QuoteU.S. PIRG Education Fund and Frontier Group have identified what they deem to be nine new wasteful highway expansion projects across the country in what is now the fifth edition of their Highway Boondoggles report.
Collectively, these nine newly identified projects are slated to cost at least $25 billion. Over the course of five reports, the two groups have profiled 50 "boondoggles" in the U.S.
In addition to identifying the nine new projects, this fifth Highway Boondoggles report looks back at five projects profiled in previous editions, highlighting some cases where states went ahead with their expansion projects. In other cases, states reversed course and opted for dedicating money allocated to boondoggles to road repairs and public transportation.
The "boondoggles" listed in the 2019 report include: the "Complete 540" project in North Carolina (estimated cost: $2.2 billion); the North Houston Highway Improvement Project in Texas ($7+ billion); High Desert Freeway in California ($8 billion); I-75 in Michigan ($1.4 billion); the Tri-State Tollway widening in Illinois ($4 billion); Connecting Miami project (I-395/S.R. 836/I-95) in Florida ($802 million); I-83 widening in York County, Pennsylvania ($300 million); I-5 Rose Quarter widening in Oregon ($450 million); and I-81 in Virginia ($2.2 billion).
The report identifies some specific issues with the projects that made the list. For instance, it says the North Houston Highway Improvement project would expand already large stretches of highway through the middle of Houston, and would displace homes and businesses in addition to widening barriers between communities. When it comes to the High Desert Freeway, the report notes that the project has the potential to encourage sprawl in fragile desert ecosystems, where development could alter the landscape and strain scarce water resources.
The report recommends that states cancel these–as well as other–proposed highway expansion projects in light of changing transportation needs and instead invest in more effective solutions, such as road repair and transit expansion.
https://www.roadsbridges.com/nine-wasteful-highway-projects-across-us-identified-new-report
It's funny - most of these projects are needed and will greatly help traffic and mobility.
Maybe we should deconstruct the interstate highway system and build 45 mph 2-lane divided boulevards with a 12 foot bike lane, on street parking, 10 foot multi-use path, and scenic medians to replace all of them? Oh, also a light rail track to the side with well-designed stations every mile.
It's interesting how they say the organization "recommends the states cancel them". Yeah, that's not happening :pan:
The report is a boondoggle, and the organization producing it is a boondoggle. 'Nuff said.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 02, 2019, 03:27:20 PM
Maybe we should deconstruct the interstate highway system and build 45 mph 2-lane divided boulevards with a 12 foot bike lane, on street parking, 10 foot multi-use path, and scenic medians to replace all of them? Oh, also a light rail track to the side with well-designed stations every mile.
I wouldn't be surprised if such was actually the end goal of these types of campaigns.
I think having the Tri-State Tollway project in Illinois on the list shows how flawed said list is.
* The interchange at I-290 has congestion well outside of peak hours. I should not have to sit in traffic to take a recreational trip to Indiana on a Saturday morning.
* I question how well they are accounting for population and freight growth in Chicagoland.
* Transit is not a feasible alternative to a trips outside of Chicagoland, which the Tri-State enables.
* They site the highways as causing sprawl. Maybe we should cut back Metra service beyond a certain point, as it seems to be causing sprawl in areas such as Elburn where there is not a convenient freeway or tollway. And maybe they should consider the possibility of people moving outward to avoid living in a pricey core county that seems to ignore its residents.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 02, 2019, 10:15:50 PM
I think having the Tri-State Tollway project in Illinois on the list shows how flawed said list is.
* The interchange at I-290 has congestion well outside of peak hours. I should not have to sit in traffic to take a recreational trip to Indiana on a Saturday morning.
* I question how well they are accounting for population and freight growth in Chicagoland.
* Transit is not a feasible alternative to a trips outside of Chicagoland, which the Tri-State enables.
* They site the highways as causing sprawl. Maybe we should cut back Metra service beyond a certain point, as it seems to be causing sprawl in areas such as Elburn where there is not a convenient freeway or tollway. And maybe they should consider the possibility of people moving outward to avoid living in a pricey core county that seems to ignore its residents.
Not to mention, the Tri-State is more or less a *Private* tolled entity, as there is a fee to traverse it, along with the other Illinois Tollway segments. As the Tollway generally does not fund non-Tollway projects, they can spend money on any project they want with their toll proceeds.
The High Desert Highway (https://www.metro.net/projects/high-desert-corridor/) has been an on/off-again proposal for a while. It's probably needed eventually, though right now it's debatable. It would promote a lot of exurban growth from LA, but the growth is likely inevitable and it's only a matter of how fast and exactly where it happens. Traffic on CA 138 is getting worse. That the Victorville and Lancaster area populations have exploded in the last 30 years shows that growth will continue to happen here. My guess is it would at least direct growth along the corridor.
This upsets a lot of urbanists and I understand their point. They are right in that it would be bad for the environment, etc. But growth will happen regardless. LA only has so much space. The only alternatives are building further up the mountainsides and further destabilizing the slopes along with increasing the fire risk that comes from building into SoCal's mountain forests, or tearing down neighborhoods to build high-rises. A highway corridor would promote growth along the corridor and force communities to coordinate planning. This would create at least a logical pattern to the current patchwork development currently happening in the High Desert.
I think the thread on AA Roads (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22256.0) shows it's unlikely to be built anytime soon. The High Desert Highway accounts for $8 billion of the proposed $25 billion "wasteful" total. I've also experienced the need for both the I-81 and Tri-State projects, so I hope they are built. Still, the writer could claim this unlikely expensive project wasn't built when others are as "proving" he was right all along since it accounts for almost 1/3 the total proposed project monies.
How did the I-77 HOT lane BS in Charlotte *not* make this "list" ? It's way behind, and really doesn't address enough of the problems at the northern end of the project IMO. That project, my friends, is the definition of a boondoggle!
Quote from: wriddle082 on July 03, 2019, 01:40:08 AM
How did the I-77 HOT lane BS in Charlotte *not* make this "list" ? It's way behind, and really doesn't address enough of the problems at the northern end of the project IMO. That project, my friends, is the definition of a boondoggle!
It's "innovated planning" and "encourages transit" also carpooling, etc.
They love those projects.
But agreed, a regular interstate widening would have suited that corridor far better than this boondoggle.
I could see 1 HO/T lane between Downtown and where it currently drops to 1 HO/T lane, but north of there, should just be 6 GP lanes.
Quote from: vdeane on July 02, 2019, 09:12:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 02, 2019, 03:27:20 PM
Maybe we should deconstruct the interstate highway system and build 45 mph 2-lane divided boulevards with a 12 foot bike lane, on street parking, 10 foot multi-use path, and scenic medians to replace all of them? Oh, also a light rail track to the side with well-designed stations every mile.
I wouldn't be surprised if such was actually the end goal of these types of campaigns.
45 mph? In the era of Vision Zero, those urbanists probably want a 20 mph speed limit (or less).
Quote from: RoadMaster09 on July 03, 2019, 02:22:25 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 02, 2019, 09:12:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 02, 2019, 03:27:20 PM
Maybe we should deconstruct the interstate highway system and build 45 mph 2-lane divided boulevards with a 12 foot bike lane, on street parking, 10 foot multi-use path, and scenic medians to replace all of them? Oh, also a light rail track to the side with well-designed stations every mile.
I wouldn't be surprised if such was actually the end goal of these types of campaigns.
45 mph? In the era of Vision Zero, those urbanists probably want a 20 mph speed limit (or less).
Every time a cyclist swerves out onto the road and causes an accident, then sues the driver of the car who did nothing wrong, the bike lanes will be widened by two feet and the speed limit will drop by five.
Quote from: thspfc on July 03, 2019, 12:23:42 PM
Quote from: RoadMaster09 on July 03, 2019, 02:22:25 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 02, 2019, 09:12:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 02, 2019, 03:27:20 PM
Maybe we should deconstruct the interstate highway system and build 45 mph 2-lane divided boulevards with a 12 foot bike lane, on street parking, 10 foot multi-use path, and scenic medians to replace all of them? Oh, also a light rail track to the side with well-designed stations every mile.
I wouldn't be surprised if such was actually the end goal of these types of campaigns.
45 mph? In the era of Vision Zero, those urbanists probably want a 20 mph speed limit (or less).
Every time a cyclist swerves out onto the road and causes an accident, then sues the driver of the car who did nothing wrong, the bike lanes will be widened by two feet and the speed limit will drop by five.
Perfect! This is the new America :rolleyes:
But wait, at 20 mph, you shouldn't hit the bicycle. Unless you were speeding and doing 30 mph on a multi-use roadway in west Texas surrounded by desert and nothing in sight for 10+ miles :no:
When it comes to general-purpose traffic/capacity improvements, PIRG=BANANA.
I guess I should just expect pro-highway activists to dismiss valid concerns about wasteful automobile infrastructure, just like a normal person would exhale carbon dioxide after taking in oxygen.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 02, 2019, 03:27:20 PM
QuoteU.S. PIRG Education Fund and Frontier Group have identified what they deem to be nine new wasteful highway expansion projects across the country in what is now the fifth edition of their Highway Boondoggles report.
Collectively, these nine newly identified projects are slated to cost at least $25 billion. Over the course of five reports, the two groups have profiled 50 "boondoggles" in the U.S.
In addition to identifying the nine new projects, this fifth Highway Boondoggles report looks back at five projects profiled in previous editions, highlighting some cases where states went ahead with their expansion projects. In other cases, states reversed course and opted for dedicating money allocated to boondoggles to road repairs and public transportation.
The "boondoggles" listed in the 2019 report include: the "Complete 540" project in North Carolina (estimated cost: $2.2 billion); the North Houston Highway Improvement Project in Texas ($7+ billion); High Desert Freeway in California ($8 billion); I-75 in Michigan ($1.4 billion); the Tri-State Tollway widening in Illinois ($4 billion); Connecting Miami project (I-395/S.R. 836/I-95) in Florida ($802 million); I-83 widening in York County, Pennsylvania ($300 million); I-5 Rose Quarter widening in Oregon ($450 million); and I-81 in Virginia ($2.2 billion).
The report identifies some specific issues with the projects that made the list. For instance, it says the North Houston Highway Improvement project would expand already large stretches of highway through the middle of Houston, and would displace homes and businesses in addition to widening barriers between communities. When it comes to the High Desert Freeway, the report notes that the project has the potential to encourage sprawl in fragile desert ecosystems, where development could alter the landscape and strain scarce water resources.
The report recommends that states cancel these—as well as other—proposed highway expansion projects in light of changing transportation needs and instead invest in more effective solutions, such as road repair and transit expansion.
https://www.roadsbridges.com/nine-wasteful-highway-projects-across-us-identified-new-report
It's funny - most of these projects are needed and will greatly help traffic and mobility.
Maybe we should deconstruct the interstate highway system and build 45 mph 2-lane divided boulevards with a 12 foot bike lane, on street parking, 10 foot multi-use path, and scenic medians to replace all of them? Oh, also a light rail track to the side with well-designed stations every mile.
It's interesting how they say the organization "recommends the states cancel them". Yeah, that's not happening :pan:
The report is a boondoggle, and the organization producing it is a boondoggle. 'Nuff said.
Back to the project listing from these tree hugging urbanists:
* Complete 540: I can see some merit in it not being warranted where it is, but they would need to widen I-40 (probably to at least 12 lanes) and that would be just as costly. Pick one - they'd fight either way.
* North Houston: This one I can somewhat agree with. The inner city is not a good place these days for ultra-wide freeways and the transit argument can come into play here to SOME extent (it won't replace nearly all trips). That said, there might be other options - elevated HOV lanes would work. There is probably also enough room within the ROW to widen I-45 in most of the north metro by one more lane. But they should try to keep everything within the existing ROW's.
* High Desert: The merit is definitely there - it's badly needed. I do wonder why the cost is $8 billion when much of the route is desert?
* I-75 in Michigan: Here's where USPIRG really gets into social engineering. I-75 is hopelessly congested (it's only 6 lanes now) in the north Detroit metro, even if traffic doesn't increase and their only response is for further urbanization which many people don't want. You could easily widen to 10 lanes within the current ROW. The only transit that would work are express buses...get one of the lanes as an HOV lane and that would work quite well.
* Tri-State Tollway Widening: The Chicagoland area is seeing population decline right now, but I-294 is extremely congested. The earlier widenings happened with population growth so it was only keeping pace with it. Transit isn't a great argument since it doesn't go downtown.
* Connecting Miami Project: Traffic counts are far too high for any of them to be suitable as an urban boulevard. There aren't any other good ideas that would work.
* I-83 Widening: It's a fairly calm tone here, but 6 lanes is definitely warranted. The price tag isn't too high either.
* I-5 Rose Quarter: Here's a problem without a good solution. Taking away the land to widen I-5 isn't necessarily the best idea. However, the area is incredibly congested. I can see their arguments (other than with climate change - what good does idled cars do?!?) Eliminating truck traffic could be a place to start. Would it make more sense to widen I-205 (plenty of ROW exists to go all the way up to 12 lanes), re-designate that as I-5 and leave the city routes to city traffic (even if it means putting a toll on it)? Worth discussion, but the status quo is unacceptable.
* I-81 Widening: The report is definitely over-doing it. The ROW is already there for widening and straightening and the plan has little of what they are mentioning, so what are they talking about for the impacts? Build as planned.
Quote from: stridentweasel on July 03, 2019, 09:56:47 PM
I guess I should just expect pro-highway activists to dismiss valid concerns about wasteful automobile infrastructure, just like a normal person would exhale carbon dioxide after taking in oxygen.
We're talking about a group who opposes every and all highway project or proposal in existence if it doesn't include rapid transit, walking, etc. Hate to burst the bubble - but most of these projects don't have viable alternatives that would please these people. And most of the time when their proposed "alternatives" are actually used - they fail.
Face it, most Americans want to drive.
Quote from: RoadMaster09 on July 03, 2019, 09:58:33 PM
* Complete 540: I can see some merit in it not being warranted where it is, but they would need to widen I-40 (probably to at least 12 lanes) and that would be just as costly. Pick one - they'd fight either way.
It would finally complete a full 70 mph interstate-grade beltway around Raleigh, and accommodate the inevitable growth that is coming. With new growth, neighborhoods, etc. you need better infrastructure, roads, schools, etc.
A brand new freeway to accommodate that growth is a perfect solution. It's not promoting "sprawl", it's growth that's going to come one way or another.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 10:00:15 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on July 03, 2019, 09:56:47 PM
I guess I should just expect pro-highway activists to dismiss valid concerns about wasteful automobile infrastructure, just like a normal person would exhale carbon dioxide after taking in oxygen.
We're talking about a group who opposes every and all highway project or proposal in existence if it doesn't include rapid transit, walking, etc. Hate to burst the bubble - but most of these projects don't have viable alternatives that would please these people. And most of the time when their proposed "alternatives" are actually used - they fail.
Face it, most Americans want to drive.
That is especially true outside of the core of urban areas. Besides, the only form of transit really suitable in those cases - express buses - require the same freeway lanes!
I had dealings with MassPIRG when I went to U-Mass Lowell 20 years ago. A classmate in my major was actually the university rep for them. She went in altruistic, she left wanting to destroy the organization. Miserable, miserable people.
Quote from: stridentweasel on July 03, 2019, 09:56:47 PM
I guess I should just expect pro-highway activists to dismiss valid concerns about wasteful automobile infrastructure, just like a normal person would exhale carbon dioxide after taking in oxygen.
Yes, there are valid concerns. But the PIRG approach is a "machete" or "sledgehammer" one -- if a road project gets one iota of PR -- and thus onto their radar -- they crank up the negativity machine to maximum "piss & moan" level. In the meantime, other more localized projects for capacity increase fall well under their radar. And in engaging in such generalized opposition, they tend to preach to the choir -- others with a knee-jerk reaction to automotive transportation projects at large (
Atlantic Cities subscribers, et. al.). Having said that, I can see their point when it comes to additional urban mileage and/or projects that would displace large segments of residents. But instead of offering alternatives that don't involve decimating both the driving public and commercial transport, they should be sitting down with planning agencies as well as the proponents of highway projects in order to incorporate positive ideas & concepts into the scope of said projects. Otherwise, the level of discussion will just be reduced to a less amusing version of Monty Python's
"Argument Clinic"; hardly a recipe for genuine progress!
Quote from: SectorZ on July 05, 2019, 07:37:46 PM
I had dealings with MassPIRG when I went to U-Mass Lowell 20 years ago. A classmate in my major was actually the university rep for them. She went in altruistic, she left wanting to destroy the organization. Miserable, miserable people.
I had a friend who had almost the exact same experience with them.
Quote from: skluth on July 03, 2019, 01:25:50 AM
The High Desert Highway (https://www.metro.net/projects/high-desert-corridor/) has been an on/off-again proposal for a while. It's probably needed eventually, though right now it's debatable. It would promote a lot of exurban growth from LA, but the growth is likely inevitable and it's only a matter of how fast and exactly where it happens. Traffic on CA 138 is getting worse. That the Victorville and Lancaster area populations have exploded in the last 30 years shows that growth will continue to happen here. My guess is it would at least direct growth along the corridor.
This upsets a lot of urbanists and I understand their point. They are right in that it would be bad for the environment, etc. But growth will happen regardless. LA only has so much space. The only alternatives are building further up the mountainsides and further destabilizing the slopes along with increasing the fire risk that comes from building into SoCal's mountain forests, or tearing down neighborhoods to build high-rises. A highway corridor would promote growth along the corridor and force communities to coordinate planning. This would create at least a logical pattern to the current patchwork development currently happening in the High Desert.
I think the thread on AA Roads (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22256.0) shows it's unlikely to be built anytime soon. The High Desert Highway accounts for $8 billion of the proposed $25 billion "wasteful" total. I've also experienced the need for both the I-81 and Tri-State projects, so I hope they are built. Still, the writer could claim this unlikely expensive project wasn't built when others are as "proving" he was right all along since it accounts for almost 1/3 the total proposed project monies.
Bingo! "You can pay me now or you can pay me later!" comes to mind. Best to build now before more urbanization sets in.
Rick
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 02, 2019, 03:27:20 PM
Quote
and I-81 in Virginia ($2.2 billion).
These people must be taking reefer on a regular basis!
Quote from: Beltway on July 05, 2019, 10:34:28 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 02, 2019, 03:27:20 PM
Quote
and I-81 in Virginia ($2.2 billion).
These people must be taking reefer on a regular basis!
Or think it has the traffic that I-64 has west of I-81.
These people clearly have never driven I-81 before - they just identify projects across the United States, call them boondoggles, and find something to claim it will hurt.
For instance, the Complete NC-540's focus is on a wetland it will bridge over, claiming it will endanger some small species I've never even heard of it.
I think SELC already sued NCDOT based on its FEIS, and they lost.
Quote from: stridentweasel on July 03, 2019, 09:56:47 PM
I guess I should just expect pro-highway activists to dismiss valid concerns about wasteful automobile infrastructure, just like a normal person would exhale carbon dioxide after taking in oxygen.
You must be the sort of person who thinks the Auto Club and AARP are both public interest advocacy groups rather than insurance sales companies. How lovely to live in your world.
Sprawl can be controlled with zoning and land conservation.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 07, 2019, 11:13:35 AM
Sprawl can be controlled with zoning and land conservation.
Which in the case of several of their identified projects, Portland/Vancouver in particular, is already a thing. Both states have Urban Growth restrictions, so adding lanes won't increase sprawl. If anything it will encourage people off of the side streets allowing their transit systems to not be as impacted by traffic, and be seen as a reasonable alternative to driving, as well as reducing needless idling.
Oh I love this article. I-295 shouldn't have been built around Richmond :-o
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/06/19/highway-boondoggles-tar-heel-states-road-expansion-disaster/
Quote from: Highway Boondoggles: Tar Heel State's Road Expansion DisasterNorth Carolina transportation officials are moving forward with plans for a new six-lane highway around the southern half of Raleigh that would cause sprawling development and troubling environmental damage. The plan is called "Complete 540," and would form the southern half of Raleigh's 540 beltway, approximately seven miles from downtown Raleigh. At a cost of more than $2 billion, the highway, likely to be paid for with a mix of state funds and toll revenue, will be the most expensive in North Carolina history.
According to the Southern Environmental Law Center, Complete 540 would encourage "unplanned growth to sprawl out of Raleigh and into Southeast Wake County." Those changes would be consistent with the impacts of other bypass highways around U.S. cities, including in the Southeast. A 2000 study, Economic Impact of Freeway Bypass Routes in Medium Size Cities, concluded that negative impacts of bypass routes "include increases in sprawled, low-density commercial and residential development entailing high environmental and infrastructure costs." That study included an assessment of the I-295 bypass around Richmond, Virginia, which found that "relocations of retailing, local industries, offices, and residents facilitated by the outer belt have weakened the city's downtown business district. . . Without the bypass, local planners agree there would have likely been more redevelopment at high densities in the downtown area."
Even in the suburban towns it is meant to help, the state has concluded that Complete 540 "would have negative impacts on existing neighborhoods." The highway will bisect at least two neighborhoods, Woodcreek and Deerfield Park, and cut through land owned by six churches. It will also cross over the scenic Neuse River Trail, "a 28-mile pedestrian and bicycle path that is part of Raleigh's Capital Area Greenway System."
Environmental groups have raised extensive concerns and filed legal challenges over the project's environmental impacts. According to the environmental law center, Upper Neuse Riverkeeper, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Clean Air Carolina, which jointly filed complaints against the project, it will "pave over 70 acres of wetlands, destroy more than 55,000 feet of streams, and cut through the area's few remaining green spaces." The project will also destroy critical habitat for federally listed threatened mussel species. In an attempt to compensate for the potential devastation of a threatened species, the state has proposed spending $5 million to grow mussels in a lab for five years.
The highway expansion conflicts with North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper's commitment to fight climate change. In October, 2018, Cooper signed Executive Order 80, committing North Carolina to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent and meet the targets established in the Paris Climate Accord. According to a state estimate, the highway would increase driving by more than 484 million vehicle miles traveled in 2040.
Their attacks on why Complete NC-540 should not be built - climate change, sprawl, and wetland impacts.
Construction starts next year! :clap:
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 07, 2019, 09:59:20 PM
Oh I love this article. I-295 shouldn't have been built around Richmond :-o
They lost that argument back in the 1980s.
People often don't notice things that are working well. I-295 provides a high-capacity outer loop around the Richmond area, eliminating what would be a major "knot" in the highway system due to the convergence of I-95, I-64 and I-85 in a metro area that now has 1.5 million population. It would be awful and I-295 is far enough out that it is an outer bypass, not just a bypass. It also has capacity to spare with 16 miles of 8 lanes and 29 miles of 6 lanes, even today.
Quote from: Beltway on July 07, 2019, 10:27:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 07, 2019, 09:59:20 PM
Oh I love this article. I-295 shouldn't have been built around Richmond :-o
They lost that argument back in the 1980s.
People often don't notice things that are working well. I-295 provides a high-capacity outer loop around the Richmond area, eliminating what would be a major "knot" in the highway system due to the convergence of I-95, I-64 and I-85 in a metro area that now has 1.5 million population. It would be awful and I-295 is far enough out that it is an outer bypass, not just a bypass. It also has capacity to spare with 16 miles of 8 lanes and 29 miles of 6 lanes, even today.
I have been saying to people since I-295 was built around the northeast side of Richmond that this is the only Interstate highway that was built for the future.
Quote from: amroad17 on July 07, 2019, 10:33:43 PM
I have been saying to people since I-295 was built around the northeast side of Richmond that this is the only Interstate highway that was built for the future.
I-95 between I-495 and I-695 in Maryland -- built with 8 lanes when opened in 1971.
First time I drove it back then I said it was "built for the future".
Quote from: Beltway on July 07, 2019, 10:41:19 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on July 07, 2019, 10:33:43 PM
I have been saying to people since I-295 was built around the northeast side of Richmond that this is the only Interstate highway that was built for the future.
I-95 between I-495 and I-695 in Maryland -- built with 8 lanes when opened in 1971.
First time I drove it back then I said it was "built for the future".
Hey, CA's Division of Highways was, at least in SoCal, attempting to build as much as they could out to 8 lanes as early as the original Freeway & Expressway's inception in 1959; previously let contracts and plans, even on Interstate routes, prevented that from happening in many cases (the notable exception being I-405, which was always planned as 8 lanes from CA 133 at the south end of Irvine to CA 118 in Northridge -- except through system interchanges). However, wherever possible and warranted, most of those sections: mainly 6 but some portions with only 4, such as I-10 east of Ontario, were expanded out to 8 lanes as soon as fiscally feasible. For better or worse, Northern California's similar expansions proceeded at a much more leisurely pace; even I-280 between SF and San Jose was planned with 6-lane segments. The expansion stopped suddenly, of course, during the Brown/Gianturco years ('75-'83) and the penny-pinching Deukmejian administration following ('83-'91), the latter period including contract letting for the final miles of I-15 from I-10 south to San Diego, all of which was planned as 6 lanes. But as anyone who lives in or uses the freeways of the Inland Empire can attest, 6 lanes is hardly adequate for the current traffic flow of I-15 (due to that PIRG bugaboo, suburban/exurban development); expansion has been underway since I lived down there, even though some of that consists of toll express lanes. Attempting to bring everything out to 8 lanes was in some ways prescient considering the huge growth of housing that certainly wasn't anticipated in the '60's and '70's and only backhandedly recognized until around the turn of the century. And despite efforts at infill and more dense housing in most city cores, the aggregate housing needs will dictate some measure of outward expansion, although the rate of such will probably be markedly less than before the '07-'08 crisis and recession. Hey, Cajon Pass is 8 lanes (+climbers); there's a reason for that -- and it's not all Vegas-bound weekenders!
Call me naive, idiotic, or other such demeaning insults...but is it really wrong to cancel road projects that would ruin the environment?
I understand that some freeway projects, past and present, should be necessary - widening I-81 in Virginia, the Somerset Freeway, and I-345. Alright, they're vital links, and would've (or will) improve traffic for the future. But some road projects - be it pork barrel projects, proposed projects, or not - seem as if the environment was given little consideration; e.g. I-93's proposed four lanes through Franconia Notch.
For what it's worth, I believe that freeway construction through scenic areas should harmonize with the environment, but keep traffic moving. I'd support a project that constructs - say, a new NY parkway providing an alternate but scenic route between two points (for example, Taconic State Parkway), but not some 12 lane freeway that absolutely demolishes a state forest and connects nowhere to nowhere.
Whether I have rational beliefs or not is up to your discretion and opinions.
Quote from: Beltway on July 07, 2019, 10:27:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 07, 2019, 09:59:20 PM
Oh I love this article. I-295 shouldn't have been built around Richmond :-o
They lost that argument back in the 1980s.
People often don't notice things that are working well. I-295 provides a high-capacity outer loop around the Richmond area, eliminating what would be a major "knot" in the highway system due to the convergence of I-95, I-64 and I-85 in a metro area that now has 1.5 million population. It would be awful and I-295 is far enough out that it is an outer bypass, not just a bypass. It also has capacity to spare with 16 miles of 8 lanes and 29 miles of 6 lanes, even today.
I couldn't imagine how bad I-95 and I-64 in the city would be without I-295. These people are idiotic.
Quote from: amroad17 on July 07, 2019, 10:33:43 PM
I have been saying to people since I-295 was built around the northeast side of Richmond that this is the only Interstate highway that was built for the future.
For Virginia at least, it was. It was built for the future, and it's been holding up well. 40 years later and there's little to no traffic issues - even on the heaviest travel weekends. It's an amazing roadway, and how I wish I-95 looked all the way to DC
(the 8-lane segment between I-64 and I-95).
I-95 should have been constructed 8-lanes between Richmond and DC from when it was originally constructed in the 60s, or at least when it was widened from 4 to 6 lanes in the 80s, it should have gone all the way to 8 lanes. That definitely would have been a highway built "for the future" similar to I-95 between Baltimore and DC.
Quote from: sparker on July 07, 2019, 11:50:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 07, 2019, 10:41:19 PM
I-95 between I-495 and I-695 in Maryland -- built with 8 lanes when opened in 1971.
First time I drove it back then I said it was "built for the future".
Hey, CA's Division of Highways was, at least in SoCal, attempting to build as much as they could out to 8 lanes as early as the original Freeway & Expressway's inception in 1959; previously let contracts and plans, even on Interstate routes, prevented that from happening in many cases (the notable exception being I-405, which was always planned as 8 lanes from CA 133 at the south end of Irvine to CA 118 in Northridge -- except through system interchanges).
We discussed the I-5 Westside Freeway some time ago, built far west of the CA-99 corridor rather than alongside of it. While a 4-lane highway I would call that "built for the future" to build a super-bypass that some people might have objected to as being unnecessary at the time.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 08, 2019, 12:20:01 AM
I-95 should have been constructed 8-lanes between Richmond and DC from when it was originally constructed in the 60s, or at least when it was widened from 4 to 6 lanes in the 80s, it should have gone all the way to 8 lanes. That definitely would have been a highway built "for the future" similar to I-95 between Baltimore and DC.
That would have only covered the 58-mile segment between Ashland and Triangle, that was widened from 4 lanes to 6 lanes 1980-87. Ashland south and Triangle north was built with 6 lanes originally. VDH wanted 6 lanes originally on the Ashland-Triangle section but the US BPR refused to approve the additional funding.
As I have pointed out before, about 65% of the length of the Ashland-Triangle widening does have 4 lanes each way, the places where the highway was widened to the outside, and that is the reason for the extra-wide left shoulder, so the future 4th lane does exist in those places.
It is not quite as obvious now as when there was a 15-foot left shoulder and a 10-foot right shoulder; it appears that recent repaving projects have aligned it to a 13-foot left shoulder and a 12-foot right shoulder; but there is 48 feet of full depth pavement on those sections.
Quote from: Beltway on July 08, 2019, 12:30:43 AM
As I have pointed out before, about 65% of the length of the Ashland-Triangle widening does have 4 lanes each way, the places where the highway was widened to the outside, and that is the reason for the extra-wide left shoulder, so the future 4th lane does exist in those places.
Wouldn't you still have to provide a 10 foot left shoulder with a 8-lane section? The current "15 foot left shoulder" would accommodate a 12 foot lane and only a 3 foot left shoulder.
The bridges on that section appear to have an 18 foot left shoulder so that would expand the left shoulder slightly but only to 6 feet.
I don't have an issue with only a 4-6 foot left shoulder, but usually VDOT wants to do a full buildout.
Then again, in the 80s they only did 4-6 foot left shoulders on 6-8 lane freeways, not 10-12 feet like they do now. I-464 was built in the 80s as a 6-lane freeway and only has a 4 foot left shoulder.
Why doesn't VDOT conduct a study between Woodbridge and I-295 and determine the areas a "left" lane already exists, then open that lane as an actual lane, and then construct the remainder to create a consistent 8-lane freeway?
It's cited as being an expensive project, but a study is not expensive and would discover what would be needed for 8-lane widening and the costs.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 08, 2019, 12:35:55 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 08, 2019, 12:30:43 AM
As I have pointed out before, about 65% of the length of the Ashland-Triangle widening does have 4 lanes each way, the places where the highway was widened to the outside, and that is the reason for the extra-wide left shoulder, so the future 4th lane does exist in those places.
Wouldn't you still have to provide a 10 foot left shoulder with a 8-lane section? The current "15 foot left shoulder" would accommodate a 12 foot lane and only a 3 foot left shoulder.
The bridges on that section appear to have an 18 foot left shoulder so that would expand the left shoulder slightly but only to 6 feet.
They would have to widen the left shoulder and left roadside if they opened the 4th lane and wanted to have a full left shoulder.
Still a lot less construction than building a 4th lane and full shoulder (which will be needed on the 35% of the length that got the inside widening).
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 08, 2019, 12:35:55 AM
Then again, in the 80s they only did 4-6 foot left shoulders on 6-8 lane freeways, not 10-12 feet like they do now. I-464 was built in the 80s as a 6-lane freeway and only has a 4 foot left shoulder.
I-464 was an exception. I-295 was built with full left shoulders on the 6 and 8-lane sections, and the Interstate widening projects starting in the 1970s got full left shoulders (mostly, I can think of a few short exceptions).
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 08, 2019, 12:35:55 AM
Why doesn't VDOT conduct a study between Woodbridge and I-295 and determine the areas a "left" lane already exists, then open that lane as an actual lane, and then construct the remainder to create a consistent 8-lane freeway?
It's cited as being an expensive project, but a study is not expensive and would discover what would be needed for 8-lane widening and the costs.
That doesn't address the busiest sections (Ashland south and Triangle north) that are the original 6 lanes and would need a full new lane widening.
Quote from: Beltway on July 08, 2019, 12:40:43 AM
They would have to widen the left shoulder and left roadside if they opened the 4th lane and wanted to have a full left shoulder.
I would imagine they wouldn't widen it over the bridges if they can simply squeeze the lane across with a 4 foot left shoulder. It'd be a waste to widen the bridges just to provide a 10 foot left shoulder when a 12 foot lane and 4 foot left shoulder can fit across on the existing. The rest of it that's not bridged could be widened to 10 feet though easily.
Quote from: Beltway on July 08, 2019, 12:40:43 AM
Still a lot less construction than building a 4th lane and full shoulder (which will be needed on the 35% of the length that got the inside widening).
VDOT should start an environmental impact statement for full widening between VA-123 and I-295 like what was done on I-64 between I-664 and I-95. It wouldn't mean it's going to happen in one phase or immediately, but it would accelerate the process if widening did indeed get funded. With I-64 Peninsula Widening, whenever a project gets funded it starts construction almost immediately. The study and EIS is already completed and covered under the full corridor EIS - the same should happen with I-95.
That's why when the 5-mile widening between Exit 200 and Exit 205 got funded, it started less than a year later even though there was no specific EIS for that segment, but rather the entire corridor that gave a green light.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 08, 2019, 12:45:20 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 08, 2019, 12:40:43 AM
They would have to widen the left shoulder and left roadside if they opened the 4th lane and wanted to have a full left shoulder.
I would imagine they wouldn't widen it over the bridges if they can simply squeeze the lane across with a 4 foot left shoulder. It'd be a waste to widen the bridges just to provide a 10 foot left shoulder when a 12 foot lane and 4 foot left shoulder can fit across on the existing. The rest of it that's not bridged could be widened to 10 feet though easily.
I would favor widening the bridges, a modern design would carry the full left shoulder across the bridges.
Quote from: Beltway on July 08, 2019, 12:50:49 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 08, 2019, 12:45:20 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 08, 2019, 12:40:43 AM
They would have to widen the left shoulder and left roadside if they opened the 4th lane and wanted to have a full left shoulder.
I would imagine they wouldn't widen it over the bridges if they can simply squeeze the lane across with a 4 foot left shoulder. It'd be a waste to widen the bridges just to provide a 10 foot left shoulder when a 12 foot lane and 4 foot left shoulder can fit across on the existing. The rest of it that's not bridged could be widened to 10 feet though easily.
I would favor widening the bridges, a modern design would carry the full left shoulder across the bridges.
Segment 3 widening of I-64 between MM 241 and MM 233 is providing a full 12 foot left shoulder however it is being reduced to ~4 feet under older 70s overpasses that do not have the room to accommodate a full left shoulder.
They could replace the bridges, but quite frankly it would add unnecessary additional costs. In the future, they may be replaced however right now the priority should be to get 6-lanes in and get traffic moving.
The same with I-95. While I would agree a full shoulder carried across the bridges would be ideal, in an immediate relief project to get more capacity added to I-95, providing ~$100 million to expand the bridges that can adequately accommodate a 12 foot lane + 4 foot left shoulder simply to have a full left shoulder is an unnecessary waste of limited dollars.
In the future, if funding allows, you can add the shoulders, but it should not be a priority. It's not viewed as a priority on I-64, and it should not be a priority here.
Quote from: Beltway on July 08, 2019, 12:40:43 AM
That doesn't address the busiest sections (Ashland south and Triangle north) that are the original 6 lanes and would need a full new lane widening.
An EIS would cover between VA-123 and I-295, which would include Triangle north and Ashland south. The EIS would identify where a 4th lane already "exists", and where it would need to be added. The EIS would identify that Ashland south and Triangle north are areas that need a full new lane added, and the 35% of the 80s widening segments would also be identified for new lane construction. The rest would simply require a shoulder to be added if deemed necessary and financially feasible
(recent 4-lane NB expansion near Ashland did not add a full left shoulder but rather 4 feet, likely to cut costs and it was a smart move IMO on a limited budget).
8-lane widening should not be held up just because a shoulder cannot be funded. The corridor needs immediate relief as soon as it can get it, and if it means sacrificing a left shoulder, I'm sure most people would not mind. A full right shoulder, the traditional design, is still fully provided in areas a left shoulder would be removed if deemed necessary to cut a shoulder due to funding.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 08, 2019, 12:56:32 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 08, 2019, 12:50:49 AM
I would favor widening the bridges, a modern design would carry the full left shoulder across the bridges.
Segment 3 widening of I-64 between MM 241 and MM 233 is providing a full 12 foot left shoulder however it is being reduced to ~4 feet under older 70s overpasses that do not have the room to accommodate a full left shoulder.
They could replace the bridges, but quite frankly it would add unnecessary additional costs. In the future, they may be replaced however right now the priority should be to get 6-lanes in and get traffic moving.
Which ones? I can only think of two where the clearances are that low.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 08, 2019, 12:56:32 AM
The same with I-95. While I would agree a full shoulder carried across the bridges would be ideal, in an immediate relief project to get more capacity added to I-95, providing ~$100 million to expand the bridges that can adequately accommodate a 12 foot lane + 4 foot left shoulder simply to have a full left shoulder is an unnecessary waste of limited dollars.
I can't imagine where the cost would be remotely near that figure. Widening a bridge by 8 feet is much less work than replacing an entire overpass bridge. Those bridges are now 32 years old on the newest portion, and need full rehab in any case.
Quote from: Beltway on July 08, 2019, 06:28:36 AM
Which ones? I can only think of two where the clearances are that low.
The clearances aren't the issue - it's the positioning of the bridge supports that prevent the full typical section from going through.
Per the design plans, the typical 12 foot left shoulder will be reduced to 4-10 foot under these three bridges -
- VA-604 Barlow Drive (https://i64widening.org/documents/june_2018_cim/public_meeting_exhibit_board_2_of_3.pdf)
- VA-143 Merrimack Trail (https://i64widening.org/documents/june_2018_cim/public_meeting_exhibit_board_2_of_3.pdf)
- VA-716 Queens Drive (https://i64widening.org/documents/november_2018_cim/aerial_board_3_with_sound_walls.pdf)
A simple look at Google Street View shows the full typical section simply cannot fit under the structures, and they are not going to go through the effort to replace the bridges.
Quote from: Beltway on July 08, 2019, 06:28:36 AM
I can't imagine where the cost would be remotely near that figure. Widening a bridge by 8 feet is much less work than replacing an entire overpass bridge. Those bridges are now 32 years old on the newest portion, and need full rehab in any case.
I did a closer analysis at the I-95 corridor, and it appears 14 of the bridges can accommodate an additional 12 foot lane + 4-6 foot left shoulder, and all would need widening to accommodate a 10-12 foot left shoulder.
- I-95 Northbound over North Anna River
- I-95 Southbound over North Anna River
- I-95 Northbound over Railroad
- I-95 Southbound over Railroad
- I-95 Northbound over Ni River
- I-95 Southbound over Ni River
- I-95 Northbound over US-1 / US-17
- I-95 Southbound over US-1 / US-17
- I-95 Southbound over Potomac Creek
- I-95 Northbound over Aquia Creek
- I-95 Southbound over Aquia Creek
- I-95 Northbound over Quantico Creek
- I-95 Southbound over Quantico Creek
- I-95 Northbound over Powells Creek
At $100 million, that would be $7.1 million per bridge.
At $90 million, that would be $6.4 million per bridge.
At $80 million, that would be $5.7 million per bridge.
At $70 million, that would be $5 million per bridge.
It's safe to say it would cost an additional $70 - $100 million to widen the bridges on the corridor to have a full left shoulder, based on the numbers above and that there are 14 that would need to be widened.
You could do that, or you could reduce the cost of the overall project by $70 - $100 million and simply reduce the shoulder to 4 feet on the bridges. The same method being used in Williamsburg where the shoulder will reduce to 4 feet under the bridges instead of wasting money to replace them.
Not to mention, most of the overpasses are wetland / river crossings, so by not widening them, you are reducing environmental impact and that could save even more money.
Your "sprawl" is my "economic expansion."
Quote from: Beltway on July 07, 2019, 10:27:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 07, 2019, 09:59:20 PM
Oh I love this article. I-295 shouldn't have been built around Richmond :-o
They lost that argument back in the 1980s.
People often don't notice things that are working well. I-295 provides a high-capacity outer loop around the Richmond area, eliminating what would be a major "knot" in the highway system due to the convergence of I-95, I-64 and I-85 in a metro area that now has 1.5 million population. It would be awful and I-295 is far enough out that it is an outer bypass, not just a bypass. It also has capacity to spare with 16 miles of 8 lanes and 29 miles of 6 lanes, even today.
How would they like a 10 to 14 lane I-95? That is what would be necessary without I-295.
Quote from: RoadMaster09 on July 08, 2019, 09:00:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 07, 2019, 10:27:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 07, 2019, 09:59:20 PM
Oh I love this article. I-295 shouldn't have been built around Richmond :-o
They lost that argument back in the 1980s.
People often don't notice things that are working well. I-295 provides a high-capacity outer loop around the Richmond area, eliminating what would be a major "knot" in the highway system due to the convergence of I-95, I-64 and I-85 in a metro area that now has 1.5 million population. It would be awful and I-295 is far enough out that it is an outer bypass, not just a bypass. It also has capacity to spare with 16 miles of 8 lanes and 29 miles of 6 lanes, even today.
How would they like a 10 to 14 lane I-95? That is what would be necessary without I-295.
Some real-life examples of this happening:
Due to the cancellation of the Route 238 freeway between I-680 in Warm Springs and the 580/238 junction in Castro Valley, 880 is the only San Jose-Oakland freeway and that section of the Nimitz Freeway between 238 and 262 is backed up often due to the lack of alternatives.
I-5 being super widened in Orange County isn't by itself a bad thing - I've seen it mentioned often how much that project has cleared up things there and how the Norwalk bottleneck has taken forever to deal with in comparison - but probably happens in part because of the cancellation of much of Route 90 (and to a lesser extent due to 57 between 5 and 405 not being constructed at least for the time being).
IMO the daily issues with 80 being congested along the Bay Bridge are in part due to the 65+ year impasse in getting a Southern Crossing built, even though BART has provided a passenger-only alternative for much of that time.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 08, 2019, 03:42:27 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 08, 2019, 06:28:36 AM
Which ones? I can only think of two where the clearances are that low.
The clearances aren't the issue - it's the positioning of the bridge supports that prevent the full typical section from going through.
I was referring to the horizontal clearances.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 08, 2019, 03:42:27 PM
Per the design plans, the typical 12 foot left shoulder will be reduced to 4-10 foot under these three bridges -
- VA-604 Barlow Drive (https://i64widening.org/documents/june_2018_cim/public_meeting_exhibit_board_2_of_3.pdf)
The VA-604 bridge was built in the 1979 final new I-64 project and is fine as is --
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3295003,-76.705565,3a,90y,135.3h,99.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHM3IfcrpzjqOUjKfnmiewA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 08, 2019, 03:42:27 PM
- VA-143 Merrimack Trail (https://i64widening.org/documents/june_2018_cim/public_meeting_exhibit_board_2_of_3.pdf)
- VA-716 Queens Drive (https://i64widening.org/documents/november_2018_cim/aerial_board_3_with_sound_walls.pdf)
A simple look at Google Street View shows the full typical section simply cannot fit under the structures, and they are not going to go through the effort to replace the bridges.
What effort? VDOT's normal procedure on Interstate widening projects since the 1970s has been to replace the overpass bridge in that case. At least 5 such bridges were replaced in the I-95 Ashland-Triangle widening project.
The above 2 bridges were originals from the 1960s when that segment was built. By now they need major renovation and given the widening project they should be replaced with the needed clearances provided.
There is no future 8-lane project planned west of the southern VA-199 interchange, so they can't use the logic of coming back later in a future second widening project.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 08, 2019, 03:42:27 PM
It's safe to say it would cost an additional $70 - $100 million to widen the bridges on the corridor to have a full left shoulder, based on the numbers above and that there are 14 that would need to be widened.
Whatever the cost, it needs an engineering estimate, and it probably would be no more than 5% of the total widening cost. VDOT's standard procedure since the 1970s has been to widen in that situation, so they should do that so as to maintain full shoulder width thru the bridge.
Quote from: Beltway on July 08, 2019, 10:58:24 PM
The above 2 bridges were originals from the 1960s when that segment was built. By now they need major renovation and given the widening project they should be replaced with the needed clearances provided.
There is no future 8-lane project planned west of the southern VA-199 interchange, so they can't use the logic of coming back later in a future second widening project.
Currently, there's no plans to replace the bridges. They are adequate how they currently are and unless they're structurally deficient
(which they are not, the latest bridge inspections in 2017 indicate they rate "fair"), there's no need to replace them.
Replacing the entire bridge just to satisfy a left shoulder is a waste of money IMO, and clearly VDOT sees it that way too. It may have been different in the past, but clearly now there's no interest to replace the entire structure just for a shoulder.
The current project cost is $311 million, and would likely have been increased to $331 - $340 million if they chose to replace them. With limited dollars and the urgent need to expand I-64 to 6-lanes, that was likely not a concern for them if they could at least fit three 12 foot lanes underneath and at least 4 foot of shoulder.
Quote from: Beltway on July 08, 2019, 10:58:24 PM
Whatever the cost, it needs an engineering estimate, and it probably would be no more than 5% of the total widening cost. VDOT's standard procedure since the 1970s has been to widen in that situation, so they should do that so as to maintain full shoulder width thru the bridge.
If I-64 is any example, they will likely just reduce the shoulder. No need to waste the money just to satisfy a shoulder. If anything, they may not even pave a full left shoulder. The recent I-95 4-lane NB widening near Richmond only has a 4 foot left shoulder, and IIRC the I-64 widening east of I-295 only has a 4 foot shoulder.
For 73 miles of 8-lane widening, and an estimated cost of $30 million per mile
(and that's being nice, the I-64 widening projects in Williamsburg are up in the $50 per mile range), that would be $2.19 billion. 5% of that $2.19 billion cost is $109 million. You proved my point
QuoteI can't imagine where the cost would be remotely near that figure.
That's a waste IMO just for a shoulder over a very short distance. Just like they aren't replacing the bridges on the Williamsburg widening, I doubt they'd replace them here.
If it was a right shoulder, that would be different. But we're discussing a left shoulder being dropped simply over 14 small overpasses - a lot of 6-8 lane freeways in the country don't even have greater than a 4 foot left shoulder for the entire length of the highway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 08, 2019, 11:26:46 PM
Replacing the entire bridge just to satisfy a left shoulder is a waste of money IMO, and clearly VDOT sees it that way too. It may have been different in the past, but clearly now there's no interest to replace the entire structure just for a shoulder.
I would conclude nothing of the sort with just 2 examples, and 1960s Interstate bridges invariably have insufficient vertical clearances as well, in a addition to being obsolete and worn-out structures. Unless you want to argue against full left shoulders, they should be full width for the entire length, else what happens to the vehicle that is entering the shoulder and then gets forced out back onto the roadway.
Quote from: Beltway on July 08, 2019, 11:52:39 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 08, 2019, 11:26:46 PM
Replacing the entire bridge just to satisfy a left shoulder is a waste of money IMO, and clearly VDOT sees it that way too. It may have been different in the past, but clearly now there's no interest to replace the entire structure just for a shoulder.
I would conclude nothing of the sort with just 2 examples, and 1960s Interstate bridges invariably have insufficient vertical clearances as well, in a addition to being obsolete and worn-out structures. Unless you want to argue against full left shoulders, they should be full width for the entire length, else what happens to the vehicle that is entering the shoulder and then gets forced out back onto the roadway.
My recommendation -
Contact VDOT and ask them why they are reducing the left shoulder under 60s bridges instead of replacing the bridge to satisfy a full section.
Reply back once you get a response if you chose to contact them.
For the people in sprjus4's link from earlier to even claim that I-295 led to the decline of Downtown Richmond let's me know they have no clue about what they're talking about. Downtown was declining since the 1960's, long before even the first segments of 295 (between I-64 east & west of Richmond) was completed... suburbanization caused the decline. And downtown has made serious strides in the last decade, so their claims is still moot.
Quote from: Beltway on July 08, 2019, 11:52:39 PM
else what happens to the vehicle that is entering the shoulder and then gets forced out back onto the roadway.
This applies to all of VDOT's interstate bridges that narrow the right shoulder.
Alabama stripes the shoulder in advance of the bridge to warn any potential vehicles that it ends.
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.2225745,-86.3937435,3a,75y,46.92h,74.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPP5HD9_Ud8E6Mrz9Zd_SeA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
This should be used on every Virginia interstate where the left shoulder or right shoulder reduces size due to a narrow bridge.
Quote from: plain on July 09, 2019, 12:01:45 AM
Downtown was declining since the 1960's, long before even the first segments of 295 (between I-64 east & west of Richmond) was completed... suburbanization caused the decline.
I suppose I-295 helped suburbanization grow outward? There's a lot of newer developments going off I-295 and VA-288 nowadays.
But that growth was inevitable anyways. The interstate may have accelerated it some, but in the long run it provided good access for growth that was going to happen anyways.
That's why NC-540 is necessary. It may be rural now, but the growth is going to come and having good highway infrastructure is key. As proved by the first segment of NC-540, it may accelerate the growth some, but it's going to come eventually nonetheless.
The full loop will also serve as a bypass for I-40, I-87, US-1, and US-64 traffic wishing to avoid the core similar to the existing parts do today.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 09, 2019, 12:03:46 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 08, 2019, 11:52:39 PM
else what happens to the vehicle that is entering the shoulder and then gets forced out back onto the roadway.
This applies to all of VDOT's interstate bridges that narrow the right shoulder.
Like whatever ones from pre-1970 or so still haven't been widened.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 09, 2019, 12:03:46 AM
Alabama stripes the shoulder in advance of the bridge to warn any potential vehicles that it ends.
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.2225745,-86.3937435,3a,75y,46.92h,74.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPP5HD9_Ud8E6Mrz9Zd_SeA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That is very little if any real warning.
Of all the projects listed, NC 540 is the one that needs to be completed. So far, the existing segments make up a 3/4 loop around the west, north and east sides of Raleigh, so only the south side is missing for now. And considering NCDOT's "I don't give a damn" attitude, it will very likely be completed sooner than later.
Quote from: Henry on July 09, 2019, 09:57:42 AM
it will very likely be completed sooner than later.
Per NCDOT's website, construction begins on a good chunk of it late 2019 / early 2020.
Quote from: Beltway on July 08, 2019, 11:52:39 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 08, 2019, 11:26:46 PM
Replacing the entire bridge just to satisfy a left shoulder is a waste of money IMO, and clearly VDOT sees it that way too. It may have been different in the past, but clearly now there's no interest to replace the entire structure just for a shoulder.
I would conclude nothing of the sort with just 2 examples, and 1960s Interstate bridges invariably have insufficient vertical clearances as well, in a addition to being obsolete and worn-out structures. Unless you want to argue against full left shoulders, they should be full width for the entire length, else what happens to the vehicle that is entering the shoulder and then gets forced out back onto the roadway.
Any competent driver can deal with a slightly narrower shoulder, especially one that is
still ten feet wide. This is not that big a deal except for obstinate extremists who willingly sabotage projects because they'd rather take their ball and go home than actually get work done. It may not be perfect and shouldn't be built by your standards, but most people live in the real world.
The bridges will eventually be replaced. The highway then can be widened. The bridges may even be rebuilt to accommodate additional lanes depending on the time frame and political winds when they are replaced. This is not uncommon. Why force rebuilding something only to rebuild it again in a few years when the highway will be widened? I don't want
my taxpayer money wasted on a slightly wider shoulder with minimal benefits. If you want new unneeded bridges for a project, you can come up with private financing to pay for it. There are far more needed ways to spend limited highway funds.
Quote from: skluth on July 09, 2019, 01:14:33 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 08, 2019, 11:52:39 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 08, 2019, 11:26:46 PM
Replacing the entire bridge just to satisfy a left shoulder is a waste of money IMO, and clearly VDOT sees it that way too. It may have been different in the past, but clearly now there's no interest to replace the entire structure just for a shoulder.
I would conclude nothing of the sort with just 2 examples, and 1960s Interstate bridges invariably have insufficient vertical clearances as well, in a addition to being obsolete and worn-out structures. Unless you want to argue against full left shoulders, they should be full width for the entire length, else what happens to the vehicle that is entering the shoulder and then gets forced out back onto the roadway.
Any competent driver can deal with a slightly narrower shoulder, especially one that is still ten feet wide. This is not that big a deal except for obstinate extremists who willingly sabotage projects because they'd rather take their ball and go home than actually get work done. It may not be perfect and shouldn't be built by your standards, but most people live in the real world.
The bridges will eventually be replaced. The highway then can be widened. The bridges may even be rebuilt to accommodate additional lanes depending on the time frame and political winds when they are replaced. This is not uncommon. Why force rebuilding something only to rebuild it again in a few years when the highway will be widened? I don't want my taxpayer money wasted on a slightly wider shoulder with minimal benefits. If you want new unneeded bridges for a project, you can come up with private financing to pay for it. There are far more needed ways to spend limited highway funds.
It's actually being reduced from 12 feet to 4 feet, but only under the overpass. Most people, except road enthusiasts (and even I don't have an issue with it) don't think twice about it and they continue on their day and have no issue with it.
There's no plans to widen the highway beyond this project, but the bridges will eventually get replaced on their own when their time comes. There's no deficiencies or problems with the bridges simply due to "their age" , and don't need to be replaced at this moment.
Agreed, it's not worth wasting limited tax dollars. And you are correct, these projects like the I-64 widening is being funded through HRTAC which is funded through the tax increase strictly in Hampton Roads in 2013. Our tax dollars in Hampton Roads would be used to replace the bridges to satisfy the shoulder to appease someone in Richmond who does not even pay the increased tax that would have no benefit to the motoring public asides a nicer look (a fresh brand new bridge over the existing). Not worth the $20-$30 million more.
It may have "been VDOT's policy since the 70s" , but money wasn't limited and strict back then. Money was freely available, 90% by the federal government, and a bridge replacement was very cheap.
That's not the case anymore. Kudos to VDOT for retaining the bridges and using limited-tax dollars wisely in conjunction with existing infrastructure.
On the I-64 High Rise Bridge widening, they are replacing an overpass, but that is simply only because the new lanes couldn't fit under it, and not to mention the shoulder will be used as a lane during peak hours. That is a justified bridge replacement, not Williamsburg I-64.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 09, 2019, 01:45:45 PM
It's actually being reduced from 12 feet to 4 feet, but only under the overpass. Most people, except road enthusiasts (and even I don't have an issue with it) don't think twice about it and they continue on their day and have no issue with it.
FHWA, state DOTs, AASHTO, and highway engineers formulated these standards, and they are not "road enthusiasts" like certain people posting here.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 09, 2019, 01:45:45 PM
Agreed, it's not worth wasting limited tax dollars. And you are correct, these projects like the I-64 widening is being funded through HRTAC which is funded through the tax increase strictly in Hampton Roads in 2013. Our tax dollars in Hampton Roads would be used to replace the bridges to satisfy the shoulder to appease someone in Richmond who does not even pay the increased tax that would have no benefit to the motoring public asides a nicer look (a fresh brand new bridge over the existing). Not worth the $20-$30 million more.
The anonymous poster continues to take his little shots at me. The cost of the typical overpass would be more in the $5 to 10 million range for one thing, and these bridges are already over 50 years old and have very little life left in them, and now they are too narrow for 3 lanes and full shoulders underneath. They need to go.
So what other standards are you going to cut? Thinner pavement? Thinner shoulders? Narrower clear roadsides? Weaker guardrail? Smaller signs?
HRBT shows that VDOT is willing to pull out all the stops. $3.6 billion.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 09, 2019, 01:45:45 PM
It may have "been VDOT's policy since the 70s" , but money wasn't limited and strict back then. Money was freely available, 90% by the federal government, and a bridge replacement was very cheap.
Everything about that statement is wrong. Money has always been limited and strict, never has been freely available, the 90% by the federal government was largely spoken for in new Interstate construction, and bridge replacement has never been cheap. Road use taxes were much lower back then.
Quote from: Beltway on July 09, 2019, 02:33:57 PM
The cost of the typical overpass would be more in the $5 to 10 million range
Maybe 15 years ago they did. And these aren't just two rural 2-lane overpasses. VA-716 is, but VA-143 is a major 4-lane arterial and would be more expensive than VA-716.
The nearby Denbigh Ave overpass (https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/denbighblvdbridge.asp) is being replaced and costs $23 million.
The US-11 overpass (https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/staunton/rockingham_8211_route_11_bridge_over_i-81,_exit_257_at_mauzy.asp) over I-81 is being replaced and costs $16 million.
If you figure $20 - $25 million for a 4-lane interstate highway overpass, and $10 - 15 million for a 2-lane interstate highway overpass, that's around $30 - $40 million to replace the VA-716 and VA-143 overpasses.
Quote from: Beltway on July 09, 2019, 02:33:57 PM
have very little life left in them
Baloney. Both bridges were both inspected back in 2017 and have no issues and are not structurally deficient.
You can't just make up facts like that simply because of their age and without any evidence. There's a lot of other factors.
Yes, a lot of Virginia's older interstate overpasses are structurally deficient and have issues - those are the ones being replaced like the I-95 overpasses that were recently replaced, US-11 over I-81, Denbigh over I-64, etc.
The VA-716 and VA-143 bridges are not structurally deficient and do not need to be replaced.
The widening project can accommodate three full travel lanes and has a design exception with the minimal shoulder underneath the structure. The bridges are in good condition and it would quite frankly be wasteful to replace them. If they rated structurally deficient, then I'm all for replacing them. But they are not and until they are, there's no need to replace them. When they do, then award the $30 - 40 million contract to replace them and complete the shoulders underneath.
Quote from: Beltway on July 09, 2019, 02:33:57 PM
bridge replacement has never been cheap. Road use taxes were much lower back then.
Fallacy argument.
Bridge replacement costs were cheaper back in the day, and road user taxes were much lower because construction costs was much lower.
Money was more accessible. Road projects got built on a rapid pace. I-95 got widened to 6-lanes for very low cost and for a long distance in a course of 7 years. The amount of road, highway, and bridge building and the rapid pace and short time frames that they did that occurred between 1956 - 1990 is something that does not happen anymore. You know that.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 09, 2019, 03:52:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 09, 2019, 02:33:57 PM
The cost of the typical overpass would be more in the $5 to 10 million range
Maybe 15 years ago they did. And these aren't just two rural 2-lane overpasses. VA-716 is, but VA-143 is a major 4-lane arterial and would be more expensive than VA-716.
The nearby Denbigh Ave overpass (https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/denbighblvdbridge.asp) is being replaced and costs $23 million.
The US-11 overpass (https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/staunton/rockingham_8211_route_11_bridge_over_i-81,_exit_257_at_mauzy.asp) over I-81 is being replaced and costs $16 million.
If you figure $20 - $25 million for a 4-lane interstate highway overpass, and $10 - 15 million for a 2-lane interstate highway overpass, that's around $30 - $40 million to replace the VA-716 and VA-143 overpasses.
Nonsense. The Denbigh Blvd. bridge is 4 lanes and has full sidewalks and is 3 times the length of a typical overpass.
$5 to 10 million range for a typical 2-lane overpass.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 09, 2019, 03:52:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 09, 2019, 02:33:57 PM
have very little life left in them
Baloney. Both bridges were both inspected back in 2017 and have no issues and are not structurally deficient.
Source? After 50+ years they have lasted long past their design life and need major rehabs to have minimal functionality.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 09, 2019, 03:52:40 PM
The VA-716 and VA-143 bridges are not structurally deficient and do not need to be replaced.
They are functionally obsolete and their horizontal and vertical traffic clearances do not meet current standards.
Stop defending inadequate and deficient highway features.
That's right -- you listed one of the wrong bridges.
Besides, the widening project makes both functionally obsolete.
"The nearby Denbigh Ave overpass is being replaced and costs $23 million."
Divide that by (at least) 2, and you have $11 million for 4 lanes; then divide that by 2 to get for 2 lanes.
Quote from: Beltway on July 09, 2019, 09:27:38 PM
That's right -- you listed one of the wrong bridges.
Besides, the widening project makes both functionally obsolete.
"The nearby Denbigh Ave overpass is being replaced and costs $23 million."
Divide that by (at least) 2, and you have $11 million for 4 lanes; then divide that by 2 to get for 2 lanes.
Are you sure that costs are linear? I would think that one 4-lane roadway would be less than twice as much as two 2-lane roadways due to economies of scale.
Quote from: Beltway on July 09, 2019, 09:27:38 PM
That's right -- you listed one of the wrong bridges.
Besides, the widening project makes both functionally obsolete.
I did... that's why I deleted the post to re-write it and correct the errors.
The VA-143 bridge appears to be "functionally obsolete" as in it does not have the capacity to handle the traffic. It's not "structurally deficient" - the claim you kept making.
The VA-716 bridge is not "functionally obsolete" nor "structurally deficient".
Quote from: Beltway on July 09, 2019, 09:27:38 PM
"The nearby Denbigh Ave overpass is being replaced and costs $23 million."
Divide that by (at least) 2, and you have $11 million for 4 lanes; then divide that by 2 to get for 2 lanes.
The VA-143 bridge would be replaced by a 5-lane bridge (3 northbound, 2 southbound) with sidewalks on either side and a 16 foot raised median so you're number is incorrect for that.
The US-11 overpass (https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/staunton/rockingham_8211_route_11_bridge_over_i-81,_exit_257_at_mauzy.asp) over I-81 is being replaced and costs $16 million.You're 10-15 years behind. You're the same person who's claimed highways are built in Virginia for $20 - $30 million per mile, when in fact, again that's a 10-15 year old number.
If you can name a 2-lane or 4-lane bridge on the interstate highway system in Virginia that has been built for $5 - $10 million in the past 1-3 years I'll believe you.
It's closer to $10-15 million for a 2-lane, and $20-$25 million for a 4-lane.
Why are you hemming and hawing about this here? Sorry to ruin your love-affair with VDOT, but they're the ones doing this and currently building it. So talk to them. Looks like there might be some commitment issues :poke:
Quote from: 1 on July 09, 2019, 09:30:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 09, 2019, 09:27:38 PM
That's right -- you listed one of the wrong bridges.
Besides, the widening project makes both functionally obsolete.
"The nearby Denbigh Ave overpass is being replaced and costs $23 million."
Divide that by (at least) 2, and you have $11 million for 4 lanes; then divide that by 2 to get for 2 lanes.
Are you sure that costs are linear? I would think that one 4-lane roadway would be less than twice as much as two 2-lane roadways due to economies of scale.
Any attempt to low-ball the numbers. He also assumed the VA-143 bridge was only 2-lanes without even looking. And that the bridges were structurally deficient simply because of age, which in fact they are not.
Funny how a former engineer is dividing the numbers and calling that a sound estimate. That's -not- how it works, and even me who's not an engineer knows that - and he knows it too.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 09, 2019, 09:36:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 09, 2019, 09:27:38 PM
That's right -- you listed one of the wrong bridges. Besides, the widening project makes both functionally obsolete.
I did... that's why I deleted the post to re-write it and correct the errors.
The VA-143 bridge appears to be "functionally obsolete" as in it does not have the capacity to handle the traffic. It's not "structurally deficient" - the claim you kept making.
I never claimed "structurally deficient", but it is "functionally obsolete" which is grounds for replacement. I would also like to know the vertical clearance, as a 1965 Interstate highway bridge is almost certainly not high enough for ultimate truck clearances.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 09, 2019, 09:36:57 PM
The VA-716 bridge is not "functionally obsolete" nor "structurally deficient".
It will be after this project is built, functionally obsolete.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 09, 2019, 09:36:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 09, 2019, 09:27:38 PM
"The nearby Denbigh Ave overpass is being replaced and costs $23 million."
Divide that by (at least) 2, and you have $11 million for 4 lanes; then divide that by 2 to get for 2 lanes.
The VA-143 bridge would be replaced by a 5-lane bridge (3 northbound, 2 southbound) with sidewalks on either side and a 16 foot raised median so you're number is incorrect for that.
That is a rough estimate, and who says it has to be 5 lanes?
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 09, 2019, 09:36:57 PM
It's closer to $10-15 million for a 2-lane, and $20-$25 million for a 4-lane.
The $23 million Denbigh Blvd. bridge is 4 lanes, has a raised median, full sidewalks on both sides, and is twice the length of the typical overpass.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 09, 2019, 09:36:57 PM
Why are you hemming and hawing about this here? Sorry to ruin your love-affair with VDOT, but they're the ones doing this and currently building it. So talk to them. Looks like there might be some commitment issues :poke:
More sniping from the anonymous poster.
Quote from: 1 on July 09, 2019, 09:30:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 09, 2019, 09:27:38 PM
"The nearby Denbigh Ave overpass is being replaced and costs $23 million."
Divide that by (at least) 2, and you have $11 million for 4 lanes; then divide that by 2 to get for 2 lanes.
Are you sure that costs are linear? I would think that one 4-lane roadway would be less than twice as much as two 2-lane roadways due to economies of scale.
The cost would be determined by an engineer's estimate. If it had double the quantities of pay items, it would cost about double, economies of scale wouldn't make much difference on such a bridge project.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 09, 2019, 09:36:57 PM
Funny how a former engineer is dividing the numbers and calling that a sound estimate. That's -not- how it works, and even me who's not an engineer knows that - and he knows it too.
I never called it more than a rough estimate. I find it hilarious how you keep throwing all these cost estimates out like you are a senior highway engineer with ESP.
Quote from: Beltway on July 09, 2019, 10:19:03 PM
I never claimed "structurally deficient"
Quote from: Beltway on July 09, 2019, 02:33:57 PM
these bridges are already over 50 years old and have very little life left in them
Quote from: Beltway on July 08, 2019, 11:52:39 PM
1960s Interstate bridges <snip> in a addition to being obsolete and worn-out structures.
Quote from: Beltway on July 08, 2019, 10:58:24 PM
By now they need major renovation
Quote from: Beltway on July 09, 2019, 10:19:03 PM
I would also like to know the vertical clearance, as a 1965 Interstate highway bridge is almost certainly not high enough for ultimate truck clearances.
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/hampton_roads/64_deis/Final%20Environmental%20Impact%20Statement/I-64%20Final%20EIS%20December%202013.pdf
Figure 1-7. They are cited as "substandard vertical clearance", along with the newer 70s bridges.
Interestingly, this was in the comment section for the EIS -
QuoteAs presented in both the P&N chapter and Traffic and Transportation, it is unclear whether or not the new roadway plan will specifically address all deficiencies, or if the deficiencies can be corrected to current design specifications. The P&N states that there are 12 structures that cross over I -64 that do not meet current vertical clearances. Are these to be corrected as part of the expansion?
VDOT's answer was -
QuoteThe study cost estimates assume that the identified roadway geometric deficiencies would be corrected including the necessary reconstruction of deficient structures. This is stated in Chapter II - Alternatives Considered, Section C of this Final EIS in describing that all of the Alternatives retained for detailed study were specifically designed to meet the purpose and need. It is also described in the construction cost assumptions shown in the Alternatives Development Technical Memorandum, Section D. Cost Estimates, stating that it is assumed that all of the I-64 mainline and overhead bridges would be replaced. However, engineering design to address these structures would be further analyzed and refined during the final design phase for each operationally independent section and the necessary improvements to each would be identified and programmed as funding is identified. Additional information on the process for implementing operationally independent sections can be found in Appendix L - Phased Approach for Implementation - NEPA Process of this Final EIS. An operationally independent section can be built and function as a viable transportation facility even if the rest of the work described in this Final EIS is never built. In addition, as a result of further engineering design efforts it may be determined that full replacement or rebuild of certain structures may not be necessary depending on the improvements to the roadway sections that are happening in each area. The determination as to the type and extent of work needed for each structure to meet design criteria would be done as each structure is further analyzed.
You need to contact VDOT about this issue if you want to air your complaints somewhere. Engineers have determined the bridges do not need to be replaced. It's that simple.
Other bridges such as the Industrial Dr overpass in Segment 1 and the Queens Creek bridges in Segment 3 are on the other hand being replaced because those were truly structurally deficient and engineers determined they could not be widened.
Quote from: Beltway on July 09, 2019, 10:19:03 PM
and who says it has to be 5 lanes?
Well, it's currently four-lanes. There's 2 lanes heading southbound from Camp Perry, and 1 northbound lane to Camp Perry and one northbound on-ramp lane to I-64 West.
Presumably a replacement would feature 2 lanes in each direction to Camp Perry, plus the on-ramp lane - so 5-lanes.
And a roadway that wide would undoubtedly include pedestrian facilities such as a sidewalk, multi-use path, bike lane, etc.
Quote from: Beltway on July 09, 2019, 10:19:03 PM
The $23 million Denbigh Blvd. bridge is 4 lanes, has a raised median, full sidewalks on both sides, and is twice the length of the typical overpass.
Everything a VA-143 overpass replacement would have except the length. Can you please direct me to a recent interstate highway 4-lane bridge project in Virginia that was built in the last 1-3 years for $5 - $10 million?
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 09, 2019, 10:50:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 09, 2019, 10:19:03 PM
I never claimed "structurally deficient"
Quote from: Beltway on July 09, 2019, 02:33:57 PM
these bridges are already over 50 years old and have very little life left in them
Quote from: Beltway on July 08, 2019, 11:52:39 PM
1960s Interstate bridges <snip> in a addition to being obsolete and worn-out structures.
Quote from: Beltway on July 08, 2019, 10:58:24 PM
By now they need major renovation
All those can be true without it technically being "structurally deficient" today ... 2 or 3 years hence might be a very different story.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 09, 2019, 10:50:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 09, 2019, 10:19:03 PM
I would also like to know the vertical clearance, as a 1965 Interstate highway bridge is almost certainly not high enough for ultimate truck clearances.
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/hampton_roads/64_deis/Final%20Environmental%20Impact%20Statement/I-64%20Final%20EIS%20December%202013.pdf
Figure 1-7. They are cited as "substandard vertical clearance", along with the newer 70s bridges.
I didn't see any mention of the 1970s bridges.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 09, 2019, 10:50:21 PM
You need to contact VDOT about this issue if you want to air your complaints somewhere. Engineers have determined the bridges do not need to be replaced. It's that simple.
"it may be determined that full replacement or rebuild of certain structures may not be necessary"
It is possible to replace one or two spans over I-64, and/or raise the superstructure, to provide the necessary clearance, without it being a "full replacement or rebuild".
Notice also that it is not an affirmative engineering statement ... words such as "may" and "may not".
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 09, 2019, 10:50:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 09, 2019, 10:19:03 PM
The $23 million Denbigh Blvd. bridge is 4 lanes, has a raised median, full sidewalks on both sides, and is twice the length of the typical overpass.
Everything a VA-143 overpass replacement would have except the length. Can you please direct me to a recent interstate highway 4-lane bridge project in Virginia that was built in the last 1-3 years for $5 - $10 million?
Didn't claim that for *4* lanes. Looks like the $23 million Denbigh Blvd. bridge is 850 feet long ... a typical overpass is about 250 feet long, so you can estimate accordingly.
Quote from: Beltway on July 09, 2019, 11:10:13 PM
I didn't see any mention of the 1970s bridges.
Look again. Green indicates substandard vertical clearance per the FEIS.
(https://i.ibb.co/0nFd6L9/I64-Substandard-Clearance.png)
Quote from: Beltway on July 09, 2019, 11:10:13 PM
Didn't claim that for *4* lanes. Looks like the $23 million Denbigh Blvd. bridge is 850 feet long ... a typical overpass is about 250 feet long, so you can estimate accordingly.
Can you please direct me to a recent interstate highway 2-lane bridge project in Virginia that was built in the last 1-3 years for $5 - $10 million?Quote from: Beltway on July 09, 2019, 11:10:13 PM
Notice also that it is not an affirmative engineering statement ... words such as "may" and "may not".
Engineers designed the 6-lane project currently under construction. If they determined the bridges needed to be replaced, they would be getting replaced and new spans being constructed as we speak. But they are not.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 09, 2019, 11:20:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 09, 2019, 11:10:13 PM
I didn't see any mention of the 1970s bridges.
Look again. Green indicates substandard vertical clearance per the FEIS.
"In addition, there are 12 bridges crossing over I-64 which do not possess the required minimum 16.5 feet of vertical clearance per current AASHTO and VDOT interstate design standards. "
"As previously stated, and shown in Figure I.7, there are currently horizontal/vertical roadway and bridge clearance issues on I-64. If not corrected and combined with increased traffic volumes, these deficiencies would lead to exacerbated operational and safety concerns. "
But they don't say what the current clearances are. Even 1979 is now 40 years old. They are functionally obsolete. To support modern trucking they all need to be at least that figure (IIRC on the WWB Project they used 18 or even 20 feet).
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 09, 2019, 11:20:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 09, 2019, 11:10:13 PM
Didn't claim that for *4* lanes. Looks like the $23 million Denbigh Blvd. bridge is 850 feet long ... a typical overpass is about 250 feet long, so you can estimate accordingly.
Can you please direct me to a recent interstate highway 2-lane bridge project in Virginia that was built in the last 1-3 years for $5 - $10 million?
"Construction began in September 2016 under a $2.7 million contract with English Construction.
The new bridge is 265 feet long and 32 feet wide. The bridge approach road is rebuilt."
https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/rte_301_nottoway_river.asp
Overpass size bridge.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 09, 2019, 11:20:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 09, 2019, 11:10:13 PM
Notice also that it is not an affirmative engineering statement ... words such as "may" and "may not".
Engineers designed the 6-lane project currently under construction. If they determined the bridges needed to be replaced, they would be getting replaced and new spans being constructed as we speak. But they are not.
Highway engineers designed the project, but project element financial decisions were made be Financial Specialist and Budget Analyst personnel.
Quote from: Beltway on July 10, 2019, 12:26:48 AM
"Construction began in September 2016 under a $2.7 million contract with English Construction.
The new bridge is 265 feet long and 32 feet wide. The bridge approach road is rebuilt."
https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/rte_301_nottoway_river.asp
Overpass size bridge.
Not an interstate highway overpass bridge.
The US-11 overpass (https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/staunton/rockingham_8211_route_11_bridge_over_i-81,_exit_257_at_mauzy.asp) over I-81 is being replaced and costs $16 million.
That is a two-lane interstate highway overpass bridge ^
When you can provide an interstate highway overpass bridge in Virginia either underway or built in the last 1-3 years for $5-10 million, I'll believe you.
US-301 is not an interstate highway overpass bridge. You only used it because there are no overpass bridges being built on the interstate system in Virginia for only $5-10 million.
I constantly say "in Virginia" because in North Carolina an interstate highway overpass bridge is actually around only $4-6 million. But North Carolina is not Virginia and construction costs are undoubtably higher in Virginia as proven countless times.
Quote from: plain on July 09, 2019, 12:01:45 AM
For the people in sprjus4's link from earlier to even claim that I-295 led to the decline of Downtown Richmond let's me know they have no clue about what they're talking about. Downtown was declining since the 1960's, long before even the first segments of 295 (between I-64 east & west of Richmond) was completed... suburbanization caused the decline. And downtown has made serious strides in the last decade, so their claims is still moot.
You should tell them that, even if you'd have to post as a guest.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 10, 2019, 01:04:28 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 10, 2019, 12:26:48 AM
"Construction began in September 2016 under a $2.7 million contract with English Construction.
The new bridge is 265 feet long and 32 feet wide. The bridge approach road is rebuilt."
https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/rte_301_nottoway_river.asp
Overpass size bridge.
Not an interstate highway overpass bridge.
I knew in advance that you would say that, you are predictable.
It is right next to I-95 and dimensionally and structurally equal to, or closely equal to, a typical 2-lane overpass bridge.
I don't know if there are any stand-alone project 2-lane Interstate highway overpass bridges built recently in Virginia.
Quote from: Beltway on July 10, 2019, 01:13:40 AM
you are predictable.
It was quite predictable that you would ignore the example provided.
The US-11 overpass (https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/staunton/rockingham_8211_route_11_bridge_over_i-81,_exit_257_at_mauzy.asp) over I-81 is being replaced and costs $16 million.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 10, 2019, 01:16:01 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 10, 2019, 01:13:40 AM
you are predictable.
It was quite predictable that you would ignore the example provided.
The US-11 overpass (https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/staunton/rockingham_8211_route_11_bridge_over_i-81,_exit_257_at_mauzy.asp) over I-81 is being replaced and costs $16 million.
Did not ignore it. It received one bid, for $12,560,729.22.
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/june/ctb_action_meeting_june_2019.pdf
It is 370 feet long, and the new bridge will be 3 lanes wide, and there is other work involved than the bridge.
A50 0011-082-752, B621,C501 Rockingham County
The primary purpose and need of this project is to replace the Route 11 Bridge over I-81. The bridge was built in 1965. Route 11 is a two lane roadway and has a current Average Daily Traffic of 3,600 vehicles per day (~ 2600 vehicles west bound and 1000 vehicles east bound per day). An initial alignment and interchange alternative analysis was completed and a preferred alignment and interchange configuration was selected. The proposed construction consists of building the new bridge approximately 60 feet to the south of the existing bridge and realigning the approaches. Additionally, the intersection of the north bound I-81 exit and entrance ramps with Route 11 will be signalized to improve the traffic operations of the interchange.
The project will replace the bridge with a single two-way two lane bridge with protected left turn lanes at about the same elevation as the existing crossing.
Fixed Completion Date: May 24, 2021
. . . .
"two lane bridge with protected left turn lanes" - two thru lanes and a median and left turn lanes on the bridge.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 08, 2019, 03:56:23 PM
Your "sprawl" is my "economic expansion."
When roads are involved, they call it "sprawl." When railroads are involved, they call it "growth."
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 10, 2019, 02:57:00 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 08, 2019, 03:56:23 PM
Your "sprawl" is my "economic expansion."
When roads are involved, they call it "sprawl." When railroads are involved, they call it "growth."
I've always hated this type of double-talk. Growth in population would require investment in both roads and transit. To suggest that when you widen a road and then more traffic comes, you have induced demand that was unnecessary and then at the same time demand more train service when the subways are crowded is disingenuous.
For me, at least, "sprawl" doesn't mean strictly building roads. After all, Manhattan has a lot of roads but I doubt anyone calls that "sprawl". Morever, cities have had roads since the days of Jericho, etc. Obviously any population growth needs to be facilitated by roads; such was true in the pre-automobile days and certainly these days as well.
However, the manner in which you build roads can determine if it's sprawl or not. Numerous independent cul-de-sac developments which all feed onto a single major thoroughfare (often seen in exurbs and Sunbelt cities) vs a relatively tight street grid/road network (more often seen in inner suburbs, cities, and the Northeast) plays a big role. As a result, you can accomodate more population growth in a more geographicially-constrained manner.
I guess it's a long-winded way of describing population density, but with a particular focus on how the road network facilities it (or fails to).
Quote from: Beltway on July 10, 2019, 01:32:05 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 10, 2019, 01:16:01 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 10, 2019, 01:13:40 AM
you are predictable.
It was quite predictable that you would ignore the example provided.
The US-11 overpass (https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/staunton/rockingham_8211_route_11_bridge_over_i-81,_exit_257_at_mauzy.asp) over I-81 is being replaced and costs $16 million.
Did not ignore it. It received one bid, for $12,560,729.22.
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/june/ctb_action_meeting_june_2019.pdf
It is 370 feet long, and the new bridge will be 3 lanes wide, and there is other work involved than the bridge.
Rockingham County, Route 11 Bridge over I-81.
[....]
I tried to find a project brochure or any design plans that would show what is involved with this project, but could not. Obviously there are a lot more construction items than just the bridge, from the descriptions found.
. . . .
The US-301 Nottoway River bridge itself is similar to a common 2-lane overpass bridge, although building piers in the river may have entailed deeper and more complex foundations.
"The new bridge is 265 feet long and 32 feet wide. The bridge approach road is rebuilt."
There were 6 bidders so it was competitive, and the winning bid $2,733,874.91 was slightly below the estimate.
So for a recently built overpass bridge of this length and with 12 foot lanes and 4 foot shoulders, this is a good ballpark estimate of what they cost, given that no two projects or bridges are completely identical.
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2016/june/pre/Action_Agenda.pdf
AWARD/EXECUTED
Order No. J87
UPC No. 101232
Location and Work Type
FROM: 1.621 MILES NORTH OF ROUTE 642
TO: 0.255 MILES SOUTH OF ROUTE 734 LYNCHBURG
SUSSEX VA
HAMPTON ROADS DISTRICT
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT ROUTE 301 OVER NOTTOWAY RIVER
Vendor Name ENGLISH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INCORPORATED
No Of Bidders 6
Bid Amount $2,733,874.91
Estimated Construction Cost $2,928,135.14
Project No.
(NFO) 0301-091-729,M501,B609
BR-091-5(030)
Construction Funds
Recommended for AWARD $2,733,874.91
Quote from: Beltway on July 10, 2019, 12:26:48 AM
But they don't say what the current clearances are. Even 1979 is now 40 years old. They are functionally obsolete. To support modern trucking they all need to be at least that figure (IIRC on the WWB Project they used 18 or even 20 feet).
Found it. An "Interstate 64 Structure Inventory" indicating the condition of the bridges and the vertical clearances is located in the "Alternatives Development Technical Memorandum and Errata Record" (http://www.virginiadot.org/Projects/resources/hampton_roads/64_deis/Updated%20Technical%20Documents/Alternatives%20Development%20Technical%20Memorandum%20and%20Errata%20Record%20December%202013.pdf) on Page 150.
Per this report...
- The VA-143 overpass is rated "fair". The eastbound vertical clearance is 16'-6", and the westbound vertical clearance is 16'-5".
- The VA-716 overpass is rated "satisfactory". The eastbound vertical clearance is 17'-0", and the westbound vertical clearance is 17'-3".
They claim the bridges have "substandard vertical clearance" however the mainline design criteria for I-64 indicates the minimum vertical clearance shall be 16'-0" and the desired is 16'-6".
The only bridge clearance that does not meet the "desired" is the VA-143 overpass over I-64 West, and that's merely be one inch. It certainly is higher than the minimum.
I do not understand how those clearances are "substandard" as that one other part of the report indicated when in fact they are not.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 11, 2019, 12:14:15 PM
For me, at least, "sprawl" doesn't mean strictly building roads.
To me, "sprawl" is a negative term used to describe building construction, either business or residential.
Quote from: stridentweasel on July 03, 2019, 09:56:47 PM
I guess I should just expect pro-highway activists to dismiss valid concerns about wasteful automobile infrastructure, just like a normal person would exhale carbon dioxide after taking in oxygen.
I guess I should pro-mass transit advocates to live in a fantasy world and based their proposals in ideological pipe dreams while ignoring facts.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 10:00:15 PM
Face it, most Americans want to drive.
Not just Americans, more and more of the worlds population is driving.
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 08, 2019, 12:11:26 AM
Call me naive, idiotic, or other such demeaning insults...but is it really wrong to cancel road projects that would ruin the environment?
So what projects would quote on quote "ruin the environment?"
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 03, 2019, 12:21:46 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 08, 2019, 12:11:26 AM
Call me naive, idiotic, or other such demeaning insults...but is it really wrong to cancel road projects that would ruin the environment?
So what projects would quote on quote "ruin the environment?"
Depends how you look at it. In a anti-highway activist mind, anything that touches a tree is a project that would "ruin the environment". Has a bridge over a river or wetland? You're getting at least 6 lawsuits before the highway begins construction.
I like tacos. That is all.