Virginia

[NJRoadfan]

Don't think this have come up, but the Varina-Enon Bridge carrying I-295 got a paint job. the cable stays are now (well have been for at least a year and a half) blue in color.

[WillWeaverRVA]

It looks like VDOT is planning on implementing variable speed limits along I-95 in Spotsylvania County between about MM 115 (south of SR 606) and the VA 3 interchange:

http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2021/april/ctb_workshop_meeting_april_2021.pdf

[roadman65]

https://goo.gl/maps/LvV9E4FtTFeekZAR7

Was noticing at the east end of VA 272 the houses on the SE corner of that intersection with US 58 kept the old concrete alignment of the relocated VA 189 alive. 

I still wonder what the reason for VA 189 that was realigned after the US 58 freeway got completed. To me VA 272 should still be VA 189 instead of it aligning itself northward to end at US 58 south of Franklin.

[74/171FAN]

https://goo.gl/maps/LvV9E4FtTFeekZAR7

Was noticing at the east end of VA 272 the houses on the SE corner of that intersection with US 58 kept the old concrete alignment of the relocated VA 189 alive. 

I still wonder what the reason for VA 189 that was realigned after the US 58 freeway got completed. To me VA 272 should still be VA 189 instead of it aligning itself northward to end at US 58 south of Franklin.

I fixed the typo in your previous post.

My belief is that the reasoning for the insane routings around Franklin come down to this weight-restricted bridge on VA 189.

Personally, I would reduce VA 189 to the short stretch in Holland, decommission VA 272, have US 258 replace VA 189 south of US 58, and extend US 258 Business (which is a mess of its own in Franklin) down current US 258 to the south end of VA 189.

[roadman65]

https://goo.gl/maps/LvV9E4FtTFeekZAR7

Was noticing at the east end of VA 272 the houses on the SE corner of that intersection with US 58 kept the old concrete alignment of the relocated VA 189 alive. 

I still wonder what the reason for VA 189 that was realigned after the US 58 freeway got completed. To me VA 272 should still be VA 189 instead of it aligning itself northward to end at US 58 south of Franklin.

I fixed the typo in your previous post.

My belief is that the reasoning for the insane routings around Franklin come down to this weight-restricted bridge on VA 189.

Personally, I would reduce VA 189 to the short stretch in Holland, decommission VA 272, have US 258 replace VA 189 south of US 58, and extend US 258 Business (which is a mess of its own in Franklin) down current US 258 to the south end of VA 189.

https://goo.gl/maps/LvV9E4FtTFeekZAR7

Was noticing at the east end of VA 272 the houses on the SE corner of that intersection with US 58 kept the old concrete alignment of the relocated VA 189 alive. 

I still wonder what the reason for VA 189 that was realigned after the US 58 freeway got completed. To me VA 272 should still be VA 189 instead of it aligning itself northward to end at US 58 south of Franklin.

I fixed the typo in your previous post.

My belief is that the reasoning for the insane routings around Franklin come down to this weight-restricted bridge on VA 189.

Personally, I would reduce VA 189 to the short stretch in Holland, decommission VA 272, have US 258 replace VA 189 south of US 58, and extend US 258 Business (which is a mess of its own in Franklin) down current US 258 to the south end of VA 189.

That bridge was not that way back in 1983 when I drove it.  That was part of temporary US 58 as the freeway was not yet completed then between SR 714 and VA 272 ( then VA 189 as it was signed concurrent with US 58 to Holland then).

Obviously it deteriorated over the years and most likely is listed now as structurally deficient.

[roadman65]

https://www.thetidewaternews.com/2021/02/25/south-quay-road-to-close-for-bridge-replacement/

Obviously the bridge is being addressed now.

[74/171FAN]

https://www.thetidewaternews.com/2021/02/25/south-quay-road-to-close-for-bridge-replacement/

Obviously the bridge is being addressed now.

I wonder if it is worth checking with VDOT to see if any routes around Franklin may change after the completion of this project.

[LM117]

Heads up in case anyone is passing thru my neck of the woods this morning. Southbound US-29 traffic is being detoured through Danville due to a tractor-trailer crash just north of the US-58/US-360 interchange.

https://www.wfxrtv.com/news/local-news/southside-virginia-news/tractor-trailer-crash-closes-down-us-29-south-in-danville/

[sprjus4]

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/050421%20FTAC%2007%20Hampton%20Roads%20Highway%20Access%20Study.pdf

The HRTPO (Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization) is planning to conduct a study in FY22 to evaluate different proposals to improve highway access from the region to the north, west, and south.

Improvements have been proposed for many of the corridors that provide access to and from Hampton Roads. Some of these improvements include widening I-64 between Richmond and Williamsburg, replacing all or portions of Routes 58 and 460 with limited-access facilities, and building I-87 to and from North Carolina.

HRTPO staff will be preparing a study in FY22 to compare proposed improvements to these corridors based on the overall collective impact on the Hampton Roads region.

A. Background
The main highways linking Hampton Roads to the outside are (counterclockwise):
- US 13 North (via Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel)
- US 17 North
- I-64 West
- US 460 West
- US 58 West
- US 17 South (leading to I-87 proposed in North Carolina)
- VA 168 South

Improvements have been proposed to each of these corridors. Given limited transportation funds, the purpose of this effort is to compare these improvements using costs and benefits. Each corridor serves one or more areas outside of Hampton Roads: North, West, or South. Corridors serving the same area will be compared to each other. For example, US 13 North, US 17 North, and I-64 West all serve the North area.

B. Work Elements (WE)
Proposed work activities for FY22:
1. Identify corridors serving outside areas.
2. By area served, compare the current usage of competing highways:
       o Total vehicle volume
       o Truck volume
       o Port truck volume
3. Compare areas by port-related origins/destinations.
4. By area served, compare current travel times for competing highways.
       o Based on future scenarios of volumes, congestion, and signalization, estimate and compare future travel times for competing highways.
5. Identify planned improvements (with costs) by corridor.
6. Consider other measures, e.g. safety and economic development opportunities.
7. By area served, prioritize corridors based on the overall collective impact for our region.

[plain]

The first two (US 13 North & US 17 North) I really don't see much happening, but the others have some potential. US 13 is going to be extremely difficult and there's no point with US 17, unless it will get 6-laned between VA 134 and I-64.

[sprjus4]

The first two (US 13 North & US 17 North) I really don't see much happening, but the others have some potential. US 13 is going to be extremely difficult and there's no point with US 17, unless it will get 6-laned between VA 134 and I-64.

I imagine for most of them, any improvements will be limited to widening, intersection improvements, etc.

The only major recommendations I imagine would be focused towards upgrading US-58 West and US-17 South (I-87) to interstate standards, along with maybe reviving a potential US-460 realignment, and obviously I-64 widening to 6 lanes between Bottoms Bridge and Williamsburg.

It would be extremely interesting to see any freeway concepts for US-17 North, US-13 North, or VA-168 South where they are not currently built to those standards, considering no real proposals exist, but I wouldn't hold my breath. At the very least, it would be something to see US-13 in Virginia Beach upgraded or even proposed. The alignment east of Diamond Springs Rd is already built on limited access right of way. VDOT conceptual plans for the I-264 Phase 3 project show a conceptual interchange complex involving Wesleyan Dr and US-13. The only hard spot would obviously be Diamond Springs to Wesleyan, where the roadway functions as an 8 lane arterial with no access control. Either major right of way acquisition or an elevated viaduct would be required if a freeway was proposed in that location. There are certainly benefits to upgrading US-13 between I-64 and the CBBT to interstate standards though, providing an adequate expressway at least out of the metro area, and locally, having a high-capacity freeway serve that area of the city.

While US-17 South, US-58 West, and VA-168 South do not extend out of the region as freeways, they at least function as limited access highways until outside the metro area. US-13 does not.

US-17 North...? The only true freeway design I could envision is what was proposed in the 1980s - a new location highway between I-64 near Williamsburg and US-17 near Gloucester featuring a new James River crossing. Would bypass the commercial strip that is US-17 between Gloucester and Newport News. If this highway was ever built, it would most definitely be a toll road.

These are definitely projects with potential, and while I highly doubt it, it would be interesting to see this study look at full buildouts of US-17 North and US-13 North in this regard. They have merit to be studied as independent projects as well, but this would be a start. They aren't even official proposals at this point.

[froggie]

Worth noting that both the 1965 and 1969 Southside transportation plans recommended Northampton (13) as a freeway between 64 and the CBBT.  Obviously that didn't come to fruition, but it's been proposed before.

[WillWeaverRVA]

Worth noting that both the 1965 and 1969 Southside transportation plans recommended Northampton (13) as a freeway between 64 and the CBBT.  Obviously that didn't come to fruition, but it's been proposed before.

That honestly would have made a lot of sense considering how congested that stretch is today...

[18 wheel warrior]

Worth noting that both the 1965 and 1969 Southside transportation plans recommended Northampton (13) as a freeway between 64 and the CBBT.  Obviously that didn't come to fruition, but it's been proposed before.

Interestingly, that was the same period many locals, mainly Virginia Beach Blvd businesses, were opposed to the Virginia Beach-Norfolk Expressway construction because they were afraid the businesses on the Boulevard would end up going out of business. Guess what didn't happen? At least that was the story I was told. I wonder if there was similar opposition to upgrading Northampton Blvd to a freeway. It certainly would have avoided the traffic mess that's existed between 64 and Diamond Springs since who knows how long....

[18 wheel warrior]

Decades ago, there were proposals for a freeway to run from Norfolk to Raleigh. I think VDOT may have dropped the ball when the reconstruction of VA-104 (now relocated US-17) Dominion Blvd only went to south of Cedar Rd. VDOT could have done something to make a future upgrade to interstate standard to facilitate this long awaited highway easier. It's going to be another mess when this project is funded and started.

In my view, expansion/upgrading of US-17 from Cedar Rd to the NC line should be a top priority to facilitate port and other commercial traffic between the ports in Virginia to I-95 near Rocky Mount and beyond. US-64 from Knightdale (the current "end" of the southern I-87) to Williamston only need minor improvements to upgrade to interstate standard. From Williamston (aside from the bypasses along the way) to the state line will be their big project. VDOT starting this would signal to NCDOT its commitment to make this happen and perhaps get their part started. NCDOT seems to build highways at incredible speed. Unfortunately, I can't count on VDOT to get anything going any faster than molasses flowing uphill in winter.

VDOT has started something along US-58 in Suffolk. Some right of way has been purchased; homes demolished in anticipation for expansion. How long this project is and when construction is to start I don't know. Improvements between the Downtown Suffolk bypass and Holland Bypass would be welcome!

Expansion of US-460 between the Suffolk Bypass and Petersburg from a mostly 4 lane undivided highway to a divided highway would be nice; it'd be an excellent alternative to I-64 to the north and west. Not that it isn't now; it would be safer. Sticking point would be perhaps building bypasses around Zuni, Windsor, Wakefield, Ivor and Waverly.

VDOT has paid too much attention to northern Virginia over the decades. We've needed serious attention for many years. It's time we got that attention!

 

[sprjus4]

Regarding the city of Chesapeake's project with Dominion Blvd expansion, I think the project helped to at least tackle the most challenging portion of the US-17 corridor between I-64 and North Carolina. The only criticism I had is something should've been done at Grassfield Pkwy and Scenic Pkwy to at least reserve right of way for future interchanges or just outright build them. That stretch did see improvements though, as it was at least widened to a 4 lane divided highway.

Either way though, I don't think the remainder of US-17 would be a hard project to upgrade to interstate standards, at least compared to the mess Dominion Blvd caused motorists for a few years. The highway was mostly relocated on new alignment in 2005 by VDOT, and while it still has at grade intersections at minor roadways, the roadway is built on a limited access right of way with sufficient room to purchase additional right of way near at least Ballahack Rd, Cornland Rd, and US-17 Business to construct grade separated interchanges.

Now, the city of Chesapeake is planning to eventually construct a "megasite"  on the field east of the highway just north of the state line in the future, and if proper consideration isn't done to accommodate the future interstate (i.e. building a privately funded interchange vs. the current planned installation of a traffic signal), then that could be another hassle. Plus, let's not put another signal on US-17, interstate planned or not. IMO, no new access should even go there, but because 3 private farm access points were authorized when that relocation was constructed, they're using that "loophole" .

There hasn't been much formal study by VDOT regarding I-87 yet, unlike North Carolina's two feasibility studies on US-64 and US-17, though adjusted for 2045 inflation, the HRTPO estimates construction of I-87 between the state line and I-64 along US-17 to cost $404 million.

[sprjus4]

https://twitter.com/ChesapeakeRoads/status/1388948697426374665

For some context, the bridge was closed in late 2019 - early 2020 for 6 months for a scheduled rehabilitation project that caused an over 5 mile detour that utilized the VA-168 freeway over the waterway, and caused significant increased congestion issues in the area, particularly along VA-165, VA-168 freeway, and up to the I-64 interchange. The bridge re-opened in February 2020, and all was normal. In November 2020 however, a barge struck the bridge causing it to be closed to accommodate emergency repairs. Emergency funding was appropriated, and work was not expected to be done until May 31, 2021. In all, a roughly another 6 month closure took place, repeating those same traffic issues and detour.

[froggie]

Decades ago, there were proposals for a freeway to run from Norfolk to Raleigh.

Where?  And from whom?

Of the three regional Southside transportation plans I'm most familiar with (above-mentioned 1965, above-mentioned 1969, and VDOT's 2010 thoroughfare plan released in 1989), none had a freeway along Dominion, and none had a freeway along 58 past Suffolk.

[WillWeaverRVA]

VDOT has started something along US-58 in Suffolk. Some right of way has been purchased; homes demolished in anticipation for expansion. How long this project is and when construction is to start I don't know. Improvements between the Downtown Suffolk bypass and Holland Bypass would be welcome!

Is it this project? If so, it looks like a city project and not a VDOT one.

[Mapmikey]

US 250 between VA 6 and the bottom of Afton Mtn towards VA 151 closed by rockslide since May 4:

https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1390427127942635523?s=20

[sprjus4]

https://twitter.com/VaDOTNOVA/status/1390416927030497282

[sprjus4]

Warner, transportation leaders meet to discuss priorities

Hampton Roads transportation leaders outlined their priorities for Sen. Mark Warner Friday on how the region could benefit from federal money to move along projects such as port dredging, interstate and road expansion and other infrastructure projects.

Warner's meeting at the Virginia International Gateway terminal at the Port of Virginia was part of a two-day swing through the region, meeting with museum and music venue operators the day before and later Friday visiting the Hampton VA Medical Center with Reps. Bobby Scott and Elaine Luria.

During the hour-long visit, Warner and transportation officials touched on the importance of improving the region's transportation network, continuing to advance dredging at the Port of Virginia, the importance of offshore wind and addressing sea-level rise.

He said the port is among the state's greatest assets and believes the region can use its deep maritime ties to its advantage.

New port director Stephen Edwards emphasized that the dredging at the port is contingent on federal money coming to it. He also asked Warner to help it get "new start"  designation from the Army Corps of Engineers. That would let the Norfolk Harbor and Channels widening and deepening project move to the next stage of construction and get Army Corps funding. Currently, that project is ongoing and is funded through a combination of state and local money.

Edwards said it is important that it work collaboratively on making improvements to State Route 164 to Suffolk. Bob Crum, executive director of the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization, said that kind of work helps the port.

"What we're about is what comes next, and for our port partners, we need to build that land-side transportation network to support the tremendous work that you're doing at the port,"  Crum said.

He said a priority is to finish Interstate 64 expansion north to I-295 in Richmond.

Crum noted the current widening of I-64 in South Hampton Roads, with the goal of continuing that though I-664 to Route 164, "which is going to be key to our port facilities."

"So there's a lot of projects there that we really think that if we're going to keep pace and really be able to provide the type of land-side network,"  Crum said, "that some investments are going to be critically important."

The projects, Crum noted, are out of the organization's long-range transportation plan endorsed by its regional board.

Kevin Page, executive director of the Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission, said the region would soon have its own 44-mile managed hot-lane network.

Crum also noted ongoing conversations with city managers throughout the region on the fiber ring and using money from the American Rescue Plan to build that out, having already received such a commitment from Norfolk Mayor Kenny Alexander.

David White, executive director of the Virginia Maritime Association, agreed with Warner about the importance for the region to embrace a maritime focus.

"This region is a maritime economy,"  White said, "and I think that we have really finally come to recognize that, and we need to flex our muscles around that."

Page said there are 200 lane miles under construction or reconstruction in Hampton Roads, and noted that it is the 95% funding partner in the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel expansion project. The HRBT project, he said, would create 28,000 jobs between now and 2025.

He stressed the importance of building up the infrastructure surrounding the port and working with federal partners to gain more financial support for those efforts.

With $6.1 billion worth of highway projects slated for completion by October 2025, Page said that without federal money, Route 164 widening wouldn't happen until 2045, and I-664 widening from Bowers Hill to the Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge-Tunnel wouldn't happen until 2038.

But he said the region's cooperation has never been better, and its regional transportation priorities even have buy-in from unlikely places.

"It's been really enlightening to me to sit down with Southampton County, who'll probably never see an HRTAC project because we have highest priority congestion relief projects,"  Page said, "but they're a contributor and understanding as that regional partner what it means for them – a lot of trucks stopping there in that region to fuel up."

Said John Milliken of the port authority's board of directors: "What happens outside the port boundaries is every bit as important as what happens inside."

Warner noted the collaboration on display throughout the region hasn't always been the case.

"For too long in Hampton Roads, I used to think economic development was Norfolk steals from Virginia Beach, and then Virginia Beach steals from Norfolk, but that doesn't grow the overall pie."

Warner also addressed U.S. Route 58 and its role with the port and the overall transportation network.

"We've been trying to make sure that there is that southern route that goes along 58,"  Warner said. "It's really important (and) that's been a priority for 20-plus years. And part of it is improvements in communities like Suffolk, but part of it is the need for improvements in a place like Patrick County, much further west, because even if you get the improvements in Suffolk, if you're trying to ship goods to Tennessee and beyond, and the 58 corridor can be one of those corridors, you've got bottlenecks along the way.

"It's gotten better. Some of these bottlenecks go back to when I was governor (from 2002 to 2006) and they're finally improving, but it's been a long, long process. And I do think there is an opportunity there."

[Jmiles32]

Would the I-664 and VA-164 widening projects be a continuation of the current 2 GP/1 HOT lane configuration in each direction that is currently being built on the southside section of I-64? Also while I'm glad to hear US-58 get some recognition, it doesn't sound like there are any big projects planned for that corridor between Emporia and Bowers Hill besides the Bowers Hill interchange improvements and the upcoming US-58 widening west of Suffolk that IMO should've instead been a limited access bypass. 

[Jmiles32]

https://www.winchesterstar.com/winchester_star/kaine-regional-officials-discuss-using-american-rescue-plan-funds-to-improve-i-81/article_b02b5a57-36b5-5eaa-8e22-480f82c84188.html

WINCHESTER – The $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan approved by the federal government in March to address the economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic includes billions of dollars that Virginia and its localities can use for road improvements.

U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Virginia Transportation Secretary Shannon Valentine were in Winchester Friday morning to hear how local and state representatives would like to use that money to better the 325-mile section of Interstate 81 that runs through the commonwealth.

"When you get one-time money, using it for infrastructure is smart," Kaine told the group assembled on the fourth floor of Rouss City Hall.

Del. Bill Wiley, R-Winchester, pulled no punches, telling Kaine the portion of I-81 in the Northern Shenandoah Valley is "the red-headed stepchild. We're always third or fourth priority."

Wiley and several others who attended Friday's session told Kaine and Valentine that when federal and state governments earmark money for transportation improvements in Virginia, funds frequently are directed by the Commonwealth Transportation Board and Virginia Department of Transportation to more populous areas, particularly Northern Virginia. Meanwhile, the two-lane I-81 corridor in Frederick County cannot adequately handle its increasingly high volumes of vehicular traffic, resulting in frequent slowdowns and vehicle crashes.

"We're way behind and need to get going," Wiley said.

Chris Kyle, chairman of the GO Virginia Region 8 Council, agreed, saying the formula currently used by Virginia to determine how to best spend transportation dollars needs to change to better reflect the long-standing needs of the state's western half, including the Northern Shenandoah Valley.

"The dollars come to the state," Kyle said. "Let's stop them before they go east."

Dale Bennett, president and CEO of the Richmond-based Virginia Trucking Association, said an inefficient I-81 is not just frustrating and dangerous. It also hurts the environment because tractor-trailers slowed by bottlenecks emit more exhaust fumes and consume more fuel than they would if traffic flowed freely.

David Covington, I-81 program delivery director at the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), said the state is already planning to add a third lane to northbound and southbound I-81 between Exits 313 and 317 in Winchester, but it's not clear when work would begin.

Mark Merrill, Staunton District representative on the Commonwealth Transportation Board, said he would like the I-81 lane widening in Winchester to extend farther south to Stephens City due to the area's high volume of traffic.

"I think we have to do more," Merrill said.

Del. Wendy Gooditis, D-Clarke County, told Kaine she is grateful that Merrill, a Winchester resident, is on the Commonwealth Transportation Board because he will be a solid resource for helping to improve local conditions on I-81.

"I'm just so thankful for the work being done," Gooditis said.

Kaine said the federal government will let states and localities determine the best way to invest American Rescue Plan funds when they're distributed in the coming weeks and months, as long as the spending falls within the assistance program's parameters. However, Congress could strongly encourage recipients to focus on specific areas of longstanding need.

"As we talk about the infrastructure portion going to roads, we might be able to write criteria that would really advantage I-81," Kaine said, particularly if states along the corridor have already identified problem areas and developed improvement plans.

In Virginia, Valentine said, plans to improve I-81 in the Winchester area have been on the books for more than 20 years.

Would love to know exactly how much money were talking about here. Short term, for at the least the Winchester area, I agree that the currently planned I-81 widening should extend south to Exit 307. I also think that some of the money could be used to help construct either the first section of the VA-37 eastern extension or the Exit 307 relocation project. Longer term, I think that it makes sense to widen all of I-81 from north of I-66 to the West Virginia state line.

[sprjus4]

Would the I-664 and VA-164 widening projects be a continuation of the current 2 GP/1 HOT lane configuration in each direction that is currently being built on the southside section of I-64?

Unfortunately, for at least I-664 as of now, yes.

VDOT is currently conducting a study to create an Environmental Impact Statement for the Bowers Hill Interchange and the I-664 corridor between Bowers Hill and the MMMBT. A public meeting was held in March 2021 that presented various alternatives that involved constructing 1 or 2 HO/T lanes in each direction along with alternatives that would construct 1 or 2 general purpose lanes in each direction. There was a public comment period, and the response from an overwhelming majority of people was that their was preference for general purpose widening with an emphasis on no tolls. Anyways, being this is VDOT, and the fact the HRTPO has locked in an "Express Lane Network" that is to be built out around the entire Hampton Roads Beltway (I-64 / I-664) and up I-64 to Jefferson Ave in Newport News, they threw that right out the window and eliminated all general purpose alternatives from further study. Their reasoning? It "didn't meet the purpose and need" which indicates that one of the goals is to "provide alternative travel choices". Essentially, this study was ultimately going to be a HO/T lane addition project, but they couldn't brand it as such. I predicted from the beginning they would go this route, and sure enough they did.

See this presentation for specifics - https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/042321%20BHIWG%2005_Presentation%20Improvement%20Study.pdf

The idea does not seem popular in this region, nor does it make sense outside maybe I-64 in Norfolk where it's currently being built - I will also add I could see viability and a potential way to help fund for a complete reconstruction of I-264 similar to how I-495 was done in Northern Virginia or currently I-66 (3 general purpose + 2 HO/T each way, every interchange completely reconstructed). I-64 south of I-264 Norfolk into Virginia Beach and Chesapeake all the way to I-464 has 3 general purpose lanes and 1 HOV lane in each direction and has since the 90s and almost never has any congestion issues - and of course these HOV lanes will be converted to HO/T (the segment in Chesapeake and Virginia Beach is already under construction) but at least there will still be 3 general purpose lanes retained. The same applies for I-64 on the Peninsula north of I-664. The stretches of I-64 and I-664 that are still 4 lanes in Chesapeake see moderate congestion during peak hours, but the volumes are low enough (lower than the previous mentioned segments due to a large percentage of traffic exiting at VA-168 / US-17 South) that if you simply added one or two general purpose lanes, traffic would be fine, and if the previous mentioned segments are any indication, it would work for decades to come. But instead, we'll see a transition from that nice wide open highway crammed down to still 2 congested general purpose lanes and the occasional car in the Express Lane. And of course, to make it better, they had an original policy that the HO/T lanes would only be tolled during peak hours, similar to the existing reversible segment, but they have instead changed on that and mandated they be tolled 24/7. Soon enough, they'll change the policy on the existing ones too to be "consistent". It's ridiculous honestly, and I question how well it will help traffic problems more than general purpose widening would do - but who knows. It's what we're stuck with and clearly "public input" is worthless - they blatantly admitted from that I-664 study and the above linked presentation.

Also while I'm glad to hear US-58 get some recognition, it doesn't sound like there are any big projects planned for that corridor between Emporia and Bowers Hill besides the Bowers Hill interchange improvements and the upcoming US-58 widening west of Suffolk that IMO should've instead been a limited access bypass.

Agreed, and it honestly shows incompetence on VDOT's part. They are so narrowed down on arterial improvements, and while I'm not necessarily against those either, the fact there has been no large scale study or goal on improving the US-58 corridor to interstate standards out to I-95 is beyond me - or even at least to Holland! It keeps getting discussed internally, but there's no real effort to get anything done. And at this rate, there's much higher priorities in the region who knows. This is one of the main reasons I'm supportive of the proposed I-87 project in North Carolina - it might not be the desired connection like US-58 is, but if they can actually get something built up over the next 15 to 20 years (still quicker than VDOT will ever get dirt turned on US-58), there will at least be a somewhat viable alternative to the south. It wouldn't be necessary if VDOT had focused on US-58 20 or 30 years ago when there was prime opportunity to improve it when there was 30 miles between the Courtland Bypass and I-95 that was still 2 lane road - perhaps relocating on a freeway alignment. Would've been a major start, but instead they went with traditional 4 lane widening. I'm not arguing US-58 is not viable for the traffic volumes it carries - it certainly is - but given it's critical function of connecting a metropolitan area of 2 million to the East Coast's main north-south interstate highway - and being a major freight route - it should be built to at least freeway standards.

Imagine how the US-58 corridor would be if all the widenings that have occurred since the 80s - the whole corridor east of I-77 - were all built to freeway standards and a relocation of the old 2 lane road. With offering faster travel times, and the opportunity to eventually improve the "gaps" between the long freeway segments to also meet standards, the corridor would actually be another viable cross-state interstate route, and would certainly help to ease some of that congestion on I-64 or I-81. The current corridor about to be 4 lanes may do that to some extent - but if we're going to be 100% honest, it's really not doing much to attract long distance traffic. I've driven the whole thing between Hampton Roads and I-77, and honestly, as much as I don't care for a lot of I-81 due to the truck traffic, I'd still rather go that way simply because I can at least move along at 70+ mph the whole way vs. the 55-60 mph that drags on for hundreds of miles on US-58, plus the occasional urban areas with 45 mph speed limits and traffic lights.

Would love to know exactly how much money were talking about here. Short term, for at the least the Winchester area, I agree that the currently planned I-81 widening should extend south to Exit 307.

I say go all the way to I-66 at Exit 300 at least.

Longer term, I think that it makes sense to widen all of I-81 from north of I-66 to the West Virginia state line.

Agreed considering West Virginia is eventually going to get to that point, and honestly, long term, VDOT should be planning for a full widening of all 325 miles from Tennessee to West Virginia. Nobody is saying it's going to get done immediately, but the fact they aren't even at least proposals or concepts on a map for the majority of rural areas is sad. I agree with the principle of addressing the major chokepoints first, but then they plan to just stop. Keep it going, 6 lanes throughout should be the next step. The whole corridor in all honesty is a bottleneck. The peak weekend volumes along with just the sheer amount of trucks all year round clearly warrants a continuous 3rd lane.

I'll give the eastern part of the state (Hampton Roads / Richmond region) some credit in this regard - they are fully committed and actively planning and pushing to get the remainder of the I-64 gap between Richmond and Williamsburg fully widened to 6 lanes. Given how much the Phase 1-2 projects and the recently completed widening east of I-295, along with the ongoing Phase 3 project near Williamsburg will and have significantly relieved the worst bottlenecks on the corridor, they could've simply went the route of I-81 and said the rest of the corridor as adequate enough. But no, they are still trying to get it done properly and get the needed funding to do so.

I also think that some of the money could be used to help construct either the first section of the VA-37 eastern extension or the Exit 307 relocation project.

What are these projects?