News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

The Hampton Roads Third Crossing Project

Started by deathtopumpkins, January 18, 2009, 11:30:59 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Which would you prefer?

Third Crossing
9 (47.4%)
Widen the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel
10 (52.6%)

Total Members Voted: 19

froggie

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) 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.


Beltway

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) 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.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

froggie

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.


Beltway

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.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

broadhurst04

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?

Alps

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.

broadhurst04

#31

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?

froggie

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.

3467

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.

Beltway

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.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Beltway

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.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

jwolfer

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

Beltway

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.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

jwolfer

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  :)


Beltway

#39
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 ...


http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

froggie

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

Beltway

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.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Pink Jazz

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.

cpzilliacus

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. 
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Pink Jazz

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.

ARMOURERERIC

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

jeffandnicole

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.

roadman65

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.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

cpzilliacus

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.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

froggie

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.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.