Virginia

[sprjus4]

Have you used this new interchange configuration yet?

No, I'm not just going to drive 3 hours to see one interchange. I don't have that type of time. And unless I have a stop planned at that interchange when on I-95 north, I don't plan on stopping there either.

I've seen the project design plans and the aerial picture of the final configuration. It's a RIRO onto Mallard Rd. There's a channelized turn lane from VA-606 west to Mallard Rd south that helps to supplement the movement onto the ramp, but it's not apart of the actual ramp. The interstate highway state maintained right of way begins at the ramp terminal on Mallard Rd, it does not extend beyond that. That stretch of Mallard Rd south is a local roadway, not an interstate ramp.

It's not a bad thing it's a RIRO. It's just how it is. It serves its purpose, and that channelized right turn onto Mallard Rd south helps to supplement the ramp movement.

EDIT - Another thing, the signage onto the roadway segment you claim is apart of the ramp indicates "TO I-95 North". If it was apart of the ramp, it would merely say "I-95 North". That direct "I-95 North" signage starts at the RIRO part, where the true ramp begins, as I mentioned above.

[froggie]

^ You guys are all misusing RIRO.  This is a standard T-intersection between the northbound ramps and Mallard Rd (F163).  If this were truly RIRO, you would not be able to make left turns off of the off-ramp or onto the on-ramp.

[Beltway]

You guys are all misusing RIRO.  This is a standard T-intersection between the northbound ramps and Mallard Rd (F163).  If this were truly RIRO, you would not be able to make left turns off of the off-ramp or onto the on-ramp.

There is only one person that is misusing RIRO.

The heavy leftward movement here is from eastbound VA-606 Mudd Tavern Road to northbound I-95, and from the driver's standpoint there is a limited access loop ramp using one continuous lane that handles that movement.

[sprjus4]

from the driver's standpoint there is a limited access loop ramp using one continuous lane that handles that movement.

I've been through interchanges of that type, and I can certainly say I do -not- see it as one ramp, I see it as turning onto Mallard Rd, then turning onto the ramp, all in channelized movements. If a driver was told it was a continuous ramp, a conflict point exists because they are not expecting another street, they are expecting a direct freeway ramp with no obstruction. That's why the movement is not signed as the I-95 ramp, or apart of the I-95 ramp, it's simply a channelized movement to assist getting traffic to the I-95 ramp. Once on the I-95 ramp, driver expectancy is now normal, and it's a free-flowing, unobstructed movement onto I-95 North.

The interstate state maintained right of way doesn't begin until the ramp point leaving Mallard Rd, and the signage turning onto Mallard Rd indicates "TO I-95", not simply "I-95". Mallard Rd is its own road, and as froggie mentioned, it could be more of a T-intersection ramp rather than RIRO, but the channelized movement between VA-606 and Mallard Rd is not apart of any freeway ramp. Signage proves this, interstate maintained right of way proves this, and the fact that small stretch of "interstate ramp" is a roadway (F-163 Mallard Rd) disproves that.

[Beltway]

from the driver's standpoint there is a limited access loop ramp using one continuous lane that handles that movement.

I've been through interchanges of that type,

No you have not.  That appears to be unique, or at least something different from anything I have encountered in over 1 million miles of driving.

[sprjus4]

from the driver's standpoint there is a limited access loop ramp using one continuous lane that handles that movement.

I've been through interchanges of that type,

No you have not.  That appears to be unique, or at least something different from anything I have encountered in over 1 million miles of driving.

Baloney.

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.451872,-87.2204654,482m/data=!3m1!1e3

Been through that one many times - Pensacola, Florida at I-110 / FL-295.

Also, does almost every interchange in Texas count? Where you have to turn onto the frontage road then merge on the freeway? Is the frontage road apart of the ramp? I've never considered it to be, even when there's a free flowing turn-around underneath that dumps you right into the lane onto the ramp. Been through Texas interchanges many times throughout my life as well.

I've been caught in congestion at this one before at I-264 in Portsmouth - https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8300249,-76.3064463,447m/data=!3m1!1e3

[Beltway]

from the driver's standpoint there is a limited access loop ramp using one continuous lane that handles that movement.

I've been through interchanges of that type,

No you have not.  That appears to be unique, or at least something different from anything I have encountered in over 1 million miles of driving.

Baloney.

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet.

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.451872,-87.2204654,482m/data=!3m1!1e3
Been through that one many times - Pensacola, Florida at I-110 / FL-295.

A T-intersection with a 4-lane arterial.

Interesting in how you seem to have driven practically everywhere ...

[sprjus4]

A T-intersection with a 4-lane arterial.

That loop to ramp movement is the exact same as Mallard Rd. No difference whatsoever.

Interesting in how you seem to have driven practically everywhere ...

I've vacationed in Pensacola before, and have family there. Your point?

Sorry I've used an intersection that you claim does not exist anywhere else but Virginia in Florida.

[Beltway]

A T-intersection with a 4-lane arterial.

That loop to ramp movement is the exact same as Mallard Rd. No difference whatsoever.

If you had a highway engineering background you would not say that they are the "exact same".

For one thing, do you see the bike lane between the ramp lane and the arterial lanes?

[sprjus4]

If you had a highway engineering background you would not say that they are the "exact same".

Did I say I had a highway engineering background?

Does everybody on this forum have to have a highway engineering background?

For one thing, do you see the bike lane between the ramp lane and the arterial lanes?

The movement from NB FL-295 to EB FL-291 to NB I-110 is the same layout, and takes you through two channelized movements to the ramp.

The fact there's a bike lane and an additional lane makes no difference how the movement is.



You're beating a dead horse trying to prove your claim it's not a RIRO or T-intersection, or the fact these interchanges are somehow different.

When you can provide a valid argument how the arterial to ramp movement is different, then I'll believe you. I'll wait...

[Beltway]

The area inside the loop at VA-606 is part of the limited access right-of-way for the highway.  I would need to go out there to see if it is fenced, but that land will not be used for any public access or establishment, so that is a limited access loop.

[1995hoo]

The Thornburg ramp isn't a RIRO for the reasons froggie noted. Compare that ramp to the ones on US-50 on Kent Island in Maryland, where there are several RIROs, including one that connects to a roundabout.

[sprjus4]

The Thornburg ramp isn't a RIRO for the reasons froggie noted. Compare that ramp to the ones on US-50 on Kent Island in Maryland, where there are several RIROs, including one that connects to a roundabout.

I've agreed to that, but it's not a loop ramp as Scott continues to claim. It's a channelized turn onto Mallard Rd, then another channelized turn onto I-95 North.

By claiming it's a full interstate maintained loop ramp, you claim that Mallard Rd southbound does not exist in that stretch. A roadway cannot be apart of a ramp.

Fallacy argument.

[1995hoo]

I don't have an issue with his comment because in reply #4152 he said (emphasis added) "from the driver's standpoint there is a limited access loop ramp using one continuous lane that handles that movement."  To me, the italicized words are the key and I read the comment as meaning, in essence, "it's not a true limited-access loop ramp, but it functions as one for a lot of people."  

[sprjus4]

I don't have an issue with his comment because in reply #4152 he said (emphasis added) "from the driver's standpoint there is a limited access loop ramp using one continuous lane that handles that movement."  To me, the italicized words are the key and I read the comment as meaning, in essence, "it's not a true limited-access loop ramp, but it functions as one for a lot of people."

I agree on that part somewhat, though he pushed the claim above it is truly a limited-access full loop ramp. And it depends on driver familiarity. If you're not familiar with the area, when you make the first channelized movement, you still get the sense of being on a road. However, signage directs you to the ramp, and overall makes a loop type movement from when you leave VA-606 and you enter I-95 North.

No it is not.  The entire loop is a freeway ramp.  It has its own lane from the exit point on VA-606 and it is limited access all the way through.

The channelized movement onto Mallard Rd serves the interchange, though is not apart of the interstate maintained right of way. Yes, Mallard Rd has limited-access fencing, but it is not apart of the state-maintained interstate right of way. That stretch is apart of Mallard Rd southbound, not the ramp.

[Beltway]

The entire loop is a freeway ramp.  It has its own lane from the exit point on VA-606 and it is limited access all the way through.

The channelized movement onto Mallard Rd serves the interchange, though is not apart of the interstate maintained right of way. Yes, Mallard Rd has limited-access fencing, but it is not apart of the state-maintained interstate right of way. That stretch is apart of Mallard Rd southbound, not the ramp.

Whatever part you want to argue is part of the "Interstate", the area inside of the loop will not be utilized for any commercial or public establishment, so that is a de facto part of the freeway.

You make a smooth freeway loop movement from the gore on VA-606 to where it becomes the original ramp to I-95 North.

[jakeroot]

I'm seeing two slip lanes, with an auxiliary lane between them. A driver would probably see a loop, but drivers aren't making the technical choices here.

In Washington State, the "FREEWAY ENTRANCE" sign would be used at the second right turn. Because the first intersection forces all right turns to use the slip lane, anyone destined for southbound Mallard Road would need to use that first right turn, and then perform a lane change. To say that this movement, even hypothetically, involves entering the interstate on-ramp and then performing a lane change away from the on-ramp, seems daft.

My understanding is that "FREEWAY ENTRANCE" signs can only be used at the point of no return. The signs are an indication that you are entering a freeway, and relevant rules apply. If Virginia's "PROHIBITED" signs (the technical equivalent, I suppose) are used at the first right turn, then we could conclude that (A) both slip lanes, (B) Mallard Road, and (C) the on-ramp are part of the interstate. If it's used only at the second right turn, the interstate only starts at the second right turn (the point of no return).

For the record, (1) this is not a unique interchange type, at all, and (2) state ROW does not have any bearing on the physical movements, which were designed to facilitate loop-like movements, but not be an actual loop (as this would prevent traffic from entering NB-95 from any direction other than EB-606).

[sprjus4]

Good informational article regarding the final phase of I-64 widening on the Peninsula (until more get funded that is).

I-64 widening project almost another phase closer to complete, with expansion to go into 2021

Drivers on Interstate 64 this summer will notice a lot of construction in the Williamsburg area.

That includes commuters from Williamsburg like Tyler Reeves, who regularly drives to Hampton University where he is the director of the student success center.

"I will definitely take this as my sacrifice for living somewhere that I find real pleasant,"  Reeves said.

The Virginia Department of Transportation is in the last stages of finishing the second of a three-part, six-year project to widen I-64 to three lanes from near Jefferson Avenue in Newport News to near the James City-York County border.

The final phase of the project, which started in September 2015, is scheduled to wrap up in fall 2021, said VDOT Peninsula-area construction engineer Joseph Ludwig.

The first phase was completed in 2017 for $122 million.

Most of the work on the second segment, which runs from east of exit 247 to about a mile west of exit 242, finished before Memorial Day, said Brittany Nichols, VDOT Hampton Roads' spokeswoman for the project.

VDOT is doing final inspections on the $176 million project, checking landscaping and making sure the road is ready before it officially accepts the roadway from contractor Allan Myers, VA Inc.

Rob Roberts is a senior project manager for Shirley Contracting, the contractor for the first and third segments that has similar terms with VDOT. It is responsible for building the roadway as well as working with another contractor to finish the details of the design.

The roughly $178 million third segment is well underway, Roberts said on a tour Tuesday.

It is hot and sometimes scary work, he said.

In parts of the work zone, behind concrete jersey barriers, there can be brief breaks from the heat – when a tractor-trailer passes a few feet behind you and pushes out a wave of air.

"All of our construction right now is in the middle of the interstate,"  Robert said standing on the other side of a barrier a few feet from passing traffic.

Crews with Shirley first hardened the outside shoulder, allowing them to shift traffic away from the median where they'll add the third travel lane. Construction started in August 2018.

"We're trying not to encroach on anyone's property, so you widen the middle,"  Roberts said. "And the only way to widen the middle is to take the trees out."

That poses difficulties. There's no shade in the median, with almost all of the vegetation already mulched and timber sent to lumber mills.

Most equipment is air-conditioned, but for laborers out in the sun, they try to set up shade tents and provide water. Ice is delivered to the project team's headquarters off of exit 234 daily for coolers.

Most of what crews are working on now is moving earth, leveling where there used to be swales and knobs of vegetation.

When it's hot and sunny, there are plumes of dust. Shirley has three trucks to water down the dirt throughout the day.

The opposite poses another set of difficulties, Roberts said. If the ground is wet, as it was during much of May and June, it's hard to move.

"You curse the rain, but when it's not raining, then there's three guys who have to constantly circle the job,"  Roberts said.

There are three bridges in the third phase of the project.

Spans over the Colonial Parkway and Lakeshead Drive are slated to be expanded, while the set over Queens Creek are being replaced.

At the Colonial Parkway, Shirley and VDOT are working with the National Park Service and brick manufacturers to match the brick color and pattern of the existing bridge.

"Like, these would be called a special shape,"  Rogers said, touching the the rounded bricks that crown the guardrail on the Colonial Parkway overpass. "All this stuff is pretty much handmade."

At Queens Creek, crews have built a temporary wooden bridge through the wetlands so they can sink pilings as much as 70 or 80 feet into the ground, trying to find thick enough soil to keep them in place.

Shirley will start paving from the middle of the segment, which is the flattest. They'll use recycled concrete and asphalt for parts of the road substructure, which Ludwig said saves VDOT money.

"There's comparable products where you can bring aggregate by rail,"  Ludwig said. "But this is using local products."

VDOT sees a lot of fender benders in the project zone, Ludwig said, particularly in the summer when tourists are passing through.

Nichols expects that opening up the second segment. She's often in communication with VDOT's traffic operations center about crashes and incidents and says there was a notable decrease when the first section of three-lane roadway opened.

Reeves, who gets on I-64 at Humelsine Parkway at the western end of the second segment, said he hasn't seen a huge difference in his commute times yet.

He usually gets caught up in traffic backed up from the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel. But it has changed drivers' behaviors on his commutes, he said.

Nichols said she recommends checking online and 511Virginia.org before traveling through the area.

"It has trained some people to check Google and Waze before they hit the road, and plan more accordingly,"  Reeves said. "When I do take alternative routes, I do see more traffic taking that way."

Here are some photos of construction activities on Segment 3, courtesy of the Daily Press

[Jmiles32]

Very interesting article indeed. Hopefully, serious discussions begin soon on funding Phase 4 and that it'll be at least considered for smart scale funding the next go around. God forbid the HRBT project (not a fan of) takes all the focus and momentum away from continuing to widen I-64 up to Richmond.

[sprjus4]

Very interesting article indeed. Hopefully, serious discussions begin soon on funding Phase 4 and that it'll be at least considered for smart scale funding the next go around. God forbid the HRBT project (not a fan of) takes all the focus and momentum away from continuing to widen I-64 up to Richmond.

Segment 4 can most likely be funded through the HRTAC, though assistance from SmartScale would also help.

Segment 1 and 3 was funded by both HRTAC and SmartScale, though Segment 2 was fully funded by HRTAC with no SmartScale assistance.

Segment 4, which would extend the widening another 8 miles up to MM 225, is estimated to cost $300 million, but it's certainly doable.

The Segment 4 project is the last in the Hampton Roads district though sadly... meaning future phases beyond that are up to VDOT and regular funding & SmartScale, and will not receive the benefit of HRTAC funds, which was the only thing that got Segments 1-3 fully funded. Without it, I-64 would still be 4-lanes north of Jefferson Ave and fighting for funding. The tax increase across the state starting in 2021 could help fund those phases though to Richmond outside the HR district.

I don't see the HRBT getting in the way because it's already fully funded. $345 million from toll revenue, $3.2 billion from HRTAC, $200 million from SmartScale, and $100 million from VDOT's State of Good Repair Bridge program - that money is used to replace the trestles over the Hampton Roads waters with one 8-lane span.

I don't like the management being used on the HRBT, though overall am supportive of expanding it. It's badly needed. I would have preferred they construct one 3-lane tunnel, create a 2+1 configuration as proposed, but in the future for a separate project, replace the 50s tunnel with another 3-lane, and have a final 3+1 configuration in each direction.

The whole idea of 2 HO/T lanes in each direction and only 2 GP lanes does not sit well in my mind, I'd rather there be more free capacity than tolled capacity IMO in the long run. Ultimately, 3+1 each way should be the goal on the HRBT, but the current project is designed for 2+2 each way ultimately, and will actually be 2+2 immediately when they open the HO/T shoulder during rush hour.

[Jmiles32]

Very interesting article indeed. Hopefully, serious discussions begin soon on funding Phase 4 and that it'll be at least considered for smart scale funding the next go around. God forbid the HRBT project (not a fan of) takes all the focus and momentum away from continuing to widen I-64 up to Richmond.

Segment 4 can most likely be funded through the HRTAC, though assistance from SmartScale would also help.

Segment 1 and 3 was funded by both HRTAC and SmartScale, though Segment 2 was fully funded by HRTAC with no SmartScale assistance.

Segment 4, which would extend the widening another 8 miles up to MM 225, is estimated to cost $300 million, but it's certainly doable.

The Segment 4 project is the last in the Hampton Roads district though sadly... meaning future phases beyond that are up to VDOT and regular funding & SmartScale, and will not receive the benefit of HRTAC funds, which was the only thing that got Segments 1-3 fully funded. Without it, I-64 would still be 4-lanes north of Jefferson Ave and fighting for funding. The tax increase across the state starting in 2021 could help fund those phases though to Richmond outside the HR district.

I don't see the HRBT getting in the way because it's already fully funded. $345 million from toll revenue, $3.2 billion from HRTAC, $200 million from SmartScale, and $100 million from VDOT's State of Good Repair Bridge program - that money is used to replace the trestles over the Hampton Roads waters with one 8-lane span.

I don't like the management being used on the HRBT, though overall am supportive of expanding it. It's badly needed. I would have preferred they construct one 3-lane tunnel, create a 2+1 configuration as proposed, but in the future for a separate project, replace the 50s tunnel with another 3-lane, and have a final 3+1 configuration in each direction.

The whole idea of 2 HO/T lanes in each direction and only 2 GP lanes does not sit well in my mind, I'd rather there be more free capacity than tolled capacity IMO in the long run. Ultimately, 3+1 each way should be the goal on the HRBT, but the current project is designed for 2+2 each way ultimately, and will actually be 2+2 immediately when they open the HO/T shoulder during rush hour.

What do you think the time table is for phase 4? When I read in the article things like "final and last phase" it definitely makes it seem like phase 4 is a while away. 

Now that tax increase will be very interesting. I know $2.2 billion worth of immediately needed projects have already been identified for I-81 with what sounds like a similar study currently underway for I-95. Wonder not only if I-64 will get its own necessary project need study, but also how exactly those needs will be prioritized.

In regards to the HRBT, ideally IMO I-64 would have been widened to four lanes in each direction with two additional 2-lane tunnel tubes similar to the Fort Mchenry tunnel setup in Baltimore. However, I understand both the financial and practicality restraints of this, so as of now I'm willing to give the current project a chance. I also strongly agree with you on the erkness of adding HOT lanes when currently only 2 GP lanes exist. IMO there needs to be at least 3 GP lanes first. Its a mistake to do that here and its a mistake to do that on I-77 down in Charlotte.

[sprjus4]

What do you think the time table is for phase 4? When I read in the article things like "final and last phase" it definitely makes it seem like phase 4 is a while away.

Now that tax increase will be very interesting. I know $2.2 billion worth of immediately needed projects have already been identified for I-81 with what sounds like a similar study currently underway for I-95. Wonder not only if I-64 will get its own necessary project need study, but also how exactly those needs will be prioritized.

Segment 4 is currently unfunded, so nobody knows when it will start. Whenever funding is appropriated, it will start. The use of "final and last phase" is just wrong. A Final Environmental Impact Statement has already been completed for the entire corridor between I-95 in Downtown Richmond and I-664 in Newport News. The projects between the two end points is technically "one" project, but due to funding restrictions, has to be carried out over many phases as funding comes along. The ultimate build is to have 8-lanes (3 GP + 1 HOV each way) between I-664 and southern VA-199 in Williamsburg. West of there, 6-lanes all the way to I-95 in Downtown Richmond. Segment 1-2 which expanded I-64 from 4 to 6 lanes between Jefferson Ave and southern VA-199 is going to get an 8-lane expansion in the future from the recently completed 6-lanes, currently estimated at $500 million. West of there, the widening happening now is the final configuration.

Segment 1-3 is a "mini project" within the whole project. 21 miles of 6-lane widening fully funded and carried out over 6 years (2015 - 2021). The 5 miles of widening between Exit 205 (VA-33) and Exit 200 (I-295) is another segment towards the overall 6-8 lane expansion between I-95 and I-664. The Richmond district applied to extend the 6-lane all the way to Exit 214 (VA-155) in SmartScale a couple years ago, but did not receive needed funding. Now the Richmond district has priority on I-95 rather than I-64, so that's going to be a long way off unless dedicated funding comes. Whenever that comes, that's another phase towards the overall project. Ditto with Segment 4 and any other widening projects pursued between I-95 and I-664. IMO, I-64 between I-95 and I-295 is the least priority, as the bulk of the traffic load comes from I-295 South to I-64 East, and that's where the congestion points are. Inside the beltway appears to operate smoothly as traffic counts cut in half.

In regards to the HRBT, ideally IMO I-64 would have been widened to four lanes in each direction with two additional 2-lane tunnel tubes similar to the Fort Mchenry tunnel setup in Baltimore. However, I understand both the financial and practicality restraints of this, so as of now I'm willing to give the current project a chance. I also strongly agree with you on the erkness of adding HOT lanes when currently only 2 GP lanes exist. IMO there needs to be at least 3 GP lanes first. Its a mistake to do that here and its a mistake to do that on I-77 down in Charlotte.

The current plan is to build two 2-lane tunnels, and expand the corridor to 6-lanes. During times of congestion, the HO/T shoulder will open up bringing the corridor to 8-lanes total. Management wise, it will be 2+2 each way during congestion times, and 1+2 during non-congestion.

I don't agree with the management, but I do believe having 8-lanes overall will still relieve congestion significantly, and quite frankly that's the key.

Originally, the plan was to build one 3-lane tunnel and have 2+1 all times. They decided to add a HO/T shoulder to add even more capacity during peak hours, and I think that was a smart move despite the additional costs.

If they ever expand the I-664 corridor to 8-lanes, hopefully that will have a more traditional approach and simply be 4 GP lanes each way, and a Fort McHenry Tunnel approach with splitting the lanes 2+2+2+2.

Though I wouldn't keep hopes up, because they are currently adding one lane to the High Rise Bridge corridor + a new bridge, and that new lane is a HO/T lane. In the future, it will be expanded to 8-lanes for an overall 2+2 each way approach, as opposed to a more traditional 3+1 approach, or simply 4 GP each way.

And agreed, I-77 was a -mistake-.

[Beltway]

Originally, the plan was to build one 3-lane tunnel and have 2+1 all times. They decided to add a HO/T shoulder to add even more capacity during peak hours, and I think that was a smart move despite the additional costs.
If they ever expand the I-664 corridor to 8-lanes, hopefully that will have a more traditional approach and simply be 4 GP lanes each way, and a Fort McHenry Tunnel approach with splitting the lanes 2+2+2+2.

Fort McHenry Tunnel is the way to go, 8 lanes in 4 separate 2-lane tubes.

A 3-lane tube is wasteful unless you are certain that the complex will never need widening to 4 lanes each way.

[sprjus4]

A 3-lane tube is wasteful unless you are certain that the complex will never need widening to 4 lanes each way.

See my proposal above. You could build one 3-lane tube, and for the time have 2+1 each way. In the future, demolish the 50s tunnel and replace it with another 3-lane tube, then have 3+1 each way.

That 50s tunnel is substandard and aging. It's going to eventually need to be replaced, and that 3-lane tube would have eventually accommodated that in the future with another 3-lane tube in its place.

[Beltway]

A 3-lane tube is wasteful unless you are certain that the complex will never need widening to 4 lanes each way.

See my proposal above. You could build one 3-lane tube, and for the time have 2+1 each way. In the future, demolish the 50s tunnel and replace it with another 3-lane tube, then have 3+1 each way.

That would be wasteful, look at tunnels like the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels for age.  With rehabs every 30 years or so they will last for over 100 years.

Recall how the second Midtown Tunnel cost $1.1 billion to build?

That 50s tunnel is substandard and aging. It's going to eventually need to be replaced, and that 3-lane tube would have eventually accommodated that in the future with another 3-lane tube in its place.

They are going to eliminate the ceiling and install jet fans, raising the vertical clearance and eliminating the one feature that is not Interstate standard.