Virginia

[74/171FAN]

For those drivers that to not have such information in their vehicles, this is helpful to them.

I definitely agree that it is useful.  (For example, I would rather not be continuously checking traffic throughout my trips.)  When it comes down to it though, the states would probably have to be forced to coordinate by the feds for them to do travel times beyond their own borders.

[Thing 342]

Unless VDOT and NCDOT coordinate with each other to place these signs on VA/NC 168 and US 158, I doubt that you will see actual travel times to the Outer Banks... (maybe the VA/NC Line at best if the city of Chesapeake gets involved)

They presumably use vehicle probe data to compute those speeds, and it would be very easy for VDOT to post the estimated travel time to the Outer Banks. 

Maryland SHA is routinely posting the estimated travel time "to Va." on southbound I-95 approaching I-495, and I wish they would post that travel time to the Springfield interchange instead.

Having worked on the OpenTMS system that VDOT uses to calculate and display the travel times on those signs, I can tell you that showing travel times across state lines is impossible, or at least would require some very hacky workaround.

The point of these signs is to inform drivers as to which path is best to take to get to a common destination, and adding an arbitrary amount of time would only obfuscate that information. It would also make the sign somewhat less useful for those who don't plan on going all the way to the Wright Bros. Bridge after getting on 168 SB, (like myself, who commutes to Great Bridge).

[cpzilliacus]

Unless VDOT and NCDOT coordinate with each other to place these signs on VA/NC 168 and US 158, I doubt that you will see actual travel times to the Outer Banks... (maybe the VA/NC Line at best if the city of Chesapeake gets involved)

They presumably use vehicle probe data to compute those speeds, and it would be very easy for VDOT to post the estimated travel time to the Outer Banks. 

Maryland SHA is routinely posting the estimated travel time "to Va." on southbound I-95 approaching I-495, and I wish they would post that travel time to the Springfield interchange instead.

Having worked on the OpenTMS system that VDOT uses to calculate and display the travel times on those signs, I can tell you that showing travel times across state lines is impossible, or at least would require some very hacky workaround.

I work with similar data, and have easy access to vehicle probe data from Maryland, D.C., Virginia and Pennsylvania.  Note that's not real-time, since that is not what I do.

The point of these signs is to inform drivers as to which path is best to take to get to a common destination, and adding an arbitrary amount of time would only obfuscate that information. It would also make the sign somewhat less useful for those who don't plan on going all the way to the Wright Bros. Bridge after getting on 168 SB, (like myself, who commutes to Great Bridge).

Adding an arbitrary amount of data would be bad, and possibly misleading and even unethical. 

[cl94]

Unless VDOT and NCDOT coordinate with each other to place these signs on VA/NC 168 and US 158, I doubt that you will see actual travel times to the Outer Banks... (maybe the VA/NC Line at best if the city of Chesapeake gets involved)

They presumably use vehicle probe data to compute those speeds, and it would be very easy for VDOT to post the estimated travel time to the Outer Banks. 

Maryland SHA is routinely posting the estimated travel time "to Va." on southbound I-95 approaching I-495, and I wish they would post that travel time to the Springfield interchange instead.

Having worked on the OpenTMS system that VDOT uses to calculate and display the travel times on those signs, I can tell you that showing travel times across state lines is impossible, or at least would require some very hacky workaround.

I work with similar data, and have easy access to vehicle probe data from Maryland, D.C., Virginia and Pennsylvania.  Note that's not real-time, since that is not what I do.

The point of these signs is to inform drivers as to which path is best to take to get to a common destination, and adding an arbitrary amount of time would only obfuscate that information. It would also make the sign somewhat less useful for those who don't plan on going all the way to the Wright Bros. Bridge after getting on 168 SB, (like myself, who commutes to Great Bridge).

Adding an arbitrary amount of data would be bad, and possibly misleading and even unethical.

Now that NC has E-ZPass, they could do like NYSTA and NYSDOT and install E-ZPass readers to measure travel times. As E-ZPass is in multiple states, they could theoretically combine and share the data.

[Thing 342]

Unless VDOT and NCDOT coordinate with each other to place these signs on VA/NC 168 and US 158, I doubt that you will see actual travel times to the Outer Banks... (maybe the VA/NC Line at best if the city of Chesapeake gets involved)

They presumably use vehicle probe data to compute those speeds, and it would be very easy for VDOT to post the estimated travel time to the Outer Banks. 

Maryland SHA is routinely posting the estimated travel time "to Va." on southbound I-95 approaching I-495, and I wish they would post that travel time to the Springfield interchange instead.

Having worked on the OpenTMS system that VDOT uses to calculate and display the travel times on those signs, I can tell you that showing travel times across state lines is impossible, or at least would require some very hacky workaround.

I work with similar data, and have easy access to vehicle probe data from Maryland, D.C., Virginia and Pennsylvania.  Note that's not real-time, since that is not what I do.

It's not an issue of collecting or retrieving the probe data from Inrix, it's an issue with making it properly integrate with the rest of the system. The travel time system uses segments to build paths to calculate and display travel times. These segments are restricted to a single state's route waypoint set, else you would need to import another state's entire set of road waypoints. Unless you hard-coded something to get NC time data from Inrix or hacked something together using the alert system, it's pretty much impossible to do without significant software changes.

[JacobNC]

Does anyone know what VDOT is planning on building for the new interchange in Norfolk with Brambleton Ave/Hampton Blvd/Midtown Tunnel?

[Mapmikey]

Does anyone know what VDOT is planning on building for the new interchange in Norfolk with Brambleton Ave/Hampton Blvd/Midtown Tunnel?

Per the video clip at 5:45 here - https://www.driveert.com/project-info/about-the-project/ - they are not really doing anything to this interchange...instead of WB US 58 merging into the tunnel it will just continue straight into the new tube.

[JacobNC]

Does anyone know what VDOT is planning on building for the new interchange in Norfolk with Brambleton Ave/Hampton Blvd/Midtown Tunnel?

Per the video clip at 5:45 here - https://www.driveert.com/project-info/about-the-project/ - they are not really doing anything to this interchange...instead of WB US 58 merging into the tunnel it will just continue straight into the new tube.

Hopefully they make it so two lanes of traffic can flow straight in from Hampton Blvd to prevent backups.  That and the MLK extension will make my trip out of Norfolk much faster

[froggie]

It'll likely be a single lane from Hampton Blvd...the reason being is that there is also a lot of traffic going to the tunnel from Brambleton.  Giving Brambleton traffic their own lane would do more to "prevent backups" than giving both lanes to Hampton Blvd and forcing traffic coming from Brambleton to merge.

[cpzilliacus]

It's not an issue of collecting or retrieving the probe data from Inrix, it's an issue with making it properly integrate with the rest of the system. The travel time system uses segments to build paths to calculate and display travel times. These segments are restricted to a single state's route waypoint set, else you would need to import another state's entire set of road waypoints. Unless you hard-coded something to get NC time data from Inrix or hacked something together using the alert system, it's pretty much impossible to do without significant software changes.

Agreed.  The TMC networks are very clumsy to work with, and often their bounds seem to make little or no sense.  Cording a TMC network is a lot of work - and annoyingly, there are a lor of busy streets (secondary highways) in Northern Virginia that are entirely missing from the TMC network.

[Thing 342]

Not sure why I forgot to post this: http://wavy.com/2016/05/31/new-midtown-tunnel-to-open-several-months-ahead-of-schedule/

PORTSMOUTH, Va. (WAVY) – Construction on the new Midtown Tunnel (U.S. 58) is ahead of schedule, and now appears set to open several months before its original completion date.
Elizabeth River Crossings' (ERC) Construction Director Dan Norman says the public will be able to drive through the new tunnel in the early summer, which is about six months before the scheduled opening of December 2016.
...
Norman said crews must finish up safety inspections before the westbound side can open up. When it does, the new tunnel will only have one lane open. The existing tunnel will also go down to one lane, which is when the rehabilitation will start on the eastbound tube.
...
While ERC says the westbound tunnel will open up in early summer, there is no set date for the opening. Norman said that will depend on the safety inspections.

Not entirely sure why they can't just redirect both lanes to the new tube if they needed to rehab the old one.

EDIT: Here's the first picture of the completed inside of the new  tunnel that I've seen:

[froggie]

Not entirely sure why they can't just redirect both lanes to the new tube if they needed to rehab the old one.

My hunch is that A) the rehab work needed is not significant, and B) it's easier for outside-the-tunnel traffic control not to shift everything over to the new tube.  The downside is that it would be a lot safer for workers inside the tunnel if there wasn't regular traffic running through it.

[Thing 342]

Not entirely sure why they can't just redirect both lanes to the new tube if they needed to rehab the old one.

My hunch is that A) the rehab work needed is not significant, and B) it's easier for outside-the-tunnel traffic control not to shift everything over to the new tube.  The downside is that it would be a lot safer for workers inside the tunnel if there wasn't regular traffic running through it.

I wonder if they're trying to ease the new tube into service by only diverting half of the current load when it opens.
That being said, I'm also skeptical about how much rehab work they can do with the emissions buildup in an active tunnel.

[JacobNC]

It'll likely be a single lane from Hampton Blvd...the reason being is that there is also a lot of traffic going to the tunnel from Brambleton.  Giving Brambleton traffic their own lane would do more to "prevent backups" than giving both lanes to Hampton Blvd and forcing traffic coming from Brambleton to merge.

I think the traffic is disproportionately coming from Hampton Blvd.  But maybe you're right that giving one lane each to Hampton and Brambleton would be easier than having Brambleton merge in.

Here's a topic of discussion while we're on the subject of tunnels:  What should be done to ease congestion on I-64 between Norfolk and Hampton?  I would opt for building two new tubes parallel to the current two and then widening I-64 to eight lanes between I-564 in Norfolk and I-664 in Hampton.  So it would be like the Fort McHenry tunnel in Baltimore with eight lanes of traffic split over four tunnels.  The idea of extending I-564 westward to 664 (over water) sounds pretty silly by comparison in my opinion.  Would they really save that much money by doing that?

[Rothman]

What should be done to ease congestion on I-64 between Norfolk and Hampton? 

Heh.  When I was an intern at FHWA over a decade ago, they concluded the problem was intractable.

[Thing 342]

The new Midtown Tunnel tube will open to traffic tomorrow: http://wavy.com/2016/06/16/new-midtown-tunnel-lane-to-open-friday/

[1995hoo]

Have any of you ever explored this tunnel under I-395 at the Boundary Channel Drive interchange? I've seen it online but have never gotten a great look at it in person, in part because of where it is. We passed it last week one morning when I decided to try a different route to work (US-1 through Old Town to Slaters Lane, then the GW Parkway to southbound I-395, then an immediate exit to Boundary Channel Drive up to Memorial Bridge). It was obviously hard to get a good look at it going past at ramp speed, but I did note several white signs advising it no longer goes anywhere. From what I can gather, once upon a time it connected to the trail along the GW Parkway but was severed when they improved the merge lane onto the northbound 14th Street Bridge.

I'm just curious what it looks like inside, whether it's something to try to explore sometime, etc. Of course the difficulty is figuring out a good place to park and walk to it, given the proximity of restricted Pentagon lots.

(Link is from the Google Maps app and is supposed to be to a satellite view of the loop ramp at the northwest corner of the I-395/Boundary Channel Drive interchange. It may not display properly, hence the detailed information. There's a pedestrian tunnel bellmouth between that ramp and the exit ramp adjacent to the loop.)

https://goo.gl/maps/2MatB7HcYPx

[froggie]

Pretty sure it's an emergency exit tunnel for the Yellow Line.

[Mapmikey]

Looks like the closest place to park that is not Pentagon related is on Long Bridge Dr by the soccer field just east of I-395.

It appears via Historic Aerials that the sidewalk was removed from within the clover ramp btw GW Pkwy SB and 395 NB in the 1980s.

The tunnels were built between 1952-63 and the west end of the sidewalk changed drastically to where it headed sometime after 1964.  There also used to be a building in the 395 median between Boundary Channel and the GW Pkwy interchanges that I'm guessing the sidewalk was intended to serve originally...

Skeptical about the yellow line theory...the sidewalk does not look connected in between the 395 tunnels.  Unless the SB tunnel is connected underground to the yellow line tunnel nearby...

[froggie]

I'm still thinking it's the emergency exit for the Virginia-bound Yellow Line.  Would not require crossing the tracks to access the more-visible emergency exit that's located next to the Yellow Line tunnel portal.

Could also be some sort of air exhaust for the Yellow Line tunnel.  Look how nicely the tunnels line up with the Yellow Line tunnel portal.

[Mapmikey]

Found this which is not any help to see if these two pedestrian tunnels were later incorporated into the yellow line tunnel ventilation or evacuation

http://www.metroped.org/sp/boundry_channel_sidewalk.htm

[AlexandriaVA]

To me it looks like a rudimentary pedestrian/bike connection between Mt Vernon Trail and Boundary Channel which was never improved upon. In other words, I'm invoking Occam's Razor here.

That said, there is a long-standing goal in the local bike community (the 'bike lobby', if you believe certain local media), that wants an improved connection between Long Bridge Drive and the Mt. Vernon Trail. Such a connection would join the same fundamental areas.

Froggie-

If it were an evacuation route, then I would expect to see WMATA markings or posted routes, along with signage.

Ventilation is here: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8706608,-77.0491487,3a,75y,75.77h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sE9i8EK7-88EPlUF9CcyQbA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DE9i8EK7-88EPlUF9CcyQbA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D71.959465%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656

[AlexandriaVA]

I'm just curious what it looks like inside, whether it's something to try to explore sometime, etc. Of course the difficulty is figuring out a good place to park and walk to it, given the proximity of restricted Pentagon lots.

I'd caution on your last point. I've been stopped before for walking on the sidewalk in a town (granted in the Western US where I guess people don't walk) on the grounds that I looked "suspicious". There had been apparently been a bar fight nearby, and I guess out west, you only walk if you're poor or drunk. Police might be suspicious why you're walking around, even if it isn't restricted. That said, on one of the tunnel portals, there looked to be a "no trespassing" sign.

PS - I enjoyed your latest video.

[Mapmikey]

To me it looks like a rudimentary pedestrian/bike connection between Mt Vernon Trail and Boundary Channel which was never improved upon. In other words, I'm invoking Occam's Razor here.

That said, there is a long-standing goal in the local bike community (the 'bike lobby', if you believe certain local media), that wants an improved connection between Long Bridge Drive and the Mt. Vernon Trail. Such a connection would join the same fundamental areas.

Froggie-

If it were an evacuation route, then I would expect to see WMATA markings or posted routes, along with signage.

Ventilation is here: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8706608,-77.0491487,3a,75y,75.77h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sE9i8EK7-88EPlUF9CcyQbA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DE9i8EK7-88EPlUF9CcyQbA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D71.959465%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656

The original path was the SB 14th St Bridge then underneath 395 SB to the mystery facility (built between 1935-49 and had a parking lot with the building and had ramps to and from Shirley Hwy in the 1950s but only car access by 1963 was road that is Long Bridge Dr north of Boundary Channel which used to pass under 395 NB lanes) that is gone in the median then under 395 NB to head over to GW Pkwy.  The west side of the path was diverted away from the 14th St bridge and instead down to Boundary Channel Dr under 395 after 1964.  There is a gap of 15 years in the satellite images, so it is possible the west side did both of those things for a while.

[cpzilliacus]

Have any of you ever explored this tunnel under I-395 at the Boundary Channel Drive interchange?

Yes, but not recently.  At one time there were buses that stopped on the mainline of I-95 (I-395 now) to allow alighting northbound and boarding southbound - without the bus having to go through the Pentagon bus terminal (the bus stops are still there, used mostly by VDOT and the Virginia State Police southbound and the DDOT roadway assistance patrol people northbound).  I think the regular use of the  bus stops ended in the early 1970's when the I-95 Busway project (I-395 HOV lanes now) was opened.  I have never seen a transit bus stop there myself (I believe they were used by the "Mom and Pop" commuter buses that ran between Prince William County (maybe Stafford County too) and D.C. back in the  day, Colonial Transit (Colonial went bankrupt and out of business after a serious crash involving one of their buses, and it was determined that the bus was in poor mechanical condition).

In order to provide walk access from (and maybe to) the stop on the northbound side of I-95 (I-395 today) and the Pentagon Reservation, a pair of tunnels under everything was built.  It had a pretty nice hard surface (terrazzo, I believe, rather like what is inside the Pentagon), and a concrete sidewalk between the tunnel that went under the northbound conventional lanes and a different tunnel that went under the express lanes and the southbound conventional lanes.  The stairs leading to and from the tunnels were extremely deteriorated, but the surfaces in the tunnel seemed dry and in good condition. However, the last time I walked there (on official business) there was a homeless encampment in the longer tunnel (I believe the Virginia State Police would come every once in a while and shoo them away and with help from VDOT and maybe a social worker from Arlington County, dismantle their living arrangements). 

Last time I looked (this was a few years after I walked through them) VDOT had put barriers in place to prevent homeless people (or anyone else) from walking there or setting up living arrangements in the tunnels.

These tunnels have nothing to do with the Metrorail Yellow Line.