I-264 CORRIDOR EVALUATION STUDY September 7, 2016 Eric Stringfield - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

I-264 CORRIDOR EVALUATION STUDY

September 7, 2016 Eric Stringfield VDOT Planning Director Chris Lawrence AECOM Senior Transportation Engineer

Study Overview Interchange Locations

Study Context

Follow-up to I-264 Corridor Study (2006) Planning Level Study

• Not based on survey data
• Preliminary cost estimates in 2015 dollars

Study Purpose …to identify appropriate improvements to the facility to adequately accommodate forecasted mainline freeway traffic

• volumes. Once adopted, the plan for improvements to the I-264

freeway lanes will serve as a guide in the design of improvements to the interstate.

Improvements Context

FHWA Conditions on Acceptance of Expressway into Federal Interstate System as I-264

• Improvements will bring existing roadway into compliance

with current standards

• Mainline lanes are 11.5’ in width vs. 12.0’ in width
• Narrow shoulders
• Bridge clearance
• Ramp design speeds
• I-64 Capacity Widening
• Add lane or temporary shoulder lane use in each direction
• n I-264 from Northampton Boulevard to Indian River Road

Network Context

For analysis, the network has been modified to add:

• Improvement associated with I-64/I-264

widening WB I-64 to EB I-264

• Construction starting FY 2017
• HRTAC Funded
• Extends to Witchduck Road
• Relocation of Greenwich Road over I-264
• Virginia Beach SGA Recommendations
• Extension from Bonney Rd to Virginia Beach

Blvd over I-264 (CBD/Pembroke SGA)

• Extension of Sentara Way to Bonney Rd

(Rosemont SGA)

Main Lane Line Improvement Configuration

Main Line Lane Configuration

Military Highway

• Preferred alternative considered future

potential LRT access

• Weave segments are removed
• Principal deficiencies involve roadway

geometry

• Cost $ 152.6M

I-64

• Accommodates HOV lane extensions
• n I-264
• Addresses EB and WB congestion

coming from Virginia Beach

• Can be implemented in stand-alone

phases

• Will require added lanes on I-64

during peak periods

• Cost $ 466.9M

Newtown Road

• I-264 widening included
• I-64/I-264 (HRTAC) associated

improvements address deficiencies related to eastbound traffic flow

• Westbound improvement routes all

traffic from Newtown to loop ramp, removing weave with I-64 on-ramp

• Cost $229.1M

Witchduck Road

• I-264 widening included
• I-64/I-264 (HRTAC) associated

improvements address deficiencies related to eastbound traffic flow

• Westbound on and off ramps

will function adequately with Witchduck Road widened to 6 lanes.

• Improvements will not impact

LRT extension

• Cost $361.4M

Independence Boulevard

• NB Independence to EB &

WB I-264 free-flow movement

• WB Slip ramp access to EB

Bonney Road

• Removes weave movements
• Does not address congestion

at EB off-ramp merge with SB Independence

• Cost: $465.6M

Freeway Widening Independence-Rosemont

Widen to 6 lanes (HOV+5) Cost $ 276.8M

Rosemont Road

• Tight Diverging Diamond
• Add Sentara Way connection over I-264 per SGA Plan
• Close Bonney Road intersection
• Rosemont widened to 6 lanes in CLRP
• Cost $459.1M

Laskin Road & Lynnhaven Parkway

• Lynnhaven Parkway not included in

study

• Prior planning produced preferred

improvement alternative

• Ramps to and from South Great

Neck Road were considered Phase 1

• f plan implementation

First Colonial Road

• SPUI (Single Point Urban

Interchange)

• First Colonial Widened to 6 Lanes
• Combines 2 traffic signals to 1
• Removes substandard ramp

configuration in SE quadrant

• Cost: $75.2M

Parks Avenue & Birdneck Road

• Parks Avenue no improvements

needed

• Birdneck Road minor modification

by City in association with Arena

Summary of Alternatives

Summary of Study Key Findings

• No freeway widening needed east of Rosemont Road
• No interchange improvements needed at:
• Parks Avenue
• Birdneck Road
• Laskin Road
• Improvements only to Westbound movements at:
• Witchduck Road
• Newtown Road
• Improvements at Rosemont and at First Colonial predicated on widening of

arterial to 6 lanes, and Rosemont includes Sentara Way extension.

• Independence Boulevard improvements remove weaves and provide for

direct movement from northbound Independence to westbound I-264.

• I-64 interchange addresses most severe deficiencies and can be

implemented in stand-alone phases.

Next Steps

• Individual improvement projects would need to be in CLRP, with identified

funding sources and will require approval from FHWA.

• A typical outline of tasks:
• Interchange Modification Report (Required by FHWA & VDOT)
• Analysis of alternatives
• Impact assessment
• Cost Estimates
• Environmental Document
• Public involvement opportunity
• Preliminary Engineering
• Public Hearing
• HRTAC funds scheduled for Agenda discussion in September 2016
• PE I-64 / I-264 Interchange ($10 Million)

I-264 CORRIDOR EVALUATION STUDY

September 7, 2016 Eric Stringfield Planning Director Chris Lawrence AECOM Senior Transportation Engineer