Get ready for some major lane realignments on I-95 north of Richmond
http://m.nbc12.com/nbc12/db_330650/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=pbHSgq8E
Line shifting has been completed on the NB roadway where the left lane dropped and the roadway went from 3 lanes to 2 lanes just before merge with I-295 traffic. Now the three I-95 lanes are continuous and after the I-295 merge there are 5 lanes and there is 0.6 mile to where the right lane exits for the Atlee/Elmont interchange, then 4 lanes continue on I-95, and a mile later the left lane drops and 3 lanes continue on NB I-95. Still a work in progress, they will probably repave the area.
This is something I have wanted to see since the interchange was rebuilt 10 years ago at Atlee/Elmont, as I could see unopened pavement to the right that would make this possible.
So no longer does NB I-95 reduce to less than 3 lanes.
That left 4th lane is being extended about 0.8 mile northward with construction underway.
I'm guessing this is in Virginia?
He's referring to just north of Richmond.
FYI, I went ahead and added plain's post from the general VA thread and made this one that covers the entire project as there are going to be lane reassignments on I-95 NB and SB here.
-Mark
I was about to say when did I create a topic I know I was pretty faded at the casino last night but damn :-D
@Beltway I think this is long overdue as well... there could've been a lot less headaches if they would've done this very simple project around the time of that SR 656 project. I'm hoping one day that it will be 8-laned up to VA 207 (I don't see widening being needed from that point to Fredericksburg) but when VDOT rebuilt the VA 54 overpass they didn't leave much room underneath for the extra lanes smdh
Quote from: plain on May 21, 2017, 01:26:54 PM
I was about to say when did I create a topic I know I was pretty faded at the casino last night but damn :-D
@Beltway I think this is long overdue as well... there could've been a lot less headaches if they would've done this very simple project around the time of that SR 656 project. I'm hoping one day that it will be 8-laned up to VA 207 (I don't see widening being needed from that point to Fredericksburg) but when VDOT rebuilt the VA 54 overpass they didn't leave much room underneath for the extra lanes smdh
It automatically defaults to whoever made the first post in the topic. Yours just happened to be before this thread had started.
When I first saw this project was happening, my mind basically thought, "They may as well go ahead and 8-lane it to VA 54 now while they are at it.".
I couldn't agree more. That stretch to Ashland has been 6 lanes since its 1963 opening. It should be more than obvious to the state that it cannot handle today's level of traffic... it's been terrible on weekends for years now and lately it's been getting sluggish during rush hour
Quote from: plain on May 21, 2017, 01:45:19 PM
I couldn't agree more. That stretch to Ashland has been 6 lanes since its 1963 opening. It should be more than obvious to the state that it cannot handle today's level of traffic... it's been terrible on weekends for years now and lately it's been getting sluggish during rush hour
Up to the mid-1980's, I believe I-95 from Ashland all the way to the vicinity of Chopawamsic Creek at the boundary between Stafford County and Prince William County (also Exit 148, MCB Quantico (https://www.google.com/maps/place/38%C2%B031'20.1%22N+77%C2%B022'11.6%22W/@38.522254,-77.3786367,15z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d38.522254!4d-77.369882), unsigned Russell Road) was
four lanes. VDHT (immediate predecessor agency to VDOT) widened it in one big project from four to six.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 21, 2017, 06:33:03 PM
Quote from: plain on May 21, 2017, 01:45:19 PM
I couldn't agree more. That stretch to Ashland has been 6 lanes since its 1963 opening. It should be more than obvious to the state that it cannot handle today's level of traffic... it's been terrible on weekends for years now and lately it's been getting sluggish during rush hour
Up to the mid-1980's, I believe I-95 from Ashland all the way to the vicinity of Chopawamsic Creek at the boundary between Stafford County and Prince William County (also Exit 148, MCB Quantico (https://www.google.com/maps/place/38%C2%B031'20.1%22N+77%C2%B022'11.6%22W/@38.522254,-77.3786367,15z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d38.522254!4d-77.369882), unsigned Russell Road) was four lanes. VDHT (immediate predecessor agency to VDOT) widened it in one big project from four to six.
Yes this is true. The section in question though (from VA 54 Ashland to where I-295 is now... and really technically down to Exit 73 Maury St) has always been 6 lanes.
When I-95's widening to 6 lanes north of this was occurring it was already clogged and I remember this when I was a kid when I first came to Virginia with my family.. so I'm sure VDOT was already behind the times then (no surprise).
With more people utilizing the "back door" (US 301/VA 207) now plus the ever increasing traveler traffic not utilizing the back door it seems logical to expand the interstate from I-295 up to VA 207.
Quote from: plain on May 21, 2017, 08:16:59 PM
With more people utilizing the "back door" (US 301/VA 207) now plus the ever increasing traveler traffic not utilizing the back door it seems logical to expand the interstate from I-295 up to VA 207.
Though I have never found U.S. 301 (even the roughly 22 miles of two lane undivided road from Mechanicsville north almost to VA-207) to be congested. Just be mindful of the posted speed limit, especially passing Hanover CH.
I have experienced congestion on 301 approaching the Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge over the Potomac River, and well into Maryland.
Quote from: plain on May 21, 2017, 08:16:59 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 21, 2017, 06:33:03 PM
Quote from: plain on May 21, 2017, 01:45:19 PM
I couldn't agree more. That stretch to Ashland has been 6 lanes since its 1963 opening. It should be more than obvious to the state that it cannot handle today's level of traffic... it's been terrible on weekends for years now and lately it's been getting sluggish during rush hour
Up to the mid-1980's, I believe I-95 from Ashland all the way to the vicinity of Chopawamsic Creek at the boundary between Stafford County and Prince William County (also Exit 148, MCB Quantico (https://www.google.com/maps/place/38%C2%B031'20.1%22N+77%C2%B022'11.6%22W/@38.522254,-77.3786367,15z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d38.522254!4d-77.369882), unsigned Russell Road) was four lanes. VDHT (immediate predecessor agency to VDOT) widened it in one big project from four to six.
Actually about 7 separate segment contracts, but conceptually one program. Widened 58 miles from VA-54 at Ashland to VA-619 at Triangle, from 4 to 6 lanes, built 1980-87, joining the original 6-lane sections at either end.
Quote
Yes this is true. The section in question though (from VA 54 Ashland to where I-295 is now... and really technically down to Exit 73 Maury St) has always been 6 lanes.
Correct. The R-P Turnpike from Maury Street northward was built with 6 lanes from inception, as was I-95 from the RPT to VA-54 at Ashland.
Quote
When I-95's widening to 6 lanes north of this was occurring it was already clogged and I remember this when I was a kid when I first came to Virginia with my family.. so I'm sure VDOT was already behind the times then (no surprise).
VDH wanted to build the Ashland-Triangle segment with 6 lanes from the beginning, but the Bureau of Public Roads only approved the 90% share of federal funding for 4 lanes. Same situation with I-495 between I-95 and the GW Parkway, VDH wanted 6 lanes and the BPR only funded 4 lanes.
IOW, VDH wanted all of I-95 north of Richmond to have at least 6 lanes (3 each way) when it was originally built.
Quote
With more people utilizing the "back door" (US 301/VA 207) now plus the ever increasing traveler traffic not utilizing the back door it seems logical to expand the interstate from I-295 up to VA 207.
I support widening I-95 from I-295 to VA-123 to 4 general purpose lanes each way, regardless of what else is built with C-D lanes and reversible roadway. Already is 4+ north of VA-123.
The lowest AADT on I-95 north of Richmond is about 87,000 near Ladysmith. Needs 8 lanes...
Quote from: plain on May 21, 2017, 01:26:54 PM
@Beltway I think this is long overdue as well... there could've been a lot less headaches if they would've done this very simple project around the time of that SR 656 project. I'm hoping one day that it will be 8-laned up to VA 207 (I don't see widening being needed from that point to Fredericksburg) but when VDOT rebuilt the VA 54 overpass they didn't leave much room underneath for the extra lanes smdh
I didn't realize that this topic had already been posted... thanks!
I observed the building of the replacement VA-54 bridge over I-95. The old bridges were worn out and had obsolete vertical clearances.
The abutments are far enough apart that I believe that by building retaining walls built right in front of the abutments and with use of the median, that there is space for 5 lanes each way, full shoulders right and left, and the deceleration lane for the NB loop ramp.
Another note, not sure if this is part of the Atlee/Elmont project, just noticed this today --
On NB I-95 the right lane has been dropped via signs and paint lines, and the ramp from I-64 EB to I-95 NB now has exclusive access to the right lane on I-95 NB. 3 lanes drops briefly to 2 lanes.
I know there is a major drop in traffic on I-95 between the exit ramps and entry ramps to and from I-64. I hope that this new configuration (which does not look temporary) does not cause backups on I-95 NB.
Certainly will be a major improvement for I-64 and I-195 traffic merging onto I-95 NB.
I-64 had a short acceleration lane on I-95 NB, and that did cause backups on I-64 and I-195. The ultimate solution studied is to extend that acceleration lane, but that will be expensive as a local offramp would need to be relocated. So the new configuration may last until that project is built.
Quote from: Beltway on May 21, 2017, 09:54:08 PM
Another note, not sure if this is part of the Atlee/Elmont project, just noticed this today --
On NB I-95 the right lane has been dropped via signs and paint lines, and the ramp from I-64 EB to I-95 NB now has exclusive access to the right lane on I-95 NB. 3 lanes drops briefly to 2 lanes.
I know there is a major drop in traffic on I-95 between the exit ramps and entry ramps to and from I-64. I hope that this new configuration (which does not look temporary) does not cause backups on I-95 NB.
Certainly will be a major improvement for I-64 and I-195 traffic merging onto I-95 NB.
I-64 had a short acceleration lane on I-95 NB, and that did cause backups on I-64 and I-195. The ultimate solution studied is to extend that acceleration lane, but that will be expensive as a local offramp would need to be relocated. So the new configuration may last until that project is built.
No that's a whole different (and just as badly needed) project. I-95 NB traffic at this junction (Bryan Park Interchange) will not be affected much by the lane drop because much of the rush hour traffic originating from the I-95/I-64 overlap continues onto I-64 WB at this point, being replaced by traffic originating from I-64 EB/I-195 NB via that entrance ramp. The ramp for Exit 80 VA 161 definitely has to go though to eliminate that horrible merging situation. Hopefully VDOT will start the removal and replacement within the next year or so.
Quote from: plain on May 22, 2017, 03:05:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 21, 2017, 09:54:08 PM
Another note, not sure if this is part of the Atlee/Elmont project, just noticed this today --
On NB I-95 the right lane has been dropped via signs and paint lines, and the ramp from I-64 EB to I-95 NB now has exclusive access to the right lane on I-95 NB. 3 lanes drops briefly to 2 lanes.
I know there is a major drop in traffic on I-95 between the exit ramps and entry ramps to and from I-64. I hope that this new configuration (which does not look temporary) does not cause backups on I-95 NB.
Certainly will be a major improvement for I-64 and I-195 traffic merging onto I-95 NB.
I-64 had a short acceleration lane on I-95 NB, and that did cause backups on I-64 and I-195. The ultimate solution studied is to extend that acceleration lane, but that will be expensive as a local offramp would need to be relocated. So the new configuration may last until that project is built.
No that's a whole different (and just as badly needed) project. I-95 NB traffic at this junction (Bryan Park Interchange) will not be affected much by the lane drop because much of the rush hour traffic originating from the I-95/I-64 overlap continues onto I-64 WB at this point, being replaced by traffic originating from I-64 EB/I-195 NB via that entrance ramp.
Agreed ... that is what I meant by "a major drop in traffic on I-95 between the exit ramps and entry ramps to and from I-64."
Quote
The ramp for Exit 80 VA 161 definitely has to go though to eliminate that horrible merging situation. Hopefully VDOT will start the removal and replacement within the next year or so.
Is there a project for that? Today I tried that exit from I-95 NB to VA-161 Exit 80, and it is doable but dicey.
There have been studies for that whole Bryan Park Interchange with various ideas about how to improve it. Problem is the space constraints for expansion including the parkland itself.
it's in VDOT's long range plans for I-95 in the Richmond area, though over the last year or so certain long range plans across the state have been becoming reality fast, which is why I'm feeling optimistic about it. The ultimate plan is to close the entrance/exit ramps at VA 161 Lakeside Ave/Hermitage Rd and move them to Dumbarton Rd instead, thus providing a huge improvement to traffic flow in the area both NB & SB.
Quote from: plain on May 22, 2017, 03:29:10 PM
it's in VDOT's long range plans for I-95 in the Richmond area, though over the last year or so certain long range plans across the state have been becoming reality fast, which is why I'm feeling optimistic about it. The ultimate plan is to close the entrance/exit ramps at VA 161 Lakeside Ave/Hermitage Rd and move them to Dumbarton Rd instead, thus providing a huge improvement to traffic flow in the area both NB & SB.
I heard about that project, would probably be somewhere in here --
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/i-95_corridor_improvements.asp
There is land available for southerly ramps at Dumbarton Road, and Dumbarton has 4 lanes divided so it should be able to handle the traffic.
That little part of I-95 north of exit 84 is a mess anymore.
UPDATE: the median south of Exit 89 (SR 802 Lewistown Rd) has been cleared. It looks like it's in preparation for the installation of a Jersey Barrier. Progress on the median has been a little slow, most likely due to the excessive rain we've been getting in the area over the last month or so. On the NB side, there are obvious signs of the plans to expand that carriageway from 3 lanes to 4 (from where the current 4 lane section ends to Exit 89).
Also, a separate project but still in the area, the overpass widening and interchange modification at Exit 89 itself is looking to be well on schedule and I anticipate everything in this project to be completed soon. There is plenty of room under the new overpasses for future highway expansion which, judging by the traffic I was just sitting in, will hopefully be discussed seriously by officials soon.
EDIT: I typed SR 809 at first instead of the correct SR 802 for Lewistown Rd
"Discussed seriously" is one thing. Being funded is totally different (and more complex).
Quote from: froggie on July 08, 2017, 04:31:04 PM
"Discussed seriously" is one thing. Being funded is totally different (and more complex).
I realize that
Quote from: plain on July 08, 2017, 12:49:46 PM
UPDATE: the median south of Exit 89 (SR 809 Lewistown Rd) has been cleared. It looks like it's in preparation for the installation of a Jersey Barrier. Progress on the median has been a little slow, most likely due to the excessive rain we've been getting in the area over the last month or so. On the NB side, there are obvious signs of the plans to expand that carriageway from 3 lanes to 4 (from where the current 4 lane section ends to Exit 89).
Also, a separate project but still in the area, the overpass widening and interchange modification at Exit 89 itself is looking to be well on schedule and I anticipate everything in this project to be completed soon. There is plenty of room under the new overpasses for future highway expansion which, judging by the traffic I was just sitting in, will hopefully be discussed seriously by officials soon.
There is sufficient space at the new VA-54 overpass bridge at Ashland. The backwalls extend well below ground level and the sloped aprons can be removed in the future as they are cosmetic and not structural.
Adequate space for eight 12-foot general purpose lanes, one 12-foot auxiliary lane, and four 12-foot shoulders.
As of today, this project still isn't finished. I-95's left lane ends pretty quickly after the I-295 merge at the moment.
Quote from: Beltway on July 08, 2017, 09:26:33 PM
Quote from: plain on July 08, 2017, 12:49:46 PM
UPDATE: the median south of Exit 89 (SR 809 Lewistown Rd) has been cleared. It looks like it's in preparation for the installation of a Jersey Barrier. Progress on the median has been a little slow, most likely due to the excessive rain we've been getting in the area over the last month or so. On the NB side, there are obvious signs of the plans to expand that carriageway from 3 lanes to 4 (from where the current 4 lane section ends to Exit 89).
Also, a separate project but still in the area, the overpass widening and interchange modification at Exit 89 itself is looking to be well on schedule and I anticipate everything in this project to be completed soon. There is plenty of room under the new overpasses for future highway expansion which, judging by the traffic I was just sitting in, will hopefully be discussed seriously by officials soon.
There is sufficient space at the new VA-54 overpass bridge at Ashland. The backwalls extend well below ground level and the sloped aprons can be removed in the future as they are cosmetic and not structural.
Adequate space for eight 12-foot general purpose lanes, one 12-foot auxiliary lane, and four 12-foot shoulders.
Yes, though I still think VDOT could've saved a little $$ in the future if the aprons wasn't sloped to begin with.
Also I'm editing my last post about Exit 89 (not sure why I typed SR 809 instead of SR 802)
They are also reconfiguring the lanes on I-95 in Baltimore.
Quote from: jcn on July 18, 2017, 10:56:39 PM
They are also reconfiguring the lanes on I-95 in Baltimore.
That's in Baltimore City north of the Fort McHenry Tunnel, where four lanes will be provided in both directions (currently there are some parts that have only three lanes each way).
This is being done in preparation for a long-term project on I-895 (Baltimore Harbor Tunnel Thruway) to replace the Canton Viaduct as well as repair and rehabilitation work in the BHT tubes, which will lead to one lane being available in each direction (details in the I-895 thread here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13902.0)).
Bumping this thread a bit to say that this entire stretch of I-95 (VA 802 to I-295) has been updated on Google Maps' Street View. You can now see all of the new APL's, lane reconfigurations and such.
Atlanta is now mentioned north of Richmond, though I wish it and I-85 was mentioned on at least one of those new APL's
https://goo.gl/maps/Da5w2G9FWQJ2
Quote from: plain on December 02, 2018, 09:03:55 AM
Bumping this thread a bit to say that this entire stretch of I-95 (VA 802 to I-295) has been updated on Google Maps' Street View. You can now see all of the new APL's, lane reconfigurations and such.
Atlanta is now mentioned north of Richmond, though I wish it and I-85 was mentioned on at least one of those new APL's
https://goo.gl/maps/Da5w2G9FWQJ2
Nice reconfigurations, better rideability. The only thing remaining is the "I-295 4 miles" sign that was at the Lewistown Road interchange I-95 southbound, it was removed in the interchange upgrade project, it was attached to the original overpass bridge. Southbound had advance notice signs for miles 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 before I-295. The other 4 are still there.
Quote from: plain on December 02, 2018, 09:03:55 AM
Bumping this thread a bit to say that this entire stretch of I-95 (VA 802 to I-295) has been updated on Google Maps' Street View. You can now see all of the new APL's, lane reconfigurations and such.
Atlanta is now mentioned north of Richmond, though I wish it and I-85 was mentioned on at least one of those new APL's
https://goo.gl/maps/Da5w2G9FWQJ2
I thought that Atlanta sign was always there.
If it was I never noticed it. There definitely was a Durham, NC on one of the old BGS's though.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 02, 2018, 01:30:45 PM
Quote from: plain on December 02, 2018, 09:03:55 AM
Bumping this thread a bit to say that this entire stretch of I-95 (VA 802 to I-295) has been updated on Google Maps' Street View. You can now see all of the new APL's, lane reconfigurations and such.
Atlanta is now mentioned north of Richmond, though I wish it and I-85 was mentioned on at least one of those new APL's
https://goo.gl/maps/Da5w2G9FWQJ2
I thought that Atlanta sign was always there.
The Atlanta sign is in GMSV back to at least 2007 - https://goo.gl/maps/MkPVdfcRNL72
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 02, 2018, 02:20:54 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 02, 2018, 01:30:45 PM
Quote from: plain on December 02, 2018, 09:03:55 AM
Bumping this thread a bit to say that this entire stretch of I-95 (VA 802 to I-295) has been updated on Google Maps' Street View. You can now see all of the new APL's, lane reconfigurations and such.
Atlanta is now mentioned north of Richmond, though I wish it and I-85 was mentioned on at least one of those new APL's
https://goo.gl/maps/Da5w2G9FWQJ2
I thought that Atlanta sign was always there.
The Atlanta sign is in GMSV back to at least 2007 - https://goo.gl/maps/MkPVdfcRNL72
It was there when I was frequently driving between DC and points south in 2001.
In the many years I've been driving that stretch I can't believe I didn't notice it (or totally forgot about it).
Quote from: plain on December 02, 2018, 03:00:12 PM
In the many years I've been driving that stretch I can't believe I didn't notice it (or totally forgot about it).
I might be thinking of the Durham/Atlanta designation at the very beginning of I-85, but that stretch looks exactly the same as it did 20 years ago.
When I click your link i get a closeup of the pavement.
Quote from: OracleUsr on December 04, 2018, 06:21:23 AM
When I click your link i get a closeup of the pavement.
It does that dumb shit sometimes when I link it using my phone
Quote from: plain on December 04, 2018, 04:50:30 PM
Quote from: OracleUsr on December 04, 2018, 06:21:23 AM
When I click your link i get a closeup of the pavement.
It does that dumb shit sometimes when I link it using my phone
Lately when I link stuff using my iPad, it shows the sky and you have to pan down. I guess in a sense I'm glad I'm not the only one having the problem. "Glad" isn't the right word, but you know what I mean.
Bumping this because I believe another lane reconfiguration is needed in this area, this time on I-295.
During the evening rush there is congestion SB (actually heading east in this area) where I-295 receives lanes from I-95 SB. Of course this interchange was designed this way because I-295 east of I-95 was supposed to be the new routing of I-95 but it never happened. Nowadays that squeeze on 295 is creating backups all the way back to Woodman Rd and sometimes even farther.
I think a lane drop on the 95 SB to 295 SB connection, plus an additional permanent lane originating from 295 itself will fix this.
Quote from: plain on June 14, 2019, 11:37:39 PM
Bumping this because I believe another lane reconfiguration is needed in this area, this time on I-295.
During the evening rush there is congestion SB (actually heading east in this area) where I-295 receives lanes from I-95 SB. Of course this interchange was designed this way because I-295 east of I-95 was supposed to be the new routing of I-95 but it never happened. Nowadays that squeeze on 295 is creating backups all the way back to Woodman Rd and sometimes even farther.
I think a lane drop on the 95 SB to 295 SB connection, plus an additional permanent lane originating from 295 itself will fix this.
Making the 5th lane on the right continuous should help this, about 1,600 feet of lane between where the lane drops and where the exit lane to US-301 begins.
Quote from: Beltway on June 14, 2019, 11:42:57 PM
Quote from: plain on June 14, 2019, 11:37:39 PM
Bumping this because I believe another lane reconfiguration is needed in this area, this time on I-295.
During the evening rush there is congestion SB (actually heading east in this area) where I-295 receives lanes from I-95 SB. Of course this interchange was designed this way because I-295 east of I-95 was supposed to be the new routing of I-95 but it never happened. Nowadays that squeeze on 295 is creating backups all the way back to Woodman Rd and sometimes even farther.
I think a lane drop on the 95 SB to 295 SB connection, plus an additional permanent lane originating from 295 itself will fix this.
Making the 5th lane on the right continuous should help this, about 1,600 feet of lane between where the lane drops and where the exit lane to US-301 begins.
Yes, this would at least give commuting traffic more room to merge.
Quote from: plain on June 14, 2019, 11:46:06 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 14, 2019, 11:42:57 PM
Making the 5th lane on the right continuous should help this, about 1,600 feet of lane between where the lane drops and where the exit lane to US-301 begins.
Yes, this would at least give commuting traffic more room to merge.
I-295 SB (EB at this area) has 3 lanes from I-64 to before US-1 where the outer lane becomes a C-D lane, still providing 3 lanes (2 mainline and 1 C-D) in total thru the US-1 and I-95 interchange, and that C-D lane merges into the 2-lane mainline east of I-95, and I-295 has only 2 lanes until it merges with the I-95 connector. Make I-295 SB a continuous 3 lanes.
Quote from: Beltway on June 14, 2019, 11:56:30 PM
Quote from: plain on June 14, 2019, 11:46:06 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 14, 2019, 11:42:57 PM
Making the 5th lane on the right continuous should help this, about 1,600 feet of lane between where the lane drops and where the exit lane to US-301 begins.
Yes, this would at least give commuting traffic more room to merge.
I-295 SB (EB at this area) has 3 lanes from I-64 to before US-1 where the outer lane becomes a C-D lane, still providing 3 lanes (2 mainline and 1 C-D) in total thru the US-1 and I-95 interchange, and that C-D lane merges into the 2-lane mainline east of I-95, and I-295 has only 2 lanes until it merges with the I-95 connector. Make I-295 SB a continuous 3 lanes.
Hopefully something will be done about this soon.
And any option shouldn't cost a lot of money here as there is plenty of existing pavement to work with. I think this should be a relatively easy fix.
While an entire widening of I-95 from Richmond to DC to 8-lanes is ultimately needed, I think a good candidate project could be to 8-lane I-95 between I-295 and VA-54 Ashland. About half of it was recently widened heading northbound apart of the 2017 project, and should be extended as a small "immediate relief" project in the next few years. Further widening north of there can come later on, though this is a segment I've seen the most problematic lately. Ditto for between Fredericksburg and Woodbridge, though that's far worse.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 15, 2019, 01:36:39 AM
While an entire widening of I-95 from Richmond to DC to 8-lanes is ultimately needed, I think a good candidate project could be to 8-lane I-95 between I-295 and VA-54 Ashland. About half of it was recently widened heading northbound apart of the 2017 project, and should be extended as a small "immediate relief" project in the next few years.
Only about 1.1 mile NB was widened, although it did provide a significant operational improvement.
The recent replacement of the bridges at Lewistown Road and VA-54 also provided more space for a wider highway. The Atlee-Elmont bridge was replaced in the 2005 interchange upgrade project, also with longer clearances.
Based on the higher traffic volumes between I-295 and VA-54 than north of there, I would agree with prioritizing widening of that segment. There were planning studies about 10 years ago and one of the alternatives proposed was for 10 lanes on a 2-3-3-2 dual-divided cross section, in addition to an 8-lane alternative.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 15, 2019, 01:36:39 AM
While an entire widening of I-95 from Richmond to DC to 8-lanes is ultimately needed, I think a good candidate project could be to 8-lane I-95 between I-295 and VA-54 Ashland.
Definitely agree, although I don't remember seeing a formal smart scale funding request regarding such a project. If thats the case I find that somewhat surprising especially considering how consistently congested that section of I-95 is. In fact, the Richmond transportation agency even said that I-95 was a bigger priority than widening the I-64 gap (at least back in 2016). I know an I-95 project to add auxiliarily lanes between VA-288 and VA-10 got funded, but I would have suspected that wouldn't of been the only needed project. While the 2017 lane configuration project was nice, its only a band-aid to a larger problem that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. Maybe the new annual funding for I-95 can help.
https://www.dailypress.com/news/traffic/dp-nws-64-widening-to-richmond-update-20161104-story.html
Quotehis year, the Richmond agency submitted a project that would widen the interstate another five miles, from there to Exit 211, said Chuck Gates, RRTPO spokesman. That project, which New Kent County asked the Richmond agency to submit, would take the 29-mile gap down to 24 miles.
The Richmond agency submitted the I-64 widening project as its last priority of out six for funding, Gates said. That's because its data shows that relieving congestion on I-95 is more of a priority for the Richmond area than I-64.
Smart Scale will not be offered next cycle; in 2020, the Richmond group will consider submitting an application to continue widening I-64 for three more miles, to Exit 214, Gates said.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on June 15, 2019, 01:13:12 PM
Maybe the new annual funding for I-95 can help.
Definitely agree. A special bond could also be used to accelerate the project, with that annual funding being used to repay it, in lieu of toll revenue. State and federal funding could also be added to the mix to speed things up even faster.
Using a rough $50 million per mile figure, that adds up to about $2 billion being needed to widen 40 miles of I-95 to 8-lanes between Fredericksburg and DC, and for up to 10-lanes between Fredericksburg and DC, using $65 million per mile, or $2.3 billion for 35 miles. You could also throw in another $500 million - $1 billion for other operational improvements such as interchange reconfigurations, etc. so I'd roughly estimate about $5.3 billion total being needed. With I-81 now fully funded, this could certainly should happen IMO.
Quote from: Beltway on June 15, 2019, 08:30:01 AM
The recent replacement of the bridges at Lewistown Road and VA-54 also provided more space for a wider highway. The Atlee-Elmont bridge was replaced in the 2005 interchange upgrade project, also with longer clearances.
VA-54 is questionable - to fit an 8-lane through there, you'd have to have only a 4 foot left shoulder that would touch the bridge support because of the tight fit. Then again, the 1.1 mile widening apart of the 2017 project that added a 4th lane only provided a 4 foot left shoulder, not 10 or 12 foot. But operationally, it would work. I don't care if it's a 4 foot shoulder or 12 foot, as long as there's a 12 foot additional travel lane, it works.
Quote from: Beltway on June 15, 2019, 08:30:01 AM
Based on the higher traffic volumes between I-295 and VA-54 than north of there, I would agree with prioritizing widening of that segment. There were planning studies about 10 years ago and one of the alternatives proposed was for 10 lanes on a 2-3-3-2 dual-divided cross section, in addition to an 8-lane alternative.
A 2-3-3-2 option is a nice concept, though considering VDOT hasn't launched any studies to actually widen I-95 to anything more than 6 lanes, I think 2-3-3-2 is pushing it. Also, none of the bridge lengths support it. You'd have to replace every overpass, not to mention it would cost significantly more. For the entire I-95 corridor, I'd support 8-lanes between I-295 and Fredericksburg, up to 10 GP lanes (5 in each direction) between Fredericksburg and Woodbridge, and in sections where interchanges are close and a lot of local travel exists, a 2-4-4-2.
While 10 lanes north of Fredericksburg may seem a bit excessive, it's important to note upwards of 130,000 AADT use that stretch daily, and HO/T lanes already exist for the corridor and there's still massive congestion issues. Adding 2 lanes in each direction would likely relieve this significantly, and is worth the investment IMO.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 15, 2019, 03:00:44 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 15, 2019, 08:30:01 AM
The recent replacement of the bridges at Lewistown Road and VA-54 also provided more space for a wider highway. The Atlee-Elmont bridge was replaced in the 2005 interchange upgrade project, also with longer clearances.
VA-54 is questionable - to fit an 8-lane through there, you'd have to have only a 4 foot left shoulder that would touch the bridge support because of the tight fit.
Google aerial still has the old bridges, so I can't measure it there. But based on seeing it on site there should be space for full right and left shoulders and the NB deceleration lane.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 15, 2019, 03:00:44 PM
Then again, the 1.1 mile widening apart of the 2017 project that added a 4th lane only provided a 4 foot left shoulder, not 10 or 12 foot. But operationally, it would work. I don't care if it's a 4 foot shoulder or 12 foot, as long as there's a 12 foot additional travel lane, it works.
They had plenty of space for a 12-foot left shoulder, but for some reason it is only 4 feet.
Quote from: Beltway on June 15, 2019, 06:46:35 PM
Google aerial still has the old bridges, so I can't measure it there. But based on seeing it on site there should be space for full right and left shoulders and the NB deceleration lane.
The new bridge is the one that is showing on Google Maps. The old bridge was actually two separate 2-lane bridges while the new one is one 5-lane bridge.
(https://i.ibb.co/ZWx49pY/VA-54-Overpass.png)
It's roughly 16 feet available. Because of the median is only 40 feet through there, they should've left additional room to the outside, but did not choose to which limits the room. Other bridge replacements or new bridges added on other sections of I-95 left outside room for future expansion, though on this particular one they chose not to. It is possible to fit a 4th lane in, but you would have to shrink the left shoulder from 12 feet to 4 feet.
It's similar to the I-64 Phase #3 widening between either end of VA-199. The typical section calls for three 12 foot lanes and 12 foot outside and inside shoulders, however under the overpasses, the design plans show the shoulder shrinking to 4 feet under the bridge, then widening back out. It's certainly a lot cheaper to do that then to replace the entire bridge just to accommodate a 12 foot shoulder. Similar to how on older interstate highways the shoulder shrinks to travel over a narrow bridge.
Quote from: Beltway on June 15, 2019, 06:46:35 PM
They had plenty of space for a 12-foot left shoulder, but for some reason it is only 4 feet.
Probably to reduce costs and to just get it done. Also, the typical section of I-95 around that area only has 4 foot shoulders, so they probably determined it was not neccasary to add one. I'd like to see them eventually pave a left shoulder, especially once southbound gets widened to 4-lanes. For some areas with smaller medians, that'll require a full jersey barrier if it's too narrow.
One stretch of I-95 around Lumberton, NC had 4-lanes (2 each way) and a 30 foot grassy median. That 30 foot median was recently replaced with 12 foot paved shoulders on each side and jersey barrier with lighting in the median. Something similar could work here. Along with a repaving of that stretch of I-95, it's made it look a lot nicer through that area.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 15, 2019, 07:52:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 15, 2019, 06:46:35 PM
Google aerial still has the old bridges, so I can't measure it there. But based on seeing it on site there should be space for full right and left shoulders and the NB deceleration lane.
The new bridge is the one that is showing on Google Maps. The old bridge was actually two separate 2-lane bridges while the new one is one 5-lane bridge.
That is weird because I used Google Maps on both Chrome and MS Edge and it only shows the original bridges.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 15, 2019, 07:52:56 PM
It's roughly 16 feet available. Because of the median is only 40 feet through there, they should've left additional room to the outside, but did not choose to which limits the room. Other bridge replacements or new bridges added on other sections of I-95 left outside room for future expansion, though on this particular one they chose not to. It is possible to fit a 4th lane in, but you would have to shrink the left shoulder from 12 feet to 4 feet.
Outside widening. Those bridge aprons visible on the ground photo are basically cosmetic. The abutments are at the top of the slope and their footers rest on steel piles driven vertically into the earth. They can remove those slopes and built a vertical retaining wall right in front of the footer and based on what I see there gain about 16 to 18 feet of space for outside widening. (I'll grant that is not enough for 2-3-3-2).
Quote from: Beltway on June 15, 2019, 08:29:37 PM
That is weird because I used Google Maps on both Chrome and MS Edge and it only shows the original bridges.
Could you take a screenshot of it? That's really strange.
Quote from: Beltway on June 15, 2019, 08:29:37 PM
Outside widening. Those bridge aprons visible on the ground photo are basically cosmetic. The abutments are at the top of the slope and their footers rest on steel piles driven vertically into the earth. They can remove those slopes and built a vertical retaining wall right in front of the footer and based on what I see there gain about 16 to 18 feet of space for outside widening. (I'll grant that is not enough for 2-3-3-2).
I suppose they could do something like this - https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1227663,-79.9586045,3a,75y,305.54h,83.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFxbyail3XBHqu1SzDwJNDQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That would work, but you'd have to provide another method of retaining the structure, like you mentiond and pictured above.
The new bridge is only visible in the non-3D imagery, so turn off 3D in satellite view. That works for me, at least.
Quote from: Roadsguy on June 15, 2019, 10:16:31 PM
The new bridge is only visible in the non-3D imagery, so turn off 3D in satellite view. That works for me, at least.
I don't see any intuitive way to do that. I click back and forth between 2D and 3D but both show the old bridges.
Are you two using Google Earth? I am not, just using standard Google Maps.
Quote from: Beltway on June 15, 2019, 11:30:07 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on June 15, 2019, 10:16:31 PM
The new bridge is only visible in the non-3D imagery, so turn off 3D in satellite view. That works for me, at least.
I don't see any intuitive way to do that. I click back and forth between 2D and 3D but both show the old bridges.
Are you two using Google Earth? I am not, just using standard Google Maps.
I was using standard Google Maps on Chrome. Make sure "Globe" mode is turned off when on Satellite - changing between "3D" and "2D" mode will not fix this issue.
I never even thought of that initially - I've always used Google Maps with Globe mode turned off - for me it runs slower, has outdated imagery, etc. so I've never preferred it.
EDIT: I switched to Earth mode, which you toggle on/off on the sidebar, and indeed the old bridge was shown. There's no distinct difference quality wise between the "Globe" mode and regular mode in this particular area, except Globe has outdated imagery. So try to toggle that off / on and see if it fixes it. The non-Globe mode has 2018 imagery that also shows the lane reconfiguration north of I-295 completed, whereas Globe is pre-2015.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 16, 2019, 02:16:55 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 15, 2019, 11:30:07 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on June 15, 2019, 10:16:31 PM
The new bridge is only visible in the non-3D imagery, so turn off 3D in satellite view. That works for me, at least.
I don't see any intuitive way to do that. I click back and forth between 2D and 3D but both show the old bridges.
Are you two using Google Earth? I am not, just using standard Google Maps.
I was using standard Google Maps on Chrome. Make sure "Globe" mode is turned off when on Satellite - changing between "3D" and "2D" mode will not fix this issue.
I never even thought of that initially - I've always used Google Maps with Globe mode turned off - for me it runs slower, has outdated imagery, etc. so I've never preferred it.
EDIT: I switched to Earth mode, which you toggle on/off on the sidebar, and indeed the old bridge was shown. There's no distinct difference quality wise between the "Globe" mode and regular mode in this particular area, except Globe has outdated imagery. So try to toggle that off / on and see if it fixes it. The non-Globe mode has 2018 imagery that also shows the lane reconfiguration north of I-295 completed, whereas Globe is pre-2015.
Seems like Google has been neglecting Earth mode for some time now. Not surprising, as that's standard procedure for them.
Quote from: kevinb1994 on June 16, 2019, 02:17:00 PM
Seems like Google has been neglecting Earth mode for some time now. Not surprising, as that's standard procedure for them.
I must be getting a different Google Maps version here. I can't find any interface for "turning Globe mode off and on".
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ajfroggie.com%2Fglobe_on_google_maps.png&hash=c537d0c39024b0d45f50c2d9713e52d54fd23dc3)
Sorry, my interface doesn't have that left hand sidebar.
Not in Chrome or MS Edge.
Quote from: Beltway on June 16, 2019, 09:52:43 PM
Sorry, my interface doesn't have that left hand sidebar.
Not in Chrome or MS Edge.
Click on the three horizontal lines next to the search bar to bring it up. It does not appear by default.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 16, 2019, 10:47:15 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 16, 2019, 09:52:43 PM
Sorry, my interface doesn't have that left hand sidebar.
Not in Chrome or MS Edge.
Click on the three horizontal lines next to the search bar to bring it up. It does not appear by default.
So that changes it to a Mercator projection map...
The new bridge over I-95 appears at VA-54, and at Lewistown Road as well.
Someone at Google should be canned for making this so complicated, at least non-intuitive.
Quote from: Beltway on June 16, 2019, 11:33:13 PM
Someone at Google should be canned for making this so complicated, at least non-intuitive.
Agreed. Their "Earth" mode is supposed to be the better version, 3D, etc. The only issues is that A) it's slow for a lot of people including me, B) except for certain cities, they haven't updated the imagery in years, and C) it's not a standard Mercator projection map a lot are used to. The make "Earth" the default mode, and make it complicated to switch back to regular, especially if you're not even aware to begin with.
I hate Earth mode. I will use Mercator projection anyday. Updated imagery, faster, and no 3D mess. Just basic imagery that gets the point across. If I need more detail, I will use Street View.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 17, 2019, 05:52:28 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 16, 2019, 11:33:13 PM
Someone at Google should be canned for making this so complicated, at least non-intuitive.
Agreed. Their "Earth" mode is supposed to be the better version, 3D, etc. The only issues is that A) it's slow for a lot of people including me, B) except for certain cities, they haven't updated the imagery in years, and C) it's not a standard Mercator projection map a lot are used to. The make "Earth" the default mode, and make it complicated to switch back to regular, especially if you're not even aware to begin with.
I hate Earth mode. I will use Mercator projection anyday. Updated imagery, faster, and no 3D mess. Just basic imagery that gets the point across. If I need more detail, I will use Street View.
Either one is fast on my cable service so speed is not an issue. My chief complaint is that as many years as I have been using Google Maps, this is the first time I got any feedback or notice about this. You don't know intuitively whether a map is Mercator or not unless looking at something the size of the whole U.S.
You also have to turn the "Globe" off each time you open Google Maps in a new browser instance.
I just went to the Midtown Tunnel and MLK Freeway, and it was under construction when I opened it, and I had to turn the "Globe" off to see it completed.
Quote from: Beltway on June 17, 2019, 07:10:10 AM
You also have to turn the "Globe" off each time you open Google Maps in a new browser instance.
If you log in to a Google account, it should save it the first time you do it. Mine automatically disables Globe mode every time.
Quote from: Beltway on June 17, 2019, 07:10:10 AM
I just went to the Midtown Tunnel and MLK Freeway, and it was under construction when I opened it, and I had to turn the "Globe" off to see it completed.
Same with Dominion Blvd as well, the imagery still shows when they re-routed traffic on VA-166 so they could construct the new bridge approach and the VA-166 interchange. It's nice to see the older imagery, but if I wanted old imagery, I'd go to Google Earth or Historical Aerials. Meanwhile, with Globe mode disabled, the imagery was updated in April 2018, and the entire project is shown completed. Same with the Midtown Tunnel & MLK Freeway.
Globe mode is just something Google likes to shove in people's face, and quite frankly, a lot of people are frustrated by it.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 17, 2019, 07:57:36 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 17, 2019, 07:10:10 AM
You also have to turn the "Globe" off each time you open Google Maps in a new browser instance.
If you log in to a Google account, it should save it the first time you do it. Mine automatically disables Globe mode every time.
I stay logged in at all times, I did that for my access to Usenet newsgroups on Google Groups.
They should make it look like this all the way.
https://prnt.sc/okwv8z