Nine "Wasteful" Highway Projects Across the U.S. Identified in New Report

[TEG24601]

Sprawl can be controlled with zoning and land conservation.

Which in the case of several of their identified projects, Portland/Vancouver in particular, is already a thing.  Both states have Urban Growth restrictions, so adding lanes won't increase sprawl.  If anything it will encourage people off of the side streets allowing their transit systems to not be as impacted by traffic, and be seen as a reasonable alternative to driving, as well as reducing needless idling.

[sprjus4]

Oh I love this article. I-295 shouldn't have been built around Richmond 

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/06/19/highway-boondoggles-tar-heel-states-road-expansion-disaster/

North Carolina transportation officials are moving forward with plans for a new six-lane highway around the southern half of Raleigh that would cause sprawling development and troubling environmental damage. The plan is called "Complete 540,"  and would form the southern half of Raleigh's 540 beltway, approximately seven miles from downtown Raleigh. At a cost of more than $2 billion, the highway, likely to be paid for with a mix of state funds and toll revenue, will be the most expensive in North Carolina history.

According to the Southern Environmental Law Center, Complete 540 would encourage "unplanned growth to sprawl out of Raleigh and into Southeast Wake County."  Those changes would be consistent with the impacts of other bypass highways around U.S. cities, including in the Southeast. A 2000 study, Economic Impact of Freeway Bypass Routes in Medium Size Cities, concluded that negative impacts of bypass routes "include increases in sprawled, low-density commercial and residential development entailing high environmental and infrastructure costs."  That study included an assessment of the I-295 bypass around Richmond, Virginia, which found that "relocations of retailing, local industries, offices, and residents facilitated by the outer belt have weakened the city's downtown business district. . . Without the bypass, local planners agree there would have likely been more redevelopment at high densities in the downtown area."

Even in the suburban towns it is meant to help, the state has concluded that Complete 540 "would have negative impacts on existing neighborhoods."  The highway will bisect at least two neighborhoods, Woodcreek and Deerfield Park, and cut through land owned by six churches. It will also cross over the scenic Neuse River Trail, "a 28-mile pedestrian and bicycle path that is part of Raleigh's Capital Area Greenway System."

Environmental groups have raised extensive concerns and filed legal challenges over the project's environmental impacts. According to the environmental law center, Upper Neuse Riverkeeper, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Clean Air Carolina, which jointly filed complaints against the project, it will "pave over 70 acres of wetlands, destroy more than 55,000 feet of streams, and cut through the area's few remaining green spaces."  The project will also destroy critical habitat for federally listed threatened mussel species. In an attempt to compensate for the potential devastation of a threatened species, the state has proposed spending $5 million to grow mussels in a lab for five years.

The highway expansion conflicts with North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper's commitment to fight climate change. In October, 2018, Cooper signed Executive Order 80, committing North Carolina to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent and meet the targets established in the Paris Climate Accord. According to a state estimate, the highway would increase driving by more than 484 million vehicle miles traveled in 2040.

Their attacks on why Complete NC-540 should not be built - climate change, sprawl, and wetland impacts.

Construction starts next year!

[Beltway]

Oh I love this article. I-295 shouldn't have been built around Richmond 

They lost that argument back in the 1980s. 

People often don't notice things that are working well.  I-295 provides a high-capacity outer loop around the Richmond area, eliminating what would be a major "knot" in the highway system due to the convergence of I-95, I-64 and I-85 in a metro area that now has 1.5 million population.  It would be awful and I-295 is far enough out that it is an outer bypass, not just a bypass.  It also has capacity to spare with 16 miles of 8 lanes and 29 miles of 6 lanes, even today.

[amroad17]

Oh I love this article. I-295 shouldn't have been built around Richmond 

They lost that argument back in the 1980s. 

People often don't notice things that are working well.  I-295 provides a high-capacity outer loop around the Richmond area, eliminating what would be a major "knot" in the highway system due to the convergence of I-95, I-64 and I-85 in a metro area that now has 1.5 million population.  It would be awful and I-295 is far enough out that it is an outer bypass, not just a bypass.  It also has capacity to spare with 16 miles of 8 lanes and 29 miles of 6 lanes, even today.

I have been saying to people since I-295 was built around the northeast side of Richmond that this is the only Interstate highway that was built for the future.

[Beltway]

I have been saying to people since I-295 was built around the northeast side of Richmond that this is the only Interstate highway that was built for the future.

I-95 between I-495 and I-695 in Maryland -- built with 8 lanes when opened in 1971.

First time I drove it back then I said it was "built for the future".

[sparker]

I have been saying to people since I-295 was built around the northeast side of Richmond that this is the only Interstate highway that was built for the future.

I-95 between I-495 and I-695 in Maryland -- built with 8 lanes when opened in 1971.

First time I drove it back then I said it was "built for the future".

Hey, CA's Division of Highways was, at least in SoCal, attempting to build as much as they could out to 8 lanes as early as the original Freeway & Expressway's inception in 1959; previously let contracts and plans, even on Interstate routes, prevented that from happening in many cases (the notable exception being I-405, which was always planned as 8 lanes from CA 133 at the south end of Irvine to CA 118 in Northridge -- except through system interchanges).  However, wherever possible and warranted, most of those sections: mainly 6 but some portions with only 4, such as I-10 east of Ontario, were expanded out to 8 lanes as soon as fiscally feasible.  For better or worse, Northern California's similar expansions proceeded at a much more leisurely pace; even I-280 between SF and San Jose was planned with 6-lane segments.  The expansion stopped suddenly, of course, during the Brown/Gianturco years ('75-'83) and the penny-pinching Deukmejian administration following ('83-'91), the latter period including contract letting for the final miles of I-15 from I-10 south to San Diego, all of which was planned as 6 lanes.  But as anyone who lives in or uses the freeways of the Inland Empire can attest, 6 lanes is hardly adequate for the current traffic flow of I-15 (due to that PIRG bugaboo, suburban/exurban development); expansion has been underway since I lived down there, even though some of that consists of toll express lanes.  Attempting to bring everything out to 8 lanes was in some ways prescient considering the huge growth of housing that certainly wasn't anticipated in the '60's and '70's and only backhandedly recognized until around the turn of the century.   And despite efforts at infill and more dense housing in most city cores, the aggregate housing needs will dictate some measure of outward expansion, although the rate of such will probably be markedly less than before the '07-'08 crisis and recession.   Hey, Cajon Pass is 8 lanes (+climbers); there's a reason for that -- and it's not all Vegas-bound weekenders!   

[noelbotevera]

Call me naive, idiotic, or other such demeaning insults...but is it really wrong to cancel road projects that would ruin the environment?

I understand that some freeway projects, past and present, should be necessary - widening I-81 in Virginia, the Somerset Freeway, and I-345. Alright, they're vital links, and would've (or will) improve traffic for the future. But some road projects - be it pork barrel projects, proposed projects, or not - seem as if the environment was given little consideration; e.g. I-93's proposed four lanes through Franconia Notch.

For what it's worth, I believe that freeway construction through scenic areas should harmonize with the environment, but keep traffic moving. I'd support a project that constructs - say, a new NY parkway providing an alternate but scenic route between two points (for example, Taconic State Parkway), but not some 12 lane freeway that absolutely demolishes a state forest and connects nowhere to nowhere.

Whether I have rational beliefs or not is up to your discretion and opinions.

[sprjus4]

Oh I love this article. I-295 shouldn't have been built around Richmond 

They lost that argument back in the 1980s. 

People often don't notice things that are working well.  I-295 provides a high-capacity outer loop around the Richmond area, eliminating what would be a major "knot" in the highway system due to the convergence of I-95, I-64 and I-85 in a metro area that now has 1.5 million population.  It would be awful and I-295 is far enough out that it is an outer bypass, not just a bypass.  It also has capacity to spare with 16 miles of 8 lanes and 29 miles of 6 lanes, even today.

I couldn't imagine how bad I-95 and I-64 in the city would be without I-295. These people are idiotic.

I have been saying to people since I-295 was built around the northeast side of Richmond that this is the only Interstate highway that was built for the future.

For Virginia at least, it was. It was built for the future, and it's been holding up well. 40 years later and there's little to no traffic issues - even on the heaviest travel weekends. It's an amazing roadway, and how I wish I-95 looked all the way to DC (the 8-lane segment between I-64 and I-95).

I-95 should have been constructed 8-lanes between Richmond and DC from when it was originally constructed in the 60s, or at least when it was widened from 4 to 6 lanes in the 80s, it should have gone all the way to 8 lanes. That definitely would have been a highway built "for the future" similar to I-95 between Baltimore and DC.

[Beltway]

I-95 between I-495 and I-695 in Maryland -- built with 8 lanes when opened in 1971.
First time I drove it back then I said it was "built for the future".

Hey, CA's Division of Highways was, at least in SoCal, attempting to build as much as they could out to 8 lanes as early as the original Freeway & Expressway's inception in 1959; previously let contracts and plans, even on Interstate routes, prevented that from happening in many cases (the notable exception being I-405, which was always planned as 8 lanes from CA 133 at the south end of Irvine to CA 118 in Northridge -- except through system interchanges). 

We discussed the I-5 Westside Freeway some time ago, built far west of the CA-99 corridor rather than alongside of it.  While a 4-lane highway I would call that "built for the future" to build a super-bypass that some people might have objected to as being unnecessary at the time.

[Beltway]

I-95 should have been constructed 8-lanes between Richmond and DC from when it was originally constructed in the 60s, or at least when it was widened from 4 to 6 lanes in the 80s, it should have gone all the way to 8 lanes. That definitely would have been a highway built "for the future" similar to I-95 between Baltimore and DC.

That would have only covered the 58-mile segment between Ashland and Triangle, that was widened from 4 lanes to 6 lanes 1980-87.  Ashland south and Triangle north was built with 6 lanes originally.  VDH wanted 6 lanes originally on the Ashland-Triangle section but the US BPR refused to approve the additional funding.

As I have pointed out before, about 65% of the length of the Ashland-Triangle widening does have 4 lanes each way, the places where the highway was widened to the outside, and that is the reason for the extra-wide left shoulder, so the future 4th lane does exist in those places.

It is not quite as obvious now as when there was a 15-foot left shoulder and a 10-foot right shoulder; it appears that recent repaving projects have aligned it to a 13-foot left shoulder and a 12-foot right shoulder; but there is 48 feet of full depth pavement on those sections.

[sprjus4]

As I have pointed out before, about 65% of the length of the Ashland-Triangle widening does have 4 lanes each way, the places where the highway was widened to the outside, and that is the reason for the extra-wide left shoulder, so the future 4th lane does exist in those places.

Wouldn't you still have to provide a 10 foot left shoulder with a 8-lane section? The current "15 foot left shoulder" would accommodate a 12 foot lane and only a 3 foot left shoulder.

The bridges on that section appear to have an 18 foot left shoulder so that would expand the left shoulder slightly but only to 6 feet.

I don't have an issue with only a 4-6 foot left shoulder, but usually VDOT wants to do a full buildout.

Then again, in the 80s they only did 4-6 foot left shoulders on 6-8 lane freeways, not 10-12 feet like they do now. I-464 was built in the 80s as a 6-lane freeway and only has a 4 foot left shoulder.

Why doesn't VDOT conduct a study between Woodbridge and I-295 and determine the areas a "left" lane already exists, then open that lane as an actual lane, and then construct the remainder to create a consistent 8-lane freeway?

It's cited as being an expensive project, but a study is not expensive and would discover what would be needed for 8-lane widening and the costs.

[Beltway]

As I have pointed out before, about 65% of the length of the Ashland-Triangle widening does have 4 lanes each way, the places where the highway was widened to the outside, and that is the reason for the extra-wide left shoulder, so the future 4th lane does exist in those places.

Wouldn't you still have to provide a 10 foot left shoulder with a 8-lane section? The current "15 foot left shoulder" would accommodate a 12 foot lane and only a 3 foot left shoulder.
The bridges on that section appear to have an 18 foot left shoulder so that would expand the left shoulder slightly but only to 6 feet.

They would have to widen the left shoulder and left roadside if they opened the 4th lane and wanted to have a full left shoulder.

Still a lot less construction than building a 4th lane and full shoulder (which will be needed on the 35% of the length that got the inside widening).

Then again, in the 80s they only did 4-6 foot left shoulders on 6-8 lane freeways, not 10-12 feet like they do now. I-464 was built in the 80s as a 6-lane freeway and only has a 4 foot left shoulder.

I-464 was an exception.  I-295 was built with full left shoulders on the 6 and 8-lane sections, and the Interstate widening projects starting in the 1970s got full left shoulders (mostly, I can think of a few short exceptions).

Why doesn't VDOT conduct a study between Woodbridge and I-295 and determine the areas a "left" lane already exists, then open that lane as an actual lane, and then construct the remainder to create a consistent 8-lane freeway?
It's cited as being an expensive project, but a study is not expensive and would discover what would be needed for 8-lane widening and the costs.

That doesn't address the busiest sections (Ashland south and Triangle north) that are the original 6 lanes and would need a full new lane widening.

[sprjus4]

They would have to widen the left shoulder and left roadside if they opened the 4th lane and wanted to have a full left shoulder.

I would imagine they wouldn't widen it over the bridges if they can simply squeeze the lane across with a 4 foot left shoulder. It'd be a waste to widen the bridges just to provide a 10 foot left shoulder when a 12 foot lane and 4 foot left shoulder can fit across on the existing. The rest of it that's not bridged could be widened to 10 feet though easily.

Still a lot less construction than building a 4th lane and full shoulder (which will be needed on the 35% of the length that got the inside widening).

VDOT should start an environmental impact statement for full widening between VA-123 and I-295 like what was done on I-64 between I-664 and I-95. It wouldn't mean it's going to happen in one phase or immediately, but it would accelerate the process if widening did indeed get funded. With I-64 Peninsula Widening, whenever a project gets funded it starts construction almost immediately. The study and EIS is already completed and covered under the full corridor EIS - the same should happen with I-95.

That's why when the 5-mile widening between Exit 200 and Exit 205 got funded, it started less than a year later even though there was no specific EIS for that segment, but rather the entire corridor that gave a green light.

[Beltway]

They would have to widen the left shoulder and left roadside if they opened the 4th lane and wanted to have a full left shoulder.

I would imagine they wouldn't widen it over the bridges if they can simply squeeze the lane across with a 4 foot left shoulder. It'd be a waste to widen the bridges just to provide a 10 foot left shoulder when a 12 foot lane and 4 foot left shoulder can fit across on the existing. The rest of it that's not bridged could be widened to 10 feet though easily.

I would favor widening the bridges, a modern design would carry the full left shoulder across the bridges.

[sprjus4]

They would have to widen the left shoulder and left roadside if they opened the 4th lane and wanted to have a full left shoulder.

I would imagine they wouldn't widen it over the bridges if they can simply squeeze the lane across with a 4 foot left shoulder. It'd be a waste to widen the bridges just to provide a 10 foot left shoulder when a 12 foot lane and 4 foot left shoulder can fit across on the existing. The rest of it that's not bridged could be widened to 10 feet though easily.

I would favor widening the bridges, a modern design would carry the full left shoulder across the bridges.

Segment 3 widening of I-64 between MM 241 and MM 233 is providing a full 12 foot left shoulder however it is being reduced to ~4 feet under older 70s overpasses that do not have the room to accommodate a full left shoulder.

They could replace the bridges, but quite frankly it would add unnecessary additional costs. In the future, they may be replaced however right now the priority should be to get 6-lanes in and get traffic moving.

The same with I-95. While I would agree a full shoulder carried across the bridges would be ideal, in an immediate relief project to get more capacity added to I-95, providing ~$100 million to expand the bridges that can adequately accommodate a 12 foot lane + 4 foot left shoulder simply to have a full left shoulder is an unnecessary waste of limited dollars.

In the future, if funding allows, you can add the shoulders, but it should not be a priority. It's not viewed as a priority on I-64, and it should not be a priority here.

That doesn't address the busiest sections (Ashland south and Triangle north) that are the original 6 lanes and would need a full new lane widening.

An EIS would cover between VA-123 and I-295, which would include Triangle north and Ashland south. The EIS would identify where a 4th lane already "exists", and where it would need to be added. The EIS would identify that Ashland south and Triangle north are areas that need a full new lane added, and the 35% of the 80s widening segments would also be identified for new lane construction. The rest would simply require a shoulder to be added if deemed necessary and financially feasible (recent 4-lane NB expansion near Ashland did not add a full left shoulder but rather 4 feet, likely to cut costs and it was a smart move IMO on a limited budget).

8-lane widening should not be held up just because a shoulder cannot be funded. The corridor needs immediate relief as soon as it can get it, and if it means sacrificing a left shoulder, I'm sure most people would not mind. A full right shoulder, the traditional design, is still fully provided in areas a left shoulder would be removed if deemed necessary to cut a shoulder due to funding.

[Beltway]

I would favor widening the bridges, a modern design would carry the full left shoulder across the bridges.

Segment 3 widening of I-64 between MM 241 and MM 233 is providing a full 12 foot left shoulder however it is being reduced to ~4 feet under older 70s overpasses that do not have the room to accommodate a full left shoulder.
They could replace the bridges, but quite frankly it would add unnecessary additional costs. In the future, they may be replaced however right now the priority should be to get 6-lanes in and get traffic moving.

Which ones?  I can only think of two where the clearances are that low.

The same with I-95. While I would agree a full shoulder carried across the bridges would be ideal, in an immediate relief project to get more capacity added to I-95, providing ~$100 million to expand the bridges that can adequately accommodate a 12 foot lane + 4 foot left shoulder simply to have a full left shoulder is an unnecessary waste of limited dollars.

I can't imagine where the cost would be remotely near that figure.  Widening a bridge by 8 feet is much less work than replacing an entire overpass bridge.  Those bridges are now 32 years old on the newest portion, and need full rehab in any case.

[sprjus4]

Which ones?  I can only think of two where the clearances are that low.

The clearances aren't the issue - it's the positioning of the bridge supports that prevent the full typical section from going through.

Per the design plans, the typical 12 foot left shoulder will be reduced to 4-10 foot under these three bridges -
- VA-604 Barlow Drive
- VA-143 Merrimack Trail
- VA-716 Queens Drive

A simple look at Google Street View shows the full typical section simply cannot fit under the structures, and they are not going to go through the effort to replace the bridges.

I can't imagine where the cost would be remotely near that figure.  Widening a bridge by 8 feet is much less work than replacing an entire overpass bridge.  Those bridges are now 32 years old on the newest portion, and need full rehab in any case.

I did a closer analysis at the I-95 corridor, and it appears 14 of the bridges can accommodate an additional 12 foot lane + 4-6 foot left shoulder, and all would need widening to accommodate a 10-12 foot left shoulder.

- I-95 Northbound over North Anna River
- I-95 Southbound over North Anna River
- I-95 Northbound over Railroad
- I-95 Southbound over Railroad
- I-95 Northbound over Ni River
- I-95 Southbound over Ni River
- I-95 Northbound over US-1 / US-17
- I-95 Southbound over US-1 / US-17
- I-95 Southbound over Potomac Creek
- I-95 Northbound over Aquia Creek
- I-95 Southbound over Aquia Creek
- I-95 Northbound over Quantico Creek
- I-95 Southbound over Quantico Creek
- I-95 Northbound over Powells Creek

At $100 million, that would be $7.1 million per bridge.
At $90 million, that would be $6.4 million per bridge.
At $80 million, that would be $5.7 million per bridge.
At $70 million, that would be $5 million per bridge.

It's safe to say it would cost an additional $70 - $100 million to widen the bridges on the corridor to have a full left shoulder, based on the numbers above and that there are 14 that would need to be widened.

You could do that, or you could reduce the cost of the overall project by $70 - $100 million and simply reduce the shoulder to 4 feet on the bridges. The same method being used in Williamsburg where the shoulder will reduce to 4 feet under the bridges instead of wasting money to replace them.

Not to mention, most of the overpasses are wetland / river crossings, so by not widening them, you are reducing environmental impact and that could save even more money.

[hbelkins]

Your "sprawl" is my "economic expansion."

[RoadMaster09]

Oh I love this article. I-295 shouldn't have been built around Richmond 

They lost that argument back in the 1980s. 

People often don't notice things that are working well.  I-295 provides a high-capacity outer loop around the Richmond area, eliminating what would be a major "knot" in the highway system due to the convergence of I-95, I-64 and I-85 in a metro area that now has 1.5 million population.  It would be awful and I-295 is far enough out that it is an outer bypass, not just a bypass.  It also has capacity to spare with 16 miles of 8 lanes and 29 miles of 6 lanes, even today.

How would they like a 10 to 14 lane I-95? That is what would be necessary without I-295.

[TheStranger]

Oh I love this article. I-295 shouldn't have been built around Richmond 

They lost that argument back in the 1980s. 

People often don't notice things that are working well.  I-295 provides a high-capacity outer loop around the Richmond area, eliminating what would be a major "knot" in the highway system due to the convergence of I-95, I-64 and I-85 in a metro area that now has 1.5 million population.  It would be awful and I-295 is far enough out that it is an outer bypass, not just a bypass.  It also has capacity to spare with 16 miles of 8 lanes and 29 miles of 6 lanes, even today.

How would they like a 10 to 14 lane I-95? That is what would be necessary without I-295.

Some real-life examples of this happening:

Due to the cancellation of the Route 238 freeway between I-680 in Warm Springs and the 580/238 junction in Castro Valley, 880 is the only San Jose-Oakland freeway and that section of the Nimitz Freeway between 238 and 262 is backed up often due to the lack of alternatives.

I-5 being super widened in Orange County isn't by itself a bad thing - I've seen it mentioned often how much that project has cleared up things there and how the Norwalk bottleneck has taken forever to deal with in comparison - but probably happens in part because of the cancellation of much of Route 90 (and to a lesser extent due to 57 between 5 and 405 not being constructed at least for the time being).

IMO the daily issues with 80 being congested along the Bay Bridge are in part due to the 65+ year impasse in getting a Southern Crossing built, even though BART has provided a passenger-only alternative for much of that time.

[Beltway]

Which ones?  I can only think of two where the clearances are that low.

The clearances aren't the issue - it's the positioning of the bridge supports that prevent the full typical section from going through.

I was referring to the horizontal clearances.

Per the design plans, the typical 12 foot left shoulder will be reduced to 4-10 foot under these three bridges -
- VA-604 Barlow Drive

The VA-604 bridge was built in the 1979 final new I-64 project and is fine as is --
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3295003,-76.705565,3a,90y,135.3h,99.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHM3IfcrpzjqOUjKfnmiewA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

- VA-143 Merrimack Trail
- VA-716 Queens Drive
A simple look at Google Street View shows the full typical section simply cannot fit under the structures, and they are not going to go through the effort to replace the bridges.

What effort?  VDOT's normal procedure on Interstate widening projects since the 1970s has been to replace the overpass bridge in that case.  At least 5 such bridges were replaced in the I-95 Ashland-Triangle widening project.

The above 2 bridges were originals from the 1960s when that segment was built.  By now they need major renovation and given the widening project they should be replaced with the needed clearances provided.

There is no future 8-lane project planned west of the southern VA-199 interchange, so they can't use the logic of coming back later in a future second widening project.

It's safe to say it would cost an additional $70 - $100 million to widen the bridges on the corridor to have a full left shoulder, based on the numbers above and that there are 14 that would need to be widened.

Whatever the cost, it needs an engineering estimate, and it probably would be no more than 5% of the total widening cost.  VDOT's standard procedure since the 1970s has been to widen in that situation, so they should do that so as to maintain full shoulder width thru the bridge.

[sprjus4]

The above 2 bridges were originals from the 1960s when that segment was built.  By now they need major renovation and given the widening project they should be replaced with the needed clearances provided.

There is no future 8-lane project planned west of the southern VA-199 interchange, so they can't use the logic of coming back later in a future second widening project.

Currently, there's no plans to replace the bridges. They are adequate how they currently are and unless they're structurally deficient (which they are not, the latest bridge inspections in 2017 indicate they rate "fair"), there's no need to replace them.

Replacing the entire bridge just to satisfy a left shoulder is a waste of money IMO, and clearly VDOT sees it that way too. It may have been different in the past, but clearly now there's no interest to replace the entire structure just for a shoulder.

The current project cost is $311 million, and would likely have been increased to $331 - $340 million if they chose to replace them. With limited dollars and the urgent need to expand I-64 to 6-lanes, that was likely not a concern for them if they could at least fit three 12 foot lanes underneath and at least 4 foot of shoulder.

Whatever the cost, it needs an engineering estimate, and it probably would be no more than 5% of the total widening cost.  VDOT's standard procedure since the 1970s has been to widen in that situation, so they should do that so as to maintain full shoulder width thru the bridge.

If I-64 is any example, they will likely just reduce the shoulder. No need to waste the money just to satisfy a shoulder. If anything, they may not even pave a full left shoulder. The recent I-95 4-lane NB widening near Richmond only has a 4 foot left shoulder, and IIRC the I-64 widening east of I-295 only has a 4 foot shoulder.

For 73 miles of 8-lane widening, and an estimated cost of $30 million per mile (and that's being nice, the I-64 widening projects in Williamsburg are up in the $50 per mile range), that would be $2.19 billion. 5% of that $2.19 billion cost is $109 million. You proved my point

I can't imagine where the cost would be remotely near that figure.

That's a waste IMO just for a shoulder over a very short distance. Just like they aren't replacing the bridges on the Williamsburg widening, I doubt they'd replace them here.

If it was a right shoulder, that would be different. But we're discussing a left shoulder being dropped simply over 14 small overpasses - a lot of 6-8 lane freeways in the country don't even have greater than a 4 foot left shoulder for the entire length of the highway.

[Beltway]

Replacing the entire bridge just to satisfy a left shoulder is a waste of money IMO, and clearly VDOT sees it that way too. It may have been different in the past, but clearly now there's no interest to replace the entire structure just for a shoulder.

I would conclude nothing of the sort with just 2 examples, and 1960s Interstate bridges invariably have insufficient vertical clearances as well, in a addition to being obsolete and worn-out structures.  Unless you want to argue against full left shoulders, they should be full width for the entire length, else what happens to the vehicle that is entering the shoulder and then gets forced out back onto the roadway.

[sprjus4]

Replacing the entire bridge just to satisfy a left shoulder is a waste of money IMO, and clearly VDOT sees it that way too. It may have been different in the past, but clearly now there's no interest to replace the entire structure just for a shoulder.

I would conclude nothing of the sort with just 2 examples, and 1960s Interstate bridges invariably have insufficient vertical clearances as well, in a addition to being obsolete and worn-out structures.  Unless you want to argue against full left shoulders, they should be full width for the entire length, else what happens to the vehicle that is entering the shoulder and then gets forced out back onto the roadway.

My recommendation -

Contact VDOT and ask them why they are reducing the left shoulder under 60s bridges instead of replacing the bridge to satisfy a full section.

Reply back once you get a response if you chose to contact them.

[plain]

For the people in sprjus4's link from earlier to even claim that I-295 led to the decline of Downtown Richmond let's me know they have no clue about what they're talking about. Downtown was declining since the 1960's, long before even the first segments of 295 (between I-64 east & west of Richmond) was completed... suburbanization caused the decline. And downtown has made serious strides in the last decade, so their claims is still moot.