Interstate 664 History (Virginia)
Scott M. Kozel
The Peninsula Area Transportation Study completed in 1966 suggested
investigating the possibility of a new Hampton Roads crossing, to
supplement the existing Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel and the existing
James River Bridge. The updated Proposed Thoroughfare Plan completed by
the Newport News Planning Commission in 1968 considered a new crossing
becoming the natural extension of the proposed North-South Freeway. The
North-South Freeway (which has never been built and is not presently
planned) was envisioned as extending from a junction with I-64 near
Patrick Henry Airport in the northeasterly part of Newport News to 25th
Street in the southerly part, generally along an alignment parallel to
the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway tracks between Warwick and Jefferson
Avenues.
The transportation plan for the Peninsula region also advocated an
east-west expressway link which began at a connection with the I-64 and
the Newport News Connector Road and ran west to an intersection with the
proposed North-South Freeway in Newport News. This link was intended to
both relieve congestion in the downtown Newport News shipbuilding area,
and facilitate access between the heavily populated sections of Newport
News and Hampton. The Newport News Connector Road (NNCR) was a two-lane
limited-access road that ran from I-64, to near downtown Newport News,
and it was part of the approach roads that were built to serve the
Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel (HRBT), which opened in 1957. I-64 from the
HRBT to VA-143 near Patrick Henry Airport was actually built
pre-Interstate as the northern approach to the HRBT. (The NNCR
right-of-way was eventually used for I-664, and the name was retired).
In October 1968 the Virginia Department of Highways (VDH) applied to the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for allocation of funds to
complete 20.5 miles of Interstate Beltway beginning near the junction of
I-64 and the Newport News Connector Road, and running across Hampton
Roads to a connection with I-64 near Bowers Hill. (This is very similar
to what was eventually built). This project met the requirements of
filling in breaks in the region's Interstate system.
The FHWA advised the state in December 1968 that its 20.5-mile request
for Interstate funding was justified, but that an 11.3-mile section of
I-64 then in the early design phase would have to be dropped from the
Interstate system because of mileage limitations. This included the
parallel Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel and the section between the Newport
News Connector Road and the junction with I-564 in Norfolk. VDH filed a
counterproposal which included this mileage and assigned the remaining
9.2 miles to a revised Outer Beltway concept. This was done because of
the infeasibility of dropping that key 11.3-mile section of I-64 from
the Interstate system.
The state's proposal recommended beginning the 9.2 miles of Interstate
highway near the junction of I-64 and the Newport News Connector Road,
and running across Hampton Roads, with the state assuming responsibility
for funding the remaining distance to I-64 at Bowers Hill, built to
limited-access standards. The FHWA accepted VDH's proposal in April
1971, and designated the new road as Interstate 664.
VDH contracted with a consultant to conduct a corridor location study
and prepare a draft environmental impact statement; this was completed
in December 1972. Public hearings were held, and a variety of alignments
were analyzed in a corridor about two miles wide. One alignment would
have put the bridge-tunnel about a mile to the east of the selected
alternative. Consideration was also made for routing the expressway
across the western edge of Craney Island, which seemed like a logical
way to eliminate almost 2 miles of bridge, however, Craney Island was
landfill created by spoil material dredged from the shipping channels
over the years, and the landfill was not a very stable base for a road;
so a bridge across it would have been necessary. The Virginia State
Highway Commission selected the final location for I-664 on April 25,
1973, and directed that final design begin.
Traffic studies and projections for a 1995 design year showed that six
lanes was needed from I-64 in Hampton to downtown Newport News, and that
four lanes would be adequate from there, southward across Hampton Roads,
to I-64 at Bowers Hill in Suffolk.
The U.S. Navy requested that the crossing be built as a bridge-tunnel
combination with a tunnel under the main shipping channel. Their stance
was that a high-level bridge would be a hazard to military operations
during wartime. The Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel and the Hampton Roads
Bridge-Tunnel were constructed as bridge-tunnels for exactly the same
reason. The Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company is upstream of
the crossing, and it is the one U.S. shipyard that constructs and
overhauls nuclear-propelled aircraft carriers, and it also one of two
U.S. shipyards that builds submarines. VDH selected the bridge-tunnel
scheme for the crossing.
The 9.2-mile Interstate allocation actually did not cross Hampton Roads
fully. It included the manmade North Island and South Island, and the
underwater tunnel, and the northern 1.3 miles of the 3.2-mile South
Trestle. The state applied to FHWA for Interstate funding for that
section in 1979, and the request was approved for another 1.9 miles of
I-664, extending I-664 to the south shoreline of Hampton Roads.
About 1983, the state applied to FHWA for permission to use Interstate
4R funds to fund the remaining 9.4 miles from the Hampton Roads
shoreline to I-64 at Bowers Hill. The FHWA approved this request. So
I-664 was a continuing saga of finding the 90% federal Interstate
funding to build the entire 20.5-mile beltway corridor from I-64 in
Hampton to I-64 at Bowers Hill. Interstate 4R funds are normally
allocated to existing Interstate highways for reconstruction,
rehabilitation, restoration, and resurfacing.
The first I-664 contract award was in 1979 and involved the interchange
with I-64 in Hampton and about a mile of I-664 mainline. This is near
the Hampton Coliseum. This interchange was on the same location as the
Newport News Connector Road interchange, and as I said before, I-664
utilized the right-of-way of the NNCR. Construction contract awards
progressed southward from the north end of I-664. Newport News
anticipated the entry of I-664 into the downtown area, because I-664
would in effect provide an Interstate spur from I-64, enhancing access
to the downtown, even before the Hampton Roads crossing was finished.
I-664 was completed from I-64 in Hampton to the edge of Newport News in
December 1983, and to downtown Newport News in January 1988. The section
from I-64 at Bowers Hill to VA-135 was opened in January 1992, and the
final section across Hampton Roads, the 4.6-mile Monitor-Merrimac
Memorial Bridge-Tunnel (MMMBT, or 3M), was opened April 30, 1992. The
MMMBT cost about $450 million, and includes a four-lane tunnel that is
4800 feet long, and two man-made portal islands, and 3.5 miles of twin
trestle. Another nice feature is the fact that the MMMBT is toll-free.
The name comes from the fact that the duel between the two Civil War
ironclads was fought less than a mile from the where the tunnel is
today. The entire I-664 corridor cost about $700 million.
With the completion of I-664, downtown Newport News has easy Interstate
access with the South Hampton Roads cities of Portsmouth, Norfolk,
Chesapeake, and Suffolk. I-664 provides easy access between the
Peninsula cities of Newport News and Hampton with the western half of
the South Hampton Roads cities. The James River Bridge (US-17) provided
this corridor previously, but the route is 8 miles farther than the
I-664 route, and the road is a four-lane arterial with high-level
two-lane bridges at the Nansemond River and Chuckatuck Creek. The old
two-lane James River Bridge was replaced in stages from 1975-1982, with
four lanes available in 1982.
Sources: Final Environmental Impact Statement, prepared for Virginia
Department of Highways, approved September 17, 1973. Nearly all this
information came from this document, the remaining information is from
personal knowledge.
This article has been added to my website.
|| Scott M. Kozel koz...@richmond.infi.net
|| Highway and Transportation History Website
|| For Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.
|| http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Campus/5961/highways.html
Oscar Voss
Thanks for the history lesson. One question (which is somewhat covered
on your website, but I'm not clear on the answer): when I-664 was
completed to join I-64, why wasn't I-64 renumbered 664 all the way to
the junction with I-264 east of downtown Norfolk? I realize that, with
I-64 ending in a beltway, there is no one logical endpoint for I-64
(unless it were to hang a left on VA 44 into Virginia Beach -- which is
not going to happen, because that is about to be renumbered as I-264).
But the current endpoint is really strange, with "eastbound" 64 swinging
west of Norfolk and Portsmouth, then ending basically out in the middle
of nowhere. You've noted that the proposal to renumber the entire
64/664 complex as 864 was rejected, in part because of the expense
involved; but renumbering the southern half of the beltway would have
also solved the problem, at less expense.
Or maybe someone (either a politician, or someone at VDOT) dreams of
extending I-64 down to Nags Head, and wants to hold off any renumbering
until that idea can be floated, and either adopted or killed?
Thanks for the extensive information you've provided, on Hampton Roads'
roads (!) and other highways in the Mid-Atlantic! Happy holidays.
--
Oscar Voss, Arlington, Virginia
ov...@erols.com
Scott M. Kozel
You are welcome!
> One question (which is somewhat covered
> on your website, but I'm not clear on the answer): when I-664 was
> completed to join I-64, why wasn't I-64 renumbered 664 all the way to
> the junction with I-264 east of downtown Norfolk?
Not to be an m.t.r spoil-sport, but I think that Interstate renumbering
tends to be confusing to motorists. The Capital Beltway is a good
example, although I admit that the fact that it is in two states
exacerbated the problem.
If the I-664 designation had been extended from Bowers Hill to
I-264/VA-44, there would have been a similar situation to what we have
now, an Interstate making a long arc around the metro area. I-664 is
signed north/south now, that would likely not be possible with the
scheme you proposed. Of course, I-64 has the same problem now on the
southern leg of the loop. I don't think I-64 has any directional
signing on the southern leg.
> I realize that, with
> I-64 ending in a beltway, there is no one logical endpoint for I-64
Exactly. I've looked at a variety of numbering schemes for the complex,
and none of them is really ideal, IMO. The most "balanced" scheme would
be for I-64 and I-664 to meet at the I-464 interchange.
To me, the strangest thing about the end of I-64 is the fact that
*three* Interstates end/begin there in one directional interchange.
However, if I-64 ended at I-264/VA-44 (your idea) or at I-464 (my idea),
we would still have a junction where three Interstates end/begin.
> (unless it were to hang a left on VA 44 into Virginia Beach -- which is
> not going to happen, because that is about to be renumbered as I-264).
> But the current endpoint is really strange, with "eastbound" 64 swinging
> west of Norfolk and Portsmouth, then ending basically out in the middle
> of nowhere.
The original 1956 Interstate network for Tidewater had I-64 looping
around Portsmouth and Norfolk to its terminus at Bowers Hill. I-664 was
one of the Interstates in the 1968 package of 1,500 more national
miles. AFAIK, the Bowers Hill terminus of I-64 was established very
early on.
> You've noted that the proposal to renumber the entire
> 64/664 complex as 864 was rejected, in part because of the expense
> involved; but renumbering the southern half of the beltway would have
> also solved the problem, at less expense.
I don't think the expense would have been much. VDOT's solution was to
keep the numbers as is, and to designate the beltway loop as the Hampton
Roads Beltway, with an Inner Loop and an Outer Loop, just like the
Capital Beltway. Those signs are indeed posted.
> Or maybe someone (either a politician, or someone at VDOT) dreams of
> extending I-64 down to Nags Head, and wants to hold off any renumbering
> until that idea can be floated, and either adopted or killed?
I haven't heard of any proposal to extend I-64.
> Thanks for the extensive information you've provided, on Hampton Roads'
> roads (!) and other highways in the Mid-Atlantic! Happy holidays.
You're welcome Oscar! Happy holidays!
David Sturm
[snip]
>If the I-664 designation had been extended from Bowers Hill to
>I-264/VA-44, there would have been a similar situation to what we have
>now, an Interstate making a long arc around the metro area. I-664 is
>signed north/south now, that would likely not be possible with the
>scheme you proposed. Of course, I-64 has the same problem now on the
>southern leg of the loop. I don't think I-64 has any directional
>signing on the southern leg.
Visited Hampton Roads back in July, and I can confirm the thought. If
you head "east" on 64 from the Airport (s-bound, actually), the
directional signs all cease at the 264/44 interchange on 64. The
control city of "Chesapeake" takes over on the overheads. *However* on
what older overheads remain, it's clear that "EAST" has been removed or
covered.
Most of the stretch from 264/44 to 464 has been renovated, so the signs
are redone, I gather. By the time you near 464, the overheads say (no
direction) 64 and TO 664. I only exited twice along here. At the big
(Greenbrier) mall exit, the entrance markers do something similar. No
directionals on 64, and either TO 264 or TO 664 shows up, along with
the aforementioned Hampton Roads Loop signs. All these exits are being
rebuilt, so I imagine when it's done, someone needs to check it out for
us m.t.r folk.
[snip]
>be for I-64 and I-664 to meet at the I-464 interchange.
...>However, if I-64 ended at I-264/VA-44 (your idea) or at I-464 (my
>idea),
>we would still have a junction where three Interstates end/begin.
>
Actually, as you travel north on VA 104, after the light at VA 190, you
see NORTH 464. So by a technicality, 464 doesn't end at 64. Your
three-end intersection wouldn't work.
Alas, probably the best thing to do is to sign 64 as NORTH/SOUTH from
Hampton Roads all the way to inner Richmond. Of course, we can't
violate the odd/even rule, can we? (Maybe something useful for Bud et
al to do... legislate an illegal direction?) If it were NORTH 64 from
Bowers Hill to Richmond and SOUTH the other way, it would make a lot of
sense....
Scott D. Rhodes
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>> One question (which is somewhat covered
>> on your website, but I'm not clear on the answer): when I-664 was
>> completed to join I-64, why wasn't I-64 renumbered 664 all the way to
>> the junction with I-264 east of downtown Norfolk?
>Not to be an m.t.r spoil-sport, but I think that Interstate renumbering
>tends to be confusing to motorists.
True, but so is having "I-64 East" run due west for a five-mile stretch and
generally west for a thirteen-mile stretch. I personally have been screwed up
by this, and someone even less familiar with the area than I am could easily
have wound up in Hampton as a result of the confusion.
>If the I-664 designation had been extended from Bowers Hill to
>I-264/VA-44, there would have been a similar situation to what we have
>now, an Interstate making a long arc around the metro area. I-664 is
>signed north/south now, that would likely not be possible with the
>scheme you proposed.
Why not simply have I-664 be extended to the current I-64/I-264/VA-44
junction, but change from North/South directional markers to East/West at the
current I-664/I-64/I-264 junction? I think I-495 in VA/MD does this, and I
know I-440 in Raleigh does, so the precedent exists with 3di's.
(For that matter, I don't see why they *didn't* go ahead with renumbering the
entire loop I-864, even if there was more expense involved.)
>Of course, I-64 has the same problem now on the
>southern leg of the loop.
No, it has a much worse problem. A "North/South" route going East/West is
easy to understand. An "East/West" route going West/East is not.
>I don't think I-64 has any directional signing on the southern leg.
A band-aid solution, IMO.
>> I realize that, with
>> I-64 ending in a beltway, there is no one logical endpoint for I-64
>Exactly.
I agree as well. The most logical (or rather, least illogical) place to put
it would be at the end of the loop, but I think the Richmond-Norfolk route
should be one number all the way from one city to the other.
>I've looked at a variety of numbering schemes for the complex,
>and none of them is really ideal, IMO. The most "balanced" scheme would
>be for I-64 and I-664 to meet at the I-464 interchange.
IMO, that would be the worst of all. You'd create all the confusion caused by
a renumbering, but you'd still have a stretch of I-64 going in the opposite
direction from the signage.
I personally liked the option of sending I-64 along today's VA-44 to Virginia
Beach and renumbering I-64 from the 64/44 junction to Bowers Hill as I-664.
However, that would probably need to be handled in two phases (first renumber
I-64 to I-664, then renumber VA-44 to I-64 a year or two later) to avoid the
mass confusion of the reroute, and I can see why someone would be reluctact to
draw the confusion out like that. I think the best approach would have been
to simply renumber I-64 East/West to I-664 West/East in the stretch in
question.
Scott M. Kozel
"Scott D. Rhodes" <rho...@ipass.net> wrote:
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>
> >> One question (which is somewhat covered
> >> on your website, but I'm not clear on the answer): when I-664 was
> >> completed to join I-64, why wasn't I-64 renumbered 664 all the way to
> >> the junction with I-264 east of downtown Norfolk?
>
> >Not to be an m.t.r spoil-sport, but I think that Interstate renumbering
> >tends to be confusing to motorists.
>
> True, but so is having "I-64 East" run due west for a five-mile stretch and
> generally west for a thirteen-mile stretch. I personally have been screwed up
> by this, and someone even less familiar with the area than I am could easily
> have wound up in Hampton as a result of the confusion.
The eastbound roadway has Virginia Beach as a control city, and the
westbound roadway has Bowers Hill and Suffolk as control cities.
I've lived in Richmond for 20 years, and still regularly consult a map
to find the best route for some Richmond area trips. I find that if I
consult a map in an unfamiliar area, it's much easier to get around. My
opinion about Tidewater Interstates is that they are well-signed, that
the major junctions are many miles apart, and that the signage plus the
assistance of a map makes them easy enough to understand. The welcome
centers at the state border have free VDOT state maps.
> >If the I-664 designation had been extended from Bowers Hill to
> >I-264/VA-44, there would have been a similar situation to what we have
> >now, an Interstate making a long arc around the metro area. I-664 is
> >signed north/south now, that would likely not be possible with the
> >scheme you proposed.
>
> Why not simply have I-664 be extended to the current I-64/I-264/VA-44
> junction, but change from North/South directional markers to East/West at the
> current I-664/I-64/I-264 junction? I think I-495 in VA/MD does this, and I
> know I-440 in Raleigh does, so the precedent exists with 3di's.
That was one of the 4 options that VDOT looked at in the 1996 study.
> (For that matter, I don't see why they *didn't* go ahead with renumbering the
> entire loop I-864, even if there was more expense involved.)
Because then both Hampton roads crossings (Monitor-Merrimac
Bridge-Tunnel and Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel) would have the same route
number; that would be confusing and inappropriate, IMO.
> >Of course, I-64 has the same problem now on the
> >southern leg of the loop.
>
> No, it has a much worse problem. A "North/South" route going East/West is
> easy to understand. An "East/West" route going West/East is not.
>
> >I don't think I-64 has any directional signing on the southern leg.
>
> A band-aid solution, IMO.
That still keeps the east-west signing off of the southern leg, and
there is control city signing there.
> >> I realize that, with
> >> I-64 ending in a beltway, there is no one logical endpoint for I-64
>
> >Exactly.
>
> I agree as well. The most logical (or rather, least illogical) place to put
> it would be at the end of the loop, but I think the Richmond-Norfolk route
> should be one number all the way from one city to the other.
Right.
> >I've looked at a variety of numbering schemes for the complex,
> >and none of them is really ideal, IMO. The most "balanced" scheme would
> >be for I-64 and I-664 to meet at the I-464 interchange.
>
> IMO, that would be the worst of all. You'd create all the confusion caused by
> a renumbering, but you'd still have a stretch of I-64 going in the opposite
> direction from the signage.
Again, I-64 does not have east-west signage below the I-264/VA-44
interchange.
> I personally liked the option of sending I-64 along today's VA-44 to Virginia
> Beach and renumbering I-64 from the 64/44 junction to Bowers Hill as I-664.
>
> However, that would probably need to be handled in two phases (first renumber
> I-64 to I-664, then renumber VA-44 to I-64 a year or two later) to avoid the
> mass confusion of the reroute, and I can see why someone would be reluctact to
> draw the confusion out like that.
Then the present I-64/I-264/VA-44 interchange would have a number change
on the "east-west" expressway as well as on the "beltway". There is
some confusion when an Interstate expressway changes to a different
number. The "beltway" would be I-64 north of the interchange, and it
would be I-664 south of the interchange.
The "east-west expressway" would be I-264 west of the interchange, and
it would be I-64 east of the interchange. Also, I-64 would transfer
from the beltway to the east-west expressway.
BTW, in the near future, VA-44 will become I-264, and that will make the
entire "east-west" expressway I-264.
I much prefer have one expressway keeping the same number.
It's a complex expressway system in Tidewater, and there's no one ideal
way to designate the system.
> I think the best approach would have been
> to simply renumber I-64 East/West to I-664 West/East in the stretch in
> question.
I'm sure that VDOT looked at all the angles when they did the
renumbering study. I'm sure that they got local input in Tidewater
also, and the locals may well have objected to renumbering. The locals
may well have said that they were used to and satisfied with the present
scheme.
Also, I-64 presently enters or comes near every major Tidewater city;
Portsmouth is the only exception, although I-64 comes within 1/2 mile of
it. All the renumbering schemes would eliminate one or two cities from
I-64 service.
I haven't talked to the people who made the decision, but I would
surmise that the consensus was that there was little or no overall
benefit to renumbering. As I said before, the one major outcome of the
study was to name and post the loop as the "Hampton Roads Beltway" and
the VDOT map shows it as such.
Still another wrinkle that VDOT would have considered in the mix is the
proposed expansion of the MMMBT and the addition of a mid-span spur from
the MMMBT to I-564 in Norfolk, near the U. S. Navy Base. When this is
built, there will be a true "South Hampton Roads Beltway" encircling the
cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth.
My website has the details:
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Campus/5961/HampRoadCrossStudy.html
Here's an excerpt: "The Norfolk spur (I-564 extension?) would run from
just south of the MMMBT south island, east-west to Norfolk to I-564, and
the lane configuration would be two each way and two reversible (three
roadways). The east section of the spur would form the long-discussed
Uptown Crossing of the Elizabeth River".
Scott D. Rhodes
>> True, but so is having "I-64 East" run due west for a five-mile stretch and
>> generally west for a thirteen-mile stretch. I personally have been screwed up
>> by this, and someone even less familiar with the area than I am could easily
>> have wound up in Hampton as a result of the confusion.
>The eastbound roadway has Virginia Beach as a control city, and the
>westbound roadway has Bowers Hill and Suffolk as control cities.
That's fine and dandy *if* you know where Bowers Hill, Suffolk, and Virginia
Beach are in relation to Norfolk. I sincerely doubt the typical out-of-towner
could tell you that. Certainly I couldn't the first time I was there.
>I've lived in Richmond for 20 years, and still regularly consult a map
>to find the best route for some Richmond area trips. I find that if I
>consult a map in an unfamiliar area, it's much easier to get around.
Obviously. But I personally try not to check the map while I'm actually
driving, and I try to minimize my pulling to the side of the road while I'm on
a freeway. Something like a highway running counter to its signage (which was
there when I had my problems) is the sort of detail that can easily confuse
someone who checked the map earlier and may not perfectly remember of all the
details.
>My
>opinion about Tidewater Interstates is that they are well-signed, that
>the major junctions are many miles apart, and that the signage plus the
>assistance of a map makes them easy enough to understand. The welcome
>centers at the state border have free VDOT state maps.
Where did you get the idea I never checked a map?
And besides, the real issue here is not what I do, it's what the typical
driver does. I doubt the typical driver makes it a point to pick up free maps
at every state border and accurately check precisely where he's going.
>> Why not simply have I-664 be extended to the current I-64/I-264/VA-44
>> junction, but change from North/South directional markers to East/West at the
>> current I-664/I-64/I-264 junction? I think I-495 in VA/MD does this, and I
>> know I-440 in Raleigh does, so the precedent exists with 3di's.
>That was one of the 4 options that VDOT looked at in the 1996 study.
Yes, I know. Why didn't they choose it? :-)
>> (For that matter, I don't see why they *didn't* go ahead with renumbering the
>> entire loop I-864, even if there was more expense involved.)
>Because then both Hampton roads crossings (Monitor-Merrimac
>Bridge-Tunnel and Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel) would have the same route
>number; that would be confusing and inappropriate, IMO.
Okay, I can see the logic in that.
>> >I don't think I-64 has any directional signing on the southern leg.
>> A band-aid solution, IMO.
>That still keeps the east-west signing off of the southern leg, and
>there is control city signing there.
See my previous comment regarding the control city signing there. As for
having no directional signing at all, I think that as a motorist in an area I
was unfamiliar with, that would worry me almost as much as the reversed
signing. A "reassurance" sign with no directional signage at all is not very
reassuring.
>> I agree as well. The most logical (or rather, least illogical) place to put
>> it would be at the end of the loop, but I think the Richmond-Norfolk route
>> should be one number all the way from one city to the other.
>Right.
That is, incidentally, part of why I think it would be worth looking into
rerouting I-64 to take VA-44 to Va Beach. Virginia Beach is a big enough city
in its own right to warrant maintenance of a single number from it to
Richmond, given how close it is to Norfolk.
>> >I've looked at a variety of numbering schemes for the complex,
>> >and none of them is really ideal, IMO. The most "balanced" scheme would
>> >be for I-64 and I-664 to meet at the I-464 interchange.
>>
>> IMO, that would be the worst of all. You'd create all the confusion caused by
>> a renumbering, but you'd still have a stretch of I-64 going in the opposite
>> direction from the signage.
>Again, I-64 does not have east-west signage below the I-264/VA-44
>interchange.
Signage or not, we still have the situation. If we're going to make the
effort to solve it, let's solve it! Either it's not a problem at all and
should be left alone altogether, or it is a problem and it needs to be fixed
for its entire length, not half of it.
>Then the present I-64/I-264/VA-44 interchange would have a number change
>on the "east-west" expressway as well as on the "beltway". There is
>some confusion when an Interstate expressway changes to a different
>number.
True, but that is going to happen at some point unless they decide to make the
entire loop be I-64.
>The "beltway" would be I-64 north of the interchange, and it
>would be I-664 south of the interchange.
As I said above, there is going to be some point where I-64 turns into I-664
unless they make the whole loop be I-64. It's an illogical situation, the
only question is how to do we go about imposing some logic upon it.
>The "east-west expressway" would be I-264 west of the interchange, and
>it would be I-64 east of the interchange. Also, I-64 would transfer
>from the beltway to the east-west expressway.
True. That' s part of why I would probably just content myself to renumber
I-64 to I-664 between the two I-64/I-264 junctions.
In an ideal world the I-64/I-264/VA-44 interchange could be redesigned to make
I-64/VA-44 a continuous route and thus make the remainder of the beltline a
united, unique entity that could carry the I-664 designation. But this isn't
an ideal world. (Actually, in a truly ideal world I think it would have been
built that way in the first place, but that's also neither here nor there.)
>> I think the best approach would have been
>> to simply renumber I-64 East/West to I-664 West/East in the stretch in
>> question.
>I'm sure that VDOT looked at all the angles when they did the
>renumbering study. I'm sure that they got local input in Tidewater
>also, and the locals may well have objected to renumbering. The locals
>may well have said that they were used to and satisfied with the present
>scheme.
I personally think the locals' opinions need not be taken too seriously in
such matters. The locals, in many if not most instances, are sufficiently
aware of the layout of the roads in the area that you could pull down all the
signs and it wouldn't faze them much. IMO the situation for the non-local
traveller should be taken into account more, and the situation for the
non-local traveller in that area is, simply put, messy.
>Also, I-64 presently enters or comes near every major Tidewater city;
>Portsmouth is the only exception, although I-64 comes within 1/2 mile of
>it. All the renumbering schemes would eliminate one or two cities from
>I-64 service.
I don't see whereas that's a really big deal at all. Part of the Hampton
Roads freeway complex goes into every city; does it really matter if the
designation is I-64 or I-664? I realize the cities in the HR area have a
history of bickering and getting into pissing contests with one another, but
the solution here is not the to VDOT to bend over backwards to accomodate such
pissing contests, but rather to tell the cities to get over it already.
Scott M. Kozel
> >> generally west for a thirteen-mile stretch. I personally have been screwed up
> >> by this, and someone even less familiar with the area than I am could easily
> >> have wound up in Hampton as a result of the confusion.
Many parts of Virginia are far from Tidewater, but few people seem to
voice this complaint about I-64.
> >The eastbound roadway has Virginia Beach as a control city, and the
> >westbound roadway has Bowers Hill and Suffolk as control cities.
>
> That's fine and dandy *if* you know where Bowers Hill, Suffolk, and Virginia
> Beach are in relation to Norfolk. I sincerely doubt the typical out-of-towner
> could tell you that. Certainly I couldn't the first time I was there.
I've never driven in the Atlanta area, but I would surely study a map
carefully before trying to navigate there. BTW, even the Rand McNally
atlas shows where those Virginia cities are.
> Obviously. But I personally try not to check the map while I'm actually
> driving, and I try to minimize my pulling to the side of the road while I'm on
> a freeway.
I fold a map into a small one-foot square, and glance at it from time to
time while on the highway. I briefly hold it right next to my view of
the road.
> Something like a highway running counter to its signage (which was
> there when I had my problems) is the sort of detail that can easily confuse
> someone who checked the map earlier and may not perfectly remember of all the
> details.
I was in Tidewater over the weekend, and I verified that the directional
signing ends at Indian River Road, one interchange down from
I-64/I-264/VA-44.
> >My
> >opinion about Tidewater Interstates is that they are well-signed, that
> >the major junctions are many miles apart, and that the signage plus the
> >assistance of a map makes them easy enough to understand. The welcome
> >centers at the state border have free VDOT state maps.
>
> Where did you get the idea I never checked a map?
I realized after I posted this that it seemed a bit condescending, and I
apologize.
> And besides, the real issue here is not what I do, it's what the typical
> driver does. I doubt the typical driver makes it a point to pick up free maps
> at every state border and accurately check precisely where he's going.
Again, if entering an unfamiliar metropolitan area with a complex
expressway system, a motorist must IMO get a map somewhere and study it.
> >> Why not simply have I-664 be extended to the current I-64/I-264/VA-44
> >> junction, but change from North/South directional markers to East/West at the
> >> current I-664/I-64/I-264 junction? I think I-495 in VA/MD does this, and I
> >> know I-440 in Raleigh does, so the precedent exists with 3di's.
I don't think that all of I-495 has directional markers. I don't think
any of I-695 (Baltimore Beltway) does. I doubt that many full beltways
do. They use control cities, and "Inner Loop/Outer Loop" signing.
> >That was one of the 4 options that VDOT looked at in the 1996 study.
>
> Yes, I know. Why didn't they choose it? :-)
I explained in the previous post, that the overall benefits were
determined to be little or none. I talked to a contact of mine in the
Traffic Engineering Division today, and his knowledge confirmed what I
have posted before, also the fact that the localities couldn't agree on
a solution.
> That is, incidentally, part of why I think it would be worth looking into
> rerouting I-64 to take VA-44 to Va Beach. Virginia Beach is a big enough city
> in its own right to warrant maintenance of a single number from it to
> Richmond, given how close it is to Norfolk.
Again, that was one of the options studied by VDOT. Chesapeake (the
present terminus of I-64) is a fairly big city too.
> Signage or not, we still have the situation. If we're going to make the
> effort to solve it, let's solve it! Either it's not a problem at all and
> should be left alone altogether, or it is a problem and it needs to be fixed
> for its entire length, not half of it.
Apparently VDOT didn't think there was enough of a problem to warrant
major changes.
> In an ideal world the I-64/I-264/VA-44 interchange could be redesigned to make
> I-64/VA-44 a continuous route
That would require the acquisition of a lot of expensive, developed R/W.
> and thus make the remainder of the beltline a
> united, unique entity that could carry the I-664 designation. But this isn't
> an ideal world. (Actually, in a truly ideal world I think it would have been
> built that way in the first place, but that's also neither here nor there.)
The 1956 Interstate system allocations in Tidewater included I-64,
I-264, I-464, and I-564. I-664 was not allocated until 1968, and then
only from I-64 in Hampton to 2/3 the way across Hampton Roads. By 1968,
I-64 had been completed throughout Tidewater, except for the parallel
HRBT (1976) and 3 miles from the HRBT to just north of I-564 (1975).
IOW, the whole I-64 loop from I-564 to Bowers Hill was complete before
I-664 was even thought of.
From my original post in this thread:
"The 9.2-mile Interstate allocation actually did not cross Hampton Roads
fully. It included the manmade North Island and South Island, and the
underwater tunnel, and the northern 1.3 miles of the 3.2-mile South
Trestle. The state applied to FHWA for Interstate funding for that
section [the remainder of the South Trestle] in 1979, and the request
was approved for another 1.9 miles of I-664, extending I-664 to the
south shoreline of Hampton Roads. About [in] 1983, the state applied to
FHWA for permission to use Interstate 4R funds to fund the remaining 9.4
miles from the Hampton Roads shoreline to I-64 at Bowers Hill. The FHWA
approved this request. So I-664 was a continuing saga of finding the 90%
federal Interstate funding to build the entire 20.5-mile beltway
corridor from I-64 in Hampton to I-64 at Bowers Hill".
So it's not fair to include I-664 in the discussion of the original
Tidewater Interstate concept; it came much later, after nearly all the
rest had been opened.
> I don't see whereas that's a really big deal at all. Part of the Hampton
> Roads freeway complex goes into every city; does it really matter if the
> designation is I-64 or I-664? I realize the cities in the HR area have a
> history of bickering and getting into pissing contests with one another,
My, Scott, you seem to know a lot about Tidewater, for someone who is so
confused by I-64!
> but
> the solution here is not the to VDOT to bend over backwards to accomodate such
> pissing contests, but rather to tell the cities to get over it already.
That's a rather cynical, negative attitude to have. I detailed the
history of Tidewater Interstate construction on my website. The
article:
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Campus/5961/HampRoadsInterstates.html
The major transportation barriers of Hampton Roads and the Elizabeth
River effectively isolated the Peninsula from South Hampton Roads, and
Norfolk from Portsmouth. These cities historically had very different
identities. Virginia Beach didn't exist until 1963. It wasn't until
1976 with the opening of the parallel HRBT that significant interface
could exist across Hampton Roads. The Downtown Tunnel opened in 1952,
the Midtown Tunnel opened in 1962; having these two two-lane tunnels
created the first real interface between Norfolk and Portsmouth, and
that was somewhat limited until the parallel Downtown Tunnel and Berkley
Bridge (I-264) opened in 1988.
The bottom line is that the localities were isolated for a couple
centuries, and it's only recently that a highway system has been in
place to unify them. Hence, more difficulty in arriving at consensus.
They recently agreed on the concept for the proposed third Hampton Roads
Bridge-Tunnel crossing, no mean feat. Agreement was also reached on the
proposed Norfolk/Hampton Roads Light Rail Transit line, also a major
accomplishment.
The localities would have to agree before any renumbering could take
place. VDOT doesn't have the right to force renumbering down the
throats of 1.5 million people.
William F Yurasko
Scott M. Kozel
> > >> Why not simply have I-664 be extended to the current I-64/I-264/VA-44
> > >> junction, but change from North/South directional markers to East/West at the
> > >> current I-664/I-64/I-264 junction? I think I-495 in VA/MD does this, and I
> > >> know I-440 in Raleigh does, so the precedent exists with 3di's.
>
> I don't think that all of I-495 has directional markers. I don't think
> any of I-695 (Baltimore Beltway) does. I doubt that many full beltways
> do. They use control cities, and "Inner Loop/Outer Loop" signing.
I-495 has direction signs throughout all of MD.
IN VA however, some overhead signs do not specify direction. All signs
at the ground level do have directional signs. Most ground level signs
also have LOOP signs. They began appearing before ramps in VA in recent
years.
I-695 is not as consistant with either sign. In some places it's simply,
BELTWAY.
WILLIAM
>
Mike Wiley
I am curious why the Tidewater area of Virginia has an Interstate coming
from the Northwest (I-64 from Richmond) but does not have an Interstate
connecting to I-95 south and/or I-85, such as an I-62 (or like the Bay
Area, an I-x64 3di like I-764)?
Any thoughts?
--
Mike Wiley - YLEKOT
http://www.wenet.net/~mwiley
mwi...@hooked.net or yle...@aol.com
Scott M. Kozel
"Mike Wiley" <mwi...@hooked.net> wrote:
>
> I am curious why the Tidewater area of Virginia has an Interstate coming
> from the Northwest (I-64 from Richmond) but does not have an Interstate
> connecting to I-95 south and/or I-85, such as an I-62 (or like the Bay
> Area, an I-x64 3di like I-764)?
>
> Any thoughts?
That was one of the issues that I addressed in my website article:
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Campus/5961/HampRoadsInterstates.html
Take a look at it and see if that helps answer the question.
In 1956 when the 41,000-mile national Interstate system was founded, the
Hampton Roads area was divided by huge transportation barriers. When
the 1,500 miles were added to the national Interstate system in 1968,
the area was still divided by huge transportation barriers. Traffic on
the US-58 corridor was light, and it was isolated from the Peninsula
cities. New bridges and tunnels opening from 1976 to 1992 were what
unified Tidewater into a single large metropolitan area (1.5 million
people today).
US-58 today is a good four-lane divided highway from I-64 in Chesapeake
to I-85 at South Hill. It crosses I-95 at Emporia. This is not an
Interstate, but it has town bypasses, and for the relatively light
amount of traffic, serves the corridor well.
Harv
Scott M. Kozel <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote in article
<34B195...@richmond.infi.net>...
> "Scott D. Rhodes" <rho...@ipass.net> wrote:
> > >> Why not simply have I-664 be extended to the current
I-64/I-264/VA-44
> > >> junction, but change from North/South directional markers to
East/West at the
> > >> current I-664/I-64/I-264 junction? I think I-495 in VA/MD does
this, and I
> > >> know I-440 in Raleigh does, so the precedent exists with 3di's.
>
> I don't think that all of I-495 has directional markers. I don't think
> any of I-695 (Baltimore Beltway) does. I doubt that many full beltways
> do. They use control cities, and "Inner Loop/Outer Loop" signing.
There is no such thing as "inner loop/outer loop" in St. Louis -- both
I-270 and I-255 have directional markers and the locals are pretty well
sated with that. If either department of transportation decided that they
should use this kind of signing, the basic St. Louisian would simply tell
them "no way -- this works fine".
Most of I-255 is north/south (except for a six-mile section and most people
who live in South St. Louis County call it 270 anyway) and all but 3 miles
of it is in Illinois. I-270 originally was only an east/west highway, back
in the days where there were also I-244 and that only went north/south. If
a traffic reporter says "270 north/south", he is refering to a section of
270 between I-55 and I-70 in St. Louis County. If he says "270 east/west",
you're talking about the section between 70 in St. Louis County and esp.
the section in Madison County. 255 is usually treated as an "north/south"
highway unless there is something going on near (or on) the JB Bridge.
For control cities, I have seen "Chicago", "Memphis", "Kansas City", and
"Indiapolis" on 270 (however, if you are in Madison County and you get off
the interstate, you will also see "St. Charles" and "Effingham" if you look
carefully). For 255, the southbound control city is "Memphis" (pure irony)
though I have also seen "Tulsa". For northbound, however, you will see
"Chicago", but once you get north of I-55/70, the northbound "control city"
is "TO I-270".
Harv
http://www.geocities.com/Baja/Dunes/2570/
har...@hotmail.com
Steve Riner
Harv wrote:
>
>There is no such thing as "inner loop/outer loop" in St. Louis -- both
>I-270 and I-255 have directional markers and the locals are pretty well
>sated with that. If either department of transportation decided that they
>should use this kind of signing, the basic St. Louisian would simply tell
>them "no way -- this works fine".
>
>For control cities, I have seen "Chicago", "Memphis", "Kansas City", and
>"Indiapolis" on 270 (however, if you are in Madison County and you get off
>the interstate, you will also see "St. Charles" and "Effingham" if you look
>carefully). For 255, the southbound control city is "Memphis" (pure irony)
>though I have also seen "Tulsa". For northbound, however, you will see
>"Chicago", but once you get north of I-55/70, the northbound "control city"
>is "TO I-270".
>
Good luck navigating on the Twin Cities beltway, I-494/694, if you need control
cities. The entire loop is signed only with directional signs. And, since it
is squarish with definite points where the road changes direction, you will see
all four directions if you circumnavigate the entire loop.
MnDOT does not seem to believe in control cities once you hit the beltway.
The only place you will see a control destination along the beltway is outbound in
the section where I-94 and 694 are duplexed, where St. Cloud is indicated. Otherwise,
there are generally only signs directing you inward to Minneapolis or St. Paul or outbound
to the external control cities (St. Cloud, Duluth, Albert Lea, Madison). It would really
help if the beltway itself had signage referencing these external destinations as
well as some internal major destination points like the airport.
IMO, Kansas City has some of the best signage along both beltways and internal cities
that I've seen. Of course, given the spaghetti bowl downtown, it needs it ;-)
Steve Riner
Columbia Heights MN
The Unofficial Minnesota Highways Page is at www.frontiercomm.net/~sriner/main_hwy.htm
Mike McManus
In article <01bd1d8d$f67997c0$99c8...@gk-east.usps.gov>, "Harv" <ksha...@BUDSPAMkc.cc.il.us> wrote:
>Scott M. Kozel <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote in article
><34B195...@richmond.infi.net>...
>> I don't think that all of I-495 has directional markers. I don't think
>> any of I-695 (Baltimore Beltway) does. I doubt that many full beltways
>> do. They use control cities, and "Inner Loop/Outer Loop" signing.
>
>I-270 and I-255 have directional markers and the locals are pretty well
>sated with that. If either department of transportation decided that they
>should use this kind of signing, the basic St. Louisian would simply tell
>them "no way -- this works fine".
Most loops I have seen use directional marking rather than "Inner Loop/Outer
Loop". This includes I-275 around Cincinnati, I-270 around Columbus, and, of
course, the Inner Loop in Rochester. (This is so named because I-590 and I-390
north of its junction with 590 form a half-loop that would have been
designated the Outer Loop were it complete. As it is, most locals seldom
refer to this as the Outer Loop.)
270 uses control cities extensively, while neither the Inner Loop in Rochester
nor 275 do (the IL doesn't use overhead reassurance markers to any great
degree, and is so small that control cities don't make any sense; while 275
south of I-74 tends to use "Kentucky" as a control city, north of I-74 the
control city space on the reassurance markers is usually blank).
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Mike McManus _/ home: mmcm...@frontiernet.net _/
_/ Rochester, NY _/ work: mcm...@kodak.com _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
William F Yurasko
On the Capital Beltway, I-495 NORTH from Springfield now has Tysons
Corner as a control city. Previously it had been Rockville (MD). IMO,
this is a good move since Tysons is actually near the Beltway as opposed
to Rockville.
d2fr...@fre.fsu.umd.edu
I think it's an improvement; but not really relevant to a cross country
traveller-The 98 Rand Mc Nally doiesn't even show Tyson's Corner on the
main VA or MD maps; you have to look on the DC page to find it and then
it's in really tiny type...
C.C. Slater
Texas Highway Man
"Inner" and "Outer" loop here in San Antonio are sometimes used to refer to
two different freeways. I-410, known usually as just "The Loop", is
sometimes called the "Inner Loop", and SL 1604 is sometimes referred to as
the "Outer Loop". Both loops use directional signs rather than control
cities. Loop 1604 has distance signs for Sea World and (Six Flags) Fiesta
Texas amusement parks. Only on the segment of Loop 410 that's multiplexed
with I-35 are there control cities, and they're I-35's.
-Brian Purcell
"The Texas Highway Man"
Internet: brian....@internetmci.com
Web: http://www.GeoCities.com/TheTropics/Cabana/1618
<!> Remove the *KEEPYOURSPAM* when replying by e-mail.
Brian Albert Doreste
William F Yurasko <wfy...@email.psu.edu> wrote:
>On the Capital Beltway, I-495 NORTH from Springfield now has Tysons
>Corner as a control city. Previously it had been Rockville (MD). IMO,
>this is a good move since Tysons is actually near the Beltway as opposed
>to Rockville.
They changed it again?! The control city for the inner loop before the I-270
split was originally listed as Frederick, and they changed it to Rockville
after the reconstruction in that area several years ago...
- Brian
Brian A Doreste school email: bdoreste 'at' copland.udel.edu
85 Kershaw Street work email: bdoreste 'at' mail.dot.state.de.us
Newark, DE 19711-2244 USA Univ of Delaware Civil Engineering Undergraduate
Usual disclaimers apply Delaware Dept of Transportation - Div of Planning
Hannaman
Mike Wiley wrote:
>
> I am curious why the Tidewater area of Virginia has an Interstate coming
> from the Northwest (I-64 from Richmond) but does not have an Interstate
> connecting to I-95 south and/or I-85, such as an I-62 (or like the Bay
> Area, an I-x64 3di like I-764)?
>
> Any thoughts?
>
The US-58 corridor is now 4-lane all the way to I-85 and much of it is
limited or partially-limited access. Even though it violates interstate
numbering convention, how about renumbering it as I-58. (OKOK, its only
in Virginia. Flame me.)
I-64 should have been routed all the way to Virginia Beach via the Va-44
Va Beach Toll Road. Thus I-664 can and should go all the way to I-64
and I-264 junction at the current Va-44. However, I believe that VDOT
intends to renumber Va-44 as I-264 in the near future.
Scott M. Kozel
Hannaman <hann...@cannedspam.bellatlantic.net>
>
> Mike Wiley wrote:
> >
> > I am curious why the Tidewater area of Virginia has an Interstate coming
> > from the Northwest (I-64 from Richmond) but does not have an Interstate
> > connecting to I-95 south and/or I-85, such as an I-62 (or like the Bay
> > Area, an I-x64 3di like I-764)?
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
>
> The US-58 corridor is now 4-lane all the way to I-85 and much of it is
> limited or partially-limited access. Even though it violates interstate
> numbering convention, how about renumbering it as I-58. (OKOK, its only
> in Virginia. Flame me.)
US-58 is one of the longest U.S. highways that is totally within one
state. But I would want it to be upgraded to full Interstate standards
before designating it as an Interstate. If the portion from I-64 in
Chesapeake to I-85 at South Hill were upgraded to full Interstate
standards, then that could become I-58. No flames needed! :-)
> I-64 should have been routed all the way to Virginia Beach via the Va-44
> Va Beach Toll Road.
I-64 was planned to parallel Military Highway, from near Navy Base
Norfolk, to Bowers Hill. This I-64 alignment was selected probably in
the late 1950s, and it was completed in 1968. Military Highway was a
four-lane divided beltway, completed probably before 1950, and it is not
a limited-access highway.
The VA-44 Virginia Beach-Norfolk Expressway was competed in 1967 at a
state toll expressway. It was not a part of the Interstate system. I
don't think its alignment had been selected until well after the I-64
alignment had been selected.
> Thus I-664 can and should go all the way to I-64
> and I-264 junction at the current Va-44. However, I believe that VDOT
> intends to renumber Va-44 as I-264 in the near future.
VA-44 will become I-264 in the near future. I thought it would be Jan.
1, but the date has not been set yet. VDOT has officially announced
that the change will be made.
H.B. Elkins
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
>US-58 is one of the longest U.S. highways that is totally within one
>state.
Not anymore. US 58 has extended slightly into Tennessee for at least
10 years now. I remember going to the Cumberland Gap area in 1988 and
seeing that the old US 25E-US 58 intersection in Virginia had been
closed, and US 58's new western terminus was south of the
Virginia-Tennessee border. Since US 25E was rerouted through the
Cumberland Gap Tunnel, US 58 extends even further into Tennessee now.
The Rand McNally 1998 atlas shows this pretty well.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
H.B. Elkins -- Winchester, KY
"You must have the courage to believe the truth!" -- Rush H. Limbaugh III
Kentucky Wildcats Basketball & #3 Dale Earnhardt -- A Championship Combination
mailto:hbel...@mis.net <or> mailto:HB...@aol.com
(Say "nyet" to spam! Please note: there is a spam-buster in my reply-to address.
To reply by E-mail,use one of the addresses above)
http://www.users.mis.net/~hbelkins (last updated 1/2/987)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
William F Yurasko
Brian Albert Doreste wrote:
>
> William F Yurasko <wfy...@email.psu.edu> wrote:
>
> >On the Capital Beltway, I-495 NORTH from Springfield now has Tysons
> >Corner as a control city. Previously it had been Rockville (MD). IMO,
> >this is a good move since Tysons is actually near the Beltway as opposed
> >to Rockville.
>
> They changed it again?! The control city for the inner loop before the I-270
> split was originally listed as Frederick, and they changed it to Rockville
> after the reconstruction in that area several years ago...
>
>
> Brian A Doreste
I think this one is pretty good though, being that Tyson's Corner is a
pretty important destination. it's the largest downtown area in VA, and
has more office space than Pittsburgh, plus two "regional" malls. If
there is ever a metro line there, i think the place will boom and become
a real city. However, there are three crains up, so I don't think
building is that high. Gannett is planning on two twin 30 story towers
as well. Needless to say, traffic there is heavy and annoying. VDOT is
really going to have to look into some interchanges; new and improved
(VA 7 and Va 123), IMO. I was thinking Gosnell Rd/Westpark Dr and VA 7
could be turned into an interchange a la Gallows Rd and US 50. I have
heard about plans for a similar project in Merrifield at US 29 and
Gallows Rd. Of course, I probably won't even live in NoVa by the time
this stuff happens.
WILLIAM
Hannaman
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
> Hannaman <hann...@cannedspam.bellatlantic.net>
> > The US-58 corridor is now 4-lane all the way to I-85 and much of it
> > is limited or partially-limited access. Even though it violates
> > interstate numbering convention, how about renumbering it as I-58. >
> US-58 is one of the longest U.S. highways that is totally within one
> state. But I would want it to be upgraded to full Interstate
> standards before designating it as an Interstate. If the portion from > I-64 in Chesapeake to I-85 at South Hill were upgraded to full
> Interstate standards, then that could become I-58.
Doesn't US-58 now end in Tennessee at Cumberland Gap Tunnel?
(old thread). Interestingly, US-58 used to go into Tennessee (eb lanes
only?) when it was originally routed into central Bristol. Does anyone
know when VDOT rerouted US-58 onto I-81 and out of Bristol?
Also, it appears that US-58 will be routed across (or partially across,
eb lanes again) the North Carolina border when the US-58/US-29 bypass is
completed around Danville, Virginia.
I also agree that US-58 (or any road) must be upgraded to interstate
standards, or at least full limited access.
H.B. Elkins
Hannaman <hann...@leaelliott.com> wrote:
>Doesn't US-58 now end in Tennessee at Cumberland Gap Tunnel?
>(old thread). Interestingly, US-58 used to go into Tennessee (eb lanes
>only?) when it was originally routed into central Bristol. Does anyone
>know when VDOT rerouted US-58 onto I-81 and out of Bristol?
To answer the first question, the answer is yes. US 58 has dipped into
Tennessee at Cumberland Gap for several years now. Since the tunnel
(US 25E) was opened last year, it extends even further into Tennessee.
Concerning Bristol, I don't know if US 58 ever did anything more than
just brush the border. Heading east, it was multiplexed with US 421
all the way to the junction with US 11W. At that point, I presume US
421 used to continue straight ahead on State Street, while US 58
turned left to be multiplexed with US 11W (soon to become US 11) and
eventually US 19. US 11, 19 and 58 were multiplexed to Abingdon. I
don't know if US 58 was ever routed along State Street. If it was,
however, only the EB lane would have been in Tennessee.
I also don't know when US 58 was multiplexed onto I-81, nor when US
421 was routed off of State Street. Apparently US 421 was routed off
of State Street long before Virginia abandoned cutout shields.
I have a photo of the split of US 11 into US 11E and 11W, and the
intersection of US 19 and 421, and VA 381, on my Web site. These
markers are the old cutout shield variety, and there's no mention of
US 58. Apparently those markers were taken down when 58 was rerouted
onto I-81, but VaDOT never saw fit to replace the old cutout shields
with new route markers.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
H.B. Elkins -- Winchester, KY
"You must have the courage to believe the truth!" -- Rush H. Limbaugh III
Kentucky Wildcats Basketball & #3 Dale Earnhardt -- A Championship Combination
mailto:hbel...@mis.net <or> mailto:HB...@aol.com
(Say "nyet" to spam! Please note: there is a spam-buster in my reply-to address.
To reply by E-mail,use one of the addresses above)
http://www.users.mis.net/~hbelkins (last updated 1/14/987)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
David Sturm
In article <34c4be85...@news.zippo.com>, hbel...@mis.nyet says...
>...
>turned left to be multiplexed with US 11W (soon to become US 11) and
>eventually US 19. US 11, 19 and 58 were multiplexed to Abingdon. I
HB, are you reporting that US 11W is soon to become US 11? I've always
been interested to hear when TN, KY, and VA might finally meet the
AAHSTO recommendations, and lose the 11, 70, 25 and 19 splits.