Virginia

[tolbs17]

^

Ice & fog. I don't think the construction zone had too much to do with it.

Crazy situation overall though.

I'm sure the cattle chute there helped compound things significantly...

If you're referring to the narrow bridge, the bridge has always been that narrow. The speed limit at the time of this wreck was only posted 55 mph due to the work zone, but is normally 70 mph. Once the current project expanding this section of I-64 to three lanes each and replacing this particular bridge, the new bridge will have three lanes each way with full left and right shoulders.

Does any bridge sizes like this would have to be replaced (or widened) before an interstate can get signed here?

[sprjus4]

^

Ice & fog. I don't think the construction zone had too much to do with it.

Crazy situation overall though.

I'm sure the cattle chute there helped compound things significantly...

If you're referring to the narrow bridge, the bridge has always been that narrow. The speed limit at the time of this wreck was only posted 55 mph due to the work zone, but is normally 70 mph. Once the current project expanding this section of I-64 to three lanes each and replacing this particular bridge, the new bridge will have three lanes each way with full left and right shoulders.

Does any bridge sizes like this would have to be replaced (or widened) before an interstate can get signed here?

The shoulder across the bridge is only 6 ft, and the bridge is only 150 ft long, so it would need to be widened to 10 ft to conform to interstate standards. Immediately, it could likely be signed, but with a condition with FHWA it would be widened eventually. No need to replace the entire structure though.

Looking at footage from my recent drive through there, it appears the current shoulder widening project simply follows the guardrail line and narrows from 10 ft to 6 ft at the bridge, then opens back out beyond the structure.

This is the Virginia thread, probably not the best place to be discussing North Carolina highways.

[tolbs17]

^

Ice & fog. I don't think the construction zone had too much to do with it.

Crazy situation overall though.

I'm sure the cattle chute there helped compound things significantly...

If you're referring to the narrow bridge, the bridge has always been that narrow. The speed limit at the time of this wreck was only posted 55 mph due to the work zone, but is normally 70 mph. Once the current project expanding this section of I-64 to three lanes each and replacing this particular bridge, the new bridge will have three lanes each way with full left and right shoulders.

Does any bridge sizes like this would have to be replaced (or widened) before an interstate can get signed here?

The shoulder across the bridge is only 6 ft, and the bridge is only 150 ft long, so it would need to be widened to 10 ft to conform to interstate standards. Immediately, it could likely be signed, but with a condition with FHWA it would be widened eventually. No need to replace the entire structure though.

Looking at footage from my recent drive through there, it appears the current shoulder widening project simply follows the guardrail line and narrows from 10 ft to 6 ft at the bridge, then opens back out beyond the structure.

That's still a problem i'm guessing. There's many gaps even here too. Are they going to fix this or will it stay the way it is? Because i know that far right lane is not an exit lane.

This is the Virginia thread, probably not the best place to be discussing North Carolina highways.

Well I saw this post and I found it interesting that if bridges should be 10 feet long before designing an interstate and I didn't know where to put it.

[VTGoose]

Recognition that adding more lanes to I-95 won't solve anything:

"In the biggest boost in decades to train travel in the D.C. area, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam and CSX announced a $3.7 billion agreement Thursday for the state to buy 225 miles of track and build new passenger rail improvements.

"Funding for Virginia's $3.7 billion plan is expected to include about $944 million from Amtrak and a similar amount from existing state rail and other transportation funds, with the remainder covered by regional funds, such as I-66 toll revenue; potential D.C. government contributions for the work in and impacting the city; potential Northern Virginia transportation funds for specific projects, such as a flyover for passenger trains near Franconia-Springfield; and VRE dedicated capital funding.

"A recent state study estimated adding a lane to I-95 from the Fredericksburg area to the Capital Beltway would cost more than $12 billion, with traffic backing up again soon after the lanes opened, so the project provides significant benefits to the state, Mitchell said. (Jennifer Mitchell, director of the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation)"

See the article for full details of what the state is buying, what rail services will be improved/upgraded/added, and future plans to extend passenger service in the state.

https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2019/12/major-amtrak-vre-expansion-set-under-3-7-billion-virginia-csx-deal/

[Cue those who will argue that more lanes are better . . .]

Bruce in Blacksburg (45 minutes from the popular Amtrak stop in Roanoke)

[Beltway]

Recognition that adding more lanes to I-95 won't solve anything:
"In the biggest boost in decades to train travel in the D.C. area, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam and CSX announced a $3.7 billion agreement Thursday for the state to buy 225 miles of track and build new passenger rail improvements.
"Funding for Virginia's $3.7 billion plan is expected to include about $944 million from Amtrak and a similar amount from existing state rail and other transportation funds, with the remainder covered by regional funds, such as I-66 toll revenue; potential D.C. government contributions for the work in and impacting the city; potential Northern Virginia transportation funds for specific projects, such as a flyover for passenger trains near Franconia-Springfield; and VRE dedicated capital funding.

A valuable project, and while that is a lot of money, it will be built in phases to about 2030, with the parallel Long Bridge (Potomac River) being in the last phases.

Will enable large increases in VRE train trips per hour on both the Fredericksburg and Manassas lines, possibly the extension of those lines to Massaponax and Warrenton.

A lot of return-on-investment for the peak weekday commuting hours, but ...

"A recent state study estimated adding a lane to I-95 from the Fredericksburg area to the Capital Beltway would cost more than $12 billion, with traffic backing up again soon after the lanes opened, so the project provides significant benefits to the state, Mitchell said. (Jennifer Mitchell, director of the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation)"

A nonsense figure from this current administration, that for some reason that I am still investigating, is intended to shut down any discussion of any major widening of I-95.

There are many off-peak hours and weekend hours when 8 general purpose lanes are (or will soon be) needed all the way down to I-295.  Not that the need doesn't exist as well in peak weekday commuting hours.

This compromised administration needs to award a contract for a full EIS/location study, to examine all the feasible alternatives, for this segment of I-95.  If they don't, then they are just blowing smoke (and probably groceries as well).

[sprjus4]

A nonsense figure from this current administration, that for some reason that I am still investigating, is intended to shut down any discussion of any major widening of I-95.

There are many off-peak hours and weekend hours when 8 general purpose lanes are (or will soon be) needed all the way down to I-295.  Not that the need doesn't exist as well in peak weekday commuting hours.

This compromised administration needs to award a contract for a full EIS/location study, to examine all the feasible alternatives, for this segment of I-95.  If they don't, then they are just blowing smoke (and probably groceries as well).

It gets even better when you look at other megaprojects on I-95 completed or under construction in the past 10 years and how low their costs were compared to this outrageous $12 billion figure for 36 miles.

For the record, $12 billion for 36 miles is $333 million per mile.

Other projects along I-95 in the past decade...

• I-95 4th Lane Widening Project - add 2 general purpose lanes (1 each way) along with widening the Occoquan River Bridges Exit 166 to 160 - $123 million - 6 miles - $20.5 million per mile
• I-95 Express Lanes Southern Terminus Extension - add 1 HO/T lane (reversible) in the median - $50 million - 2 miles - $25 million per mile
• I-95 Rapphannock River Crossing - add 6 general purpose lanes (3 each way) along with two new bridges over the Rappahannock River - Exit 133 to 130 - $264 million - 5 miles - $52.8 million per mile
• I-95 Express Lanes Fredericksburg Extension - add 2 HO/T lanes (reversible) in the median - Exit 143 to 133 - $565 million - 10 miles - $56.5 million per mile
• I-95 Southbound Auxiliary Lane Prince William County - add one general purpose lane (southbound) - Exit 160 to 158 - $32 million - 1.5 miles - $21.3 million per mile

Looking through SmartScale applications, there's also project submissions for widening parts of I-95 by adding general purpose lanes, etc. and there associated cost estimates...
Note these are not official projects as they have either not been approved or were denied, in one instance due to "compensation events".

• I-95 SB Widening with Exit 126 SB Aux. Decel. Lane - add one general purpose lane (southbound) using inside median hard shoulder - Exit 130 to 126 - $35.8 million - 3 miles - $11.9 million per mile
• Widen I-95 from Occoquan River Bridge to Rte 234 - add two general purpose lanes (1 each way) - Exit 160 to 152 - $415 million - 8 miles - $51.8 million per mile

Overall, it seems that adding one general purpose lane each way would generally cost $40 - $60 million per mile, so the I-95 widening alternative the governor's office presented for $12 billion to add one lane each way should in reality be closer to $1.4 - $2.2 billion, which is far more reasonable.

Considering they now won't even consider adding as little as one general purpose each way, I think it's safe to say the current state of I-95 and local / regional / long-distance traffic movement will be staying the same for decades to come, and will only get worse and worse as each year passes. At this point, Virginia and Maryland have no care to fix the issue, whether it be widening I-95 or building an outer bypass to at least let the thru traffic not have to deal with the bottleneck Virginia refuses to fix. It gets even better when most of the issues are in areas with wide right of way and plenty of room for expansion, not some urban corridor with restricted right of way. At least a situation like that would be more understandable.

[famartin]

Its kinda silly that the "widening won't fix the problem" argument still gets tossed around.  Of course not, not when the population is still expanding.  The only thing that will really fix the problem is stopping population growth...

[sprjus4]

Its kinda silly that the "widening won't fix the problem" argument still gets tossed around.  Of course not, not when the population is still expanding.  The only thing that will really fix the problem is stopping population growth...

They look at simple data that shows traffic did not get better after a widening project, then immediately come to that conclusion.

The reality is that the widening may not have improved traffic, but it would have been even worse had there been no widening at all.

[famartin]

Its kinda silly that the "widening won't fix the problem" argument still gets tossed around.  Of course not, not when the population is still expanding.  The only thing that will really fix the problem is stopping population growth...

They look at simple data that shows traffic did not get better after a widening project, then immediately come to that conclusion.

The reality is that the widening may not have improved traffic, but it would have been even worse had there been no widening at all.

That, or they would've built more houses and businesses elsewhere... and god forbid the jurisisdictions lose tax revenue...

[cpzilliacus]

Recognition that adding more lanes to I-95 won't solve anything:

Unfortunately, putting in a few more trains is not likely to do much in terms of relief from traffic congestion.  I am not aware of any plan for trains in this corridor with headways or speeds coming close to that of the Japanese Shinkansen trains, which do carry large volumes of people.

"In the biggest boost in decades to train travel in the D.C. area, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam and CSX announced a $3.7 billion agreement Thursday for the state to buy 225 miles of track and build new passenger rail improvements.

When similar deals were done in Southern California, the taxpayers got stuck paying the maintenance of the tracks, and the freight operators kept their access to the tracks for profitable freight trains to and from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

[Beltway]

A nonsense figure from this current administration, that for some reason that I am still investigating, is intended to shut down any discussion of any major widening of I-95.

Note these are not official projects as they have either not been approved or were denied, in one instance due to "compensation events".

Once again, we need the NEPA EIS/location study to be conducted to list all reasonable alternatives and costs, to determine what exactly what any "compensation events" will cost to the state.

Considering they now won't even consider adding as little as one general purpose each way, I think it's safe to say the current state of I-95 and local / regional / long-distance traffic movement will be staying the same for decades to come,

Negatory.  All it will take is getting a new governor that will support the I-95 Corridor EIS/location study, and for him to quickly replace at least half of the members of the CTB so that they will vote in favor of projects like this.  They could have the first widening projects underway before his term ends.

It gets even better when most of the issues are in areas with wide right of way and plenty of room for expansion, not some urban corridor with restricted right of way. At least a situation like that would be more understandable.

It still gets really expensive, especially when considering up to 70 miles of major widening.

[sprjus4]

Negatory.  All it will take is getting a new governor that will support the I-95 Corridor EIS/location study, and for him to quickly replace at least half of the members of the CTB so that they will vote in favor of projects like this.  They could have the first widening projects underway before his term ends.

I wouldn't keep my fingers crossed... I'll be surprised to see any progress made by the end of this upcoming decade at the rate things are going now and have been for the past couple decades.

[Beltway]

Negatory.  All it will take is getting a new governor that will support the I-95 Corridor EIS/location study, and for him to quickly replace at least half of the members of the CTB so that they will vote in favor of projects like this.  They could have the first widening projects underway before his term ends.

I wouldn't keep my fingers crossed... I'll be surprised to see any progress made by the end of this upcoming decade at the rate things are going now and have been for the past couple decades.

Like I said need to get a new governor.  The one before him was just as bad in this regard.

Need the completed study first.

The priority over the last decade has been to widen and extend the express lanes between Fredericksburg and the 14th Street Bridge, something that has been a regional priority for a long time.

[sprjus4]

Like I said need to get a new governor.  The one before him was just as bad in this regard.

The direction this state is headed... again I wouldn't keep my fingers crossed.

[sprjus4]

$509M TIFIA Loan Goes for Projects Already Under Construction

In an unusual move for the U.S. Dept. of Transportation's Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program (TIFIA), the department has approved a $502.9-million loan for a package of Virginia projects that are already under construction.

The loan, which DOT announced on Dec. 11, will help to finance a group of six highway and bridge projects in Hampton Roads.

The loan isn't the first for TIFIA for projects under way, however. In February, U.S. DOT approved a $605-million loan under the program for the Grand Parkway, a toll highway in the Houston area. Construction had started on that project before the TIFIA loan got the green light.

But Kevin Page, executive director of the Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission (HRTAC), the Virginia loan's recipient, says that typically, agencies apply for TIFIA assistance for projects in an "embryonic" stage.

He says the group of Hampton Roads projects, whose total cost is about $1.4 billion, aim to reduce traffic congestion on Interstate-64. The projects involve 196 lane-miles of new construction or reconstruction. According to Page, a TIFIA loan for a group of projects also is unusual.

He says, "It was a very innovative approach for TIFIA to come forward and work with HRTAC in a very collaborative way." He credits DOT's Build America Bureau, which oversees TIFIA, as well as the Federal Highway Administration, Virginia DOT and the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization to assemble the group of projects, get them under way and now get the last major financing piece in place.

The Hampton Roads list includes: the first three segments of the I-64 Peninsula Improvement Project; phases one and two of the I-64/I-264 interchange project; and phase one of the High Rise Bridge I-64 south side widening.

The loan will supplement $583 million in bonds that the Hampton Roads commission issued in February 2018, as well as HRTAC, state and local government funding.

One advantage that the commission has is the Hampton Roads Transportation Fund, a dedicated regional gasoline, sales and use tax, which will generate revenue to help repay the TIFIA loan. The fund brought in $211 million last year, Page says.

VDOT administers the construction contracts for the projects, under a standard agreement with HRTAC. The Hampton Roads projects are scheduled to be completed in 2021 and 2022.

TIFIA was established in 1998. Its loans are limited to 33% of a project's total cost.

[Beltway]

TIFIA loans have to be serviced (paid off) by future FHWA allocations.

TANSTAAFL

[sprjus4]

^

One advantage that the commission has is the Hampton Roads Transportation Fund, a dedicated regional gasoline, sales and use tax, which will generate revenue to help repay the TIFIA loan. The fund brought in $211 million last year, Page says.

[Beltway]

It is still a loan, that needs to be paid back, with interest, and will take money out of current revenues that could be spent on projects.

[Alps]

It is still a loan, that needs to be paid back, with interest, and will take money out of current revenues that could be spent on projects.

But it can be paid back over time, instead of having to come up with the money up front.

[Beltway]

It is still a loan, that needs to be paid back, with interest, and will take money out of current revenues that could be spent on projects.

But it can be paid back over time, instead of having to come up with the money up front.

True indeed, but as the total debt increases, the debt service consumes a larger and larger portion of the budget.

IOW, modest amount of total debt can be a wise financial management strategy.  Large amounts of debt, unwise.

[sprjus4]

It is still a loan, that needs to be paid back, with interest, and will take money out of current revenues that could be spent on projects.

But it can be paid back over time, instead of having to come up with the money up front.

True indeed, but as the total debt increases, the debt service consumes a larger and larger portion of the budget.

IOW, modest amount of total debt can be a wise financial management strategy.  Large amounts of debt, unwise.

I think the issue is they're looking at it from the standpoint of receiving large amounts of money now to accelerate projects, rather than pushing them off. The loan is helping fund ongoing projects, which then can open up money for future projects.

I saw in an HRTPO report a few months back that projects like I-64 Phase #2 (widening to 8-lanes, interchange improvements including Oak Grove Interchange, replace existing High Rise Bridge), Bowers Hill Interchange, and Fort Eustis Interchange, may not be able to be funded until 2045 or later, whereas before they were expected to be underway by 2030 or thereabouts. Then there's future projects that aren't necessarily on HRTPO's radar at the moment, such as I-664 & Third Crossing, I-264 (implement $2+ billion worth of interchange improvements including overhauling the rest of the I-64 interchange), US-17 (upgrading to interstate standards), US-58 (upgrading to interstate standards to Suffolk, widening Suffolk Bypass to 6-lanes), VA-168 (widening to 8-lanes, interchange improvements, parallel bridge over Intracoastal Waterway), and others that will likely become priorities in the next 10-20 years. As traffic congestion, demand, and growth continue to rapidly increase, new freeway corridors such as never-built Pleasant Grove Pkwy and never-built Southeastern Pkwy may become relevant in altered or smaller forms in the future as well.

There's definitely a need for money to be flowing in, I think repaying it is the least of their concerns at the moment, and the tax district is bringing in plenty of revenues to repay debt and interest in years to come.

[Beltway]

There's definitely a need for money to be flowing in, I think repaying it is the least of their concerns at the moment, and the tax district is bringing in plenty of revenues to repay debt and interest in years to come.

Taken to its logical conclusion, that could be a reckless financial management strategy.

"I need the money now, so I will max out all these credit cards, and not think about whether I will ever be able to pay off these debts in the future."

[sprjus4]

There's definitely a need for money to be flowing in, I think repaying it is the least of their concerns at the moment, and the tax district is bringing in plenty of revenues to repay debt and interest in years to come.

Taken to its logical conclusion, that could be a reckless financial management strategy.

"I need the money now, so I will max out all these credit cards, and not think about whether I will ever be able to pay off these debts in the future."

It will be interesting to see what happens in the future with this situation if this is indeed the road they continue down.

At least another $1 billion or more will be funded through bonds and loans in the near future simply adding more debt and interest to be paid off. Some of it will be paid back via toll revenue collected on HO/T lanes, the rest with tax dollars.

The question is though - how else do you accelerate and get all of these projects funded?

[ARMOURERERIC]

It is still a loan, that needs to be paid back, with interest, and will take money out of current revenues that could be spent on projects.

But it can be paid back over time, instead of having to come up with the money up front.

True indeed, but as the total debt increases, the debt service consumes a larger and larger portion of the budget.

IOW, modest amount of total debt can be a wise financial management strategy.  Large amounts of debt, unwise.

I would be curious to see the loan terms.  In the early 2000's, SANDAG took on huge debt to finish the 125, which alarmed some watchdog groups only to find that out here was a negative interest rate on the debt:. There were special federal and state programs to cover 2.5% of any loan interest, SANDAG  was borrowing at 1.75% and legally pocketi g the difference

[sprjus4]

More info -

https://www.transportation.gov/tifia/financed-projects/hampton-roads-regional-priority-projects