Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[74/171FAN]

My history teacher said in high school that he would be in a wheelchair by the time this was built.  I guess at this point he was wrong.

[ARMOURERERIC]

I would have happily paid that toll rate when I lived in Newport News: 20 YEARS AGO

[Beltway]

The new 460's construction start date and toll rate have been revealed.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/business/2012/oct/16/3/us-460-toll-project-to-begin-in-2014-ar-2287308/

Construction from 2014 to 2018, auto toll of about $3.80 for 55 miles, Interstate-standard highway, travel time Richmond-Norfolk almost the same as I-64 in free-flowing traffic.  Sounds excellent!

After the new highway opens, the existing highway will remain and be toll-free.  I wonder if there might be a ban on through trucks?  Or maybe the existing highway could be re-marked for two lanes on the rural sections, so rather than a substandard 42-foot-wide 4-lane undivided highway with narrow shoulders, the highway could be a 2-lane highway with modern cross-section, two 12-foot lanes and two 9-foot paved shoulders.

[cpzilliacus]

My history teacher said in high school that he would be in a wheelchair by the time this was built.  I guess at this point he was wrong.

There have been plenty of folks in the D.C. area (where anti-highway and anti-auto agitprop is almost a cottage industry) that claimed that a new Wilson Bridge would never be built and that not one centimeter of the InterCounty Connector (except I-370) would ever be constructed).

[Takumi]

After the new highway opens, the existing highway will remain and be toll-free.  I wonder if there might be a ban on through trucks?

I'm not sure how a 60-mile truck ban could be enforced accurately.

I'm interested in what the extant highway's new number will be. Would it combine with the Suffolk and Petersburg US 460 Businesses to become one extremely long business route, possibly the longest in the country, or would it be more likely to drop to a state route?

[deathtopumpkins]

Based on Virginia precedent I would assume Business 460, but due to the length and the fact that they're actually pointing out the fact that the old free road will remain, I speculate that they might choose Alternate 460 instead.

[cpzilliacus]

Based on Virginia precedent I would assume Business 460, but due to the length and the fact that they're actually pointing out the fact that the old free road will remain, I speculate that they might choose Alternate 460 instead.

It isn't normal VDOT practice to do so, but could 460 be "demoted" to the secondary system?  And I realize that in the case of U.S. highways, there is supposed to be a "free" alternate to a tolled U.S. route.

[hbelkins]

US 17-1!

[Beltway]

Interstate I-62 for the new highway. 

Or perhaps an extension of I-264.

Existing highway stays US-460.

[deathtopumpkins]

Based on Virginia precedent I would assume Business 460, but due to the length and the fact that they're actually pointing out the fact that the old free road will remain, I speculate that they might choose Alternate 460 instead.

It isn't normal VDOT practice to do so, but could 460 be "demoted" to the secondary system?  And I realize that in the case of U.S. highways, there is supposed to be a "free" alternate to a tolled U.S. route.

Why do you think they would want to demote it to a secondary? Such a major road I would think should stay at least a primary, if not bannered US route.

Though the secondary system does seem to be a bit of a catch-all, considering it ranges from dirt roads to (formerly) freeways.

[Beltway]

After the new highway opens, the existing highway will remain and be toll-free.  I wonder if there might be a ban on through trucks?

I'm not sure how a 60-mile truck ban could be enforced accurately.

What abou my idea of re-marking the rural sections to a modern 2-lane cross-section?  Maybe that would serve to discourage through traffic.  I wonder how well that proposal would be received by the public.  I would think that a modern 2 lanes would be fully adequate for the traffic in the rural sections.  The town sections could remain 4 lanes.

[amroad17]

Based on Virginia precedent I would assume Business 460, but due to the length and the fact that they're actually pointing out the fact that the old free road will remain, I speculate that they might choose Alternate 460 instead.

Pennsylvania has used Business 220 when US 220/I-99 was built and that was a 57 mile "business' route (assuming no interruptions along the old route).  I prefer ALT US 460, much like OK does with US 412/ALT US 412 along the Cherokee Turnpike.  Of course, Virginia should decommission the existing ALT US 460 that runs from Bowers Hill in Chesapeake to downtown Norfolk as it serves no real purpose.

As I stated in another thread, US 460 should be routed along I-264 from Bowers Hill to either the St. Paul's exit or the Tidewater Drive exit and rid itself of the winding course it takes through Chesapeake and Norfolk.

[cpzilliacus]

Based on Virginia precedent I would assume Business 460, but due to the length and the fact that they're actually pointing out the fact that the old free road will remain, I speculate that they might choose Alternate 460 instead.

It isn't normal VDOT practice to do so, but could 460 be "demoted" to the secondary system?  And I realize that in the case of U.S. highways, there is supposed to be a "free" alternate to a tolled U.S. route.

Why do you think they would want to demote it to a secondary? Such a major road I would think should stay at least a primary, if not bannered US route.

I think it has to remain a bannered route under AASHTO rules.  But demoting it to a secondary highway (again, not likely to happen) might encourage more motorists to use the new toll road.

Though the secondary system does seem to be a bit of a catch-all, considering it ranges from dirt roads to (formerly) freeways.

Certainly Northern Virginia, until very recently, had several expressway-class roads that were in the secondary system "from birth."

[cpzilliacus]

TOLLROADSnews: Virginia resurrects 63-20 not-for-profit to take risk on US460, Ferrovial to do design/build

The McDonnell administration in Virginia has resurrected the 63-20 tax exempt not-for-profit financing vehicle for the $1.4 billion 55 mile US460 tollroad between Petersburg and the Norfolk Hampton Roads area. A Ferrovial-led group has been chosen to do design-build work.

The state of Virginia is providing most of the funds, although they are working on getting the Feds in also via TIFIA loans. (see chart titled Funding Source nearby)

[Alex]

Officials willing to redesign U.S. 460 toll project

Virginia transportation officials say changes to the design of the U.S. 460 toll road are "probable" in Prince George County, which has conditioned its support for the project on a new alignment of the proposed expressway's western terminus.

Program manager Morteza Farajian told representatives of local governments from the Tri-Cities region that work will not begin for two years on the ends of the $1.4 billion private-public highway project to allow time to change the design in both Prince George and Suffolk.

State officials also assured local and regional officials, including a representative of Dinwiddie County, that they consider construction of a road to directly connect the new toll road with Interstate 85 and U.S. 460 west of Petersburg a vital project if money can be found to pay for it.

But the project has run into opposition in Prince George because of its potential effect on homes and businesses around New Bohemia, a crossroads community where the toll road currently is designed to rejoin the existing highway east of Interstate 295.

Ashcraft informed Transportation Secretary Sean T. Connaughton this week that Prince George would support the 460 project only if the state changes the proposed realignment, preferably to connect the toll road directly with I-295 or Interstate 95 south of Petersburg.

"In our opinion, the proposed Route 460 design of the western terminus is not the most economical juncture, unnecessarily disruptive, and not efficient for the future I-85 connector," Ashcraft told Connaughton in a letter on Tuesday.

[Takumi]

VDOT is holding an information meeting on the project Wednesday night at Surry High School.
http://www.progress-index.com/news/vdot-holds-information-meeting-on-route-460-1.1401982

[froggie]

This project became a waste when it became necessary for VDOT to pump at least $736 million (assuming their TIFIA loan goes through) into the project.  That's a level of funding that easily would have paid for smaller, more cost-effective projects along existing 460, AND a few needed interchanges along 58, AND widening the worst bottleneck on 64 on the Peninsula (near Fort Eustis), AND contribute further to the Midtown Tunnel project, reducing the future tolls there.

Plus, contrary to what some of the CTB presentations suggest, this 460 project will still not eliminate the need for widening the HRBT.  Not by a longshot.

[Beltway]

This project became a waste when it became necessary for VDOT to pump at least $736 million (assuming their TIFIA loan goes through) into the project.  That's a level of funding that easily would have paid for smaller, more cost-effective projects along existing 460, AND a few needed interchanges along 58, AND widening the worst bottleneck on 64 on the Peninsula (near Fort Eustis), AND contribute further to the Midtown Tunnel project, reducing the future tolls there.

Those projects would cost far more than $736 million.  That sum wouldn't be enough to upgrade this 49 miles of US-460 to a modern 4-lane roadway (i.e. no bypasses, just upgrade of existing roadway).

[froggie]

You don't need a full upgrade to the existing 460 roadway.  Paved shoulders and some left turn lanes at key intersections are all that's really needed along that route.  For the traffic volume that's expected even on the proposed toll road, you'd get far more bang for the buck spending that money on the projects I suggested, plus you'd be benefiting far more than just one travelshed.

[Beltway]

You don't need a full upgrade to the existing 460 roadway.  Paved shoulders and some left turn lanes at key intersections are all that's really needed along that route.  For the traffic volume that's expected even on the proposed toll road, you'd get far more bang for the buck spending that money on the projects I suggested, plus you'd be benefiting far more than just one travelshed.

That US-460 segment is on the NHS and the STRAHNET, so its current form with 10.5 foot lanes, shoulders generally too narrow to stop on, undivided roadway along about 80% of that length, is quite obsolete.  Minimum required design: 12-foot lanes, 10-foot shoulders, divisor at minimum a fifth 12-foot lane, grade raised in flood-prone areas.  That would cost more than $736 million.

[froggie]

That US-460 segment is on the NHS and the STRAHNET,

So are US 58 and I-64...with higher traffic volumes than US 460 (especially I-64).  Yet the state government seems to have it up their tail that they have to pour a huge amount of money into US 460 when that money could be spread around and benefit *MULTIPLE ROUTES* instead of just one.

[NJRoadfan]

So are US 58 and I-64...with higher traffic volumes than US 460 (especially I-64).  Yet the state government seems to have it up their tail that they have to pour a huge amount of money into US 460 when that money could be spread around and benefit *MULTIPLE ROUTES* instead of just one.

The way this reads and the fact that this got fast tracked all of a sudden, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody is getting paid off big time behind the scenes. Its politics as usual, eventually it will come out whose palms are being greased for this project. The state is broke going by the other posts in this forum, why would they sink this much money into a toll road? Shouldn't they be funded entirely free of tax dollars?

[Beltway]

That US-460 segment is on the NHS and the STRAHNET,

So are US 58 and I-64...with higher traffic volumes than US 460 (especially I-64).  Yet the state government seems to have it up their tail that they have to pour a huge amount of money into US 460 when that money could be spread around and benefit *MULTIPLE ROUTES* instead of just one.

So you snipped the cites of the serious deficiences on that section of US-460, that were problematic by rural intra-state highway standards even 30 years ago.  Also, if the rebuild option is selected, it can be built in stages; all the money does not need to be spent at once.

I-64 is an Interstate highway, obviously built to Interstate standards.  Its 4-lane section between Richmond and Newport News, is in planning studies for widening, nowhere near ready for construction funding, years away.

US-58 is not on the STRAHNET west of Suffolk, and is built to much higher standards than the section of US-460 being discussed.  The only serious need between Suffolk and I-95 is to extend the Suffolk Bypass about 3 miles west.

[cpzilliacus]

Washington Post: Controversy surrounds Va. plan to build $1.4 billion toll road

Virginia, a state so strapped for road funds that it dips into the new-construction kitty to patch potholes, is about to bankroll a $1.4 billion highway.

That should be welcome news for Virginia commuters, who endure some of the worst traffic in the nation. But the project has met with blunt criticism because the four-lane highway is planned for a lightly traveled corridor.

It would run for 55miles in southeastern Virginia between Petersburg and Suffolk, parallel to U.S. 460, a four-lane road along which average volume ranges from 9,200 to 17,000 vehicles a day. The state estimates that the new highway, a toll road that would not replace the existing toll-free route, would initially carry 5,000 to 6,000 cars and trucks a day.

[froggie]

That the former chair of the port authority is saying it's not a good use of port funds is significant.  That projections will barely be over 20,000 adt in 2035 is significant.