Virginia

[Beltway]

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

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

I-464 north of US-460 was designed in the mid-1970s.  The advance bridge projects in the Poindexter Street interchange area were awarded in 1979.  The design decisions were probably earlier than that.

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

It's kind of the same thing with bridges. Bridges over 200 ft in length are allowed to have a reduced shoulder of 4 ft on both sides.
Again, most states will still go forward in build full shoulders either way, especially on busier highways, but it's not required.

It's a joke to have these AASHTO standards for Interstate highways and then say they are "not required", for prevailing design concepts that have been place for over 40 years.

It is a joke for AASHTO to call a 201-foot bridge a "long bridge", when a skewed overpass can be 300 feet long.  A "long bridge" should have to be over 5,280 feet long, IME.

The I-664 viaducts were all open by 1992, and the longest is 3.2 miles long, and they have full right shoulders.

[tolbs17]

and this one goes to Beltway or sprjus4 or whoever can answer this question.

Why does I-64 make an ugly hook shape when it comes down to Hampton Roads? It just circles around Norfolk and goes to Suffolk. They should have made it go to Virginia Beach if possible! I-264 would have worked better for the circle. And I-64 can go to Hampton Roads.

[sprjus4]

and this one goes to Beltway or sprjus4 or whoever can answer this question.

Why does I-64 make an ugly hook shape when it comes down to Hampton Roads? It just circles around Norfolk and goes to Suffolk. They should have made it go to Virginia Beach if possible! I-264 would have worked better for the circle. And I-64 can go to Hampton Roads.

I don't know the exact reason, but when the original interstate system was let in 1956, only I-64, I-464, I-564, and I-264 inside of I-64 were apart of the original system, and built throughout the 60s and 70s, and I-464 in the 80s. I-264 between the east I-64 interchange and the Oceanfront, and I-664 did not exist.

I-664 was added in the 1968 addition to the interstate system, but was not completed until 1992. I-264 between the east I-64 interchange the Oceanfront was built in 1968 as a toll road, VA-44. It was not until the late 90s it went toll-free and was designated as an extension of I-264.

I-64 runs through Chesapeake, Virginia Beach, and Norfolk on the southside. It connects to US-58 on the western end which brings traffic to Suffolk. That is my only real guess as to why I-64 went that far west. When it was built throughout the 60s and early 70s, pretty much everything the two I-264 junctions was rural, and the highway had a 70 mph speed limit, so it wasn't built to exactly serve anything. Like I said, my guess was just for it to connect to US-58. I-264 acted as the more urbanized route in this corridor serving Downtown Norfolk and Portsmouth and I-64 was the southern rural bypass for traffic bound to US-58.

EDIT - I-64 also serves access to the US-17 and VA-168 corridors for traffic bound to North Carolina. VA-168 is the major corridor linking traffic to the Outer Banks. It was a two-lane road back then, but has since relocated onto 4-lane freeway / toll road that was completed in 2001. It has always been a busy route though for tourist traffic.

[Beltway]

and this one goes to Beltway or sprjus4 or whoever can answer this question.
Why does I-64 make an ugly hook shape when it comes down to Hampton Roads? It just circles around Norfolk and goes to Suffolk. They should have made it go to Virginia Beach if possible! I-264 would have worked better for the circle. And I-64 can go to Hampton Roads.

There was a 1997 renumbering study that considered that, but the existing designations were reaffirmed by the municipalities.   I-64 crosses Hampton Roads and then generally follows the pre-existing South Hampton Roads bypass of Military Highway.  It goes thru or near all the major cities, and Virginia Beach wasn't yet a city in 1956 when the route was authorized, at least it had not yet subsumed Princess Ann County, and it had far less population.

[sprjus4]

I-64 crosses Hampton Roads and then generally follows the pre-existing South Hampton Roads bypass of Military Highway.

That's also a key reason - I had forgotten about that completely.

It goes thru or near all the major cities, and Virginia Beach wasn't yet a city in 1956 when the route was authorized, at least it had not yet subsumed Princess Ann County, and it had far less population.

Chesapeake wasn't a city either until 1963. It was apart of Norfolk County when the interstate system was authorized. But like you said, the reason was likely to follow the Military Highway corridor.


Overall it seems all the interstates were designed to follow some pre-existing corridor.

I-264 follows US-58, I-64 follows US-13 / Military Highway, I-464 follows US-460 / Bainbridge Blvd, and IIRC I-564 was an upgrade of a previous road that was there.

VA-44 was also built as a toll road specifically designed to parallel and supplement US-58 east of I-64 / I-264, and it being incorporated into I-264 just continues I-264's design of paralleling US-58.

As for the newer interstates / highways, I-664 wasn't really designed to follow any particular corridor but rather be a link in the Hampton Roads Beltway (though IIRC it was original a US-17 arterial relocation proposal back in the 60s), and VA-164 was designed to parallel US-17.

The other major freeway in the area, VA-168, that was simply built as a freeway-grade relocation of the arterial VA-168 between I-64 and the North Carolina state line.

[Beltway]

It goes thru or near all the major cities, and Virginia Beach wasn't yet a city in 1956 when the route was authorized, at least it had not yet subsumed Princess Ann County, and it had far less population.

Chesapeake wasn't a city either until 1963. It was apart of Norfolk County when the interstate system was authorized. But like you said, the reason was likely to follow the Military Highway corridor.

I was referring to Portsmouth, Norfolk, Hampton and Newport News, the original 4 major cities.

As for the newer interstates / highways, I-664 wasn't really designed to follow any particular corridor but rather be a link in the Hampton Roads Beltway (though IIRC it was original a US-17 arterial relocation proposal back in the 60s), and VA-164 was designed to parallel US-17.

I-664 was the "third crossing" of the day, the beltway concept really had not been thought of at that point, and the US-17 relocation was only between US-17 at Churchland and Bowers Hill and predated the harbor crossing concept.

[sprjus4]

I-664 was the "third crossing" of the day, the beltway concept really had not been thought of at that point, and the US-17 relocation was only between US-17 at Churchland and Bowers Hill and predated the harbor crossing concept.

In October 1968 the Virginia Department of Highways applied to the Federal Highway Administration for allocation of funds to complete 20.5 miles of Interstate Beltway beginning near the junction of I-64 and the Newport News Connector Road and running across Hampton Roads to a connection with I-64 near Bowers Hill. This project met the requirements of filling in breaks in the region's Interstate System.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I664_History.html

Route 664 Design Study Report, December 1978

[Mapmikey]

I speculate it is possible the FHWA wanted I-64 to use today's I-664 when I-664's mileage was considered in 1968.

The FHWA said the full length of I-664 could get the designation only if they downgraded I-64 between I-664 Hampton and US 460 Wards Corner.  See pg. 14 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-01-1969-01.pdf.  The CTB was using the term Hamptpn Roads Beltway by this time.

Virginia elected not to do this, so I-664 initially only got approval for 9.2 miles instead of 20 (ending partway across the James River).  Some artful maneuvers by Virginia eventually got the whole of I-664 into the system by 1983.  Details about these maneuvers can be found on Scott's website - http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I664_History.html

[sprjus4]

I speculate it is possible the FHWA wanted I-64 to use today's I-664 when I-664's mileage was considered in 1968.

The FHWA said the full length of I-664 could get the designation only if they downgraded I-64 between I-664 Hampton and US 460 Wards Corner.  See pg. 14 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-01-1969-01.pdf.  The CTB was using the term Hamptpn Roads Beltway by this time.

Virginia elected not to do this, so I-664 initially only got approval for 9.2 miles instead of 20 (ending partway across the James River).  Some artful maneuvers by Virginia eventually got the whole of I-664 into the system by 1983.  Details about these maneuvers can be found on Scott's website - http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I664_History.html

Based on reading his article, that whole thing about downgrading I-64 was the funding. I-664 could be done for all of its 20 miles, but Virginia would have to construct half of it with their own funding not as an interstate, then designate it as an interstate highway once it was completed because it would have met interstate standards.

[D-Dey65]

I see the points, but I don't recall seeing accident stats of that nature.

https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/richmond/I-95-64_Overlap_Study/Overlap_Final_Report_032713_No_Appendix.pdf

Page 3

VDOT identified the I-95/I-64 Overlap area in downtown Richmond to be one of the highest crash, heavily congested corridors in the region.

You know, there is land near the old Belvidere Toll Plaza that could be used for new lanes:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Former_Richmond-Petersburg_Tpk_Belvidere_toll_plaza.jpg

It won't cover the rest of the I-95/I-64 overlap, but it's good to know there's room for improvement.

[tolbs17]

I see the points, but I don't recall seeing accident stats of that nature.

https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/richmond/I-95-64_Overlap_Study/Overlap_Final_Report_032713_No_Appendix.pdf

Page 3

VDOT identified the I-95/I-64 Overlap area in downtown Richmond to be one of the highest crash, heavily congested corridors in the region.

You know, there is land near the old Belvidere Toll Plaza that could be used for new lanes:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Former_Richmond-Petersburg_Tpk_Belvidere_toll_plaza.jpg

It won't cover the rest of the I-95/I-64 overlap, but it's good to know there's room for improvement.

Pretty sure it's not going to be tolled again ever probably. That's some interesting stuff. If it were tolled again I'm sure more traffic would be using I-295.

[sprjus4]

Based on the traffic cameras, it appears all 6-lanes on I-64 are now open to traffic east of I-295.



Don't know exactly when they opened, but they were still closed as of last week.

[Beltway]

Based on the traffic cameras, it appears all 6-lanes on I-64 are now open to traffic east of I-295.
Don't know exactly when they opened, but they were still closed as of last week.

About Tuesday when I drove it--

About the first half of the length of the eastbound side was open to 3 lanes with the rest line-painted and looking about ready to open.

The westbound side it looks like some more paving is needed, none of third lane open.

[sprjus4]

About the first half of the length of the eastbound side was open to 3 lanes with the rest line-painted and looking about ready to open.

That VDOT camera is located east of the truck inspection station, about 1.5 miles west of VA-249. Was that part open Tuesday? If not, it appears it has all opened by now at least eastbound.

The westbound side it looks like some more paving is needed, none of third lane open.

I -might- be driving through that segment today westbound (if there's no traffic, if so I use US-60 or US-460) so I'll post an update on it if it's magically clear and I go through it. But I doubt it IMO.

Hopefully some part of westbound is opened up by now, would be nice to go through there for once during mid-day on a summer Sunday and not be going 20 mph.

[sprjus4]

I-464 north of US-460 was designed in the mid-1970s.  The advance bridge projects in the Poindexter Street interchange area were awarded in 1979.  The design decisions were probably earlier than that.

Another example would be the I-81 / I-77 overlap that opened in 1987.

To be fair, wouldn't the sections of I-295 with full left shoulders have been designed in the 70s as well? The widening of I-95 between Ashland and Triangle that happened in the early 80s and has full left shoulders as well, wouldn't that have also been designed in the 70s?

I just find it odd how some interstate projects that opened in the 80s like I-295 and the I-95 widening have full left shoulders, whereas the I-81 / I-77 segment and I-464 segment that also opened in the 80s don't have full left shoulders.

And it seems even today they can't keep it consistent as seen by this most recent expansion of I-64 by Richmond. I agree that any highway with 3 or more lanes should have a full left shoulder when possible except when there's limitations such as narrow median, narrower bridge not deemed important to be replaced / widened, etc.

[Beltway]

About the first half of the length of the eastbound side was open to 3 lanes with the rest line-painted and looking about ready to open.

That VDOT camera is located east of the truck inspection station, about 1.5 miles west of VA-249. Was that part open Tuesday? If not, it appears it has all opened by now at least eastbound.

I don't remember the exact transition point.  The part that was closed looked complete with all lines painted, so it should be a matter of days.

[sprjus4]

I don't remember the exact transition point.  The part that was closed looked complete with all lines painted, so it should be a matter of days.

Did the bridge have all 3 lanes open at least or look complete? That's likely what's holding the remainder up. A few weeks ago most of it looked complete, but the bridges still had a bit of a work, at least eastbound.

If you don't remember though, that's fine. One thing that's frustrating is VDOT has 5 cameras through the entire project area, but only 1 is currently enabled for some reason. The rest are deactivated and cannot be viewed.

[Beltway]

I-464 north of US-460 was designed in the mid-1970s.  The advance bridge projects in the Poindexter Street interchange area were awarded in 1979.  The design decisions were probably earlier than that.

Another example would be the I-81 / I-77 overlap that opened in 1987.
To be fair, wouldn't the sections of I-295 with full left shoulders have been designed in the 70s as well? The widening of I-95 between Ashland and Triangle that happened in the early 80s and has full left shoulders as well, wouldn't that have also been designed in the 70s?
I just find it odd how some interstate projects that opened in the 80s like I-295 and the I-95 widening have full left shoulders, whereas the I-81 / I-77 segment and I-464 segment that also opened in the 80s don't have full left shoulders.

You are over thinking things.  It is hard to identify an exact transition point when a standard was upgraded by construction date, as I saw on my trip last weekend out I-64 to WV, the transition to building full right shoulders was in the 1970 to 1972 range for opening date.

Even today a "local design decision" can use an older standard for some reason that seems to be an error that was not overruled by the design reviewers.  It is no excuse for not using that standard or any justification for another project getting reduced standards.

[Beltway]

If you don't remember though, that's fine. One thing that's frustrating is VDOT has 5 cameras through the entire project area, but only 1 is currently enabled for some reason. The rest are deactivated and cannot be viewed.

Probably temporarily offline.  We would occasionally get help desk tickets in the IT Support Center, for an offline camera, and we would contact the contractor that supports the system, that goes out there to diagnose and fix the problem; it could be a camera hardware problem, it could be a electrical problem, it could be a cable problem.  It could also be a network problem, and if so someone else is contacted to diagnose and fix the problem.  I have been retired for 2 years but that is probably the same procedure today.

[tolbs17]

Question. What are these stub ramps for? Are they for the southeastern Suffolk Bypass? I think it would come in handy if they built that.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/I-93/@36.7003143,-76.6019043,930m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e26da2735216a3:0x1b40091b26a09b7!8m2!3d43.2893492!4d-71.5704076

https://www.google.com/maps/place/I-93/@36.7501876,-76.5317151,2093m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e26da2735216a3:0x1b40091b26a09b7!8m2!3d43.2893492!4d-71.5704076

[Beltway]

Question. What are these stub ramps for? Are they for the southeastern Suffolk Bypass? I think it would come in handy if they built that.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/I-93/@36.7003143,-76.6019043,930m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e26da2735216a3:0x1b40091b26a09b7!8m2!3d43.2893492!4d-71.5704076
https://www.google.com/maps/place/I-93/@36.7501876,-76.5317151,2093m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e26da2735216a3:0x1b40091b26a09b7!8m2!3d43.2893492!4d-71.5704076

Southeast Suffolk Bypass, planned back in the 1970s when that eastern interchange and US-58 bypass was built.  Would have been part of full loop around Old Suffolk.

The western interchange doesn't have stub ramps per se, but it apparently is configured for a future extension.

Very unlikely that it will ever be built, due to direct impacts to the Dismal Swamp.

[Beltway]

[I-64 widening, I-295 to VA-249 Bottoms Bridge]

Eastbound all 3 lanes are open and the final asphalt surface course is in place.  The temporary configuration for the beginning of the third lane is a continuation of the onramp from I-295.  The temporary configuration for the end of the third lane is exiting onto VA-249.  The stub of the constructed third lane is on the left.

"Temporary configuration" meaning until the adjacent 6-lane widening project is constructed.

Westbound 2 lanes are open.  The bridge looks complete.  Considerably milling and paving is still needed on the existing lanes, and part is complete.  The whole roadway will need a final surface course of asphalt.  Sometimes a roadway with the intermediate course is painted and opened, with the final surface course of asphalt to be applied later (as in soon like a few weeks).  I don't know which is the plan, but the eastbound roadway was fully completed with the final surface course of asphalt before opening all lanes, so that might be the plan as well westbound.

I drove thru today.

There have been some openings westbound, even though final milling and paving is still underway and will probably take a week or more.

The westbound middle lane and the left lane are open on the entire project, and the right lane is now open on the second half of the project, and closed on the first half with includes the Chickahominy River bridge.

[1995hoo]

Hurricane Camille made a mess of Virginia 50 years ago this coming weekend. The Daily Progress has a bunch if pictures, including some road photos. US-29 near Lovingston hasn't changed all that much!

https://www.dailyprogress.com/news/photos-flooding-from-remnants-of-hurricane-camille-in-august/collection_62d242ff-9a5e-5ba0-bbe8-545db356ce21.html

[sprjus4]

NORFOLK -- The new flyover ramp from Interstate 64 west to Interstate 264 east will open to traffic the night of Wednesday, Aug. 14, increasing capacity and enhancing safety along the highly traveled interchange.

The completion of the bridge marks a major milestone in the first phase of the I-64/264 Interchange Improvements project, which is scheduled for completion this fall. "Opening this new ramp is a crucial step in improving one of the busiest interchanges in Hampton Roads," said Chris Hall, Hampton Roads district engineer. "Most importantly, we're making travel safer for the more than 100,000 people who live, work and drive here everyday."

The ramp will add capacity at the interchange and remove a conflict point by elevating traffic from the I-64 west ramp over the I-264 east collector-distributor road and placing motorists directly onto mainline I-264 east.

This new traffic pattern, which motorists should anticipate during the Thursday morning commute, will eliminate the jockeying that occurs between drivers leaving I-264 for Newtown Road and those merging onto I-264 from I-64 west.

https://www.virginiadot.org/VDOT/Travel/Travel_Alerts/Hampton_Roads/asset_upload_file56_55256.pdf

Was supposed to open tonight, however it was once again delayed due to "an inspection that revealed items that need to be completed prior to the ramp opening to traffic."

Updated release -

NORFOLK -- The new flyover ramp from Interstate 64 west to Interstate 264 east will not open to traffic tonight, as originally scheduled, after a pre-opening inspection revealed items that need to be completed prior to the ramp opening.

VDOT initially believed the outstanding items could be completed in time for the flyover ramp to open, but after further review, additional time is needed.

"Ultimately, delivering a quality product is one of VDOT's top priorities," said Chris Hall, VDOT Hampton Roads district engineer. "We would rather delay the opening of the new ramp to correct these issues while the road is not under traffic."

VDOT will announce a new opening date once repairs are complete.

https://myemail.constantcontact.com/VDOT-DELAYS-OPENING-OF-NEW-RAMP-FROM-I-64W-TO-I-264E.html?soid=1124277087205&aid=5xyRMNEEfWo

[plain]

All lanes on I-64 east of I-295 are definitely open now, and all of the cones are gone.