than 30 feet, and constructing about 10 miles of new location, limited-access at-grade bypasses.

The only issue is the cost estimates in 2019 dollars. The entire corridor would cost about $200 million per the estimates, and looking at the cost breakdown, that would be way higher today.

For instance, a Temperanceville / Oak Hall bypass would cost $25 - $29 million. For converting to 2019 dollars, as an estimate, using a number of $20 million per mile, it would cost between $100 and $120 million (assumes $20 million for a VA-175 interchange in the higher number)

Another bypass, a 4 mile Nelsonia / Mappsville bypass would cost $16.6 million back then. Again, with $20 million per mile, likely $80 million or so now.

I'm less familiar with how the costs would translate for relocating one roadway to provide a consistent 50 foot median where no full new location is proposed, but I'd assume that number would also rise.

So total, likely $200 million for the bypasses, and probably another $100 - 150 million for the other improvements.

If it could be funded, I'd say go for it. It sounds like a great improvement, and in the long-term if a freeway was ever desired, which it's currently not, improvements done in this project would accommodate further upgrades.

[Alex4897]

The part west of Centerville Road has an 8% grade. Do trucks ever use that to connect between SR 41 and SR 141? I could see trucks using it to get to the Dupont Chestnut Run site, and that would not change with SR 34 removed.

They certainly won't be now, at some point recently DelDOT posted large signs at every major intersection along Centreville Road between Greenbank Road and (I presume) SR 48 and along SR 34 between Duncan road and (I presume) SR 141, they are way more noticeable than the all text variant:



I wonder if the controversy with whether truck traffic was to be funneled down SR 41, SR 48, or SR 7 scared residents into thinking trucks would use SR 34 because I can't imagine it had an appreciable amount to this point. The new signs look pretty goofy at the SR 34 / Centreville intersection as they're posted on each of the four legs.

[Beltway]

Upgrading the existing highway along the lines of the Access Management Project of about 15 years ago, I think is the best way to handle this highway.  [. . . . . .]  That project was estimated at about $200 million for the 65 miles back then.

I've taken a good look through that study, and that's honestly the next best approach to a freeway IMHO. Limiting the access on the entire corridor, constructing frontage roads in certain areas, widening the median to 50 feet where it's currently smaller than 30 feet, and constructing about 10 miles of new location, limited-access at-grade bypasses.
The only issue is the cost estimates in 2019 dollars. The entire corridor would cost about $200 million per the estimates, and looking at the cost breakdown, that would be way higher today.

Actually I see that was estimated at $139 million in 2002, and that included upgrading VA-175 on the mainland as well.  Naturally it would cost a lot more in today's dollars.

Inflation factored at 5% since then would 2.4x or $334 million.  It could be divided into probably at least 10 segments that could be built independent of the others, each segment providing benefits as it is completed.

http://virginiadot.org/projects/resources/hampton_roads/rte13_final_report.pdf

[sprjus4]

Upgrading the existing highway along the lines of the Access Management Project of about 15 years ago, I think is the best way to handle this highway.  [. . . . . .]  That project was estimated at about $200 million for the 65 miles back then.

I've taken a good look through that study, and that's honestly the next best approach to a freeway IMHO. Limiting the access on the entire corridor, constructing frontage roads in certain areas, widening the median to 50 feet where it's currently smaller than 30 feet, and constructing about 10 miles of new location, limited-access at-grade bypasses.
The only issue is the cost estimates in 2019 dollars. The entire corridor would cost about $200 million per the estimates, and looking at the cost breakdown, that would be way higher today.

Actually I see that was estimated at $139 million in 2002, and that included upgrading VA-175 on the mainland as well.  Naturally it would cost a lot more in today's dollars.

Inflation factored at 5% since then would 2.4x or $334 million.  It could be divided into probably at least 10 segments that could be built independent of the others, each segment providing benefits as it is completed.

http://virginiadot.org/projects/resources/hampton_roads/rte13_final_report.pdf

That $334 million estimate seems reasonable. If it was segment divided, likely the 4 mile Nelsonia / Mappsville bypass would be the first priority, then the Temperanceville / Oak Hall bypass, then the urban improvements, and lastly the median widening.

[Tonytone]

Would this prove the fact that they will continue the 404 Eastward ?
https://www.deldot.gov/public.ejs?command=PublicProjectPortalDocument&iDID=1377202&iProjectObjectID=48378

Also this has some more information regarding U.S. 113
https://www.deldot.gov/public.ejs?command=PublicProjectPortalDocument&iDID=1365700&iProjectObjectID=48378