Virginia State Highways (in development)

[Jim]

The usava system was developed for the old CHM but never made it into the system.  It's in Travel Mapping now as an in-development system.  It had already been subject to some peer review, so hopefully this one won't need a ton of work.

Note: the following routes exist wholly or in part in usansf, so are temporarily not part of usava in the TM DB:

va.va027
va.va037
va.va076
va.va110
va.va146
va.va150
va.va164
va.va195
va.va199
va.va267
va.va288
va.va895

[oscar]

Just taking a quick look at this, it looks like usava has benefited greatly by Mapmikey's earlier review, such as including only signed wyes and excluding the many more that aren't signed.

A couple minor early comments:

-- For VA124, SprRunPkwy => SpoRunPkwy

-- I would be comfortable not breaking up VA 31 at its ferry crossing (AFAIK, only one on a Virginia state route), though I have no objection to keeping VA 31 as is, and more generally favor leaving the treatment of short ferry crossings up to the relevant team member. usaca has a few routes which have not yet been broken up by their ferry crossings, and I would be inclined to leave those routes unbroken. But as I noted in the Alaska State Highways topic, I don't feel that way about the 2-10 hour-long crossings linking up the four AK 7 segments.

-- EDIT: The south end of VA 166 may have changed, with its former intersection with US 17 closed now that both directions of US 17 traffic have been rerouted to what will be the northbound span of a new high-level bridge over the Elizabeth River. VA 166 was at least temporarily barricaded off at the marina entrance a few hundred feet north of the bridge, but pavement continues beyond that point. There was no End signage at the marina entrance, so I don't know if the new route end is there or will be somewhere else south of the barricade. VA 166 signage remains west of the Dominion Blvd. intersection, so the route seems to go at least as far as the marina.

[Mapmikey]

Dave's philosophy was to include any state route that was signed with an actual shield and was in 1 or 2 segments at most, so that is why the 3xx routes that are included are there.

Routes that are not posted at all from the normal system (e.g. VA 113, VA 213) were not included. 

3xx and wye routes that are posted solely in white rectangles (even if in a single segment) were not included.    I would argue that maybe these should be included at some point as they are clearly signed, even if not in a shield.

I spot checked some changes I knew had occurred since I reviewed Dave's data and he had updated the VA 172 extension and the creation of VA 280.  I added VA 281.  There really shouldn't be too much requiring update...

Mike

[rickmastfan67]

I kinda wish VA would repost VA-381 from the end of I-381 to US-11/19/421 at least.

[mapcat]

What's the difference between VA 7 Fwy and the equaivalent portion of VA 7? Seems like the segments and waypoints all match up exactly.

[Mapmikey]

What's the difference between VA 7 Fwy and the equaivalent portion of VA 7? Seems like the segments and waypoints all match up exactly.

VA 7 extends 20 miles in each direction from the endpoints of the VA7fwy listing...

Mike

[74/171FAN]

Is the VA 286 file basically the same as the SR 7100 file duplicated?  Obviously there is no point in keeping both since SR 7100 is now VA 286.

[mapcat]

What's the difference between VA 7 Fwy and the equaivalent portion of VA 7? Seems like the segments and waypoints all match up exactly.

VA 7 extends 20 miles in each direction from the endpoints of the VA7fwy listing...

That was my point. Why is there a separtate VA 7 Freeway listing? I've never noticed that roads in other states that have a freeway segment and a non-freeway segment.

[Jim]

The VA state routes that were included in the usansf system (already active) should all have been expanded to their entirety as part of usava, and will be removed from usansf when usava is activated.

[mapcat]

The VA state routes that were included in the usansf system (already active) should all have been expanded to their entirety as part of usava, and will be removed from usansf when usava is activated.

OK, thanks. Eric had expanded the similar roads in Texas before posting the list, so the discrepancy seemed worth pointing out here.

[74/171FAN]

Looking through, I have noticed that the VA 46 Truck for Lawrenceville is for some reason marked as Lawrenceburg. 

[Jim]

Looking through, I have noticed that the VA 46 Truck for Lawrenceville is for some reason marked as Lawrenceburg.

Thanks - will be fixed in the next update.

[froggie]

-- EDIT: The south end of VA 166 may have changed, with its former intersection with US 17 closed now that both directions of US 17 traffic have been rerouted to what will be the northbound span of a new high-level bridge over the Elizabeth River. VA 166 was at least temporarily barricaded off at the marina entrance a few hundred feet north of the bridge, but pavement continues beyond that point. There was no End signage at the marina entrance, so I don't know if the new route end is there or will be somewhere else south of the barricade. VA 166 signage remains west of the Dominion Blvd. intersection, so the route seems to go at least as far as the marina.

I can speak to this.  Once the new Steel Bridge project is completed, VA 166 will be rerouted to end at the upcoming Bainbridge Blvd/Dominion Lakes Blvd interchange on 17 located generally here.  This interchange site was part of the Hampton Roads meet tour I gave before I retired last year.

[froggie]

I've begun a peer review of the Virginia route entries.  This will probably take some time given the number of routes involved.

[Jim]

Following the usual practice, the VA state routes in usansf that are partial versions of the routes now in usava should be expanded to their full lengths (following a quick review of those routes).  Once usava is activated, they'd move permanently to usava and be removed from usansf.

[74/171FAN]

I've begun a peer review of the Virginia route entries.  This will probably take some time given the number of routes involved.

A few weeks ago, I went ahead and made a separate text file for these entries.  Outside of the Lawrenceville example above, I was unsure if I should  state anything about waypoints, etc. because I did not want to seem too nitpicky.

[yakra]

Following the usual practice, the VA state routes in usansf that are partial versions of the routes now in usava should be expanded to their full lengths (following a quick review of those routes).  Once usava is activated, they'd move permanently to usava and be removed from usansf.

Should we follow the Texas precedent, and expand them while they're still in usansf?

[Jim]

Following the usual practice, the VA state routes in usansf that are partial versions of the routes now in usava should be expanded to their full lengths (following a quick review of those routes).  Once usava is activated, they'd move permanently to usava and be removed from usansf.

Should we follow the Texas precedent, and expand them while they're still in usansf?

I think that makes the most sense.

[yakra]

I can have a look (maybe) Saturday. Unless someone else gets to it first.

[mapcat]

I'd like to request that the shaping point on VA13 slightly west of Mann Rd in Powhatan be changed to a waypoint right at Mann Rd. It's the main access to the Powhatan town center from the west.

Also, one for SR609 on VA106, since there's a waypoint on VA10 at the other end of SR609.

[froggie]

I'm still working on my peer review, but there are a couple items I'd like to address:

- There are two routes currently listed as bannered US routes that are actually bannered Virginia state routes.  They are ALT 220 Roanoke, and ALT 258 Smithfield.

- There are four routes that are signed with shields but are not included in the draft system.  I'm curious as to why they were omitted.  They are VA 314, VA 319, VA 341, and VA 357.

[Mapmikey]

Had I drafted the set I would've included 341 and 357 as they can be done in two segments.  314 and 319 have multiple segments although i could probably create a logical path that encompasses a fair representation of those routes.  I gave him the posting status and number of segments for all the 3xx routes and he chose the ones posted in a full shield and were 1 or 2 segments.

I would've also done the 1 or 2 segment 3xx routes that are posted in white rectangles because Virginia uses those for all kinds of primary routes including US routes.

I have no problem changing 220 ALT and 258 ALT back to the state routes which they are.  My guess is that whoever did the US routes in Virginia made them US routes because they are posted that way.

Mike

[rickmastfan67]

I think we should leave them as US routes, especially the 220 in Roanoke since it's signed as such.  But that's just my opinion.

[Mapmikey]

VA 258 ALT was mostly posted as VA 258 ALT in 1991 and is now exclusively posted as US 258 ALT.  VA 220 ALT has been posted as US 220 ALT as far back as I can remember.

All VDOT maps and documents refer to them as state highways, which is how they were designated by the CTB.  They have never been submitted to AASHTO (nor would 258 ALT make sense to be as there is a 258 Bus and Byp there).  US 220 ALT should be a rerouted US 460 anyway...but I digress.

To me it would be like putting NY 11A into the US route system if they posted all the 11A signs as erroneous US 11A signs.  If I were drafting the set from scratch I would've put them in the state highway system...

Mike

[oscar]

All VDOT maps and documents refer to them as state highways, which is how they were designated by the CTB.  They have never been submitted to AASHTO (nor would 258 ALT make sense to be as there is a 258 Bus and Byp there).

How good is VDOT about getting AASHTO approval for auxiliary US routes? Some states seem not to bother.

I, too, would leave them as auxiliary US routes as they're posted and in the HB, even if they technically shouldn't have been. Unless you're convinced that the US route signage is just an isolated sign-o, like the one I've seen on VA 311.

Had I drafted the set I would've included 341 and 357 as they can be done in two segments.  314 and 319 have multiple segments although i could probably create a logical path that encompasses a fair representation of those routes.  I gave him the posting status and number of segments for all the 3xx routes and he chose the ones posted in a full shield and were 1 or 2 segments.

How many segments of those routes (all of which are within state facilities, or correcting them to other primary highways) are posted with standard route markers (not just smaller white rectangles)? ISTM, from your site, that all those routes have at least one fully-posted segment, even if the branches technically assigned to those routes aren't. Normal practice is to include signed segments no matter how many, and ignore the unsigned ones (for example, MD 800). That seems to have been done for VA 321, which seems to include multiple roads on the College of William & Mary campus, but the draft HB has only the one segment starting off-campus. For an example where branches were included, look at UT 282 (main route looping through the U. of Utah campus, with two branch routes in separate route files).

I would've also done the 1 or 2 segment 3xx routes that are posted in white rectangles because Virginia uses those for all kinds of primary routes including US routes.

FWIW, Hawaii has some state routes, like HI 901 and HI 5600, with number signage limited to small number plates under milemarkers (smaller than the Virginia white rectangles). Tim told me to treat them all as unsigned. I'm disinclined to change that, because the signed/unsigned (or barely signed) distinction helps weed out minor routes in a state like Hawaii, Maryland, or (apparently) Virginia that feels compelled to slap a route number on every road it maintains.

EDIT:  On a completely separate topic, what about adding VA 228 Truck in Herndon? Your website notes a well-posted VA 228 Truck, which loops around downtown Herndon, onto which the town would like VA 228 rerouted.