Virginia

[Beltway]

The ability to waive long bridges really only applies when an older, existing, non-interstate bridge is being incorporated into the interstate highway system.

That may have been valid in the early stages of the Interstate highway system with pre-Interstate turnpikes being incorporated into the Interstate highway system.

Since the original system has long since been completed, there should be no new Interstate highway authorized if it means incorporating major substandard features such as bridges that don't have full shoulders.

[sprjus4]

Since the original system has long since been completed, there should be no new Interstate highway authorized if it means incorporating major substandard features such as bridges that don't have full shoulders.

I agree, but the interstate standards specifically outline that long bridges are permitted as long as they have 4 foot shoulders on either side. IIRC, it's been done even after the turnpikes and more recently too. I can't remember where though.

[Beltway]

Since the original system has long since been completed, there should be no new Interstate highway authorized if it means incorporating major substandard features such as bridges that don't have full shoulders.

I agree, but the interstate standards specifically outline that long bridges are permitted as long as they have 4 foot shoulders on either side. IIRC, it's been done even after the turnpikes and more recently too. I can't remember where though.

This is from the 2005 AASHTO "A Policy on Design Standards Interstate System"

Existing Bridges to Remain in Place
Mainline bridges on the interstate system and bridges on routes to be incorporated into the system may remain in place if, as a minimum, they meet the following: a) the bridge cross section consists of 3.6 m (12 ft) lanes, 3.0 m (10ft) shoulder on the right and 1.1 m (3.5 ft) shoulder on the left; b) for long bridges, the offset to the face of parapet or bridge rail on both the left and right is 1.1 m (3.5 ft) measured from the edge of the nearest traveled lane; c) bridge railing shall meet or be upgraded to current standards.

So what is a "long bridge"?  The I-664 South Trestles are 3.2 miles long and they have full shoulders.

If a bridge 200 feet long needs full shoulders then why should a much longer bridge not need full shoulders?  If mile+ long new Interstate bridges were getting full shoulders up to 40 years ago then why should a bridge be allowed into the Interstate system today if it does not meet that standard?

[sprjus4]

Since the original system has long since been completed, there should be no new Interstate highway authorized if it means incorporating major substandard features such as bridges that don't have full shoulders.

I agree, but the interstate standards specifically outline that long bridges are permitted as long as they have 4 foot shoulders on either side. IIRC, it's been done even after the turnpikes and more recently too. I can't remember where though.

This is from the 2005 AASHTO "A Policy on Design Standards Interstate System"

Existing Bridges to Remain in Place
Mainline bridges on the interstate system and bridges on routes to be incorporated into the system may remain in place if, as a minimum, they meet the following: a) the bridge cross section consists of 3.6 m (12 ft) lanes, 3.0 m (10ft) shoulder on the right and 1.1 m (3.5 ft) shoulder on the left; b) for long bridges, the offset to the face of parapet or bridge rail on both the left and right is 1.1 m (3.5 ft) measured from the edge of the nearest traveled lane; c) bridge railing shall meet or be upgraded to current standards.

So what is a "long bridge"?  The I-664 South Trestles are 3.2 miles long and they have full shoulders.

If a bridge 200 feet long needs full shoulders then why should a much longer bridge not need full shoulders?  If mile+ long new Interstate bridges were getting full shoulders up to 40 years ago then why should a bridge be allowed into the Interstate system today if it does not meet that standard?

A long bridge is any bridge over 200 feet long, as per the current standards, listed below.

Essentially, the minimum standard allows 4 ft shoulders, though most DOTs use the practice of carrying the full 10 foot shoulder across the bridges, though it's not required, and has never been.

Three examples, while they haven't been officially done yet, are proposed in North Carolina. The two 2,640 ft bridges over the Perquimans River, the single 4-lane 9,504 ft bridge over the Chowan River, and the 1,056 ft bridges over the Roanoke River (depends, one alternative calls for constructing new bridges just south of the existing, the other two retain the existing), all three along US-17, are going be incorporated into Interstate 87 using the standard permitted.

I will say, I don't agree with it fully, I believe the US-17 bridge over the Chowan River (1999 build), the US-17 NB bridge over the Perquimans River (1994 build), and the US-17 bridges over the Roanoke River (1990 and 1992 build) (if they are retained) should have the outside 4 ft shoulders widened to 10 ft, and the US-17 SB bridge over the Perquimans River (1965 build), which doesn't have any shoulders should be fully replaced.

But nonetheless, if NCDOT chooses to retain the bridges, it would be permitted under the current Interstate standards.

The most recent 2016 edition of "A Policy on Design Standards - Interstate System" still permits the practice.

Cross Section
The width of bridges less than or equal to 200 ft in length shall not be less than the full paved width of the approach roadway, including shoulders. The bridge width is measured between the bridge railing, parapet, or barrier. Long bridges, defined as bridges having an overall length in excess of 200 ft, may have a lesser width and should be analyzed individually. On long bridges, a reduced shoulder width of 4 ft may be used on both the left and right sides

Existing Bridges to Remain in Place
Mainline bridges on the Interstate system and bridges on routes to be incorporated into the system may remain in place if, as a minimum, they meet all of the following criteria:

• For bridges less than or equal to 200 ft in length, the bridge section consists of at least 12 ft lanes, 10 ft shoulder on the right and 3.5 ft shoulder on the left;
• For long bridges, shoulder width on both the left and right is at least 3.5 ft measured from the edge of the nearest travel lane; and
• Bridge railing meets or will be upgraded to current standards.

[Beltway]

But nonetheless, if NCDOT chooses to retain the bridges, it would be permitted under the current Interstate standards.
The most recent 2016 edition of "A Policy on Design Standards - Interstate System" still permits the practice.

Nevertheless, a crappy and substandard design clause probably inserted by the advocacy and bullying of the likes of NCDOT (or as I like to say THSDOT,  Tar Heel State Department of Transportation).  Just because it is "permitted" doesn't mean that it is a wise and safe design practice.

Like I said full shoulders on an Interstate highway bridge of any length has effectively been a standard since the late 1970s.

[sprjus4]

But nonetheless, if NCDOT chooses to retain the bridges, it would be permitted under the current Interstate standards.
The most recent 2016 edition of "A Policy on Design Standards - Interstate System" still permits the practice.

Nevertheless, a crappy and substandard design clause probably inserted by the advocacy and bullying of the likes of NCDOT (or as I like to say THSDOT,  Tar Heel State Department of Transportation).  Just because it is "permitted" doesn't mean that it is a wise and safe design practice.

Like I said full shoulders on an Interstate highway bridge of any length has effectively been a standard since the late 1970s.

I agree, the bridges do need modifications. Despite what the feasibility study states, project "R-5869" (only partially funded) in the STIP to upgrade 4.5 miles of U.S. 17 near Hertford to interstate standards has a high cost estimate which may hint at a bridge replacement / widening.

Project "R-5869" is split up into three projects A, B, and C.

Project A is set to begin in 2026 and is funded for $36,900,000. That project would convert the Harvey Point Rd signalized intersection into an interchange with frontage roads to serve nearby businesses, along with right of way & demolishing approx. 8 homes and 4-5 businesses and also replace the Wayne Fork Rd intersection into a grade separation with no connections.

Project B is also set to begin in 2026 and is funded for $23,700,000. That project would convert the New Hope Rd signalized intersection into an interchange.

Project C is funded for programming and environmental study, but construction, R/W, utility relocation, etc. is not funded, and projected to cost $139,500,000. That project would likely construct an interchange at the Wiggins Rd intersection, a partial interchange the U.S. 17 Business southern junction, 2 miles of frontage road on the Hertford Bypass (1 mile on each side), 1,000 ft of frontage road just north of the river to serve the River Croft community, and fully right of way & demolish approx. 16 homes and 1 businesses.

For Project C, if you assume $20 million for an interchange, that's about $40 million for the two interchanges, and assuming $5 million per mile for frontage roads, about $10-15 million for frontage roads. That leaves $84 million leftover. About $20 million would likely go to right of way, leaving about $64 million. That $64 million could be programmed to replace one of the Perquimans River bridges, and widen the other one. Judging by other bridge projects done in North Carolina, $64 million or so could complete the bridge projects on US-17 to have 10 foot shoulders.

It's just a complete guess, but once the NEPA process begins for this section, we'll have a better idea if they are planning to replace the bridges, widen them, or retain them. I'm hoping they will either be replaced or widened, for reasons I've listed above.

No info regarding the other two bridges.

[VTGoose]

Out here at the other end of the state, sections of U.S. 460 are posted for 60 MPH, in Bedford County and Giles County (and a short stretch in Montgomery County). The Blacksburg and Pearisburg bypasses are posted at 65 MPH. It has been a while since I've made the trip beyond Bluefield to Grundy, but I seem to remember sections of 460 in Tazewell County that were posted at 60 and 65.

I recall pre-NMSL that the US-460 Christiansburg Bypass was posted at 65 mph.  How about nowadays?

U.S. 460 from Roanoke Street in Christiansburg to North Main St. in Blacksburg is all four-lane limited access and is 65 mph between those points. With the opening of the Southgate interchange that eliminated the traffic light, that ended the short stretch of 55 mph.

[sprjus4]

Speed limit raising on U.S. Route 301 between Port Royal and Bowling Green from 55 MPH to 60 MPH.

https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/caroline/caroline-board-oks-speed-limit-increase-on-a-p-hill/article_1f866d5b-44fe-5d54-a7ce-8965726b0ccb.html

Glad to see some more of these increases coming along.

[74/171FAN]

Speed limit raising on U.S. Route 301 between Port Royal and Bowling Green from 55 MPH to 60 MPH.

https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/caroline/caroline-board-oks-speed-limit-increase-on-a-p-hill/article_1f866d5b-44fe-5d54-a7ce-8965726b0ccb.html

Glad to see some more of these increases coming along.

I am shocked that they confused the Nice Bridge with the CBBT in the article.

[WillWeaverRVA]

VA 357 decommissioning on the March 2019 CTB agenda...

http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/mar/agendas/ctb_action_meeting_march_2019.pdf

The Southside Training Facility was torn down and redeveloped by private interests.

Annnnnnd it's gone. VA 357 decommissioned.

[froggie]

Speed limit raising on U.S. Route 301 between Port Royal and Bowling Green from 55 MPH to 60 MPH.

Not surprising.  Because of Fort A.P. Hill, most of it was limited-access to begin with.

[1995hoo]

Speed limit raising on U.S. Route 301 between Port Royal and Bowling Green from 55 MPH to 60 MPH.

https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/caroline/caroline-board-oks-speed-limit-increase-on-a-p-hill/article_1f866d5b-44fe-5d54-a7ce-8965726b0ccb.html

Glad to see some more of these increases coming along.

I am shocked that they confused the Nice Bridge with the CBBT in the article.

Perhaps the writer meant the Bay Bridge (in Maryland) and simply used the wrong name. That seems far more plausible to me because Route 301 is indeed a major route to the Bay Bridge for people who want to avoid the Beltway.

[sprjus4]

Not surprising.  Because of Fort A.P. Hill, most of it was limited-access to begin with.

Indeed, the entire 9 mile stretch is technically a freeway with one exception, because the military roadways that cross US 301 are grade separated. The only exception is there is one at-grade intersection to a facility roughly in the middle.

If that at-grade intersection did not exist, the entire stretch could have been posted as high as 70 MPH, legally under current law. Likely though, 65 MPH would've been the highest due to the roadway conditions even if it was fully freeway.

[Jmiles32]

Quick question that I don't think is worth making a new thread over: Why is I-95 northbound so bad around Fredericksburg on weekends? It's not like there are any lane drops or anything. My guess is that it maybe has something to do with additional traffic via the US-17 concurrency but honestly I'm not sure.

[sprjus4]

Quick question that I don't think is worth making a new thread over: Why is I-95 northbound so bad around Fredericksburg on weekends? It's not like there are any lane drops or anything. My guess is that it maybe has something to do with additional traffic via the US-17 concurrency but honestly I'm not sure.

I-95 is a mess all over, anytime essentially.

The Fredericksburg section is the worst between US-17 and VA-3, the segment that crosses the Rappohannock River. Since it's the western most crossing of the river in 10+ miles in that direction, it serves a significant amount of local traffic between those two exits, clogging with the already congested I-95.

A massive overhaul of that segment is currently underway and will be completed by 2022. Currently, there's 3 lanes in each direction (6 total). Once completed, there will be 3 "express/thru (no tolls)" lanes in direction, plus 3 local lanes in each direction. It will bring the entire section up to 12 lanes, doubling the existing capacity, plus that split between local and thru traffic. That should significantly relieve the issues here.

Another reason I-95 northbound is a busy corridor on weekends, especially Sunday, is because there's a lot of people who work Monday-Friday in DC, then leave on the weekends, and commute back up on Sundays. A lot of government related jobs up that way that lead to this practice. On Fridays, it's the same going southbound.

[Mapmikey]

Another reason I-95 northbound is a busy corridor on weekends, especially Sunday, is because there's a lot of people who work Monday-Friday in DC, then leave on the weekends, and commute back up on Sundays. A lot of government related jobs up that way that lead to this practice. On Fridays, it's the same going southbound.

This is the primary reason...DC empties out every Friday and returns on Sunday with it being worse in the summer months.  It's essentially an additional rush hour.

I can't imagine that many locals need to cross the Rappahannock to get from US 17 to VA 3.  Nearly anything one needs can be found on both sides of the river.

[ipeters61]

Another reason I-95 northbound is a busy corridor on weekends, especially Sunday, is because there's a lot of people who work Monday-Friday in DC, then leave on the weekends, and commute back up on Sundays. A lot of government related jobs up that way that lead to this practice. On Fridays, it's the same going southbound.

So you're saying these people stay somewhere in DC only Monday-Friday? (i.e. they have two homes?)

[Mapmikey]

Another reason I-95 northbound is a busy corridor on weekends, especially Sunday, is because there's a lot of people who work Monday-Friday in DC, then leave on the weekends, and commute back up on Sundays. A lot of government related jobs up that way that lead to this practice. On Fridays, it's the same going southbound.

So you're saying these people stay somewhere in DC only Monday-Friday? (i.e. they have two homes?)

You'd be surprised at the number of people who do some version of this...people stay in rooms or share apartments.  My step father had a townhouse near Front Royal to commute to DC and went home to the Lynchburg area on the weekends.  I currently work with someone (I work in Bethesda) who stays with his daughter during the week and goes home to his house in Kilmarnock on many weekends.  There are also a number of firefighter-type folks who stay in the firehouse when at work in 48 shifts (or whatever their tour is) and commute to DC on their off days from Bedford VA or places in Pennsylvania.

It's not the whole reason for the weekend travel surges but it is a portion...

[Rothman]

Yep, DC commuter population is quite transient residentially.

[sprjus4]

I can't imagine that many locals need to cross the Rappahannock to get from US 17 to VA 3.  Nearly anything one needs can be found on both sides of the river.

The AADT counts would disagree.

South of VA-3, the AADT on I-95 is 122,000. Between VA-3 and US-17 it's 147,000. North of US-17, it's 133,000.

To get more specific, the ramps from I-95 South to VA-3 West, and vice versa carry 19,000 AADT, and the ramps from I-95 North to US-17 North and vice versa carry 22,000 AADT.

So about 18-22,000 AADT, give or take a few, use I-95 daily between the two. It's a significant volume that impedes the already congested I-95. That's why the C/D lane project is currently under construction there, to give the 20,000 AADT their own roadway, and to keep them off the mainline of I-95.

[Mapmikey]

Given that I've lived in Fredericksburg 23 years, I might have some insight.

Since the phenomenon being discussed is weekend NB traffic is heavy only on Sunday afternoon while being heavy SB on Fri/Sat, this would mean that the local traffic was spending the night after coming south across the river on Friday or Saturday.  Note that these trends are actually reversed when a big event in DC is planned on a weekend - inaugurations, marches, 4th of July, etc.

The C/D lanes are to eliminate the weaving/merging amongst the US 17 SB to I-95 ramp, the Virginia Welcome Center, and the VA 3 interchange.

The 20k estimate of people who use the I-95 bridge each direction are not necessarily the same people.  There is a heavy through traffic movement involving I-95 and US 17, as well as a smaller through movement involving I-95 (either direction) and VA 3 WB. 

During the weekday rush hour, there is more local traffic using the bridge as there are some employers up 17 north who surely have employees who live out VA 3 WB.

[NJRoadfan]

From my observations, on weekends when traveling thru the area, there is a noticeable drop in traffic heading south after Exit 126 on I-95. That is if it isn't already backed up from the end of the HOT lanes to Fredericksburg.

[RoadPelican]

I-95 northbound acts as a funnel on Sunday afternoon/evenings in the Summer.  A lot of residents in the DC Metro area are coming back from points South and East: Williamsburg, VA Beach and The Outer Banks, most of them take I-64 West to I-95 north.  However, 2-3 mile backups are also common place at the US 301 Potomac River Bridge.

[jakeroot]

I've noticed some pretty bad backups going into DC via 395 late into the evenings, even on weekends. But I'm not quite sure why this is. No idea if it's just pass-through traffic headed to Maryland, or traffic actually headed into the District.

Most of the time I see it while riding the Metro, but I also experienced it about a week ago while trying to merge left to exit at 14th.

[1995hoo]

I've noticed some pretty bad backups going into DC via 395 late into the evenings, even on weekends. But I'm not quite sure why this is. No idea if it's just pass-through traffic headed to Maryland, or traffic actually headed into the District.

Most of the time I see it while riding the Metro, but I also experienced it about a week ago while trying to merge left to exit at 14th.

Combination of reasons: Events in DC (including, but not limited to, sports at Verizon Center or Nationals Park), people who commute from DC or Maryland to Virginia (especially places like Crystal City and the Pentagon), some thru traffic bypassing the Wilson Bridge because it backs up every afternoon. I'm not sure the latter makes a lot of sense unless you're already inside the Beltway at the start of your trip, but based on what I see from the train if I go to Huntington instead of Springfield I'm pretty sure there are people who don't want to wait on the Beltway.

There are also a lot of people living in southern PG and Charles counties in Maryland whose morning commutes take them over the Wilson Bridge and then up through Old Town to the Pentagon or downtown. There don't seem to be quite as many in the afternoons, which suggests to me they might use I-295 or Suitland Parkway instead on the way home.