AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The next trivia night will be held this Wednesday, February 19th at 8:30 PM EST (that's 6:30 PM MST).  To participate enter the Chat. 

Author Topic: U.S. 301 Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge  (Read 37140 times)

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3340
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:22:33 AM
Re: U.S. 301 Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge
« Reply #200 on: December 10, 2019, 05:45:47 PM »

As I've said before, I think that's really intended for pre-existing roadways being incorporated into the system, less so for new construction.

IMO, replacing / widening an adequate bridge on a future interstate corridor simply to meet the width of the remainder of the roadway shouldn't be the only thing preventing an entire corridor from being designated. Also, there's more than likely other pre-existing substandard bridges on busier interstate routes in the state (whatever state is at question) that have far more priority to be replaced / widened.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6243
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:00:36 AM
Re: U.S. 301 Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge
« Reply #201 on: December 10, 2019, 05:59:07 PM »

IMO, replacing / widening an adequate bridge on a future interstate corridor simply to meet the width of the remainder of the roadway shouldn't be the only thing preventing an entire corridor from being designated. Also, there's more than likely other pre-existing substandard bridges on busier interstate routes in the state (whatever state is at question) that have far more priority to be replaced / widened.

Fine.  Focus on them first before allowing Interstate designation on a highway that has bridges that would have been substandard back in the 1970s.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com
On the Plains of Hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to rest, and resting died.

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3340
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:22:33 AM
Re: U.S. 301 Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge
« Reply #202 on: December 10, 2019, 06:09:23 PM »

IMO, replacing / widening an adequate bridge on a future interstate corridor simply to meet the width of the remainder of the roadway shouldn't be the only thing preventing an entire corridor from being designated. Also, there's more than likely other pre-existing substandard bridges on busier interstate routes in the state (whatever state is at question) that have far more priority to be replaced / widened.

Fine.  Focus on them first before allowing Interstate designation on a highway that has bridges that would have been substandard back in the 1970s.
My point is if the rest of the road meets interstate standards with the exception of a single bridge, that should not restrict the other 99.9% of the road to be designated, and it doesn't. That's reflected under official interstate standards, and FHWA has and continue to permit it. See my above comments about I-295 in North Carolina.

If you restrict the designation because a single bridge, now the state is going to have to take out funds to widen / replace it, even if it's completely adequate as is, and competing with other actual needed bridge widening / replacement projects.

Now, if an entire routing is substandard, meaning a narrow cross section thruout, low clearance bridges, numerous narrow bridges, etc. then it definitely needs a full face lift before receiving the designation, and that would be a project for the road itself mostly, not strictly for an interstate designation.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6243
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:00:36 AM
Re: U.S. 301 Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge
« Reply #203 on: December 10, 2019, 08:21:43 PM »

Fine.  Focus on them first before allowing Interstate designation on a highway that has bridges that would have been substandard back in the 1970s.
My point is if the rest of the road meets interstate standards with the exception of a single bridge, that should not restrict the other 99.9% of the road to be designated, and it doesn't.
Oh, come on, it's not "99.9%."

The ones I complain about it's more like 10-20% or more, effectively.  Multiple bridges, including the 1,000+ foot long bridge where disabled vehicles and minor-accident vehicles can't get off of the roadway; plus "short" bridges where the cost of shoulders on a bridge 200 feet long or less is a proportionally small cost and it obviates the aforementioned problems that even a small shoulderless bridge can cause.

The parallel HRBT trestle was built with full shoulders and opened in 1976.  A typical example.  I have no sympathy for substandard shoulder designs in 2019.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com
On the Plains of Hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to rest, and resting died.

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3340
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:22:33 AM
Re: U.S. 301 Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge
« Reply #204 on: December 10, 2019, 08:36:38 PM »

Oh, come on, it's not "99.9%."
You're right... the completed I-295 beltway will be 39 miles long from either end of I-95, and the two bridges combined are 1,530 feet that have 4 foot right shoulders.

That's only 99.3% of the length remaining that has an interstate cross section, not 99.9%.

Reasonably though, the two bridges could have the outside 4 foot shoulders widened to 10 feet eventually. The two bridges are 840 and 690 feet long, and were only built back in 2003. I think the biggest priority now though is completing the remaining southern half of the beltway. A new 7-mile section just opened two weeks ago, and another on tract to open next year. After that, there's two more sections to be built, one from I-95 northwards currently under construction, and the last piece slated to begin construction next year.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2019, 08:41:46 PM by sprjus4 »
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6243
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:00:36 AM
Re: U.S. 301 Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge
« Reply #205 on: December 10, 2019, 09:00:48 PM »

Oh, come on, it's not "99.9%."
You're right... the completed I-295 beltway will be 39 miles long from either end of I-95, and the two bridges combined are 1,530 feet that have 4 foot right shoulders.
That's only 99.3% of the length remaining that has an interstate cross section, not 99.9%.
So averaging that is two bridges each 765 feet long, where disabled vehicles and minor-accident vehicles can't get off of the roadway.

So when the highway backs up for 2 miles (or more), we can exult in the fact that only 0.7% of the mileage has no shoulders. 

Hopefully nobody will have to be shoveled up.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com
On the Plains of Hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to rest, and resting died.

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3340
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:22:33 AM
Re: U.S. 301 Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge
« Reply #206 on: December 10, 2019, 09:05:24 PM »

Oh, come on, it's not "99.9%."
You're right... the completed I-295 beltway will be 39 miles long from either end of I-95, and the two bridges combined are 1,530 feet that have 4 foot right shoulders.
That's only 99.3% of the length remaining that has an interstate cross section, not 99.9%.
So averaging that is two bridges each 765 feet long, where disabled vehicles and minor-accident vehicles can't get off of the roadway.

So when the highway backs up for 2 miles (or more), we can exult in the fact that only 0.7% of the mileage has no shoulders. 

Hopefully nobody will have to be shoveled up.
Anybody ever been shoveled up here? Here?
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6243
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:00:36 AM
Re: U.S. 301 Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge
« Reply #207 on: December 10, 2019, 09:30:24 PM »

So averaging that is two bridges each 765 feet long, where disabled vehicles and minor-accident vehicles can't get off of the roadway.
So when the highway backs up for 2 miles (or more), we can exult in the fact that only 0.7% of the mileage has no shoulders. 
Hopefully nobody will have to be shoveled up.
Anybody ever been shoveled up here? Here?
Not sure, but that is a 1958 design and a 1965 design; probably subtract 3 years for design approval year, as those are the opening years.

Things were permissible back then that would be substandard if designed today.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com
On the Plains of Hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to rest, and resting died.

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3340
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:22:33 AM
Re: U.S. 301 Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge
« Reply #208 on: December 10, 2019, 09:42:50 PM »

So averaging that is two bridges each 765 feet long, where disabled vehicles and minor-accident vehicles can't get off of the roadway.
So when the highway backs up for 2 miles (or more), we can exult in the fact that only 0.7% of the mileage has no shoulders. 
Hopefully nobody will have to be shoveled up.
Anybody ever been shoveled up here? Here?
Not sure, but that is a 1958 design and a 1965 design; probably subtract 3 years for design approval year, as those are the opening years.

Things were permissible back then that would be substandard if designed today.
Whether built in 1958, 1965, or 2003, they all equally serve today's traffic needs, and your criticism (though valid) to I-295 applies equally to I-95 and I-85. Just as much as NCDOT should widen the bridge to include full shoulders, VDOT should widen those bridges to include full shoulders. Just as much as Maryland should include full shoulders on the Nice bridge.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2019, 09:49:21 PM by sprjus4 »
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6243
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:00:36 AM
Re: U.S. 301 Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge
« Reply #209 on: December 10, 2019, 09:56:40 PM »

Whether built in 1958, 1965, or 2003, they all equally serve today's traffic needs, and your criticism (though valid) to I-295 applies equally to I-95 and I-85. Just as much as NCDOT should widen the bridge to include full shoulders, VDOT should widen those bridges to include full shoulders. Just as much as Maryland should include full shoulders on the Nice bridge.
No. 

New freeways and freeway segments and major bridges should be built to modern standards, and that includes the Nice Bridge.  The idea that they should be allowed without shoulders just because every 50+ year old bridge hasn't been widened is fallacious.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com
On the Plains of Hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to rest, and resting died.

Alps

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

  • Posts: 13001
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 01:35:25 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: U.S. 301 Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge
« Reply #210 on: December 10, 2019, 10:55:33 PM »

Whether built in 1958, 1965, or 2003, they all equally serve today's traffic needs, and your criticism (though valid) to I-295 applies equally to I-95 and I-85. Just as much as NCDOT should widen the bridge to include full shoulders, VDOT should widen those bridges to include full shoulders. Just as much as Maryland should include full shoulders on the Nice bridge.
No. 

New freeways and freeway segments and major bridges should be built to modern standards, and that includes the Nice Bridge.  The idea that they should be allowed without shoulders just because every 50+ year old bridge hasn't been widened is fallacious.
What do you mean "no"? He just said the exact point you're saying.

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6243
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:00:36 AM
Re: U.S. 301 Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge
« Reply #211 on: December 10, 2019, 11:05:36 PM »

Whether built in 1958, 1965, or 2003, they all equally serve today's traffic needs, and your criticism (though valid) to I-295 applies equally to I-95 and I-85. Just as much as NCDOT should widen the bridge to include full shoulders, VDOT should widen those bridges to include full shoulders. Just as much as Maryland should include full shoulders on the Nice bridge.
No. 

New freeways and freeway segments and major bridges should be built to modern standards, and that includes the Nice Bridge.  The idea that they should be allowed without shoulders just because every 50+ year old bridge hasn't been widened is fallacious.
What do you mean "no"? He just said the exact point you're saying.
I see that the "no" applies to his first two sentences.

The third would indeed be a "yes."
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com
On the Plains of Hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to rest, and resting died.

Alps

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

  • Posts: 13001
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 01:35:25 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: U.S. 301 Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge
« Reply #212 on: December 11, 2019, 08:05:31 AM »

Whether built in 1958, 1965, or 2003, they all equally serve today's traffic needs, and your criticism (though valid) to I-295 applies equally to I-95 and I-85. Just as much as NCDOT should widen the bridge to include full shoulders, VDOT should widen those bridges to include full shoulders. Just as much as Maryland should include full shoulders on the Nice bridge.
No. 

New freeways and freeway segments and major bridges should be built to modern standards, and that includes the Nice Bridge.  The idea that they should be allowed without shoulders just because every 50+ year old bridge hasn't been widened is fallacious.
What do you mean "no"? He just said the exact point you're saying.
I see that the "no" applies to his first two sentences.

The third would indeed be a "yes."
Why shouldn't existing bridges be widened to full shoulders for safety?

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6243
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:00:36 AM
Re: U.S. 301 Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge
« Reply #213 on: December 11, 2019, 08:14:20 AM »

Whether built in 1958, 1965, or 2003, they all equally serve today's traffic needs, and your criticism (though valid) to I-295 applies equally to I-95 and I-85. Just as much as NCDOT should widen the bridge to include full shoulders, VDOT should widen those bridges to include full shoulders. Just as much as Maryland should include full shoulders on the Nice bridge.
No.   New freeways and freeway segments and major bridges should be built to modern standards, and that includes the Nice Bridge.  The idea that they should be allowed without shoulders just because every 50+ year old bridge hasn't been widened is fallacious.
What do you mean "no"? He just said the exact point you're saying.
I see that the "no" applies to his first two sentences.
The third would indeed be a "yes."
Why shouldn't existing bridges be widened to full shoulders for safety?
I didn't say that existing bridges shouldn't be widened to full shoulders for safety.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com
On the Plains of Hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to rest, and resting died.

 


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.