Same-direction through lanes (on a freeway) bifurcated around an obstacle

[MCRoads]

Once the HRBT expansion is completed, I-64 will qualify there in the same vein as I-95 in the FMT.

Not necessarily. The new lanes are going to be HO/T lanes, so they would already be barrier separated along the entire length from I-564 to Hampton.

The final configuration is proposed to be 2 general purpose lanes + 1 HO/T lane + 1 part-time left shoulder HO/T lane in each direction, creating a total of 8 lanes during peak hours.

Hmmm, interesting. Last time I looked at it, I thought it was supposed to be 1 HOT lane and 1 GP lane in one tube, and 2 GO lanes in the other... maybe it changed. And anyway, that is a pretty silly config anyway, because only the HOT lanes would have a shoulder, and not the GP lanes. Ideally, all the tubes would be 3 lanes wide, but that just wouldn't work, as the old tubes cannot be widened. Maybe if the new tubes were on both sides of the old tubes

(N, O, O, N)

it could work, having the lanes configured like this:

| S, GP, GP | | HOT, HOT(S) | | HOT(S), HOT | | GP, GP, S |

but the plan calls for the tubes to be like this:

(N, N, O, O)

Hope this made sense.



Anyway, moving on:

If you are OK with international examples, there are several places like this in Tokyo, as the freeway was built into a canal, so bridges had to be avoided. This is probably more like what OP was thinking of:

Example 1
Example 2
Here is a warning sign. It translates as "Be carful of pillar!"

Another example is the Dartford Tunnel near London.
The signage  acknowledges the split by having two of the exact same sign pointing to different lanes. Redundant? Yes. Effective? Yes.

[sbeaver44]

PA 462 Westbound as E Philadelphia St in York has an interesting split around the concrete median.  Guessing the old road was two way?

Near 689 E Philadelphia St, York, PA 17403
https://goo.gl/maps/vMbPzepRLHFGp2PR9