I-73 in VA

[Beltway]

At the rate it's going, we'll probably see Interstate 87 in Virginia before we see Interstate 73 in the state.

I don't think we'll see any new interstate in VA...ever.

I-366...

I-595, I-695, I-895, I-195, I-164, I-364.  Existing highways, 102 miles. 

Whether they act on the proposals that I sent them a year ago, will have to wait and see.

[sprjus4]

At the rate it's going, we'll probably see Interstate 87 in Virginia before we see Interstate 73 in the state.

I don't think we'll see any new interstate in VA...ever.

I-366...

I-595, I-695, I-895, I-195, I-164, I-364.  Existing highways, 102 miles. 

Whether they act on the proposals that I sent them a year ago, will have to wait and see.

I think that I-164 and I-364 would just all be I-164. Currently, the route is signed as VA-164 from I-664 to I-264. If it was converted into an interstate, then it'd likely replace all VA-164 with I-164.

Also, you've mentioned in the past that the routing of that highway doesn't conform to modern interstate standards.

Lastly, I think the the comment about no new interstates in VA was referring to new long-distance 2d interstates, like I-73 or I-87. And add I-795 to your list. The Danville Bypass meets interstate standards, and once the gap is filled in NC (which is currently funded), it would bring I-795 to Virginia.

[Beltway]

I-595, I-695, I-895, I-195, I-164, I-364.  Existing highways, 102 miles. 
Whether they act on the proposals that I sent them a year ago, will have to wait and see.

I think that I-164 and I-364 would just all be I-164. Currently, the route is signed as VA-164 from I-664 to I-264. If it was converted into an interstate, then it'd likely replace all VA-164 with I-164.
Also, you've mentioned in the past that the routing of that highway doesn't conform to modern interstate standards.

No, VDOT told me that.  It meets urban Interstate standards, no less than that of I-264.

My proposal would use I-164 on the Western Freeway and then thru the 2-lane ramps of the Pinners Point Interchange that connect to the Midtown Tunnel approach highway, thru the Midtown Tunnel, and with I-164 terminating at the interchange with West Brambleton Avenue and Hampton Boulevard in downtown Norfolk.

The Martin Luther King Freeway between the Pinners Point Interchange and I-264 near downtown Portsmouth, would be designated as I-364.

[sprjus4]

I-595, I-695, I-895, I-195, I-164, I-364.  Existing highways, 102 miles. 
Whether they act on the proposals that I sent them a year ago, will have to wait and see.

I think that I-164 and I-364 would just all be I-164. Currently, the route is signed as VA-164 from I-664 to I-264. If it was converted into an interstate, then it'd likely replace all VA-164 with I-164.
Also, you've mentioned in the past that the routing of that highway doesn't conform to modern interstate standards.

No, VDOT told me that.  It meets urban Interstate standards, no less than that of I-264.

My proposal would use I-164 on the Western Freeway and then thru the 2-lane ramps of the Pinners Point Interchange that connect to the Midtown Tunnel approach highway, thru the Midtown Tunnel, and with I-164 terminating at the interchange with West Brambleton Avenue and Hampton Boulevard in downtown Norfolk.

The Martin Luther King Freeway between the Pinners Point Interchange and I-264 near downtown Portsmouth, would be designated as I-364.

I think simply routing I-164 over the existing VA-164 designation would be simpler. They already have it one continuous route labeled as an X-64, just not interstate. Why would they change everything up rather than just replace all of VA-164 with I-164? If they wanted it that way, they would've called the new MLK Freeway VA-364, but they didn't. It's VA-164.

Plus most thru traffic it seems uses VA-164 entirely from I-264 to I-664 as a bypass of Bowers Hill. Changing designations half way through wouldn't make any sense.

[Beltway]

My proposal would use I-164 on the Western Freeway and then thru the 2-lane ramps of the Pinners Point Interchange that connect to the Midtown Tunnel approach highway, thru the Midtown Tunnel, and with I-164 terminating at the interchange with West Brambleton Avenue and Hampton Boulevard in downtown Norfolk.
The Martin Luther King Freeway between the Pinners Point Interchange and I-264 near downtown Portsmouth, would be designated as I-364.

I think simply routing I-164 over the existing VA-164 designation would be simpler. They already have it one continuous route labeled as an X-64, just not interstate. Why would they change everything up rather than just replace all of VA-164 with I-164? If they wanted it that way, they would've called the new MLK Freeway VA-364, but they didn't. It's VA-164.
Plus most thru traffic it seems uses VA-164 entirely from I-264 to I-664 as a bypass of Bowers Hill. Changing designations half way through wouldn't make any sense.

That VA-164 designation on the MLK Freeway Extension is only 2 years old, and I thought it incorrect.  There is no thru traffic to speak of, and the odd prefix should pertain to a spur route, not a connector between two Interstate routes.  The appropriate I-164 should be a spur route between I-664 and downtown Norfolk as I detailed.  Trafficwise my route is much busier given the traffic on the Midtown Tunnel.

[sprjus4]

My proposal would use I-164 on the Western Freeway and then thru the 2-lane ramps of the Pinners Point Interchange that connect to the Midtown Tunnel approach highway, thru the Midtown Tunnel, and with I-164 terminating at the interchange with West Brambleton Avenue and Hampton Boulevard in downtown Norfolk.
The Martin Luther King Freeway between the Pinners Point Interchange and I-264 near downtown Portsmouth, would be designated as I-364.

I think simply routing I-164 over the existing VA-164 designation would be simpler. They already have it one continuous route labeled as an X-64, just not interstate. Why would they change everything up rather than just replace all of VA-164 with I-164? If they wanted it that way, they would've called the new MLK Freeway VA-364, but they didn't. It's VA-164.
Plus most thru traffic it seems uses VA-164 entirely from I-264 to I-664 as a bypass of Bowers Hill. Changing designations half way through wouldn't make any sense.

That VA-164 designation on the MLK Freeway Extension is only 2 years old, and I thought it incorrect.  There is no thru traffic to speak of, and the odd prefix should pertain to a spur route, not a connector between two Interstate routes.  The appropriate I-164 should be a spur route between I-664 and downtown Norfolk as I detailed.  Trafficwise my route is much busier given the traffic on the Midtown Tunnel.

That could not be anymore not true at all.

VA-164 south of the Midtown Tunnel carries 37,000 AADT and 52,000 AADT north of the tunnel. The tunnel itself carries 28,000 AADT. Using the 52,000 AADT count north of the Midtown Tunnel, if all the 28,000 AADT is from north of the tunnel (which it's not, a lot of motorists drive from VA-164 West to the tunnel and vice versa), that still leaves 24,000 AADT (the real number would be more, because this is simply assuming all 28,000 AADT is using the portion north of the tunnel) that uses VA-164 through the interchange without going to any tunnels.

I've driven this stretch quite frequently, especially on trips from Downtown Norfolk to North Suffolk or Newport News, and I see plenty of motorists use VA-164 through the interchange without using the tunnels. To say that all the traffic goes through the tunnels is false. A good majority use VA-164 thru, with about 1/3 the traffic splitting off to / from the tunnels from my observations having driven this stretch at least 40 times since the MLK Extension opened.

If VDOT were to apply for an interstate designation, they'd likely go the simplest route and the one that makes the most since - I-164 for the entire thing, which oh by the way, it's already VA-164 for the entire thing. Most locals know the route as 164, why would you all of a sudden change part to 364 and the tunnel is now 164? It'd be confusing, and I doubt VDOT would go along with something such as that.

[sprjus4]

and the odd prefix should pertain to a spur route, not a connector between two Interstate routes.

And yet you want VDOT to sign the rest of VA-195 as I-195 in Richmond, which if it was done, I-195 would connect I-95 north of Downtown to I-95 south of Downtown. Poor claim.

[Beltway]

That VA-164 designation on the MLK Freeway Extension is only 2 years old, and I thought it incorrect.  There is no thru traffic to speak of, and the odd prefix should pertain to a spur route, not a connector between two Interstate routes.  The appropriate I-164 should be a spur route between I-664 and downtown Norfolk as I detailed.  Trafficwise my route is much busier given the traffic on the Midtown Tunnel.

That could not be anymore not true at all.
VA-164 south of the Midtown Tunnel carries 37,000 AADT and 52,000 AADT north of the tunnel. The tunnel itself carries 28,000 AADT. Using the 52,000 AADT count north of the Midtown Tunnel, if all the 28,000 AADT is from north of the tunnel (which it's not, a lot of motorists drive from VA-164 West to the tunnel and vice versa), that still leaves 24,000 AADT (the real number would be more, because this is simply assuming all 28,000 AADT is using the portion north of the tunnel) that uses VA-164 through the interchange without going to any tunnels.
I've driven this stretch quite frequently, especially on trips from Downtown Norfolk to North Suffolk or Newport News, and I see plenty of motorists use VA-164 through the interchange without using the tunnels. To say that all the traffic goes through the tunnels is false. A good majority use VA-164 thru, with about 1/3 the traffic splitting off to / from the tunnels from my observations having driven this stretch at least 40 times since the MLK Extension opened.
If VDOT were to apply for an interstate designation, they'd likely go the simplest route and the one that makes the most since - I-164 for the entire thing, which oh by the way, it's already VA-164 for the entire thing. Most locals know the route as 164, why would you all of a sudden change part to 364 and the tunnel is now 164? It'd be confusing, and I doubt VDOT would go along with something such as that.

I questioned the VA-164 extended numbering the first place, only 2 years old.  VDOT already told me they aren't interested in any Interstate designation for this route.  That doesn't mean that citizens can't complain about this.  That doesn't mean that future VDOT senior management might not decide the opposite.

What I proposed would in conjunction with I-664 provide an urban Interstate highway that would connect thru or skirting the downtowns of the 4 major cities (Norfolk, Portsmouth, Newport News, Hampton) and provide an interim Interstate third Hampton Roads crossing.

I suppose that the tunnel could be I-764 if all of the existing VA-164 became I-164, and still meet the basic goals here.

So what happened to the traffic?  These are the basic design parameters (older FEIS but showed what they projected for 2015), and they favor the Western Freeway and the Midtown Tunnel.  [Copied from roadstothefuture.com]

Traffic volumes projection from the 1996 FEIS:  Route 58 / Midtown Tunnel (Including Pinners Point Interchange)
Traffic Volumes, Average Daily Traffic (AADT)

1994 Base Year Traffic (Existing Conditions)
30,600 - West Norfolk Bridge
35,000 - Midtown Tunnel
25,000 - MLK Freeway south of Cleveland St.

Year 2015 Traffic Projections (No-Build Alternative)
43,600 - West Norfolk Bridge
50,000 - Midtown Tunnel
36,000 - MLK Freeway south of Cleveland St.

Year 2015 Traffic Projections (Build Alternatives)
80,000 - West Norfolk Bridge
78,000 - Midtown Tunnel
68,600 - MLK Freeway south of Cleveland St.

The Year 2015 Traffic Projections (Build Alternatives) assumes the completion of the MLK Freeway Extension to I-264.

[Beltway]

and the odd prefix should pertain to a spur route, not a connector between two Interstate routes.

And yet you want VDOT to sign the rest of VA-195 as I-195 in Richmond, which if it was done, I-195 would connect I-95 north of Downtown to I-95 south of Downtown. Poor claim.

Questioning what VDOT did 2 years ago is a bit different from questioning what they established 40 years ago.  I-195 was signed as an Interstate, and soon afterward the Downtown Expressway was signed as VA-195.  Unless they wanted to face changing a 44-year-old I-195 Interstate designation, they would either need to change VA-195 to I-195, or put something else on the Downtown Expressway such as I-795, but that would involve changing the base number.

The two highways could become I-695, but I proposed that for VA-288.  I-864 could be used for VA-288, but I think that VA-288 is part of the I-x95 outer loop system and should be designated that way.

I-295, I-495, I-695 and I-895 are all taken in my previous proposals.  No even-prefix numbers available.

[sprjus4]

VDOT already told me they aren't interested in any Interstate designation for this route.

VDOT isn't interested in any new interstate route it seems. We're proposing the North Carolina style of numbering highways (there's like 3 I-X85s and I-X40s officially proposed in Raleigh, I-42 is proposed, and I-87 signs recently went up back in 2017) in a state who in the past 15 and 20 years hasn't pursued any new designations as far as I'm aware.

That doesn't mean that citizens can't complain about this.

Doubtful any citizens would complain. Heck, I here people refer non-interstate freeways as "interstates" frequently. Down here in Chesapeake, VA-168 is commonly referred to as either "the bypass" or "the interstate". People just know it's a limited-access freeway that resembles an interstate highway in most ways (interchanges, higher speed limits, grade-separation, etc), it's good enough for them. They associate a number with it, and good to go. Us "roadgeeks" are really the only ones who care deeply about these things. I don't know about VA-164 personally, but judging by the fact it has an "x64" number, it probably gets called an interstate a lot more than the amount of times I hear it for VA-168.. which is also a lot. I have heard "Take Interstate 164" occasionally from locals here.

What I proposed would in conjunction with I-664 provide an urban Interstate highway that would connect thru or skirting the downtowns of the 4 major cities (Norfolk, Portsmouth, Newport News, Hampton) and provide an interim Interstate third Hampton Roads crossing.

I-664 in conjunction with I-264 does all of these things just fine. An I-164 would supplement this by providing an alternative routing, and provide connections to the Downtowns. Either way, the Midtown Tunnel corridor doesn't really get as close to Downtown as I-264 does. It's mainly used as a shortcut to the Port of Norfolk and the base.

I suppose that the tunnel could be I-764 if all of the existing VA-164 became I-164, and still meet the basic goals here.

I honestly don't see the needs for an I-764 at all. The existing US-58 designation is fine. Not all freeways have to be interstates. And it's hard to say the Midtown Tunnel corridor between VA-164 and Norfolk is even a "freeway". It mostly just the tunnel and an arterial interchange on either side. With the 35 MPH speed limit, and design of it, I certainly wouldn't call it an interstate. An important corridor, of course, but not an interstate.

So what happened to the traffic?  These are the basic design parameters (older FEIS but showed what they projected for 2015), and they favor the Western Freeway and the Midtown Tunnel.  [Copied from roadstothefuture.com]

Traffic volumes projection from the 1996 FEIS:  Route 58 / Midtown Tunnel (Including Pinners Point Interchange)
Traffic Volumes, Average Daily Traffic (AADT)

1994 Base Year Traffic (Existing Conditions)
30,600 - West Norfolk Bridge
35,000 - Midtown Tunnel
25,000 - MLK Freeway south of Cleveland St.

Year 2015 Traffic Projections (No-Build Alternative)
43,600 - West Norfolk Bridge
50,000 - Midtown Tunnel
36,000 - MLK Freeway south of Cleveland St.

Year 2015 Traffic Projections (Build Alternatives)
80,000 - West Norfolk Bridge
78,000 - Midtown Tunnel
68,600 - MLK Freeway south of Cleveland St.

The Year 2015 Traffic Projections (Build Alternatives) assumes the completion of the MLK Freeway Extension to I-264.

Way overestimated it seems. If it had that much traffic, VA-164 would be a daily bottleneck. 80,000 AADT on a 4-lane bridge, and 78,000 AADT in a 4-lane tunnel, you're asking for backups. Just look at the Downtown Tunnel, at nearly 100,000 AADT. VA-168 nearby has 75,000 AADT between I-464 / I-64, over the Intracoastal Waterway to VA-165 and it's a daily bottleneck. VA-164 has nowhere near that amount of traffic. 55,000 AADT max. It's not nearly as congested as VA-168 is. I still don't understand why there's higher priority to widen this highway as opposed to VA-168, which hasn't been mentioned once on Long Range Plans, and is far more a priority than VA-164.

I recall an environmental statement from the 70s regarding the construction of the Great Bridge Bypass. It predicted 20,000 AADT from south of VA-165, and 30,000 AADT north of there for 2000 numbers or so. It's 55,000 AADT south of VA-165 and 75,000 AADT north of VA-165 today. Looking back at AADTs from 2001, it was similar, closer to 50,000 and 70,000 respectively. Still - way underestimated.

Questioning what VDOT did 2 years ago is a bit different from questioning what they established 40 years ago.  I-195 was signed as an Interstate, and soon afterward the Downtown Expressway was signed as VA-195.  Unless they wanted to face changing a 44-year-old I-195 Interstate designation, they would either need to change VA-195 to I-195, or put something else on the Downtown Expressway such as I-795, but that would involve changing the base number.

The two highways could become I-695, but I proposed that for VA-288.  I-864 could be used for VA-288, but I think that VA-288 is part of the I-x95 outer loop system and should be designated that way.

I-295, I-495, I-695 and I-895 are all taken in my previous proposals.  No even-prefix numbers available.

I'd keep it simple with how they've had it laid out. VA-164 was recently signed, though has been proposed for decades. I-164 on the corridor from I-264 to I-664, I-195 on the Downtown Expressway / existing I-195, I-895 on VA-895, either I-295 or I-695 on VA-288. It would overlap I-64 partially, but a 3-d overlapping a 2-d has happened in the past. It would complete one number (I-295) around Richmond as one Richmond Beltway instead of two.

I don't see the need to re-number all of these state route designations intended to be interstates just to "fit the system". They're fine how they are, it's not going to change anything just switching a number. This is almost like a mini-version of FritzOwl's proposals to change every interstate designation in the country just to "fit the grid".

[sprjus4]

I-295 Concept around Richmond

[Beltway]

What I proposed would in conjunction with I-664 provide an urban Interstate highway that would connect thru or skirting the downtowns of the 4 major cities (Norfolk, Portsmouth, Newport News, Hampton) and provide an interim Interstate third Hampton Roads crossing.

I-664 in conjunction with I-264 does all of these things just fine. An I-164 would supplement this by providing an alternative routing, and provide connections to the Downtowns. Either way, the Midtown Tunnel corridor doesn't really get as close to Downtown as I-264 does. It's mainly used as a shortcut to the Port of Norfolk and the base.

I-264 would add about 10 miles to a trip between downtown Norfolk and Newport News, plus involve using a much busier tunnel.

And it's hard to say the Midtown Tunnel corridor between VA-164 and Norfolk is even a "freeway". It mostly just the tunnel and an arterial interchange on either side. With the 35 MPH speed limit, and design of it, I certainly wouldn't call it an interstate. An important corridor, of course, but not an interstate.

Same tunnel speed limit as I-264.  The Midtown Tunnel approach highway of course does interchange with arterial roads in Norfolk, but with a distributor system that could handle the 70,000 AADT design of the tunnel.  Interstate spurs can and do terminate in such a way in a CBD.

There is no "arterial interchange" on the highway system south of the Midtown Tunnel, with the Pinners Point Interchange (semi-directional freeway to freeway interchange), connecting to freeways to I-664 and I-264.

I don't see the need to re-number all of these state route designations intended to be interstates just to "fit the system". They're fine how they are, it's not going to change anything just switching a number. This is almost like a mini-version of FritzOwl's proposals to change every interstate designation in the country just to "fit the grid".

Wow.  From someone in the club of "new Interstates everywhere".

[Beltway]

I-295 Concept around Richmond

I of course thought about that, but that would be a convoluted mess that would confuse the public and most highway engineers as well.  That is why I would use something like I-695 for VA-288.

[sprjus4]

Wow.  From someone in the club of "new Interstates everywhere".

I am?

[sprjus4]

I-295 Concept around Richmond

I of course thought about that, but that would be a convoluted mess that would confuse the public.  That is why I would use something like I-695 for VA-288.

I think re-numbering all of these highways would be convoluted mess that would confuse the public.

[Beltway]

Wow.  From someone in the club of "new Interstates everywhere".

I am?

Seems that way.  BTW, I count only 13 states that have added any mainline Interstate mileage since the 1968 additions, and at least 5 states with high populations have added no mainline or supplemental mileage that I can find.

[sprjus4]

Seems that way.  BTW, I count only 13 states that have added any mainline Interstate mileage since the 1968 additions, and at least 5 states with high populations have added no mainline or supplemental mileage that I can find.

Is that a bad thing? I'd rather have more freeways with great connectivity all around the state than with simply long-distance interstates with two and four-lane highways doing the rest. I prefer NC's concept of construction than a lot of others.

Also, adding a few 100+ mile 2-d corridors isn't nearly as confusing as re-numbering a bunch of already numbered freeways. Most of NC's 3-ds are simpler to understand than some of the concepts you're suggesting.

Also, you're leaving out some states who wish to add new construction but cannot receive funding (I-73 in SC, I-73 in VA, and others) have constructed hundreds of miles of new freeway, but no interstate designations (For example, CA's hundreds of new freeway miles, etc.)

[Beltway]

I-295 Concept around Richmond

I of course thought about that, but that would be a convoluted mess that would confuse the public.  That is why I would use something like I-695 for VA-288.

I think re-numbering all of these highways would be convoluted mess that would confuse the public.

At some point VDOT needs to get it done, once and for all, at least for the two loop routes that clearly fit the role of Interstate supplemental routes that carry local, regional, and long distance traffic.

Or should VA-44 not have been replaced with I-264?  Did that confuse the public?

[sprjus4]

Or should VA-44 not have been replaced with I-264?  Did that confuse the public?

That was kind of an obvious addition. It was no more than an extension of I-264 to begin with. I'd say the same about VA-168 and I-464, though only the first 2 miles of VA-168 south of I-464 meet interstate standards, the Great Bridge Bypass is substandard, and the 2001 extension meets interstate standards, though doesn't connect directly to I-464.

I-164, I-195, and I-895 are the ones I'd like to see signed. I couldn't see the need for any others.

[Beltway]

Or should VA-44 not have been replaced with I-264?  Did that confuse the public?

That was kind of an obvious addition. It was no more than an extension of I-264 to begin with. I'd say the same about VA-168 and I-464, though only the first 2 miles of VA-168 south of I-464 meet interstate standards, the Great Bridge Bypass is substandard, and the 2001 extension meets interstate standards, though doesn't connect directly to I-464.
I-164, I-195, and I-895 are the ones I'd like to see signed. I couldn't see the need for any others.

Here is the full text of what I sent VDOT concerning VA-288.
Why is this not adequate justifications?

VA-288 ==> I-695

In August 1968 the CTB (VSHC) requested that additional I-295 mileage be added to what is now VA-288 to complete a full loop around Richmond.  The USDOT did not grant the request. 

Virginia then assigned VA-288 as the designation for the southwest portion of the Richmond Beltway.

There were revisions in the VA-288 original concept, namely that the western portion was built further to the west, connecting to I-64 in Goochland County instead of at the original planned connection at I-64 and I-295 in Henrico County.

The current VA-288 does fulfill the original basic concept in that it connects I-95 near Chester to I-64 in Goochland County.  In conjunction with I-64 it does form a joint beltway with I-295, with high capacity and high speed freeway-to-freeway interchanges at I-64/VA-288 and I-64/I-295.

These inter-state/interregional traffic movements that bypass Richmond are signed on the Interstate highway system --
1) Eastbound I-64 traffic heading for I-95 south of Richmond to Petersburg is directed by sign on I-64 near Short Pump to use VA-288.
2) Northbound I-95 traffic heading for I-64 west of Richmond to Charlottesville is directed by sign on I-95 near Chester to use VA-288.

Such traffic movements should not temporarily leave the Interstate system, the VA-288 bypass should be an Interstate highway.

VA-288 is built to rural Interstate standards and has a 70 mph design speed.

VDOT also needs to increase the VA-288 speed limit to 70 mph and is allowed to by current state law.

I would not suggest using I-295 for VA-288, because that in conjunction with the current I-295 would make a rather strange and awkward I-295 highway system.

I propose using the Interstate I-695 designation to entirely replace the VA-288 designation.

[Mapmikey]

Note that the City of Richmond asked the CTB to stop pursuing VA 288 as part of an I-295 interstate beltway in April 1977 (pg. 33 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-04-1977-01.pdf which is also where the idea of extending I-195 all the way to I-85 Petersburg was presented).  Wonder if the city still feels that way today now that the highway was built...

The CTB reference (pg. 39 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-01-1976-01.pdf) to numbering VA 195 did not give any rationale for choosing the number.  It appears to be one of those extensions like Virginia has historically done for I-381 and several US route designations over the years.  VA 195 had been referred to as VA 88 throughout the time it was conceived and under construction.  VA 88 even made it onto one map:

[Beltway]

Note that the City of Richmond asked the CTB to stop pursuing VA 288 as part of an I-295 interstate beltway in April 1977 (pg. 33 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-04-1977-01.pdf which is also where the idea of extending I-195 all the way to I-85 Petersburg was presented).  Wonder if the city still feels that way today now that the highway was built...

Seems like they were "bursting with ideas" to suggest something in lieu of completing I-295.  The City of Richmond presentation was mainly geared to oppose and block the construction of the southeast quadrant of I-295 (the northern loop was already well under construction).  Typical city opposition to building a bypass because "it will hurt our tax base".  Richmond does have some economic problems, but not because too much traffic was relieved off of I-95 or other roads.

Given what a benefit that the I-295 outer loop has been to the region, providing an outer bypass, and the fact that I-95 still carries up to 120,000 AADT in Richmond, their concerns proved to be unfounded.

The CTB reference (pg. 39 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-01-1976-01.pdf) to numbering VA 195 did not give any rationale for choosing the number.  It appears to be one of those extensions like Virginia has historically done for I-381 and several US route designations over the years.  VA 195 had been referred to as VA 88 throughout the time it was conceived and under construction.  VA 88 even made it onto one map:

The 0.9 mile segment built by VDH&T had a 0088 route portion of its project number.

I noticed at the time when I saw that on planning maps in the early 1970s, that VA-88 and VA-288 seemed to be related, like VA-88 being the radial route and VA-288 being the bypass; even though the Powhite Parkway had not yet been proposed to extend to VA-288; the Powhite Parkway Extension would have ended at US-60 Midlothian Turnpike and Robious Road in the 1980 Thoroughfare Plan.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Richmond_Thor_Plan_1968_XL.jpg

[Mapmikey]

I noticed at the time when I saw that on planning maps in the early 1970s, that VA-88 and VA-288 seemed to be related, like VA-88 being the radial route and VA-288 being the bypass; even though the Powhite Parkway had not yet been proposed to extend to VA-288; the Powhite Parkway Extension would have ended at US-60 Midlothian Turnpike and Robious Road in the 1980 Thoroughfare Plan.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Richmond_Thor_Plan_1968_XL.jpg

Numbers are likely a coincidence... both VA 76 and VA 88 appeared as designations about 1972 while VA 288 first appeared in 1967. 

[Beltway]

Numbers are likely a coincidence... both VA 76 and VA 88 appeared as designations about 1972 while VA 288 first appeared in 1967. 

I see on your website that VA-88 has had 4 separate iterations and in different parts of the state, and that VA-76 has had 2 and the original had several modifications over time.  Lots of fluidity and adjustments in route numbers in general, in route numbering.

[Mapmikey]

Many numbers in Virginia have been used 4 times.  A couple more have been used 5 times and one (VA 212) is on its 6th use.

This does not count VA 599 which was an internal designation for projects throughout the 1960s that had not yet been assigned a number, 10 that I have found, none likely to have been posted as such.