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 1668623 times)

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8829
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:46:42 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4525 on: September 22, 2019, 02:31:23 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.
That's really my biggest thing - having 2 HO/T lanes each way, and only 2 general purpose lanes. Generally, it doesn't bother me having 3 GP + 1 HO/T, as that's the current setup of majority of the other facilities, just HOV instead. And I've said it before - I disagree with the currently 2 + 1 that's being built in the Phase #1 HRB project - should be 3 GP lanes from implementation, then Phase #2 can add -one- HO/T lane. A lot of highways in this area have had similar treatment - built to 3 GP lanes each way initially, then 1 HOV lane each way added later.

Another thing, and this may seem minor, but it's a nice feature - being able to freely enter & leave the HOV lane. It's currently striped as a regular lane, simply with a diamond and restricted only during peak hours and open to all traffic at other times. The HO/T implementation would put barriers up and restrict traffic to either the HO/T lane or general purpose lane and only be able to exit/enter at the major junctions. It'd be nice if they could provide egress / ingress locations in areas between, or at least egress locations. And if they're doing the HO/T lanes, they ought to build some direct connectors at the major junctions such as Bowers Hill and Oak Grove, along with the general purpose interchange expansions. The current proposal is to simply allow traffic to dump into the left lane and make their way all the way to the right fighting GP traffic to exit. If you're paying a toll, you ought to have a seamless connection bypassing the interchange backups. A connection from VA-168 / US-17 to the I-64 HO/T lanes in both directions, and vice versa, plus from the I-64 HO/T lanes (heading south/west) to I-264 East, and vice versa.

I say if they do these they ought to at least post a 65 mph speed limit on the restricted lane, similar to how the I-495 HO/T lanes are posted at 65 mph (only difference is it's 2 lanes instead of 1). From ~Indian River westward, they ought to post at 65 mph speed limit on all the lanes, and maybe even 70 mph on the HO/T lane. The design speed for the I-64 project from VA-168 Business to Bowers Hill is 70 mph, so it reasonable could work. From Indian River to VA-168 Business, it's a straight shot and most people already do at least 70 mph.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2019, 02:41:37 PM by sprjus4 »
Logged

famartin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1101
  • Location: Trenton NJ area
  • Last Login: December 24, 2023, 11:01:16 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4526 on: September 22, 2019, 05:42:33 PM »

I remain convinced that HOT are only intended to provide a free flowing option, not provide general congestion relief. That’s why they are priced to keep trafffic moving at certain speeds. Even with changes to I-66 basic speed requirements, I think I saw a charge of $46 listed this past week.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8829
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:46:42 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4527 on: September 22, 2019, 06:09:32 PM »

I remain convinced that HOT are only intended to provide a free flowing option, not provide general congestion relief. That’s why they are priced to keep trafffic moving at certain speeds. Even with changes to I-66 basic speed requirements, I think I saw a charge of $46 listed this past week.
That's pretty much it. That's why I have the issues that I do about them coming to Hampton Roads. What were supposed to be general purpose relief projects proposed 20 years are now being implemented as HO/T projects.

Any new lanes that are added as a result of these projects will be tolled capacity, when they were originally intended to be general purpose capacity with one HOV lane once it got to 8 lanes (3 GP + 1 HOV). And what's more of an annoyance is the fact that the increased taxes we've (the Hampton Roads district upon creation of the HRTAC) been paying since 2013 are fully funding these lanes, and we should not have to pay to lanes we've already paid for. The High Rise Bridge project widening to 6-lanes is 100% funded via traditional funding, and all lanes should be free. If Phase #2 which would bring it up to 8 lanes has some toll revenue funding involved, then make one of the lanes HO/T, and 3 free, not 2 of them. The HRBT expansion has $345 million that is to be paid back by the toll revenue, so that is -somewhat- understandable, but even then it should only be 3 GP + 1 HO/T not the proposed 2 GP + 2 HO/T. Yes, the tunnel would have a weird split in this setup, but it would only be for the tunnel portion, and lane changing shouldn't be an issue as you're already restricted to the lane you're in on the existing setup. Where the HO/T lane and GP lane share a tunnel, there's adequate room for a 2 ft divider between the lanes.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2019, 06:17:28 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 #4528 on: September 22, 2019, 08:27:29 PM »

That's pretty much it. That's why I have the issues that I do about them coming to Hampton Roads. What were supposed to be general purpose relief projects proposed 20 years are now being implemented as HO/T projects.
No, they were planned as HOV projects for about 20 years, and some were implemented as such in the early 1990s (I-64 reversible and I-564).

As I said the H.R. area HOV lanes were very underused, so the HOT concept can allow sub-HOV vehicles to pay and allow the use of about 90% of the capacity of the lane and cap it at a level to keep it free flowing.

So either have very underused HOV lanes or make them GP and then they will be subject to being bogged down like the rest of the GP lanes, so no free flowing lane for car pools, van pools and express buses, thereby discouraging their use.
 
« Last Edit: September 22, 2019, 08:30:59 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 #4529 on: September 22, 2019, 09:20:53 PM »

No, they were planned as HOV projects for about 20 years, and some were implemented as such in the early 1990s (I-64 reversible and I-564).
I-64 between I-564 and I-664, and I-64 between I-464 and I-664 were 4-lane interstate highways at the time, and remain that way today. At that time, they had planned to add one general purpose lane and one HOV lane in each direction. That would have brought it up to 8 lanes total, with 3 general purpose lanes and 1 HOV lane each way.

After this "HO/T network" concept has been implemented over the past few years, the new concept has been to make all new capacity HO/T. That means instead of having 3 general purpose lanes and 1 HOV (or HO/T) lane each way, you now only have 2 general purpose lanes and 2 HO/T lanes each way. The HO/T network concept has eliminated the third general purpose lane, instead making it a second HO/T lane.

This is evident on the current expansion projects now underway between I-664 & I-464 and I-264 & I-664, where the ultimate builds include that 2 general purpose lanes and 2 HO/T lanes each way typical section.

Overall, if they want to make the HOV lanes or previously-planned HOV lanes into HO/T, whatever, but they are now making previously-planned general purpose lanes, into HO/T as well. That's the root of my complaints.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2019, 09:23:10 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 #4530 on: September 22, 2019, 09:45:45 PM »

That means instead of having 3 general purpose lanes and 1 HOV (or HO/T) lane each way, you now only have 2 general purpose lanes and 2 HO/T lanes each way.

As I have said before, I don't believe that any H.R. highway will be painted with 2 HOT lanes each way, notwithstanding any current talk about it.

BTW, I-64 was built with 6 lanes (3 each way) between I-564 and I-264 east.
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 #4531 on: September 22, 2019, 09:48:54 PM »

That means instead of having 3 general purpose lanes and 1 HOV (or HO/T) lane each way, you now only have 2 general purpose lanes and 2 HO/T lanes each way.

As I have said before, I don't believe that any H.R. highway will be painted with 2 HOT lanes each way, notwithstanding any current talk about it.
What about the HRBT project? 2 HO/T lanes + 2 GP is what is being built. They're even taking the existing 3 general purpose lane segment in Hampton and converting it to 2 GP + 2 HO/T, taking away an existing general purpose lane to satisfy this network. The ultimate build for the HRB is 2 GP + 2 HO/T from documents I've seen, and the lane being built now is already one of those HO/T lanes instead of a general purpose lane. The -one- HO/T lane should be added in Phase #2, not now, if it's indeed only planned for 1 HO/T + 3 GP.
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 #4532 on: September 22, 2019, 10:02:40 PM »

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 post the US-58 segment which has had a lot of discussion.

Better formatting may be available thru F11 / Full Screen.

US-58 between I-95 and I-664
ROUTE    SEGMENT DESCRIPTIONCOUNTYDESIGNMILES
58 Emporia Bypass City of Emporiaexpressway     2.94
58 between Emporia Bypass and Courtland Bypass Greensville and Southampton countiesnon-limited-access   22.80
58 Courtland Bypass Southampton Countyfreeway     4.03
58 between Courtland Bypass and Franklin Bypass Southampton Countynon-limited-access     1.83
58Franklin Bypass Southampton County and City of Suffolk
freeway     9.73
58between Franklin Bypass and Holland Bypass City of Suffolknon-limited-access     4.22
58Holland Bypass City of Suffolkfreeway     1.19
58between Holland Bypass and Suffolk Bypass City of Suffolknon-limited-access     8.21
58Suffolk Bypass City of Suffolkfreeway     9.02
58between Suffolk Bypass and Snowden St. Cities of Suffolk and Chesapeakeexpressway     4.22
58between Snowden St. and I-664 City of Chesapeakefreeway     1.37
TOTAL   69.56

Summary for US-58 between I-95 and I-664
DESIGNMILES      PCT.
Non-limited-access  37.06  53.28%
Expressway    7.16  10.29%
Freeway  25.34  36.43%
TOTAL  69.56100.00%
   
Used Bus. US-58 western intersection for west end of Franklin Bypass, and VA-272 intersection for east end of the bypass
Used landfill intersection as east end of Suffolk Bypass
Used Snowden St. (airport access) as beginning of freeway to east

In rounded figures, 47% of the length is on limited access right-of-way, and 36% of the length is freeway.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6782
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: August 04, 2020, 05:54:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4533 on: September 22, 2019, 10:10:52 PM »

As I have said before, I don't believe that any H.R. highway will be painted with 2 HOT lanes each way, notwithstanding any current talk about it.
What about the HRBT project? 2 HO/T lanes + 2 GP is what is being built. They're even taking the existing 3 general purpose lane segment in Hampton and converting it to 2 GP + 2 HO/T,
The I-64 highway in Hampton is not being widened beyond the current 6 lanes.  Maybe sometime in the future but not in this project.

taking away an existing general purpose lane to satisfy this network. The ultimate build for the HRB is 2 GP + 2 HO/T from documents I've seen, and the lane being built now is already one of those HO/T lanes instead of a general purpose lane. The -one- HO/T lane should be added in Phase #2, not now, if it's indeed only planned for 1 HO/T + 3 GP.
That may be a special case, as an 8-lane tunnel will be 4 separate 2-lane bores, so there may be complications with having one managed and one unmanaged lane in the same tube.

Nevertheless, those lanes are fungible, there is nothing built-in as to how they are managed in the future (GP or HOV or HOT).  Just a matter of changing the signs and pavement markings.
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 #4534 on: September 22, 2019, 10:11:38 PM »

58between Suffolk Bypass and Snowden St. Cities of Suffolk and Chesapeakeexpressway     4.22

limited access right-of-way
While the segment between Suffolk and I-664 has good access control and limited connections, it still does have a few private driveways, and as far as I'm aware, no limited-access fencing actually exists.

Any upgrade project along that segment as previously proposed would require acquiring limited-access right of way along the entire corridor, and providing additional frontage roads where needed, or buying a few properties outright.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8829
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:46:42 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4535 on: September 22, 2019, 10:19:18 PM »

The I-64 highway in Hampton is not being widened beyond the current 6 lanes.  Maybe sometime in the future but not in this project.
The current project calls for converting the inside 3rd general purpose lane into a HO/T lane, and hardening the inside shoulder and making it a part-time HO/T lane during rush hour. This is the plan along the entire corridor between I-664 and I-564. During rush hour, the typical section would be 2 GP + 2 HO/T in each direction, including the segment thru Hampton.

As I have said before, I don't believe that any H.R. highway will be painted with 2 HOT lanes each way, notwithstanding any current talk about it.
What about the HRBT project? 2 HO/T lanes + 2 GP is what is being built. They're even taking the existing 3 general purpose lane segment in Hampton and converting it to 2 GP + 2 HO/T,
The I-64 highway in Hampton is not being widened beyond the current 6 lanes.  Maybe sometime in the future but not in this project.

taking away an existing general purpose lane to satisfy this network. The ultimate build for the HRB is 2 GP + 2 HO/T from documents I've seen, and the lane being built now is already one of those HO/T lanes instead of a general purpose lane. The -one- HO/T lane should be added in Phase #2, not now, if it's indeed only planned for 1 HO/T + 3 GP.
That may be a special case, as an 8-lane tunnel will be 4 separate 2-lane bores, so there may be complications with having one managed and one unmanaged lane in the same tube.
I was referring to the High Rise Bridge corridor in this case, saying how the under construction Phase #1 project should initially have 6 general purpose lanes (3 each way) striped, and no HO/T lanes. A fourth lane, designated as a HO/T lane, could be added in Phase #2, one in each direction, resulting in a total cross section of 3 GP + 1 HO/T. My opinion on how it should be anyways.

But regarding the tunnel, it could be possible. If you expanded the existing solid line that divides the lanes (no lane changes in the tunnel are permitted), you could create a ~2 ft buffer between the lanes and put the tubular barriers up. This may involve reducing the HO/T lane to 11 ft, though we've had that discussion in the past how it can work on a HO/T lane that prohibits trucks.
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 #4536 on: September 22, 2019, 10:20:39 PM »

58between Suffolk Bypass and Snowden St. Cities of Suffolk and Chesapeakeexpressway     4.22
limited access right-of-way
While the segment between Suffolk and I-664 has good access control and limited connections, it still does have a few private driveways, and as far as I'm aware, no limited-access fencing actually exists.
Any upgrade project along that segment as previously proposed would require acquiring limited-access right of way along the entire corridor, and providing additional frontage roads where needed, or buying a few properties outright.
I determined 5 at-grade intersections, and the railroad on the south side is a de facto limited access line, and much of the length on the north side has a service road which functions like a limited access line.

Did there use to be a traffic signal at Snowden Street?
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6782
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: August 04, 2020, 05:54:39 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4537 on: September 22, 2019, 10:26:16 PM »

The I-64 highway in Hampton is not being widened beyond the current 6 lanes.  Maybe sometime in the future but not in this project.
The current project calls for converting the inside 3rd general purpose lane into a HO/T lane, and hardening the inside shoulder and making it a part-time HO/T lane during rush hour. This is the plan along the entire corridor between I-664 and I-564. During rush hour, the typical section would be 2 GP + 2 HO/T in each direction, including the segment thru Hampton.
Nothing is going to change between I-664 and Mallory Street--
http://www.hrbtexpansion.org/learn_more/maps.asp

The "drivable shoulder" will IME be used for emergency use during incidents and a stealth future lane for when or if a shoulder is built in the future.
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 #4538 on: September 22, 2019, 10:38:14 PM »

I determined 5 at-grade intersections, and the railroad on the south side is a de facto limited access line, and much of the length on the north side has a service road which functions like a limited access line.
8 private driveway connections -
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7689168,-76.4693653,3a,75y,350.32h,85.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snITUt8JqdH_YB4fmpAT-og!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7722097,-76.4577379,3a,75y,157.67h,79.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9nSclmzdMYE7CKbeiWjW9g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.77253,-76.4579128,3a,75y,348.85h,82.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0F6G_zjHK9uC8iNr0Z-GWQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7748245,-76.4506016,3a,75y,338.32h,83.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5z9syat0fmB_MIipM6UiYg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7761787,-76.4463161,3a,75y,340.38h,87.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSLOJuZfji6imt0cvGugktA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7761473,-76.4453472,3a,75y,170.33h,81.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sobNVBTvhOiskePE4_bKcmg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.778834,-76.4382443,3a,75y,339.04h,80.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shNOY9C3kDrz35E8wQgJAdw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

Now, the segment between Snowden St and I-664 does indeed have limited-access fencing, it's quite visible east of Snowden St, but non-existent west of it.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7785868,-76.4377386,3a,37.5y,92.89h,87.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svK-d30K0hijVuF2_RwFitQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

Did there use to be a traffic signal at Snowden Street?
Not as far as I've been aware of. It's a minor frontage road connection.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2019, 10:41:27 PM by sprjus4 »
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8829
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:46:42 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4539 on: September 22, 2019, 10:46:37 PM »

The I-64 highway in Hampton is not being widened beyond the current 6 lanes.  Maybe sometime in the future but not in this project.
The current project calls for converting the inside 3rd general purpose lane into a HO/T lane, and hardening the inside shoulder and making it a part-time HO/T lane during rush hour. This is the plan along the entire corridor between I-664 and I-564. During rush hour, the typical section would be 2 GP + 2 HO/T in each direction, including the segment thru Hampton.
Nothing is going to change between I-664 and Mallory Street--
http://www.hrbtexpansion.org/learn_more/maps.asp

The "drivable shoulder" will IME be used for emergency use during incidents and a stealth future lane for when or if a shoulder is built in the future.
That's an outdated map. As apparent by now, they like to keep changing the plans as new ideas arise.

The latest proposal was presented at the HRTPO meeting on Thursday regarding the whole "HO/T network"..

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/091919%2005%20VDOT%20Staff%20-%20HAMPTON%20ROADS%20REGIONAL%20NETWORK%20OPERATIONAL%20STUDY%20%E2%80%93%20PRELIMINARY%20RESULTS.pdf

Pages 4 and 5.

The typical section between Mercury Blvd and LaSalle Ave is 2 GP + 1 HO/T in each direction, then LaSalle to the HRBT is 2 GP + 1 HO/T + Part-Time 1 HO/T, using a hardened left shoulder, in each direction.

It was also mentioned by Hampton's Mayor and a CTB Member in a news article posted today - https://www.pilotonline.com/news/transportation/dp-nw-toll-lanes-20190922-5mjp7xosx5ghnjtns3wq77r3iy-story.html

Quote
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.
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 #4540 on: September 22, 2019, 11:40:18 PM »

The typical section between Mercury Blvd and LaSalle Ave is 2 GP + 1 HO/T in each direction, then LaSalle to the HRBT is 2 GP + 1 HO/T + Part-Time 1 HO/T, using a hardened left shoulder, in each direction.

A minimum of only 3 lanes each way.
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 #4541 on: September 22, 2019, 11:56:25 PM »

The typical section between Mercury Blvd and LaSalle Ave is 2 GP + 1 HO/T in each direction, then LaSalle to the HRBT is 2 GP + 1 HO/T + Part-Time 1 HO/T, using a hardened left shoulder, in each direction.

A minimum of only 3 lanes each way.
That section already has 3 general purpose lanes in each direction, and this would take away one of the general purpose lanes currently available to motorists for free 24/7.
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 #4542 on: September 23, 2019, 09:03:13 PM »

I determined 5 at-grade intersections, and the railroad on the south side is a de facto limited access line, and much of the length on the north side has a service road which functions like a limited access line.
8 private driveway connections -
Again, I said "de facto", which doesn't mean that it has to be a legal fact.  Only 2 of them front directly onto the highway, and the one at the convenience store could easily be eliminated by enlarging the entrance on the connecting road.

A railroad line is a transportation facility that allows no trespassing, and when it runs alongside a highway with a conjoined right-of-way you have a de facto limited access line.  In only two places the railroad allowed a road crossing that goes to a private property.

A service road with a conjoined right-of-way with a highway operates in similar fashion, no private lands front on the highway.  Therefore those roads you listed connect the highway to the service road and the service road connects to the private entrance.

This is the Dismal Swamp.  I would surmise that those private lands that you cited were connected to the highway long before NEPA of 1969, and that environmental regulations since then have prevented any other private development in the Dismal Swamp, so there won't be anymore such connections to the highway.

You can get into legal arguments about what I said, and split hairs, and I understand there are different opinions.  But given the fixed and very limited nature of access there I am going to track it as an expressway.
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 #4543 on: September 24, 2019, 05:48:52 PM »

Quote
Mr. Robert Crum, HRTPO Executive Director, stated that following discussion at the July 18, 2019 HRTPO Board meeting, HRTPO and VDOT staff worked collaboratively to provide information to assist Board members on a decision regarding the I-64 Regional Express Lanes.

Mr. Mike Kimbrel, HRTPO Deputy Executive Director, reported that HRTPO staff modeled system performance in 2040 using a baseline scenario (all new capacity at the Hampton Roads BridgeTunnel and High-Rise Bridge projects as General Purpose lanes) and a Managed Lanes Network scenario.

Preliminary results of the 2040 analysis included:
- Baseline Scenario severely congested by 2040
- Managed Lanes (HOT-2) Network provides reliable trips for:
   o High-Occupancy Vehicles (HOV-2)
   o Single-Occupancy Vehicles willing to pay toll
   o Transit Vehicles
- Managed Lanes scenario does not induce traffic diversion to local roadways in Hampton

Mr. Stephen Brich, VDOT Commissioner, reported that VDOT staff modeled system performance based on the HRBT opening year of 2025 using its proposed scenario of a managed lane network. He indicated that the entrance into the express lanes has been moved from LaSalle Avenue to Mercury Boulevard, with the potential to move it further west to Jefferson Avenue. Maps were presented to illustrate that traffic was less congested with the construction of the I-64 Regional Express Lanes. Mr. Brich suggested working with the contractor who is currently constructing the High-Rise Bridge to discuss the ability of creating a HOT part-time shoulder lane as timing is crucial. He stated VDOT plans to analyze hours of operation and tolling policy and will brief the Board at the October 17, 2019 meeting.

Chair Sheppard expressed his appreciation to the staffs of the HRTPO and VDOT for their comprehensive analyses. He requested Board members be prepared to discuss finances regarding the HOT part-time shoulder lane on the High-Rise Bridge and a tolling policy at the next meeting.

In addition to the general-purpose shoulder lane that will be implemented on I-64 between I-464 and US-17 / US-17 Business over the High Rise Bridge, VDOT is now considering converting the inside shoulder of the one HO/T lane to a part-time shoulder lane. If they did this, I-64 would have 8 lanes (2+2 each way) between I-664 and US-17 / US-17 Business, and 10 lanes (3+2 each way) between US-17 / US-17 Business and I-464 during peak hours. This would result in their ultimate long-term build of 2+2 each way to be completed -now-.

However, there's only one major issue with this - the High Rise Bridge.

The new High Rise Bridge is being built to have an ultimate typical section of four 12 foot lanes and 14 foot shoulders on either side, so you could fit 5 lanes of traffic on there when both the HO/T shoulder and general purpose shoulder are in use, however the existing High Rise Bridge, which is to be retained, can only have a maximum of 4 lanes. The current plan of 1 HO/T + 2 GP + 1 GP PTL (part-time lane) works, however it would not be possible to have 1 PTL HO/T + 1 HO/T + 2 GP + 1 PTL.

Interested to see how this plays out.

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/091919%20TPO%20Action%20Summary.pdf
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3289
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: March 08, 2024, 03:36:52 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4544 on: September 26, 2019, 08:09:41 AM »

There was a public meeting yesterday in Danville to discuss possible improvements to US-58 Business (Riverside Drive).

Behind paywall:

https://www.godanriver.com/news/local/high-number-of-crashes-on-riverside-drive-prompts-possible-safety/article_31af83e2-6b00-5689-b3a5-730bb298da2d.html

Quote
Traffic safety issues along Riverside Drive have Danville resident Morris Inman concerned.

“People texting and driving – it scares me to death,”  Inman, 68, said during an interview during a public meeting Wednesday evening at Bonner Middle School on possible street safety improvements along the corridor from North Main Street to Piedmont Drive.

Inman’s fears are justified, according to figures from EPR, PC, an engineering firm in Charlottesville.

From 2013 to 2018, there were 740 traffic crashes resulting in five fatalities – with two of those deaths involving pedestrians – along the 3.2-mile section, said EPR project manager Jessica Dimmick.

“That’s high,”  Dimmick told the Danville Register & Bee.

The Virginia Department of Transportation and EPR held a community meeting to get public input on possible safety improvements along the stretch that covers almost 3 miles.

EPR is conducting a Riverside Corridor Improvement Study considering the need for sidewalks and crosswalks, intersection and access changes, use of bus bays and ramp adjustments.

“There are issues that have been identified based on crash data,”  City Engineer Brian Dunevant said.

Dimmick was more blunt in her assessment.

“That crash rate is the primary reason for this study being done,”  she said.

The meeting was an opportunity for residents to learn about the project, identify problems and share ideas for improvements.

Danville resident Margaret Harden said she liked the convenience provided by the large number of medians along Riverside Drive. But Wednesday’s meeting changed her perspective.

Dimmick said Riverside has too many medians, which correlate with a large number of crashes. There are 25 total intersections, including those with and without traffic lights, in the area from North Main Street to Piedmont Drive, she said.

“If you have them spaced too closely together, then that increases the potential for crashes,”  Dimmick said.

That was an eye-opener for Harden.

“There are a lot of medians,”  Harden said. “In a way, it’s handy. I hadn’t thought of it as being unsafe; it never occurred to me. I was just thinking of the convenience factor.”

Dimmick presented several draft recommendations to address the problems following EPR’s six-year analysis of crashes, traffic operations and access points.

Those draft recommendations include restricting turns at medians, such as putting up barriers to prevent traffic from side streets off Riverside from making left turns, Dimmick said. Instead, they would travel along Riverside to a stoplight and make a U-turn.

Sidewalks also would be a possibility.

The study also recommends possibly establishing a crosswalk in the area between Audubon Drive and Piney Forest Road, where the two fatalities occurred, Dimmick said. it could include pedestrian “hybrid beacons,”  or stop lights that remain dark until until a pedestrian pushes a button to turn the red light on.

“They stop traffic to allow pedestrians to cross the road,”  Dimmick said.

Other possible recommendations include:

-Installing a new westbound right-turn lane at Audubon Drive to address safety issues;

-Having a new full-length westbound right-turn lane at Mount Cross Road;

-Replacing the westbound right-turn ramp with a new turn lane closer to the intersection at Westover Drive;

-Prohibiting left turns from Riverside Drive at Highland Court.

The $234,000 study is sponsored by the VDOT in partnership with the city of Danville and the West Piedmont Planning District Commission. The study comes at no cost to the city and is being paid for by VDOT’s Strategically Targeted Affordable Roadway Solutions program.

The program’s purpose “is to develop comprehensive, innovative transportation solutions to relieve congestion bottlenecks and solve critical traffic and safety challenges throughout the commonwealth,”  according to VDOT’s website.

A working group including city and VDOT officials has been providing feedback to EPR during the study, Dunevant said.

Public input from Wednesday’s meeting will be considered when the draft recommendations are made final, Dimmick said.

A final report should be complete and presented to Danville City Council by the end of this year.

Any projects the city decides to pursue as a result of the study could be funded under a variety of VDOT programs, Dimmick said.

Crane reports for the Register & Bee. He can be reached at (434) 791-7987.
Logged
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

csw

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 990
  • Age: 26
  • Location: New England
  • Last Login: March 16, 2024, 10:01:16 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4545 on: September 28, 2019, 06:27:19 PM »

Anyone know what the construction on US 220 north of Covington is? I couldn't decide if it looked like they were 4-laning it or not. If it is 4-laning, I don't get it - there was a stretch in Bath Co. where I didn't see another vehicle for a solid 7-8 minutes. Maybe it's to serve the resort areas.
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 #4546 on: September 28, 2019, 09:14:13 PM »

Anyone know what the construction on US 220 north of Covington is? I couldn't decide if it looked like they were 4-laning it or not. If it is 4-laning, I don't get it - there was a stretch in Bath Co. where I didn't see another vehicle for a solid 7-8 minutes. Maybe it's to serve the resort areas.

Nothing on the VDOT projects webpage.  Surely it is not 4-laning.
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 #4547 on: September 28, 2019, 09:20:33 PM »

Surely it is not 4-laning.
Asides from US-58, I haven't seen much in the way of four-laning projects across the state. Occasional segments here and there, but nothing like the 60s - 80s.
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 #4548 on: September 28, 2019, 09:45:07 PM »

Asides from US-58, I haven't seen much in the way of four-laning projects across the state. Occasional segments here and there, but nothing like the 60s - 80s.
The one major corridor I could see is VA-3 on the Northern Neck.  That was proposed for 4-laneing in the 1980s between Culpeper and White Stone.  The sections between US-29 at Culpeper and US-301 were 4-laned.  Between US-301 and White Stone several short segments were 4-laned.  The rest should be 4-laned IMO.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

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

  • Age: 54
  • Last Login: Today at 04:27:46 AM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4549 on: September 28, 2019, 09:50:33 PM »

Anyone know what the construction on US 220 north of Covington is? I couldn't decide if it looked like they were 4-laning it or not. If it is 4-laning, I don't get it - there was a stretch in Bath Co. where I didn't see another vehicle for a solid 7-8 minutes. Maybe it's to serve the resort areas.

How far north of Covington?
Logged

 


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.