Virginia

[famartin]

Now, let's take down the hideous Clearview signage, and replace it with the standard and much better looking FHWA font.

Not happening. VDOT standard is to use Clearview.

https://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview.pdf

My comment was both merely an opinion, and sarcastic.

And if it's their "standard" , then why wasn't it used on this particular signage?

I can't answer any of these questions, but all new signage with this project (4th lane on 28 NB from 267 to Sterling Blvd) is FHWA, and is replacing Clearview.

[HTM Duke]

Now, let's take down the hideous Clearview signage, and replace it with the standard and much better looking FHWA font.

Not happening. VDOT standard is to use Clearview.

https://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview.pdf

My comment was both merely an opinion, and sarcastic.

And if it's their "standard" , then why wasn't it used on this particular signage?

I believe one of these reasons is your answer:

Projects under design: ...If the designer has begun work on the signing plans using Highway Gothic font for the mixed-case positive contrast destination messages, the plans should be revised to use Clearview font if such a design change can be implemented without impact to the project's budget or schedule.

Projects under construction:  For construction contracts, in-house efforts, or maintenance activities  that  are  already  under  construction,  the  plans  should  not be  revised  solely  to change fonts, and signs that have already been fabricated shall not be rejected unless they fail to conform to the contract documents.

[1995hoo]

HTM Duke is correct. Also the same reason the I-395 HO/T lane signs use Gothic. It does lend a good opportunity to compare the typefaces directly, for those who are so inclined, because the signs over the general-purpose lanes are mostly in Clearview. Makes it easy to compare, say, "Seminary Rd" in both typefaces. (This is also true on southbound I-95 approaching Woodbridge.)

[famartin]

Now, let's take down the hideous Clearview signage, and replace it with the standard and much better looking FHWA font.

Not happening. VDOT standard is to use Clearview.

https://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview.pdf

My comment was both merely an opinion, and sarcastic.

And if it's their "standard" , then why wasn't it used on this particular signage?

I believe one of these reasons is your answer:

Projects under design: ...If the designer has begun work on the signing plans using Highway Gothic font for the mixed-case positive contrast destination messages, the plans should be revised to use Clearview font if such a design change can be implemented without impact to the project's budget or schedule.

Projects under construction:  For construction contracts, in-house efforts, or maintenance activities  that  are  already  under  construction,  the  plans  should  not be  revised  solely  to change fonts, and signs that have already been fabricated shall not be rejected unless they fail to conform to the contract documents.

While that makes some sense, it still seems odd that they would start reverting back to FHWA if that's not their true intention. Did they change companies for large project sign fabrication to one which usually uses FHWA?  Its not like Clearview is that "new" anymore, so ordering signs in Clearview ought to be what one expects from a VDOT contract, assuming that is still their standard (which I mention because I suppose its possible that on-line documents just haven't been updated to show a change in VDOT standards).

[HTM Duke]

Perhaps I should have put it in my previous post, but I believe this signage was probably designed in the period of time between the initial revocation of the Clearview IA, and its subsequent reinstatement.  As such, there would have been only one permissible font to use: Gothic.  I would then venture to guess by the time the IA was renewed, signage plans were already done, and redoing said plans to correctly implement Clearview would thus kick in one of  the exception clauses in VDOT's memo.

[famartin]

Perhaps I should have put it in my previous post, but I believe this signage was probably designed in the period of time between the initial revocation of the Clearview IA, and its subsequent reinstatement.  As such, there would have been only one permissible font to use: Gothic.  I would then venture to guess by the time the IA was renewed, signage plans were already done, and redoing said plans to correctly implement Clearview would thus kick in one of  the exception clauses in VDOT's memo.

OK, that makes a lot more sense. I didn't realize the revocation had been long enough to affect designs.

[hbelkins]

Perhaps I should have put it in my previous post, but I believe this signage was probably designed in the period of time between the initial revocation of the Clearview IA, and its subsequent reinstatement.  As such, there would have been only one permissible font to use: Gothic.  I would then venture to guess by the time the IA was renewed, signage plans were already done, and redoing said plans to correctly implement Clearview would thus kick in one of  the exception clauses in VDOT's memo.

OK, that makes a lot more sense. I didn't realize the revocation had been long enough to affect designs.

Happened here in Kentucky. Clearview signs were being installed after the revocation, and FHWA signs were installed after Clearview was reinstated. If it was already in design in one font, that wasn't changed.

[odditude]

side note - i personally much prefer the way the TOLL and directional banners are stacked on these signs than the "correct" way of doing them.

[Mapmikey]

Contract awarded for I-95/SR 630 Interchange and SR 630 Widening at Stafford CH.

Note that the 4th general lane addition to I-95 that was to be a part of this project was not included due to the funding not being secured for this add-on...

The Stafford DDI interchange will open on Saturday Dec 7.  3 of the 4 ramps will be open but the SB exit ramp can't be built until SR 630 is moved onto the new overpass alignment.  This 4th ramp is expected to take about a month to build.  Meanwhile the ramp will force drivers to turn left onto what will be the old SR 630 alignment.

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/fredericksburg/2019/diverging-diamond-interchange-in-stafford-county-opens-at-exit-140-on-saturday-dec-711-21-2019.asp

[sprjus4]

Throwback to the construction of I-64 near the Oyster Point / Victory Blvd interchange in Newport News in 1959.

https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1202769770992603138?s=20

[sprjus4]

For anybody interested...

https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1203056859478994953?s=20

[LM117]

This is just south of Tightsqueeze.

https://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/lynchburg/2019/lanes-reduced-on-route-29-n-over-banister-river12-5-2019.asp

LYNCHBURG, Va. — Motorists who use US Route 29 North over the Banister River in Pittsylvania County should begin to see work to reduce the number of lanes in the area from two to one in the coming weeks, weather permitting.

Recently an assessment of the bridge identified the need to lower the current load on the structure. Rather than posting new weight limits, VDOT opted to reduce the number of lanes. This will reduce the load by preventing two loaded tractor-trailers from crossing the bridge side by side.

VDOT crews have already started installing and covering necessary signage and will remove the current painted lines and add new ones for the planned traffic pattern as early as next week. Barrels will initially be used for the transition; however, more permanent devices will be installed as soon as possible.

A project to replace the necessary components of the bridge is in development, with an anticipated advertisement for construction in early 2021. Once the project is underway, one lane of northbound traffic and one of southbound traffic will run in the southbound lanes. This will give workers full access to the structure to make the necessary improvements safely and in a timely manner. Once the repairs are complete the bridge will be unposted.

Updates are available as traffic patterns change.

[sprjus4]

Diverging Diamond Interchange Now Open at I-95 Exit 140 in Stafford County

FREDERICKSBURG, Va. — Traffic has begun traveling in the new diverging diamond interchange at Interstate 95 at Exit 140 (Courthouse Road) in Stafford County.

Eastbound and westbound Courthouse Road traffic began traveling on the new road and overpasses shortly after 7 a.m. today, along with three of the I-95 ramps.

The new four-lane Hospital Center Boulevard extension is open west of Route 1, directly across from Stafford Hospital. Hospital Center Boulevard now connects directly to the diverging diamond interchange on Courthouse Road at a new intersection with Old Courthouse Road and Wyche Road.

The interchange opening is a major milestone in the $195 million project to expand capacity and improve travel in Stafford County's Courthouse Road area.

Diverging Diamond Interchanges (DDIs) lower the number of conflict points between vehicles by eliminating left turns. The new interchange briefly shifts vehicles on Courthouse Road to the other side of the road on new overpass bridges, which allows drivers to merge left onto the I-95 northbound and southbound ramps without stopping at a traffic signal.

Watch a video simulation showing an aerial and windshield view of the diverging diamond interchange.

What Motorists Can Expect

Motorists are encouraged to use the new Hospital Center Boulevard intersection at Route 1 to connect with the new Courthouse Road.

With a greater number of travel lanes now open on Hospital Center Boulevard and Courthouse Road, this direct route will help motorists travel through Stafford's Courthouse area with the fewest delays.

Although many features of the new diverging diamond interchange are now open, travelers are advised that temporary traffic patterns are in place at several locations.

I-95 Southbound Exit Ramp Detour

Three of the new Exit 140 interchange ramps are open, but the I-95 southbound exit ramp to Courthouse Road will remain in a detour pattern until late December 2019.

Click here to view a map of the detour.

Motorists traveling from I-95 southbound to Courthouse Road should follow the posted detour signs to access the new Courthouse Road.

Traffic will be detoured for several weeks to allow crews to build the new exit ramp and raise its elevation to match the height of the new diverging diamond interchange and I-95 overpass bridges. Courthouse Road traffic was previously traveling in the location where this construction work will now be underway.

Westbound Courthouse Road

All three travel lanes are open in the diverging diamond interchange, but westbound Courthouse Road road will narrow to two westbound travel lanes just before Austin Ridge Drive.

Courthouse Road

Courthouse Road west of Austin Ridge Drive will remain reduced to one lane in each direction until late December 2019, when all four lanes will open between the I-95 interchange and Ramoth Church Road/Winding Creek Road.

Project Background

Construction on the Exit 140 interchange and Courthouse Road widening project began in July 2017. All work will be finished by July 31, 2020.

After the new four-lane portion of Courthouse Road opens to traffic west of Austin Ridge Drive in late December 2019, construction crews will focus on finishing the following project elements in 2020:

- Expanded Park & Ride commuter parking at Exit 140: New Park & Ride lots are under construction north and south of the future Old Courthouse Road. Together, the lots will offer around 1,100 parking spaces. The southern lot will have a dedicated pickup and dropoff area for buses, carpools, and vanpools.

- New sidewalk and shared use path: Crews will continue building new sidewalk from the Park & Ride lots east along Old Courthouse Road to the Stafford County Government Center, and a shared use path from Austin Ridge Drive to the Park & Ride lots through the interchange. A new, shared use path from Winding Creek Elementary School near the Ramoth Church Road/Winding Creek Road intersection to west of Austin Ridge Drive is now open.

Courthouse Road carries an average of 16,000 vehicles a day and around 136,000 vehicles a day travel on I-95 near Exit 140.

[1995hoo]

Last night we took my mom to L'Auberge Chez François out in Great Falls. The route I use is the Beltway HO/T lanes (free for us last night with three people, though I'd use them anyway going past Tysons at 7:00 on a December Saturday!) to the Dulles Toll Road, west to Hunter Mill Road, north to Baron Cameron Avenue, and that becomes Springvale Road where the restaurant is.

I noticed at all four tolls on the Dulles Toll Road there was a very bright flash when we went through. At the main toll plaza in Tysons we went through one of the E-ZPass Only lanes to the far left with no tollbooth and the flash came from the gantry overhead. At Hunter Mill both lanes in both directions are tollbooth lanes and on the way out I used the E-ZPass Only Lane while on the way back I used the E-ZPass or coin drop lane, and in both cases there an extremely bright flash came from seemingly in front of us. I noted they don't have a red or green light anymore; instead, the display said "E-ZPass Paid" or something similar in red text (I was only able to read it on the way home). When we got to the restaurant and were waiting to be seated I did pull out my phone, log onto ezpassva.com, and confirm the outbound Dulles Toll Road charges posted properly, so I know the transponder was working.

What struck me is that I don't ever remember that sort of bright flash before (although I have seen routine flashes elsewhere, such as on the Bee Line in Florida this week, where the ETC gantry flashed for every vehicle). Is this something new? Stepped-up toll enforcement, perhaps? It also struck me as odd that a flash would seem to come from the front at the tollbooth. While Virginia persists in having the stupid front plate requirement, other states do not, so you'd think the photo enforcement would capture the rear plate. The main thing that I found annoying was how the flash was extremely bright and distracting on a fairly dark night.

The loss of the red and green lights is annoying because I use those to confirm my E-ZPass is working.

[MASTERNC]

Last night we took my mom to L'Auberge Chez François out in Great Falls. The route I use is the Beltway HO/T lanes (free for us last night with three people, though I'd use them anyway going past Tysons at 7:00 on a December Saturday!) to the Dulles Toll Road, west to Hunter Mill Road, north to Baron Cameron Avenue, and that becomes Springvale Road where the restaurant is.

I noticed at all four tolls on the Dulles Toll Road there was a very bright flash when we went through. At the main toll plaza in Tysons we went through one of the E-ZPass Only lanes to the far left with no tollbooth and the flash came from the gantry overhead. At Hunter Mill both lanes in both directions are tollbooth lanes and on the way out I used the E-ZPass Only Lane while on the way back I used the E-ZPass or coin drop lane, and in both cases there an extremely bright flash came from seemingly in front of us. I noted they don't have a red or green light anymore; instead, the display said "E-ZPass Paid" or something similar in red text (I was only able to read it on the way home). When we got to the restaurant and were waiting to be seated I did pull out my phone, log onto ezpassva.com, and confirm the outbound Dulles Toll Road charges posted properly, so I know the transponder was working.

What struck me is that I don't ever remember that sort of bright flash before (although I have seen routine flashes elsewhere, such as on the Bee Line in Florida this week, where the ETC gantry flashed for every vehicle). Is this something new? Stepped-up toll enforcement, perhaps? It also struck me as odd that a flash would seem to come from the front at the tollbooth. While Virginia persists in having the stupid front plate requirement, other states do not, so you'd think the photo enforcement would capture the rear plate. The main thing that I found annoying was how the flash was extremely bright and distracting on a fairly dark night.

The loss of the red and green lights is annoying because I use those to confirm my E-ZPass is working.

The E-ZPass lanes in PA and DE do the same thing, even if you have a valid E-ZPass.  If the tag is read, I think they delete the photo.  If no tag is recorded, then the plate image is used for account lookup or violation generation.

[Mapmikey]

Last night we took my mom to L'Auberge Chez François out in Great Falls. The route I use is the Beltway HO/T lanes (free for us last night with three people, though I'd use them anyway going past Tysons at 7:00 on a December Saturday!) to the Dulles Toll Road, west to Hunter Mill Road, north to Baron Cameron Avenue, and that becomes Springvale Road where the restaurant is.

I noticed at all four tolls on the Dulles Toll Road there was a very bright flash when we went through. At the main toll plaza in Tysons we went through one of the E-ZPass Only lanes to the far left with no tollbooth and the flash came from the gantry overhead. At Hunter Mill both lanes in both directions are tollbooth lanes and on the way out I used the E-ZPass Only Lane while on the way back I used the E-ZPass or coin drop lane, and in both cases there an extremely bright flash came from seemingly in front of us. I noted they don't have a red or green light anymore; instead, the display said "E-ZPass Paid" or something similar in red text (I was only able to read it on the way home). When we got to the restaurant and were waiting to be seated I did pull out my phone, log onto ezpassva.com, and confirm the outbound Dulles Toll Road charges posted properly, so I know the transponder was working.

What struck me is that I don't ever remember that sort of bright flash before (although I have seen routine flashes elsewhere, such as on the Bee Line in Florida this week, where the ETC gantry flashed for every vehicle). Is this something new? Stepped-up toll enforcement, perhaps? It also struck me as odd that a flash would seem to come from the front at the tollbooth. While Virginia persists in having the stupid front plate requirement, other states do not, so you'd think the photo enforcement would capture the rear plate. The main thing that I found annoying was how the flash was extremely bright and distracting on a fairly dark night.

The loss of the red and green lights is annoying because I use those to confirm my E-ZPass is working.

Only 1 gantry is doing this on the 95 Express lanes, the southernmost one.  It has been doing this for several weeks.  Another gantry (ramp from Outer Loop to I-95 south) has been doing this for months.

[1995hoo]

^^^^

I can't say as I noticed any of them doing it on the Beltway, but I wouldn't have thought much of it because I had our transponder in HOV mode and I assume the gantry treats that differently (this was the first time I recall using HOV mode at night since early 2018).

[Beltway]

This is still in development.  The governor's office is behind the recalcitrance on this corridor, and I am trying to figure out why they, including the Secretary of Transportation (who is part of that office) have refused to authorize a full EIS/location study for the I-95 corridor (not VDOT's call, but that of the governor and his CTB to authorize the EIS study).
. . . . .

Interstate 95 Corridor Improvement Plan
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/dec/pres/11_i_95.pdf
Excerpts:

Corridor-wide Improvements Planning Level Cost Estimates
Estimated FY20 Capital Cost Ranges
- Freeway operations upgrades: $48 - $53 M
- Arterial operations upgrades: $12 - $15 M
- Multimodal improvements: $215 - $260 M
- Highway capital improvements: $1.3 - 1.8 B TOTAL: $1.6 - $2.1 B

Potential Capital Improvements
- 54 projects (highway, rail, bus, park & ride) with estimated cost between $1.5 - $2.1B
- 35 locations requiring additional study
- Challenge: Needs far exceed available annual revenues

Conduct further study on items identified
- Bi-directional HOT Lanes, Woodrow Wilson Bridge HOT Lanes, multiple interchange improvements

[sprjus4]

This is still in development.  The governor's office is behind the recalcitrance on this corridor, and I am trying to figure out why they, including the Secretary of Transportation (who is part of that office) have refused to authorize a full EIS/location study for the I-95 corridor (not VDOT's call, but that of the governor and his CTB to authorize the EIS study).
. . . . .

Interstate 95 Corridor Improvement Plan
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/dec/pres/11_i_95.pdf
Excerpts:

Corridor-wide Improvements Planning Level Cost Estimates
Estimated FY20 Capital Cost Ranges
- Freeway operations upgrades: $48 - $53 M
- Arterial operations upgrades: $12 - $15 M
- Multimodal improvements: $215 - $260 M
- Highway capital improvements: $1.3 - 1.8 B TOTAL: $1.6 - $2.1 B

Potential Capital Improvements
- 54 projects (highway, rail, bus, park & ride) with estimated cost between $1.5 - $2.1B
- 35 locations requiring additional study
- Challenge: Needs far exceed available annual revenues

Conduct further study on items identified
- Bi-directional HOT Lanes, Woodrow Wilson Bridge HOT Lanes, multiple interchange improvements

I'm still trying to figure out why I-95 is still only 3 general purpose lanes each direction south of VA-123, and the state has refused to study any widenings, and continues to be evident by the lack of -any- proposal in this study. It doesn't have to be some massive expansion to 12 lanes, but adding one lane in each direction would significantly help. This is evident by the significant improvement in performance north of VA-123.

VDOT would probably just call compensation events, and walk away.

[Beltway]

This is still in development.  The governor's office is behind the recalcitrance on this corridor, and I am trying to figure out why they, including the Secretary of Transportation (who is part of that office) have refused to authorize a full EIS/location study for the I-95 corridor (not VDOT's call, but that of the governor and his CTB to authorize the EIS study).
. . . . .

Interstate 95 Corridor Improvement Plan
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/dec/pres/11_i_95.pdf
Excerpts:

Corridor-wide Improvements Planning Level Cost Estimates
Estimated FY20 Capital Cost Ranges
- Freeway operations upgrades: $48 - $53 M
- Arterial operations upgrades: $12 - $15 M
- Multimodal improvements: $215 - $260 M
- Highway capital improvements: $1.3 - 1.8 B TOTAL: $1.6 - $2.1 B

Potential Capital Improvements
- 54 projects (highway, rail, bus, park & ride) with estimated cost between $1.5 - $2.1B
- 35 locations requiring additional study
- Challenge: Needs far exceed available annual revenues

Conduct further study on items identified
- Bi-directional HOT Lanes, Woodrow Wilson Bridge HOT Lanes, multiple interchange improvements

I'm still trying to figure out why I-95 is still only 3 general purpose lanes each direction south of VA-123, and the state has refused to study any widenings, and continues to be evident by the lack of -any- proposal in this study. It doesn't have to be some massive expansion to 12 lanes, but adding one lane in each direction would significantly help. This is evident by the significant improvement in performance north of VA-123.
VDOT would probably just call compensation events, and walk away.

Talk to the governor's office --- what did I just say?

The governor's office is behind the recalcitrance on this corridor, and I am trying to figure out why they, including the Secretary of Transportation (who is part of that office) have refused to authorize a full EIS/location study for the I-95 corridor (not VDOT's call, but that of the governor and his CTB to authorize the EIS study).

You can add the person who was governor from 2013-2017 as well.  The CTB members are entirely populated by these two governors.

The EIS/location study would be like the one on I-81 back 15 years ago, and the one on I-64 from Richmond to Norfolk more recently -- evaluate a full set of alternatives, prepare DEIS, conduct public hearings, obtain feedback from resources agencies, prepare FEIS with selected alternative, prepare ROD.

FWIW, I have talked to Shannon Valentine (Sec Trans) and Nick Donohue (Deputy Sec Trans) about this matter personally.  They work for the governor, not VDOT.
 

[Mapmikey]

Route changes coming:


2.  A 2019 General Assembly Act (to facilitate pedestrian safety at the seat of government) requires the CTB to add to the primary system:

• Bank St from 9th to 14th
• 10th from Main to Bank
• 12th from Main to Bank
• Governor St from Main to Bank

It did not indicate in the presentation (pg. 6 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/oct/ctb_workshop_meeting_oct_2019.pdf) what the designation would be.  Good chance it becomes part of existing VA 318 which serves the state capitol already.  These segments will be connected to the rest of the primary system because Main St is part of US 60/VA 147.

The CTB did add these segments to the primary highway system today. They did not specify a route designation.

[sprjus4]

New Renderings Show Future of I-64/264 Corridor

VIRGINIA BEACH — Motorists now have a more clear picture of what the I-64/I-264 corridor will look like in the coming years, with new renderings of the completed Phase II project released today by the Virginia Department of Transportation.

The renderings depict key intersections included within the scope of the project, designed to increase capacity, improve mobility and enhance safety throughout the busiest interchange in Hampton Roads.

View full-size versions of the renderings here .

Phase II of the I-64/264 Interchange Improvements Project, currently under construction, includes:

• Extending the new collector-distributor roadway built in Phase I from the Newtown Road interchange to the Witchduck Road interchange;
• Re-configuring the south side of both interchanges to eliminate the weave movement; and
• Building a flyover across I-264 to connect Greenwich Road on the south side of the interstate with Cleveland Street on the north side.

The project is set for completion in late 2021.

Witchduck Road at I-264 Interchange

To improve traffic operations, the Greenwich Road connection at the five-legged intersection at Witchduck Road will be removed, shown in its new configuration in the middle of this rendering. The existing stretch of Greenwich Road will terminate at a cul-de-sac just east of the former Norfolk-Southern railroad tracks, which is just beyond the left corner of this rendering.

I-264 and Cleveland Street

The new Greenwich Road flyover connects to Cleveland Street near the left corner. Cleveland Street is shown in the middle of the image.

Newtown Road at Greenwich Road and I-264

Interstate 264 is depicted extending from the top left corner, with the Newtown Road interchange improvements shown below.

Greenwich Road Flyover

Greenwich Road bisects the image diagonally as it diverges to the new flyover crossing I-264. Top Golf is pictured in the middle, right of the image.

[Beltway]

Greenwich Road bisects the image diagonally as it diverges to the new flyover crossing I-264. Top Golf is pictured in the middle, right of the image.

Plan view of the whole area around Witchduck Road and Newtown Road interchanges with I-264 --



The Greenwich Road Connector will be a major local connectivity arterial.

[sprjus4]

The Greenwich Road Connector will be a major local connectivity arterial.

Technically, the flyover bridge connecting to Cleveland St is to replace the existing Greenwich Rd that exists between Newtown and Witchduck Rd that's being severed at the eastern end to make room for a realigned I-264 off-ramp, but the new alignment will certainly be an improvement over the existing condition.

For one, the interchange will be reconfigured into a more traditional design rather than the substandard design now. Secondly, traffic will have a new option to get from one side of I-264 to the other without having to pass through one of the heavily congested interchanges. Traffic destined between Witchduck Rd north of I-264 to Newtown Rd south of I-264 will see the most benefit.

My biggest concern for the Phase #2 project is the setup of the Witchduck Rd interchange area. A few years back, Witchduck Rd was expanded from four to six lanes south of I-264, and is currently being widened between I-264 and Virginia Beach Blvd to six lanes to match that design. While this would in theory provide a continuous 6-lane corridor, VDOT's design plan as you posted, and the renderings above show Witchduck Rd reducing back down to only four lanes (a lane drop both ways) under the overpass and not maintaining a consistent section. Witchduck Rd is a congested roadway, and I have a feeling this lane drop will only create a new traffic chokepoint. No idea why they would not keep it consistent.

[Beltway]

The Greenwich Road Connector will be a major local connectivity arterial.

Technically, the flyover bridge connecting to Cleveland St is to replace the existing Greenwich Rd that exists between Newtown and Witchduck Rd that's being severed at the eastern end to make room for a realigned I-264 off-ramp, but the new alignment will certainly be an improvement over the existing condition.

Four lanes, and will connect across I-264 so that some of the local traffic won't have to cross at Witchduck or Newtown.

For one, the interchange will be reconfigured into a more traditional design rather than the substandard design now. Secondly, traffic will have a new option to get from one side of I-264 to the other without having to pass through one of the heavily congested interchanges. Traffic destined between Witchduck Rd north of I-264 to Newtown Rd south of I-264 will see the most benefit.

Yes.

My biggest concern for the Phase #2 project is the setup of the Witchduck Rd interchange area. A few years back, Witchduck Rd was expanded from four to six lanes south of I-264, and is currently being widened between I-264 and Virginia Beach Blvd to six lanes to match that design. While this would in theory provide a continuous 6-lane corridor, VDOT's design plan as you posted, and the renderings above show Witchduck Rd reducing back down to only four lanes (a lane drop both ways) under the overpass and not maintaining a consistent section. Witchduck Rd is a congested roadway, and I have a feeling this lane drop will only create a new traffic chokepoint. No idea why they would not keep it consistent.

Maybe a future project that might necessitate replacing the I-264 overpass with a longer span?

Although it looks like 3 lanes could be fit under each span.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8384004,-76.1592972,3a,90y,204.19h,91.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDF5Q_962-IEsR282lvutiw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192