Virginia

[kernals12]

Why assume drivers would ignore it? Ramp meters are very common across the US, and I'm not aware of compliance issues to the level of "we may as well take the meter out".

It's occasional red light runner versus wrong-way drivers versus total ramp closure. My vote still goes for the first option.

Meters would be of no use when tunnel bound traffic is backed up beyond 4th View St, often as far as Granby St (6 miles), sometimes even longer!

Residents in Willoughby don't want the traffic on W. Ocean View jamming up their final approach to home. The gate closes when tunnel traffic is backed up. The self privilege class who think they are above waiting in traffic with everyone else is the problem. Trucks aren't even permitted on WB W. Ocean View. The Penn-Ohio driver was likely unfamiliar with the area and was stuck in the wrong lane forcing the driver there. I'd never seen a truck driver do that before. Interesting the city used that photo to make its point.

I've often suggested that VDOT install "wrong way" spikes in the pavement to prevent these alpha henrys from driving up the offramp. This ramp needs to stay open for overheight vehicles to exit and loop around to re-enter the interstate on the other side.  The problem would be solved after word gets out that tires will explode if one tries to bypass the stopped traffic. Probably much cheaper than their "solution".

California experimented it. The problem is that those "wrong way" spikes have a tendency to act also as "right way" spikes.

[1995hoo]

Why do you assume they'll obey the ramp meter?

Why assume drivers would ignore it? ....

Because they're already driving on the wrong side of the road, which I think most of us would reasonably view as a more extreme thing to do than simply ignoring a ramp meter. (I've ignored a ramp meter when it was clearly not working properly, but it was one I went through almost every day, so I knew how long it was supposed to take and therefore I knew it was broken. The guy in the lane to my left was determined to wait for the green, no matter how many people behind him started honking.)

[1995hoo]

https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1395744197362192389

[jakeroot]

Why do you assume they'll obey the ramp meter?

Why assume drivers would ignore it? ....

Because they're already driving on the wrong side of the road, which I think most of us would reasonably view as a more extreme thing to do than simply ignoring a ramp meter. (I've ignored a ramp meter when it was clearly not working properly, but it was one I went through almost every day, so I knew how long it was supposed to take and therefore I knew it was broken. The guy in the lane to my left was determined to wait for the green, no matter how many people behind him started honking.)

Although I get what you're saying, I don't think correlating wrong-way driving with red-light "meter running" is very fair. They are distinctly different violations, and the former is certainly not an indication of what they may also be capable of (wrong-way driving doesn't mean they also regularly run red lights or ignore stop signs, for instance). Plus, how many wrong-way drivers were simply doing a "monkey see, monkey do" thing? Meter running isn't totally unheard of, but I don't see dozens of drivers do it simultaneously.

Another fix would be to install flexiposts along the length of the solid white line where the #3 lane diverges towards 15th View. Drivers who come up the off-ramp would not be able to easily make the turn onto northbound 64; this may leave them high-and-dry, as they previously were able to make the sharp turn to enter the freeway. But this change would, over time, gradually decrease and then eliminate wrong-way driving since those who repeatedly performed the maneuver would quickly learn that it has become nearly impossible.

Yet another solution, and one that Willoughby residents may like, may be a combination of the above (ramp meter + flexiposts), with a road diet along Ocean View: eliminate the outside lane, add a parking lane, buffered bike lane, and all-way stops at 13th, 12th, 11th, and 9th (to improve pedestrian safety), with the U-turn concept as proposed by Norfolk at the end of the road (this is actually quite smart). Also, change the intersection at 4th View to remove the seagull operation, which does nothing except improve flow for the annoying queue-jump maneuver.

[jakeroot]

Residents in Willoughby don't want the traffic on W. Ocean View jamming up their final approach to home. The gate closes when tunnel traffic is backed up. The self privilege class who think they are above waiting in traffic with everyone else is the problem.

I don't feel like exceptionalism is the argument that one should be making. Plenty of bridges and tunnels get backed up all over this country, yet I'm not aware of any cities that solved the "issue" in the manner seen here. After all, queue jumping is not usually regarded as a serious problem in most places.

But, if it's seriously as problematic as you're implying, why have they kept the on-ramp at all? I can see the idea, which is that part of the time, it can operate just fine, and the rest of the time, it's closed. But I see that as problematic, as it messes with driver expectations: they can clearly see the on-ramp on maps, yet its closed. Rather than back-track to 4th View, they just use the off-ramp. If they just permanently closed the ramp, I think you'd see a lot less drivers going down Ocean View to get back on 64 (minus those drivers that exit at 4th View with the expressed intent to use the off-ramp to enter at 15th View, which I suspect is not many people). Willoughby residents certainly wouldn't care about losing the ramp; after all, they chose to live on a spit, so I doubt those extra few minutes detouring to 4th View matters that much.

[plain]

Someone remind me again what the plan is for that particular spot in regards to the HRBT expansion project. I'm wondering if that gate (or the interchange for that matter) will continue to exist afterwards.

[sprjus4]

Also, change the intersection at 4th View to remove the seagull operation, which does nothing except improve flow for the annoying queue-jump maneuver.

I don't like the setup either, but it's official reason for being like that is so traffic coming up from Tidewater Dr is forced to turn left onto 4th View to use the ramp to I-64 as opposed to continuing down Ocean View Dr to that 15th View ramp.

But, if it's seriously as problematic as you're implying, why have they kept the on-ramp at all? I can see the idea, which is that part of the time, it can operate just fine, and the rest of the time, it's closed. But I see that as problematic, as it messes with driver expectations: they can clearly see the on-ramp on maps, yet its closed. Rather than back-track to 4th View, they just use the off-ramp. If they just permanently closed the ramp, I think you'd see a lot less drivers going down Ocean View to get back on 64 (minus those drivers that exit at 4th View with the expressed intent to use the off-ramp to enter at 15th View, which I suspect is not many people). Willoughby residents certainly wouldn't care about losing the ramp; after all, they chose to live on a spit, so I doubt those extra few minutes detouring to 4th View matters that much.

It's honestly a good argument to make. If they had no ramps altogether, there would no longer be a problem of through traffic cutting through, they would be isolated. If traffic wanted to access I-64, they could go to 4th View like everyone else already has to. It would also eliminate ramps that have questionable geometry. The speed limit is only 55 mph on the mainline, though traffic is usually moving in excess of 70 mph when there's not a backup.

Someone remind me again what the plan is for that particular spot in regards to the HRBT expansion project. I'm wondering if that gate (or the interchange for that matter) will continue to exist afterwards.

The HRBT Expansion Project plans to retain the existing ramps for westbound. Eastbound would have an off-ramp realignment, but that's a different story. The city of Norfolk's project website linked yesterday regarding the on-ramp specifically says the gate's restrictions will end at the completion of the project. Whether that means the 12:30 - 6 closure, or getting rid of it altogether, I don't know. I suppose it would depends if backups are still a regular occurrence at the tunnel at peak hours. I suppose it would depend on how many people use the new HO/T lanes and how high the toll rates are. If rates are low and the lanes get high usage, perhaps the load would be equally spread across the 4 lanes each way with a slight edge to the HO/T lanes not getting into the near-congestion area, and the area will flow much smoother for all the lanes enough to not divert people off. Or the HO/T lanes get underutilized and the tunnel is still a standstill.

See around 1:06
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4rNYsSJxhM

[Jmiles32]

https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/va-revenue-surplus-likely-to-exceed-500-million-after-unusual-recession/article_8afe9171-8bfe-5723-a38d-3a8f6aef79a5.html

The economic recession triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic seems a dim memory, as Virginia expects a half-billion budget surplus by the end of June and a $4.3 billion federal deposit in the state's bank account any day.

Secretary of Finance Aubrey Layne told legislators on Monday that he expects state revenues to exceed expenses by more than $500 million in the fiscal year that ends June 30.

Layne also expects Virginia to receive its share of federal aid from the American Rescue Plan Act in one lump sum soon, allowing the state to benefit from interest on the money while Gov. Ralph Northam and the General Assembly decide how to spend it during a special legislative session the governor is expected to call in late July or early August.

And that doesn't include $6.6 billion that the federal government is sending to the state for specific categories of programs – support for K-12 schools and higher education, child care, transportation and public health.

"I don't think anyone 14 months ago would have thought we'd be in as good a position as we are,"  the finance secretary told the House Appropriations Committee on Monday.
The next big question for the Northam administration, General Assembly and local governments is "what do you do with the abundance of revenues?"  said McNab at Old Dominion.

The American Rescue Plan Act, which President Joe Biden signed on March 11, is sending $7.2 billion to Virginia and its local governments. The state will receive $4.3 billion and localities $2.9 billion, almost all of it directly from the federal government. The state will allocate about $633 million of the local money among towns.

The two-year budget the General Assembly adopted this year requires legislators to appropriate the state's share of the funding, including any discretionary grants directly to the Department of Education and other state agencies under the new federal law. The legislature will have that opportunity when it meets in special session this summer.

Would love to see a decent chunk of this go towards increasing smart scale's budget while also reserving some funding for bigger statewide transportation projects and local transportation agencies such as the NVTA, CVTA, and HRTAC.

[cpzilliacus]

WTOP Radio: GW Parkway: Trails and history round out Virginia commuter route

As pandemic-related restrictions are lifted and more people venture out, the head of the George Washington Memorial Parkway says the Northern Virginia route has a lot to offer.

"Get out for mental health. Get out for wellness. Enjoy the trails. Enjoy the green spaces,"  said George Washington Memorial Parkway Superintendent Charles Cuvelier.

The parkway, built in 1930, is nearly 25 miles long and more than a commuter route or way to get to Reagan National Airport.

[mrsman]

Residents in Willoughby don't want the traffic on W. Ocean View jamming up their final approach to home. The gate closes when tunnel traffic is backed up. The self privilege class who think they are above waiting in traffic with everyone else is the problem.

I don't feel like exceptionalism is the argument that one should be making. Plenty of bridges and tunnels get backed up all over this country, yet I'm not aware of any cities that solved the "issue" in the manner seen here. After all, queue jumping is not usually regarded as a serious problem in most places.

But, if it's seriously as problematic as you're implying, why have they kept the on-ramp at all? I can see the idea, which is that part of the time, it can operate just fine, and the rest of the time, it's closed. But I see that as problematic, as it messes with driver expectations: they can clearly see the on-ramp on maps, yet its closed. Rather than back-track to 4th View, they just use the off-ramp. If they just permanently closed the ramp, I think you'd see a lot less drivers going down Ocean View to get back on 64 (minus those drivers that exit at 4th View with the expressed intent to use the off-ramp to enter at 15th View, which I suspect is not many people). Willoughby residents certainly wouldn't care about losing the ramp; after all, they chose to live on a spit, so I doubt those extra few minutes detouring to 4th View matters that much.

I know I am coming in a little late to the conversation, but I agree that simply closing the ramp with a gate has been the source of the problems here.  If they really want to discourage traffic using this ramp, they need to close the ramp entirely.  It seems obvious, that doing it this way has led to safety problems as drivers will refuse to backtrack and will rather just use the offramp instead.

Shame on VDOT for even putting up the gates in the first place.  It seems like use of the off-ramp in this manner was a known problem and their use of the gates has only exacerbated it.

If the ramps at 15th view are closed completely, then only local drivers will be on the spit and all drivers would be forced to use 4th view.  That might be the best answer here.

I can think of a similar situation occurring in California.  The original layout of the 405 freeway had an off-ramp and on-ramp on the SB side at Waterford Street, which is a very local street and requires much travel on local streets to get to most anywhere.  If there was a backup on the freeway, a lot of drivers who would otherwise get on 405 south from the Sunset ramps, might instead drive on Church Lane to head to the Waterford ramps.  Eventually, the Waterford ramps closed.  The local drivers do have to drive further to reach the freeway (either Sunset or Wilshire) but they now can avoid the regional freeway traffic on local streets.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Waterford+St,+Los+Angeles,+CA+90049/@34.0614418,-118.4622379,16z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c2bc9910ef6dd1:0xbf2abcc091524c6!8m2!3d34.0614908!4d-118.4590997

[Thing 342]

Residents in Willoughby don't want the traffic on W. Ocean View jamming up their final approach to home. The gate closes when tunnel traffic is backed up. The self privilege class who think they are above waiting in traffic with everyone else is the problem.

I don't feel like exceptionalism is the argument that one should be making. Plenty of bridges and tunnels get backed up all over this country, yet I'm not aware of any cities that solved the "issue" in the manner seen here. After all, queue jumping is not usually regarded as a serious problem in most places.

But, if it's seriously as problematic as you're implying, why have they kept the on-ramp at all? I can see the idea, which is that part of the time, it can operate just fine, and the rest of the time, it's closed. But I see that as problematic, as it messes with driver expectations: they can clearly see the on-ramp on maps, yet its closed. Rather than back-track to 4th View, they just use the off-ramp. If they just permanently closed the ramp, I think you'd see a lot less drivers going down Ocean View to get back on 64 (minus those drivers that exit at 4th View with the expressed intent to use the off-ramp to enter at 15th View, which I suspect is not many people). Willoughby residents certainly wouldn't care about losing the ramp; after all, they chose to live on a spit, so I doubt those extra few minutes detouring to 4th View matters that much.

I know I am coming in a little late to the conversation, but I agree that simply closing the ramp with a gate has been the source of the problems here.  If they really want to discourage traffic using this ramp, they need to close the ramp entirely.  It seems obvious, that doing it this way has led to safety problems as drivers will refuse to backtrack and will rather just use the offramp instead.

Shame on VDOT for even putting up the gates in the first place.  It seems like use of the off-ramp in this manner was a known problem and their use of the gates has only exacerbated it.

If the ramps at 15th view are closed completely, then only local drivers will be on the spit and all drivers would be forced to use 4th view.  That might be the best answer here.

Eyeroll. The ramps are there because it's a two-mile backtrack to the (busy) 4th View interchange. The 15th View closure during rush hour is well posted and people going the wrong way down the ramp aren't actually a huge enough problem to merit the complete removal of the ramp. Google Maps will not route through the ramp when it's closed, so any "confused" person that ends up going up the offramp is either comically inept or being willfully dangerous. An easier solution would be to station an NPD cruiser on the grass next to the offramp to deter any funny business from regular / repeat offenders.

[jakeroot]

Eyeroll. The ramps are there because it's a two-mile backtrack to the (busy) 4th View interchange. The 15th View closure during rush hour is well posted and people going the wrong way down the ramp aren't actually a huge enough problem to merit the complete removal of the ramp. Google Maps will not route through the ramp when it's closed, so any "confused" person that ends up going up the offramp is either comically inept or being willfully dangerous. An easier solution would be to station an NPD cruiser on the grass next to the offramp to deter any funny business from regular / repeat offenders.

But it would only be a two-mile backtrack for Willoughby residents, who are now (alongside everyone else) forbidden from using the ramps during the entire afternoon every single day.

Maintaining the current interchange literally benefits no one but Willoughby residents, yet it creates complete havoc otherwise: gates across ramps (defeating driver expectations), drivers going the wrong-way up off-ramps, drivers using Ocean View to bypass I-64 using a major five-lane road (can anyone really blame drivers for using Ocean View?) ... it's simply not worth keeping if long-term daily closures are the only solution to this absolutely self-inflicted issue (that Norfolk 100% brought on themselves).

Here's the even nuttier thing no one has mentioned: why aren't there gates across both ramps? No one is exiting at 15th View during times of heavy traffic; they have long since exited the freeway. Probably at 4th View. There would be no way to use the off-ramp if it was also gated.

[Thing 342]

Here's the even nuttier thing no one has mentioned: why aren't there gates across both ramps? No one is exiting at 15th View during times of heavy traffic; they have long since exited the freeway. Probably at 4th View. There would be no way to use the off-ramp if it was also gated.

That offramp has had gates since at least 2012 - https://www.google.com/maps/@36.96706,-76.2934643,3a,75y,209.19h,85.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPgkNAmOdMrtQkDoC9-jIhA!2e0!5s20120501T000000!7i13312!8i6656

[sprjus4]

Around 200 gallons of fuel leak following gas tanker truck crash on Route 17 in Chesapeake

CHESAPEAKE, Va. (WAVY) – A gas tanker truck crash closed a portion of Route 17 in Chesapeake Monday afternoon.

According to police, officers got the call for the crash just after 1 p.m. on South Route 17 at mile marker 6. The road was closed between Douglas Road and Cornland Road until about 9 p.m.

Initial investigations revealed that the tanker truck was traveling southbound when it lost control and crashed on the right side of the highway.

Officials said the driver was injured and sent to a local hospital with injuries that weren't considered life-threatening.

During the crash, police said the trailer began leaking fuel which prompted a response from the Chesapeake Fire Department. Crews with the hazmat team quickly stopped the leak.

Captain Bradley from the Chesapeake Fire Department told 10 On Your Side that around 200 gallons of fuel leaked following the crash. The leak was both diesel and fuel.

The leak was not near any homes or near waterways. The remaining fuel will be offloaded to another tanker truck by drilling holes into the tank and pumping it out.

Officials said a clean-up contractor will remove any contaminated soil and clean the roadway.

South Mills Fire Department and Navy Regional also responded to assist at the scene.

[froggie]

Regarding just closing the ramps entirely at 15th View, one thing some commenters may have missed is there's a truck inspection station just before the exit ramp.  During times of operation, it may become necessary to turn trucks there around so they don't go through the tunnel...much easier to do that at an existing off-ramp than to stop traffic in both directions to do it at the tunnel itself (as happens currently and regularly...when I was last stationed in Norfolk it averaged 5 times a day).

[jakeroot]

Here's the even nuttier thing no one has mentioned: why aren't there gates across both ramps? No one is exiting at 15th View during times of heavy traffic; they have long since exited the freeway. Probably at 4th View. There would be no way to use the off-ramp if it was also gated.

That offramp has had gates since at least 2012 - https://www.google.com/maps/@36.96706,-76.2934643,3a,75y,209.19h,85.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPgkNAmOdMrtQkDoC9-jIhA!2e0!5s20120501T000000!7i13312!8i6656

Are they not used? Was their installation a mistake given the inspection station?

Regarding just closing the ramps entirely at 15th View, one thing some commenters may have missed is there's a truck inspection station just before the exit ramp.  During times of operation, it may become necessary to turn trucks there around so they don't go through the tunnel...much easier to do that at an existing off-ramp than to stop traffic in both directions to do it at the tunnel itself (as happens currently and regularly...when I was last stationed in Norfolk it averaged 5 times a day).

The best compromise I can conjure up is a maintenance-style exit, with a manually-operated (or remotely-operated) gate that can be moved to allow either (a) trucks to exit if they fail an inspection, or (b) allow emergency vehicles access to I-64.

[sprjus4]

You'd think they'd try to make the signage more... visible.
https://twitter.com/NorfolkVA/status/1397545208003371013

[jakeroot]

Here is my quick redesign of the 15th View interchange using my latest 'maintenance-style' interchange suggestion:


I-64 @ 15th View Concept 1 by Jake Root, on Flickr

[deathtopumpkins]

That offramp has had gates since at least 2012 - https://www.google.com/maps/@36.96706,-76.2934643,3a,75y,209.19h,85.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPgkNAmOdMrtQkDoC9-jIhA!2e0!5s20120501T000000!7i13312!8i6656

Are they not used? Was their installation a mistake given the inspection station?

Those gates were installed as part of the contraflow setup used for hurricane evacuations, which begins at Willoughby Spit. Every ramp on I-64 between there and I-295 has gates. I can't confirm on VDOT's website, but I presume this offramp would be closed when contraflow is in effect.

[sprjus4]

That offramp has had gates since at least 2012 - https://www.google.com/maps/@36.96706,-76.2934643,3a,75y,209.19h,85.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPgkNAmOdMrtQkDoC9-jIhA!2e0!5s20120501T000000!7i13312!8i6656

Are they not used? Was their installation a mistake given the inspection station?

Those gates were installed as part of the contraflow setup used for hurricane evacuations, which begins at Willoughby Spit. Every ramp on I-64 between there and I-295 has gates. I can't confirm on VDOT's website, but I presume this offramp would be closed when contraflow is in effect.

The gates were only installed on the eastbound on-ramps, not westbound, because it would be the eastbound lanes that would flip to westbound if the reversal was put in place. Westbound lanes would continue carrying westbound traffic.

[sprjus4]

Some updates on the I-664 corridor... while the Bowers Hill Interchange study (which in reality is all of I-664 on the Southside) is ongoing, and now recommending the construction of either 2 HO/T lanes in each direction or 1 HO/T + 1 part-time HO/T shoulder in each direction with no new general purpose capacity... the Regional Connectors Study, which is evaluating I-664 on the Peninsula, the MMMBT, VA-164, and the proposed Third Crossing, is also underway.

Presentation from the "Working Group Meeting" (does not appear to be that much of a public study) from May 25, 2021 has come out with new recommendations for build alternatives.

As far as I-664 goes, two main alternatives were studied - widening to 8 lanes by adding one general purpose lane in each direction alongside a HO/T lane, and widening to 8 lanes by adding two HO/T lanes in each direction. Obviously, because of the current nature of the HRTPO, they swiftly eliminated the first option from any further sort of study, mainly citing concerns of a "barrier" in the tunnel that would cause safety concerns for separating GP and HO/T traffic (which, IMO, just sounds like another excuse to justify more HO/T lanes and no general purpose capacity). That's okay though... the existing general purpose lanes will always remain a free alternative they keep saying and will not be impacted... that's true, 2 will be retained each way as is today.

Here's my biggest gripe though... the preferred alternative for I-664 recommends an 8 lane design on the Peninsula - 2 GP + 2 HO/T each way... but here's the thing. I-664 is already 6 general purpose lanes (3 each way) on the Peninsula. The alternative they are proposing with zero public input (not that they listen anyways - look at Bowers Hill and the HO/T recommendation despite heavy preference toward GP expansion) would convert over 4 miles of the left general purpose lane each way into a HO/T lane. I can't help but feel this is only going to cause more problems than solve. It's no different than the upcoming project between the I-664 interchange and HRBT on I-64 that would convert that stretch from 3 GP to 2 GP + 2 HO/T each way.

If there's a strong desire to add two HO/T lanes each way, how about add them and still retain the 3 general purpose lanes... to have 3 GP + 2 HO/T each way... not only does it not impact the existing design, it adds more capacity.

All put together, the multi-billion dollar worth of tax funded projects across the region, including the ongoing HRBT expansion, High Rise Bridge widening, and proposed MMMBT and I-664 widening, will add zero general purpose lanes, all new capacity will be tolled HO/T lanes. Additionally, the proposed Third Crossing will be built as a tolled facility. The real question is when will I-664 or the Third Crossing ever get built...? Likely not another 10-15 years at minimum. Will all these projects help? Yes, but there are certainly areas, particularly in the western part of the region, where general purpose expansion would've likely done better overall at improving traffic. I feel it will not live up to its full potential.

See the full presentation for more - https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/May%2025%20RCS%20Working%20Group%20Mtg%20ver2.pdf

[Thing 342]

Some updates on the I-664 corridor... while the Bowers Hill Interchange study (which in reality is all of I-664 on the Southside) is ongoing, and now recommending the construction of either 2 HO/T lanes in each direction or 1 HO/T + 1 part-time HO/T shoulder in each direction with no new general purpose capacity... the Regional Connectors Study, which is evaluating I-664 on the Peninsula, the MMMBT, VA-164, and the proposed Third Crossing, is also underway.

Presentation from the "Working Group Meeting" (does not appear to be that much of a public study) from May 25, 2021 has come out with new recommendations for build alternatives.

As far as I-664 goes, two main alternatives were studied - widening to 8 lanes by adding one general purpose lane in each direction alongside a HO/T lane, and widening to 8 lanes by adding two HO/T lanes in each direction. Obviously, because of the current nature of the HRTPO, they swiftly eliminated the first option from any further sort of study, mainly citing concerns of a "barrier" in the tunnel that would cause safety concerns for separating GP and HO/T traffic (which, IMO, just sounds like another excuse to justify more HO/T lanes and no general purpose capacity). That's okay though... the existing general purpose lanes will always remain a free alternative they keep saying and will not be impacted... that's true, 2 will be retained each way as is today.

Here's my biggest gripe though... the preferred alternative for I-664 recommends an 8 lane design on the Peninsula - 2 GP + 2 HO/T each way... but here's the thing. I-664 is already 6 general purpose lanes (3 each way) on the Peninsula. The alternative they are proposing with zero public input (not that they listen anyways - look at Bowers Hill and the HO/T recommendation despite heavy preference toward GP expansion) would convert over 4 miles of the left general purpose lane each way into a HO/T lane. I can't help but feel this is only going to cause more problems than solve. It's no different than the upcoming project between the I-664 interchange and HRBT on I-64 that would convert that stretch from 3 GP to 2 GP + 2 HO/T each way.

If there's a strong desire to add two HO/T lanes each way, how about add them and still retain the 3 general purpose lanes... to have 3 GP + 2 HO/T each way... not only does it not impact the existing design, it adds more capacity.

All put together, the multi-billion dollar worth of tax funded projects across the region, including the ongoing HRBT expansion, High Rise Bridge widening, and proposed MMMBT and I-664 widening, will add zero general purpose lanes, all new capacity will be tolled HO/T lanes. Additionally, the proposed Third Crossing will be built as a tolled facility. The real question is when will I-664 or the Third Crossing ever get built...? Likely not another 10-15 years at minimum. Will all these projects help? Yes, but there are certainly areas, particularly in the western part of the region, where general purpose expansion would've likely done better overall at improving traffic. I feel it will not live up to its full potential.

See the full presentation for more - https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/May%2025%20RCS%20Working%20Group%20Mtg%20ver2.pdf

Curious what the City of Hampton ever did to anger these folks. Trucks can't use HOT.

[sprjus4]

^

Oh, that's even better. The FTAC (Freight Transportation Advisory Committee) is trying to push through the HRTPO to allow trucks to use the HO/T lanes.

Seems like a poor idea, IMO. It's just going to clog up the lanes more and disincentive cars to use them. Especially in the areas it's only 1 lane in each direction.

I asked VDOT on Twitter recently, they mentioned the speed limit in the Express Lanes under construction in Chesapeake will be 65 mph. That's a plus, I suppose, but in all reality, they simply need to raise all the lanes from 60 mph to 65 mph, and maybe even 70 mph in the Express Lanes. No reason it cannot handle it. They said a speed study will be completed for all the lanes after construction has been complete, but given there legacy, I doubt any official change will come. The fact they bumped the Peninsula to 65 mph still amazes me. And yet I-664 is still 60 mph.

I imagine using the single HO/T lane off peak will just risk getting caught behind the speed limit stickler (still 5 mph faster than the GP) with no passing opportunity and traffic in the main lanes still flowing much faster. It's why I've suggested they make the "part-time shoulder lane"  in areas they are implementing it a full time lane to allow that passing legally, and discourage illegal shoulder passing which might be far more tempting when there's only one lane and a hard shoulder essentially striped as a lane. The only areas that won't have a hard part-time shoulder is where the existing HOV lanes are being converted (there's room to add them, at least on the Chesapeake segment, IMO, and they should). Essentially provide a consistent 2 HO/T lanes in each direction throughout the system to guarantee that passing ability, and to overall carry more capacity, lowering toll rates and getting more usage.

[deathtopumpkins]

That offramp has had gates since at least 2012 - https://www.google.com/maps/@36.96706,-76.2934643,3a,75y,209.19h,85.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPgkNAmOdMrtQkDoC9-jIhA!2e0!5s20120501T000000!7i13312!8i6656

Are they not used? Was their installation a mistake given the inspection station?

Those gates were installed as part of the contraflow setup used for hurricane evacuations, which begins at Willoughby Spit. Every ramp on I-64 between there and I-295 has gates. I can't confirm on VDOT's website, but I presume this offramp would be closed when contraflow is in effect.

The gates were only installed on the eastbound on-ramps, not westbound, because it would be the eastbound lanes that would flip to westbound if the reversal was put in place. Westbound lanes would continue carrying westbound traffic.

No, the gates were installed on westbound ramps too. VDOT's old contraflow plan states that some westbound entrance and exit ramps will be closed to smooth traffic flow and prevent bottlenecks.

But you're welcome to check for yourself. Not like I lived there for 20 years and watched those gates go up or anything... 

[plain]

I'm trying to remember if the gate at 15th View WB was there before the rest of them was... I'm not sure. I don't think it originally had anything to do with lane reversal, they just didn't want traffic clogging up Ocean View Ave trying to get around the backups on I-64. Look closely at it. Other than the lights on top you'll see a bit of a difference.