I-66 HO/T Lanes

[sprjus4]

This reminds me of when VDOT and the HRTPO completed a study on the I-664 corridor a few years ago apart of the Bowers Hill interchange study.

They explicitly made one of the "purpose and needs" of the study: "Provide additional travel choice"

This allowed them to present the option to widen I-664 to six or eight general purpose lanes, then immediately dismiss it from any further study, citing "it doesn't meet the objective".

They then recommended the construction of a HO/T lane in each direction. They went into the study knowing they wanted express lanes on the corridor (despite the fact they are not necessary or should be the solution for that corridor), so they designed the study around that... instead of conducting a non-bias study and determining what truly is the best and viable long-term solution.

https://www.vdot.virginia.gov/projects/hampton-roads-district/bowers-hill-interchange-improvements-study/

[Beltway]

This reminds me of when VDOT and the HRTPO completed a study on the I-664 corridor a few years ago apart of the Bowers Hill interchange study.

The favored alternative is adding 2 HOT lanes each way between an expanded Bowers Hill Interchange and VA-135 College Lane. That accounts for the estimate of over $500 million for that combined project.

The long range plan is to widen the rest of I-664 to 4 lanes each way.

[sprjus4]

This reminds me of when VDOT and the HRTPO completed a study on the I-664 corridor a few years ago apart of the Bowers Hill interchange study.

The favored alternative is adding 2 HOT lanes each way between an expanded Bowers Hill Interchange and VA-135 College Lane. That accounts for the estimate of over $500 million for that combined project.

1 HO/T lane in each direction, plus a part-time "drivable shoulder" in each direction, but yes.

https://www.vdot.virginia.gov/media/vdotvirginiagov/projects/hampton-roads/bowers-hill-interchange-improvements-study/Appendix_E_-_Bowers_Hill_Study_VDOT_Recommended_Preferred_Alternative_Public_Hearing_Comment_Summary_acc07282023_PM.pdf

That conclusion came without analyzing any general purpose alternatives - they essentially knew that was their preferred design before the study began and influenced the outcome by inserting "additional travel choices" into the study purpose.

That was my main reason for bringing this up as an example.

Their long term plan includes adding 2 HO/T lanes (or part time shoulder as they seem to prefer) in each direction for the remainder of the corridor all the way up to I-64. The existing general purpose lanes (2 each way from the MMMBT to Bowers Hill, and 3 each way north of there) would remain as is.

[Beltway]

The favored alternative is adding 2 HOT lanes each way between an expanded Bowers Hill Interchange and VA-135 College Lane. That accounts for the estimate of over $500 million for that combined project.

1 HO/T lane in each direction, plus a part-time "drivable shoulder" in each direction, but yes.

The were saying that on the 2.7 mile I-64 widening project between Mallory Street and LaSalle Ave., but the final design is 4 lanes each way with normal shoulders. These designs seem to advance in some cases.

I was opposed to HRBT expansion at first because the seeming decision was to add one 3-lane tube. That would result in 4 lanes WB and 3 lanes EB and it didn't seem to be worth all that money.

But as we see they are adding two 2-lane tubes and replacing the trestles, so that will result in 4 lanes each way.

That conclusion came without analyzing any general purpose alternatives - they essentially knew that was their preferred design before the study began and influenced the outcome by inserting "additional travel choices" into the study purpose.
Their long term plan includes adding 2 HO/T lanes (or part time shoulder as they seem to prefer) in each direction for the remainder of the corridor all the way up to I-64. The existing general purpose lanes (2 each way from the MMMBT to Bowers Hill, and 3 each way north of there) would remain as is.

They did offer that as one of the alternatives. I suspect that the final design will be something like that.

The VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program entry for that project has no money allocated yet for Right of Way (RW) and Construction (CN). So this is still in the future.

I go thru the Bowers Hill Interchange regularly, and even with that nice long 4-lane weaving section each way, traffic has built to the point where separating/eliminating the mixing bowl is needed.

More capacity has been added on I-64 in Chesapeake, and the freeway upgrade of US-58 between Suffolk and I-664 will be coming -- so that interchange will be seeing even more traffic.

HRBT Expansion will be a huge game-changer and will restore both bridge-tunnels back to normal levels. They can handle these volumes with minimal or no congestion. My predictions after --

2022    AADT
I-664 MMMBT    69,530
I-64 HRBT    83,098
US-17 JRB    29,000
    181,628
   
2027    AADT
I-664 MMMBT    52,000
I-64 HRBT    104,000
US-17 JRB    26,000
    182,000
   
2032-35    AADT
I-664 MMMBT    60,000
I-64 HRBT    120,000
US-17 JRB    30,000
    210,000

[Rothman]

Something tells me the truth lies between Beltway's perspective and assumptions about available space and the $12.5B number.  I'd imagine one cause for the discrepancy is assumed needed bridge work to accommodate the widening.  Still, given the I-64 widening work mentioned, it's still hard to see the cost getting as high as $12.5B...

It's like the "study" that NYS DOT did on the Rye-Oyster Bay Long Island Sound crossing a few years ago, their "estimate" was $42 billion.

Basically designed to "prove" that it is not feasible.

Eh, given the cost of the new Tappan Zee Bridge and the challenges of that crossing (ROW, ROW, ROW), sure, it may not be $42B, but still costly enough to be considered silly.

[74/171FAN]

I am in a no-build status in regard to making changes here since we already have other Northern VA HOT lane threads; however, the Hampton Roads information (minus the HRBT which has its own thread) should be in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11915.0) moving forward.  -Mark

[Beltway]

Something tells me the truth lies between Beltway's perspective and assumptions about available space and the $12.5B number.  I'd imagine one cause for the discrepancy is assumed needed bridge work to accommodate the widening.  Still, given the I-64 widening work mentioned, it's still hard to see the cost getting as high as $12.5B...

It's like the "study" that NYS DOT did on the Rye-Oyster Bay Long Island Sound crossing a few years ago, their "estimate" was $42 billion.
Basically designed to "prove" that it is not feasible.

Eh, given the cost of the new Tappan Zee Bridge and the challenges of that crossing (ROW, ROW, ROW), sure, it may not be $42B, but still costly enough to be considered silly.

$3.5 billion is far short of $42 billion.

$7 billion would be more reasonable.

[Rothman]

Something tells me the truth lies between Beltway's perspective and assumptions about available space and the $12.5B number.  I'd imagine one cause for the discrepancy is assumed needed bridge work to accommodate the widening.  Still, given the I-64 widening work mentioned, it's still hard to see the cost getting as high as $12.5B...

It's like the "study" that NYS DOT did on the Rye-Oyster Bay Long Island Sound crossing a few years ago, their "estimate" was $42 billion.
Basically designed to "prove" that it is not feasible.

Eh, given the cost of the new Tappan Zee Bridge and the challenges of that crossing (ROW, ROW, ROW), sure, it may not be $42B, but still costly enough to be considered silly.

$3.5 billion is far short of $42 billion.

$7 billion would be more reasonable.

Something tells me the truth lies between Beltway's perspective and assumptions about available space and the $12.5B number.  I'd imagine one cause for the discrepancy is assumed needed bridge work to accommodate the widening.  Still, given the I-64 widening work mentioned, it's still hard to see the cost getting as high as $12.5B...

It's like the "study" that NYS DOT did on the Rye-Oyster Bay Long Island Sound crossing a few years ago, their "estimate" was $42 billion.
Basically designed to "prove" that it is not feasible.

Eh, given the cost of the new Tappan Zee Bridge and the challenges of that crossing (ROW, ROW, ROW), sure, it may not be $42B, but still costly enough to be considered silly.

$3.5 billion is far short of $42 billion.

$7 billion would be more reasonable.

Be sure to pass your estimate along.

[Beltway]

Eh, given the cost of the new Tappan Zee Bridge and the challenges of that crossing (ROW, ROW, ROW), sure, it may not be $42B, but still costly enough to be considered silly.

$3.5 billion is far short of $42 billion.
$7 billion would be more reasonable.

Be sure to pass your estimate along.

Here are the vertical clearances for the bridges --
-- Tappan Zee Bridge: 139 feet at the center.
-- Throgs Neck Bridge: 152 feet at the center.

TZB is 3.1 miles long and 10 lanes wide.

The LIB would be 6.0 miles long and could be a similar design to the TZB but with longer approach trestles. Probably with 6 or 8 lanes.

[Rothman]

Eh, given the cost of the new Tappan Zee Bridge and the challenges of that crossing (ROW, ROW, ROW), sure, it may not be $42B, but still costly enough to be considered silly.

$3.5 billion is far short of $42 billion.
$7 billion would be more reasonable.

Be sure to pass your estimate along.

Here are the vertical clearances for the bridges --
-- Tappan Zee Bridge: 139 feet at the center.
-- Throgs Neck Bridge: 152 feet at the center.

TZB is 3.1 miles long and 10 lanes wide.

The LIB would be 6.0 miles long and could be a similar design to the TZB but with longer approach trestles. Probably with 6 or 8 lanes.

No need to convince me.  Pass your estimate along.  I'm sure you took into account depth, current, salinity, etc. Anyway, with your expertise, I'm sure the project will be funded and going through NEPA in a couple of years.