I. INTRODUCTION

I-264 Corridor Evaluation Study July 2016

Final Report

Norfolk & Virginia Beach, Virginia Page I-1

I. INTRODUCTION

Interstate Route 264 (I-264) was originally designed to serve as the principal radial freeway spur

connecting the circumferential path of I-64 with the urban core of south side Hampton Roads.

While it has served as the main roadway facility for motorists accessing downtown Norfolk and

Portsmouth, its highest volumes do not occur within the circumference of I-64. Instead, the most

heavily traveled segment is located on a spur extending into the City of Virginia Beach that until

1999 was not part of the interstate freeway system.

I.1 History

From its interchange with I-64/I-664 in Chesapeake on the west end, I-264 provides high-

speed, limited access service for 25 miles to the freeway terminus to the east at Parks

Avenue in the Virginia Beach resort area. For this specific study the analysis focused on the

segments from the Military Highway interchange (Exit 13) in Norfolk to the freeway terminus

to the east at Parks Avenue - a distance of approximately 13 miles. (See Figure I.1: Study

Area). Between the interchange with I-64 (Exit 14) and Newtown Road (Exit 15) to the east,

I-264 carries the heaviest daily volume on any roadway in Hampton Roads. In contrast, its

easternmost segment - from First Colonial Road (Exit 21) to the eastern terminus - carries

relatively low volumes that move directly to and from a local street system that provides direct

driveway access to numerous residential and commercial parcels. Between these two

functional extremes, the freeway accommodates motorists at ten interchange locations.

I-264 was originally named the Virginia Beach-Norfolk Expressway. Numbered as Virginia

Route 44, roadway construction east of the Newtown Road interchange was financed through

bonds backed by toll revenue. It was opened in 1967 as a four-lane limited access highway,

and motorists were charged a mainline toll of 25 cents or an interchange toll of 10 cents.

Propelled by rapid residential and commercial suburban development during the 1970s and

1980s in the City of Virginia Beach, Route 44 volumes and revenues outpaced forecasted

levels, and by the 1980s it was undergoing improvements including a widening to six lanes

and the installation of an additional interchange at First Colonial Road. Traffic volume and toll

revenue growth continued into the early 1990s, when the roadway was widened to its current

width of eight lanes to the west and six lanes to the east of First Colonial Road. With the

revenue reserve exceeding the outstanding debt, the bonds were redeemed and the tolls were

removed in 1995.

High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) restrictions were brought to Route 44 in the early 1990's. HOV

restrictions became a permanent part of the roadway. However, the shoulder lane was

improved and designated to accommodate volumes during the periods when HOV restrictions

were in force. As a result, the roadway provides eight lanes to conventional traffic volumes at

all times in addition to the directional, concurrent flow HOV lanes during peak hours. With the

addition of direct access to the reversible flow HOV lanes on I-64 to the west in Norfolk, Route

44 was fully integrated into the Hampton Roads freeway system. In 1999, it was accepted

into the federal interstate highway system as an extension of I-264.

I.2 Function

I-264 still functions to meet its two original purposes: a direct access route for tourists to the

resort area of Virginia Beach and a high volume access route to employment centers for

commuters. Since 1967, the characteristics of the former have changed only in magnitude

while those of the latter have evolved with changing economic and cultural patterns. The only

two major employment centers in southside Hampton Roads in 1967 were the Norfolk Naval

Station complex and the downtown areas of Norfolk and Portsmouth (including the Norfolk

Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth). By 2002, these two centers were joined by several others,

most of which were located in the suburban areas of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach. The

movement of economic activity to suburban settings included the retail commercial sector with

the opening of major retail centers. All the major centers in Virginia Beach were located in

close proximity to an interchange on I-264.

The changing landscape along the corridor produced commensurate changes in the magnitude

and patterns of vehicle trips. The addition of commercial, institutional and freight traffic to the

heavy number of commuter vehicles by the year 2014 produced daily volumes approaching a

quarter of a million vehicles at the Newtown Road interchange. Since I-264 opened in 1967,

the number of lanes on it has doubled while the volume of vehicles has increased more than

tenfold. Moreover, while the direction of peak flows remains westbound in the morning and

eastbound in the afternoon, the contraflow volume has steadily increased in both numbers and

proportion. On both eastbound and westbound oriented ramps, peak hour traffic at

interchanges has increased to where congestion is a daily occurrence. The most severe

congestion occurs at the following five interchanges: I-64, Witchduck Road, Independence

Boulevard, Rosemont Road and Lynnhaven Parkway.

I.3 Enhanced Resources for Funding Improvements

In 2013, a transportation funding package entitled “Virginia’s Road to the Future.” was signed

into law. HB2313 (2013 Virginia Acts of Assembly, Chapter 678) included statewide and

regional funding mechanisms to help address Virginia’s transportation funding shortfalls. The

regional provisions impose certain state taxes in the localities comprising Planning District 23,

establishing two new revenue streams for transportation in Hampton Roads deposited into a

newly established Hampton Roads Transportation Fund (HRTF) effective July 1, 2013.

Effective July 1, 2014, HB1253/SB513 amended the section of the Code of Virginia regarding

the HRTF and created the Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission (HRTAC)

to manage the HRTF revenues for Hampton Roads. The Commission is responsible for

determining how the new regional money will be invested in transportation projects in

Hampton Roads.

HRTAC Guidebook: Updated July 2015. Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission.

I-264 Corridor Evaluation Study July 2016

Final Report

Norfolk & Virginia Beach, Virginia Page I-2

Note: Daily traffic volumes are presented for informational purposes only. Analysis has been

conducted using peak hour volumes, which are documented later in this report.

VDOT is the source of the Annual Average Daily Traffic volumes (AADT).

I-264 Corridor Evaluation Study July 2016

Final Report

Norfolk & Virginia Beach, Virginia Page I-3

I.3.1 Hampton Roads Transportation Fund (HRTF) Revenue

In addition to the HB2313 taxes and fees imposed statewide, the HRTF revenues are estimated

generate an additional $170 million on average annually for transportation projects in Hampton

Roads through a dedicated gas tax and an increase in the regional sales tax. As provided for in

the legislation (§ 33.1-23.5:4.), which states: “The moneys deposited in the Fund [HRTF] shall

be used solely for new construction projects on new or existing highways, bridges, and tunnels

in the localities comprising Planning District 23, as approved by the Hampton Roads

Transportation Accountability Commission. The Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability

Commission shall give priority to those projects that are expected to provide the greatest

impact on reducing congestion for the greatest number of citizens residing within Planning

District 23 and shall ensure that the moneys shall be used for such construction projects.”

HRTF revenues are derived from an additional 0.7% sales and use tax, as well as an additional

2.1% sales tax on motor fuel in the subject 14 Hampton Roads localities:

• Additional Sales Tax Increase: The sales tax in Hampton Roads increased an

additional 0.7% on top of the 0.3% statewide increase, bringing the total sales tax

on purchases made in Hampton Roads to 6%.

• Additional Fuels Tax: The wholesale tax on motor fuels was boosted by an

additional 2.1% beyond the statewide level for Hampton Roads.

I.3.2 Candidate Projects

While HRTAC is responsible for managing HRTF revenues, the development of candidate

projects to which these funds can be allocated is assigned to the Hampton Roads

Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO), the regional metropolitan planning organization

(MPO) for transportation planning. During the September 19, 2013 meeting, the HRTPO Board

approved a resolution endorsing the identification of Fund revenue to fund regionally

significant projects. In addition, the HRTPO Board directed the HRTPO staff to develop a list of

HRTF candidate projects.

Starting with projects included in the 2034 Long-Range Transportation Plan, the list of

candidate project was developed using the following criteria:

a. Regionally Funded Construction Projects

b. Ongoing Studies

c. Unfunded Projects for Future Consideration

d. Eligible for funding under the provisions of HB2313

e. Minimum project cost threshold = $100 million

The resulting HRTF Candidate Projects were:

• I-64 Peninsula Widening (6-Lane Option): Three segments from Jefferson Avenue

(Exit 255 west to Route 199 West of Williamsburg (exit 234).

• Hampton Roads Multi Modal Third Crossing: Widening of I-664, and construction of

the Craney Island Connector and Patriots Crossing.

• I-64 Southside Widening, I-464 to I-664 at Bowers Hill, including the High Rise Bridge.

• I-64/I-264 Interchange: I-64 Westbound to I-264 Eastbound through the Witchduck

Road Interchange.

• US Route 460/58/13 Connector: I-664 at Bowers Hill to the eastern end of the Suffolk

Bypass.

For consideration in this study, the key candidate project is the I-64/I-264 Interchange, which

provides for improvements on eastbound I-264 between I-64 and Witchduck Road. These

improvements – phased in two separate projects - have been under design and right of way

acquisition. Fully funded, construction is scheduled to start on the first phase in summer of

2016. While funds for construction of the second phase (between the Newtown Road and

Witchduck Road interchanges) have not yet been programmed, they are expected, and

construction is scheduled to start later in 2016. Without the funds that have been made

available through HRTF, construction for both of these projects would likely be on hold.

I.4 Previous Studies

In 2001, VDOT executed the design contract for widening the ramp from westbound I-64 to

eastbound I-264, and the first task of this contract was to study the I-264 corridor.

Conducted in cooperation with The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the cities of

Norfolk and Virginia Beach, the study was structured to develop recommendations to ensure

that anticipated improvements at various interchanges would be implemented as part of a

coordinated corridor improvement plan. As stated in the study report:

The purpose of this study is 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.

In addition to developing recommended improvements to the mainline freeway, the corridor

study addressed improvements at several interchanges on I-264, including Newtown Road and

Witchduck Road. Improvement concepts at these two interchanges were developed to

address existing and forecasted capacity deficiencies, as well as existing geometric deficiencies

in the eastbound direction only.

VDOT and FHWA recognized funding constraints would mandate that recommended

improvements be implemented in a phased approach. To accommodate phased

implementation, FHWA stipulated that individual improvement projects must exhibit

independent utility. That is, the improvements proposed in any individual project must - as a

stand-alone improvement - produce benefits to the motoring public.

I-264 Corridor Evaluation Study July 2016

Final Report

Norfolk & Virginia Beach, Virginia Page I-4

On November 22, 2006, FHWA accepted the

I-264 Corridor Study Final Report

. In her

communication to VDOT, FHWA Area Engineer Vanna Lewis stated:

... this will confirm that the Final Report is accepted by FHWA. As noted in your

cover letter to the Final Report (received 28th June 2006), it is expected that the

two current I-264 design projects, and any/ all future design projects on I-264

east of I-64 will be based upon (or rather, have as their “starting point”) the

conceptual design set forth in this Study.

Prior to the I

-264 Corridor Study Report (2006),

the interchange of I-64 with I-264 had been

analyzed for the purpose of extending the HOV lanes on I-264 through the interchange area.

Currently, HOV lane restrictions end prior to entering the interchange and are re-established

after passing though. The restrictions are discontinued because at three locations general-

purpose ramps merge with or diverge from the median (left) lane. Maintaining the HOV

restrictions would effectively prohibit general-purpose traffic from using these ramps. The

analysis and recommendations were documented in the report,

I-264 HOV Feasibility

Study

(VDOT, January 23, 1997).

The study recommended a three-step method for extending the HOV lanes by moving three

ramps (See Figure I.2: I-64/I-264 HOV Feasibility Study):

1. In the westbound direction, the left exiting ramp from the mainline I-264 lanes to

eastbound I-64 (Ramp D-2) is relocated to the outside Mainline I-264 lane;

2. In the eastbound direction, the left exiting ramp to westbound I-64 (Ramp D-4) is

removed and replaced with a ramp the exits from the outside eastbound I-264

mainline lanes; and,

3. In the southbound direction (eastbound I-64), relocation of the junction of the flyover

ramp with the outside eastbound I-264 mainline lanes.

These three improvements to the I-64/I-264 interchange serve as a starting point for

developing improvements to the I-264 corridor to the east.

The most recent study focused on the specific improvements programmed for the I-64/I-264

interchange. Documented in the report: I-64/I-264 Interchange Modification Report

(June 2011), the study analyzed improvement to the existing single lane ramp from

westbound I-64 to eastbound I-264 (interchange Ramp D-7). The purpose of the ramp

widening is to provide additional capacity to accommodate vehicles making this movement,

and thereby to eliminate prolonged periods of congestion and to reduce high frequency of

crashes associated with congestion. The study

(I-64/I-264 IMR

) was a more detailed analysis,

and was required by both FHWA and VDOT prior to beginning detailed design of

improvements to interstate interchanges. It should be noted that the

I-64/I-264 IMR

process

uses the

I-264 Corridor Study (2006)

as a starting point for developing improvement

alternatives. Although the final Preferred Alternative recommended in the

I-64/I-264 IMR

varied from the preferred alternative in the

I-264 Corridor Study (2006),

it did address all of

the deficiencies documented in the 2006 study, and - most importantly – the Preferred

Alternative was designed to accommodate other corridor improvement recommended in the

2006 study.

The I-264 Corridor Study

(2006) did not

analyze all movements at the I-64/I-264

interchange. No comprehensive planning level

analysis of the entire interchange had been

conducted prior to this study.

I-264 Corridor Evaluation Study July 2016

Final Report

Norfolk & Virginia Beach, Virginia Page I-5

I.5 Study Purpose

Recognizing that in addition to HRTF, additional funding for transportation improvements in

Hampton Roads may potentially become available through state funds and/or debt financing,

VDOT, in coordination with the cities of Norfolk and Virginia Beach, initiated this study to

develop a comprehensive corridor framework for future corridor improvements. While this

study has updated the roadway and interchange analysis previously in 2006, it has expanded

the boundaries from that study to include the Military Highway, First Colonial Road and

Birdneck Road interchanges. It also includes all movements at the I-64/I-264 interchange.

The purpose of this study mirrors that of the 2006 study: “…to identify appropriate

improvements to the facility to adequately accommodate forecasted traffic volumes (and)…to

serve as a guide in the design of improvements to the interstate.” However, with the potential

for additional funding through HRTAC, a second purpose of this study is to provide both VDOT

and HRTAC with costs of improvements that may be considered for programming.

While providing an overall framework for improvements to the corridor, the recommendations

set forth in this study should not be viewed as a unified, rigid set of improvements, nor should

the costs be viewed as program in need of a comprehensive financing plan.

The framework developed herein is the product of a planning level analysis. More detailed

analysis of all proposed interchange improvements (specifically, interchange modification

reports and environmental documents) must be completed before design can begin.

Moreover, this study does not address the relative priorities among the interchange

improvements. Setting such priorities will be completed as part of the regional transportation

planning and programming process.

I.6 Study Elements

Following this introduction, Section II presents the methodology for conducting the technical

analysis. Next, beginning with the Military Highway interchange, sections III-XIII document

the analysis of each interchange, describing the deficiencies to be addressed, the alternatives

to address them and the basis for the recommendation of the preferred alternative. This

report closes with Section XIV, which presents a summary of the study findings and

recommendations.

It should be noted that each interchange east of and including Military Highway was analyzed

with the exception of the Lynnhaven Parkway interchange. The Lynnhaven Parkway

interchange had been previously analyzed and a preferred improvement alternative had been

recommended and accepted by both VDOT and FHWA. Furthermore, the first phase of the

interchange improvements has been implemented with the installation of two ramps (an

eastbound I-264 off ramp and a westbound I-264 on ramp) intersecting with London Bridge

Road between Potters Road and Virginia Beach Boulevard.

Since the improvement plan for the Lynnhaven Parkway interchange had been accepted and

implementation had been initiated, it was determined that additional analysis to meet the

intent and purpose of this study was not needed. It should be noted that the proposed

improvements to the Lynnhaven Parkway interchange are depicted in graphic shown later in

this report.