AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Author Topic: Virginia  (Read 1668605 times)

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6782
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: August 04, 2020, 05:54:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4500 on: September 19, 2019, 02:27:29 PM »

The result looks good for this board, how to copy from an Excel spreadsheet and put it in table format here.
if you're coming from a spreadsheet and you're comfortable, just insert columns with the relevant tags before/between/after the data columns, and then have a final column that concatenates everything into a single text string with the row info. you can then just copy/paste that column and you've got your html/bbcode/wikicode/whatever table.
Working on a table of 4-lane Arterial Highways (now in the NHS) in Virginia, segment by segment.  Using Google Maps and other websites for the length data.  It is estimable by segment at least to the tenth mile and pretty near if not at the hundredth of a mile.

I will go ahead and post what I have for the US-220 segment which has had a lot of discussion.
Might need Full Screen / F11 for best formatting.

US-220 between N.C. border and I-81
ROUTE SEGMENT DESCRIPTIONCOUNTYDESIGNMILES
220 Between NC/VA border and Ridgeway BypassHenry Countynon-limited-access     3.02
220 Ridgeway BypassHenry Countyexpressway     1.35
220 Between Ridgeway Bypass and Martinsville Bypass   Henry Countynon-limited-access        2.44
220 Martinsville Bypass US-220 segmentHenry Countyfreeway   11.61
220   Martinsville Bypass to Rocky Mount BypassHenry and Franklin countiesnon-limited-access   17.89
220   Rocky Mount BypassFranklin Countyfreeway     4.97
220   Between Rocky Mount Bypass and Southwest Expwy.  Franklin and Roanoke counties  non-limited-access   18.01
220Roy Webber Highway (Southwest Expressway)  City of Roanokefreeway     3.54
220I-581 / US-220City of Roanokefreeway     6.75
TOTAL   69.58

Summary for US-220 between N.C. border and I-81
DESIGNMILES      PCT.
Non-limited-access  41.36  59.46%
Expressway    1.35    1.94%
Freeway  26.87  38.60%
TOTAL  69.58100.00%
   
 
« Last Edit: September 19, 2019, 02:35:29 PM by Beltway »
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

famartin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1101
  • Location: Trenton NJ area
  • Last Login: December 24, 2023, 11:01:16 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4501 on: September 19, 2019, 02:39:18 PM »

Interesting conflict over what seemed like a relatively straightforward project:
 https://loudounnow.com/2019/09/04/battle-brews-over-possibility-of-rt-9-closure/
Quote
Hillsboro leaders are pushing ahead with a new plan to get their long-planned Pedestrian Safety and Traffic Calming Project under construction after the first round of bids came in too far over budget. But the proposal is coming under fire from out-of-state commuters who could be forced to find new routes to work.

Although town leaders were set to re-advertise for construction bids last Thursday, that action was delayed to allow the exploration of an alternative that could save millions of dollars while getting the work complete within a year–and two years earlier than expected.

To accomplish those goals, the Rt. 9 work zone in the town would have to be closed entirely to through traffic for nine to 11 months, starting as early as February. That would be expected to have the greatest impact on commuters from West Virginia and Maryland, responsible for about 16,000 of the 17,000 vehicles moving through the town each day.

That option was discussed with regional public safety leaders during an Aug. 28 briefing where Hillsboro Mayor Roger Vance and other project managers sought input on challenges that would come with the plan. Rather than a dialogue on the alternatives, the meeting sparked strong objections from Clarke County leaders, who issued a statement warning that diverting Rt. 9 traffic flowing from West Virginia and Maryland on to Rt. 7 and Rt. 340, as well as local roads, would have significant impact. A statement issued by the county warned that, “As a result of the additional traffic, more people will be injured or killed on these roads,”  and that “The cost of greatly increased traffic–EMS, law enforcement, and road maintenance—will be borne by the localities in which they occur.”

Vance said he was surprised by the tone of the criticism and that elements of the statement were “a clear misrepresentation of the facts.”  He said the town was “working closely with VDOT on alternatives to the maintenance of traffic plan to save time, ensure product quality, save taxpayer money and ensure a safer work zone.”

While this project may alleviate slowdowns through Hillsboro, it does nothing to address the slowdowns occurring at the VA-287 light and the eastbound merge onto VA-7. In my opinion, a straight shot 4-lane bypass from just west of Hillsboro to VA-7 around the Round Hill area should've been built a long time ago. However, NIMBYism in Western Loudoun prevailed.

It’s a traffic calming and pedestrian safety project. Ie, it’s all about slowing down traffic, not improving flow. Loudoun County is strongly against any improvement to VA 9, and they love hurting those people who have moved into Jefferson County due to the outrageous cost of living in Loudoun.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6782
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: August 04, 2020, 05:54:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4502 on: September 19, 2019, 02:59:41 PM »

It’s a traffic calming and pedestrian safety project. Ie, it’s all about slowing down traffic, not improving flow. Loudoun County is strongly against any improvement to VA 9, and they love hurting those people who have moved into Jefferson County due to the outrageous cost of living in Loudoun.
Like the "traffic calming" projects on US-50 thru Aldie, Gilberts Corner and Middleburg.

Does nothing to improve traffic, just something to satisfy the demands of the RE/T groups.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8829
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:46:42 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4503 on: September 19, 2019, 04:43:45 PM »

In my opinion, a straight shot 4-lane bypass from just west of Hillsboro to VA-7 around the Round Hill area should've been built a long time ago.
Agreed. The 20 mile stretch through West Virginia is fully 4-lane limited-access, with half of it being a full freeway design. As soon as you enter Virginia, it's 13 miles of 2-lane windy roads. Ideally a relocation of VA-9 is needed built to freeway or at the minimum limited-access standards, and the interchange tie in with VA-7 Bypass needs to be redesigned to have a free-flowing movement. Finally, VA-7 needs to be upgraded to freeway standards from VA-7 Bypass to the Leesburg Bypass.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2019, 04:46:39 PM by sprjus4 »
Logged

Jmiles32

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 606
  • Age: 23
  • Location: Blacksburg, VA
  • Last Login: October 03, 2023, 02:52:13 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4504 on: September 19, 2019, 08:58:53 PM »

It’s a traffic calming and pedestrian safety project. Ie, it’s all about slowing down traffic, not improving flow. Loudoun County is strongly against any improvement to VA 9, and they love hurting those people who have moved into Jefferson County due to the outrageous cost of living in Loudoun.
Like the "traffic calming" projects on US-50 thru Aldie, Gilberts Corner and Middleburg.

Does nothing to improve traffic, just something to satisfy the demands of the RE/T groups.

Based off of my own experiences and google maps traffic, the US-50/US-15 roundabouts in particular seem to consistently back up during peak traffic periods.
Logged
Aspiring Transportation Planner at Virginia Tech. Go Hokies!

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6782
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: August 04, 2020, 05:54:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4505 on: September 19, 2019, 09:12:16 PM »

Like the "traffic calming" projects on US-50 thru Aldie, Gilberts Corner and Middleburg.
Does nothing to improve traffic, just something to satisfy the demands of the RE/T groups.
Based off of my own experiences and google maps traffic, the US-50/US-15 roundabouts in particular seem to consistently back up during peak traffic periods.

Undoubtedly that was the intent and desire of the radical environmentalist/transit groups.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

BrianP

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 564
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 05:57:45 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4506 on: September 20, 2019, 11:33:42 AM »

It’s a traffic calming and pedestrian safety project. Ie, it’s all about slowing down traffic, not improving flow. Loudoun County is strongly against any improvement to VA 9, and they love hurting those people who have moved into Jefferson County due to the outrageous cost of living in Loudoun.
Like the "traffic calming" projects on US-50 thru Aldie, Gilberts Corner and Middleburg.

Does nothing to improve traffic, just something to satisfy the demands of the RE/T groups.

Based off of my own experiences and google maps traffic, the US-50/US-15 roundabouts in particular seem to consistently back up during peak traffic periods.
How does it compare to the traffic signals that were there?  I haven't been there in peak times.  But in other times that I've been there the roundabouts handle the traffic better than the traffic signals did.  I've only traveled on US 15 through there. 
Logged

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4353
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 54
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 08:31:54 PM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4507 on: September 20, 2019, 12:34:43 PM »

It’s a traffic calming and pedestrian safety project. Ie, it’s all about slowing down traffic, not improving flow. Loudoun County is strongly against any improvement to VA 9, and they love hurting those people who have moved into Jefferson County due to the outrageous cost of living in Loudoun.
Like the "traffic calming" projects on US-50 thru Aldie, Gilberts Corner and Middleburg.

Does nothing to improve traffic, just something to satisfy the demands of the RE/T groups.

Based off of my own experiences and google maps traffic, the US-50/US-15 roundabouts in particular seem to consistently back up during peak traffic periods.
How does it compare to the traffic signals that were there?  I haven't been there in peak times.  But in other times that I've been there the roundabouts handle the traffic better than the traffic signals did.  I've only traveled on US 15 through there. 

I haven't been that way much since the roundabouts opened but used to drive US 15 to Frederick often when it was still a stoplight.  US 15's traffic rarely backed up much but US 50 was often backed up in both directions from US 15.
Logged

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 16384
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 04:22:06 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4508 on: September 20, 2019, 01:05:13 PM »

When I go through that area, I'm almost always on US-50 and I've found it to be considerably faster since the roundabouts opened, though I should note I have never been through there at rush hour.
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

Jmiles32

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 606
  • Age: 23
  • Location: Blacksburg, VA
  • Last Login: October 03, 2023, 02:52:13 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4509 on: September 20, 2019, 02:28:42 PM »

It’s a traffic calming and pedestrian safety project. Ie, it’s all about slowing down traffic, not improving flow. Loudoun County is strongly against any improvement to VA 9, and they love hurting those people who have moved into Jefferson County due to the outrageous cost of living in Loudoun.
Like the "traffic calming" projects on US-50 thru Aldie, Gilberts Corner and Middleburg.

Does nothing to improve traffic, just something to satisfy the demands of the RE/T groups.

Based off of my own experiences and google maps traffic, the US-50/US-15 roundabouts in particular seem to consistently back up during peak traffic periods.
How does it compare to the traffic signals that were there?  I haven't been there in peak times.  But in other times that I've been there the roundabouts handle the traffic better than the traffic signals did.  I've only traveled on US 15 through there. 

To be clear, I am not saying that the intersection has gotten worse thanks to the roundabouts. In fact, quite the contrary on most occasions. However, as both Loudoun and Prince William County's populations continue to skyrocket over the next few decades, I would not be surprised if this "rural" intersection gets quickly overwhelmed as it has already shown signs of during rush hour. I expect traffic on US-15, in particular, to increase a lot as it is one of the few good routes connecting the two counties. Tons of growth is also occurring just east of the roundabouts off of US-50 in Lenah. In the end, I'm just not sure whether or not those traffic calming(slowing) roundabouts are the permanent solution there. A further improved intersection, widenings, or even a small interchange are all possible improvements IMO.
Logged
Aspiring Transportation Planner at Virginia Tech. Go Hokies!

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8829
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:46:42 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4510 on: September 20, 2019, 05:09:00 PM »

^ A concept for that area could be to construct a ~20 mile freeway between I-66 and Leesburg. This would not only provide a multi-lane alignment for US-15, it would also be the first piece of the Washington Western Bypass constructed in Virginia. It presumably could be constructed as 4-lanes initially designed to be expanded out to 6 lanes (i.e. 22-24 ft shoulders on overpasses, 60-70 ft median designed specifically to be built into, etc.) when and if it's ever linked to I-70 to the north and I-95 to the south and there's an influx of traffic.

A freeway could follow the general path of the Western Bypass alternative selected in the 90s, however it would likely to need to modified and potentially re-routed further west to avoid impacts to newer developments and the Leesburg area that did not exist when that study was completed. It would have to be close enough to US-15 at the same time however to actually serve as a US-15 Bypass.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8829
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:46:42 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4511 on: September 20, 2019, 09:57:55 PM »

New flyover ramp to I-264 east opens, relieving longtime bottlenecks
Quote
The backups were notorious.

On any given day or time, drivers on Interstate 64 west trying to turn onto I-264 to Virginia Beach often found themselves stuck in traffic as they jockeyed with the long line of drivers trying to exit at Newtown Road.

But a new flyover span that opened Friday should help cut down on the bottlenecks.

The 1,000-foot-long ramp, which took roughly three years to build, provides a new connection from I-64 west to I-264 east.

The first drivers to use it were allowed access at 12:45 a.m. Friday. About 100,000 vehicles are expected to travel on it each day.

“Opening this new ramp is a crucial step in improving one of the busiest interchanges in Hampton Roads,”  Chris Hall, a district engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation, said in a news release.

Department staff spent much of Friday monitoring traffic flow on the new feeder and have been pleased with how it’s moving, said Jordan-Ashley Walker, a VDOT spokeswoman.

“Right now, so far, so good,”  Walker said. “They’ve been watching it, and as far as we know, the ramp has been doing what it was designed to do.”

The department, however, asks drivers to use extra caution as they become accustomed to the new route.

“It can take people some time to get used to a new traffic pattern, so we ask that they slow down, take a little extra time and be mindful of their surroundings,”  Walker said.

VDOT had hoped to open the bridge last month, but had to delay after realizing more work was needed for it to pass inspection.

The ramp was part of the first phase of a project to improve the interchanges at I-264 and I-64. The rest of the initial phase – which includes finishing up construction on I-264 where the new ramp connects to the highway and building a sound wall along I-64 – should be done later this fall.

Construction on the second phase, which started last year, includes extending a newly built road from the interchange at Newtown Road to the one at Witchduck Road, and reconfiguring the south side of both of those interchanges.

Phase one cost $158.7 million, and the price tag for the second part is $194.5 million, Walker said.

Another significant aspect involves building a flyover across I-264 to connect Greenwich Road on the south side to Cleveland Street on the north. That span will reduce congestion at Witchduck Road, Walker said.

That work is scheduled to be finished by fall 2021.

Drone footage of the interchange can be found here - https://www.pilotonline.com/c26b057e-c85d-4f86-bf00-07f24ad942ae-132.html

Tried out the ramp earlier, roughly around 6 pm, and the impact of the ramp on traffic flow was immediately visible. There was still a backup on the flyover itself + the merge onto I-264, however there was no congestion or backups on I-64 itself which in the past would previously backup for at least a mile. Also, another nice feature is no longer having to deal with the Newtown Rd interchange, and the influx of traffic attempting to exit there.

The ramp opens up to 2-lanes though drops back down to 1 as it merges with I-264 East, then that lane drops off - likely the result of the congestion. However, that choke point should be eliminated once Phase 2 is completed in 2021, where there will be two continuous lanes onto I-264 East that will traverse for at least a mile where one of them will become exit only and the other will transition into the shoulder lane - another major capacity increase over the current - albeit temporary - configuration.

Some pictures from earlier -





« Last Edit: September 20, 2019, 10:04:03 PM by sprjus4 »
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6782
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: August 04, 2020, 05:54:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4512 on: September 20, 2019, 10:27:10 PM »

The ramp opens up to 2-lanes though drops back down to 1 as it merges with I-264 East, then that lane drops off - likely the result of the congestion. However, that choke point should be eliminated once Phase 2 is completed in 2021, where there will be two continuous lanes onto I-264 East that will traverse for at least a mile where one of them will become exit only and the other will transition into the shoulder lane - another major capacity increase over the current - albeit temporary - configuration.
I drove thru there today at about 2:00 pm.  Nicely done.  Turned around at Witchduck Road and headed back west, and observed the similar type project that was completed about 15 years ago on the westbound side, multi-lane CD roadway and the expansion of the northwest quadrant of the I-64/I-264 interchange.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8829
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:46:42 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4513 on: September 20, 2019, 11:22:16 PM »

VDOT Set to Embark on Its Largest Project Ever
Quote
The I-64 Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel (HRBT) in southeastern Virginia is at the beginning of an expansion project to help ease congestion in the area. The project, which comes with a price tag numbering in the billions, is the Virginia Department of Transportation's largest in history.

The job is designed to provide congestion relief, increase capacity and improve safety along a 10-mile corridor in addition to supporting emergency evacuation readiness, enhancing travel time reliability and updating transportation management systems. More than 100,000 vehicles per day use the current HRBT crossing during peak travel periods.

Work includes the addition of twin two-lane bored tunnels just west of the existing tunnel and the widening of the four-lane segments of the I-64 corridor in the cities of Hampton and Norfolk. According to Paula Miller, VDOT's communications manager of the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Expansion Project, the diameter of each new tunnel will be approximately 45 ft. wide, creating the second largest tunnel opening for a tunnel boring machine in North America.

Miller stated that this is only the fourth bored roadway tunnel project in the United States. She noted that the $3.8 billion project is still in the design and permitting phase. It is a design-build project expected to begin major construction in the spring of 2020. VDOT awarded a contract to Warren George Inc. for early marine geotechnical investigations and laboratory analysis of soil samples, and Warren began conducting its field work in the fall of 2017.

"Currently, the 3.5-mile area consists of double two-lane immersed-tube tunnels on artificial islands, with trestle bridges to shore," Miller said. "These tunnels opened in 1957 [current westbound lanes] and 1976 [eastbound lanes] and are approximately 7,500 ft. long."

The VDOT project is enabled with funding from the Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission. A comprehensive agreement between Commonwealth of Virginia and Hampton Roads Connector Partners was signed in April 2019.

According to Miller, the majority of the construction will occur from late 2020 to 2025. Completion is expected in November 2025, but financial incentives are in place for early completion beginning in April 2025.

Construction joint venture partners are Dragados USA, Vinci Construction, Flatiron Constructors and Dodin Campenon Bernard. Design joint venture partners are HDR and Mott MacDonald. Additionally, Dragados USA is the project executive and Jim Utterback is the project director of VDOT. The application for state and federal permits is currently being prepared.

Miller stated that construction of the custom tunnel boring machine (TBM) is expected to begin this spring. It will be assembled in a 65-foot pit on the south island of the HRBT and will measure the length of a football field. The TBM will launch from the south island, bore a tunnel to the north island, turn, and then bore a parallel tunnel back to the south island. Tunnel boring is expected to begin in February 2022 (Norfolk to Hampton first, then Hampton to Norfolk parallel tube) and will be completed by April 2024.

Two lanes of traffic (current capacity) will be maintained in both directions throughout construction. This means that the TBM will do its work as travelers continue to move throughout the area. This includes regular vehicles, cargo ships and Navy vessels.

The new tunnels will be approximately 50 ft. deeper than the current tunnels and will be 8,000 ft. each in length. The twin two-lane tunnels will carry all eastbound traffic. The existing eastbound tunnel and current westbound tunnel will accommodate all westbound traffic upon project completion.

Landside widening of I-64 also will occur from Settlers Landing Road in Hampton to I-564 in Norfolk. One mile of I-64 widening is located in Hampton, and 4 miles of I-64 widening is located in Norfolk. Widening will go from four lanes to six lanes, plus a part-time drivable shoulder lane in each direction. Miller reported that one of the technical challenges of the project is the limited right-of-way for the roadway and bridges.

Throughout construction, a total of 27 bridge structures are to be replaced or rebuilt (widened).

DBE and SWaM firms will play an important role in the expansion work. The DBE goal for the project is 12 percent and the SWaM goal is 20 percent. Once the project is under way, time-lapse cameras will capture the construction progress.

Miller noted that manpower for the project will include 1,200 to 1,500 craft labor force at project peak. Besides the TBM, equipment used on the job will include a 600-ton crane to offload TBM equipment, more than 30 other cranes, over 20 barges and more than 10 tugboats.

HDR and Mott MacDonald are subcontractors for project design and permitting work. Other contractors are still under review and in the procurement process. Key stakeholders are the U.S. Navy (Naval Station Norfolk), U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, City of Norfolk, City of Hampton and various utilities.

A total of 600,000 cu. yds. of concrete will be used during construction and 200,000 cu. yds. of earth will be moved during the roadway widening portion of project. A total of 1.2 million cu. yds. of earth will be moved during the tunnel boring portion of the project. Approximately 600,000 cu. yds. of earth will be imported to expand existing islands.

"The project will create an estimated 28,000 new jobs over the life of the project and will bolster the competitiveness of the Hampton Roads region with $4.6 billion in investments," Miller stated.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6782
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: August 04, 2020, 05:54:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4514 on: September 20, 2019, 11:43:55 PM »

Quote
Miller stated that this is only the fourth bored roadway tunnel project in the United States.
Referring to underwater tunnels only?  I believe that all or nearly all mountain tunnels are bored.

Quote
Quote
The new tunnels will be approximately 50 ft. deeper than the current tunnels and will be 8,000 ft. each in length. The twin two-lane tunnels will carry all eastbound traffic. The existing eastbound tunnel and current westbound tunnel will accommodate all westbound traffic upon project completion.
Deeper and longer.  Why 50 feet deeper?  Any desire for a deeper shipping channel would be limited by the existing tunnels, and unless they want to replace and remove those tunnels (and that would be fantastically expensive) then they will rule the depth of the channel.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8829
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:46:42 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4515 on: September 21, 2019, 12:15:05 AM »

observed the similar type project that was completed about 15 years ago on the westbound side, multi-lane CD roadway and the expansion of the northwest quadrant of the I-64/I-264 interchange.
That project was completed sometime in the 1980s, over 30 years ago.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12911
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 11:08:21 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4516 on: September 21, 2019, 06:05:01 PM »

Deeper and longer.  Why 50 feet deeper?  Any desire for a deeper shipping channel would be limited by the existing tunnels, and unless they want to replace and remove those tunnels (and that would be fantastically expensive) then they will rule the depth of the channel.

Needed to go deeper in order to have enough bedrock to bore through.  As you've well-documented, the existing tunnels were not bored but were sunk into place into a shallow trench dug into the water bottom.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6782
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: August 04, 2020, 05:54:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4517 on: September 21, 2019, 06:18:55 PM »

Deeper and longer.  Why 50 feet deeper?  Any desire for a deeper shipping channel would be limited by the existing tunnels, and unless they want to replace and remove those tunnels (and that would be fantastically expensive) then they will rule the depth of the channel.
Needed to go deeper in order to have enough bedrock to bore through.  As you've well-documented, the existing tunnels were not bored but were sunk into place into a shallow trench dug into the water bottom.
Are they planning to go thru bedrock or sandy clay soils?

Although the immersed-tube method was used to construct all ten of Hampton Roads’
existing crossings — from the original Downtown Tunnel in 1952 to the new Midtown
Tunnel in 2016 — recent technology advances have now made bored tunnels feasible in
the region’s soft soils.


https://www.constructionglobal.com/infrastructure/boring-machines-called-33bn-virginia-infrastructure-project
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12911
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 11:08:21 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4518 on: September 21, 2019, 06:52:56 PM »

Either or.  Bottom line is they need the additional depth below the water bottom for boring.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6782
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: August 04, 2020, 05:54:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4519 on: September 21, 2019, 10:13:48 PM »

Either or.  Bottom line is they need the additional depth below the water bottom for boring.
I don't recall that being cited as an issue on the Thimble Shoal Tunnel project, but they may have different soils there.

In any event, that could be a tradeoff in the decision between immersed tube and bored tunnel methods.  Immersed tube method needs much higher amounts of excavation and such excavation involves the ground surface with its environmental impacts, while the bored tunnel method does not disrupt the ground surface.

If a bored tunnel needs to go deeper, then that would make the tunnel longer unless the approach grades were made steeper. 
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

Vagator

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: August 10, 2020, 09:23:40 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4520 on: September 22, 2019, 12:48:47 PM »

[url]https://www.pilotonline.com/news/transportation/dp-nw-toll-lanes-20190922-5mjp7xosx5ghnjtns3wq77r3iy-story.html/url]

Quote
State and regional officials are proposing a 45-mile network of toll lanes for drivers who want to avoid traffic jams on Interstate 64. It would stretch all the way from the Jefferson Avenue exit in Newport News to the end of the road at Bowers Hill in Chesapeake.

It’s a major expansion of earlier proposals for HOT (or high occupancy/toll) lanes, which charge variable tolls to solo drivers while allowing those with passengers to travel free. A plan discussed earlier this year called for about 25 miles of pay lanes, beginning in Hampton instead of Newport News.

The aim is to have the system in place by 2025, with the opening of the additional Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel tubes and causeways carrying a total of four lanes.

HOT lanes are already operating on the reversible lanes in Norfolk between I-564 and I-264 and are planned for some of the new HRBT lanes and approaches.

The new approach would:

block off a lane between Jefferson Avenue and Mercury Boulevard on the Peninsula with bollards, and install electronic toll devices, creating an HOT lane on this roughly eight-mile portion of the highway;
widen the highway between Mercury Boulevard and Rip Rap Road in Hampton to create a second HOT lane next to the one that starts at Jefferson Avenue. There would be no bollards on this stretch, to allow drivers to exit at I-664 or to enter the HOT lanes from I-664. This and the extension west to Jefferson Avenue represent a major change from earlier plans and came in response to safety concerns raised by Hampton Mayor Donnie Tuck, state and regional officials said;
create what transportation officials are calling a pipe – HOT lanes separated by bollards from the rest of the highway – feeding directly into one of the two new tunnel tubes between Rip Rap and the HRBT;
convert the left-side shoulder lanes between I-564 and I-264 to handle HOT traffic at rush hour, with the eastbound HOT shoulder lane open when the existing, reversible HOT lanes are open to westbound traffic, and the westbound shoulder lane opened when the reversible lanes are handling eastbound traffic;
convert the free lanes currently reserved for cars with two or more passengers between I-264 and I-464 in Virginia Beach and Chesapeake to HOT lanes;
add an HOT lane to the stretch of I-64 between I-464 and Bowers Hill.
VDOT’s analysis of future peak travel speeds if the new system is in place by 2025 show HOT lanes mostly operating at average speeds of 55 to 60 mph, except for some slowdowns from Northampton Boulevard to I-264 and from Indian River Road to Greenbrier Parkway in the evening. There would be more severe slowdowns on adjacent free lanes on those stretches, too.

Those free lanes should also generally move at 55 to 60 – even on the approaches to the HRBT – although the free lanes from I-264 to I-464 will slow to average speeds in the teens and 20s, the analyses show.

Other slowdowns on free lanes would occur in the evening traveling from J. Clyde Morris Boulevard to Victory Boulevard on the Peninsula, and around the George Washington Highway exit in Chesapeake in the morning.

VDOT expects tie-ups will continue around Bowers Hill, as traffic weaves between the connections to I-664, I-264, U.S. 460 and U.S. 58.

The generally free flows elsewhere may not continue forever – analyses by the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization shows most of the free lanes will slide back to congested conditions in 2040, if traffic grows at the expected pace.

The staff analysis also showed adding HOT lanes would not bring more drivers on to Hampton city streets in the hopes of avoiding both traffic jams and paying for the HOT lanes.

And even in 2040, the HOT lanes should continue to flow fairly easily, HRTPO staff project.

That’s basically built in, since the variable tolls charged to solo drivers are designed to discourage people from opting for HOT lanes when speeds on them slow to 45 miles an hour.

Vehicles with two or more passengers would need to have a transponder that allows them to signal when they are entitled to travel free on HOT lanes.

Tuck, the Hampton mayor, said he was pleased by the new plan, which addresses his worries about safety from weaving traffic around the LaSalle Avenue exit that he thought would occur under VDOT’s original suggestion to start the HOT lanes there.

And Commonwealth Transportation Board member W. Sheppard Miller III, a business owner from Norfolk, said he was pleased that the new plan would convert only small stretch of currently free lanes to HOT traffic, referring to the stretch around LaSalle, where the planned widening of the highway would allow two HOT and two free lanes where traffic now moves on three lanes.

The cost of that road widening, as well as work to ensure smooth traffic flow between I-564 and I-264, still has to be decided. Other unanswered questions include whether to charge HOT tolls to solo drivers through the HRBT and whether the trigger for free travel on HOT lanes should be two or three people to a car.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8829
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:46:42 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4521 on: September 22, 2019, 01:25:38 PM »

I was reviewing the presentations given at the HRTPO meeting on Sept. 19th, and they had some interesting analysis on this whole "HO/T network".

Three things that stood out that continue to go against this whole "HO/T network" -

  • The High Rise Bridge corridor would operate at a LOS D with all general purpose lanes, and a LOS E with HO/T lanes in the LOS 2040 AM map. In the LOS 2040 PM map, both scenarios operate at a LOS E.
  • The segment between the HRBT and I-664 would operate at a LOS D with all general purpose lanes (the current setup), and a LOS D with HO/T lanes in the LOS 2040 AM map. In the LOS 2040 PM map, the general purpose scenario operates at a LOS E, and a LOS F with the HO/T lane scenario.
  • All of the other proposed HO/T segments, such as I-464 to I-264 (Norfolk), I-664 to Jefferson Ave, and HRBT to I-564, maintain a LOS E or F (on each respective segment) on either scenario for the LOS 2040 AM map, and LOS F on either scenario for the LOS 2040 PM map. The only areas there's improvement is on the existing HO/T lane segment.

My overall thoughts is that this "HO/T network" is not really going to alleviate traffic congestion issues in the Hampton Roads region, and in some areas will make it worse. The only benefit of the HO/T lane scenario over the GP lane scenario is that you have at least one lane guaranteed to be moving at free-flowing speeds. But looking at the overall operation and LOS of each roadway, it does not make an improvement, or makes it worse such as the HRBT approach and the HRB corridor. And to add to that, HO/T lanes don't seem to be a popular thing here as they are in areas such as Northern Virginia. I think these projects need to be more focused at adding much-needed general purpose capacity, and adding 1 HOV (or HO/T) lane in each direction where there's at least 3 or more GP lanes each way, rather than making HO/T the solution for every project. For instance, the segment around the I-464 / I-64 interchange has a poor LOS and obviously the HO/T lanes could divert some of this traffic. But a way to improve the LOS of all traffic could be to entirely reconstruct the substandard and poorly designed interchange and allow traffic to move faster thru it, eliminating the weaving movements which cause the biggest issues, the double lane drop between the VA-168 Bus and I-464 interchange, etc. And the biggest thing I would oppose is the proposed conversion of an existing free lane in Hampton to a HO/T lane - no existing general purpose lane should be converted simply to satisfy this "network" - and as the LOS maps show, would also make the congestion worse in this area. Lastly, I think the HRTPO needs to focus on studying the segment between Indian River Rd and I-564, which is a segment that has a number of issues, poor interchange designs for today's traffic needs, the drop to only 2 lanes heading west by I-264, etc. - as far as I'm aware, all they want to do is widen the left shoulder and add a "HO/T shoulder" to allow bi-directional travel - again, simply to satisfy this "HO/T network" and not look at the big picture.

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/091919%2005%20HRTPO%20Staff%20-%20I-64%20Express%20Lanes%20Concept%202040%20Analysis.pdf

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/091919%2005%20VDOT%20Staff%20-%20HAMPTON%20ROADS%20REGIONAL%20NETWORK%20OPERATIONAL%20STUDY%20%E2%80%93%20PRELIMINARY%20RESULTS.pdf
« Last Edit: September 22, 2019, 01:36:06 PM by sprjus4 »
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6782
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: August 04, 2020, 05:54:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4522 on: September 22, 2019, 01:55:33 PM »

My overall thoughts is that this "HO/T network" is not really going to alleviate traffic congestion issues in the Hampton Roads region, and in some areas will make it worse. The only benefit of the HO/T lane scenario over the GP lane scenario is that you have at least one lane guaranteed to be moving at free-flowing speeds. But looking at the overall operation and LOS of each roadway, it does not make an improvement, or makes it worse such as the HRBT approach and the HRB corridor.
Since the HOT lane can be managed up to about 90% of capacity and kept free-flowing, you would only gain about 10% and only on that one lane if it became general purpose.

Or are you suggesting that they be HOV instead of HOT?  The issue there in the H.R. region is that they operate far below capacity, and that is the reason why the move to allow sub-HOV vehicles to 'buy into' the lane.

The long-term goal of HOV was to promote car-pooling and van-pooling and express transit bus service.  So there was the goal of ultimately having one HOV lane each way on I-64 between Williamsburg and Bowers Hill, and one HOV lane each way on I-264 between downtown Norfolk and the Virginia Beach oceanfront.

I consider those to be very worthwhile goals, and that eliminating all managed lane restrictions would cancel those goals.

The goal to "alleviate traffic congestion issues"  is more than just the tactical look at the LOS on a freeway at certain hours of the day.
 
« Last Edit: September 22, 2019, 01:58:15 PM by Beltway »
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8829
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:46:42 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4523 on: September 22, 2019, 02:01:35 PM »

My overall thoughts is that this "HO/T network" is not really going to alleviate traffic congestion issues in the Hampton Roads region, and in some areas will make it worse. The only benefit of the HO/T lane scenario over the GP lane scenario is that you have at least one lane guaranteed to be moving at free-flowing speeds. But looking at the overall operation and LOS of each roadway, it does not make an improvement, or makes it worse such as the HRBT approach and the HRB corridor.
Since the HOT lane can be managed up to about 90% of capacity and kept free-flowing, you would only gain about 10% and only on that one lane if it became general purpose.

Or are you suggesting that they be HOV instead of HOT?  The issue there in the H.R. region is that they operate far below capacity, and that is the reason why the move to allow sub-HOV vehicles to 'buy into' the lane.

The long-term goal of HOV was to promote car-pooling and van-pooling and express transit bus service.  So there was the goal of ultimately having one HOV lane each way on I-64 between Williamsburg and Bowers Hill, and one HOV lane each way on I-264 between downtown Norfolk and the Virginia Beach oceanfront.

I consider those to be very worthwhile goals, and that eliminating all managed lane restrictions would cancel those goals.

The goal to "alleviate traffic congestion issues"  is more than just the tactical look at the LOS on a freeway at certain hours of the day.
Honestly, I really don't have any issues with the current HOV setup, and I wish they'd keep building out that goal. But over the past couple of years, there has been this sudden push to have HO/T lanes encompassing the entire region, and all of the long-proposed expansions, like the HRB and HRBT that are now getting underway, have been switched over the past few years from 3 GP + 1 HOV to 2 GP + 2 HO/T, essentially adding only HO/T capacity, no general purpose capacity.

I'm not fully against the HO/T lanes either, but I'm against the whole conversion to them now eliminating what would have been a GP lane addition, alongside -one- HOV lane.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6782
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: August 04, 2020, 05:54:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4524 on: September 22, 2019, 02:13:42 PM »

Honestly, I really don't have any issues with the current HOV setup, and I wish they'd keep building out that goal. But over the past couple of years, there has been this sudden push to have HO/T lanes encompassing the entire region, and all of the long-proposed expansions, like the HRB and HRBT that are now getting underway, have been switched over the past few years from 3 GP + 1 HOV to 2 GP + 2 HO/T, essentially adding only HO/T capacity, no general purpose capacity.
I'm not fully against the HO/T lanes either, but I'm against the whole conversion to them now eliminating what would have been a GP lane addition, alongside -one- HOV lane.
I've expressed my skepticism before about whether any H.R. highway will actually be painted for 2 HOT lanes each way.

Again, unlike a number of other regions in the country, the H.R. HOV lanes carried traffic far below lane capacity, and thus the initiative to allow sub-HOV to purchase access.   A lot of people complained about lanes that were being underutilized.   And that was only HOV-2 to boot.

That is all that a HOT lane is, an HOV lane that allow sub-HOV to purchase access up to a limit that keeps things free-flowing.
 
« Last Edit: September 22, 2019, 02:16:54 PM by Beltway »
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

 


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.