Virginia

[Beltway]

Needing a "cushion" is just the speak of an aggressive driver that wants to go 20 to 25 mph over the limit.

Can you do math? 85 MPH is 15 over 70 MPH, not 20 or 25. Most state's have that type of cushion.

Why do you need a "cushion"?   To rest your head?

Did you know that Virginia had a 70 mph freeway speed limit for a year before the 1973 NMSL?

I thought it was 65 MPH on all highways, regardless of freeway or non-limited-access (and it still should be).
What interstate was it? I-85? Or all of them?

It was raised from 65 mph cars / 55 mph trucks to 70 mph cars / 60 mph trucks in 1972, on nearly all the rural Interstate mileage.

[sprjus4]

It was raised from 65 mph cars / 55 mph trucks to 70 mph cars / 60 mph trucks in 1972, on nearly all the rural Interstate mileage.

So it initially was raised to 70 MPH for a year, but then it dropped back down again... why didn't they raise the 4-lane non-limited-access speed back up to 65 MPH? I'd argue most highways could handle that.

[Beltway]

It was raised from 65 mph cars / 55 mph trucks to 70 mph cars / 60 mph trucks in 1972, on nearly all the rural Interstate mileage.

So it initially was raised to 70 MPH for a year, but then it dropped back down again... why didn't they raise the 4-lane non-limited-access speed back up to 65 MPH? I'd argue most highways could handle that.

For one thing none of those 4-lane nonlimited-access highways were raised to 65 before the NMSL was enacted.

[sprjus4]

It was raised from 65 mph cars / 55 mph trucks to 70 mph cars / 60 mph trucks in 1972, on nearly all the rural Interstate mileage.

So it initially was raised to 70 MPH for a year, but then it dropped back down again... why didn't they raise the 4-lane non-limited-access speed back up to 65 MPH? I'd argue most highways could handle that.

For one thing none of those 4-lane nonlimited-access highways were raised to 65 before the NMSL was enacted.

You said it yourself - no reason why it couldn't be approved again.

Texas has 75 MPH divided highways. Works fine.

A half year before the 1973 NMSL, a 65 mph possible maximum was approved for 4-lane divided nonlimited-access highways, which the NMSL canceled before any went into effect.  No reason why it could not be approved again.  (And don't give me this garbage that it would "reduce the ticket revenue").

[Beltway]

It was raised from 65 mph cars / 55 mph trucks to 70 mph cars / 60 mph trucks in 1972, on nearly all the rural Interstate mileage.

So it initially was raised to 70 MPH for a year, but then it dropped back down again... why didn't they raise the 4-lane non-limited-access speed back up to 65 MPH? I'd argue most highways could handle that.

For one thing none of those 4-lane nonlimited-access highways were raised to 65 before the NMSL was enacted.

You said it yourself - no reason why it couldn't be approved again.
Texas has 75 MPH divided highways. Works fine.

A half year before the 1973 NMSL, a 65 mph possible maximum was approved for 4-lane divided nonlimited-access highways, which the NMSL canceled before any went into effect.  No reason why it could not be approved again.  (And don't give me this garbage that it would "reduce the ticket revenue").

The fact that something was actually implemented gives more weight and experience to doing it again.

If US-58 between I-95 and I-264 was posted at 65 mph on the nonlimited-access sections, and 70 mph on the bypasses, would kind of shoot more holes in the advocacy for Vanity I-87.

[froggie]

Texas has 75 MPH divided highways. Works fine.

Texas also has wide open spaces, longer sightlines, fewer hills and curves, and less overall traffic...especially western Texas.  Oh, and far fewer driveways and private access points.

In fact, even in Texas, where they allow higher-than-70 speeds is dependent on population density.  Lower population density = higher allowable speed.  The only exception being the tolled TX 130...and that only has an 85 limit to encourage traffic to pay the toll to avoid I-35.

[Beltway]

Texas has 75 MPH divided highways. Works fine.

Texas also has wide open spaces, longer sightlines, fewer hills and curves, and less overall traffic...especially western Texas.  Oh, and far fewer driveways and private access points.

Those central western states have always trended about 10 mph higher than eastern states, for those reasons, even before the 1973 NMSL.

In fact, even in Texas, where they allow higher-than-70 speeds is dependent on population density.  Lower population density = higher allowable speed.  The only exception being the tolled TX 130...and that only has an 85 limit to encourage traffic to pay the toll to avoid I-35.

TX-130 is an expensive tollroad and it serves the allegedly toll-free San Antonio area.  It starts on the outskirts but nevertheless serves as an I-35 bypass of Austin on the busy corridor between San Antonio and DWF.

[sprjus4]

Texas has 75 MPH divided highways. Works fine.

Texas also has wide open spaces, longer sightlines, fewer hills and curves, and less overall traffic...especially western Texas.  Oh, and far fewer driveways and private access points.

Those central western states have always trended about 10 mph higher than eastern states, for those reasons, even before the 1973 NMSL.

Most highways in the east and north also carry 75 MPH speed limits. Four-lane divided highways including US 281, US 77, US 59, etc. along with many others are major trucking routes, carry 20,000+ AADT, and have a mix of curves and straightaways. All of them include numerous connecting driveways, cross roads, etc.

There's roads in Virginia that obviously wouldn't be 75, but could easily handle 65 MPH or even 70, though it's Virginia so that's a stretch. US 58 is a flat, straight road, with a few exceptions at certain locations, US 17, etc. If it was located within Texas, that would easily meet their standard of 75 MPH. I go there all the time - I've seen the roads. Many aren't that different from Virginia's in generalized characteristics. Trees behind the houses doesn't change the characteristics of the highway.

For freeways - Loop 1604 is a 4-lane divided freeway around San Antonio, carries heavy amounts of traffic, lots of entry / exit points, developed all around, it holds a speed of 70 MPH. A more local example - Raleigh's heavily traveled I-540 and Charlotte's I-485 hold 70 MPH speed limits as well, however that's less entrance / exit points, but is still nonetheless an urban freeway.

Most freeways around Hampton Roads could see increases to 65 MPH without any issues. Especially I-664 (arguably could be 70 MPH), parts of I-64 near Bowers Hill, US 58 around Suffolk, VA-168, Dominion Blvd, etc. I-64 on the peninsula was just raised to 65 MPH back in December from as far south as I-664 heading north. US 17 in Southern Chesapeake and US 58 between Bowers Hill and Suffolk could also handle 65 MPH, though current law does not permit that. Only limited-access highways (freeways) can be posted above 60 MPH.

TX-130 is an expensive tollroad and it serves the allegedly toll-free San Antonio area.  It starts on the outskirts but nevertheless serves as an I-35 bypass of Austin on the busy corridor between San Antonio and DWF.

The intent of the road is take traffic coming from Laredo, Mexico, and points south of San Antonio, including San Antonio around Austin. It's not a toll road of San Antonio, it's 45 miles away from Downtown, and about 25 miles from the edges of the entire metro. No freeway in the metro area, Loop 1604, I-410, I-10, I-35, I-37, US 281, TX-151, US 90, and the Wurzbach Pkwy include any forms of tolls. US 281 is getting the freeway mainline extended around 5 miles north of Loop 1604, and Loop 1604 is getting extended south on the western side around 5 miles. Both of those projects were originally going to be tolled, but were instead fully funded by TXDOT.

Loop 1604 is a 4-lane divided freeway, and was proposed to be widened to 8 lanes. This would've involved constructing two HO/T lanes in each direction. Instead, they changed that due to funding, and it's now going to be a 10 lane freeway with 4 GP + 1 HOV (not HO/T) in each direction.

The only exception being the tolled TX 130...and that only has an 85 limit to encourage traffic to pay the toll to avoid I-35.

That's not the reason the toll road is 85 MPH. The northern 40 miles is 80 MPH, and the southern 40 miles is 85 MPH. It has to do with road design. The real goal was to divert long-distance truck traffic around Austin - no truck is going to safely be able to push past 75 MPH.

There's been proposals to pay off the toll road and make it toll-free so more people would actually use it, and I-35 would get even more less congested (it certainly has either way), and those would involve retaining the high amount of speed.

[Beltway]

Texas has 75 MPH divided highways. Works fine.

Texas also has wide open spaces, longer sightlines, fewer hills and curves, and less overall traffic...especially western Texas.  Oh, and far fewer driveways and private access points.

Those central western states have always trended about 10 mph higher than eastern states, for those reasons, even before the 1973 NMSL.

Most highways in the east and north also carry 75 MPH speed limits.

What?  WHAT??  WHAT???

<Remaining Sprjus4 speed limit discussion summarily snipped>

TX-130 is an expensive tollroad and it serves the allegedly toll-free San Antonio area.  It starts on the outskirts but nevertheless serves as an I-35 bypass of Austin on the busy corridor between San Antonio and DWF.

The intent of the road is take traffic coming from Laredo, Mexico, and points south of San Antonio, including San Antonio around Austin. It's not a toll road of San Antonio, it's 45 miles away from Downtown, and about 25 miles from the edges of the entire metro.

Guadalupe County contains the southern 14 miles of TX-130 and that county is part of the San Antonio—New Braunfels Metropolitan Statistical Area.
https://tinyurl.com/yafvowuj
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_San_Antonio

The San Antonio commutershed extends well beyond the official MSA boundaries.

TX-130 in conjunction with a segment of I-10 bypasses that whole congested I-35 corridor between San Antonio and north of Georgetown, and I-35 between San Antonio and Dallas/Fort Worth is by far the busiest Interstate corridor that serves San Antonio, so I certainly would assert that Toll TX-130 is part of the San Antonio regional highway system.

[Beltway]

https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2019/01/new-american-legion-bridge-within-years-says-md-highway-administrator/

WASHINGTON – Soon after Virginia announced its plans to extend Express Lanes almost three miles from Tysons Corner to the American Legion Bridge, Maryland has confirmed a new bridge will be equipped to handle extra traffic.

Without committing to a precise timeline, Maryland's highway administrator Greg Slater said a new American Legion Bridge will be built within the next several years.

"We are focused on the bridge as our first order of business,"  Slater told WUSA9. "We want to get out there and move that traffic."

The only way to address that bridge, and have more capacity on that bridge, is to build a new bridge,"  Slater said.

What's still not clear is the configuration of the bridge, although Slater confirmed to Channel 9 that the new bridge would have additional lanes to allow a seamless flow from Virginia Express Lane traffic into Maryland.

In 2017, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan announced plans for a public-private partnership to add toll lanes to I-270 and the Beltway, but didn't provide specifics on how the Legion Bridge, which was built in 1963, would carry traffic.

Slater said private developers interested in being part of the project are being directed to develop plans that would add new Beltway lanes within the Interstate's existing footprint, leaving open the possibilities of stacked roadways or travel underground.

This is good news!  If the bridge is widened to 14 lanes (1-4-2-2-4-1) that will be an expensive project. 

At 1,263 feet long it is much shorter than the Wilson Bridge, and does not need navigational clearance, but the banks on either side are elevated enough that the bridge still has considerable height above the river.

[sprjus4]

What?  WHAT??  WHAT???

East and north Texas. Though Maine and Michigan do carry 75 MPH speed limits on highways, and Michigan has 65 MPH posted on two-lane and four-lane divided highways as well.

Guadalupe County contains the southern 14 miles of TX-130 and that county is part of the San Antonio—New Braunfels Metropolitan Statistical Area.
https://tinyurl.com/yafvowuj
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_San_Antonio

The San Antonio commutershed extends well beyond the official MSA boundaries.

Same argument that Currituck County, and Elizabeth City are part of the overall Hampton Roads Statistical Area.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampton_Roads

I-87 would serve a direct routing from Hampton Roads to Raleigh. Elizabeth City or Currituck County to Raleigh, direct routing.

That logic doesn't work for you with I-87, and doesn't work with San Antonio either.

[Beltway]

What?  WHAT??  WHAT???

East and north Texas.

My reply was in reference to your "Most highways in the east and north also carry 75 MPH speed limits."  You gave no indication that you were referring only to Texas with that statement.

Though Maine and Michigan do carry 75 MPH speed limits on highways, and Michigan has 65 MPH posted on two-lane and four-lane divided highways as well.

There are 25 states east of the Mississippi River, and no others have over 70 mph.  In the case of Maine that is only on the northern reaches of I-95 in a very rural part of the state. 

Guadalupe County contains the southern 14 miles of TX-130 and that county is part of the San Antonio—New Braunfels Metropolitan Statistical Area.
The San Antonio commutershed extends well beyond the official MSA boundaries.

Same argument that Currituck County, and Elizabeth City are part of the overall Hampton Roads Statistical Area. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampton_Roads

Only thru creative snipping can it be considered the same logic as what I presented. 
TX-130 is a tollroad and it bypasses orders of magnitude more urbanization and traffic.

I-87 would serve a direct routing from Hampton Roads to Raleigh.

You keep repeating the same lie that has been refuted dozens of times.  Look Mr. Sprjus4, this is heading beyond the point of my merely expressing irritation and annoyance, it is heading toward the range of expressing mockery and ridicule.

Elizabeth City or Currituck County to Raleigh, direct routing.

I would agree with that, but they don't need an Interstate highway for that routing.

That logic doesn't work for you with I-87, and doesn't work with San Antonio either.

The San Antonio region has a major tollroad, despite the allegation that it did not.

[sprjus4]

You keep repeating the same lie that has been refuted dozens of times.

I-87 would run a direct route from Hampton Roads to Raleigh. Elizabeth City is apart of Hampton Roads, and therefore, runs a direct routing. You cannot refute that fact.

The San Antonio region has a major tollroad, despite the allegation that it did not.

And again, I-87 would run a direct routing from Hampton Roads (Elizabeth City) to Raleigh. You cannot refute that then, if I cannot refute San Antonio has a toll road. If you're going to play statistical, then same goes here.

[Beltway]

You keep repeating the same lie that has been refuted dozens of times.

I-87 would run a direct route from Hampton Roads to Raleigh. Elizabeth City is apart of Hampton Roads, and therefore, runs a direct routing. You cannot refute that fact.

The San Antonio region has a major tollroad, despite the allegation that it did not.

And again, I-87 would run a direct routing from Hampton Roads (Elizabeth City) to Raleigh. You cannot refute that then, if I cannot refute San Antonio has a toll road. If you're going to play statistical, then same goes here.

Then why doesn't the proposed "I-87" end at Elizabeth City?  Norfolk is 48 miles north of Elizabeth City.  Raleigh is west of Elizabeth City.

I direct readers to the "Interstate 87 (NC-VA)" thread.  I will deal with this matter there in the future.

[sprjus4]

Then why doesn't the proposed "I-87" end at Elizabeth City?  Norfolk is 48 miles north of Elizabeth City.  Raleigh is west of Elizabeth City.

I direct readers to the "Interstate 87 (NC-VA)" thread.  I will deal with this matter there in the future.

Elizabeth City - Hampton Roads is a major corridor. 13,000 AADT, major truck traffic, a commuter route, and a freeway has been discussed for decades on this route. That explains the leg north of Elizabeth City. South of Elizabeth City, heads to I-95 and Raleigh.

If any readers are actually interested, you've mentioned your few vanity, anti-interstate rhetoric points. It's 25 miles slower, will carry no traffic whatsoever between I-95 and Norfolk, and is already serviced by a high-speed arterial highway. Did I miss anything? I just saved people the time of clicking through at least 15 pages of the same thing.

[Alps]

Enough out of both of you. New topic.

[sprjus4]

Enough out of both of you. New topic.

You should see the I-87 forum. But I won't reply back to this thread unless something Virginia related warrants.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18354.950

[Beltway]

Enough out of both of you. New topic.

No problem.  I knew the moderators were watching. 
And wondering what it would take to halt things.

Enough out of both of you. New topic.

You should see the I-87 forum. But I won't reply back to this thread unless something Virginia related warrants.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18354.950

The implication is that the directive is global.

[hbelkins]

Elizabeth City part of Hampton Roads? Funny, I always thought of the Outer Banks when I thought of Elizabeth City, not Hampton Roads.

(And yes, I know that Elizabeth City is NOT on the east side of the sound.)

[Thing 342]

Elizabeth City part of Hampton Roads? Funny, I always thought of the Outer Banks when I thought of Elizabeth City, not Hampton Roads.

(And yes, I know that Elizabeth City is NOT on the east side of the sound.)

EC is in the Hampton Roads media market along with the Outer Banks and the rest of NE NC (I think the dividing line is the Chowan River). It's definitely not considered a core area, but crimes, school closings, et al. are definitely reported on the local news. Things get interesting when they have to disambiguate between Northampton County, NC and Northampton County, VA (on the Eastern Shore and also part of the media market)

[Beltway]

Elizabeth City part of Hampton Roads? Funny, I always thought of the Outer Banks when I thought of Elizabeth City, not Hampton Roads.  (And yes, I know that Elizabeth City is NOT on the east side of the sound.)

EC is in the Hampton Roads media market along with the Outer Banks and the rest of NE NC (I think the dividing line is the Chowan River). It's definitely not considered a core area, but crimes, school closings, et al. are definitely reported on the local news. Things get interesting when they have to disambiguate between Northampton County, NC and Northampton County, VA (on the Eastern Shore and also part of the media market)

The central Maryland Eastern Shore is part of the Baltimore and Washington media market, and I am not just talking about Kent Island.  My dad lives in Talbot County and he get their TV stations via an outdoor antenna.  Of course many natives of the Eastern Shore will disavow any real connections with the Western Shore!

[Beltway]

New American Legion Bridge within years, says Md. highway administrator
By Neal Augenstein, WTOP
January 31, 2019

WASHINGTON – Soon after Virginia announced its plans to extend Express Lanes almost three miles from Tysons Corner to the American Legion Bridge, Maryland has confirmed a new bridge will be equipped to handle extra traffic.

Without committing to a precise timeline, Maryland's highway administrator, Greg Slater, said a new American Legion Bridge will be built within the next several years.

"We are focused on the bridge as our first order of business,"  Slater told WUSA9. "We want to get out there and move that traffic."

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam announced Tuesday new Express Lanes will run in each direction of the Beltway from the Dulles Access Road to the Legion Bridge at the Maryland border. Construction could begin next year.

The announcement left open the question: How would Maryland deal with more traffic on the bridge, that currently carries four lanes over the Potomac River, into Maryland?  In each direction, the bridge has four through-lanes, and one exit lane.  "The only way to address that bridge, and have more capacity on that bridge, is to build a new bridge,"  Slater said.

What's still not clear is the configuration of the bridge, although Slater confirmed to Channel 9 that the new bridge would have additional lanes to allow a seamless flow from Virginia Express Lane traffic into Maryland.

In 2017, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan announced plans for a public-private partnership to add toll lanes to I-270 and the Beltway, but didn't provide specifics on how the Legion Bridge, which was built in 1963, would carry traffic.

Slater said private developers interested in being part of the project are being directed to develop plans that would add new Beltway lanes within the Interstate's existing footprint, leaving open the possibilities of stacked roadways or travel underground.

In announcing Virginia's $1 billion deal with Transurban to build four road projects in Northern Virginia, Transportation Secretary Shannon Valentine said: "It's also going to provide for Virginians, regardless of what happens in Maryland, direct access to the George Washington Parkway."

Valentine was asked how, and how quickly the new project would provide relief to those who currently deal with overflow traffic.

"I would like to say immediately,"  she said. "Of all the issues, this is one of the top that we hear from citizens about, is the cut-through traffic in McLean."

Currently, about a quarter million vehicles cross the bridge daily, but over the next 20 years planners estimate that will climb to 300,000 per day.

SMK: I can see some engineering difficulties for the approach transitions to a double-decked bridge, and for the steep grades needed to transition to a tunnel under the river to say nothing of the cost.

[Mapmikey]

I was pondering how a new Legion Bridge could work recently...

I agree a tunnel would be a difficult facility to build given the proximity of exits on both sides of the river and the elevation changes required to get underneath the river.

A thought I had that might not be so hard as a double-decker concept would be to have both directions of the express lanes be on an upper level by themselves.  You could widen the current footprint more easily for just an additional lane + shoulder in each direction on the bottom level instead of that plus 2 express lanes in each direction.

[Roadsguy]

The Legion bridge might warrant a thread of its own, otherwise the discussion will be split across the two state threads.

[Beltway]

I was pondering how a new Legion Bridge could work recently...
A thought I had that might not be so hard as a double-decker concept would be to have both directions of the express lanes be on an upper level by themselves.  You could widen the current footprint more easily for just an additional lane + shoulder in each direction on the bottom level instead of that plus 2 express lanes in each direction.

Good point, the current bridge has 4 GP lanes and one AUX lane, which is needed.  The problem is that there are minimal shoulders and they need to have a 12-foot shoulder on each side of each roadway, so the replacement bridge needs to be wider, and I believe given its age it should be completely replaced.