Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Beltway]

HRBT expansion
….
Since WB traffic will also use the existing EB tube,  it will help tremendously with the over height truck situation WB.
I like the added lane in the tunnel and on the bridges. Even though the land portion will be 6 lanes, who cares?!! The more capacity across the harbor, the better!

But the WB HOT lanes would be in the newer tube (existing EB tube), and the WB general purpose lanes would be in the older tube (existing WB tube).  That means that the WB trucks would be in the tube with 12 inches less clearance than the tube where trucks could be excluded, and presumably with at least 12 inches less clearance than the to-be-constructed new EB tube.  The height differential is what confuses some truckers.

It could be another VDOT stealth widening project, if they do the 6-lane widening on the land sections and install a 12-foot left shoulder built to full depth pavement standards that could be used for a 4th lane in the future.  The Willoughby Spit Bridge is a mile long and they could deck in the whole section between the two bridges and have width for future 8 lanes.

[plain]

HRBT expansion
….
Since WB traffic will also use the existing EB tube,  it will help tremendously with the over height truck situation WB.
I like the added lane in the tunnel and on the bridges. Even though the land portion will be 6 lanes, who cares?!! The more capacity across the harbor, the better!

But the WB HOT lanes would be in the newer tube (existing EB tube), and the WB general purpose lanes would be in the older tube (existing WB tube).  That means that the WB trucks would be in the tube with 12 inches less clearance than the tube where trucks could be excluded, and presumably with at least 12 inches less clearance than the to-be-constructed new EB tube.  The height differential is what confuses some truckers.

It could be another VDOT stealth widening project, if they do the 6-lane widening on the land sections and install a 12-foot left shoulder built to full depth pavement standards that could be used for a 4th lane in the future.  The Willoughby Spit Bridge is a mile long and they could deck in the whole section between the two bridges and have width for future 8 lanes.

I didn't think about the fact that the HOT tunnel would be on the existing EB side, you're right, that problem will still exist.

As for creating an option for future expansion to 8 lanes on the land portions, that would be great too!!!!! Of course only if that's included in the $3.6 billion price tag. The approach from Norfolk is already expensive enough on top of the actual HBRT

[Beltway]

I didn't think about the fact that the HOT tunnel would be on the existing EB side, you're right, that problem will still exist.
As for creating an option for future expansion to 8 lanes on the land portions, that would be great too!!!!! Of course only if that's included in the $3.6 billion price tag. The approach from Norfolk is already expensive enough on top of the actual HBRT

The I-64/I-564 interchange will need some major upgrades, to handle the three I-64 lanes each way thru the interchange area.  Presumably that is in the $3.6 billion.

[Beltway]

At the monthly CTB meeting today, Jim Utterback, the HRBT project manager gave a detailed status report and overview of the project.

He showed a typical section of the current westbound tube, and the plan is to fully renovate and remove the ceiling and install jet fans (both existing tubes in fact).  My concern about the vertical clearance is unfounded, as the plan is to add at least 12 inches.

The new bridge-tunnel will have 4 lanes and will be utilized for eastbound traffic.  The existing bridge-tunnels will be utilized for westbound traffic.

All existing marine bridges are over 40 years old and the plan is to replace them with bridges that are higher above water.  This includes the Willoughby Spit bridges to be replaced with an 8-lane bridge.

Tunnel renovations and bridge replacements are part of what makes this project so expensive to construct.

Only about 8% of the funding is toll financed.  A large chunk is from local taxes.  So they are able to fund this project with the only tolls being on the HOT lanes.  Four general purpose lanes will still be toll-free.

I posted the following on June 8th in the thread "U.S. 301 Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge"

That is the current westbound tube.  The new bridge-tunnel would be to the west, and both existing tubes would carry traffic westbound.  That would mean that the westbound general purpose lanes would be in the tube with the lower clearance, and the westbound HOT lanes would be in the tube with the higher clearance.  IOW westbound trucks would still be in the tube with the lower clearance.   

Unless VDOT realized what's going on and allowed them through the HOT tube.

That would mean signs telling their drivers to note their height and if more than 13.5 feet then to get in the left lane and to take the inner tube.  So there would be large truck weaving movements both approaching and leaving the tube.   Would be disruptive to traffic when the general purpose lanes are congested and moving slowly.  Seems like lot to ask of certain truck drivers who already aren't able to properly manage the height restrictions of their vehicle, and if they stay in the general purpose lanes then we still have the current problem.
This is one of the reasons why I opposed this project and wanted to see the money put to the I-564 extension instead.  All-modern height clearances on I-564 and I-664.

[Beltway]

Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel Expansion Project Update to Commonwealth Transportation Board June 19, 2018
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2018/june/pres/1_hampton_road_bridge_tunnell_briefing.pdf

During the pavements condition / bridges condition item presented at CTB meeting, it was mentioned that all new Interstate highway bridges are (since 2007) being built to a 91,000 lbs large truck standard.  Older bridges were built to a 72,000 lb or 80,000 lb standard depending on when built.  Even though it may be awhile before a corridor segment is all modern bridge standard, any new replacement bridge is being built to the 91,000 lb standard which also includes a much higher volume of such vehicles.

So this project would not only increase capacity but also bring the pre-existing infrastructure up to modern Interstate standards.  The newest of the existing marine bridges would be 48 years old in 2024, and there are 6 bridges totaling 6.6 miles.

[Jmiles32]

It will be interesting to see how exactly the future HOT lane in each direction north of the I-564 interchange will merge into the current reversible HOT lanes south of the interchange. Will it be similar to the current northern terminus of the I-395 reversible HOV lanes near the Pentagon or be different? There will also be new access to I-564 from the HOT lanes.
http://www.dailypress.com/news/traffic/dp-nws-hrbt-expansion-environment-meeting-20180620-htmlstory.html

The whole road has gotten 8 feet wider,” Smizik said. “And also with HOT lanes, when you get down to the eastern end at I-564, we're proposing new ramps to have a direct connection from the HOT lanes to I-564.

[Beltway]

It will be interesting to see how exactly the future HOT lane in each direction north of the I-564 interchange will merge into the current reversible HOT lanes south of the interchange. Will it be similar to the current northern terminus of the I-395 reversible HOV lanes near the Pentagon or be different? There will also be new access to I-564 from the HOT lanes.

Per aerial map review, I can see ways to do that within existing right-of-way, but with substantial lengths of bridges on ramps, flyovers if you will.   A major expansion of the I-64/I-564 interchange may be needed, and may already be part of the $3.66 billion figure for the whole HRBT Expansion Project.

Per the project PDF above --

Three scope options included in Draft RFP:
• Direct connect ramps from I-64 HOT to I-564
• Increase height clearance at the existing WB Tunnel
• Replace existing marine approach bridges

[froggie]

I read some of the revised EA.  They mentioned that they are still studying options for connecting the I-64 HOT lanes to I-564.  No alternatives were shown.

[Beltway]

I read some of the revised EA.  They mentioned that they are still studying options for connecting the I-64 HOT lanes to I-564.  No alternatives were shown.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.9187547,-76.2708403,727m/data=!3m1!1e3

A 3-way freeway-to-freeway semi-directional interchange with local ramps and ramp connections between the I-64 reversible roadway to the I-64 general purpose lanes and the I-564 HOV lanes.

A confined area when it comes to making that new connection.

[Vagator]

http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-news-vdot-bridge-tunnel-20180816-story.html

Hello guys. My first post. Don't be too harsh on me.

Latest from VDOT. The HRBT expansion will be 4 HOT Lanes west of the current Eastbound Lanes.  Am I crazy, but I don't see how this will fit on in the current right of way on the Hampton side? I also find interesting that they supposedly want to start the HOT lane entrance near the Settlers Landing Road off-ramp. I would have thought the HOT entrance would be near the 664 interchange so people would pay for the privilege to bypass all the traffic heading to the tunnel. Are people going to sit in traffic for 10-20 minutes during to summer to pay for HOT Lanes near Settlers Landing Road? Just a thought.

[Beltway]

Hello guys. My first post. Don't be too harsh on me.
Latest from VDOT. The HRBT expansion will be 4 HOT Lanes west of the current Eastbound Lanes.  Am I crazy, but I don't see how this will fit on in the current right of way on the Hampton side? I also find interesting that they supposedly want to start the HOT lane entrance near the Settlers Landing Road off-ramp. I would have thought the HOT entrance would be near the 664 interchange so people would pay for the privilege to bypass all the traffic heading to the tunnel. Are people going to sit in traffic for 10-20 minutes during to summer to pay for HOT Lanes near Settlers Landing Road? Just a thought.

Eight lanes on I-64 between Mallory Street and 4th View Street, basically the HRBT and Willoughby Bay Bridge and approaches.  Replacement of existing marine approach bridges on HRBT and WBB.  Increase the vertical clearance in the westbound tunnel.

No widening of I-64 between I-664 and Mallory Street.  Median I-64 widening to 6 lanes between 4th View Street and I-564.  Those would be widened on the outside of the roadways to 8 lanes at some undetermined time in the future.  Major future upgrade of I-64/I-564 interchange.

[Thing 342]

Pretty sure that any widening west of Settler's Landing past the existing 6 lanes would require a replacement of the Hampton River Bridge, which I can't imagine being cheap to do.

[Beltway]

Pretty sure that any widening west of Settler's Landing past the existing 6 lanes would require a replacement of the Hampton River Bridge, which I can't imagine being cheap to do.

I-64 Between I-664 and Mallory Street

The bridges look like they can be widened but indeed that would be expensive.  Basically they need to widen the land roadways 20 feet on each side (add 12 foot lane, add 2 feet to right shoulder, add 6 feet to left shoulder, plus rebuild the roadside drainage systems.  With all those creeks that I-64 passes over and the houses near the highway, there will be considerable human and natural environmental impacts to assess and mitigate.

[Vagator]

Pretty sure that any widening west of Settler's Landing past the existing 6 lanes would require a replacement of the Hampton River Bridge, which I can't imagine being cheap to do.

I-64 Between I-664 and Mallory Street

The bridges look like they can be widened but indeed that would be expensive.  Basically they need to widen the land roadways 20 feet on each side (add 12 foot lane, add 2 feet to right shoulder, add 6 feet to left shoulder, plus rebuild the roadside drainage systems.  With all those creeks that I-64 passes over and the houses near the highway, there will be considerable human and natural environmental impacts to assess and mitigate.

You are right. Even with the HOT Lanes starting at Settlers Landing,  no way I take it over the MMBT considering the bottleneck you have to go through to get to them. They should have just built a third crossing.

[Beltway]

The 8-lane HRBT and approaches will have one HOT lane each way.  Just won't be continuous with the existing I-64 HOT lanes until the aforementioned future 8-lane widening takes place.

I too favored the 2000 decision to build the third crossing (I-564 extension and I-664 expansion), which would have made that the busiest crossing and left the HRBT with its current 4 lanes and managable traffic levels.

One of the things that has changed since 2000 is the age of the marine approach bridges on the HRBT and Willoughby Bay Bridge, now ranging from 42 to 61 years old.  Enough wear and tear and salt spray deterioration that VDOT sees the need to replace all of them.  Plus rebuild the westbound tunnel to provide the same roadway vertical clearance as the newer eastbound tunnel.  Hard to do outside of an expansion project that can carry the traffic on the new bridges and tunnels while the old are rebuilt.

[Beltway]

Latest updates per the CTB --

Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel Expansion Project
Major Business Terms
to Commonwealth Transportation Board, Sept 17, 2018
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2018/sept/pres/2_hrbt.pdf

Execute Comprehensive Agreement ....……….……….. Mar 2019
Contractor LNTP (Limited Notice(s) to Proceed) ..... Mar 2019
Project Complete ............................................... Nov 2025

[LM117]

New toll rates on the CBBT to take effect January 1.

http://www.cbbt.com/travel-information/toll-schedule/

[Thing 342]

New toll rates on the CBBT to take effect January 1.

http://www.cbbt.com/travel-information/toll-schedule/

TLDR: Tolls for cars increasing to $18 each way during peak periods (Friday to Sunday, May thru Sept), $14 for non-peak. Return trips within 24h are $2 for peak periods, $6 otherwise (so a round trip will always be $20 regardless of period, if I'm reading it correctly)

[sprjus4]

At the monthly CTB meeting today, Jim Utterback, the HRBT project manager gave a detailed status report and overview of the project.

He showed a typical section of the current westbound tube, and the plan is to fully renovate and remove the ceiling and install jet fans (both existing tubes in fact).  My concern about the vertical clearance is unfounded, as the plan is to add at least 12 inches.

The new bridge-tunnel will have 4 lanes and will be utilized for eastbound traffic.  The existing bridge-tunnels will be utilized for westbound traffic.

All existing marine bridges are over 40 years old and the plan is to replace them with bridges that are higher above water.  This includes the Willoughby Spit bridges to be replaced with an 8-lane bridge.

Tunnel renovations and bridge replacements are part of what makes this project so expensive to construct.

Only about 8% of the funding is toll financed.  A large chunk is from local taxes.  So they are able to fund this project with the only tolls being on the HOT lanes.  Four general purpose lanes will still be toll-free.

Just reading this forum now... trying to understand this.

So they would replace the Willoughby Spit bridge with a one single eight-lane bridge with a barrier in the median? Would the HRBT bridges also be replaced to have one single eight-lane bridge with a barrier in the median, or two bridges with four lanes on each? Or still this three bridges confusing stuff?

[Beltway]

So they would replace the Willoughby Spit bridge with a one single eight-lane bridge with a barrier in the median? Would the HRBT bridges also be replaced to have one single eight-lane bridge with a barrier in the median, or two bridges with four lanes on each? Or still this three bridges confusing stuff?

I don't think the design has been finalized yet, but based on my basic design knowledge, the Willoughby Bay Bridge could either be one 8-lane bridge or two 4-lane bridges, the existing Hampton Roads bridges are too far apart to be replaced by a single bridge, the new tunnels will probably be twin 2-lane bored tunnels about 50 feet apart, and the new Hampton Roads bridge will probably be a 4-lane bridge.

[sprjus4]

So they would replace the Willoughby Spit bridge with a one single eight-lane bridge with a barrier in the median? Would the HRBT bridges also be replaced to have one single eight-lane bridge with a barrier in the median, or two bridges with four lanes on each? Or still this three bridges confusing stuff?

I don't think the design has been finalized yet, but based on my basic design knowledge, the Willoughby Bay Bridge could either be one 8-lane bridge or two 4-lane bridges, the existing Hampton Roads bridges are too far apart to be replaced by a single bridge, the new tunnels will probably be twin 2-lane bored tunnels about 50 feet apart, and the new Hampton Roads bridge will probably be a 4-lane bridge.

Yeah, if they are going to replace the bridges, they should be smart about it - like said build all lanes in one direction on one bridge, not split like originally proposed with 3 separate bridges. I think they could do with one 4 lane tunnel, but there could be issues with that. I think the overall "build" if the corridor is ever fully 8-laned should be to have 3 GP + 1 HO/T in each direction, similar to the other sections of I-64 with 3 GP + 1 HOV lane, or 3 GP + 2 Reversible HOV lanes. Likely though, it will be 2 GP + 2 HO/T creating an inconsistency with the rest of the corridor, just like proposed on the High Rise Bridge. IMHO, doing it that way still creates congestion where lanes go from 3 to 2 on the GP, simply to add lanes to the HO/T section. It seems like a backup purposely created just to get more people to pay the toll to "bypass" the congestion that was created w/ poor design, once the final build is completed.

[Beltway]

Yeah, if they are going to replace the bridges, they should be smart about it - like said build all lanes in one direction on one bridge, not split like originally proposed with 3 separate bridges. I think they could do with one 4 lane tunnel, but there could be issues with that. I think the overall "build" if the corridor is ever fully 8-laned should be to have 3 GP + 1 HO/T in each direction, similar to the other sections of I-64 with 3 GP + 1 HOV lane, or 3 GP + 2 Reversible HOV lanes. Likely though, it will be 2 GP + 2 HO/T creating an inconsistency with the rest of the corridor, just like proposed on the High Rise Bridge. IMHO, doing it that way still creates congestion where lanes go from 3 to 2 on the GP, simply to add lanes to the HO/T section. It seems like a backup purposely created just to get more people to pay the toll to "bypass" the congestion that was created w/ poor design, once the final build is completed.

Widening I-64 to 8 lanes between HRBT and I-664 will have major environmental impacts, and will take a separate NEPA EIS/location process to work that out.   Likewise with outside widening between 4th View Street and I-564 (inside 3rd lane widening will be in the current project).  Likewise with the ultimate improvement to the I-64/I-564 interchange.

The final format for GP and HOT lanes has not been determined.  Most likely it will be 3+1 each way thruout the region excepting the 3-2-3 format between I-564 and I-264.

The new High Rise Bridge will be an interim measure, because a second stage will replace the existing bridge with a wider fixed high-level bridge to match the bridge now under construction.

[sprjus4]

Yeah, if they are going to replace the bridges, they should be smart about it - like said build all lanes in one direction on one bridge, not split like originally proposed with 3 separate bridges. I think they could do with one 4 lane tunnel, but there could be issues with that. I think the overall "build" if the corridor is ever fully 8-laned should be to have 3 GP + 1 HO/T in each direction, similar to the other sections of I-64 with 3 GP + 1 HOV lane, or 3 GP + 2 Reversible HOV lanes. Likely though, it will be 2 GP + 2 HO/T creating an inconsistency with the rest of the corridor, just like proposed on the High Rise Bridge. IMHO, doing it that way still creates congestion where lanes go from 3 to 2 on the GP, simply to add lanes to the HO/T section. It seems like a backup purposely created just to get more people to pay the toll to "bypass" the congestion that was created w/ poor design, once the final build is completed.

Widening I-64 to 8 lanes between HRBT and I-664 will have major environmental impacts, and will take a separate NEPA EIS/location process to work that out.   Likewise with outside widening between 4th View Street and I-564 (inside 3rd lane widening will be in the current project).  Likewise with the ultimate improvement to the I-64/I-564 interchange.

The final format for GP and HOT lanes has not been determined.  Most likely it will be 3+1 each way thruout the region excepting the 3-2-3 format between I-564 and I-264.

The new High Rise Bridge will be an interim measure, because a second stage will replace the existing bridge with a wider fixed high-level bridge to match the bridge now under construction.

My comment about the HO/T lanes is that for the High Rise Bridge they want 2 HO/T lanes + 2 GP lanes in each direction as opposed to 1 HO/T lane + 3 GP lanes when they build Phase #2. I'm aware of the whole buildout with the two phases, etc. for the High Rise corridor.

And this project between I-564 and I-664 (I don't know how they plan on doing this on the Hampton side) will have 1 full time HO/T lane in each direction + 1 HO/T shoulder during rush hour. It was revised a few months back to include this. So during rush hour, the HRBT corridor will actually have 8 functioning lanes when it opens in 2024, with 2 HOT lanes + 2 GP.

To sum up what the whole "concept" that regional planners want, here it is -
2 GP + 2 HO/T between I-664 (Bowers Hill) and I-464
3 GP + 1 HO/T between I-464 and I-264
3 GP + 2 HO/T reversible between I-264 and I-564
2 GP + 2 HO/T between I-564 and I-664 (Hampton)

The better concept IMHO is -
3 GP + 1 HO/T between I-664 (Bowers Hill) and I-264
3 GP + 2 HO/T reversible between I-264 and I-564
3 GP + 1 HO/T between I-564 and I-664 (Hampton)

You see the inconsistency with the officially proposed idea compared to the constant 3 GP lanes in my idea?

[Beltway]

You see the inconsistency with the officially proposed idea compared to the constant 3 GP lanes in my idea?

There is no "officially proposed idea" for the whole corridor because two segments have not even been officially studied (as in NEPA process) for 8-laning yet, HRBT to I-664 Hampton, and 4th View to I-564; they will have 3 lanes each way until some future widening project that like I said has not been officially determined.

Whether a 4-lane roadway has 3 GP and one HOT, or 2 GP and 2 HOT, is just a matter of how the lines are painted and what the overhead signs say.  The cost of changing that is trivial compared to the cost of building these highways.

[sprjus4]

You see the inconsistency with the officially proposed idea compared to the constant 3 GP lanes in my idea?

There is no "officially proposed idea" for the whole corridor because two segments have not even been officially studied (as in NEPA process) for 8-laning yet, HRBT to I-664 Hampton, and 4th View to I-564; they will have 3 lanes each way until some future widening project that like I said has not been officially determined.

Whether a 4-lane roadway has 3 GP and one HOT, or 2 GP and 2 HOT, is just a matter of how the lines are painted and what the overhead signs say.  The cost of changing that is trivial compared to the cost of building these highways.

For the High Rise Bridge, that is currently the decision for Phase #2, and for the HRBT, I mentioned above they are doing 2 HO/T + 2 GP during peak times. They could've done a 1 HO/T + 3 GP using an outside "shoulder" lane but they chose to make that shoulder lane an additional HO/T.

And you are right, these easily could change. But right now, that's currently the decision made.