Virginia

[Beltway]

Yes it could and does, and it is not "urbanized" but happened to have a smattering of rural development near the original 4-lane at-grade expressway, and they didn't want to be bought out.  This is one of the projects that I watched closely while in planning and under construction (compl. 1991).

When you're trying to prove a substandard 60 MPH freeway can handle 70 MPH, using a 55 MPH RIRO freeway and claiming "it could handle 70 MPH" as your backing support doesn't help you that much. Provide an example of a freeway in this design actually posted at 70 MPH, then I'll believe you more.

Substandard by what measure?   US-50/US-301 on Kent Island is not a "RIRO freeway" the curves are more generous than that.  Full left and right paved shoulders and open grass median.

Weren't you the one who said US-17 in Chesapeake couldn't be posted at 65 MPH or 70 MPH if it was a rural freeway with about 5 or 6 rural design interchanges, yet you're advocating this 25 MPH RIRO every 1/2 mile 6-lane expressway could be posted at 70 MPH? The hypocrisy here is real.

I did not say "couldn't", I said "wouldn't", based on the revealed posting practices in metropolitan areas such as South Hampton Roads.  A modern at-grade expressway and it still is 55 mph.

You were right about the 55 mph on US-50/US-301, as Maryland has no non-Interstate freeway posted above that other than two that I know of.

and people don't just dart out into a freeway lane when they are going 25 mph and there is a very long accell lane ahead of them.

I've driven this highway before. They do. I've seen it. Frequently. I know this because either A) my speed decreases from 65 MPH to 40 MPH, or I have to quickly weave in the middle lane to go around them.

I have driven it hundreds of times over the last 45 years, and I don't see any major merging problem.  The fact that it has 3 directional lanes helps a lot over only having 2.  Helps in light travel periods, and in heavy travel periods the prevailing speeds can drop well below the current speed limit.  The AADT is about 70,000 and the ADT can approach 100,000 on peak summer days.

[odditude]

this popcorn is still stale and getting staler by the minute.

changing topics entirely - who would be responsible for improvements to a secondary highway? i understand they're generally privately constructed and as long as they meet the design requirements, they can be handed over to the state for maintenance. does the same apply for improvements, or are they solely in VDOT's hands post-handoff?

what raised my curiosity is the current state of Frying Pan Rd (SR 608) between Sunrise Valley Dr and Centerville Rd (SR 657) (Fairfax County east of IAD) - it's a narrow 2-lane section on an otherwise 4-lane road, and is regularly clogged by commuters heading to and from VA 28.

[Mapmikey]

this popcorn is still stale and getting staler by the minute.

changing topics entirely - who would be responsible for improvements to a secondary highway? i understand they're generally privately constructed and as long as they meet the design requirements, they can be handed over to the state for maintenance. does the same apply for improvements, or are they solely in VDOT's hands post-handoff?

what raised my curiosity is the current state of Frying Pan Rd (SR 608) between Sunrise Valley Dr and Centerville Rd (SR 657) (Fairfax County east of IAD) - it's a narrow 2-lane section on an otherwise 4-lane road, and is regularly clogged by commuters heading to and from VA 28.

This is on VDOT's radar...

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/NorthernVirginia/NVTA_presentation_1-22-15.pdf

This widening scores in the lower half of projects in NOVA...

[jakeroot]

Anyone know who manages the traffic lights and pavement markings in Arlington County? They both seem slightly different than what I've seen outside of the county...

* most lights in Arlington County lack backplates
* most of the crosswalks are the "zebra" style instead of the parallel lines that VDOT uses

[Mapmikey]

Anyone know who manages the traffic lights and pavement markings in Arlington County? They both seem slightly different than what I've seen outside of the county...

* most lights in Arlington County lack backplates
* most of the crosswalks are the "zebra" style instead of the parallel lines that VDOT uses

https://transportation.arlingtonva.us/traffic-signal-specification-updates/
http://arlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2013/11/DES-Pavement-Marking-Standards.pdf

[Beltway]

Thank you for your inquiry on the I-564 exits. The following reflects what will be signed on I-564 at the completion of the I-564 Intermodal Connector Project (currently estimated for spring/early summer):
·         Exit 1 will be to NIT North Gate and Naval Station Norfolk Gates 5 & 6
·         Exit 2 will be to Terminal Blvd (Rte 406 West)
·         Exit 3 will be to I-64 (East & West) and Granby Street
·         Exit 4 will be to Little Creek Road (Rte 165)

So are they saying that the new Intermodal Connector will be designated as I-564? 

If so what will happen to the designation of the current I-564 west of the connection to the Intermodal Connector?

That the exit numbering will advance from the terminus back to I-64?

[74/171FAN]

Please calm down and stay on topic. 

[Alps]

Thank you for your inquiry on the I-564 exits. The following reflects what will be signed on I-564 at the completion of the I-564 Intermodal Connector Project (currently estimated for spring/early summer):
·         Exit 1 will be to NIT North Gate and Naval Station Norfolk Gates 5 & 6
·         Exit 2 will be to Terminal Blvd (Rte 406 West)
·         Exit 3 will be to I-64 (East & West) and Granby Street
·         Exit 4 will be to Little Creek Road (Rte 165)

So are they saying that the new Intermodal Connector will be designated as I-564? 

If so what will happen to the designation of the current I-564 west of the connection to the Intermodal Connector?

That the exit numbering will advance from the terminus back to I-64?

I-764.
I can't tell from that quote alone whether 564 is being switched, or whether this is just called the 564 Intermodal Connector. The exit numbering thing is weird, but if you also numbered the northern terminus of 564 as Exit 1, then... I still can't figure it out, yeah.

[sprjus4]

I-764.
I can't tell from that quote alone whether 564 is being switched, or whether this is just called the 564 Intermodal Connector. The exit numbering thing is weird, but if you also numbered the northern terminus of 564 as Exit 1, then... I still can't figure it out, yeah.

It makes no sense. What's this I-764?

It should be -
Exit 1 - Gate 3
Exit 2 - NIT North Gate / NAS Norfolk / Future Third Crossing
Exit 3 - Terminal Blvd
Exit 4 - I-64 / Granby Street
Exit 5 - Little Creek Road

The Intermodal Connector and eventually Third Crossing to I-664 should be designated as I-864. I-564 should remain in place. If I-564 was slated to flow onto the Third Crossing, then A) the numbering still makes no sense and B) why wasn't continuity given to the connector, and you have to exit off to continue onto existing I-564 / future something else. Signing the Third Crossing / Intermodal Connector as I-564 just creates an unnecessary left exit situation that can be avoided.

Talking interstates, I-164 also needs to be designated along the entire length between I-664 and I-264. Why is it VA-164?

[Beltway]

So are they saying that the new Intermodal Connector will be designated as I-564? 
If so what will happen to the designation of the current I-564 west of the connection to the Intermodal Connector?
That the exit numbering will advance from the terminus back to I-64?

I-764.
I can't tell from that quote alone whether 564 is being switched, or whether this is just called the 564 Intermodal Connector. The exit numbering thing is weird, but if you also numbered the northern terminus of 564 as Exit 1, then... I still can't figure it out, yeah.

So VDOT has announced I-764?

If the I-564 bridge-tunnel is eventually built, then presumably the exit numbering will be changed, with the zero milepost at I-664.

[Beltway]

Talking interstates, I-164 also needs to be designated along the entire length between I-664 and I-264. Why is it VA-164?

That was one of 6 highways that I submitted to VDOT in the fall of 2017 for Interstate designation recommendation. 

My I-164 proposal was the Western Freeway, Port Norfolk Connector, and Midtown Tunnel.  Between I-664 and Brambleton Avenue.

They did a formal inventory study in response, and detailed the places where these highways did not meet Interstate highway standards.  There were 3 or 4 items on the I-164 proposal.

[NE2]

Exit 1 is the new connector. I-564 will still continue to the trumpet at Gate 3A, which will not have an exit number.

[sprjus4]

That was one of 6 highways that I submitted to VDOT in the fall of 2017 for Interstate designation recommendation. 

My I-164 proposal was the Western Freeway, Port Norfolk Connector, and Midtown Tunnel.  Between I-664 and Brambleton Avenue.

They did a formal inventory study in response, and detailed the places where these highways did not meet Interstate highway standards.  There were 3 or 4 items on the I-164 proposal.

I couldn't see I-164 going into the Midtown Tunnel, but rather to I-264. The current VA-164 designation stretches between I-264 via the MLK Freeway, Port Norfolk Connector, and Western Freeway to I-664. I'd assume an interstate designation for the route would follow the exact same path, as that entire corridor is a major thoroughfare, and acts as a bypass of Bowers Hill for Norfolk/Portsmouth traffic bound to the MMMBT and points north. The only segment I could see not meeting interstate standards is between London Blvd and US-58 Midtown Tunnel, as that wasn't built under any VA-164 projects (Western Freeway (1992), Port Norfolk Connector (2005), MLK Freeway (2016)) but rather a connector from Portsmouth to the tunnel in the late 70s. The rest I believe was built to interstate standards.

What locations specifically did they indicate do not meet standards?

[Beltway]

That was one of 6 highways that I submitted to VDOT in the fall of 2017 for Interstate designation recommendation. 
My I-164 proposal was the Western Freeway, Port Norfolk Connector, and Midtown Tunnel.  Between I-664 and Brambleton Avenue.
They did a formal inventory study in response, and detailed the places where these highways did not meet Interstate highway standards.  There were 3 or 4 items on the I-164 proposal.

I couldn't see I-164 going into the Midtown Tunnel, but rather to I-264. The current VA-164 designation stretches between I-264 via the MLK Freeway, Port Norfolk Connector, and Western Freeway to I-664. I'd assume an interstate designation for the route would follow the exact same path, as that entire corridor is a major thoroughfare, and acts as a bypass of Bowers Hill for Norfolk/Portsmouth traffic bound to the MMMBT and points north. The only segment I could see not meeting interstate standards is between London Blvd and US-58 Midtown Tunnel, as that wasn't built under any VA-164 projects (Western Freeway (1992), Port Norfolk Connector (2005), MLK Freeway (2016)) but rather a connector from Portsmouth to the tunnel in the late 70s. The rest I believe was built to interstate standards.
What locations specifically did they indicate do not meet standards?

I need to find the file and I am not sure where I stored it.  They said the tunnel itself would not meet Interstate standards for vertical and horizontal curves.  I think the shoulders on the older part of the West Norfolk Bridge.  At least one other item on the Western Freeway.

My proposal would have been an Interstate spur between I-664 and the downtowns of Portsmouth and Norfolk.

VA-164 ==> I-164
MLK Fwy segment ==> I-764

I propose utilizing Interstate I-164 on the Western Freeway and then thru the 2-lane ramps of the Pinners Point Interchange that connect to the Midtown Tunnel approach highway, thru the Midtown Tunnel, and with I-164 terminating at the interchange with West Brambleton Avenue and Hampton Boulevard in downtown Norfolk.

I-164 would be an Interstate spur route connecting I-664 to downtown Norfolk and Hampton Boulevard.  I-664 and I-164 would comprise an appropriately designated Interstate highway connector between Hampton, Newport News, Portsmouth and Norfolk.  It could even function as an "interim third Hampton Roads crossing", exploiting the fact that currently the I-664 HR tunnel carries about 1/2 of the volume of the I-64 HR tunnel.

The Martin Luther King Freeway between the Pinners Point Interchange and I-264 near downtown Portsmouth, would be designated as Interstate I-764.  This is a short but vital freeway that would connect I-164 and the Midtown Tunnel to I-264 and the Downtown Tunnel / Berkley Bridge complex.

VA-164 would be de-designated.

For US-58 continuity it would remain on a segment of I-764 and a segment of I-164, this is needed as US-58 passes from near Cumberland Gap to the Virginia Beach oceanfront.

Regarding 3-digit Interstate spur routes branching from other 3-digit Interstate highways, this is a valid practice.  A few examples are I-370 from I-270 in Maryland, I-795 from I-695 in Maryland, and I-195 from I-295 in New Jersey.

[Alps]

It's my fault this went fictional... I was joking with 764.

[Beltway]

Exit 1 is the new connector. I-564 will still continue to the trumpet at Gate 3A, which will not have an exit number.

Lots of sites including the project website that call the new highway the I-564 Intermodal Connector, but I can't find any site that specifies a route number for the connector.  So it may just be an Intermodal Connector to and from I-564.

I agree with using I-864 for the bridge-tunnel future extension to I-664.  I would keep I-564 where it is now, and sign I-864 between I-664 and I-64 at Wards Corner.  I-564 and I-864 would connect to I-64 at Wards Corner and have about 1.5 mile of overlap.

[Mapmikey]

The number 364 has been previously floated in a VDOT document for whatever 3rd crossing comes to pass.

See pdf pg 193 at https://web.archive.org/web/20111217233755/http://vtrans.org/resources/VSTP_Entire_Report.pdf

Oddly they also float the number 245 for the Craney Island Connector, which is odd because there is already a VA 245.  Typo of 246 (may as well not exist) or 248 (not currently used)...?

[froggie]

It's somewhat amusing that VDOT's starting with NIT/Gate 6 for Exit 1.  Per Section 2E.31 of the MUTCD, "Spur route interchanges shall be numbered in ascending order starting at the interchange where the spur leaves the mainline route".

Lots of sites including the project website that call the new highway the I-564 Intermodal Connector, but I can't find any site that specifies a route number for the connector.  So it may just be an Intermodal Connector to and from I-564.

Mapmikey and I found VA 510 was used for the Intermodal Connector in both the 2001 and 2003 VDOT Route Logs.  However, no known documentation since 2003 has used that route number.

[sprjus4]

It's somewhat amusing that VDOT's starting with NIT/Gate 6 for Exit 1.  Per Section 2E.31 of the MUTCD, "Spur route interchanges shall be numbered in ascending order starting at the interchange where the spur leaves the mainline route".

Someone probably assumed because it's east-west, the west end gets Exit 1, and the east end gets the higher number... but why is NIT / Gate 6 the first exit when it's 2-3 miles in from I-564's actual starting point? Why was Gate 3 completely skipped, and no room in the scheme (maybe an Exit 0?) to be added later. It makes no sense.

[sprjus4]

The number 364 has been previously floated in a VDOT document for whatever 3rd crossing comes to pass.

See pdf pg 193 at https://web.archive.org/web/20111217233755/http://vtrans.org/resources/VSTP_Entire_Report.pdf

Oddly they also float the number 245 for the Craney Island Connector, which is odd because there is already a VA 245.  Typo of 246 (may as well not exist) or 248 (not currently used)...?

I got some other questions about that document.

It also numbers the proposed Southeastern Parkway & Greenbelt as VA-961... Guess a major freeway that would carry up to 30,000 AADT and serve as a 4-lane 60 MPH bypass to 2-lane local routes is a secondary route? Also the MLK Freeway extension is cited as VA-958. This document has some odd numbering concepts.

[roadman65]

http://www.hrbtexpansion.org/learn_more/maps.asp
Then is this project going to happen?

Excuse me, but I do not follow closely on VA Roads, and been away from this board lately due to lack of internet at my home. I moved and did not get internet as of yet, and anything I post I go to places like local restaurants and use their free WiFi but are on it not that long to scroll through all posts.

Google linked me to this site saying that the third tube will be built in 2020 with bids going out this year for a builder.  Is this page still valid?

[Beltway]

Lots of sites including the project website that call the new highway the I-564 Intermodal Connector, but I can't find any site that specifies a route number for the connector.  So it may just be an Intermodal Connector to and from I-564.

Mapmikey and I found VA 510 was used for the Intermodal Connector in both the 2001 and 2003 VDOT Route Logs.  However, no known documentation since 2003 has used that route number.

I have seen I-564 itself used for the new third crossing in one of the long range needs plans, back around 2005 IIRC.

[Beltway]

http://www.hrbtexpansion.org/learn_more/maps.asp
Then is this project going to happen?
Google linked me to this site saying that the third tube will be built in 2020 with bids going out this year for a builder.  Is this page still valid?

Contractor LNTP (Limited Notice to Proceed):  Apr 2019

See: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11915.275  Post# 276

[Roadsguy]

Speaking of x64s, has VDOT ever intended to redesignate VA 164 as I-164? I don't believe any of it is tolled.

[Beltway]

Speaking of x64s, has VDOT ever intended to redesignate VA 164 as I-164? I don't believe any of it is tolled.

Unfortunately no ... check upthread about 20 posts.