Figured there was no topic directly on the upcoming HRBT expansion, so here we go.
VDOT delivers update on $3.8-billion HRBT expansion project (https://www.wavy.com/traffic/new-details-released-on-3-8-billion-hrbt-expansion-project/?fbclid=IwAR2VdU1K4P81eBraRO6gOzRB3BcfE6R7YzDX-0TOslfejkHSovA76AG0RC4)
QuoteNORFOLK, Va. (WAVY) – City council received a report from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Tuesday night on the massive Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel expansion project.
The report gave an update on the progress of the $3.8-billion VDOT project.
Now, the project is advancing conceptual designs, which is expected to talk until December 2020.
In the meantime, VDOT is releasing information about its plans to mitigate traffic impacts during construction, as well as the overall project timeline.
The main goal of the HRBT project is to widen the facility and alleviate constant congestion.
VDOT will expand both the north and south island to accommodate the wider lanes. The expansion is expected to take five years to finish.
A boring machine will be used to create the second-largest tunnel opening in North America, making it the largest and most complicated project of its kind in Virginia history.
So who's funding it? According to VDOT, the Hampton Roads Transportation Fund will foot 95% of the bill, which comes from the regional gas and sales tax. The rest will come from a collection of:
* $108 million from the Virginia Department of Transportation
* $200 million from the Commonwealth's SMART SCALE program
Construction on the expansion project should begin before the end of 2020. The $3.8 billion will expand the 4-lane highway to 8-lanes between I-564 and US-60 Settlers Landing Road. The interstate will have 2 general purpose lanes each way and 2 HO/T (High Occupancy / Toll) lanes each way, with only one being open during off-peak hours, and includes the construction of over 3 miles of new 8-lane trestles and 2 new bored tunnels under the Hampton Roads. The project will be completed by the end of 2025.
See this page (http://www.hrbtexpansion.org/environmental_study/revised_joint_permit_application_and_drawings_-_12-23-19.asp) for conceptual drawings of the project, including the alignment of the new bridges and tunnels, from December 23, 2019.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 05, 2020, 06:17:47 PM
See this page (http://www.hrbtexpansion.org/environmental_study/revised_joint_permit_application_and_drawings_-_12-23-19.asp) for conceptual drawings of the project, including the alignment of the new bridges and tunnels, from December 23, 2019.
Key excerpts:
Highlights to text by SMK.
This may be the deepest highway tunnel in the U.S.
Trestle upgrades.
Advantages of the bored tunnel alternative.
. . . . . . . .
F.2.3 SELECTED BORED TUNNEL ALTERNATIVE
The selected bored tunnel alternative will construct two new tunnels crossing Hampton Roads parallel to the west of the existing HRBT using a Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM). HRCP incorporated a bored tunnel construction method during the initial stages of design. The two new tunnels will have an internal diameter of 41.5 feet and be approximately 7,900 feet in length between the launch and reception shafts located on the North and South Islands. The tunnels will vary in depth from
approximately 40 to 150 feet below the water surface. A geologic stratum with weak geotechnical properties exists along a portion of the tunnel alignment just beneath and to the north of South Island. Jet grouting will be used for ground improvement (GI) to strengthen soils in this area prior to advancing the TBM. The anticipated total project schedule encompasses 62 months, with 36 months for tunnel construction only.
Additional Project components will include
full replacement of the North and South Trestle Bridges, expansion of the existing portal islands, and
widening of the Willoughby Bay Trestle Bridges, Bay Avenue Trestle Bridges, and Oastes Creek Trestle Bridges. Also, upland portions of I-64 will be widened to accommodate the additional lanes, the Mallory Street Bridge will be replaced, and the I-64 overpass bridges will be improved.
. . . . . . . . . .
Trestle Bridges
The existing two-lane North and South Trestle Bridges will be demolished and reconstructed. The North Trestle Bridges will be replaced by two new four-lane structures.
The two existing two-lane South Trestle Bridges will also be demolished and replaced by a new single eight-lane structure.
The existing Willoughby Bay Trestle Bridge structure will be modified by widening the two existing structures to the outside in both directions to accommodate new travel lanes, shoulders, and new sound walls. The trestle bridges crossing Bay Avenue and Oastes Creek will be similarly expanded.
. . . . . . . . .
F.3 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
The selected bored tunnel alternative has many advantages when compared to the ITT [Immersed Tube Tunnel] alternative. A tunnel bored underneath the sediment-water interface will avoid substantial in-water impacts related to dredging and avoid direct navigation impacts to the federally- maintained channel. Less disturbance to the channel and open water reduces concerns to commercial ships and military vessels, which will minimize the impact on the economy, tourism, and national security as the tunnel is being constructed.
The bored tunnel construction also reduces overall costs, shortens schedule, and improves worker safety. The use of a bored tunnel approach would substantially reduce the volume of dredging when compared to the ITT approach minimizing the need for ocean disposal. Construction of the bored tunnel underground results in a reduction of noise, dust, and visual impacts. The tunnel itself will not cause impacts to subaqueous bottom, essential fish habitat, or benthic habitat, nor will additional fill or armor stone be placed on top of the tunnels. Finally, the bored tunnel creates substantially less exposure to weather risks such as wind and wave action during construction as the deeper elevations of the tunnel are constructed under the surface of the James River.
The selected bored tunnel has fewer impacts to WOUS [waters of the US] than the ITT, while still meeting the Project purpose and need.
http://www.hrbtexpansion.org/documents/2019/revised_joint_permit_application_and_drawings-december_23,_2019/008_hrbt_jpa_appf_rev1_alternatives_analysis_20191219_1_of_1.pdf
Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Expansion Project receives green light to begin building (https://www.wtkr.com/news/hampton-roads-bridge-tunnel-expansion-project-receives-green-light-to-begin-building?fbclid=IwAR1ueGlmSldhcj7_zSJgN5lPnhHc0DVAAKbus31rFm-2Ns37nX-dRy6rPOY)
QuoteNORFOLK, Va. - VDOT has reached a critical milestone in the HRBT expansion project.
VDOT issued a Notice to Proceed (NTP) to Hampton Roads Connector Partners (HRCP) to begin building the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Expansion project.
This news comes a month after HRCP received all necessary state and federal permits to start work in waterways and along I-64.
According to HRBT Expansion Project Director Jim Utterback, "Acquiring the permits for a project of this magnitude in 16 months was a remarkable effort. The coordination and collaboration among HRCP, federal and state agencies, and VDOT was a key to the success. Our goal is to continue this collaboration as we issue NTP and move into detailed design and construction of the project."
In April 2019, the Commonwealth of Virginia signed a comprehensive agreement with HRCP for the $3.8 billion project.
The HRBT expansion project will span 10 miles of interstate from Hampton to Norfolk. The addition of twin two-lane bored tunnels west of the existing tunnels will accommodate four lanes of traffic for a total of eight lanes of capacity across the water.
The project is meant to ease major traffic jams that can be backed up for several miles during the peak summer season.
The expansion project is also designed to enhance safety, improve hurricane evacuation routes, and ensure military and maritime readiness.
The tunnel boring machine is set to launch from the HRBT South Island in early 2022 to begin excavating two new tunnels.
VDOT says motorists will see pile driving activity in the water for the replacement and widening of bridges along the interstate, as early as this fall. Motorists should pay attention to new interstate signs and electronic message boards detailing roadwork ahead and be mindful of crews working behind concrete barriers on the interstate.
Most of the construction and tunneling will occur over a 55-month period between late 2020 and 2025.
The project is expected to bring between 1,200 to 1,500 construction-related jobs to the region.
The groundbreaking ceremony for the project occurred this morning at 11 am ET.
In the livestream, if you skip to around 1 hour 30 minutes in, there is a drive through rendering of what the corridor will look like upon completion in 2025. The final configuration will feature 2 general purpose lanes, 1 HO/T lane, and 1 part-time HO/T lane in each direction, creating a total of 8 lanes during peak hours.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXi6KbJZtuU
Looking at the video, am I correct that you will not be able to legally enter or leave the HOT lanes from I-564 to at least VA 169?
I would think that you want traffic to be able to have an entrance/exit area somewhere south of the beginning of the HRBT. I definitely am fine with not allowing traffic to enter or leave the HOT Lanes while on the HRBT itself.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on October 29, 2020, 12:20:05 PM
Looking at the video, am I correct that you will not be able to legally enter or leave the HOT lanes from I-564 to at least VA 169?
That is correct. VDOT is currently planning another large project which would extend the HO/T lanes up to I-664 (small distance, but involves a lot of widening and bridge replacements) - which would feature a transition zone (I believe one lane transition between general purpose and HO/T, one lane HO/T through), then tie into converting the existing HOV lane between I-664 and Jefferson Ave into one HO/T lane.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on October 29, 2020, 12:20:05 PM
I would think that you want traffic to be able to have an entrance/exit area somewhere south of the beginning of the HRBT. I definitely am fine with not allowing traffic to enter or leave the HOT Lanes while on the HRBT itself.
I could support another ingress / egress point, particularly traffic coming from the base exiting out out of Gate 4 onto Bay Ave, giving them an option to hop in. The primary draw though would be from I-564, the majority of the base traffic, entering the lanes. It's not depicted in the animation, but I believe they are planning to construct a direct HO/T connector to I-564.
My main criticism with the proposal is the proposed setup outside of peak hours. The current plan is to only have one HO/T lane in each direction, then open up the shoulder for peak use. My question is why not simply stripe it as 2 HO/T lanes in each direction full time? That would at least allow passing opportunities, etc. HO/T lanes with minimal shoulder may be less ideal, but that would be the case during peak hours, and it's no different than many setups elsewhere in the country.
My other question is what would be the speed limit? VDOT common practice for HO/T lanes would say 65 mph, though who knows given the nature of this corridor. They posted 65 mph on the curvature heavy segment through Norfolk, so I imagine it could be similar here. Also, the fact that there would no truck traffic can give more leeway to posting higher limits than the general purpose lanes. It's worth noting VDOT currently drops the speed limit along 2 tunnels on I-77 from 70 mph to 55 mph, though in the past decade did increase the I-664 MMMBT from 55 mph to 60 mph, the highest tunnel speed limit in the state.
WTOP Radio: Virginia breaks ground on largest infrastructure project in state history (https://wtop.com/virginia/2020/10/virginia-breaks-ground-on-largest-infrastructure-project-in-state-history/)
Shorter rendering video here:
https://twitter.com/vapoliticalmeme/status/1322271343409307648?s=21
Official VDOT press release:
Virginia Launches Largest Infrastructure Project in Commonwealth's History (https://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2020/virginia-launches-largest-infrastructure-project-in-commonwealths-history10-29-2020.asp)
QuoteHAMPTON–Governor Ralph Northam joined the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and state and local leaders to break ground on the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel (HRBT) Expansion Project today. The $3.8 billion project will increase tunnel and interstate capacity along 9.9 miles of Interstate 64 between Hampton and Norfolk, reducing congestion and easing access to the Port of Virginia and the world's largest Naval base.
"For too long, traffic in the Hampton Roads region has bottlenecked at the tunnel," said Governor Ralph Northam. "Folks in this region deserve an easier, more reliable commute. This is the largest project in our history, and it will ensure that people can move around faster, that commerce flows more easily, and that we finally connect the Peninsula and the Southside. This project will make everyone's lives easier when it is completed."
"The world's best designers, builders, engineers, and technology are converging here in Virginia to build your new tunnel," said Secretary of Transportation Shannon Valentine. "We are bringing every asset to the table to give people what they may value most–time."
Virginia crews will use a highly-specialized tunnel boring machine to dig through soil and construct tunnel segments simultaneously. The advanced technology is used in the construction of highly complex projects such as Manhattan's Second Avenue Subway. The new HRBT is only the fourth roadway project to use this equipment in the United States. The machinery is under construction in Germany and is expected to arrive in Hampton Roads in 2021 for assembly, which will take several months. It is expected to begin tunneling operations in early 2022.
"VDOT is using this advanced boring technology for the first time ever," said VDOT Commissioner Stephen Brich. "We're doing it because this is one of the nation's most important maritime channels, and this technology means less disruption to military and commercial activity, and less impact on marine life."
The project has received support from the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission (HRTAC), federal, and local partners. Design-build contractor Hampton Roads Connector Partners (HRCP) received Notice to Proceed for full construction activities in September. The project is expected to be completed in November 2025.
"The HRBT expansion project is a great example of how the legislature, VDOT, and HRTAC are working together to achieve a greater vision for transportation in Hampton Roads and provide solutions to bring the region out of gridlock," said Kevin Page, HRTAC Executive Director.
A Project Administration and Funding Agreement with HRTAC first announced in April 2019 commits 92 percent of locally-sourced funding for the expansion. Additional financing includes $200 million from the Commonwealth's SMART SCALE program and $108 million from VDOT.
In addition to alleviating congestion for motorists, the completed project will benefit tourism, the Port of Virginia, and the military–three critical industries in Hampton Roads. The expansion is projected to bolster the economic competitiveness of in Hampton Roads with more than $4.6 billion in investments and an estimated 28,000 new jobs over the life of the project.
The Commonwealth has worked to maximize the participation of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) and Small, Women-owned, and Minority-owned (SWaM) businesses across the Commonwealth on the performance of contracts for this historic project. More than 160 DBE and SWaM agreements have been executed so far as part of the project, representing more than $87 million in contract awards.
The HRBT Expansion Project will add twin, two-lane bored tunnels and widen the four-lane segments of Interstate 64 in Hampton between Settlers Landing Road and the Phoebus shoreline, and in Norfolk between the Willoughby shoreline and the I-564 interchange. More than 100,000 vehicles currently use this facility during peak travel periods.
State and regional leaders including Secretary of Transportation Valentine, VDOT Commissioner Stephen Brich, Hampton Mayor Donnie Tuck, Norfolk Mayor Kenneth Alexander, Suffolk Mayor and HRTAC Chair Linda Johnson, and representatives from VDOT, HRTAC, and HRCP attended the social-distanced groundbreaking event with Governor Northam. Video of the groundbreaking ceremony is available here.
For additional information about the HRBT Expansion Project, visit hrbtexpansion.org.
Now that construction is about to get underway, where would they start? Expanding the terminal islands? Pile driving for the new and/or expanded bridges? Off-site fabrication of the tubes that will eventually be sunken into the channel? At this point I don't foresee any lane closures or shifts for probably a year or more.
Quote from: wriddle082 on November 03, 2020, 05:16:57 PM
Now that construction is about to get underway, where would they start? Expanding the terminal islands? Pile driving for the new and/or expanded bridges? Off-site fabrication of the tubes that will eventually be sunken into the channel? At this point I don't foresee any lane closures or shifts for probably a year or more.
I believe some prep work has been occurring around the HRBT in the past few months, haven't been over that way in a while though.
Work on median widening on the Norfolk segment from the HRBT to I-564 may begin before actual tunnel / bridge work.
http://www.hrbtexpansion.org/documents/hrbt-fact-sheet-10-1-2019.pdf
Official fact sheet from VDOT
https://twitter.com/vadot/status/1354168612089692160
Update:
QuoteSubstantial completion" is on track for September 1, 2025, Utterback said in a presentation to the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization on Wednesday.
- https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/local/hrbt-expansion-project-timeline-completion/291-dbe1cb8e-791c-4bfe-b14e-b0533a877ee4
And they say America doesn't do massive infrastructure projects anymore.
Quote from: kernals12 on October 26, 2021, 05:34:34 PM
And they say America doesn't do massive infrastructure projects anymore.
In terms of road tunnels yeah I'd call this an exception today.
Local officials held a ceremony to welcome the TBM (https://www.pilotonline.com/news/transportation/vp-nw-hrbt-expansion-tunnel-boring-machine-20211214-chgkax55fjerxi45xbcy7r2isy-story.html), christened Mary, in honor of NASA scientist and Norfolk native Mary Jackson. They now need to reassemble it. I hope they didn't throw away the instructions.
A crane fell into the water. No injuries.
https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-news/official-crane-fell-at-site-of-i-64-bridge-tunnel-expansion
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 29, 2020, 12:06:58 PM
The groundbreaking ceremony for the project occurred this morning at 11 am ET.
In the livestream, if you skip to around 1 hour 30 minutes in, there is a drive through rendering of what the corridor will look like upon completion in 2025. The final configuration will feature 2 general purpose lanes, 1 HO/T lane, and 1 part-time HO/T lane in each direction, creating a total of 8 lanes during peak hours.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXi6KbJZtuU
Video is unavailable.
And thank god that this is needed.
I thought they would build a bridge compared to a tunnel which is much cheaper...
The US Navy objects to bridges over both Hampton Roads and the Chesapeake Bay south end.
Knock down the bridge and the largest Navy Base and Naval Shipyard nearby is unable to send/receive ships. This is a far less likely outcome if a tunnel is destroyed.
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 10, 2022, 12:40:39 PM
The US Navy objects to bridges over both Hampton Roads and the Chesapeake Bay south end.
Knock down the bridge and the largest Navy Base and Naval Shipyard nearby is unable to send/receive ships. This is a far less likely outcome if a tunnel is destroyed.
No bridges between the Atlantic and the
shipyards in Portsmouth and Newport News. The Navy Base is between the Atlantic and the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, but both the Midtown and Downtown Tunnels were built to accommodate the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. The Monitor-Merrimac Tunnel was built to accommodate the Newport News Shipyard.
Quote from: skluth on February 22, 2022, 06:50:26 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 10, 2022, 12:40:39 PM
The US Navy objects to bridges over both Hampton Roads and the Chesapeake Bay south end.
Knock down the bridge and the largest Navy Base and Naval Shipyard nearby is unable to send/receive ships. This is a far less likely outcome if a tunnel is destroyed.
No bridges between the Atlantic and the shipyards in Portsmouth and Newport News. The Navy Base is between the Atlantic and the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, but both the Midtown and Downtown Tunnels were built to accommodate the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. The Monitor-Merrimac Tunnel was built to accommodate the Newport News Shipyard.
Which both builds and maintains ships for the Navy...
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 10, 2022, 12:40:39 PM
The US Navy objects to bridges over both Hampton Roads and the Chesapeake Bay south end.
Knock down the bridge and the largest Navy Base and Naval Shipyard nearby is unable to send/receive ships. This is a far less likely outcome if a tunnel is destroyed.
Quote from: skluth on February 22, 2022, 06:50:26 PM
No bridges between the Atlantic and the shipyards in Portsmouth and Newport News. The Navy Base is between the Atlantic and the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, but both the Midtown and Downtown Tunnels were built to accommodate the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. The Monitor-Merrimac Tunnel was built to accommodate the Newport News Shipyard.
Sorry for the rabbit hole, but this reminds me of the recent news story about Jeff Bezos' new mega-yacht that is currently stuck at the shipbuilder because it is too tall to clear the Koningshaven Bridge (de Hef bridge) near Rotterdam. I wasn't aware of this until now, but earlier this month, Bezo has struck a deal to pay to temporarily dismantle the middle section of de Hef. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60241145
Quote from: Dirt Roads on February 23, 2022, 11:57:06 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 10, 2022, 12:40:39 PM
The US Navy objects to bridges over both Hampton Roads and the Chesapeake Bay south end.
Knock down the bridge and the largest Navy Base and Naval Shipyard nearby is unable to send/receive ships. This is a far less likely outcome if a tunnel is destroyed.
Quote from: skluth on February 22, 2022, 06:50:26 PM
No bridges between the Atlantic and the shipyards in Portsmouth and Newport News. The Navy Base is between the Atlantic and the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, but both the Midtown and Downtown Tunnels were built to accommodate the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. The Monitor-Merrimac Tunnel was built to accommodate the Newport News Shipyard.
Sorry for the rabbit hole, but this reminds me of the recent news story about Jeff Bezos' new mega-yacht that is currently stuck at the shipbuilder because it is too tall to clear the Koningshaven Bridge (de Hef bridge) near Rotterdam. I wasn't aware of this until now, but earlier this month, Bezo has struck a deal to pay to temporarily dismantle the middle section of de Hef. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60241145
That is interesting. It reminds me of an old tidbit. Robert Moses wanted to build a bridge connecting Brooklyn and Manhattan's Battery, but was stopped and made to build a tunnel instead.
http://www.nycroads.com/crossings/brooklyn-battery/
Quote
In the end, it took the intervention of President Franklin D. Roosevelt to stop the Brooklyn-Battery Bridge project from moving forward. In the April 5, 1939 edition of her newspaper column "My Day," First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt provided this insight:
I have a plea from a man who is deeply interested in Manhattan Island, particularly in the beauty of the approach from the ocean at Battery Park. He tells me that a New York official, who is without doubt always efficient, is proposing a bridge one hundred feet high at the rive, which will go across to the Whitehall Building over Battery Park. This, he says, will mean a screen of elevated roadways, pillars, etc., at that particular point. I haven't a question that this will be done in the name of progress, and something undoubtedly needs to be done. But isn't there room for some consideration of the preservation of the few beautiful spots that still remain to us on an overcrowded island?
The Brooklyn-Battery Bridge proposal was officially killed on July 17, 1939, when the Secretary of War under the Roosevelt Administration, Harry Woodring, said that the proposed crossing would be seaward of the Brooklyn Navy Yard. According to the War Department, the proposed bridge would have not only been vulnerable to attack in the event of war, but also blocked access to the Navy Yard. However, it could be argued that this was a ludicrous objection, since the Brooklyn and Manhattan bridges were downstream of the Navy Yard. In the end, perhaps the Battery crossing decision stemmed from the long-stemming grudge between Moses and Roosevelt.
So you can't build a bridge seaward of a navy yard, unless the bridges are already there.
Quote from: mrsman on February 23, 2022, 10:01:58 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on February 23, 2022, 11:57:06 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 10, 2022, 12:40:39 PM
The US Navy objects to bridges over both Hampton Roads and the Chesapeake Bay south end.
Knock down the bridge and the largest Navy Base and Naval Shipyard nearby is unable to send/receive ships. This is a far less likely outcome if a tunnel is destroyed.
Quote from: skluth on February 22, 2022, 06:50:26 PM
No bridges between the Atlantic and the shipyards in Portsmouth and Newport News. The Navy Base is between the Atlantic and the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, but both the Midtown and Downtown Tunnels were built to accommodate the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. The Monitor-Merrimac Tunnel was built to accommodate the Newport News Shipyard.
Sorry for the rabbit hole, but this reminds me of the recent news story about Jeff Bezos' new mega-yacht that is currently stuck at the shipbuilder because it is too tall to clear the Koningshaven Bridge (de Hef bridge) near Rotterdam. I wasn't aware of this until now, but earlier this month, Bezo has struck a deal to pay to temporarily dismantle the middle section of de Hef. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60241145
That is interesting. It reminds me of an old tidbit. Robert Moses wanted to build a bridge connecting Brooklyn and Manhattan's Battery, but was stopped and made to build a tunnel instead.
http://www.nycroads.com/crossings/brooklyn-battery/
Quote
In the end, it took the intervention of President Franklin D. Roosevelt to stop the Brooklyn-Battery Bridge project from moving forward. In the April 5, 1939 edition of her newspaper column "My Day," First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt provided this insight:
I have a plea from a man who is deeply interested in Manhattan Island, particularly in the beauty of the approach from the ocean at Battery Park. He tells me that a New York official, who is without doubt always efficient, is proposing a bridge one hundred feet high at the rive, which will go across to the Whitehall Building over Battery Park. This, he says, will mean a screen of elevated roadways, pillars, etc., at that particular point. I haven't a question that this will be done in the name of progress, and something undoubtedly needs to be done. But isn't there room for some consideration of the preservation of the few beautiful spots that still remain to us on an overcrowded island?
The Brooklyn-Battery Bridge proposal was officially killed on July 17, 1939, when the Secretary of War under the Roosevelt Administration, Harry Woodring, said that the proposed crossing would be seaward of the Brooklyn Navy Yard. According to the War Department, the proposed bridge would have not only been vulnerable to attack in the event of war, but also blocked access to the Navy Yard. However, it could be argued that this was a ludicrous objection, since the Brooklyn and Manhattan bridges were downstream of the Navy Yard. In the end, perhaps the Battery crossing decision stemmed from the long-stemming grudge between Moses and Roosevelt.
So you can't build a bridge seaward of a navy yard, unless the bridges are already there.
Yes.
Sounds crazy, but yeah.
IMO I think it was inspired by aesthetics and an excuse that came about at the right moment. Just as eminent domain was handy to seize an ugly eyesore in Gettysburg to have it imploded despite it being handy in seeing the histrionic battlefield in a single vantage point.
However, ironically I couldn't picture a bridge being part of the NY Skyline from the bay either. So the tunnel option played well here.
The HRBT has been closed EB for most of the morning. At around 10 this morning VDOT opened the right lane, but then closed it again around 10:45. As of right now (12:13 PM) EB is still completely closed. I expect whenever it does open again I anticipate that the delays will last well past the evening commute.
UPDATE: The EB lanes are now open again. Backups currently extend past I-664, about 5 miles.
While plain's posts were not about HRBT expansion, I thought it was just better to keep HRBT discussion in this thread moving forward.
-Mark
After the completion of the project, commercial trucks will be still relegated to the 1957 tunnel, with its 13'6" clearance. No consideration given to perhaps putting trucks through the new higher clearance tunnel under construction.
Quote from: hwyfan on May 19, 2023, 07:10:15 PM
After the completion of the project, commercial trucks will be still relegated to the 1957 tunnel, with its 13'6" clearance. No consideration given to perhaps putting trucks through the new higher clearance tunnel under construction.
Unless plans have dramatically changed, 2 older, 1957 tunnels, will run northbound while the new tunnels run southbound. So this comment really makes no sense.
Quote from: MCRoads on June 28, 2023, 11:13:11 PM
Quote from: hwyfan on May 19, 2023, 07:10:15 PM
After the completion of the project, commercial trucks will be still relegated to the 1957 tunnel, with its 13'6" clearance. No consideration given to perhaps putting trucks through the new higher clearance tunnel under construction.
Unless plans have dramatically changed, 2 older, 1957 tunnels, will run northbound while the new tunnels run southbound. So this comment really makes no sense.
What? First, only one tunnel is from the 1950s, the other is from the mid 1970s with a higher clearance.
Additionally, what you just stated proves his point exactly. One direction (westbound) will be regulated to the 1957 tunnel. The 1970s tunnel will serve HO/T traffic, not trucks. Westbound trucks will still be restricted to one 1957 tunnel. So the comment does make sense...
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 28, 2023, 11:41:16 PM
Quote from: MCRoads on June 28, 2023, 11:13:11 PM
Quote from: hwyfan on May 19, 2023, 07:10:15 PM
After the completion of the project, commercial trucks will be still relegated to the 1957 tunnel, with its 13'6" clearance. No consideration given to perhaps putting trucks through the new higher clearance tunnel under construction.
Unless plans have dramatically changed, 2 older, 1957 tunnels, will run northbound while the new tunnels run southbound. So this comment really makes no sense.
What? First, only one tunnel is from the 1950s, the other is from the mid 1970s with a higher clearance.
Additionally, what you just stated proves his point exactly. One direction (westbound) will be regulated to the 1957 tunnel. The 1970s tunnel will serve HO/T traffic, not trucks. Westbound trucks will still be restricted to one 1957 tunnel. So the comment does make sense...
Can they just make it so the westbound HOT lanes use the 1957 tunnel, and make general purpose traffic and trucks use the 1970's tunnel? Or are they just going to continue to make trucks over 13'6" heading westbound use the MMMBT?
It would also be cool, but expensive, if they built carriageway crossover bridges on either side of the old tunnels. Either way I do feel that the HOT lanes will flow just fine in the 1957 tunnel (because most likely it will primarily be passenger car traffic), and that trucks need to be able to use the 1970's tunnel, if for no other reason so that a long-standing problem with these tunnels is finally resolved.
If you watch the video, it looks like the current structure will be turned into Northbound only, so i could see them having a policy of "taller trucks use bore so and so" like baltimore has a policy on the Fort McHenry tunnel for all trucks to use the rightmost "Bore" Their terminology not mine. It's a tube not a bore
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4rNYsSJxhM&t)
https://goo.gl/maps/C7xsdRhZMo6cxW8c8
Does this ramp closure have anything to due with the construction at all ?
Quote from: roadman65 on August 03, 2023, 04:16:18 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/C7xsdRhZMo6cxW8c8
Does this ramp closure have anything to due with the construction at all ?
It goes back to past discussion in this thread. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5244.0)
I cannot find the posts mentioning the timing of the ramp being closed.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 03, 2023, 04:16:18 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/C7xsdRhZMo6cxW8c8
Does this ramp closure have anything to due with the construction at all ?
No. Here is a June 2021 article (https://www.13newsnow.com/article/traffic/ocean-view-willoughby-norfolk-ramp-closure-traffic-problems/291-8aa16033-e45f-469c-a868-e10278563f81) discussing the problem and why they changed the setup to a daily afternoon closure.
QuoteThe big message city leaders want drivers to know: the 15th View ramp is closed every afternoon between 12:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. Drivers should enter the interstate from 4th View Street, Tidewater Drive, or Granby Street.
The new traffic patterns are temporary. They'll be in place until the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel expansion project is complete in 2025.
My speculation is that once the project is completed (doubling I-64 capacity), the belief is there won't be a reason for people to follow Ocean View to that ramp (i.e. to bypass a backed up interstate).
Well it's very ironic that Willoughby is complaining about traffic on Ocean View considering before I-64 opened between US 460 and the HRBT it was the main highway as the east end approach to the Bridge Tunnel connected to that with the pre I-64 Bridge Tunnel that was only two lanes. When Busch Gardens opened in 1976, I remember the stretch of I-64 from what is now I-564 to 4th View was not yet opened, when we drove that part to get to the Naval Base as Granby was the connection of the two segments on both ends. Now that is a traffic nightmare on what didn't exist in 1976.
However progress over time changed things. The ADT counts were nothing forty years ago to what they are today, hence why the original HRBT was only doubled and not given the lanes they need now.
It's amazing how things change with traffic and jams on roads that were never there before.
No pics, but earlier I observed both directions using the EB bridge over the Hampton River/VA 351, with a jersey barrier separating the traffic.
Quote from: plain on September 10, 2023, 08:22:55 PM
No pics, but earlier I observed both directions using the EB bridge over the Hampton River/VA 351, with a jersey barrier separating the traffic.
You are correct. I live in the area, and I believe it will be like this for awhile. They are replacing the Hampton River Bridges as a part of the overall HRBT and 64 Express Lanes project.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/XQTYcbyMazZVGsPB8
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.9830536,-76.3021198,3a,75y,165.73h,96.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU6dEdE4s746FEPmPuCWezw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
I see they're going to soon shift traffic to the permanent EB bridge on the Hampton side using a temporary crossing to shift traffic back to the current EB Tunnel, if they haven't yet. Being the images are from last fall, it could be done already as those bridge decks looked drivable then.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 03, 2024, 12:28:46 PMhttps://maps.app.goo.gl/XQTYcbyMazZVGsPB8
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.9830536,-76.3021198,3a,75y,165.73h,96.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU6dEdE4s746FEPmPuCWezw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
I see they're going to soon shift traffic to the permanent EB bridge on the Hampton side using a temporary crossing to shift traffic back to the current EB Tunnel, if they haven't yet. Being the images are from last fall, it could be done already as those bridge decks looked drivable then.
I am unable to help you, but I did drive through the construction zone westbound in late February. (https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjBk6Ls)
I'm not sure of the status of that area, but the overall project completion date has now been delayed to August 2027... Definitely something we've never seen before... :rolleyes:
https://www.13newsnow.com/article/traffic/hampton-roads-bridge-tunnel-hrbt-interstate-expansion-project-delayed/291-697af28a-e293-432b-b6b2-0c7ce7415d5d
Quote from: roadman65 on April 03, 2024, 12:28:46 PMhttps://maps.app.goo.gl/XQTYcbyMazZVGsPB8
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.9830536,-76.3021198,3a,75y,165.73h,96.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU6dEdE4s746FEPmPuCWezw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
I see they're going to soon shift traffic to the permanent EB bridge on the Hampton side using a temporary crossing to shift traffic back to the current EB Tunnel, if they haven't yet. Being the images are from last fall, it could be done already as those bridge decks looked drivable then.
Looking at the traffic cameras, it doesn't look like either direction is using the new trestles yet.
Quote from: plain on April 04, 2024, 08:19:33 AMQuote from: roadman65 on April 03, 2024, 12:28:46 PMhttps://maps.app.goo.gl/XQTYcbyMazZVGsPB8
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.9830536,-76.3021198,3a,75y,165.73h,96.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU6dEdE4s746FEPmPuCWezw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
I see they're going to soon shift traffic to the permanent EB bridge on the Hampton side using a temporary crossing to shift traffic back to the current EB Tunnel, if they haven't yet. Being the images are from last fall, it could be done already as those bridge decks looked drivable then.
Looking at the traffic cameras, it doesn't look like either direction is using the new trestles yet.
It'll be a few months before those new trestles are ready, there's a pretty severe height difference between the end of the southern portion of the new EB trestle and the existing roadbed on Willoughby Spit and they haven't started actual pavement on a connection between them.