AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Poll

Which would you prefer?

Third Crossing
- 8 (47.1%)
Widen the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel
- 9 (52.9%)

Total Members Voted: 17


Author Topic: The Hampton Roads Third Crossing Project  (Read 29738 times)

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10373
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: April 24, 2019, 01:32:48 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: 3rd Crossing
« Reply #25 on: November 05, 2011, 07:42:18 PM »

Quote
I feel like maybe those "Leaders" neglected to consider the fact that diverting traffic from I-64 to a new US 460 would take at least a reasonable level of traffic out of the two existing crossings in the first place...

Nope.  VDOT did an origin-destination study (referenced on pg 17 of the Final EIS) and found that only 8.5% of trips between the Southside and the Peninsula (utilizing all three crossings...HRBT, MMBT, and James River Bridge) have an origin and/or destination outside the region.  They further reference that a US 460 freeway would only reduce congestion at the HRBT by 3%, a miniscule amount considering the congestion that exists there today (let alone in 2030).

So no, a US 460 freeway would not divert a "reasonable level of traffic" from the crossings, and DEFINITELY would not eliminate the need for additional capacity at the HRBT or MMBT.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4445
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:06:37 AM
Re: 3rd Crossing
« Reply #26 on: November 05, 2011, 08:00:40 PM »

Quote
I feel like maybe those "Leaders" neglected to consider the fact that diverting traffic from I-64 to a new US 460 would take at least a reasonable level of traffic out of the two existing crossings in the first place...

Nope.  VDOT did an origin-destination study (referenced on pg 17 of the Final EIS) and found that only 8.5% of trips between the Southside and the Peninsula (utilizing all three crossings...HRBT, MMBT, and James River Bridge) have an origin and/or destination outside the region.  They further reference that a US 460 freeway would only reduce congestion at the HRBT by 3%, a miniscule amount considering the congestion that exists there today (let alone in 2030).

So no, a US 460 freeway would not divert a "reasonable level of traffic" from the crossings, and DEFINITELY would not eliminate the need for additional capacity at the HRBT or MMBT.

BOTH projects are very needed, IME, albeit for different reasons.

That segment of US-460 is on the national strategic highway network, and has Interstate highway importance in its own corridor, and could be designated as I-62 or as an extension of I-264.
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10373
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: April 24, 2019, 01:32:48 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: 3rd Crossing
« Reply #27 on: November 05, 2011, 08:12:13 PM »

But really doesn't have all that much traffic, let alone strategic traffic.  You'd be better off converting US 58 to a freeway...even Emporia to South Hill would be better cost-benefit than US 460.

Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4445
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:06:37 AM
Re: 3rd Crossing
« Reply #28 on: November 05, 2011, 08:37:40 PM »

But really doesn't have all that much traffic, let alone strategic traffic.  You'd be better off converting US 58 to a freeway...even Emporia to South Hill would be better cost-benefit than US 460.

It has enough to warrant a rural Interstate, it would connect South Hampton Roads to I-95 and I-295, and US-58 is already a much higher quality road than that part of US-460.
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

broadhurst04

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 161
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Raleigh, NC
  • Last Login: May 21, 2017, 10:22:16 PM
Re: 3rd Crossing
« Reply #29 on: November 05, 2011, 08:59:44 PM »

What caught my eye was the mention of 460 being re-signed as I-85 once it is rebuilt as a freeway. If that's true, then 85 would do an about-face at Petersburg and end almost back at the NC border! Why not sign it as I-595, or just keep it signed as 460?
Logged

Alps

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

  • Posts: 12337
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: April 24, 2019, 10:51:06 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: 3rd Crossing
« Reply #30 on: November 05, 2011, 09:45:24 PM »

What caught my eye was the mention of 460 being re-signed as I-85 once it is rebuilt as a freeway. If that's true, then 85 would do an about-face at Petersburg and end almost back at the NC border! Why not sign it as I-595, or just keep it signed as 460?
Terrible idea. I-264 extension would make much more sense. If they keep extending freeway down US 460, you could start to justify I-62 once it gets to 81. But as east-west as I-85 is, you're absolutely right, it's not a ^ shaped route.

broadhurst04

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 161
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Raleigh, NC
  • Last Login: May 21, 2017, 10:22:16 PM
Re: 3rd Crossing
« Reply #31 on: November 05, 2011, 10:04:03 PM »


Or, how about this: have the 95/64 multiplex run to Petersburg, designate the 460 freeway as 64, then at Bowers Hill change 264 to 64? That way we wouldn't have the problem of 64 nearly curling back around on itself on the Southside of Hampton Roads. Then re-sign the existing 64 from Richmond to Hampton as 595, freeing up the beltway at Hampton Roads to be 664 all the way around?
« Last Edit: November 05, 2011, 11:56:37 PM by broadhurst04 »
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10373
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: April 24, 2019, 01:32:48 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: 3rd Crossing
« Reply #32 on: November 05, 2011, 10:37:01 PM »

Quote
It has enough to warrant a rural Interstate,

Less than 10K between Waverly and Windsor.  Barely enough to warrant 4-lane.  Not even close for a freeway-grade facility, let alone an Interstate.

Quote
it would connect South Hampton Roads to I-95 and I-295

Not much demand for such.  Not to Petersburg.  As I mentioned before, you'd have higher demand tying into I-95 towards NC, and the best bet for that is the US 58 corridor, not US 460.
Logged

3467

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 914
  • Last Login: Today at 09:28:12 AM
Re: 3rd Crossing
« Reply #33 on: November 05, 2011, 11:44:45 PM »

I saw US 460 carries about 11,000 vpd. There are many rural interstates in that range,but this is a tollroad. An Illinois study 10 years ago found a rural toll road needed 30,000vpd to be viable without subsidies. I see VA is proposing them though.

It does seem a high volume for a 4 lane undividied with what look like 11 foot lanes and no shoulders. However I cant see a new tollroad take but half that traffic because a 4 lane undivided with 6000 -7000 per day would be fine.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4445
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:06:37 AM
Re: 3rd Crossing
« Reply #34 on: November 06, 2011, 07:20:59 AM »

Quote
It has enough to warrant a rural Interstate,

Less than 10K between Waverly and Windsor.  Barely enough to warrant 4-lane.  Not even close for a freeway-grade facility, let alone an Interstate.

Quote
it would connect South Hampton Roads to I-95 and I-295

Not much demand for such.  Not to Petersburg.  As I mentioned before, you'd have higher demand tying into I-95 towards NC, and the best bet for that is the US 58 corridor, not US 460.

Some sections of US-460 carry close to 20,000 AADT today.  The corridor carries 3,000 to 3,600 large truck AADT.

Projected 2030 traffic demand is 25,000 to 31,000 AADT depending on the section, with 30+% large trucks.  If they are going to build something, it should meet a 20-year design, and that would be a freeway.
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4445
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:06:37 AM
Re: 3rd Crossing
« Reply #35 on: November 07, 2011, 12:36:16 PM »

Quote
It has enough to warrant a rural Interstate,

Less than 10K between Waverly and Windsor.  Barely enough to warrant 4-lane.  Not even close for a freeway-grade facility, let alone an Interstate.

Quote
it would connect South Hampton Roads to I-95 and I-295

Not much demand for such.  Not to Petersburg.  As I mentioned before, you'd have higher demand tying into I-95 towards NC, and the best bet for that is the US 58 corridor, not US 460.

Some sections of US-460 carry close to 20,000 AADT today.  The corridor carries 3,000 to 3,600 large truck AADT.

Projected 2030 traffic demand is 25,000 to 31,000 AADT depending on the section, with 30+% large trucks.  If they are going to build something, it should meet a 20-year design, and that would be a freeway.

To expound --

The corridor Petersburg-Suffolk needs at minimum to be a modern 4-lane divided highway.  That would mean widening to four 12-foot lanes, adding 10-foot right shoulders, and at least a 12-foot flush paved median.  Some sections currently are flood prone, and those would need to have the grade raised above the flood plain.

In order to match US-460 west of Petersburg and 4-lane principal highways in general, at least 4 and perhaps 6 town bypasses need to be built to provide true high-speed 4-lane highway service.  There would be considerable cost and complexity to transition each of those bypasses in and out of the current alignment.  The cost of simply relocating the entire 59 miles is not much more than each town having its own separate bypass.

It could be argued whether the 59-mile relocated highway needs full grade separation, but I believe that at minimum the most optimum design is to relocate the entire corridor.  I would rather see them wait until they can afford to build it that way, than to build a lower design sooner.
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

jwolfer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2037
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Jacksonville, FL
  • Last Login: February 26, 2019, 10:02:06 PM
Re: 3rd Crossing
« Reply #36 on: November 09, 2011, 02:35:43 PM »

What caught my eye was the mention of 460 being re-signed as I-85 once it is rebuilt as a freeway. If that's true, then 85 would do an about-face at Petersburg and end almost back at the NC border! Why not sign it as I-595, or just keep it signed as 460?

Hampton roads the home of the wrongway interstates
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4445
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:06:37 AM
Re: 3rd Crossing
« Reply #37 on: November 09, 2011, 04:05:24 PM »

What caught my eye was the mention of 460 being re-signed as I-85 once it is rebuilt as a freeway. If that's true, then 85 would do an about-face at Petersburg and end almost back at the NC border! Why not sign it as I-595, or just keep it signed as 460?

Hampton roads the home of the wrongway interstates

A 3di can't be 'wrongway". 

There was a study in the 1990s that considered 4 different renumbering schemes for the regional Interstate highways.  In 1997, the 56-mile-long I-64/I-664 loop was designated and signed as the Hampton Roads Beltway. I-64 makes a huge arc around Norfolk and Portsmouth. The beltway has the clockwise direction signed as the Inner Loop, and the counter-clockwise direction signed as the Outer Loop (same concept as the I-495 Capital Beltway). Since the eastern end of I-64 terminates in a beltway, there is no completely ideal numbering scheme that could be implemented.
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

jwolfer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2037
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Jacksonville, FL
  • Last Login: February 26, 2019, 10:02:06 PM
Re: 3rd Crossing
« Reply #38 on: November 09, 2011, 05:24:51 PM »

What caught my eye was the mention of 460 being re-signed as I-85 once it is rebuilt as a freeway. If that's true, then 85 would do an about-face at Petersburg and end almost back at the NC border! Why not sign it as I-595, or just keep it signed as 460?
Hampton roads the home of the wrongway interstates

A 3di can't be 'wrongway".  

There was a study in the 1990s that considered 4 different renumbering schemes for the regional Interstate highways.  In 1997, the 56-mile-long I-64/I-664 loop was designated and signed as the Hampton Roads Beltway. I-64 makes a huge arc around Norfolk and Portsmouth. The beltway has the clockwise direction signed as the Inner Loop, and the counter-clockwise direction signed as the Outer Loop (same concept as the I-495 Capital Beltway). Since the eastern end of I-64 terminates in a beltway, there is no completely ideal numbering scheme that could be implemented.


I was referring to 64 and if 85 were extended.  Give me some credit on knowing that 3dis have no directional rules  :)

Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4445
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:06:37 AM
Re: 3rd Crossing
« Reply #39 on: November 09, 2011, 05:34:18 PM »

What caught my eye was the mention of 460 being re-signed as I-85 once it is rebuilt as a freeway. If that's true, then 85 would do an about-face at Petersburg and end almost back at the NC border! Why not sign it as I-595, or just keep it signed as 460?
Hampton roads the home of the wrongway interstates

A 3di can't be 'wrongway".  

There was a study in the 1990s that considered 4 different renumbering schemes for the regional Interstate highways.  In 1997, the 56-mile-long I-64/I-664 loop was designated and signed as the Hampton Roads Beltway. I-64 makes a huge arc around Norfolk and Portsmouth. The beltway has the clockwise direction signed as the Inner Loop, and the counter-clockwise direction signed as the Outer Loop (same concept as the I-495 Capital Beltway). Since the eastern end of I-64 terminates in a beltway, there is no completely ideal numbering scheme that could be implemented.


I was referring to 64 and if 85 were extended.  Give me some credit on knowing that 3dis have no directional rules  :)

Oh I agree .... the proposal to route I-85 between Petersburg and Portsmouth is a silly idea, a 'wrongway' routing idea.

With regard to I-64, that 1990s study looked at alternatives such as ending I-64 at I-464, at I-264 east of Norfolk, or at the VA Beach oceanfront.  The conclusion was that each had its own disadvantages, and that it was best to keep the original terminus, and to name the whole loop as the Hampton Roads Beltway with Inner Loop and Outer Loop designations.  I happen to agree ...


« Last Edit: November 09, 2011, 05:43:26 PM by Beltway »
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10373
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: April 24, 2019, 01:32:48 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: 3rd Crossing
« Reply #40 on: November 10, 2011, 07:55:29 AM »

The concept of I-64's terminus resurfaces in Hampton Roads every 6-9 months or so.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4445
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:06:37 AM
Re: 3rd Crossing
« Reply #41 on: November 10, 2011, 09:43:58 AM »

The concept of I-64's terminus resurfaces in Hampton Roads every 6-9 months or so.

What in general, and what is the latest?

Another factor is that the pre-existing route passes through or near all the major Hampton Roads cities (well, except Suffolk), and the officials of those cities don't want to lose a major Interstate highway, i.e. a mainline Interstate, or what roadgeeks call a 2di.
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Pink Jazz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1379
  • Real Men Wear Pink

  • Age: 31
  • Location: Queen Creek, AZ
  • Last Login: Today at 12:05:50 AM
Solving the Hampton Roads/James River Crossing issue
« Reply #42 on: November 13, 2014, 03:21:44 PM »

Currently, there are two proposals being considered to alleviate traffic on the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel. 

The less expensive option is the third crossing, which would provide a crossing that diverts traffic approaching the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel to the Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel.  This proposal would add tolls to the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel and the Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel, but leave the James River Bridge as a toll-free facility.

The more expensive option is to widen the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel, which I think would add more trestles and tubes to the complex.  Tolls would be required on all three Hampton Roads/James River crossings, including the James River Bridge.

I personally prefer the third crossing option myself.
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10220
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: April 24, 2019, 04:58:16 PM
Re: Solving the Hampton Roads/James River Crossing issue
« Reply #43 on: November 13, 2014, 03:29:03 PM »

Strictly speaking, it is NOT possible to widen any of the bridge-tunnel crossings.

Of course, it is possible to add one or more tubes and bridge sections to connect the tunnels to the landings on both sides. 
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.

Pink Jazz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1379
  • Real Men Wear Pink

  • Age: 31
  • Location: Queen Creek, AZ
  • Last Login: Today at 12:05:50 AM
Re: Solving the Hampton Roads/James River Crossing issue
« Reply #44 on: November 13, 2014, 03:36:25 PM »

Strictly speaking, it is NOT possible to widen any of the bridge-tunnel crossings.

Of course, it is possible to add one or more tubes and bridge sections to connect the tunnels to the landings on both sides.

Perhaps it would be a complete replacement similar to the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, where a new wider bridge is built and the old bridge is demolished.
Logged

ARMOURERERIC

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 956
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Morganton NC
  • Last Login: April 24, 2019, 11:38:07 PM
Re: Solving the Hampton Roads/James River Crossing issue
« Reply #45 on: November 13, 2014, 04:06:13 PM »

Is it even possible or cheaper to extend the 164 freeway west/north to the James River Bridge and Smithfield Bypass.?
Logged

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9724
  • Age: 44
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 07:55:08 AM
Re: Solving the Hampton Roads/James River Crossing issue
« Reply #46 on: November 13, 2014, 04:06:55 PM »

Not knowing many (any) of the details, a 3rd crossing would probably be best, only because you can divert more traffic away from a central area.  With a widened crossing, all the traffic will need to funnel to and from that area.  With a 3rd crossing, you can disperse traffic over a wider area.  Some of the traffic that is currently using the current crossings may be able to better utilize the new crossing.  In turn, this would allow traffic avoiding any or both of the current crossings to be able to use them in the future.
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8966
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: April 24, 2019, 12:03:47 AM
Re: Solving the Hampton Roads/James River Crossing issue
« Reply #47 on: November 13, 2014, 04:31:59 PM »

I think the third crossing option it the best if you say money is the option to add a 3rd trestle and tunnel the HRBT.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10220
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: April 24, 2019, 04:58:16 PM
Re: Solving the Hampton Roads/James River Crossing issue
« Reply #48 on: November 13, 2014, 05:31:20 PM »

Perhaps it would be a complete replacement similar to the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, where a new wider bridge is built and the old bridge is demolished.

But the old WWB was a (relatively) cheap drawspan and it was in poor condition.

The most-important parts of the HRBT  are its two immersed-tube tunnels.  Even though the original tube (from 1957) is not Interstate-standard in terms of overhead clearance (13' 6", like the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel), it seems to be in good condition, and abandoning and replacing its capacity would be expensive.
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.

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10373
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: April 24, 2019, 01:32:48 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Solving the Hampton Roads/James River Crossing issue
« Reply #49 on: November 13, 2014, 07:25:03 PM »

Quote
Is it even possible or cheaper to extend the 164 freeway west/north to the James River Bridge and Smithfield Bypass.?

In short, not with the current political/fiscal environment.  Longer answer:  not without a LOT of money and disruption.  17 would be the most logical routing for such a connection, but 17 is not limited-access...there are numerous private driveways and developments right along the highway.

Regarding the OP's question (which I believe we've discussed in the past in another thread), it should be noted that the "Third Crossing" would require widening the MMBT to be effective, otherwise the traffic push/traffic shift would result in HRBT-style backups at the MMBT.  This would push the cost of an "effective" Third Crossing over that of widening the HRBT.  In fact, the full Third Crossing project (which includes the Craney Island Connector, connecting VA 164 to the Third Crossing and widening all of I-664) carries a price about twice that of widening the HRBT and I-64 between I-664/Hampton and I-564/Norfolk.
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.