1985 Major Thoroughfare Plan Summary Report
Prepared by the Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission.
[Webmaster's Note: This document, prepared by the precursor to the Hampton Roads Planning and Development Commission (HRPDC), reflects a summary of the mid-1960s plan for freeways and expressways in the southern part of the Hampton Roads area, representing Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, Portsmouth, Suffolk, and then-Nansemond County (now part of Suffolk).
This document presents a summary of the recommendations resulting from an update of the original Transportation study. The recommendations presented in this summary only cover the Southeastern Virginia Region (SEVAR). Expansion to the Southeastern Virginia Plannind District (SEVAD) will be addressed in a later update.
The recommendations herein provide guidelines for development of Highway Transportation for Southeastern Virginia. This summary is based, for the most part, on materials presented in the 1985 Major Thoroughfare Plan for Southeastern Virginia (January 1969) developed by Wilbur Smith and Associates and modifications resulting from the public hearing and extensive review by all study participants.
Since the completion of the "update" study, three (3) separate studies have been completed or are in advanced stages of conduct; each intending to provide a specific complement to these recommendations. These further studies include:
(1) The Hampton Roads Joint Transportation Study
(2) Southeastern Virginia Regional Mass Transit Study
(3) TOPICS Study for Southeastern Virginia
The Hampton Roads Joint Transportation Study recommendations resulted in a specific Addendum to the 1985 Major Thoroughfare Plan and this has been made part of this summary report. Both the Mass Transit and TOPICS studies have not been completed, however, typical recommendations of these studies are principally operational and will not materially alter the recommendation presented herein.
In summary, this plan will serve as a basis for highway development. Revisions, in the form of amendments will be offered as frequently as major changes occur.
|Table of Contents||List of Exhibits||List of Tables|
|Introduction||Exhibit I - 1985 Major Thoroughfare Plan||Table I - Functional Plans|
|Plan Development||Exhibit II - Stage Implementation Plan||Table II - Estimated Costs for Implementation Stages|
|Plan Recommendations||Exhibit III - Typical Cross Sections||Table III - Systems Mileages by Implementation Stages|
|Stage Implementation||Exhibit IV - Map Key (to Plan Sheets)||Table IV - Recommended Design Standards|
|Design Criteria||Exhibit V - XV Plan Sheets (1" = 6400' scale)||Table V - Capacity Criteria - Limited Access Facilities|
|Concluding Remarks||Table VI - Capacity Criteria - Thoroughfares|
|Table VII - Freeways and Expressways|
|Table VIII - Major Thoroughfares - Chesapeake|
|Table IX - Major Thoroughfares - Norfolk|
|Table X - Major Thoroughfares - Portsmouth|
|Table XI - Major Thoroughfares - Nansemond County|
|Table XII - Major Thoroughfares - Suffolk|
|Table XIII - Major Thoroughfares - Virginia Beach|
In 1961, the Southeastern Virginia Regional Planning Commission, in cooperation with its member jurisdictions, the Virginia Department of Highways, and the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Bureau of Public Roads, undertook a Highway Transportation Study to determine the 1980 highway needs and develop a 1980 Highway Plan for the Southeastern Virginia Region. The 1961-initiated Highway Transportation Study was formally reported in three documents as follows:
Volume I - Current and Projected Travel Patterns
Volume II - Highway transportation Plan and Implementation Program
Volume III - Origin-Destination Survey and Statistical Data
The Highway Transportation Plan and Implementation Program (Volume II) reports the recommendations of the Study and the remaining documents provided the supporting data.
Prior to the completion of this Study, the Congress of the United States passed legislation under the general title of the 1962 Federal Aid Highway Act. In essence, the Act mandated the conduct of Urban Transportation Planning Studies and further noted that such studies be conducted on a comprehensive, cooperative, and continuing basis.
Study conduct on a continuing basis involves the annual surveillance and documentation of input parameters and the periodic re-evaluation of the plan to measure its adequacy in satisfying the changing needs of the Region. Based on these measures, the aforesaid agencies undertook the development of an Update Plan -- the 1985 Major Thoroughfare Plan -- to reflect changes and modifications that would be correlated to changes in development and socio-economic measures.
The published study report entitled "1985 Major Thoroughfare Plan" as developed by Wilbur Smith and Associates in cooperation with the local jurisdictions and the Virginia Department of Highways, like the original study, provides guidelines for a Regional Highway Plan and regional highway development. Recognizable limitations regarding the array of alternatives tested, the detailed communication of local inputs, and the flux of local development and development parameters necessitate continual modification and re-evaluation to reflect these and similar considerations. Development dynamics dictate the re-examination of highway plans on a continual basis. The plan presented here represents a "bench mark" to be considered optimum at a given point in time.
Even during the course of the re-evaluation of a given plan, there are many changes attendant to a rapidly growing metropolitan area. These changes are demonstrated by the way of accelerated development or more likely, changes in public policies. The "process" will adequately reflect such changes as they are brought to the front. The "process" recognizes that changes and modifications to the recommended plan continually occur and must be appropriately included to make it more congruent with current local insights, policies, and goals. It is, however, recognized that the general guidelines presented by a plan contend to provide flexibility and permit alternate solutions to be considered and consequently will not be materially changed over short periods of time.
The recommended transportation plan for the Southeastern Virginia Regional Area was developed from extensive study and re-evaluation of alternate networks. Analysis of the networks was based on 1985 traffic demands. The 1985 traffic demands and consequently the recommendations contained in the plan were based on the needs developed from an analysis of growth estimates and land use projections for the study area. In addition to consideration of such factors as traffic service levels, design criteria, and implementation cost, an appraisal was made of the overall effect on community planning goals and objectives.
Implied in the plan is the fact that a sound highway transportation plan for a rapidly growing area requires the maximum utilization of existing streets and highways. Provision for improvements and new facilities was oriented to travel corridors now experiencing capacity deficiencies and those corridors with an anticipated traffic overload.
In developing the transportation plan for the Southeastern Virginia Regional Area, four trial networks were tested and analyzed. The 1980 plan recommendations from the previous study served as a base for each of the trial networks. In preparing the trial networks, consideration was given to major road projects that had been completed since the 1980 plan and other facilities proposed by either the Virginia Department of Highways or the local governments. The recommended plan was developed after careful study of the trial networks and network impacts.
As previously emphasized, the highway transportation plan needed in the Southeastern Virginia Regional Area, to accommodate 1985 traffic volume levels, was developed through the system analysis approach and the testing of trial networks. The recommended plan, shown in exhibit I (overall) and Exhibits V through XV is basically the 1980 plan updated by the plan development procedure. A more detailed description of the elements of the plan is shown in Tables VII through XIII.
Elements of the Plan
As indicated on the exhibits, the recommended transportation plan consists of limited access facilities (freeways and expressways) and major thoroughfares (arterial routes). This is in conformance with the original classification system established for the 1980 plan.
Freeways within the recommended plan consist of Interstate Routes 64, 264 (Norfolk), 264 (Portsmouth), 464, and 564. Each of these routes is either open to traffic, under construction, or programmed for implementation by the Department of Highways.
Other recommended new facilities to be developed with controlled access included:
[Webmaster's Note: The original report only listed the names of the other facilities recommended. The following table, developed by the webmaster, lists the name of the facility, a rough location, and the disposition of each proposal.]
|Proposed Facility||Rough Location||Disposition|
|Innerbelt Freeway (Metropolitan Loop)||Roughly 2-3 mile radius loop around downtown Norfolk||Portion of Martin Luther King Freeway in Portsmouth constructed. Extension of MLK Freeway to I-264 proposed. Remainder never built.|
|Western Freeway||From M.L.K. Freeway at Pinners Point west to U.S. 17 west of Churchland.||Constructed as VA 164 from Port Norfolk west to US 17. Pinners Point Interchange with M.L.K. Freeway under construction.|
|Tidewater Freeway (includes North Suffolk Bypass)||Along US 58 from west of Suffolk to Bowers Hill||Suffolk North Bypass constructed as 4-lane freeway. 6-lane expressway constructed from Suffolk Bypass to Bowers Hill.|
|South Suffolk Bypass||From US 58 west of Suffolk to US 13/58/460 east of Suffolk||SW portion of Bypass from US 58 to US 13/VA 32 constructed as 4-lane freeway and opened 3/19/03. SE portion unbuilt.|
|Chesapeake Bay Freeway||Along US 13/Northampton Blvd from I-64 to CBBT.||Freeway never built. Replaced by 8-lane arterial west of Diamond Springs Rd and 6-lane expressway east to Shore Dr.|
|Waterfront Drive Freeway||From I-264 at Waterside Dr to Brambleton/Hampton Blvd interchange||Freeway never built. Replaced by 4-6 lane arterials along Waterside Dr, Boush St, and Brambleton Ave.|
|Northern Connector Freeway||From proposed Metropolitan Loop near Chesapeake Blvd north to I-64 at Tidewater Dr||Never built. I-64 interchange design at Tidewater Dr suggests accommodation for this never-built freeway.|
|Bowers Hill-Belleville Connector (portion of Metro Belt)||From Bowers Hill north to proposed Western Freeway west of Churchland||Constructed as I-664.|
|Additional tubes at both Midtown Tunnel and Downtown Tunnel||At Midtown and Downtown Tunnels||Parallel Downtown Tunnel tube constructed ca. 1988-1992. Parallel Midtown Tunnel tube proposed.|
|Additional 4-lane structure paralleling existing Berkeley Bridge||At I-264 over Eastern Branch Elizabeth River||Parallel 4-lane bridge constructed ca. late 1980s.|
In addition to the freeways and expressways, the thoroughfare routes comprise the other facilities considered basic to the thoroughfare plan. These routes are also shown in Exhibits V through XV and described on a jurisdiction basis in Tables VII through XIII. Although the thoroughfares' primary function is traffic service, they also provide considerable land use service due to their non-access control features.
The updating and improvement of existing thoroughfare routes, as well as extensions developed at new facilities, enables arterial service to be coordinated with that of the freeway to provide a complete highway transportation "system" for the Southeastern Virginia Regional Area.
Addendum to the Recommended Plan
During the conduct of this study the Virginia Department of Highways requested that a substantial amount of freeway mileage in the Southeastern Virginia Regional Area be approved by the Bureau of Public Roads as an addition to the Interstate System.
The most significant segment of the proposed additions extends on a new alignment from Interstate Route 64 in the Peninsula across Hampton Roads toward a connection with Interstate Routes 64 and 264 near Bowers Hill in the Southeastern Virginia Regional Area. [Webmaster's Note: This proposal eventually became today's I-664.]
Approval of the proposed new crossing had not been received prior to the completion of this study; consequently, the new facility had not been analyzed in the original update for the 1985 Major Thoroughfare Plan.
The Hampton Roads Joint Transportation Study Committee, in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Highways, conducted a study to investigate the impact of a proposed new crossing on the recommended plans for the Southeastern Virginia and Peninsula areas. The study was to determine the feasibility of the proposed crossing and to determine the best location of such a facility.
The study, entitled "The Hampton Roads Joint Transportation Study", resulted in a general recommendation for the implementation of a new third crossing and the facility has since been approved by the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The study recommended the programming of such a facility but did not recommend a specific alignment. Further studies to delineate the specific alignment in Southeastern Virginia are currently underway.
Although the Virginia Department of Highways, in cooperation with the Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission, will undertake a major re-evaluation of the recommended Transportation Plan for the area which will properly analyze this additional crossing of Hampton Roads, the magnitude of the facility is significant enough for its inclusion in a concept sense, in this summary report. Accordingly, the facility has been shown on the appropriate exhibits.
Although the principle recommendations of the 1985 Major Thoroughfare Plan are essentially corridor recommendations, there exists a need, in several instances, to define the alignment within the corridor by development of functional plans. These functional plans provide some degree of assurance that the facility proposed within a corridor is feasible and is a basis for cost estimating more critical areas.
It should be emphasized, however, that the functional plans as presented and made part of the 1985 Major Thoroughfare Plan are only intended to be refined guidelines for the development of the proposed facilities. Modifications to these preliminary functional plans can be expected during the further engineering and design phases of final thoroughfare plan development.
A listing of the selected functional plans developed as a part of the 1985 Major Thoroughfare Plan is shown in Table I:
|City of Chesapeake||Tyre Neck Rd
Providence Rd Extension
Southern Chesapeake Bypass
Oak Grove Connector
|City of Norfolk||Northern Connector Freeway
Norview Ave Extension
Sewells Point Rd Connector
Norview Ave - I-64 Interchange
|City of Portsmouth||California Blvd (Victory Blvd Extension)|
|City of Suffolk||Carolina Ave - Fayette Ave|
|City of Virginia Beach||Plaza Trail Extended
Rosemont Rd & Virginia Beach Toll Road (interchange)
Virginia Beach Bypass
Providence - Dam Neck Rd
First Colonial Rd
Holly Rd Extended (Pacific Ave Connector)
Indian River - Courthouse Rd (Sandbridge Connector)
Great Neck Rd - First Colonial Rd Relocated
|County of Nansemond||Route 642 Extension (Wilroy Road)|
.* - Functional Plans prepared as part of the 1985 Major Thoroughfare Plan
The development of the Plan represents an initial step in formulating a sound program of highway improvements. A second phase, equally important, is the grouping of these projects into logical stages for implementation. A must to a viable program, is the flexibility for modification to the stage implementation program. This flexibility should allow modification to be made without disrupting desired goals and objectives, and yet recognize shifts in urban area demands as well as the availability of funds.
Recommended Stage Development Program
The Construction Program for the 1985 Highway Plan has been arrayed in four construction stages. It should be emphasized, however, that the proposed program may require periodic modification due to changes in the criteria employed to establish the staging program. In addition to the five criteria noted following, modification may be required to teh changing schedules for apportionment of federal, state, and local funds and/or other program particulars of the federal, state, or local governments, insofar as the particulars demonstrably warrant a change, and the change is properly attentive to the listed principal criteria to the degree possible.
Principal criteria reviewed in establishing the staging program include:
1) High priorities are assigned to improvements which
provide maximum traffic service to current traffic demands and which will
eliminate network deficiencies;
2) Individual or partial segment of the network should be usable upon completion without dependence upon total plan development;
3) Construction of segments of the system which are not completely functional, or which contribute to other problems requiring special solutions, have been avoided wherever possible;
4) Continuity of routing has been maintained in relationship to anticipated traffic demands without regard to political boundaries;
5) An attempt has been made to achieve a balanced distribution of the expenditures required in each of the four stages.
A summary of the estimated cost of the program on a stage-system-jurisdiction basis is shown in Table II.
[Webmaster's Note: I have included rough cost estimate equivalents using March 2003 dollars in Table II for comparison purposes only. Inflation for construction was estimated by using the Construction Cost Index listed in the Engineering News-Record for March, 2003, extrapolating to the 1967 "base year", and adding 100 points to account for right-of-way cost increases and stiffer environmental, relocation, and other mitigation costs. This inflation increase was estimated to be 717% for this time period.]
|Stage I||Stage II||Stage III||Stage IV||Total (1967 dollars)||Total (2003 dollars)|
|Expressways and Freeways
- All Jurisdictions
|City of Chesapeake||$15,956,000||$14,794,000||$13,555,000||$21,225,000||$65,530,000||$469,850,000|
|City of Norfolk||$12,534,000||$4,045,000||$3,660,000||$13,460,000||$33,699,000||$241,622,000|
|City of Portsmouth||$6,800,000||$9,932,000||$6,340,000||$10,990,000||$34,062,000||$244,224,000|
|City of Suffolk||$2,138,000||$1,573,000||$1,702,000||$2,861,000||$8,274,000||$59,325,000|
|City of Virginia Beach||$14,137,000||$18,094,000||$25,648,000||$31,571,000||$89,450,000||$641,356,000|
|County of Nansemond||$6,825,000||$18,135,000||$14,775,000||$16,357,000||$56,092,000||$402,180,000|
|TOTAL - All Facilities (1967 dollars)||$135,717,000||$149,958,000||$107,045,000||$176,634,000||$569,354,000||$4,082,268,000|
|TOTAL - All Facilities (2003 dollars)||$973,090,000||$1,075,199,000||$767,513,000||$1,266,466,000|
|NOTES: * - These are estimates based on 1967 unit construction cost. Presentation of the figures are for purposes of general cost magnitude and relative scale of cost.|
Table III shows a summary of mileage on the same stage-system-jurisdiction basis.
|Stage I||Stage II||Stage III||Stage IV||Total|
|Expressways and Freeways
- All Jurisdictions
|24.0 miles||10.0 miles||12.4 miles||18.7 miles||65.2 miles|
|Thoroughfares (Total)||67.9 miles||82.0 miles||87.1 miles||162.6 miles||399.6 miles|
|City of Chesapeake||18.7||27.2||12.8||37.7||96.4|
|City of Norfolk||9.4||3.8||3.0||23.0||39.2|
|City of Portsmouth||3.8||8.2||7.1||13.8||32.9|
|City of Suffolk||1.3||2.0||1.1||2.2||6.6|
|City of Virginia Beach||16.0||22.0||37.7||51.6||127.3|
|County of Nansemond||18.7||18.8||25.4||34.3||97.2|
|TOTAL - All Facilities||91.9 miles||92.0 miles||99.5 miles||181.3 miles||464.8 miles|
|NOTES: * -
All figures are rounded to one-tenth (1/10) of a mile.
* - Mileages are for portion of system proposed for improvement or new construction.
A detailed description of each project indicating its specific termini and other characteristics, in addition to the program stage, are shown in Tables VII through XIII.
The total development of the system must be practically approached on an incremental (stage) basis, each increment intending to satisfy travel demand forecasted at that point in time. The overall recommended stage development program is shown on Exhibit II. As is noted in Tables VII through XIII, several of the projects are completed or are under construction.
The design criteria used in developing the recommended Transportation Plan generally conform to the geometric design policies established by the American Association of State Highway Officials. More specifically, the criteria represent an interpretation of these policies by the Virginia Department of Highways, especially for the urban areas. Accordingly, the criteria represent guidelines under which components of the Plan should be developed.
The recommended design standards are summarized by functional classification in Table IV and are shown in Exhibit IV.
|Design Element||Limited Access Freeway (1)||Limited Access Expressway (2)||Thoroughfares (Arterials)|
|Design Speed - Outlying Area||70 MPH||60 MPH||50 MPH|
|Design Speed - Developed Area||60 MPH||50 MPH||40 MPH|
|Maximum Curviture - Outlying Area||3 degrees||5 degrees||N/A|
|Maximum Curviture - Developed Area||5 degrees||8 degrees||N/A|
|Maximum Grade - Outlying Area||3 percent||4 percent||5 percent|
|Maximum Grade - Developed Area||4 percent||5 percent||6 percent|
|Stopping Sight Distance||600/475 feet||475/350 feet||300 feet|
|Number of Through Lanes||4 minimum (2 per direction)||4 minimum (2 per direction)||2 minimum (1 per direction)|
|Desirable Minimum Lane Width||12 feet||12 feet||12 feet|
|Usable Shoulder Width - Inside (3)||4 feet||4 feet||N/A|
|Usable Shoulder Width - Outside||10 feet||10 feet||As required|
|Curb and Gutter||As required||As required||As required|
|Sidewalk||N/A||As required||Both sides|
|Right-of-Way Width (minimum)||200 feet||120 feet||70 feet|
|Structure Width - Under 250 Feet||Pavement + 11.5 feet right + 6 feet left||Pavement + 4 feet + sidewalk|
|Structure Width -Over 250 Feet||Pavement + 5 feet right + 5 feet left||Pavement + 4 feet + sidewalk|
|Structure Design Load||H20 - S16||H20 - S16||H20 - S16|
|Vertical Clearance||16.5 feet||16.5 feet||16.5 feet|
|NOTES: (1) Freeway:
Divided roadway with full control of access.
(2) Expressway: Divided roadway with partial control of access.
(3) When used in lieu of curb and gutter.
The Capacity Criteria associated with various design sections is presented in Tables V and VI.
Vehicles Per Hour
Vehicles Per Day
Type of Facility
|Direction of Heaviest Flow||Total Roadway||Total Roadway|
|4-lane Urban Expressway (1)||1,400 - 1,800||2,300 - 3,000||21,000 - 28,000|
|6-lane Urban Expressway||2,100 - 2,800||3,500 - 4,600||32,000 - 42,000|
|4-lane Urban Freeway (2)||2,600 - 3,000||4,300 - 5,000||43,000 - 50,000|
|6-lane Urban Freeway||2,900 - 4,500||6,500 - 7,500||65,000 - 75,000|
|(1) Expressway: Divided roadway
with partial control of access.
(2) Freeway: Divided roadway with full control of access.
|NOTES: * - Capacities are
based on the following traffic flow characteristics: 10 percent of
total ADT in peak hour; 55-60 percent of peak-hour traffic in direction of
heaviest flow; 10 percent commercial vehicles; operating speed 40-60 MPH; 65
percent green signal time for expressways. Freeways provide continuous
* - These values were developed from the Highway Capacity Manual, Highway Research Board, Special Report 87, 1965.
[Webmaster's Note: Modern-day capacities, based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, are approximately 2,200 vehicles per lane per hour for freeways, and approximately 1,900 vehicles per lane per hour on expressways, excluding green time and intersection considerations.]
Capacity Criteria - Thoroughfares (Arterials)
|Vehicles Per Day (1)|
|Two-way Street||One-way Street|
|Surface Width (feet)||With Parking||No Parking||Parking on Both Sides||Parking on One Side||No Parking|
|20-24||N/A||4,900 - 6,100||N/A||4,300 - 5,800||7,600 - 9,200|
|26-30||N/A||6,800 - 8,100||4,300 - 5,900||6,500 - 8,100||10,000 - 11,600|
|32-36||7,100||8,700 - 9,900||6,700 - 8,200||8,800 - 10,300||12,400 - 14,000|
|38-42||7,500 - 8,300||10,500 - 11,600||9,000 - 10,400||11,100 - 12,500||14,800 - 16,400|
|44-48||8,700 - 9,500||12,000 - 13,000||11,100 - 12,500||13,300 - 14,700||17,300 - 18,800|
|50-54||9,900 - 10,700||13,800 - 14,900||13,300 - 14,700||15,400 - 16,800||19,600 - 21,300|
|56-60||11,000 - 11,800||15,400 - 16,600||N/A||N/A||N/A|
|62-66||12,200 - 13,000||17,100 - 18,200||N/A||N/A||N/A|
|68-72||13,400 - 14,200||18,800 - 19,900||N/A||N/A||N/A|
|(1) - Values represent intersection capacities in the central business district. Increase values by 25 percent for two-way streets and 20 percent for one-way streets in areas outside the CBD.|
|NOTES: * -
Above values are based on the following average conditions: Peak-Hour
Factor = 0.85; Load Factor = 0.3; Peak-Hour = 10 percent of ADT;
Directional Distribution = 60/40; Left Turns = 10 percent; Right Turns = 10
percent; Commercial Traffic = 10 percent; Signal Green Time = 50 percent of
* - These values were developed from the Highway Capacity Manual, Highway Research Board, Special Report 87, 1965.
The recommended Transportation Plan for the Southeastern Virginia Regional Area contains highway and street facilities, capable of adequately handling the estimated traffic projected to 1985. The development and implementation of any recommendations are contingent upon the changing patterns in the area. The form and function of the area play an important role in the planning of the highway system and vice-versa. Therefore, in order to achieve the desired levels of service from the highway network and to optimize land use, it is imperative that every effort be made to effectively coordinate highway and land-use planning functions. This coordination should also complement other physical facilities such as water and sewer planning and programming other programs oriented to serve the health, safety and welfare of the people.
In addition to the joint consideration of highway planning and land use, proper attention must be given to community planning goals during the implementation stages of the plan. The disruption of neighborhoods to provide additional capacity along high intensity corridors may often prove to be unfeasible from a community values standpoint. On the other hand, the creation of "buffer roadways" between incompatible land uses may be a highly advantageous means of accomplishing harmonious land development within the community.
Total environmental design, bringing together in a complimentary fashion the engineering and the architectural planning aspects of transportation and the urban neighborhoods, should receive emphasis and encouragement from all governmental agencies as well as private enterprise. The integral design of thoroughfares with the urban framework will minimize disruption and conflict and enhance orderly development and the economical and efficient use of horizontal space. These factors, together with proper consideration for aesthetics will yield serviceable and functional facilities which are an asset to making the urban community pleasant as well as serviceable.
There are many proposed facilities within the recommended plan which are amenable to such treatment: the Inner Belt Freeway, the Waterfront Drive Freeway, the Northern Connector Freeway, portions of the Western Freeway, and the Chesapeake Bay Freeway. These can be developed using modern urban design concepts for multiple use of lands and rights-of-way.
Urban design and environmental development should be accorded foremost considerations throughout the implementation and programming of these projects. The opportunities for integral design should be thoroughly explored when land use updating and data reappraisals are made to take advantage of development potential and achievement of optimum density levels. Through such a "feedback" continuing process, the new land use opportunities could be directly translated into traffic service levels for each segment of the system. Such efforts properly pursued and continually evaluated, could result in a better transportation system complementing, rather than competing with the orderly development of land use in the region.
|Existing Width||Recommended Improvements|
|Freeway/City||Location||From||To||Length (mi)||Paved||ROW||1985 ADT (K)||# of Lanes||Paved Width||ROW Width||Program Stage|
|Inner-Belt Freeway - Portsmouth||Section 1 - Midtown Tunnel and Approaches - 4 Additional Tunnel Lanes||
|Section 2 - Interchange - Western Freeway||Page Street||0.22 mi S of Wesley St||
(note: this table will be completed as a future project)
Return to Hampton Roads Notes
Return to the Virginia Highways Project