AARoads Forum

This board looked lonely, and I couldn't let my region not be represented!  :P Awwww... Voyager beat me to it :P

What do you guys think of VDOT's 3rd Crossing plans? http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/hampton_roads_third_crossing.asp

I think that the proposal to extend I-564 under Craney Island to meet I-664 (as mentioned in the AARoads article on Hampton Roads thanks to my revisions ;)) is not sufficient for the area's transportation needs. When they built the Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge (MMMBT)-Tunnel in the 90s, they planned on diverting some of the traffic from I-64's Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel (HRBT), but in my opinion that failed. I know I always still take the HRBT when heading to the Southside. It's just more direct to hop on 64 eastbound and head straight through into Norfolk, as opposed to getting on 64 westbound, then 664 southbound, VA-164 eastbound (toll) or I-264 eastbound, both with another tunnel, and then dealing with the mess of the interchange for downtown off of I-264. Building another highway east-west will not help a thing, as the Western Freeway (VA-164), just a few miles south of the proposed new one, is not that heavily traveled as it is. And it would still be simpler to just take 64, as 664/564 would be simply a big loop. Thus I think that VDOT should simply forget the Third Crossing project and rebuild the HRBT (a proposal they've actually begun taking seriously now). A new bypass is not the answer, but rather a widened main route. They added a proposal for widening the HRBT in January 2008: http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/hrbt_expansion_alternatives.asp

So which proposal does everybody think they should go with?

Its been awhile since I regularly drove the Hampton Roads area, but isn't the HRBT only four overall lanes? That bottleneck should certainly be expanded. As far as the third crossing goes, I always thought that it was a pipe dream more than anything else.

Yeah, 4 lanes... and periodic closures. I've always thought: Isn't the reason they built a tunnel to not have to close it often? But several times a day someone freaks out in there and they have to close it down and send someone after them. The whole process takes about an hour and backs it up up to 10 miles at times... I must say this is a very antagonizing sight... [linkie] (http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z194/deathtopumpkins/Image016-1.jpg)

Some of the ideas they've come up with so far are a high deck girder bridge, or a quadruple-tube tunnel. I don't really care as long as its more than 4 lanes!  :P

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on January 18, 2009, 11:43:02 PM
<snip>I must say this is a very antagonizing sight... [linkie] (http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z194/deathtopumpkins/Image016-1.jpg)

That is an awful sight! :o

What do you mean they freak out and people having to come get them?

People panic in the tunnel and crash into a wall or another vehicle usually, but sometimes they do just freak out and stop. Us locals call it "Tunnel Terror Syndrome."

Oh, and when they actually drive all the way through it, they usually don't even make it over 30 mph.

people are strange. That would be a little wierd though, going in a little tunnel on a manmade island in the middle of a body of water

I guess if you've never been through one in your life before... but when we have a total of 6 tunnels around here... its nothing unusual.

Has your CMSA been voted #1 for worst traffic congestion bottlenecks by many organizations for several years now? :P no? Didn't think so. ;)

But we are the 13th largest US metro area by population and a city of 500,000 is stuck with 4 ways out, 2 being the bridges. See the WSDOT AADT numbers for more INFo.

Yes but we're 1.5 million not 500k :P

And petition your local government if you think it needs to be fixed. If you get enough support they might listen.

QuoteBut we are the 13th largest US metro area by population and a city of 500,000 is stuck with 4 ways out, 2 being the bridges. See the WSDOT AADT numbers for more INFo.

... and a metro area of 4 million has only one way in or out from each of the directions, so if a bushfire knocks out the north and south (as well as the west), we're screwed.

So don't complain. :P

This brings up a good point about cities with few ways in and out, and I'll start a new thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=108.0) on it.

I'd never heard of people flipping out in tunnels.  I lived in Boston for many years, which had the Summer and Callahan tunnels, and later the Big Dig.  Never heard of it having to get shut down because someone just plain stopped.

It's not as common as people wrecking in the tunnel or anything, but it has happened before.

why don't they put the overheight warning before the last exit before the tunnel?

I rarely ever see an overheight truck that makes it past the inspection station. And they do post signs pretty far back. Though it does happen sometimes I guess...

does the MMBT have these same kind of problems?

Quote from: froggie on January 23, 2009, 02:04:15 AM
From what I recall of VDOT statistics, it happens several hundred times a year (at least twice a day) on average.  As I mentioned before, it's the single biggest cause of traffic stoppage at the HRBT.

Hmmm... I guess I've just missed every single example of that happening.

And if froggie's statistics are correct, rawr, then it should too.

The saga continues.........

Highly doubt anything EVER happening.

http://hamptonroads.com/2011/11/leaders-divert-us-460-dollars-patriots-crossing

I feel like maybe those "Leaders" neglected to consider the fact that diverting traffic from I-64 to a new US 460 would take at least a reasonable level of traffic out of the two existing crossings in the first place...

Have to agree, a new 460 is a better idea.

Upgrading US 460 is a much better idea than the Third Crossing, and would probably eliminate the need for it. US 460 is already an ideal truck corridor to South Hampton Roads.

I doubt it would eliminate the need for it, but it would certainly reduce it.

The federal government should provide at least 50% of the funding in special funding above normal FHWA funding formulas.

Why?  Because of the massive military presence in the area that greatly increases road traffic, and the U.S. Navy's insistence that only a tunnel can be built under the shipping channels on Hampton Roads and the Elizabeth River, which makes a facility's construction cost about double the cost of a high-level bridge.

I am aware that there have been new bridge proposals recently, but I don't believe that the Navy will ever agree to it.

QuoteI feel like maybe those "Leaders" neglected to consider the fact that diverting traffic from I-64 to a new US 460 would take at least a reasonable level of traffic out of the two existing crossings in the first place...

Nope.  VDOT did an origin-destination study (referenced on pg 17 of the Final EIS (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/studyhro-crossing-feis.PDF)) and found that only 8.5% of trips between the Southside and the Peninsula (utilizing all three crossings...HRBT, MMBT, and James River Bridge) have an origin and/or destination outside the region.  They further reference that a US 460 freeway would only reduce congestion at the HRBT by 3%, a miniscule amount considering the congestion that exists there today (let alone in 2030).

So no, a US 460 freeway would not divert a "reasonable level of traffic" from the crossings, and DEFINITELY would not eliminate the need for additional capacity at the HRBT or MMBT.

Quote from: froggie on November 05, 2011, 07:42:18 PM

QuoteI feel like maybe those "Leaders" neglected to consider the fact that diverting traffic from I-64 to a new US 460 would take at least a reasonable level of traffic out of the two existing crossings in the first place...

Nope.  VDOT did an origin-destination study (referenced on pg 17 of the Final EIS (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/studyhro-crossing-feis.PDF)) and found that only 8.5% of trips between the Southside and the Peninsula (utilizing all three crossings...HRBT, MMBT, and James River Bridge) have an origin and/or destination outside the region.  They further reference that a US 460 freeway would only reduce congestion at the HRBT by 3%, a miniscule amount considering the congestion that exists there today (let alone in 2030).

So no, a US 460 freeway would not divert a "reasonable level of traffic" from the crossings, and DEFINITELY would not eliminate the need for additional capacity at the HRBT or MMBT.

BOTH projects are very needed, IME, albeit for different reasons.

That segment of US-460 is on the national strategic highway network, and has Interstate highway importance in its own corridor, and could be designated as I-62 or as an extension of I-264.

But really doesn't have all that much traffic, let alone strategic traffic.  You'd be better off converting US 58 to a freeway...even Emporia to South Hill would be better cost-benefit than US 460.

Quote from: froggie on November 05, 2011, 08:12:13 PM
But really doesn't have all that much traffic, let alone strategic traffic.  You'd be better off converting US 58 to a freeway...even Emporia to South Hill would be better cost-benefit than US 460.

It has enough to warrant a rural Interstate, it would connect South Hampton Roads to I-95 and I-295, and US-58 is already a much higher quality road than that part of US-460.

What caught my eye was the mention of 460 being re-signed as I-85 once it is rebuilt as a freeway. If that's true, then 85 would do an about-face at Petersburg and end almost back at the NC border! Why not sign it as I-595, or just keep it signed as 460?

Quote from: broadhurst04 on November 05, 2011, 08:59:44 PM
What caught my eye was the mention of 460 being re-signed as I-85 once it is rebuilt as a freeway. If that's true, then 85 would do an about-face at Petersburg and end almost back at the NC border! Why not sign it as I-595, or just keep it signed as 460?

Terrible idea. I-264 extension would make much more sense. If they keep extending freeway down US 460, you could start to justify I-62 once it gets to 81. But as east-west as I-85 is, you're absolutely right, it's not a ^ shaped route.

Or, how about this: have the 95/64 multiplex run to Petersburg, designate the 460 freeway as 64, then at Bowers Hill change 264 to 64? That way we wouldn't have the problem of 64 nearly curling back around on itself on the Southside of Hampton Roads. Then re-sign the existing 64 from Richmond to Hampton as 595, freeing up the beltway at Hampton Roads to be 664 all the way around?

QuoteIt has enough to warrant a rural Interstate,

Less than 10K between Waverly and Windsor.  Barely enough to warrant 4-lane.  Not even close for a freeway-grade facility, let alone an Interstate.

Quoteit would connect South Hampton Roads to I-95 and I-295

Not much demand for such.  Not to Petersburg.  As I mentioned before, you'd have higher demand tying into I-95 towards NC, and the best bet for that is the US 58 corridor, not US 460.

I saw US 460 carries about 11,000 vpd. There are many rural interstates in that range,but this is a tollroad. An Illinois study 10 years ago found a rural toll road needed 30,000vpd to be viable without subsidies. I see VA is proposing them though.

It does seem a high volume for a 4 lane undividied with what look like 11 foot lanes and no shoulders. However I cant see a new tollroad take but half that traffic because a 4 lane undivided with 6000 -7000 per day would be fine.

Quote from: froggie on November 05, 2011, 10:37:01 PM

QuoteIt has enough to warrant a rural Interstate,

Less than 10K between Waverly and Windsor.  Barely enough to warrant 4-lane.  Not even close for a freeway-grade facility, let alone an Interstate.

Quoteit would connect South Hampton Roads to I-95 and I-295

Not much demand for such.  Not to Petersburg.  As I mentioned before, you'd have higher demand tying into I-95 towards NC, and the best bet for that is the US 58 corridor, not US 460.

Some sections of US-460 carry close to 20,000 AADT today.  The corridor carries 3,000 to 3,600 large truck AADT.

Projected 2030 traffic demand is 25,000 to 31,000 AADT depending on the section, with 30+% large trucks.  If they are going to build something, it should meet a 20-year design, and that would be a freeway.

Quote from: Beltway on November 06, 2011, 07:20:59 AM

Quote from: froggie on November 05, 2011, 10:37:01 PM

QuoteIt has enough to warrant a rural Interstate,

Less than 10K between Waverly and Windsor.  Barely enough to warrant 4-lane.  Not even close for a freeway-grade facility, let alone an Interstate.

Quoteit would connect South Hampton Roads to I-95 and I-295

Not much demand for such.  Not to Petersburg.  As I mentioned before, you'd have higher demand tying into I-95 towards NC, and the best bet for that is the US 58 corridor, not US 460.

Some sections of US-460 carry close to 20,000 AADT today.  The corridor carries 3,000 to 3,600 large truck AADT.

Projected 2030 traffic demand is 25,000 to 31,000 AADT depending on the section, with 30+% large trucks.  If they are going to build something, it should meet a 20-year design, and that would be a freeway.

To expound --

The corridor Petersburg-Suffolk needs at minimum to be a modern 4-lane divided highway.  That would mean widening to four 12-foot lanes, adding 10-foot right shoulders, and at least a 12-foot flush paved median.  Some sections currently are flood prone, and those would need to have the grade raised above the flood plain.

In order to match US-460 west of Petersburg and 4-lane principal highways in general, at least 4 and perhaps 6 town bypasses need to be built to provide true high-speed 4-lane highway service.  There would be considerable cost and complexity to transition each of those bypasses in and out of the current alignment.  The cost of simply relocating the entire 59 miles is not much more than each town having its own separate bypass.

It could be argued whether the 59-mile relocated highway needs full grade separation, but I believe that at minimum the most optimum design is to relocate the entire corridor.  I would rather see them wait until they can afford to build it that way, than to build a lower design sooner.

Quote from: broadhurst04 on November 05, 2011, 08:59:44 PM
What caught my eye was the mention of 460 being re-signed as I-85 once it is rebuilt as a freeway. If that's true, then 85 would do an about-face at Petersburg and end almost back at the NC border! Why not sign it as I-595, or just keep it signed as 460?

Hampton roads the home of the wrongway interstates

Quote from: jwolfer on November 09, 2011, 02:35:43 PM

Quote from: broadhurst04 on November 05, 2011, 08:59:44 PM
What caught my eye was the mention of 460 being re-signed as I-85 once it is rebuilt as a freeway. If that's true, then 85 would do an about-face at Petersburg and end almost back at the NC border! Why not sign it as I-595, or just keep it signed as 460?

Hampton roads the home of the wrongway interstates

A 3di can't be 'wrongway". 

There was a study in the 1990s that considered 4 different renumbering schemes for the regional Interstate highways.  In 1997, the 56-mile-long I-64/I-664 loop was designated and signed as the Hampton Roads Beltway. I-64 makes a huge arc around Norfolk and Portsmouth. The beltway has the clockwise direction signed as the Inner Loop, and the counter-clockwise direction signed as the Outer Loop (same concept as the I-495 Capital Beltway). Since the eastern end of I-64 terminates in a beltway, there is no completely ideal numbering scheme that could be implemented.

Quote from: Beltway on November 09, 2011, 04:05:24 PM

Quote from: jwolfer on November 09, 2011, 02:35:43 PM

Quote from: broadhurst04 on November 05, 2011, 08:59:44 PM
What caught my eye was the mention of 460 being re-signed as I-85 once it is rebuilt as a freeway. If that's true, then 85 would do an about-face at Petersburg and end almost back at the NC border! Why not sign it as I-595, or just keep it signed as 460?

Hampton roads the home of the wrongway interstates

A 3di can't be 'wrongway".  

There was a study in the 1990s that considered 4 different renumbering schemes for the regional Interstate highways.  In 1997, the 56-mile-long I-64/I-664 loop was designated and signed as the Hampton Roads Beltway. I-64 makes a huge arc around Norfolk and Portsmouth. The beltway has the clockwise direction signed as the Inner Loop, and the counter-clockwise direction signed as the Outer Loop (same concept as the I-495 Capital Beltway). Since the eastern end of I-64 terminates in a beltway, there is no completely ideal numbering scheme that could be implemented.

I was referring to 64 and if 85 were extended.  Give me some credit on knowing that 3dis have no directional rules  :)

Quote from: jwolfer on November 09, 2011, 05:24:51 PM

Quote from: Beltway on November 09, 2011, 04:05:24 PM

Quote from: jwolfer on November 09, 2011, 02:35:43 PM

Quote from: broadhurst04 on November 05, 2011, 08:59:44 PM
What caught my eye was the mention of 460 being re-signed as I-85 once it is rebuilt as a freeway. If that's true, then 85 would do an about-face at Petersburg and end almost back at the NC border! Why not sign it as I-595, or just keep it signed as 460?

Hampton roads the home of the wrongway interstates

A 3di can't be 'wrongway".  

There was a study in the 1990s that considered 4 different renumbering schemes for the regional Interstate highways.  In 1997, the 56-mile-long I-64/I-664 loop was designated and signed as the Hampton Roads Beltway. I-64 makes a huge arc around Norfolk and Portsmouth. The beltway has the clockwise direction signed as the Inner Loop, and the counter-clockwise direction signed as the Outer Loop (same concept as the I-495 Capital Beltway). Since the eastern end of I-64 terminates in a beltway, there is no completely ideal numbering scheme that could be implemented.

I was referring to 64 and if 85 were extended.  Give me some credit on knowing that 3dis have no directional rules  :)

Oh I agree .... the proposal to route I-85 between Petersburg and Portsmouth is a silly idea, a 'wrongway' routing idea.

With regard to I-64, that 1990s study looked at alternatives such as ending I-64 at I-464, at I-264 east of Norfolk, or at the VA Beach oceanfront.  The conclusion was that each had its own disadvantages, and that it was best to keep the original terminus, and to name the whole loop as the Hampton Roads Beltway with Inner Loop and Outer Loop designations.  I happen to agree ...

The concept of I-64's terminus resurfaces in Hampton Roads every 6-9 months or so.

Quote from: froggie on November 10, 2011, 07:55:29 AM
The concept of I-64's terminus resurfaces in Hampton Roads every 6-9 months or so.

What in general, and what is the latest?

Another factor is that the pre-existing route passes through or near all the major Hampton Roads cities (well, except Suffolk), and the officials of those cities don't want to lose a major Interstate highway, i.e. a mainline Interstate, or what roadgeeks call a 2di.

Currently, there are two proposals being considered to alleviate traffic on the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel. 

The less expensive option is the third crossing, which would provide a crossing that diverts traffic approaching the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel to the Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel.  This proposal would add tolls to the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel and the Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel, but leave the James River Bridge as a toll-free facility.

The more expensive option is to widen the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel, which I think would add more trestles and tubes to the complex.  Tolls would be required on all three Hampton Roads/James River crossings, including the James River Bridge.

I personally prefer the third crossing option myself.

Strictly speaking, it is NOT possible to widen any of the bridge-tunnel crossings.

Of course, it is possible to add one or more tubes and bridge sections to connect the tunnels to the landings on both sides. 

Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 13, 2014, 03:29:03 PM
Strictly speaking, it is NOT possible to widen any of the bridge-tunnel crossings.

Of course, it is possible to add one or more tubes and bridge sections to connect the tunnels to the landings on both sides.

Perhaps it would be a complete replacement similar to the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, where a new wider bridge is built and the old bridge is demolished.

Is it even possible or cheaper to extend the 164 freeway west/north to the James River Bridge and Smithfield Bypass.?

Not knowing many (any) of the details, a 3rd crossing would probably be best, only because you can divert more traffic away from a central area.  With a widened crossing, all the traffic will need to funnel to and from that area.  With a 3rd crossing, you can disperse traffic over a wider area.  Some of the traffic that is currently using the current crossings may be able to better utilize the new crossing.  In turn, this would allow traffic avoiding any or both of the current crossings to be able to use them in the future.

I think the third crossing option it the best if you say money is the option to add a 3rd trestle and tunnel the HRBT.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on November 13, 2014, 03:36:25 PM
Perhaps it would be a complete replacement similar to the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, where a new wider bridge is built and the old bridge is demolished.

But the old WWB was a (relatively) cheap drawspan and it was in poor condition.

The most-important parts of the HRBT  are its two immersed-tube tunnels.  Even though the original tube (from 1957) is not Interstate-standard in terms of overhead clearance (13' 6", like the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel), it seems to be in good condition, and abandoning and replacing its capacity would be expensive.

QuoteIs it even possible or cheaper to extend the 164 freeway west/north to the James River Bridge and Smithfield Bypass.?

In short, not with the current political/fiscal environment.  Longer answer:  not without a LOT of money and disruption.  17 would be the most logical routing for such a connection, but 17 is not limited-access...there are numerous private driveways and developments right along the highway.

Regarding the OP's question (which I believe we've discussed in the past in another thread), it should be noted that the "Third Crossing" would require widening the MMBT to be effective, otherwise the traffic push/traffic shift would result in HRBT-style backups at the MMBT.  This would push the cost of an "effective" Third Crossing over that of widening the HRBT.  In fact, the full Third Crossing project (which includes the Craney Island Connector, connecting VA 164 to the Third Crossing and widening all of I-664) carries a price about twice that of widening the HRBT and I-64 between I-664/Hampton and I-564/Norfolk.

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/studyhro-crossing-feis.PDF (huge file) includes an alternatives analysis that includes the HRBT and MMBT and the US 460 porkway.

Quote from: froggie on November 13, 2014, 07:25:03 PM

QuoteIs it even possible or cheaper to extend the 164 freeway west/north to the James River Bridge and Smithfield Bypass.?

In fact, the full Third Crossing project (which includes the Craney Island Connector, connecting VA 164 to the Third Crossing and widening all of I-664) carries a price about twice that of widening the HRBT and I-64 between I-664/Hampton and I-564/Norfolk.

I have heard the opposite, since from what I read, the HRBT widening project would require a toll on the James River Bridge in addition to the HRBT and MMMBT, while the Third Crossing would only require tolls on the HRBT and MMMBT.  In addition, the HRBT widening project from what I read would require tolls from $4 to $6, while the Third Crossing would only require $2 tolls.

EDIT: Here is the article that I read:
http://hamptonroads.com/2011/01/third-crossing-right-whatever-its-name

It says the Third Crossing would cost $2 billion while the HRBT widening would cost $3.5 billion.

That $2 billion for the "Third Crossing" is just for the part between I-664 and I-564.  It does nothing with I-664, the MMBT, or the Craney Island Connector.

And as I mentioned above, while it does provide an alternative to the HRBT, all it will really do is create HRBT-style backups at the MMBT, especially Hampton-bound where you have 4 lanes squeezing into 2.

Quote from: froggie on November 13, 2014, 09:51:20 PM
That $2 billion for the "Third Crossing" is just for the part between I-664 and I-564.  It does nothing with I-664, the MMBT, or the Craney Island Connector.

And as I mentioned above, while it does provide an alternative to the HRBT, all it will really do is create HRBT-style backups at the MMBT, especially Hampton-bound where you have 4 lanes squeezing into 2.

Did you ever see a cost estimate for adding more capacity at the MMBT?

When I lived in NN, I was active in planning as a citizen.  I recall an old plan to build a freeway along the railroad tracks from 664 at Jefferson to 64 and Bland.  Reviving that would fix a lot of the anticipated problems with 664 through Hampton.

FWIW, if they ever actually build the peninsula light rail, I was the one who successfully pushed the 50th and Warwick station.  The original plan had NO stations between 25th and Warwick and Hilton Village.

QuoteDid you ever see a cost estimate for adding more capacity at the MMBT?

The 2001 estimate for the MMBT expansion alone was $700M.  One of the unsolicited PPTA proposals from 2004 had a combined "Patriot's Crossing" (what they call the 664-Hampton Blvd tunnel/connection part) and MMBT expansion cost estimate of $2.5B.  Another of the 2004 PPTA proposals put the cost of MMBT expansion alone at $900M.

Given the cost increases for Patriot's Crossing over the past 10 years, a back-of-the-envelope guess for MMBT expansion is in the neighborhood of $1.5B.

There would be an incredible amount of additional infrastructure that would be needed for the Third Crossing to be effective, including another pair of tubes at the MMBT. The HRBT could be helped significantly by adding one three-lane tube eastbound with a three lane viaduct to I-564. The non-standard tube could be restricted to autos only and it would allow temporary closures for maintenance.

Quote from: skluth on November 15, 2014, 03:22:41 PM
There would be an incredible amount of additional infrastructure that would be needed for the Third Crossing to be effective, including another pair of tubes at the MMBT. The HRBT could be helped significantly by adding one three-lane tube eastbound with a three lane viaduct to I-564. The non-standard tube could be restricted to autos only and it would allow temporary closures for maintenance.

Are you suggesting that the westbound HRBT capacity (and the one two lane tube) be left as they are?

Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 16, 2014, 07:14:02 PM

Quote from: skluth on November 15, 2014, 03:22:41 PM
There would be an incredible amount of additional infrastructure that would be needed for the Third Crossing to be effective, including another pair of tubes at the MMBT. The HRBT could be helped significantly by adding one three-lane tube eastbound with a three lane viaduct to I-564. The non-standard tube could be restricted to autos only and it would allow temporary closures for maintenance.

Are you suggesting that the westbound HRBT capacity (and the one two lane tube) be left as they are?

I think they meant making the new tube be reversible, perhaps as an extension of the reversible HOV lanes that run from I-264 to I-564.

Quote from: Thing 342 on November 16, 2014, 10:47:32 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 16, 2014, 07:14:02 PM

Quote from: skluth on November 15, 2014, 03:22:41 PM
There would be an incredible amount of additional infrastructure that would be needed for the Third Crossing to be effective, including another pair of tubes at the MMBT. The HRBT could be helped significantly by adding one three-lane tube eastbound with a three lane viaduct to I-564. The non-standard tube could be restricted to autos only and it would allow temporary closures for maintenance.

Are you suggesting that the westbound HRBT capacity (and the one two lane tube) be left as they are?

I think they meant making the new tube be reversible, perhaps as an extension of the reversible HOV lanes that run from I-264 to I-564.

If I would guess, a new eastbound tube would actually be built west (the HRBT is actually more north-south in direction, despite being signed east-west) the existing tube and the existing eastbound tube would be converted into a reversible tube.  I don't see how a third tube can fit between the two existing tubes.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on November 17, 2014, 12:00:49 AM

Quote from: Thing 342 on November 16, 2014, 10:47:32 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 16, 2014, 07:14:02 PM

Quote from: skluth on November 15, 2014, 03:22:41 PM
There would be an incredible amount of additional infrastructure that would be needed for the Third Crossing to be effective, including another pair of tubes at the MMBT. The HRBT could be helped significantly by adding one three-lane tube eastbound with a three lane viaduct to I-564. The non-standard tube could be restricted to autos only and it would allow temporary closures for maintenance.

Are you suggesting that the westbound HRBT capacity (and the one two lane tube) be left as they are?

I think they meant making the new tube be reversible, perhaps as an extension of the reversible HOV lanes that run from I-264 to I-564.

If I would guess, a new eastbound tube would actually be built west (the HRBT is actually more north-south in direction, despite being signed east-west) the existing tube and the existing eastbound tube would be converted into a reversible tube.  I don't see how a third tube can fit between the two existing tubes.

Yeah, I do not think there's room for a new tube between the existing ones.

Certainly if the decision to add a new single tube needs to be next to the existing eastbound tube.

All of the design proposals I've seen thus far put any and all additional capacity west of the existing eastbound tube.

QuoteI think they meant making the new tube be reversible, perhaps as an extension of the reversible HOV lanes that run from I-264 to I-564.

Not anymore.  VDOT ruled out adding a single tube a few years ago.  The remaining options on the table are for an 8-lane tunnel and a 10-lane tunnel, with various "managed lane" (HOV or HO/T) options for the 8-lane tunnel.  In all cases, the existing eastbound tunnel would be converted to westbound traffic.

Quote from: froggie on November 17, 2014, 08:43:09 AM

Not anymore.  VDOT ruled out adding a single tube a few years ago.  The remaining options on the table are for an 8-lane tunnel and a 10-lane tunnel, with various "managed lane" (HOV or HO/T) options for the 8-lane tunnel.  In all cases, the existing eastbound tunnel would be converted to westbound traffic.

In addition, I read somewhere that they are considering making the eastbound spans using a high suspension bridge rather than using tunnels.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on November 17, 2014, 01:14:56 PM
In addition, I read somewhere that they are considering making the eastbound spans using a high suspension bridge rather than using tunnels.

Wouldn't the Navy veto a crossing that didn't include at least one significant tunnel for each carriageway?  You have so many tunnels in the Hampton Roads area, to make sure the fleet can't be kept in or out of port if a bridge is bombed.

This might not be an issue if the channel were so deep that a downed bridge would not block ships, as I think is the case for the Golden Gate Bridge, but not the Hampton Roads. 

Quote from: Pink Jazz on November 17, 2014, 01:14:56 PM

Quote from: froggie on November 17, 2014, 08:43:09 AM

Not anymore.  VDOT ruled out adding a single tube a few years ago.  The remaining options on the table are for an 8-lane tunnel and a 10-lane tunnel, with various "managed lane" (HOV or HO/T) options for the 8-lane tunnel.  In all cases, the existing eastbound tunnel would be converted to westbound traffic.

In addition, I read somewhere that they are considering making the eastbound spans using a high suspension bridge rather than using tunnels.

Oscar asked the right question.

I do not think the Navy wants any bridge (or bridges) over the navigation channel between its docks in Hampton Roads and the open Atlantic Ocean.

QuoteIn addition, I read somewhere that they are considering making the eastbound spans using a high suspension bridge rather than using tunnels.

A high bridge was also ruled out.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 16, 2014, 07:14:02 PM

Quote from: skluth on November 15, 2014, 03:22:41 PM
There would be an incredible amount of additional infrastructure that would be needed for the Third Crossing to be effective, including another pair of tubes at the MMBT. The HRBT could be helped significantly by adding one three-lane tube eastbound with a three lane viaduct to I-564. The non-standard tube could be restricted to autos only and it would allow temporary closures for maintenance.

Are you suggesting that the westbound HRBT capacity (and the one two lane tube) be left as they are?

I would make both current tubes westbound; the older tube would be autos only because of the height restrictions and the new current tube would be all vehicles. I would build a new three lane tunnel for the eastbound traffic southwest of the two current tubes with new viaducts connecting to the mainland. The new three lane eastbound viaduct would run to 4th View on the Southside. This would leave the two current viaduct pairs both running westbound. Trucks would not be able to enter I-64 westbound at 4th View or from the west end of the Willoughby Spit since those ramps only lead to the low clearance tube. Obviously, lanes would need to added to I-64 between 4th View and 564.

I realize this is a bit out of the box, but I believe this is the most cost effective solution to adding capacity between the Peninsula and South Side. I lived in Portsmouth for four years last decade, commuted to NOB daily, and often had to go from NOB to Langley for work, so I'm pretty familiar with the issue. The worst backups are traffic going to the Peninsula, so it needs the increased capacity more. This solution also supports temporary closing of tunnels and even the approaches for all maintenance needed, especially if it were done during off peak hours.

Quote from: skluth on November 18, 2014, 11:51:52 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 16, 2014, 07:14:02 PM

Quote from: skluth on November 15, 2014, 03:22:41 PM
There would be an incredible amount of additional infrastructure that would be needed for the Third Crossing to be effective, including another pair of tubes at the MMBT. The HRBT could be helped significantly by adding one three-lane tube eastbound with a three lane viaduct to I-564. The non-standard tube could be restricted to autos only and it would allow temporary closures for maintenance.

Are you suggesting that the westbound HRBT capacity (and the one two lane tube) be left as they are?

I would make both current tubes westbound; the older tube would be autos only because of the height restrictions and the new current tube would be all vehicles. I would build a new three lane tunnel for the eastbound traffic southwest of the two current tubes with new viaducts connecting to the mainland. The new three lane eastbound viaduct would run to 4th View on the Southside. This would leave the two current viaduct pairs both running westbound. Trucks would not be able to enter I-64 westbound at 4th View or from the west end of the Willoughby Spit since those ramps only lead to the low clearance tube. Obviously, lanes would need to added to I-64 between 4th View and 564.

I realize this is a bit out of the box, but I believe this is the most cost effective solution to adding capacity between the Peninsula and South Side. I lived in Portsmouth for four years last decade, commuted to NOB daily, and often had to go from NOB to Langley for work, so I'm pretty familiar with the issue. The worst backups are traffic going to the Peninsula, so it needs the increased capacity more. This solution also supports temporary closing of tunnels and even the approaches for all maintenance needed, especially if it were done during off peak hours.

Wonder if Hampton Roads-area motorists are willing to start paying tolls to a PPTA concession holder for the next 60 or 70 years to fund a new tube?

IMO, it was a mistake to have the (very expensive to build, maintain and operate) crossings of Hampton Roads and the James River ever be "free" of tolls (but politically popular). If the tolls had stayed in place on the HRBT and the MMBT, then all of this would be less of a problem.  But now there is an expectation that they will stay "free" forever (consider the angry response from some, and a lawsuit that ultimately failed, that resulted when the Elizabeth River crossings were (re) tolled).

QuoteTrucks would not be able to enter I-64 westbound at 4th View

The problem with this is that you have two local truck routes (Oceanview Ave and Tidewater Dr) connecting to I-64 at that interchange.  4th View is also far enough away from the HRBT to where any widening of I-64 over Willoughby Spit would basically meld the two existing bridges together, making it easy for trucks getting on there to get into the proper tunnel.

It should be noted that existing study proposals, which also convert the existing eastbound tube for westbound traffic, still allow trucks to get on at 4th View.

As for the issue of number of lanes and traffic congestion...believe it or not, there are actually more eastbound drivers in the morning than westbound drivers in the evening (3655 vs 3380 per 2011 volumes).  The reason why there's more congestion westbound is because of a combination of the lower/narrower westbound tunnel, and stopping overheight trucks to turn them around impacts westbound traffic much more than eastbound.  A 3 lane eastbound tunnel would result in 2040 backups similar to today's backups...which is partially why VDOT dropped the "6-lane" options.

QuoteWonder if Hampton Roads-area motorists are willing to start paying tolls to a PPTA concession holder for the next 60 or 70 years to fund a new tube?

If the reaction to Downtown/Midtown Tunnel tolls is any indication, the answer is "no".

Quote from: froggie on November 19, 2014, 11:18:58 AM

QuoteTrucks would not be able to enter I-64 westbound at 4th View

The problem with this is that you have two local truck routes (Oceanview Ave and Tidewater Dr) connecting to I-64 at that interchange.  4th View is also far enough away from the HRBT to where any widening of I-64 over Willoughby Spit would basically meld the two existing bridges together, making it easy for trucks getting on there to get into the proper tunnel.

It should be noted that existing study proposals, which also convert the existing eastbound tube for westbound traffic, still allow trucks to get on at 4th View.

As for the issue of number of lanes and traffic congestion...believe it or not, there are actually more eastbound drivers in the morning than westbound drivers in the evening (3655 vs 3380 per 2011 volumes).  The reason why there's more congestion westbound is because of a combination of the lower/narrower westbound tunnel, and stopping overheight trucks to turn them around impacts westbound traffic much more than eastbound.  A 3 lane eastbound tunnel would result in 2040 backups similar to today's backups...which is partially why VDOT dropped the "6-lane" options.

Do the overheight trucks on westbound I-64 happen that often?

Quote from: froggie on November 19, 2014, 11:18:58 AM

QuoteWonder if Hampton Roads-area motorists are willing to start paying tolls to a PPTA concession holder for the next 60 or 70 years to fund a new tube?

If the reaction to Downtown/Midtown Tunnel tolls is any indication, the answer is "no".

Which is why de-tolling expensive (to operate and maintain and expand) crossings (even when the original bonds are paid-off) should never be considered (bond-funded toll roads, like the Norfolk-Virginia Beach Expressway can and maybe should be de-tolled, as long as they do not include those expensive bridges and tunnels). 

Having such expensive crossings run by an independent authority, like the CBBT is, is one way to stave-off calls for de-tolling by politicians.  The CBBT's board actually started the process of twinning the trestles in the 1990's (I happened to cross it one day in 1994 or 1995 right as the project was getting started) in part because the outstanding bond balances were starting to approach zero, and had they gone to zero, the crossing would have become "free" and it would have become VDOT's responsibility to operate and maintain.

QuoteDo the overheight trucks on westbound I-64 happen that often?

They used to happen often, but a combination of higher fines and a crackdown dropped the numbers during the 2000s.  As best as I can find for raw numbers:  in the early 2000s (when I first got to Norfolk), they averaged 5 times a day.  That dropped to an average 3 per day by 2005 and 1 per day by 2007.  In 2009, total stoppages at the HRBT were close to 1800 (almost 5 per day), but that number included crashes, stalled vehicles, and other stoppages in addition to overheight trucks.  A 2013 Pilot article suggested that in one month that year there were 382 stoppages just for trucks at the HRBT (over 12 per day!).  I find that number somewhat suspect, but I can't find verification of it one way or the other.

Quote from: froggie on November 19, 2014, 09:20:54 PM

QuoteDo the overheight trucks on westbound I-64 happen that often?

They used to happen often, but a combination of higher fines and a crackdown dropped the numbers during the 2000s.  As best as I can find for raw numbers:  in the early 2000s (when I first got to Norfolk), they averaged 5 times a day.  That dropped to an average 3 per day by 2005 and 1 per day by 2007.  In 2009, total stoppages at the HRBT were close to 1800 (almost 5 per day), but that number included crashes, stalled vehicles, and other stoppages in addition to overheight trucks.  A 2013 Pilot article suggested that in one month that year there were 382 stoppages just for trucks at the HRBT (over 12 per day!).  I find that number somewhat suspect, but I can't find verification of it one way or the other.

I left Tidewater in 2007 and your numbers sound about right until then. Don't know what it's like today. I just remember when the too-tall trucks snuck through it could cause major damage in the tunnels.

I'm guessing that 382 in one month is for all stoppages, including accidents and stalled cars.

Adding on, the Draft EIS for the HRBT expansion (dated 2012) suggests that the truck stoppages are back up close to a 3-per-day average (the DEIS cites 80 to 90 per month).

Quote from: froggie on November 20, 2014, 07:32:45 AM
Adding on, the Draft EIS for the HRBT expansion (dated 2012) suggests that the truck stoppages are back up close to a 3-per-day average (the DEIS cites 80 to 90 per month).

Sounds like the fines for using a Wal-Mart GPS unit in a commercial vehicle need to go even higher in Virginia!

Quote from: froggie on November 19, 2014, 11:18:58 AM

QuoteTrucks would not be able to enter I-64 westbound at 4th View

I've been thinking about this. There would need to be crossover lanes between the different viaducts to accommodate when tunnels are closed anyway. It would probably be easier to build them on the west end of Willoughby than over water. You'd lose the ability for trucks to go westbound on I-64 from Willoughby, but that's no big loss. Trucks would then be able to get to the full height tunnel, probably with a giant sign stating all trucks must switch lanes.

Trucks would also not be able to exit at the first Hampton exit after the tunnel, but I don't think that would be a major issue either.

8 years later, 460 dead, no third crossing. We've made it a long way  :spin:

Quote from: froggie on November 10, 2011, 07:55:29 AM
The concept of I-64's terminus resurfaces in Hampton Roads every 6-9 months or so.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 10:00:57 PM
8 years later, 460 dead, no third crossing. We've made it a long way  :spin:

Thats 28-44 deaths every time I-64's terminus resurfaces. If only we can stop this artificial natural disaster...

Quote from: 1 on January 05, 2019, 10:07:30 PM

Quote from: froggie on November 10, 2011, 07:55:29 AM
The concept of I-64's terminus resurfaces in Hampton Roads every 6-9 months or so.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 10:00:57 PM
8 years later, 460 dead, no third crossing. We've made it a long way  :spin:

Thats 28-44 deaths every time I-64's terminus resurfaces. If only we can stop this artificial natural disaster...

Let's build a 500 mile toll highway across the state and call it the Virginia Turnpike. If you packaged it into something that looked attractive, that idea could bounce around for decades, get hundreds of millions spent, and go absolutely nowhere. All jokes aside, if the DOT and local officials are committed to a project (like 460 or the Third Crossing), they need to show it and get it done. 460 could've been possible and a great road, but it went every wrong direction it could.

I merged all of the Third Crossing threads into one.  They were all at different times, and of course the one that was bumped was the 2011 one despite there being a 2014 one.   -Mark

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 10:00:57 PM
8 years later, 460 dead, no third crossing. We've made it a long way  :spin:

Thank the corrupt McAuliff administration for their lies and incompetence and demagoguery on the US-460 freeway project.  They produced a bogus SEIS that quadrupled the claimed acres of wetlands impacts as compared to the FHWA approved FEIS from just a few years prior.  They lied thru their teeth.  It would have been a fine relief route to I-64 and a direct Interstate standard connection from Richmond-Petersburg to South Hampton Roads.  It would have been opened 2016.  <vomit noises>

Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 11:26:23 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 10:00:57 PM
8 years later, 460 dead, no third crossing. We've made it a long way  :spin:

Thank the corrupt McAuliff administration for their lies and incompetence and demagoguery on the US-460 freeway project.  They produced a bogus SEIS that quadrupled the claimed acres of wetlands impacts as compared to the FHWA approved FEIS from just a few years prior.  They lied thru their teeth.  It would have been a fine relief route to I-64 and a direct Interstate standard connection from Richmond-Petersburg to South Hampton Roads.  It would have been opened 2016.  <vomit noises>

That administration was a joke. The only good thing I'd say he did for roads was raise the interstate speed limit to 70 MPH. As someone who heads north occasionally, I would be glad to pay the $5 toll to use the road each way. And it's not like it force anybody to use it - it would simply open up a new alternative to motorists looking to avoid congestion, or just already heading west on US-460. Similar to the TX-130 toll road built around Austin, Texas.

It'd be nice if it could be still done under a full private sector, however the demand is not there, and it would be environmentally shut down again. What a joke.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 11:53:20 PM

Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 11:26:23 PM
Thank the corrupt McAuliff administration for their lies and incompetence and demagoguery on the US-460 freeway project.  They produced a bogus SEIS that quadrupled the claimed acres of wetlands impacts as compared to the FHWA approved FEIS from just a few years prior.  They lied thru their teeth.  It would have been a fine relief route to I-64 and a direct Interstate standard connection from Richmond-Petersburg to South Hampton Roads.  It would have been opened 2016.  <vomit noises>

That administration was a joke. The only good thing I'd say he did for roads was raise the interstate speed limit to 70 MPH. As someone who heads north occasionally, I would be glad to pay the $5 toll to use the road each way. And it's not like it force anybody to use it - it would simply open up a new alternative to motorists looking to avoid congestion, or just already heading west on US-460. Similar to the TX-130 toll road built around Austin, Texas.

It was to be toll-assisted,  $3.70.  Well worth it.  It would have either relieved I-64 or forestalled traffic increases, and alleviated at least some of the need for some of the widening projects.

Quote from: Beltway on January 06, 2019, 12:00:36 AM

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 11:53:20 PM

Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 11:26:23 PM
Thank the corrupt McAuliff administration for their lies and incompetence and demagoguery on the US-460 freeway project.  They produced a bogus SEIS that quadrupled the claimed acres of wetlands impacts as compared to the FHWA approved FEIS from just a few years prior.  They lied thru their teeth.  It would have been a fine relief route to I-64 and a direct Interstate standard connection from Richmond-Petersburg to South Hampton Roads.  It would have been opened 2016.  <vomit noises>

That administration was a joke. The only good thing I'd say he did for roads was raise the interstate speed limit to 70 MPH. As someone who heads north occasionally, I would be glad to pay the $5 toll to use the road each way. And it's not like it force anybody to use it - it would simply open up a new alternative to motorists looking to avoid congestion, or just already heading west on US-460. Similar to the TX-130 toll road built around Austin, Texas.

It was to be toll-assisted,  $3.70.  Well worth it.  It would have either relieved I-64 or forestalled traffic increases, and alleviated at least some of the need for some of the widening projects.

Only $3.70 for 55 miles? I swear they said it was going to be higher. I'd pay that anyday, to avoid the nonsense that the HRBT, MMMBT, and James River can be during peak hours.

How much would VDOT have put into the project, how much would the private sector have put in, and out of all of it, how much would've been repaid strictly from the tolls collected?

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 06, 2019, 12:06:41 AM

Quote from: Beltway on January 06, 2019, 12:00:36 AM
It was to be toll-assisted,  $3.70.  Well worth it.  It would have either relieved I-64 or forestalled traffic increases, and alleviated at least some of the need for some of the widening projects.

Only $3.70 for 55 miles? I swear they said it was going to be higher. I'd pay that anyday, to avoid the nonsense that the HRBT, MMMBT, and James River can be during peak hours.
How much would VDOT have put into the project, how much would the private sector have put in, and out of all of it, how much would've been repaid strictly from the tolls collected?

I would have to look it up, I recall about 20% of the funding was toll revenue bonds, that is what I meant by toll assisted.  They had the contract signed and ready to go, but McAuliff torpedoed it to get back at the previous governor, and over $200 million of the contracted cost was lost.  <regurgitate>

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 11:53:20 PM

Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 11:26:23 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 10:00:57 PM
8 years later, 460 dead, no third crossing. We've made it a long way  :spin:

Thank the corrupt McAuliff administration for their lies and incompetence and demagoguery on the US-460 freeway project.  They produced a bogus SEIS that quadrupled the claimed acres of wetlands impacts as compared to the FHWA approved FEIS from just a few years prior.  They lied thru their teeth.  It would have been a fine relief route to I-64 and a direct Interstate standard connection from Richmond-Petersburg to South Hampton Roads.  It would have been opened 2016.  <vomit noises>

That administration was a joke. The only good thing I'd say he did for roads was raise the interstate speed limit to 70 MPH. As someone who heads north occasionally, I would be glad to pay the $5 toll to use the road each way. And it's not like it force anybody to use it - it would simply open up a new alternative to motorists looking to avoid congestion, or just already heading west on US-460. Similar to the TX-130 toll road built around Austin, Texas.

It'd be nice if it could be still done under a full private sector, however the demand is not there, and it would be environmentally shut down again. What a joke.

Bob McDonnell raised the speed limit to 70 in 2010. (http://www.nbc12.com/story/13356720/680-miles-of-va-interstates-going-to-70-mph-speed-limit/) 

No more political discussion. No name calling. No veiled references.

Thanks ... if something doesn't show up then I won't be tempted to reply to it!

Now that you see my analysis of the cancelation of the US-460 Freeway Project, I wonder how I should proceed?  It was inherently political, and back in 2013 when the cancelation was underway, I was a VDOT employee and I could have gotten canned if the wrong persons saw what I have posted recently about this project cancelation.  I am obviously outraged by this and the loss of this highway.

Something else that I have not seen any real discussion about regarding this project is the pavement condition of the existing US-460 highway, something would have been solved by relegating the existing highway to minor primary status with very little truck traffic, and "shunpiking" could have been prevented by repainting the rural sections of the highway with 2 traffic lanes and 2 full paved shoulders. 

The inner lanes are full depth asphalt and are the original 2-lane US-460.  The outer lanes were added in the 1940s and were concrete.  All this was rehabbed and overlaid with asphalt in the 1970s.  The concrete on the outer lanes is very old and needs complete replacement.  Periodic overlays leave things smooth for a year or so, but then concrete cracking and spalling leads to the "bump-de-bump ... bump-de-bump ... bump-bump ... bump-de-bump ... bump-bump ... bump-de-bump ..." ad infinitum, that you experience when you drive on that outer lane.  Truckers tell me that it is especially unpleasant in a large truck particularly in a dump truck. 

So the entire 59 miles of US-460 needs $50 to $100 million of pavement rebuilding if it is going to remain in service as the main highway.  That seems rather wasteful to spend that much money on a highway with an obsolete cross-section and obsolete profile.

Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2019, 02:02:34 PM
Thanks ... if something doesn't show up then I won't be tempted to reply to it!

Now that you see my analysis of the cancelation of the US-460 Freeway Project, I wonder how I should proceed?  It was inherently political, and back in 2013 when the cancelation was underway, I was a VDOT employee and I could have gotten canned if the wrong persons saw what I have posted recently about this project cancelation.  I am obviously outraged by this and the loss of this highway.

Something else that I have not seen any real discussion about regarding this project is the pavement condition of the existing US-460 highway, something would have been solved by relegating the existing highway to minor primary status with very little truck traffic, and "shunpiking" could have been prevented by repainting the rural sections of the highway with 2 traffic lanes and 2 full paved shoulders. 

The inner lanes are full depth asphalt and are the original 2-lane US-460.  The outer lanes were added in the 1940s and were concrete.  All this was rehabbed and overlaid with asphalt in the 1970s.  The concrete on the outer lanes is very old and needs complete replacement.  Periodic overlays leave things smooth for a year or so, but then concrete cracking and spalling leads to the "bump-de-bump ... bump-de-bump ... bump-bump ... bump-de-bump ... bump-bump ... bump-de-bump ..." ad infinitum, that you experience when you drive on that outer lane.  Truckers tell me that it is especially unpleasant in a large truck particularly in a dump truck. 

So the entire 59 miles of US-460 needs $50 to $100 million of pavement rebuilding if it is going to remain in service as the main highway.  That seems rather wasteful to spend that much money on a highway with an obsolete cross-section and obsolete profile.

What would be the possibilities of VDOT revisiting the project idea and looking at new alternate corridors that aren't as environmentally sensitive? They wanted a southern route, though it appears a more northern corridor has more farmland as opposed to swamp. Also, they could criss-cross, use part of the southern, and part of the northern and still make a full 55 mile new-location route. In some alignments, it wouldn't benefit the towns as much, but would still work perfectly fine. Doing that could also allow the project to be done in "phases" meaning the likelihood of too many wetlands being crossed / impacted at once would be reduced.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 07, 2019, 04:50:07 PM
[US-460 Freeway]
What would be the possibilities of VDOT revisiting the project idea and looking at new alternate corridors that aren't as environmentally sensitive? They wanted a southern route, though it appears a more northern corridor has more farmland as opposed to swamp. Also, they could criss-cross, use part of the southern, and part of the northern and still make a full 55 mile new-location route. In some alignments, it wouldn't benefit the towns as much, but would still work perfectly fine. Doing that could also allow the project to be done in "phases" meaning the likelihood of too many wetlands being crossed / impacted at once would be reduced.

The selected alternative was the best regarding environmental impacts,  IMHO.  A full relocation to the south.  Another advantage to building it in one full 59-mile project is that with the railroad being between the existing and new highway, there was no way to segmentize the project without having some low-volume temporary connectors. 

Rebuilding the existing highway to 5 modern lanes had less but still very substantial environmental impacts, and it really didn't have all that much improved service over the existing highway.  Cost was still over $800 million.

After the history of this project has unfolded with the contradictory FEIS and SEIS, I would say that the likelihood of any future real improvement project is dead -- D E A D.

VDOT will never be able to build it for the once-contracted $1.4 billion, that's for sure.  $23 million per mile for an Interstate-standard highway.  Good deal at an economic time when contractors were hungry and looking for work.

Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2019, 05:27:33 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 07, 2019, 04:50:07 PM
[US-460 Freeway]
What would be the possibilities of VDOT revisiting the project idea and looking at new alternate corridors that aren't as environmentally sensitive? They wanted a southern route, though it appears a more northern corridor has more farmland as opposed to swamp. Also, they could criss-cross, use part of the southern, and part of the northern and still make a full 55 mile new-location route. In some alignments, it wouldn't benefit the towns as much, but would still work perfectly fine. Doing that could also allow the project to be done in "phases" meaning the likelihood of too many wetlands being crossed / impacted at once would be reduced.

The selected alternative was the best regarding environmental impacts,  IMHO.  A full relocation to the south.  Another advantage to building it in one full 59-mile project is that with the railroad being between the existing and new highway, there was no way to segmentize the project without having some low-volume temporary connectors. 

Rebuilding the existing highway to 5 modern lanes had less but still very substantial environmental impacts, and it really didn't have all that much improved service over the existing highway.  Cost was still over $800 million.

After the history of this project has unfolded with the contradictory FEIS and SEIS, I would that the likelihood of any real improvement project is DEAD -- D E A D.

VDOT will never be able to built it for the once-contracted $1.4 billion, that's for sure.

What a shame. It hurts going back and seeing many older articles say "it will open in 2018". And it's true - improving the existing highway will cost significant, and not have the benefits of a full relocated corridor. Improving the highway will help the existing traffic that uses it, but it's little. Also, no tolls could be collected. Building a new location allows tolls, and a high-capacity, high speed bypass of the I-64 congestion corridor. I guess we have to live with what we got - a 4 lane highway, and nothing else. Literally only 4 full size lanes, no shoulders, and no median. I got a feeling eventually someone in the future will propose a new road be studied, and the whole process start all over again. But by that point it will cost $5+ billion.

The opportunity was there, the road got so close to construction, funding in place, but it had to die, similar to the long-awaited Southeastern Pkwy that tanked.

Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2019, 05:27:33 PM
$23 million per mile for an Interstate-standard highway.  Good deal at an economic time when contractors were hungry and looking for work.

Wasn't that also the reason the US-17 relocation got built so quickly, because it was extremely cheap and bids were low? At this point, it's gonna cost double to upgrade 17 to interstate standards than it did to build it initially.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 07, 2019, 05:40:18 PM

Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2019, 05:27:33 PM
$23 million per mile for an Interstate-standard highway.  Good deal at an economic time when contractors were hungry and looking for work.

Wasn't that also the reason the US-17 relocation got built so quickly, because it was extremely cheap and bids were low? At this point, it's gonna cost double to upgrade 17 to interstate standards than it did to build it initially.

Yes.  It was not "extremely cheap" but probably 40% lower than the initial project construction estimate.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 07, 2019, 05:38:59 PM

Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2019, 05:27:33 PM
VDOT will never be able to built it [US-460 Freeway] at the contracted $1.4 billion, that's for sure.

What a shame. It hurts going back and seeing many older articles say "it will open in 2018". And it's true - improving the existing highway will cost significant, and not have the benefits of a full relocated corridor. Improving the highway will help the existing traffic that uses it, but it's little. Also, no tolls could be collected. Building a new location allows tolls, and a high-capacity, high speed bypass of the I-64 congestion corridor. I guess we have to live with what we got - a 4 lane highway, and nothing else. Literally only 4 full size lanes, no shoulders, and no median. I got a feeling eventually someone in the future will propose a new road be studied, and the whole process start all over again. But by that point it will cost $5+ billion.

It has shoulders in some places, but in most places they are too narrow to contain a vehicle.  About 10 intersections have been rebuilt to have turn lanes, and that has definitely helped provide a brief segment of modern highway.  They are not "full size lanes", at least not on the original rural sections; it is a 42 foot wide roadway, I have measured it, so that is 10.5 foot lanes.

Five 12-foot lanes cannot be built thru Windsor, so at a minimum the town would have to be bypassed.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 07, 2019, 05:38:59 PM
The opportunity was there, the road got so close to construction, funding in place, but it had to die, similar to the long-awaited Southeastern Pkwy that tanked.

No comparison to the Southeastern Pkwy. whatsoever.  The US-460 NEPA process was complete (FEIS, ROD) and the contract for construction had been awarded.  There are limits to what I can say as the moderators have already objected when I got into the political aspects of how the project got killed.

^ From what I saw, it wasn't so much the political aspect itself as it was how you said it.

But I do have to ask what this all has to do with the Third Crossing?  I know we have a 460 thread somewhere around here...

Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 11:26:23 PM
Thank the corrupt McAuliff administration for their lies and incompetence and demagoguery on the US-460 freeway project.  They produced a bogus SEIS that quadrupled the claimed acres of wetlands impacts as compared to the FHWA approved FEIS from just a few years prior.

I strongly disagree (and I have no dog in this fight).

Jim Bacon (who runs the excellent Bacon's Rebellion site about Virginia politics [full disclosure: I know Jim slightly, and he ran a photograph of mine several years ago on his site]) said this (full article here (https://www.baconsrebellion.com/wp/closing-the-books-on-u-s-460-fiasco/)):

[Emphasis added]

QuoteThe settlement allows both sides to avoid a lengthy court fight.  The payments were made under a $1.4 billion contract to build an Interstate-quality highway on U.S. 460 to improve transportation access to Hampton Roads. Construction never commenced because the state could not obtain necessary wetlands permits from the U.S. Corps of Army Engineers. The McAuliffe administration does not dispute that US 460 billed and received the money legally, but argues that the company did not spend all money it received while waiting for the permitting issues to be resolved.

As I recall, the ACoE was questioning the volume of wetlands taken by the project even before McAuliffe became governor.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 07, 2019, 10:48:02 PM

Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 11:26:23 PM
Thank the corrupt McAuliff administration for their lies and incompetence and demagoguery on the US-460 freeway project.  They produced a bogus SEIS that quadrupled the claimed acres of wetlands impacts as compared to the FHWA approved FEIS from just a few years prior.

I strongly disagree (and I have no dog in this fight).
Jim Bacon (who runs the excellent Bacon's Rebellion site about Virginia politics [full disclosure: I know Jim slightly, and he ran a photograph of mine several years ago on his site]) said this (full article here (https://www.baconsrebellion.com/wp/closing-the-books-on-u-s-460-fiasco/)):

Jim Bacon is an anti-roads anti-mobility activist.  For that reason I have not gone to his website in years.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 07, 2019, 10:48:02 PM
[Emphasis added]

QuoteThe settlement allows both sides to avoid a lengthy court fight.  The payments were made under a $1.4 billion contract to build an Interstate-quality highway on U.S. 460 to improve transportation access to Hampton Roads. Construction never commenced because the state could not obtain necessary wetlands permits from the U.S. Corps of Army Engineers. The McAuliffe administration does not dispute that US 460 billed and received the money legally, but argues that the company did not spend all money it received while waiting for the permitting issues to be resolved.

Yes, that was the excuse that they used.  The fact is as I pointed out an 8-year full NEPA process was completed and approved by FHWA in 2011.  The contract was awarded in 2012 and 0bama's ACOE refused to issue the wetlands permits which should have been a routine approval at that point.  After McAuliffe came in in 2013 he got VDOT to issue a bogus SEIS that claimed over 600 acres of wetlands impacts.  The FHWA-approved FEIS from 2011 said 128 acres.  Something is rotten in Denmark here, or was back in 2013.  Wetlands areas don't just magically quintuple in 3 years.

Quote from: froggie on January 07, 2019, 10:42:30 PM
^ From what I saw, it wasn't so much the political aspect itself as it was how you said it.

No big deal, the post I replied to got deleted by moderation as well.

Quote from: froggie on January 07, 2019, 10:42:30 PM
But I do have to ask what this all has to do with the Third Crossing?  I know we have a 460 thread somewhere around here...

It started when I replied to a post that lamented there being no third crossing and no new US-460.
"8 years later, 460 dead, no third crossing"

The moderators are welcome to move all these recent US-460 posts to the US-460 thread, if they want.

Quote from: froggie on January 07, 2019, 10:56:41 PM
As I recall, the ACoE was questioning the volume of wetlands taken by the project even before McAuliffe became governor.

I think that is correct.  Note that I do not know what the merits of those questioning (presumably Army Corps of Engineers staff, maybe also EPA Region III staff) might have been.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 08, 2019, 01:07:58 AM

Quote from: froggie on January 07, 2019, 10:56:41 PM
As I recall, the ACoE was questioning the volume of wetlands taken by the project even before McAuliffe became governor.

I think that is correct.  Note that I do not know what the merits of those questioning (presumably Army Corps of Engineers staff, maybe also EPA Region III staff) might have been.

The ACOE concurred with the alternative presented in the FEIS and ROD that FHWA approved in 2011.

Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2019, 01:23:55 AM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 08, 2019, 01:07:58 AM

Quote from: froggie on January 07, 2019, 10:56:41 PM
As I recall, the ACoE was questioning the volume of wetlands taken by the project even before McAuliffe became governor.

I think that is correct.  Note that I do not know what the merits of those questioning (presumably Army Corps of Engineers staff, maybe also EPA Region III staff) might have been.

The ACOE concurred with the alternative presented in the FEIS and ROD that FHWA approved in 2011.

Did they concur enough to sign-off on a record of decision?  IIRC, one was never signed for the U.S. 460 improvement project.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 08, 2019, 03:34:42 PM

Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2019, 01:23:55 AM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 08, 2019, 01:07:58 AM
I think that is correct.  Note that I do not know what the merits of those questioning (presumably Army Corps of Engineers staff, maybe also EPA Region III staff) might have been.

The ACOE concurred with the alternative presented in the FEIS and ROD that FHWA approved in 2011.

Did they concur enough to sign-off on a record of decision?  IIRC, one was never signed for the U.S. 460 improvement project.

ACOE does not sign a ROD.  Just the FHWA Division Administrator.

Not sure if it is online, but I have a pdf document of the ROD, and it was signed by Roberto Fonseca-Martinez in Sept. 2008.  (I was a few years off on the year, FEIS and ROD signed in 2008).

Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2019, 05:38:47 PM
ACOE does not sign a ROD.  Just the FHWA Division Administrator.

Not sure if it is online, but I have a pdf document of the ROD, and it was signed by Roberto Fonseca-Martinez in Sept. 2008.  (I was a few years off on the year, FEIS and ROD signed in 2008).

The federal resource agencies do not sign it, but I not believe that an ROD will get signed by FHWA if they have significant objection to a given project.