AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Virginia  (Read 890305 times)

Roadrunner75

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1215
  • Age: 45
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: September 04, 2020, 01:21:33 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #5250 on: July 27, 2020, 12:48:30 AM »

At the price that patrons are spending at this place, nothing's going to faze them.
Just looked it up....you're not kidding.

I'd be like this guy in that place...

Logged

Jmiles32

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 490
  • Age: 20
  • Location: Gainesville, VA
  • Last Login: September 21, 2020, 08:07:58 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #5251 on: August 01, 2020, 08:08:53 PM »

https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2020/07/commuters-on-busy-us-15-may-get-safety-improvements-in-loudoun-county/:
Quote
Loudoun County is studying a 12-mile stretch of southbound U.S. 15 — from Leesburg to the Prince William County line — to determine whether traffic pattern or road configuration improvements could make travel safer.

A virtual public input meeting is being held Thursday evening.

The county is planning to build a roundabout on U.S. 15, at what is currently an intersection with Braddock Road.

In the past decade, several roundabouts have been built in Loudoun County on the highway to replace traffic lights and stop lights, including where U.S. 15 meets U.S. 50 at Gilberts Corner.

The county is already in the midst of acquiring land and designing a project to widen U.S. 15, from two lanes to four in a 5-mile stretch from Battlefield Parkway, north of Leesburg, to Montressor Road, near the town of Lucketts.

Recommendations about roadway and intersection safety, roadway design and traffic will be considered by the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, while preserving the context of the historical highway.

The county expects the safety study will be completed by summer 2021.

Regardless of widening or reconfiguration contemplated by Loudoun County, changes to U.S. 15 in Prince William County seem less certain.

After years of discussion about a bicounty parkway to increase north-south capacity between Prince William and Loudoun, Prince William County removed the project from its Comprehensive Plan. Last month, an economic recovery task force recommended re-including the project.

I suspect Loudoun decided to study this particular portion of US 15 due to Prince William deciding to once again ax the Bicounty Parkway, which would have extended four lane VA 234 to meet up with Loudouns' future four lane Northstar Blvd corridor. US 15 runs about four miles west of this corridor in Loudoun's Rural zoning area. While I highly doubt we'll see any widening recommendations whether its warrented or not (this stretch of US 15 gets around 15,000 AADT) I suspect instead we'll see more roundabout recommendations at Braddock and Harmony Chruch Road. The current roundabouts at Gilbert's Corner can occasionally get overwhelmed during rush hour periods from what I've seen but I'm not sure if anything will be done about that. Would like to see Prince William do a similar study on their portion (Light at Logmill Road is a problem) because I think better connectivity between Virginia's 2nd and 4th most populous localities is definitely something worth closely looking at. Very pretty road though.
Logged
Aspiring Transportation Planner at Virginia Tech. Go Hokies!

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11556
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 08:31:43 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #5252 on: August 01, 2020, 09:47:33 PM »

Quote
In the past decade, several roundabouts have been built in Loudoun County on the highway to replace traffic lights and stop lights, including where U.S. 15 meets U.S. 50 at Gilberts Corner.

What am I missing here? Is there a difference? (I personally avoid the term "stop light" because if the light is green, you don’t have to stop, but I know many people are not that cautious with their words.)
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13533
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 37
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 02:10:52 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Virginia
« Reply #5253 on: August 01, 2020, 11:33:21 PM »

Quote
In the past decade, several roundabouts have been built in Loudoun County on the highway to replace traffic lights and stop lights, including where U.S. 15 meets U.S. 50 at Gilberts Corner.

What am I missing here? Is there a difference? (I personally avoid the term "stop light" because if the light is green, you don’t have to stop, but I know many people are not that cautious with their words.)
Maybe a red flashing blinker?

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11556
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 08:31:43 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #5254 on: August 02, 2020, 11:09:23 AM »

Quote
In the past decade, several roundabouts have been built in Loudoun County on the highway to replace traffic lights and stop lights, including where U.S. 15 meets U.S. 50 at Gilberts Corner.

What am I missing here? Is there a difference? (I personally avoid the term "stop light" because if the light is green, you don’t have to stop, but I know many people are not that cautious with their words.)
Maybe a red flashing blinker?

I can’t think of any such lights along that road, but maybe one was introduced in the past year or two.
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

Jmiles32

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 490
  • Age: 20
  • Location: Gainesville, VA
  • Last Login: September 21, 2020, 08:07:58 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #5255 on: August 02, 2020, 05:24:46 PM »

Quote
In the past decade, several roundabouts have been built in Loudoun County on the highway to replace traffic lights and stop lights, including where U.S. 15 meets U.S. 50 at Gilberts Corner.

What am I missing here? Is there a difference? (I personally avoid the term "stop light" because if the light is green, you don’t have to stop, but I know many people are not that cautious with their words.)
Maybe a red flashing blinker?
I can’t think of any such lights along that road, but maybe one was introduced in the past year or two.
Weren't any on the road when I last traveled on it back in July. My guess is that to the general public, stop light and traffic light mean the same thing and yet many people only refer to them by one or the other. The article was probably trying to avoid confusion but ironically did exactly the opposite by including both terms.
Logged
Aspiring Transportation Planner at Virginia Tech. Go Hokies!

Jmiles32

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 490
  • Age: 20
  • Location: Gainesville, VA
  • Last Login: September 21, 2020, 08:07:58 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #5256 on: August 07, 2020, 07:42:58 PM »

Looks like the 28 bypass (Godwin Drive Extension) is dead (for now...) and that VA-28 from the Bull Run to Liberia Avenue will be widened to six lanes:
https://www.insidenova.com/news/transportation/prince_william/prince-william-county-supervisors-reject-route-28-bypass/article_79fea08a-d662-11ea-bf98-b329beaba1d4.html
Quote
After securing $300 million and spending years developing a bypass for busy Va. Route 28, the Prince William Board of County Supervisors rejected the proposal Tuesday night, leaving any fix for Manassas-area commuters in limbo.
The Prince William Board of County Supervisors voted 8-0 at its meeting to deny staff’s recommendation to move to the design phase of the project.

In a subsequent vote, the board voted 8-0 to endorse widening Route 28. County staff estimate that widening the road from four to six lanes would require an additional $100 million.

Supervisor Yesli Vega, who represents the Coles District that is home to the road, announced Monday she doesn’t support the proposed bypass due to its impacts on residents and the environment, among other reasons.

“This option will not alleviate traffic congestion on 28 from where it is today,” Vega said in an email to InsideNoVa. “Due to the negligible traffic impact, combined with the environmental, fiscal and human impact my constituents will face by being forcefully removed from their homes, I cannot support this proposal.”

County staff had backed the bypass, saying it would reduce congestion in the busy commuter corridor between Manassas and Centreville, improve access to transit and provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Property Impacts   Bypass Route   Widening
Total Impacted                72               185
Residential Displaced        54                7
Commercial Displaced      5                       79
Total Cost                 $300 million   $400 million

County staff estimate Va. Route 28 will see an increase from the 50,500 daily traffic count in 2018. Without any project build, Route 28 from Liberia Avenue to Orchard Bridge Dr. will see an estimated 75,000 daily traffic count. Staff estimated traffic count on that stretch of Route 28 with the proposed extension project would see about 62,500 daily traffic count in 2040, while widening the road is estimated to increase daily traffic count to 85,000, according to the county.

While the massive number of residential impacts were likely the nail in the coffin, in my opinion those traffic estimates also contributed because even with the bypass, things on VA-28 were only gonna get worse. Was never convinced that the bypass was actually going to take current traffic off of VA-28. Still however, an 85,000 daily traffic count by 2040 doesn't look too good either so in addition to widening VA-28, if I were VDOT, PWCDOT, NVTA, etc, I would also seriously consider adding interchanges at both New Braddock Road and Comption Road, prioritization of the Sudley Manor interchange on the VA-234 bypass with the possibility of six lane widening there, and finally, dare I say, traffic improvements on Yates Ford Road and Henderson Road through Clifton (Don't worry no widening, only straightening out some curves and some roundabouts). Still, wouldn't be surpised if even that idea is opposed by the NIMBYS there though.

Also, it was brought to my attention that $400 million for the widening might be a bit of an overestimation due to the portion of VA-28 through Manassas Park already being six lanes divided. Not clear to me if that section had been accounted for. Will also be interesting to see where that extra funding comes from ($300 million was what they had saved up). Either way, I think this was ultimately the right decision and just hope that other improvements are also made in addition by 2040.
Logged
Aspiring Transportation Planner at Virginia Tech. Go Hokies!

sprjus4

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 4931
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:43:57 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #5257 on: August 13, 2020, 02:48:30 PM »

There is also other discussion (not in these recommendations) about immediately implementing a HO/T shoulder on the High Rise Bridge during peak hours, so immediately upon the Phase #1 completion, there would be 8-lanes (2 + 2 each way) during peak hours. The only issue I see with this is the existing High Rise Bridge can only handle 4-lanes, and they are already planning on making the right lane a -general purpose- shoulder lane during peak hours between I-464 and US-17 / US-17 Business, meaning 1 HO/T + 2 GP + 1 Shoulder during peak hours. The only thing they could realistically do is eliminate that GP shoulder lane and make it HO/T to the left side, but I'm sure that would only get more opposition to the project.
The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) is planned to officially adopt the "Master Agreement for Development and Tolling of Hampton Roads Express Lanes Network" during tomorrow's meeting.

Document - http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2020/august/ctb_action_meeting_aug_14_2020.pdf

Buried deep in the document in Exhibit 5-2 is the proposed final configuration of the Express Lanes network, and sure enough, they are planning to go forth with silently eliminating the promised 3rd general purpose lane in each direction between I-464 (Exit 291) and US-17 / US-17 Business (Exit 296) in order to re-purpose the current project to handle 8 lanes (2 HO/T + 2 GP each way) during peak hours immediately upon completion in 2021 - 2022. This was supposed to help relieve a major bottleneck at the High Rise Bridge caused by both the 3rd lane drop and the I-64 / I-464 / VA-168 / US-17 interchange (Exit 291) by allowing that 3rd lane to continue over the High Rise Bridge. Instead, this will be sacrificed to allow a second HO/T lane which was not apart of the original project.

I'm not necessarily against having 2 HO/T lanes in each direction and in fact think it could help open up more capacity in this corridor and encourage more traffic to use the HO/T lanes, though I think it's a mistake to eliminate the promised 3rd lane. A project that was to add HO/T lanes additionally had a general purpose component to relieve one of the worst choke points, and it was removed silently, with no public input or notice, to have more HO/T lanes. It could be possible to have both 2 HO/T lanes each way plus that 3rd general purpose lane by shifting the "shoulder" HO/T lane heading eastbound (west towards Bowers Hill) onto the new bridge facing against traffic (separated by a barrier) then rejoin once the bridge ends in order to fit 1 HO/T + 3 GP on the existing bridge, but I don't believe this is the plan.

Interestingly enough, they also silently updated the FAQ page on the I-64 High Rise Bridge project website to omit a section under the "Aside from adding an Express Lane, how else will this project help my commute?" that read "The exterior shoulders between Route 17 and Great Bridge Boulevard will be constructed for use as a non-tolled, managed lane that general traffic can use during periods of peak congestion. That means drivers will have three non-tolled lanes in this stretch of I-64 during heavy congestion, plus one managed HOT lane."

From archive.org

December 2018 -
Quote
The exterior shoulders between Route 17 and Great Bridge Boulevard will be constructed for use as a non-tolled, managed lane that general traffic can use during periods of peak congestion. That means drivers will have three non-tolled lanes in this stretch of I-64 during heavy congestion, plus one managed HOT lane.

The existing travel lanes will also receive an asphalt overlay during construction.

In addition, the new High Rise Bridge, which will be used exclusively for westbound I-64 traffic (toward Virginia Beach), will feature a fixed span because of its height, eliminating bridge lifts for motorists traveling in this direction.

August 2020 -
Quote
The existing travel lanes will also receive an asphalt overlay during construction.

In addition, the new High Rise Bridge, which will be used exclusively for westbound I-64 traffic (toward Virginia Beach), will feature a fixed span because of its height, eliminating bridge lifts for motorists traveling in this direction.

In addition to them removing the third lane, looking at this from a system perspective, it's easy to notice there's inconsistencies in the proposed network. Some areas will have 2 HO/T lanes in each direction, others will only have 1. They are constructing projects in certain areas to increase capacity to 2 HO/T lanes (by way of 1 full time + 1 part time shoulder), but not in other areas. Effectively, areas that already have a left HOV lane will not be reconstructed to have 2 HO/T lanes, it will merely only be one. Wouldn't it be logical to provide a consistent 2 HO/T lane each way network? Areas with 1 HO/T lane will make it virtually impossible to pass slower vehicles. Additionally, if traffic demand for the HO/T lane in an area where it's only 1 each way is high, that means prices will increase and the system will quickly lose capacity.

Here's the plan -
Jefferson Ave to I-664 - 1 HO/T + 3 GP each way
I-664 to LaSalle Ave - 1 HO/T + 2 GP each way (which will eliminate an existing general purpose lane, currently a 3+3)
LaSalle Ave to I-564 (includes HRBT) - 2 HO/T + 2 GP each way
I-564 to I-264 - 2 HO/T + 3 GP each way in peak direction, 1 HO/T + 3 GP each way in off-peak direction
I-264 to I-464 - 1 HO/T + 3 GP each way
I-464 to Bowers Hill (includes High Rise Bridge) - 2 HO/T + 2 GP each way
« Last Edit: August 13, 2020, 03:01:36 PM by sprjus4 »
Logged

Jmiles32

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 490
  • Age: 20
  • Location: Gainesville, VA
  • Last Login: September 21, 2020, 08:07:58 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #5258 on: August 13, 2020, 10:58:04 PM »

There is also other discussion (not in these recommendations) about immediately implementing a HO/T shoulder on the High Rise Bridge during peak hours, so immediately upon the Phase #1 completion, there would be 8-lanes (2 + 2 each way) during peak hours. The only issue I see with this is the existing High Rise Bridge can only handle 4-lanes, and they are already planning on making the right lane a -general purpose- shoulder lane during peak hours between I-464 and US-17 / US-17 Business, meaning 1 HO/T + 2 GP + 1 Shoulder during peak hours. The only thing they could realistically do is eliminate that GP shoulder lane and make it HO/T to the left side, but I'm sure that would only get more opposition to the project.
The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) is planned to officially adopt the "Master Agreement for Development and Tolling of Hampton Roads Express Lanes Network" during tomorrow's meeting.

Document - http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2020/august/ctb_action_meeting_aug_14_2020.pdf

Buried deep in the document in Exhibit 5-2 is the proposed final configuration of the Express Lanes network, and sure enough, they are planning to go forth with silently eliminating the promised 3rd general purpose lane in each direction between I-464 (Exit 291) and US-17 / US-17 Business (Exit 296) in order to re-purpose the current project to handle 8 lanes (2 HO/T + 2 GP each way) during peak hours immediately upon completion in 2021 - 2022. This was supposed to help relieve a major bottleneck at the High Rise Bridge caused by both the 3rd lane drop and the I-64 / I-464 / VA-168 / US-17 interchange (Exit 291) by allowing that 3rd lane to continue over the High Rise Bridge. Instead, this will be sacrificed to allow a second HO/T lane which was not apart of the original project.

I'm not necessarily against having 2 HO/T lanes in each direction and in fact think it could help open up more capacity in this corridor and encourage more traffic to use the HO/T lanes, though I think it's a mistake to eliminate the promised 3rd lane. A project that was to add HO/T lanes additionally had a general purpose component to relieve one of the worst choke points, and it was removed silently, with no public input or notice, to have more HO/T lanes. It could be possible to have both 2 HO/T lanes each way plus that 3rd general purpose lane by shifting the "shoulder" HO/T lane heading eastbound (west towards Bowers Hill) onto the new bridge facing against traffic (separated by a barrier) then rejoin once the bridge ends in order to fit 1 HO/T + 3 GP on the existing bridge, but I don't believe this is the plan.

Interestingly enough, they also silently updated the FAQ page on the I-64 High Rise Bridge project website to omit a section under the "Aside from adding an Express Lane, how else will this project help my commute?" that read "The exterior shoulders between Route 17 and Great Bridge Boulevard will be constructed for use as a non-tolled, managed lane that general traffic can use during periods of peak congestion. That means drivers will have three non-tolled lanes in this stretch of I-64 during heavy congestion, plus one managed HOT lane."

From archive.org

December 2018 -
Quote
The exterior shoulders between Route 17 and Great Bridge Boulevard will be constructed for use as a non-tolled, managed lane that general traffic can use during periods of peak congestion. That means drivers will have three non-tolled lanes in this stretch of I-64 during heavy congestion, plus one managed HOT lane.

The existing travel lanes will also receive an asphalt overlay during construction.

In addition, the new High Rise Bridge, which will be used exclusively for westbound I-64 traffic (toward Virginia Beach), will feature a fixed span because of its height, eliminating bridge lifts for motorists traveling in this direction.

August 2020 -
Quote
The existing travel lanes will also receive an asphalt overlay during construction.

In addition, the new High Rise Bridge, which will be used exclusively for westbound I-64 traffic (toward Virginia Beach), will feature a fixed span because of its height, eliminating bridge lifts for motorists traveling in this direction.

In addition to them removing the third lane, looking at this from a system perspective, it's easy to notice there's inconsistencies in the proposed network. Some areas will have 2 HO/T lanes in each direction, others will only have 1. They are constructing projects in certain areas to increase capacity to 2 HO/T lanes (by way of 1 full time + 1 part time shoulder), but not in other areas. Effectively, areas that already have a left HOV lane will not be reconstructed to have 2 HO/T lanes, it will merely only be one. Wouldn't it be logical to provide a consistent 2 HO/T lane each way network? Areas with 1 HO/T lane will make it virtually impossible to pass slower vehicles. Additionally, if traffic demand for the HO/T lane in an area where it's only 1 each way is high, that means prices will increase and the system will quickly lose capacity.

Here's the plan -
Jefferson Ave to I-664 - 1 HO/T + 3 GP each way
I-664 to LaSalle Ave - 1 HO/T + 2 GP each way (which will eliminate an existing general purpose lane, currently a 3+3)
LaSalle Ave to I-564 (includes HRBT) - 2 HO/T + 2 GP each way
I-564 to I-264 - 2 HO/T + 3 GP each way in peak direction, 1 HO/T + 3 GP each way in off-peak direction
I-264 to I-464 - 1 HO/T + 3 GP each way
I-464 to Bowers Hill (includes High Rise Bridge) - 2 HO/T + 2 GP each way

So first off, I totally agree that Hampton Road's HO/T lane network would benefit tremendously from better lane consistency. However, where we disagree is my preference that any road getting HO/T lanes should have at least 3 GP first. I would take 3 GP and 1 HO/T over 2 GP and 2 HO/T any day. So while ideally I-64 would have 3 GP and 2 HO/T lanes in each direction, I'm not sure how feasible that would be ROW wise on the soon to be widened I-664 to I-264 section (going clockwise) and would settle for 3 GP and 1 HO/T in each direction. Will be interesting though to see how 2 GP and 2 HO/T works out though on the both the HRBT and High Rise Bridge.

Speaking of the High Rise Bridge, is there still a phase 2 project in the works to demolish the existing bridge (eastbound towards Suffolk) and a build new one in addition to the one they're currently constructing? I ask because if that were to happen maybe adding a 3rd GP through there would be possible after all.

Also, how exactly do they plan to implement the I-564 to I-264 HO/T lane section where there will be 2 lanes going in the peak direction and 1 lane going in the off peak? There is currently only 2 reversible HO/T lanes there and my guess is that they'll probably do something similar to what Transburban did on I-395 and both slightly narrow the lanes while also mostly getting rid of the left shoulder. Basically, how will that second lane be switched? A reversible barrier or something?
« Last Edit: August 13, 2020, 11:01:39 PM by Jmiles32 »
Logged
Aspiring Transportation Planner at Virginia Tech. Go Hokies!

Roadsguy

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1714
  • Age: 21
  • Location: Here
  • Last Login: Today at 09:37:25 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #5259 on: August 13, 2020, 11:08:49 PM »

...However, where we disagree is my preference that any road getting HO/T lanes should have at least 3 GP first. I would take 3 GP and 1 HO/T over 2 GP and 2 HO/T any day.

I agree. Having only two GP lanes with any number of HO/T just seems... wrong.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 4931
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:43:57 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #5260 on: August 14, 2020, 12:35:08 AM »

However, where we disagree is my preference that any road getting HO/T lanes should have at least 3 GP first. I would take 3 GP and 1 HO/T over 2 GP and 2 HO/T any day.
I agree, but at this point they is little interest in adding new general purpose capacity at this point in time, so this is the next best thing. The original plans called for 2 general purpose + 1 HO/T lane in each direction for both the High Rise Bridge and HRBT expansion projects. They were later revised to include a "HO/T lane part time running shoulder" that would activate as a second HO/T lane in each direction during peak hours. This was done last year on the HRBT, and more recently (albeit silently) on the HRB. IMO, they might as well open up that second lane full time to allow passing during off peak periods as well. The shoulder may be reduced, but it's not like this hasn't happened anywhere else in the country. I can name areas where they cram just one HO/T lane against a barrier wall with no breakdown lane.

In the interim, I would like to see as much as the network possible built out to have at least 2 general purpose lanes and 2 HO/T lanes in each direction. At no point should only 1 HO/T lane be in each direction, IMO, based on how much demand exists on the existing HO/T lanes where only one lane would fail during peak hours. In areas that are currently proposed to be 3+1 (and already are but with HOV lanes), they should expand the left shoulder to accommodate 3 general purpose lanes + 2 HO/T lanes each way. In the future, any remaining 2+2 each way sections (with the exception of the HRBT) should be widened to 3+2 each way.

Will be interesting though to see how 2 GP and 2 HO/T works out though on the both the HRBT and High Rise Bridge.
If demand on the current HO/T lanes is any indication, I'd say they will be successful. The HRBT should see significant congestion relief with new capacity, especially if filled up during peak hours, that's a lot of cars on the new lanes and off the general purpose lanes.

Speaking of the High Rise Bridge, is there still a phase 2 project in the works to demolish the existing bridge (eastbound towards Suffolk) and a build new one in addition to the one they're currently constructing? I ask because if that were to happen maybe adding a 3rd GP through there would be possible after all.
It's planned for the future, but no funding identified. The current plan called for Phase One adding one HO/T lane each way (to be 2+1 each way), and Phase 2 would add a second HO/T lane each way (to be 2+2 each way). Now that this "shoulder" method is being implemented that will allow a 2+2 immediately upon completion of Phase 1 in 2021 - 2022, hopefully a Phase 2 would add a -general purpose- lane each way, opening the corridor up to 3+2 each way, 10 lanes overall. There is no need or demand for 3 HO/T lanes each way that Northern Virginia has. That project also calls for a major overhaul of the I-64 / I-464 / VA-168 / US-17 interchange (which was needed when the Oak Grove Connector was built in 1999), and the other local road interchanges on the corridor.

Also, how exactly do they plan to implement the I-564 to I-264 HO/T lane section where there will be 2 lanes going in the peak direction and 1 lane going in the off peak? There is currently only 2 reversible HO/T lanes there and my guess is that they'll probably do something similar to what Transburban did on I-395 and both slightly narrow the lanes while also mostly getting rid of the left shoulder. Basically, how will that second lane be switched? A reversible barrier or something?
The plan is widen the left shoulder on the general purpose lanes to 14 ft (which will require outside widening and shifting lanes over), and utilize it as 1 HO/T lane / hard running shoulder in the off peak direction, while the reversible roadway (2 lanes) will continue to carry peak direction traffic.

Another thing I think is missing from this project are direct connectors. There is a major peak direction traffic flow that follows I-64 East (towards Bowers Hill) to VA-168 / US-17 South that, if using HO/T lanes, will be forced to exit a couple miles, try to merge 3-4 lanes to the right, into what's usually stopped / backed up traffic for the substandard interchange. Having a direct connector would assist that flow, and potentially incentivize people to use the lanes in order to bypass the interchange backup (because usually the rest of the segment is free-flowing at rush hour). It would also relieve general purpose congestion to -some- extent. Direct connectors could also be built for VA-168 / US-17 North to I-64 East for those coming from the south towards I-664 North / US-58 West.

The HO/T lanes project has a lot to offer, but is, in my opinion, incomplete. Lack of lane consistency (needs to be 2 HO/T lanes each way), no direct connectors, etc.

I-664 is now planned to be apart of the network in the future after 2025. No detailed plans have been developed, but my guess is they will aim for a similar 2+2 concept, which should ultimately be 3+2 IMO. The only section of the ultimate network that should be less than 3+2 should be the HRBT due to obvious reasons, unless they plan to build -another- tunnel in the future. But unfortunately, I think there's little incentive to add more general purpose lanes anymore.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2020, 12:42:55 AM by sprjus4 »
Logged

Jmiles32

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 490
  • Age: 20
  • Location: Gainesville, VA
  • Last Login: September 21, 2020, 08:07:58 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #5261 on: August 14, 2020, 01:45:37 AM »

However, where we disagree is my preference that any road getting HO/T lanes should have at least 3 GP first. I would take 3 GP and 1 HO/T over 2 GP and 2 HO/T any day.
I agree, but at this point they is little interest in adding new general purpose capacity at this point in time, so this is the next best thing. The original plans called for 2 general purpose + 1 HO/T lane in each direction for both the High Rise Bridge and HRBT expansion projects. They were later revised to include a "HO/T lane part time running shoulder" that would activate as a second HO/T lane in each direction during peak hours. This was done last year on the HRBT, and more recently (albeit silently) on the HRB. IMO, they might as well open up that second lane full time to allow passing during off peak periods as well. The shoulder may be reduced, but it's not like this hasn't happened anywhere else in the country. I can name areas where they cram just one HO/T lane against a barrier wall with no breakdown lane.

In the interim, I would like to see as much as the network possible built out to have at least 2 general purpose lanes and 2 HO/T lanes in each direction. At no point should only 1 HO/T lane be in each direction, IMO, based on how much demand exists on the existing HO/T lanes where only one lane would fail during peak hours. In areas that are currently proposed to be 3+1 (and already are but with HOV lanes), they should expand the left shoulder to accommodate 3 general purpose lanes + 2 HO/T lanes each way. In the future, any remaining 2+2 each way sections (with the exception of the HRBT) should be widened to 3+2 each way.
I can see the logic in that and would only add that if they don't want to do 3+2 at least in the near term, then hopefully that results in more priority on redoing some of those substandard interchanges (Oak Grove Connector, Bowers Hill, doing additional I-264 interchange phases, I-564, possibly others, etc.)

Speaking of the High Rise Bridge, is there still a phase 2 project in the works to demolish the existing bridge (eastbound towards Suffolk) and a build new one in addition to the one they're currently constructing? I ask because if that were to happen maybe adding a 3rd GP through there would be possible after all.
It's planned for the future, but no funding identified. The current plan called for Phase One adding one HO/T lane each way (to be 2+1 each way), and Phase 2 would add a second HO/T lane each way (to be 2+2 each way). Now that this "shoulder" method is being implemented that will allow a 2+2 immediately upon completion of Phase 1 in 2021 - 2022, hopefully a Phase 2 would add a -general purpose- lane each way, opening the corridor up to 3+2 each way, 10 lanes overall. There is no need or demand for 3 HO/T lanes each way that Northern Virginia has. That project also calls for a major overhaul of the I-64 / I-464 / VA-168 / US-17 interchange (which was needed when the Oak Grove Connector was built in 1999), and the other local road interchanges on the corridor.
Unless the exisitng HRB is in absolute dire need of being replaced, then I'd support overhauling the Oak Grove interchange first.

Also, how exactly do they plan to implement the I-564 to I-264 HO/T lane section where there will be 2 lanes going in the peak direction and 1 lane going in the off peak? There is currently only 2 reversible HO/T lanes there and my guess is that they'll probably do something similar to what Transburban did on I-395 and both slightly narrow the lanes while also mostly getting rid of the left shoulder. Basically, how will that second lane be switched? A reversible barrier or something?
The plan is widen the left shoulder on the general purpose lanes to 14 ft (which will require outside widening and shifting lanes over), and utilize it as 1 HO/T lane / hard running shoulder in the off peak direction, while the reversible roadway (2 lanes) will continue to carry peak direction traffic.

Ah I see. Interesting. Sounds very similar to an idea that I believe Beltway once recommended on the I-95 corridor which was to have an ETL or HO/T lane built in both directions on one of the shoulders that would operate in the opposite direction of wherever the existing reversible HO/T lanes were facing in order to not get caught up in messy compensation event issue. However since they obviously have the space (or pretty close to it) for 2 HO/T lanes in each direction here, I wonder why they don't just do a 3+2 here from the get go. There would then be more pressure to upgrade the I-264 to I-464 section from a planned 3+1 to a 3+2 and then presto you have at least 2 HO/T lanes on the entire southside portion of I-64.

Another thing I think is missing from this project are direct connectors. There is a major peak direction traffic flow that follows I-64 East (towards Bowers Hill) to VA-168 / US-17 South that, if using HO/T lanes, will be forced to exit a couple miles, try to merge 3-4 lanes to the right, into what's usually stopped / backed up traffic for the substandard interchange. Having a direct connector would assist that flow, and potentially incentivize people to use the lanes in order to bypass the interchange backup (because usually the rest of the segment is free-flowing at rush hour). It would also relieve general purpose congestion to -some- extent. Direct connectors could also be built for VA-168 / US-17 North to I-64 East for those coming from the south towards I-664 North / US-58 West.
Agreed. While were on the subject of access though, any idea if the HO/T lanes will have a barrier like the I-495 and current I-64 ones or be more like the double white line Atlanta area ones on I-85 (with indirect access coming from an occasional break in the double white lines that turns into a weave lane)?
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9177712,-84.1978746,3a,75y,56.7h,93.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s80LQupF3xwEPoZ9oARywbA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
Logged
Aspiring Transportation Planner at Virginia Tech. Go Hokies!

sprjus4

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 4931
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:43:57 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #5262 on: August 14, 2020, 02:11:12 AM »

I can see the logic in that and would only add that if they don't want to do 3+2 at least in the near term, then hopefully that results in more priority on redoing some of those substandard interchanges (Oak Grove Connector, Bowers Hill, doing additional I-264 interchange phases, I-564, possibly others, etc.)
Unless the exisitng HRB is in absolute dire need of being replaced, then I'd support overhauling the Oak Grove interchange first.
IMO, the Oak Grove Interchange needs to be separate project and should be a higher priority than Phase 2, especially considering we're now going to get 8 lanes instead of 6 lanes when the current project is complete, double the current capacity, which if the HO/T lanes get decent usage, should relieve the congestion issues on that corridor. From my experience, the traffic is at the point that if you added even just one HO/T lane, that would be enough to resume free-flowing conditions between I-464 and Bowers Hill. The need for a 3+2 will be pushed out at least another 10-15 years with the current 2+2 build, as unfavorable that may sound only having 2 general purpose lanes. From a system perspective, it should help enough to allow free-flowing conditions across all lanes. If this is the case, the HO/T lanes will also likely have a low toll (the current HO/T segment is usually only $0.50, maybe $0.95 or $1.00 for the 7 mile segment during peak hours and all HO/T and GP lanes are usually free-flowing and well filled) and get significant usage. Not to mention, HOV-2 is free and the lanes will likely be toll free outside peak hours (though reduced to 1 each direction unless they (and should) make the "part time shoulder" a 24/7 lane.

Oak Grove Interchange is a bottleneck today, and will only get worse. Significant growth happening south of I-64 and into North Carolina, traffic volumes are only increasing, and if Interstate 87 is ever constructed between Raleigh and Norfolk along US-17, that interchange will serve as a transfer point for traffic in all the cities (at least Norfolk, Chesapeake, and Virginia Beach) heading south, which alone could be an additional 5,000 - 10,000+ AADT added into the mix. Flyovers from I-64 East to VA-168 / US-17 South and from VA-168 / US-17 North to I-64 East for both general purpose and HO/T traffic are needed along with 8 lane widening of VA-168 between the interchange and -at least- VA-168 Business, though ultimately south to VA-165 over the Intracoastal Waterway. The recently completed US-17 Dominion Blvd freeway will likely be adequate for the next 20 years reaching peak capacity by then though 6 lane widening may be needed in the future, and I-464 is perfectly adequate today with 6 lanes and 50,000 AADT and will likely be nearing peak capacity by then.

However since they obviously have the space (or pretty close to it) for 2 HO/T lanes in each direction here, I wonder why they don't just do a 3+2 here from the get go. There would then be more pressure to upgrade the I-264 to I-464 section from a planned 3+1 to a 3+2 and then presto you have at least 2 HO/T lanes on the entire southside portion of I-64.
Would be nice to have, but that would likely require tearing up the entire reversible roadway to construct a standard 2+2 HO/T system. Keep in mind the reversible lanes were built what was previously a 60 foot grassy median, and are at times at a different elevation than the GP lanes. The cost estimate for the current proposal is currently over $300 million, and that's still going cheap keeping older bridges in place by reducing the outside shoulder across them. IMO, all the mainline bridges need to be replaced given they're from the 1960s, and this project would be a perfect opportunity to do such. Only 1 or 2 are set to be replaced, and they also want to keep the left exits and entrances near Tidewater Dr and I-564 which will only interrupt free-flow on the HO/T lanes and cause more issues especially with the truck traffic using Tidewater Dr and I-564 and the left lanes to exit / enter. That whole corridor needs a major overhaul (not lane capacity necessarily, but bridges, ramps, etc.) and they want to go cheap. Going to hurt them 15-20 years when they have to go back and replace bridges and redo exits once again since they failed to do it now.

Agreed. While were on the subject of access though, any idea if the HO/T lanes will have a barrier like the I-495 and current I-64 ones or be more like the double white line Atlanta area ones on I-85 (with indirect access coming from an occasional break in the double white lines that turns into a weave lane)?
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9177712,-84.1978746,3a,75y,56.7h,93.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s80LQupF3xwEPoZ9oARywbA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
I believe it's to be a hybrid of both, the style of barrier on I-495 along with weaving areas. IIRC, they may add a second lane where weaving occurs to/from the lanes in order to not interrupt through HO/T traffic. Again, I still feel they need direct connectors at the major areas, notably Oak Grove Interchange. The expanded HO/T network to be built beyond 2025 along I-664 has not been studied in detail, though there was mention of direct connectors from I-64 to I-664 potentially being incorporated into a Bowers Hill Interchange overhaul, which is a must to maintain seamless flow. Now, whether they will also lead to US-58 West is another story, and which they should.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2020, 02:14:21 AM by sprjus4 »
Logged

Thing 342

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1319
  • Age: 23
  • Location: VA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:54:05 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #5263 on: August 14, 2020, 10:30:13 AM »

Here's the plan -
Jefferson Ave to I-664 - 1 HO/T + 3 GP each way
I-664 to LaSalle Ave - 1 HO/T + 2 GP each way (which will eliminate an existing general purpose lane, currently a 3+3)
LaSalle Ave to I-564 (includes HRBT) - 2 HO/T + 2 GP each way
I-564 to I-264 - 2 HO/T + 3 GP each way in peak direction, 1 HO/T + 3 GP each way in off-peak direction
I-264 to I-464 - 1 HO/T + 3 GP each way
I-464 to Bowers Hill (includes High Rise Bridge) - 2 HO/T + 2 GP each way

This plan is, in my opinion, terrible.

All this will do is push the typical HRBT backup back to the I-664 / Mercury Blvd area, which is a major merge zone and is prone to accidents. I don't forsee the HOT lanes reducing traffic pressure on the GP lanes enough to offset the loss of an entire lane. Unless you can afford to pay the HOT fee, I forsee crossings of the HRBT getting worse on average, not better.
Logged

Jmiles32

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 490
  • Age: 20
  • Location: Gainesville, VA
  • Last Login: September 21, 2020, 08:07:58 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #5264 on: August 14, 2020, 10:41:02 AM »

I can see the logic in that and would only add that if they don't want to do 3+2 at least in the near term, then hopefully that results in more priority on redoing some of those substandard interchanges (Oak Grove Connector, Bowers Hill, doing additional I-264 interchange phases, I-564, possibly others, etc.)
Unless the exisitng HRB is in absolute dire need of being replaced, then I'd support overhauling the Oak Grove interchange first.
Oak Grove Interchange is a bottleneck today, and will only get worse. Significant growth happening south of I-64 and into North Carolina, traffic volumes are only increasing, and if Interstate 87 is ever constructed between Raleigh and Norfolk along US-17, that interchange will serve as a transfer point for traffic in all the cities (at least Norfolk, Chesapeake, and Virginia Beach) heading south, which alone could be an additional 5,000 - 10,000+ AADT added into the mix. Flyovers from I-64 East to VA-168 / US-17 South and from VA-168 / US-17 North to I-64 East for both general purpose and HO/T traffic are needed along with 8 lane widening of VA-168 between the interchange and -at least- VA-168 Business, though ultimately south to VA-165 over the Intracoastal Waterway.
VA-168 widening to just past VA-168 buinsess should be included in any eventual Oak Grove interchange overhaul project.

However since they obviously have the space (or pretty close to it) for 2 HO/T lanes in each direction here, I wonder why they don't just do a 3+2 here from the get go. There would then be more pressure to upgrade the I-264 to I-464 section from a planned 3+1 to a 3+2 and then presto you have at least 2 HO/T lanes on the entire southside portion of I-64.
Would be nice to have, but that would likely require tearing up the entire reversible roadway to construct a standard 2+2 HO/T system. Keep in mind the reversible lanes were built what was previously a 60 foot grassy median, and are at times at a different elevation than the GP lanes. The cost estimate for the current proposal is currently over $300 million, and that's still going cheap keeping older bridges in place by reducing the outside shoulder across them. IMO, all the mainline bridges need to be replaced given they're from the 1960s, and this project would be a perfect opportunity to do such. Only 1 or 2 are set to be replaced, and they also want to keep the left exits and entrances near Tidewater Dr and I-564 which will only interrupt free-flow on the HO/T lanes and cause more issues especially with the truck traffic using Tidewater Dr and I-564 and the left lanes to exit / enter. That whole corridor needs a major overhaul (not lane capacity necessarily, but bridges, ramps, etc.) and they want to go cheap. Going to hurt them 15-20 years when they have to go back and replace bridges and redo exits once again since they failed to do it now.
Lol lately when haven't they gone cheap?  :-D

In all seriousness though wow $300 million for the bare minimum seems like a lot. Guess that means that a full overhaul might cost north of a $1 billion. However just to spitball ideas here, if tearing up the existing reversible roadway in the middle is too expensive, then it might be at worth at least looking into doing what Georgia did with the I-75 HO/T lanes north of Atlanta and build the lanes elevated and on the outside of the exisitng roadway. Would probably be cheaper. Would likely be very difficult to squeeze ROW wise(especially in the 4 mile tight and mostly residential stretch between exits 277 and 281), but at least IMO is a potential alternative/solution to reconstructing the entire roadway. 

Agreed. While were on the subject of access though, any idea if the HO/T lanes will have a barrier like the I-495 and current I-64 ones or be more like the double white line Atlanta area ones on I-85 (with indirect access coming from an occasional break in the double white lines that turns into a weave lane)?
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9177712,-84.1978746,3a,75y,56.7h,93.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s80LQupF3xwEPoZ9oARywbA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
I believe it's to be a hybrid of both, the style of barrier on I-495 along with weaving areas. IIRC, they may add a second lane where weaving occurs to/from the lanes in order to not interrupt through HO/T traffic. Again, I still feel they need direct connectors at the major areas, notably Oak Grove Interchange. The expanded HO/T network to be built beyond 2025 along I-664 has not been studied in detail, though there was mention of direct connectors from I-64 to I-664 potentially being incorporated into a Bowers Hill Interchange overhaul, which is a must to maintain seamless flow. Now, whether they will also lead to US-58 West is another story, and which they should.
A second lane where weaving would occur would be awesome and if thats the case then I guess this particular stretch of HO/T lanes would be exactly like the controversial ones on I-77 north of Charlotte (an existing 2+2 that I forgot about).

Regarding the planned Hampton Roads HO/T lane network as a whole though, surely there are plans to at some point convert the existing I-264 HOV lanes (that appear to go up until the Rosmont Road exit) to HO/T right? While by using that extra sholder lane this stretch would easily be 3+2, I also wouldn't be surpised if they made it a 3+1 thereby providing even more inconsistency to the already inconsistent HO/T lane network.
Logged
Aspiring Transportation Planner at Virginia Tech. Go Hokies!

sprjus4

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 4931
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:43:57 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #5265 on: August 14, 2020, 01:00:34 PM »

Here's the plan -
Jefferson Ave to I-664 - 1 HO/T + 3 GP each way
I-664 to LaSalle Ave - 1 HO/T + 2 GP each way (which will eliminate an existing general purpose lane, currently a 3+3)
LaSalle Ave to I-564 (includes HRBT) - 2 HO/T + 2 GP each way
I-564 to I-264 - 2 HO/T + 3 GP each way in peak direction, 1 HO/T + 3 GP each way in off-peak direction
I-264 to I-464 - 1 HO/T + 3 GP each way
I-464 to Bowers Hill (includes High Rise Bridge) - 2 HO/T + 2 GP each way

This plan is, in my opinion, terrible.

All this will do is push the typical HRBT backup back to the I-664 / Mercury Blvd area, which is a major merge zone and is prone to accidents. I don't forsee the HOT lanes reducing traffic pressure on the GP lanes enough to offset the loss of an entire lane. Unless you can afford to pay the HOT fee, I forsee crossings of the HRBT getting worse on average, not better.
If the existing HO/T lanes are any indication, I’d estimate there will be a fair amount of usage. Keep the tolls on the lower end, keep it HOV-2, and tolled only during peak hours.

If the lanes are decently filled, that will simply open up more capacity on the general purpose lanes that weren’t there before. Any new capacity helps, tolled or general purpose.

Current projections show it will significant help things, and I’m hopeful of such. Of course, we won’t know for sure until after 2025.
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10630
  • Age: 61
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: Today at 10:40:06 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #5266 on: August 14, 2020, 06:22:17 PM »

Quote
In the past decade, several roundabouts have been built in Loudoun County on the highway to replace traffic lights and stop lights, including where U.S. 15 meets U.S. 50 at Gilberts Corner.

What am I missing here? Is there a difference? (I personally avoid the term "stop light" because if the light is green, you don’t have to stop, but I know many people are not that cautious with their words.)

In some places (District of Columbia and the City of Fairfax, at least along U.S. 29/U.S. 50), signals are deliberately timed to maximize the amount of time spent at a red traffic signal, so the words "stop light" are probably accurate.
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

D-Dey65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2632
  • Age: 54
  • Last Login: September 24, 2020, 09:24:37 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #5267 on: August 18, 2020, 03:31:20 PM »

Hey, why is this ROW along the railroad crossing on VA 139 wide enough for a four lane divided highway?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EB_VA_139;_Big_ROW_@_Virginian_Rwy_Xing.jpg
Was there some proposed road improvement project I didn't know about?



Logged

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2960
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 50
  • Last Login: Today at 08:49:23 PM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: Virginia
« Reply #5268 on: August 18, 2020, 05:46:05 PM »

Hey, why is this ROW along the railroad crossing on VA 139 wide enough for a four lane divided highway?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EB_VA_139;_Big_ROW_@_Virginian_Rwy_Xing.jpg
Was there some proposed road improvement project I didn't know about?

Just where a track has been removed...at the next crossing west SR 608 there is no railway left at all and it has the same look as that photo with the gate and bollards.

Fixed quote.  -Mark
« Last Edit: August 18, 2020, 06:59:34 PM by 74/171FAN »
Logged

bluecountry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 218
  • Last Login: September 23, 2020, 05:05:09 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #5269 on: August 19, 2020, 11:42:15 PM »

Looks like the 28 bypass (Godwin Drive Extension) is dead (for now...) and that VA-28 from the Bull Run to Liberia Avenue will be widened to six lanes:
https://www.insidenova.com/news/transportation/prince_william/prince-william-county-supervisors-reject-route-28-bypass/article_79fea08a-d662-11ea-bf98-b329beaba1d4.html
Quote
After securing $300 million and spending years developing a bypass for busy Va. Route 28, the Prince William Board of County Supervisors rejected the proposal Tuesday night, leaving any fix for Manassas-area commuters in limbo.
The Prince William Board of County Supervisors voted 8-0 at its meeting to deny staff’s recommendation to move to the design phase of the project.

In a subsequent vote, the board voted 8-0 to endorse widening Route 28. County staff estimate that widening the road from four to six lanes would require an additional $100 million.

Supervisor Yesli Vega, who represents the Coles District that is home to the road, announced Monday she doesn’t support the proposed bypass due to its impacts on residents and the environment, among other reasons.

“This option will not alleviate traffic congestion on 28 from where it is today,” Vega said in an email to InsideNoVa. “Due to the negligible traffic impact, combined with the environmental, fiscal and human impact my constituents will face by being forcefully removed from their homes, I cannot support this proposal.”

County staff had backed the bypass, saying it would reduce congestion in the busy commuter corridor between Manassas and Centreville, improve access to transit and provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Property Impacts   Bypass Route   Widening
Total Impacted                72               185
Residential Displaced        54                7
Commercial Displaced      5                       79
Total Cost                 $300 million   $400 million

County staff estimate Va. Route 28 will see an increase from the 50,500 daily traffic count in 2018. Without any project build, Route 28 from Liberia Avenue to Orchard Bridge Dr. will see an estimated 75,000 daily traffic count. Staff estimated traffic count on that stretch of Route 28 with the proposed extension project would see about 62,500 daily traffic count in 2040, while widening the road is estimated to increase daily traffic count to 85,000, according to the county.

While the massive number of residential impacts were likely the nail in the coffin, in my opinion those traffic estimates also contributed because even with the bypass, things on VA-28 were only gonna get worse. Was never convinced that the bypass was actually going to take current traffic off of VA-28. Still however, an 85,000 daily traffic count by 2040 doesn't look too good either so in addition to widening VA-28, if I were VDOT, PWCDOT, NVTA, etc, I would also seriously consider adding interchanges at both New Braddock Road and Comption Road, prioritization of the Sudley Manor interchange on the VA-234 bypass with the possibility of six lane widening there, and finally, dare I say, traffic improvements on Yates Ford Road and Henderson Road through Clifton (Don't worry no widening, only straightening out some curves and some roundabouts). Still, wouldn't be surpised if even that idea is opposed by the NIMBYS there though.

Also, it was brought to my attention that $400 million for the widening might be a bit of an overestimation due to the portion of VA-28 through Manassas Park already being six lanes divided. Not clear to me if that section had been accounted for. Will also be interesting to see where that extra funding comes from ($300 million was what they had saved up). Either way, I think this was ultimately the right decision and just hope that other improvements are also made in addition by 2040.
This was a horrible decision by the PWC BOS.  I used to work locally at the county DOT on this project, it was BADLY needed.
Logged

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11556
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 08:31:43 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #5270 on: August 20, 2020, 10:05:56 AM »

Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

74/171FAN

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1751
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Harrisburg, PA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:18:05 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #5271 on: August 20, 2020, 12:18:06 PM »

Has anyone been on the Hampton Roads Center Parkway lately?  For work purposes, I was looking to see if delineators were added to the concrete separator between the Hampton Roads Center Pkwy WB and the VA 134 acceleration lane as early as late last year?  GSV was last there in May 2019.
Logged
I am now a PennDOT employee.  My opinions/views do not necessarily reflect the opinions/views of PennDOT.

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11556
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 08:31:43 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #5272 on: August 28, 2020, 08:15:38 AM »

?s=20
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

sprjus4

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 4931
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:43:57 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #5273 on: August 31, 2020, 02:08:08 PM »

North Landing Bridge replacement project clears major hurdle
Quote
NORFOLK, Va. – A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project aimed at replacing North Landing Bridge took a crucial step forward this week.

Lt. Gen. Todd Semonite, chief of engineers and USACE commanding general, signed a Chief’s Report on Tuesday, recommending the North Landing Bridge Replacement Study’s findings for authorization by Congress. This also initiates start of the Preconstruction Engineering and Design phase, or PED, which covers project design and typically lasts up to three years.

“Authorization is a very important step toward project construction,” said Col. Patrick Kinsman, Norfolk District commander. “This is a tremendous achievement for USACE and our local partners. More importantly, our collective team has worked diligently on this critical project for the community. We are dedicated to the construction of a new bridge as local traffic over this crossing has continued to grow in recent years.

“North Landing Bridge not only services vehicle traffic on Route 165 between the cities of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, it’s also a key navigation corridor for maritime interests on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The cargo-transportation industry relies heavily on the AIWW as a freight-transportation system, which improves commerce flow into the area and helps our economy.”

Tuesday’s signing culminates a three-year study that reviewed the existing bridge’s operation and maintenance, examined alternatives and targeted a feasible plan for replacement of the aging bridge.

Built in 1951 to serve rural traffic, North Landing Bridge is a federally owned and operated two-lane, double-swing drawbridge crossing the Albemarle and Chesapeake Canal. It’s considered structurally deficient and functionally obsolete, carrying far more than its 8,000-vehicle-per-day design capacity.

USACE’s recommended replacement plan features a high-rise, two-lane fixed bridge measuring 3,360 feet long and 46 feet 4 inches wide – with a minimum vertical clearance of nearly 70 feet, structure depth of 8 feet and roadway elevation of 78 feet. It would be built just east of the current bridge.

“The North Landing Bridge replacement is a great project for our local citizens here in Hampton Roads,” said Susan Layton, Norfolk District’s Planning and Policy Branch chief. “The new proposed high-rise bridge will solve the existing problem with repeated traffic delays throughout the day as the bridge opens. It will allow safer and more efficient travel by both vehicles and vessels.”

The project, estimated at $98.5 million, includes upgrades to meet current Army Corps of Engineers and Virginia Department of Transportation design guidelines.

USACE would cover all first costs of construction, according to the Chief’s Report. The city of Chesapeake, its nonfederal sponsor, will assume ownership and responsibility for operation and maintenance of the bridge after completion, projected at $185,000 per year.

Layton said the primary objectives are to reduce vehicle and vessel delays, improve roadway and navigation safety, and lessen USACE’s infrastructure inventory by turning the new bridge over to Chesapeake for long-term management and upkeep.

“The bridge will provide a large decrease in traffic delays, including elimination of the issue of the bridge being shut down due to high-water events and vessel incidents,” she said. “It will also have wide shoulders, allowing for safe pedestrian and bicycle passage over the waterway. There is currently a load limit on the bridge, so heavy vehicles will no longer have to travel a longer route to cross the waterway.

“These benefits to the local community will be immediate once the bridge is constructed.”

The Chief’s Report will undergo further review by the assistant secretary of the Army for Civil Works and Office of Management and Budget before formal submittal to Congress, Layton said. After authorization, it would be eligible for construction appropriations.

“This entire process can take five to 10 years or more,” she added, “so it is difficult to say when a new bridge would be constructed.”

Chesapeake officials said the Chief’s Report signing is a significant move toward enduring solutions for area residents, motorists and boaters.

“As nonfederal sponsor for the replacement of North Landing Bridge, the city of Chesapeake is pleased to see the Chief of Engineers Report completed,” said Chesapeake Mayor Rick West. “We know there is still much work ahead in designing and funding a replacement bridge to connect the cities of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, but applaud USACE’s efforts in getting this important milestone completed. We look forward to working with our federal partners to bring this project to fruition.”

The recommended plan – which considered public comments, along with input from other federal, state and local agencies – is “technically sound, environmentally and socially acceptable, and economically justified,” the report states.

“The Corps appreciates the opportunity to partner with the city of Chesapeake to provide this improvement to our local citizens and looks forward to continuing to move this project forward to authorization, appropriations and eventual construction,” she said.

To learn more about the project, visit www.nao.usace.army.mil/NorthLandingBridge/.
Logged

bluecountry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 218
  • Last Login: September 23, 2020, 05:05:09 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #5274 on: September 01, 2020, 10:44:15 PM »

What's the deal with Braddock Road?
I thought SR620 was the historic route of General Braddock, but after reading the book, it seems Braddock's road followed more closely Rt 7.
So is Rt 620 and then Rt 705 improperly named?
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.