http://www.vdot.virginia.gov/newsroom/northern_virginia/2012/three_major_parkways_now56533.asp
Mapmikey and I knew this was being considered, but the CTB apparently went ahead and approved it yesterday. Fairfax County Pkwy, Franconia-Springfield Pkwy, and Prince William Pkwy are all becoming primary routes:
- Fairfax County Pkwy will become VA 286.
- Franconia-Springfield Pkwy will become VA 289. The designation will run as far east as Beulah St (SR 613).
- Prince William Pkwy will become VA 294.
The VDOT release states that they'll change the signs over the next 3 months and add "Old Route xxxx" signs so drivers/businesses can become familiar.
The people who will be the most put out by the change will be the radio traffic reporters. Lisa Baden invariably referred to the Fairfax County Parkway as "7100." I don't know of anyone other than radio traffic reporters who use the numbers to refer to any of those routes.
I might have liked to have seen the numbering tweaked to make the Franconia—Springfield Parkway the same number as the bulk of the Fairfax County Parkway, given that over at Rolling Road you have to exit the Fairfax County Parkway to continue on said road. Having to exit to stay on the same road never seems entirely sensible. But I understand why they want the "main" route to be the one that has the full interchange with I-95 and to connect to Fort Belvoir.
(Hey, from a geek standpoint, having a road with any sort of dysfunction numbered as "286" is eminently sensible given that the Intel '286 processor was the one Bill Gates famously called "brain dead" because of its incompatibilities with DOS and its inadequacies with OS/2 and Windows.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 16, 2012, 05:05:43 PM
The people who will be the most put out by the change will be the radio traffic reporters. Lisa Baden invariably referred to the Fairfax County Parkway as "7100." I don't know of anyone other than radio traffic reporters who use the numbers to refer to any of those routes.
Well, she can now refer to it as "286."
You know that Lisa is now heard during A.M. drive on 99.1 all-news WNEW, right?
I am very glad that the CTB did not choose numbers that might lead to confusion with nearby state highways in Maryland. The worst two probably being Va. 193 (Old Georgetown Pike) and Md. 193 (University Boulevard and Greenbelt Road and Enterprise Road); and Va. (secondary) 650 Gallows Road and Md. 650 (New Hampshire Avenue).
Md. 286 and 289 are on the Upper Eastern Shore. Md. 294 was also on the Upper Shore, but was decommissioned, according to MdRoads.com.
Well it is going to be fun next time any one of my VT friends from NOVA goes home....
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 16, 2012, 06:35:40 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 16, 2012, 05:05:43 PM
The people who will be the most put out by the change will be the radio traffic reporters. Lisa Baden invariably referred to the Fairfax County Parkway as "7100." I don't know of anyone other than radio traffic reporters who use the numbers to refer to any of those routes.
Well, she can now refer to it as "286."
You know that Lisa is now heard during A.M. drive on 99.1 all-news WNEW, right?
I am very glad that the CTB did not choose numbers that might lead to confusion with nearby state highways in Maryland. The worst two probably being Va. 193 (Old Georgetown Pike) and Md. 193 (University Boulevard and Greenbelt Road and Enterprise Road); and Va. (secondary) 650 Gallows Road and Md. 650 (New Hampshire Avenue).
Md. 286 and 289 are on the Upper Eastern Shore. Md. 294 was also on the Upper Shore, but was decommissioned, according to MdRoads.com.
I heard that Lisa Baden is on the new station, though I haven't listened to it. I suppose she, and the other reporters, may indeed get used to the new number, though I also expect them to mess it up for a while. It's like changing your ATM PIN–the old one is ingrained in your subconscious.
I agree with you about being glad that they didn't duplicate Maryland numbers. I hate it when I listen to the radio and they refer to, say, "the Beltway at Route 50" without specifying Virginia or Maryland. Several of them are better about that than they used to be, at least. The "650" one doesn't strike me as a bad one, though, because nobody calls Gallows Road by its number. I don't know whether anyone uses the number for New Hampshire Avenue. BTW, I think VA-193 is just plain "Georgetown Pike" without the "Old" and that the "Old" belongs with "Old Georgetown Road" in Maryland (the exit between I-270 and MD-355; I forget the exit number and don't want to look it up).
<<<
- Fairfax County Pkwy will become VA 286.
- Franconia-Springfield Pkwy will become VA 289. >>>
I recommended VA-12 for the FCP and VA-25 for the FSP, based on the lowest available numbers; and based on the lower the number the more important it seems.
Wonder what the logic was for using numbers as high as 286 and 289?
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 16, 2012, 07:06:50 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 16, 2012, 06:35:40 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 16, 2012, 05:05:43 PM
The people who will be the most put out by the change will be the radio traffic reporters. Lisa Baden invariably referred to the Fairfax County Parkway as "7100." I don't know of anyone other than radio traffic reporters who use the numbers to refer to any of those routes.
Well, she can now refer to it as "286."
You know that Lisa is now heard during A.M. drive on 99.1 all-news WNEW, right?
I am very glad that the CTB did not choose numbers that might lead to confusion with nearby state highways in Maryland. The worst two probably being Va. 193 (Old Georgetown Pike) and Md. 193 (University Boulevard and Greenbelt Road and Enterprise Road); and Va. (secondary) 650 Gallows Road and Md. 650 (New Hampshire Avenue).
Md. 286 and 289 are on the Upper Eastern Shore. Md. 294 was also on the Upper Shore, but was decommissioned, according to MdRoads.com.
I heard that Lisa Baden is on the new station, though I haven't listened to it. I suppose she, and the other reporters, may indeed get used to the new number, though I also expect them to mess it up for a while. It's like changing your ATM PIN–the old one is ingrained in your subconscious.
QuoteI agree with you about being glad that they didn't duplicate Maryland numbers. I hate it when I listen to the radio and they refer to, say, "the Beltway at Route 50" without specifying Virginia or Maryland.
Maryland's signs at the U.S. 50 ("Secret" I-595) used to read "U.S. 50 John Hanson Highway," which was good for the purpose of not confusing it with "U.S. 50 Arlington Boulevard." The mention of John Hanson Highway was removed when the old cloverleaf interchange was reconstructed in the late 1980's and all of the signs were replaced.
Another bad is "295," there being I-295 at the Maryland end of the Wilson Bridge, and "secret" Md. 295, otherwise known as the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, in Greenbelt (even though the National Park Service, never, ever calls it 295).
QuoteSeveral of them are better about that than they used to be, at least. The "650" one doesn't strike me as a bad one, though, because nobody calls Gallows Road by its number.
I have, a few times, heard Gallows Road called "650," but fortunately it's pretty rare.
QuoteI don't know whether anyone uses the number for New Hampshire Avenue.
Sometimes "650," sometimes "New Hampshire."
QuoteBTW, I think VA-193 is just plain "Georgetown Pike" without the "Old" and that the "Old" belongs with "Old Georgetown Road" in Maryland (the exit between I-270 and MD-355; I forget the exit number and don't want to look it up).
I believe you are correct about that, though the traffic reports sometimes have called it "Old Georgetown Pike," and I want to call it that sometimes, even though it should be just "Georgetown Pike."
In an ideal world, all arterial roads intersecting with Interstates would have a route number
and a road/street name posted, at least in densely-developed urban areas.
Several of the worst examples of on-air traffic reporters using road/street names where they should be using route numbers are U.S. 50 west of the City of Fairfax, where they call it "Lee-Jackson Memorial Highway," even though that appears on
no VDOT signs that I have ever seen; Va. 620 (Lorton Road, though the VDOT signs simply read "Lorton") and Va. 619 in Prince William County, which they will refer to as "Joplin Road" (also correct, but not mentioned on any VDOT signs on I-95).
Then there's the matter of Russell Road (I-95 Exit 148, not marked as anything except "Marine Corps Base Quantico"), which the reporters will use the road name instead of the exit number or "Quantico."
Wow, that was fast. The number choice is a bit odd, but I had thought in the back of my mind "Now watch them all become 28X or 29X routes".
Already planning to head up there in the next couple months to take sign/terminus photos.
Same. Probably March for me.
Transfer of Selected Secondary Highways to Primary Highway System
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2012/feb/resol/Agenda_Item_3_Resolution.pdf
QuoteSeveral of the worst examples of on-air traffic reporters using road/street names where they should be using route numbers are U.S. 50 west of the City of Fairfax, where they call it "Lee-Jackson Memorial Highway," even though that appears on no VDOT signs that I have ever seen; Va. 620 (Lorton Road, though the VDOT signs simply read "Lorton") and Va. 619 in Prince William County, which they will refer to as "Joplin Road" (also correct, but not mentioned on any VDOT signs on I-95).
Afternoon traffic on WTOP with Bob Marbourg (sp?) he almost always says street name with the number for any real thoroughfare he is discussing and does a passable job prefacing his alert with "In Maryland" or "in Virginia"
Here is at least one BGS with Lee-Jackson mem Hwy on it (this is on the newly designated VA 284):
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=fairfax,+va&hl=en&ll=38.868182,-77.382717&spn=0.030273,0.076818&sll=29.678359,-96.816845&sspn=0.071141,0.153637&hnear=Fairfax,+Virginia&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=38.867871,-77.382658&panoid=YpKjkIP2nuFyPYL8QAc0Iw&cbp=12,350.44,,0,0 (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=fairfax,+va&hl=en&ll=38.868182,-77.382717&spn=0.030273,0.076818&sll=29.678359,-96.816845&sspn=0.071141,0.153637&hnear=Fairfax,+Virginia&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=38.867871,-77.382658&panoid=YpKjkIP2nuFyPYL8QAc0Iw&cbp=12,350.44,,0,0)
Mapmikey
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2012, 09:31:14 PM
Transfer of Selected Secondary Highways to Primary Highway System
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2012/feb/resol/Agenda_Item_3_Resolution.pdf
Fixed link. You had a few nonprinting characters in there.
Quote from: froggie on February 16, 2012, 04:51:58 PM
Mapmikey and I knew this was being considered, but the CTB apparently went ahead and approved it yesterday. Fairfax County Pkwy, Franconia-Springfield Pkwy, and Prince William Pkwy are all becoming primary routes:
- Fairfax County Pkwy will become VA 286.
- Franconia-Springfield Pkwy will become VA 289. The designation will run as far east as Beulah St (SR 613).
- Prince William Pkwy will become VA 294.
Interesting how this process works from state to state. Virginia requires a board vote to reclassify or renumber. In Kentucky, the Transportation secretary can do it with the stroke of a pen.
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 16, 2012, 09:41:33 PM
QuoteSeveral of the worst examples of on-air traffic reporters using road/street names where they should be using route numbers are U.S. 50 west of the City of Fairfax, where they call it "Lee-Jackson Memorial Highway," even though that appears on no VDOT signs that I have ever seen; Va. 620 (Lorton Road, though the VDOT signs simply read "Lorton") and Va. 619 in Prince William County, which they will refer to as "Joplin Road" (also correct, but not mentioned on any VDOT signs on I-95).
Afternoon traffic on WTOP with Bob Marbourg (sp?) he almost always says street name with the number for any real thoroughfare he is discussing and does a passable job prefacing his alert with "In Maryland" or "in Virginia"
Here is at least one BGS with Lee-Jackson mem Hwy on it (this is on the newly designated VA 284):
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=fairfax,+va&hl=en&ll=38.868182,-77.382717&spn=0.030273,0.076818&sll=29.678359,-96.816845&sspn=0.071141,0.153637&hnear=Fairfax,+Virginia&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=38.867871,-77.382658&panoid=YpKjkIP2nuFyPYL8QAc0Iw&cbp=12,350.44,,0,0 (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=fairfax,+va&hl=en&ll=38.868182,-77.382717&spn=0.030273,0.076818&sll=29.678359,-96.816845&sspn=0.071141,0.153637&hnear=Fairfax,+Virginia&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=38.867871,-77.382658&panoid=YpKjkIP2nuFyPYL8QAc0Iw&cbp=12,350.44,,0,0)
Thanks. I've driven 7100 (oops, Va. 286 ;-) ) many times and forgotten that one.
Wonder if it reads "Lee Jackson Memorial Highway" because the road was originally built with Fairfax County funding (even though VDOT has always maintained it)?
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 16, 2012, 09:41:33 PM
QuoteSeveral of the worst examples of on-air traffic reporters using road/street names where they should be using route numbers are U.S. 50 west of the City of Fairfax, where they call it "Lee-Jackson Memorial Highway," even though that appears on no VDOT signs that I have ever seen; Va. 620 (Lorton Road, though the VDOT signs simply read "Lorton") and Va. 619 in Prince William County, which they will refer to as "Joplin Road" (also correct, but not mentioned on any VDOT signs on I-95).
Afternoon traffic on WTOP with Bob Marbourg (sp?) he almost always says street name with the number for any real thoroughfare he is discussing and does a passable job prefacing his alert with "In Maryland" or "in Virginia"
Bob Marbourg (you spelled it correctly) is
da best in the Washington-area media market when it comes to traffic reporting. Nobody is more passionate about this type of work in this market than Bob.
And Bob speaks on the air in complete sentences using correct English grammar - what a concept!
Speaking of Bob Marbourg, his radio station has a story about the renumbering this morning.
3 commuter routes to be renamed (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=41&sid=2751894)
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 17, 2012, 08:51:03 AM
Speaking of Bob Marbourg, his radio station has a story about the renumbering this morning.
3 commuter routes to be renamed (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=41&sid=2751894)
I find that article's wording strange in using the word "renamed" in reference to a number.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 16, 2012, 10:13:49 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 16, 2012, 04:51:58 PM
Mapmikey and I knew this was being considered, but the CTB apparently went ahead and approved it yesterday. Fairfax County Pkwy, Franconia-Springfield Pkwy, and Prince William Pkwy are all becoming primary routes:
- Fairfax County Pkwy will become VA 286.
- Franconia-Springfield Pkwy will become VA 289. The designation will run as far east as Beulah St (SR 613).
- Prince William Pkwy will become VA 294.
Interesting how this process works from state to state. Virginia requires a board vote to reclassify or renumber. In Kentucky, the Transportation secretary can do it with the stroke of a pen.
It's still a straightforward process in Virginia. Criteria studies are done, it's presented to the CTB, and they approve it.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 17, 2012, 08:51:03 AM
Speaking of Bob Marbourg, his radio station has a story about the renumbering this morning.
3 commuter routes to be renamed (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=41&sid=2751894)
Complete with a photo from a poster here.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 16, 2012, 10:13:49 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 16, 2012, 04:51:58 PM
Mapmikey and I knew this was being considered, but the CTB apparently went ahead and approved it yesterday. Fairfax County Pkwy, Franconia-Springfield Pkwy, and Prince William Pkwy are all becoming primary routes:
- Fairfax County Pkwy will become VA 286.
- Franconia-Springfield Pkwy will become VA 289. The designation will run as far east as Beulah St (SR 613).
- Prince William Pkwy will become VA 294.
Interesting how this process works from state to state. Virginia requires a board vote to reclassify or renumber. In Kentucky, the Transportation secretary can do it with the stroke of a pen.
Because Maryland's State Highway Administration only maintains what Virginia would call primary routes (and some remnants of roads that used to be primary), moving a road from primary to secondary (usually county, sometimes municipal) or from secondary to primary requires agreement between SHA and the appropriate county or municipal government.
Some years ago, SHA and Montgomery County did a "swap" of some smaller streets near the D.C. line becoming county-maintained in exchange for SHA assuming maintenance responsibility for the Great Seneca Highway (Md. 119).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 17, 2012, 04:14:26 PM
Because Maryland's State Highway Administration only maintains what Virginia would call primary routes (and some remnants of roads that used to be primary), moving a road from primary to secondary (usually county, sometimes municipal) or from secondary to primary requires agreement between SHA and the appropriate county or municipal government.
Some years ago, SHA and Montgomery County did a "swap" of some smaller streets near the D.C. line becoming county-maintained in exchange for SHA assuming maintenance responsibility for the Great Seneca Highway (Md. 119).
Jurisdictional transfers between the state and local (city or county) governments do require inter-agency agreements. Reclassifying a state route into one of Kentucky's four classes (state primary, state secondary, rural secondary or supplemental) or renumbering a route does not. Of course, you cannot tell what classification of road you are traveling on by the signage. At one point, a portion of US 62 in Mason County was classified as a supplemental route.
At one point, Kentucky's policy was that it would take one mile of county highway into the state system in exchange for the county government taking two miles of state highway.
There is no rhyme or reason to what happens to old roads when Kentucky builds new alignments of state routes. Some get a new number, others get turned over to local governments.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 17, 2012, 04:14:26 PM
Because Maryland's State Highway Administration only maintains what Virginia would call primary routes (and some remnants of roads that used to be primary), moving a road from primary to secondary (usually county, sometimes municipal) or from secondary to primary requires agreement between SHA and the appropriate county or municipal government.
Some years ago, SHA and Montgomery County did a "swap" of some smaller streets near the D.C. line becoming county-maintained in exchange for SHA assuming maintenance responsibility for the Great Seneca Highway (Md. 119).
Quite right, what should be little more than stroke of a pen in VA is not so easy in MD. Maryland's exchange policy is based on lane mileage, so there were a _lot_ of routes dropped/truncated in this exchange with Montgomery County. Yet there's still the irregular old MD 121 still on the books in Clarksville, but not Father Hurley Blvd., the major connector between MD 27 and I-270, defying all logic. Neither is the new county-built alignment (de facto MD 27) in Damascus. Plenty of situations like these in other counties as well, resulting in 4/6 lane county boulevards intersecting narrower, sometimes 2-lane numbered state roads, like what MD 212 does in Beltsville.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 16, 2012, 06:35:40 PM
Md. 286 and 289 are on the Upper Eastern Shore. Md. 294 was also on the Upper Shore, but was decommissioned, according to MdRoads.com.
VA is safe from duplicating MD's adjacent numbering clusters in Montgomery (107-124 and 182-196) and Prince George's (197-212). MD 286 is in Chesapeake City, MD 294 (and 295) were one-block streets in Betterton, tucked in a corner of Kent County (the least populous).
Quote from: MDRoads on February 18, 2012, 01:55:27 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 17, 2012, 04:14:26 PM
Because Maryland's State Highway Administration only maintains what Virginia would call primary routes (and some remnants of roads that used to be primary), moving a road from primary to secondary (usually county, sometimes municipal) or from secondary to primary requires agreement between SHA and the appropriate county or municipal government.
Some years ago, SHA and Montgomery County did a "swap" of some smaller streets near the D.C. line becoming county-maintained in exchange for SHA assuming maintenance responsibility for the Great Seneca Highway (Md. 119).
Quite right, what should be little more than stroke of a pen in VA is not so easy in MD. Maryland's exchange policy is based on lane mileage, so there were a _lot_ of routes dropped/truncated in this exchange with Montgomery County.
Absolutely correct. I know that among other roads, Franklin Avenue, [most of] Flower Avenue and two state-maintained chunks of Forest Glen Road east of Md. 97 were moved from state to Montgomery County maintenance as part of putting Great Seneca Highway on the state system.
Never understood why Shady Grove Road isn't state maintenance. Same for Randolph Road (parts of which were once Md. 183, but is now entirely under Montgomery County maintenance).
QuoteYet there's still the irregular old MD 121 still on the books in Clarksville, but not Father Hurley Blvd., the major connector between MD 27 and I-270, defying all logic.
Yes, the strange attributes of Md. 121 and Father Hurley Boulevard (which should be part of state-maintained Md. 27 between I-270 and Md. 355) don't make any sense.
QuoteNeither is the new county-built alignment (de facto MD 27) in Damascus.
Agreed.
QuotePlenty of situations like these in other counties as well, resulting in 4/6 lane county boulevards intersecting narrower, sometimes 2-lane numbered state roads, like what MD 212 does in Beltsville.
Like Md. 212 and Cherry Hill Road? Or Md. 212 and Virginia Manor Road?
And not so far from Md. 212, Md. 196 (Old Columbia Pike) north and south of the Paint Branch [of the Anacostia River] stream valley, with dead-ends at the stream itself (the bridge crossing the creek is not able to carry motorized traffic, which must use nearby U.S. 29), possibly because the county does not want to deal with the bridge (which is a large structure) in case it needs to be torn-down at some point in the future. There was discussion in the 1990's about repairing the bridge so that local traffic could use Md. 196, but that has never happened.
I may have found some rationale for the assignment of 286, 289, and 294 as the route number: all three numbers' previous designations were eliminated in 1942, so says the VHP. (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/va281-300.htm) Aside from VA 25, they were the longest out of commission.
Looking at the mileage being transferred for VA 286, it appears they did not take into the system the portion of SR 7100 essentially between I-95 and VA 289.
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2012/feb/resol/Agenda_Item_3_Resolution.pdf (http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2012/feb/resol/Agenda_Item_3_Resolution.pdf)
Did anyone notice that piece being taken into the primary system when it was completed?
Mapmikey
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 18, 2012, 07:46:05 PM
Looking at the mileage being transferred for VA 286, it appears they did not take into the system the portion of SR 7100 essentially between I-95 and VA 289.
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2012/feb/resol/Agenda_Item_3_Resolution.pdf (http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2012/feb/resol/Agenda_Item_3_Resolution.pdf)
Hmmm. I'm not sure exactly what it means, but check out the maps in http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2012/jan/Pre/Agenda_Item_7_SecToPrimaryCTBPresentationV6.pdf .
Thanks...
It appears that there were 2 segments of 7100 not technically in the SR system but one of them became primary anyway.
The gap shown on 7900 was also put into the primary system.
There is technically a small gap in VA 294 primary assignment as well, on the PW Pkwy between Hastings and Liberia/Wellington.
Mapmikey
Quote from: froggie on February 16, 2012, 04:51:58 PM
Mapmikey and I knew this was being considered, but the CTB apparently went ahead and approved it yesterday. Fairfax County Pkwy, Franconia-Springfield Pkwy, and Prince William Pkwy are all becoming primary routes:
- Fairfax County Pkwy will become VA 286.
- Franconia-Springfield Pkwy will become VA 289. The designation will run as far east as Beulah St (SR 613).
Those two numbers are too similar, IMHO, for two highways that connect and form a branch. The only difference in 3 digits is a last digit that is identical but is either turned up or turned down.
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 18, 2012, 08:56:04 PM
There is technically a small gap in VA 294 primary assignment as well, on the PW Pkwy between Hastings and Liberia/Wellington.
Mikey, isn't that because that short segment of the Prince William Parkway is inside the corporate limits of the City of Manassas and thus maintained (per standard practice in Virginia) by the city and not by VDOT?
Though there are plenty of state (numbered) highways running though cities all around Virginia, so
presumably even that short section in Manassas will be signed as Va. 294.
Yes, the 500 ft of the PW Pkwy in the City of Manassas is not maintained by VDOT.
However, the CTB has a legal process it has to follow in order to reimburse Manassas at the Primary Route $ rate instead of the "Other Streets" rate it would currently be sending.
This does not prevent the signing of VA 294 on this stretch (for precedent see US 60 Business in Virginia Beach, which was established as a posted route at the request of the city when US 60 was moved from Atlantic Ave to Pacific Ave but the CTB did not consider it primary mileage in Va Beach.
The CTB can elect to have the mileage enacted per the Urban Primary Program establish around 1980 (which is how most of the VA 401-420 routes were created) if it qualifies and if that legal authority still exists. Apparently when an independent city expands is boundary and swallows existing primary routes it is a stroke of the pen to convert the new primary mileage into the city's payment.
Mapmikey
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 19, 2012, 06:53:40 PM
Yes, the 500 ft of the PW Pkwy in the City of Manassas is not maintained by VDOT.
However, the CTB has a legal process it has to follow in order to reimburse Manassas at the Primary Route $ rate instead of the "Other Streets" rate it would currently be sending.
Though given how short that segment of Prince William Parkway is, it would almost make sense for VDOT to and Manassas to make an exception to current policy and just have VDOT maintain it, though I don't know what would be needed to make such an exception happen.
QuoteThis does not prevent the signing of VA 294 on this stretch (for precedent see US 60 Business in Virginia Beach, which was established as a posted route at the request of the city when US 60 was moved from Atlantic Ave to Pacific Ave but the CTB did not consider it primary mileage in Va Beach.
The CTB can elect to have the mileage enacted per the Urban Primary Program establish around 1980 (which is how most of the VA 401-420 routes were created) if it qualifies and if that legal authority still exists. Apparently when an independent city expands is boundary and swallows existing primary routes it is a stroke of the pen to convert the new primary mileage into the city's payment.
Are there still state routes numbers (beyond I-264, U.S. 58, U.S. 60 and U.S. 60 Business) in Virginia Beach? I've not been down that way for 10 or more years - I recall that many of the major streets had state route numbers (quite possibly left over from the days when most of present-day Virginia Beach was Princess Anne County), but that could have changed.
VA 149, VA 165, VA 166, VA 190, VA 225, VA 279, and VA 343 all still exist in VA Beach. VA 305 is still posted but hasn't been extant since 1960. I might have left off a couple as well.
Quote from: Takumi on February 16, 2012, 07:39:47 PM
Same. Probably March for me.
As of this afternoon, no new signs yet on the Franconia—Springfield Parkway nor the portion of the Fairfax County Parkway between the Rolling Road and VA-123 interchanges. As of Saturday the signs on I-66 and US-50 hadn't changed, either. I'll keep my eyes peeled in the coming weeks and will post something if/when I see new signs. I use those roads pretty frequently to avoid the work zone on the Beltway and the traffic lights in Springfield.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 28, 2012, 02:26:57 PM
Quote from: Takumi on February 16, 2012, 07:39:47 PM
Same. Probably March for me.
As of this afternoon, no new signs yet on the Franconia—Springfield Parkway nor the portion of the Fairfax County Parkway between the Rolling Road and VA-123 interchanges. As of Saturday the signs on I-66 and US-50 hadn't changed, either. I'll keep my eyes peeled in the coming weeks and will post something if/when I see new signs. I use those roads pretty frequently to avoid the work zone on the Beltway and the traffic lights in Springfield.
I drove the southern section of (what is still signed as) 7100 yesterday (between U.S. 1 and (what is still signed as) 7900). No indication of any pending route number change, though I did take the opportunity to snap a few images with my Blackberry.
No sign of any impending changes on I-95 either.
This will be interesting when all is said and done. I'm not sure if I like this or not. I probably will, but we'll see.
BTW, cpzilliacus, it will probably be a while for VDOT to put new signs up.
I just saw a report that 24 miles of the Fairfax County Parkway will receive a much-overdue repaving later this year. (http://centreville.patch.com/articles/most-of-fairfax-county-parkway-to-be-repaved-this-spring) Perhaps the new route number signs might be posted then. As of this past Thursday, which was my most recent drive on the Franconia—Springfield Parkway, no signs had been changed.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 27, 2012, 02:41:13 PM
I just saw a report that 24 miles of the Fairfax County Parkway will receive a much-overdue repaving later this year. (http://centreville.patch.com/articles/most-of-fairfax-county-parkway-to-be-repaved-this-spring)
That's
great news. Much of 7100 (especially south of I-66 and the north of the new(est) segment between the Va. 638 (Rolling Road)/Va. 7900 (Franconia Springfield Parkway) interchange and I-95) is in
terrible condition.
Including some of the on- and off-ramps.
QuotePerhaps the new route number signs might be posted then. As of this past Thursday, which was my most recent drive on the Franconia—Springfield Parkway, no signs had been changed.
Maybe the sign work will be written into the repaving contract?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 28, 2012, 10:21:02 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 27, 2012, 02:41:13 PM
Perhaps the new route number signs might be posted then. As of this past Thursday, which was my most recent drive on the Franconia—Springfield Parkway, no signs had been changed.
Maybe the sign work will be written into the repaving contract?
Very doubtful. Asphalt resurfacing is typically performed by an asphalt paving specialist. They would have to sub out the sign work.
VDOT sign shops and state forces could do the resigning work, or they could contract it in a single bid package.
Yeah, I wasn't necessarily envisioning that the sign replacement would be part of the same project, just that maybe they might do it at the same time. My thought process was essentially that if you're already closing lanes, or one carriageway, to pave it, you might as well do the signs (especially any overhead signs) at the same time to get all the disruptive stuff done at once.
Quote from: Beltway on March 28, 2012, 12:16:19 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 28, 2012, 10:21:02 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 27, 2012, 02:41:13 PM
Perhaps the new route number signs might be posted then. As of this past Thursday, which was my most recent drive on the Franconia—Springfield Parkway, no signs had been changed.
Maybe the sign work will be written into the repaving contract?
Very doubtful. Asphalt resurfacing is typically performed by an asphalt paving specialist. They would have to sub out the sign work.
Agreed.
Maryland SHA usually does "safety and resurface" projects, which includes milling and re-paving, and frequently includes sign replacement.
But I have not observed VDOT do that on repaving projects.
QuoteVDOT sign shops and state forces could do the resigning work, or they could contract it in a single bid package.
Resigning all of present-day 7100 and 7900 is going to be a pretty large sign project, since those route numbers appear on numerous BGSs on those roads, and on each intersecting highways.
3000 is not quite as large, since it only crosses one freeway (I-95) and it is shorter than 7100.
I wonder if the NoVa District has enough people to do a sign project of the scale required for 7100 and 7900.
I drove part of the Prince William Parkway over the weekend, and no hints of any new signage yet. Lots of SR 3000 signage still remains.
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 09, 2012, 07:45:15 PM
I drove part of the Prince William Parkway over the weekend, and no hints of any new signage yet. Lots of SR 3000 signage still remains.
Same goes for the Fairfax County Parkway and SR 7100. Was just on the part between VA 7 and VA 267 this past Friday.
The Franconia—Springfield Parkway was signed as 7900 as of 2:30 this afternoon.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 16, 2012, 07:25:39 PM
Maryland's signs at the U.S. 50 ("Secret" I-595) used to read "U.S. 50 John Hanson Highway," which was good for the purpose of not confusing it with "U.S. 50 Arlington Boulevard." The mention of John Hanson Highway was removed when the old cloverleaf interchange was reconstructed in the late 1980's and all of the signs were replaced.
Another bad is "295," there being I-295 at the Maryland end of the Wilson Bridge, and "secret" Md. 295, otherwise known as the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, in Greenbelt (even though the National Park Service, never, ever calls it 295).
At least the interchanges where I-95 enters/exits the Beltway are distinctly named from one another (College Park and Springfield), so one can know which end the reporter is referring to (like "I-95 from the Springfield Interchange to Alexandria").
Had reason to be in Newington yesterday afternoon. Still signed as 7100 from I-95.
Took a roadtrip this morning that included the entire length of the Fairfax County and Prince William Parkways and also passed by Franconia-Springfield Parkway. No new route signs have been posted as far as I could see.
I passed by the eastern end of the Franconia—Springfield Parkway yesterday (going from Springfield to Kingstowne via Franconia Road--->Fleet Drive--->Beulah Street) and drove on both Fairfax County routes multiple times in the past week and I noted the same thing froggie did.
According to Josh Doe at OSM, SR 286 is now posted, at least between Burke Centre and Braddock.
Quote from: NE2 on June 06, 2012, 11:52:12 PM
According to Josh Doe at OSM, SR 286 is now posted, at least between Burke Centre and Braddock.
I'll keep my eyes peeled when I go out today–I need to go to Newington and so I may take a different route just to confirm that unless the gas gauge is reading too low. In the past week I've used the Franconia—Springfield Parkway several times in both directions and it was still signed as 7900.
(edited for typo on the route number)
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 07, 2012, 07:47:22 AM
Quote from: NE2 on June 06, 2012, 11:52:12 PM
According to Josh Doe at OSM, SR 286 is now posted, at least between Burke Centre and Braddock.
I'll keep my eyes peeled when I go out today–I need to go to Newington and so I may take a different route just to confirm that unless the gas gauge is reading too low. In the past week I've used the Franconia—Springfield Parkway several times in both directions and it was still signed as 7900.
(edited for typo on the route number)
Wound up not being able to go as far west as Burke. The Franconia—Springfield Parkway and the new segment of the Fairfax County Parkway between Rolling Road and Newington are both still signed as 7900 and 7100, respectively, as of this morning. What was amusing to me, though, is that the new segment has some brand-new overhead BGSs that have been installed this week (because they weren't there when I went to Newington last Friday afternoon) and they all bear the 7100 number in the round circle. There are a couple of others awaiting installation that are sitting in a grassy area near one of the on-ramps from Rolling/Barta Roads. I suppose this is probably a situation where the signs were already ordered and paid for prior to the numbering becoming official, and the installation times were presumably already scheduled, but I found it amusing because you'd think that if they're going to have to go out and stick new numbers on a bunch of signs it would be logical to start with the new signs that hadn't already been hoisted, or else to alter those signs when you're already up there hoisting them into place.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 07, 2012, 01:19:31 PM
Wound up not being able to go as far west as Burke. The Franconia—Springfield Parkway and the new segment of the Fairfax County Parkway between Rolling Road and Newington are both still signed as 7900 and 7100, respectively, as of this morning. What was amusing to me, though, is that the new segment has some brand-new overhead BGSs that have been installed this week (because they weren't there when I went to Newington last Friday afternoon) and they all bear the 7100 number in the round circle.
I was down that way this week (south of Va. 289 ... oops, Va. 7900) and saw
no indication of any new Va. 286 signage.
I notied the new 286 signs on the Parkway heading South between 66 and Braddock Road Wednesday morning. They are also posted at the intersection of Braddock Road and the Parkway. However, the BGSs mounted to the Parkway bridge on Braddock Road still have 7100.
QuoteWhat was amusing to me, though, is that the new segment has some brand-new overhead BGSs that have been installed this week (because they weren't there when I went to Newington last Friday afternoon) and they all bear the 7100 number in the round circle.
The signs were probably fabricated before the route changeover was approved. It's a lot easier (and cheaper) to slap a patch shield over an existing guide sign than it is to ditch an otherwise brand-new sign and start over.
Quote from: froggie on June 08, 2012, 07:44:28 AM
QuoteWhat was amusing to me, though, is that the new segment has some brand-new overhead BGSs that have been installed this week (because they weren't there when I went to Newington last Friday afternoon) and they all bear the 7100 number in the round circle.
The signs were probably fabricated before the route changeover was approved. It's a lot easier (and cheaper) to slap a patch shield over an existing guide sign than it is to ditch an otherwise brand-new sign and start over.
Yeah, you may have noticed I went on to suggest precisely that, although as I also said it would seem that if you're going to use patch shields–which I presume they are on other signs–it seems logical you'd start with the new signs simply under the theory that it makes more sense to do a single install rather than to hoist them and then climb back up again to patch them.
Quote from: davest123 on June 08, 2012, 12:32:30 AM
I notied the new 286 signs on the Parkway heading South between 66 and Braddock Road Wednesday morning. They are also posted at the intersection of Braddock Road and the Parkway. However, the BGSs mounted to the Parkway bridge on Braddock Road still have 7100.
At least that's some progress. While Va. 7100 (and the Fairfax County Parkway) are not especially old as roads around Northern Virginia go, that
7100 route number is
extremely ingrained with a large part of our driving population.
Traffic reports (and I mean "serious" traffic reports on WTOP and WNEW Radio and un-serious reports on many other stations in the region)
all use 7100 as a prominent reference point for reporting congestion and other problems along radials like U.S. 1, I-95, U.S. 29, I-66, Va. 267 and Va. 7 (and probably some others).
With that in mind, I really hope that VDOT will retain, at least for a while, some "OLD 7100" trailblazers and reassurance markers.
I actually heard a traffic reporter (Reena (sp?) Kessler on WTOP) say "Fairfax County Parkway" either this morning or yesterday afternoon and I was rather surprised to hear it because the traffic reporters have almost always said "7100" instead.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 08, 2012, 10:19:21 AM
I actually heard a traffic reporter (Reena (sp?) Kessler on WTOP) say "Fairfax County Parkway" either this morning or yesterday afternoon and I was rather surprised to hear it because the traffic reporters have almost always said "7100" instead.
Within a week of hearing about the Commonwealth Transportation Board's decision to move the three parkways to the primary system, I spoke with WTOP's Bob Marbourg, and he said he would alert the traffic reporting staff there to the impending change. I have not asked him recently, but it is possible that they are calling it the Fairfax County Parkway instead of 7100 because of the impending route number change, even though it takes longer to use the name instead of the route number.
I've heard WTOP occasionally use "Fairfax County Pkwy" over the years. It's not common, but it's NOT unique to the past few months.
Dr. Gridlock's column in yesterday's paper mentioned the renumbering and someone asked about it in his online discussion today as well. So I guess the general public are starting to notice the re-signed number.
WTOP's Kessler used the road's name this morning as well. Come to think of it, during the renumbering it seems very logical to refrain from using a number due to the potential for ambiguity or confusion when people hear one number and see another on the sign.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 11, 2012, 12:43:34 PM
Dr. Gridlock's column in yesterday's paper mentioned the renumbering and someone asked about it in his online discussion today as well. So I guess the general public are starting to notice the re-signed number.
WTOP's Kessler used the road's name this morning as well. Come to think of it, during the renumbering it seems very logical to refrain from using a number due to the potential for ambiguity or confusion when people hear one number and see another on the sign.
Saw VDOT's contractors putting up Va. 286 shields near Fox Mill Road yesterday. But the BGSs on Va. 267 (Dulles Toll Road) had not been touched.
Saw this at 12:21 this afternoon on Fullerton Road just north of Boudinot Drive. I was heading to the bank off Rolling Road. On the way back I used the Parkway and I noted that none of the BGSs have been touched, but the reassurance shields along the Parkway–at least from the Barta Road interchange to the I-95 interchange, anyway–were all brand-new VA-286 shields.
The Franconia—Springfield Parkway signs all still said 7900.
I can't be bothered to look up whether there's any kind of standard for the posting of the old route number. I remember when I-95 in Virginia became I-395, VDOT posted I-95 shields with a blue cardinal direction sign that said "OLD" instead of bearing a direction. I suppose the same thing could be done in this instance (adapting the colors appropriately, of course), but I kind of liked the black-on-yellow sign because it caught my eye. Indeed that sign was one of the main reasons I noticed this VA-286 shield in the first place–I drive through there often enough that I tend not to notice signs, and the lane pattern is screwed up enough that I'm usually more focused on noticing whether the driver in the lane to my right is going to fail to note that he's in a right-turn-only lane and instead go straight across into the lane I want to use. (In the direction I'm going in this picture there are two right-only lanes to the Parkway, a straight-only lane for Fullerton, and a left-only lane onto Boudinot, but on the far side Fullerton has two lanes.)
Funny, I didn't need to go down there to go to the bank (the one on Loisdale Road is closer), but since it's such a nice day I just wanted to put the top down and drive a bit further, and it got me my first VA-286 sighting.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F3b347b09.png&hash=8db72a174cadaa1c380b8894fcb2be2bdedc4967)
VA 289 is now signed in at least one place as of 5:30 this morning...
There is a 289 shield patch on the BGS NB I-95 HOV at the exit ramp for the route. There was no OLD 7900 marking of any sort.
The LGS at the top of that ramp was still posted as SR 7900.
Mapmikey
http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/2/925418.html
"VDOT was erecting a big-ass sign on the parkway heading north just after Burke Centre Parkway. It says Fairfax County Parkway: Now 286, Old 7100."
Also from that thread:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fairfaxunderground.com%2Fforum%2Ffile.php%3F2%2Cfile%3D62298%2Cfilename%3Dwtf.jpg&hash=919277682c2ff9332f96cb5a4fd904aaa2426f9b)
I take it nobody's seen any 294 shields yet.
Nobody has reported any to me and none are on I-95 which is where I would see one.
I may be going to Manassas this weekend where I would have an opportunity to see another part of the PW Pkwy
Mapmikey
Heading home this afternoon I spotted BGS's in the SB I-95 HOV of VA 286 and VA 289.
Further down on I-95 there was also an OLD 3000 sign near the PW Pkwy but no corresponding VA 294 sign was present
not the greatest picture but all I had with me was my Blackberry...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fmapscans%2F286-289shields.jpg&hash=e63fe4c24e494ca6a981f0210c53e43106c268d4)
Mapmikey
Quote from: Takumi on June 21, 2012, 09:12:15 AM
I take it nobody's seen any 294 shields yet.
I'm guaranteed not to until at least July 1. My wife and I are on vacation in Florida.
I do like the idea of a green sign (need not be big) advising of the number change. I vaguely recall Connecticut did something similar where I-84 became I-86 during the era when the number changed.
I may try to head up there sometime in the next couple weeks. Can't make any promises though.
The Parkways have been mostly signed with their new designations on I-95, at least southbound. The Exit 166A for the Fairfax Parkway still has a 7100 shield posted with the "old 7100" tacked on.
Reading that Fairfax Underground link made my brain hurt. I thought Chesterfield County's NIMBYs were bad. In any case, the image linked up above does not work.
"Why didn't they make it Primary Route 7100? How hard would that have been?" :pan:
Quote from: Takumi on June 30, 2012, 11:53:03 PM
"Why didn't they make it Primary Route 7100? How hard would that have been?" :pan:
Why didn't they? They have primary route 895...
Quote from: Takumi on June 30, 2012, 11:53:03 PM
"Why didn't they make it Primary Route 7100? How hard would that have been?" :pan:
That would be (in my opinion) an
unpardonable offense.
Yes, I know about Va. 895 (and I-664), but still, with those two exceptions (I don't know of any others [do you?]) primary highways in the Commonwealth have route numbers between 1 and 599, and secondary system routes have numbers greater than 600.
I know there are other funny situations with major highways that route numbers greater than 600 - I think all of them are "secret" route numbers, such as Va. 90004, which is the Dulles
Access Road in Fairfax and Loudoun Counties.
The only other primary route above 600 in Virginia is the secret VA 785. Both 785 and 895 have their numbers due to planned interstate designations with the same numbers for those corridors, although it'll be a long way off, if ever, before we see either one. VA 895's tolls don't end until the early 22nd century (and even then, I don't know if it can get its interstate shield), and the planned I-785 corridor in North Carolina (US 29 north of Greensboro) is not interstate standard, nor are there any short term plans to make it so to my knowledge.
Quote from: Takumi on July 01, 2012, 02:59:53 PM
The only other primary route above 600 in Virginia is the secret VA 785. Both 785 and 895 have their numbers due to planned interstate designations with the same numbers for those corridors, although it'll be a long way off, if ever, before we see either one. VA 895's tolls don't end until the early 22nd century (and even then, I don't know if it can get its interstate shield), and the planned I-785 corridor in North Carolina (US 29 north of Greensboro) is not interstate standard, nor are there any short term plans to make it so to my knowledge.
I recall reading on the superbly-detailed Roads to the Future site (here (http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Route_895_Connector.html#Route_Number_Desig)) why 895 has a Virginia primary shield and not an Interstate shield - I have only driven it once or twice, and it certainly seemed to have the "look and feel" of a Virginia Interstate, and Roads to the Future says that it
was built to Interstate standards.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 01, 2012, 08:50:34 PM
Quote from: Takumi on July 01, 2012, 02:59:53 PM
The only other primary route above 600 in Virginia is the secret VA 785. Both 785 and 895 have their numbers due to planned interstate designations with the same numbers for those corridors, although it'll be a long way off, if ever, before we see either one. VA 895's tolls don't end until the early 22nd century (and even then, I don't know if it can get its interstate shield), and the planned I-785 corridor in North Carolina (US 29 north of Greensboro) is not interstate standard, nor are there any short term plans to make it so to my knowledge.
Don't forget about I-664..
Quote
I recall reading on the superbly-detailed Roads to the Future site (here (http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Route_895_Connector.html#Route_Number_Desig)) why 895 has a Virginia primary shield and not an Interstate shield - I have only driven it once or twice, and it certainly seemed to have the "look and feel" of a Virginia Interstate, and Roads to the Future says that it was built to Interstate standards.
It was authorized as Interstate I-895 in the 1980s to be funded 90% with federal 4R funds. Its original preliminary design was as such to Interstate standards. In 1997 it was funded as a state PPTA project, and built. Since about $8 million in federal funds was used in the 1980s EIS, under federal law it as a tollroad could not be signed as an Interstate.
I can't understand why the state (if nothing else) didn't offer to refund that money to FHWA to "buy back" the I-895 designation so that it can be signed as such. The highway will be 10 years old in this September...
Quote from: Takumi on July 01, 2012, 02:59:53 PM
The only other primary route above 600 in Virginia is the secret VA 785.
Why is there a secret VA 785? Won't 785 follow the path of existing US 29?
How far north will the interstate designation go?
Yes, I-785 will be entirely concurrent with US 29 on the Danville bypass. The north end of the bypass was the initially planned north end of I-785, so VA 785 ends there. According to this thread, (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4062.0) I-785 may go further north. As to why VA 785 is secret, I don't know. I believe its primary predecessor, VA 265 (the number of the bypass before it was finished and US 29 put on it), was posted.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 01, 2012, 02:16:42 PM
Quote from: Takumi on June 30, 2012, 11:53:03 PM
"Why didn't they make it Primary Route 7100? How hard would that have been?" :pan:
That would be (in my opinion) an unpardonable offense.
Yes, I know about Va. 895 (and I-664), but still, with those two exceptions (I don't know of any others [do you?]) primary highways in the Commonwealth have route numbers between 1 and 599, and secondary system routes have numbers greater than 600.
I know there are other funny situations with major highways that route numbers greater than 600 - I think all of them are "secret" route numbers, such as Va. 90004, which is the Dulles Access Road in Fairfax and Loudoun Counties.
There is also VA 785, which is a secret but useless multiplex with the US 29 freeway in Danville. It's there since that's part of the future I-785 corridor.
Quote from: Takumi on July 01, 2012, 11:19:47 PM
Yes, I-785 will be entirely concurrent with US 29 on the Danville bypass. The north end of the bypass was the initially planned north end of I-785, so VA 785 ends there. According to this thread, (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4062.0) I-785 may go further north. As to why VA 785 is secret, I don't know. I believe its primary predecessor, VA 265 (the number of the bypass before it was finished and US 29 put on it), was posted.
The Danville Expressway (named as such because it is mostly within the City of Danville) section between US-29 near the N.C. border and VA-86, opened about 1980, the section between VA-86 and US-58 east of town opened about 1984, the section between US-58 and VA-360 opened about 1994, and the section between VA-360 and US-29 north of town opened in July 1996 (that last date is definite).
To prevent the motorist confusion that would have resulted from signing the partially completed bypass as US-29, when US-29 already existed through town, the segments of the bypass were signed as VA-265 as they opened, and once the final segment of the US-29 Danville bypass was completed, it was all signed as US-29, and the older route through town was re-signed as Business US-29.
The dualization of the US-29 northeast quadrant, and the construction of the US-58 southwest quadrant, completed in 2004. The southeast quadrant carries both US-29 and US-58.
The western junction of the bypass with US-58 is designed to be compatible with a future northwest bypass quadrant which will complete a circumferential freeway around Danville.
Quote from: NE2 on June 21, 2012, 06:22:03 AM
http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/2/925418.html
"VDOT was erecting a big-ass sign on the parkway heading north just after Burke Centre Parkway. It says Fairfax County Parkway: Now 286, Old 7100."
....
Got a picture of that sign earlier this afternoon, although I was heading south (there are two signs, one for each direction):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2Fb03dd479.jpg&hash=59f40e36ca849e253080beb7e0debbeab2b49c28)
There is another similar sign just west of the Sydenstricker exit, though that one appeared to have a slight fabrication issue because the text didn't appear entirely aligned. I didn't get the best look at it because I was trying to get around the poky silver Acura seen in the images below, as he was a left-lane hog going spot-on the speed limit.
What amused me about the signs advertising the new number is that in the area around the Sydenstricker exit the overhead signs shown below have also recently been erected (within the past few weeks when I was out of town, as I did not see them there in early June). Why is that amusing? Because these brand-new signs use the old numbers. While, as we've speculated before, the signs were surely ordered before the numbering change was authorized, I found it to be funny that they'd put up a brand-new sign advertising the new number while also putting up a clearly brand-new sign using the old one. (It still seems to me that it would have made sense just to patch the new signs before hoisting them.)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2Fa7b4f816.jpg&hash=792894b5d7eacf9b3f08cf2d0a702583e991453d)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2Facdbb813.jpg&hash=3613c3bbd390c213939f7f28d3fa943e3e8ead0c)
As to the first sign, I don't ever remember seeing a sign with "CONTINUES" like that anywhere else. Interesting idea.
The second overhead shown above is the first time I can recall seeing this style of arrow-per-lane sign in Virginia. I also noted with displeasure how VDOT still forgot to include some sort of indication that the "Restricted Lanes" are part of I-95.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 06, 2012, 03:08:04 PM
The second overhead shown above is the first time I can recall seeing this style of arrow-per-lane sign in Virginia. I also noted with displeasure how VDOT still forgot to include some sort of indication that the "Restricted Lanes" are part of I-95.
Because those restricted lanes are part of I-95 (south of I-495) and I-395 (from I-495 to the District of Columbia), I believe that VDOT
deliberately refrains from posting a route number associated with them.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 06, 2012, 10:36:12 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 06, 2012, 03:08:04 PM
The second overhead shown above is the first time I can recall seeing this style of arrow-per-lane sign in Virginia. I also noted with displeasure how VDOT still forgot to include some sort of indication that the "Restricted Lanes" are part of I-95.
Because those restricted lanes are part of I-95 (south of I-495) and I-395 (from I-495 to the District of Columbia), I believe that VDOT deliberately refrains from posting a route number associated with them.
I thought they were posted as I-95 south and I-395 north from the I-495 HOT lanes.
The new signs on the Beltway do indeed include I-95 and I-395 shields. They're the first signs VDOT has posted that do so. I recall remarking on it in another thread when the first one was hoisted and Mike Tantillo, who had seen renderings of what was planned, expressed bug surprise–apparently it was a late change in the plans.
NOT posting a shield seems to underscore the common complaint about signs assuming the driver knows where he's going.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 07, 2012, 05:54:29 PM
The new signs on the Beltway do indeed include I-95 and I-395 shields. They're the first signs VDOT has posted that do so. I recall remarking on it in another thread when the first one was hoisted and Mike Tantillo, who had seen renderings of what was planned, expressed bug surprise–apparently it was a late change in the plans.
NOT posting a shield seems to underscore the common complaint about signs assuming the driver knows where he's going.
I would normally be a big proponent of posting shields, but the Shirley Highway HOV roadway is (and was always) designed for regular everyday users, and because opportunities to exit are relatively few (especially in northbound operation) I believe that not posting the shields is the right approach.
Today I-95 Northbound:
At Fairfax County Parkway, all but the exit sign for Exit 166B have VA-286 shields. No changes at PW Parkway yet. Didn't check to see if VA-289 was posted northbound, was busy cutting across to take I-95 north from the HOV flyover.
I think in the southbound direction, it is absolutely appropriate to post "I-95", as every I-95 exit can be reached from the Shirley HOV facility.
In the northbound direction, I would be okay with omitting the shield and posting a destination or two: "Restricted Lanes - Pentagon - Washington", as those are really the only two places you can get to from the lanes. Though the flip side to this argument is that the I-495 Express lanes will also have limited access points, and those are clearly signed "I-495 south - E-ZPass Express" and "I-495 north - E-ZPass Express".
Another way in which those signs only cater to the familiar user: they don't have a VMS component telling you which way the lanes are pointed. The locals all know the schedule, but an unfamilar driver might head that way thinking the lanes are open south only to find that they are open north, and then its a pain to get back to I-95 from Franconia-Springfield Parkway. Even locals could be caught by surprise sometimes when VDOT changes the schedule (such as when there is a Sunday morning event that will impact the 14th Street Bridge, VDOT may keep the lanes open southbound until after the event, instead of the usual 2PM Saturday flip, to keep traffic from piling up at the north end of the lanes).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 08, 2012, 01:17:02 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 07, 2012, 05:54:29 PM
The new signs on the Beltway do indeed include I-95 and I-395 shields. They're the first signs VDOT has posted that do so. I recall remarking on it in another thread when the first one was hoisted and Mike Tantillo, who had seen renderings of what was planned, expressed bug surprise– apparently it was a late change in the plans.
NOT posting a shield seems to underscore the common complaint about signs assuming the driver knows where he's going.
I would normally be a big proponent of posting shields, but the Shirley Highway HOV roadway is (and was always) designed for regular everyday users, and because opportunities to exit are relatively few (especially in northbound operation) I believe that not posting the shields is the right approach.
In fact I was caught by surprise in a bad way last Sunday afternoon (July 1) when they were pointed southbound. We were coming back from Florida and had taken Route 1 from Richmond and I was hoping to hop over to the express lanes near Wegmans, but WTOP reported they were going the other way. Stunk. It took an hour 45 minutes to go 45 miles on Route 1.
I shouldn't grouse. With the downed trees and dark traffic lights, there were more important tasks than reversing the express lanes.
Finally VA-294 is beginning to be posted... there is now a BGS (similar to those on VA-286) on the Prince William Pkwy near Target/Famous Dave's in Woodbridge that says "Prince William Pkwy: Now VA-294 / Old SR-3000." I've seen no other VA-294 signs. At its western terminus, it is still posted as SR-3000.
I'm wondering how well VA-294 will be posted. SR-3000 is sparsely/inconsistently posted with the exception of major intersections with VA-234, I-95, US-1, Southbound Liberia Ave, a few other places where VDOT still has little white signs at intersections (an increasing rarity in Prince William County), and of course the tiny "SR 3000" on PWC street signs. This is as opposed to how SR-7100 was posted with shields and/or white signs at nearly every intersection and with many, many, reassurance signs on the road itself. In fact, with one exception eastbound approaching Old Bridge Road, SR-3000 is not posted where one has to turn to stay on it and the only reassurance sign for SR-3000 is eastbound leaving VA-234.
-Dan
QuoteIn fact, with one exception eastbound approaching Old Bridge Road, SR-3000 is not posted where one has to turn to stay on it...
Even that signpost was missing the SR 3000 shield when I passed through last week.
The only hints of VA 294's existence from I-95 I saw today were the "Old SR 3000" signs on the sides of a few gantries. There were a few unpatched signs for SR 7100 as well, but for the most part the VA 286 shields had been patched on. VA 289 was entirely posted from the interstate (directly accessed only from the HOV lanes, however), but I saw an unpatched 7900 sign on the surface from the transition to the Outer Loop from I-95.
So, who wants to see some shields?:
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-UKzTmrVa4kI/UBb9UH7tYrI/AAAAAAAADac/9moK1fxW-44/s720/DSC01465.JPG)
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-sig5TzPOaZY/UBb9YPMrWyI/AAAAAAAADcY/4YdLSUMP1J4/s720/DSC01483.JPG)
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-vzx-QJBKGyA/UBb9ZM12JYI/AAAAAAAADcg/igm2qpga3Oc/s720/DSC01486.JPG)
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-2UF1z7Lt2Kk/UBb9ZQbQisI/AAAAAAAADcw/Wp0uQZwdeKo/s720/DSC01488.JPG)
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-eTt99Xgk1VU/UBb9as8p6-I/AAAAAAAADdg/KCrjznD3TXQ/s720/DSC01493.JPG)
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-ApzH94tSpuw/UBb9azCi8VI/AAAAAAAADdc/_bXZwxiZv00/s720/DSC01494.JPG)
7900 shield barely visible in this last one.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-jlze7OR5Cso/UBb9bZKMqQI/AAAAAAAADec/83DTt9GOqUM/s720/DSC01498.JPG)
I got some photos of this when going to DC about a week ago to watch the Braves play the Nationals. Unfortunately seeing the new shields was may more enjoyable than watching the Braves lose again.
Quote from: Takumi on July 29, 2012, 02:03:52 AM
....
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-vzx-QJBKGyA/UBb9ZM12JYI/AAAAAAAADcg/igm2qpga3Oc/s720/DSC01486.JPG)
....
On our way up the express lanes after golfing in Woodbridge Saturday I noted that the left-hand sign in this set hadn't been changed yet (neither had the next one seen at the overpass in the distance) and I foudn it amusing that they did one but not the other. Then I found myself thinking that they ought to just replace the left-hand sign with something more useful that states where the road actually goes, now that it actually does go somewhere. Having "Backlick Rd" and "Fullerton Rd" made sense when the Fairfax County Parkway stub-ended at Fullerton–and indeed the road's name was greened out during that era–but now that it's been completed it seems high time for a replacement sign. Perhaps either Burke or Centreville and Reston might be two logical destinations.
On the southbound side, I noted that the overhead advance signs for the northbound Fairfax County Parkway were patched to say 286 but that the overhead sign on the ramp itself still said 7100, as did the ground-level sign telling truck drivers headed to the military base (the portion formerly called the Proving Grounds) which way to go. No pictures, traffic was too heavy to fool with a camera at that time.
Yeah, I wouldn't have been able to get those pictures had I been driving. I did see the southbound shields you mentioned, but by then it was nearly midnight.
VA 294 is finally posted on I-95. In the HOV lanes, anyway.
Wednesday night at least 3 BGS signs in the HOV received their VA 294 shield patch.
Here is a photo taken yesterday...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fmapscans%2F294shield.jpg&hash=53e99ac5b286afffe06474488b33db1b18f08d84)
Mapmikey
Last night they finished patching 286 and 294 shields on all BGSs directly on I-95. Only the assembly on the 95 SB ramp to 286 NB (Heller Rd split) still had a 7100 shield. "They even patched the Trucks to Ft Belvoir use..." sign on 95 SB.
Mapmikey
I drive down to Lorton earlier this morning and the signs for the Heller Road split had both been changed to 286 shields.
The Washington Post is (finally) reporting the number change (not really news for anyone in this forum).
Why change the numbers of the Fairfax, Prince William and Franconia parkways? Here's why (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-state-of-nova/post/why-change-the-numbers-of-the-fairfax-prince-william-and-franconia-parkways-heres-why/2012/08/24/4ba5e3d4-ee02-11e1-b0eb-dac6b50187ad_blog.html)
QuoteThe route number for the Fairfax County Parkway may have been odd – Route 7100 – but at least you could remember it. Same with the Prince William Parkway. Route 3000. Who ever heard of Route 3000? But for road signs or GPS or map use, they at least were memorable, if odd.
QuoteNow, they're changing. The Fairfax County Parkway is becoming Route 286. The Prince William Parkway is becoming Route 294. The Franconia-Springfield Parkway, formerly Route 7900, is becoming Route 287. None of these should be confused with the Dulles Toll Road, which is Route 267.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 24, 2012, 03:46:51 PM
The Washington Post is (finally) reporting the number change (not really news for anyone in this forum).
Why change the numbers of the Fairfax, Prince William and Franconia parkways? Here's why (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-state-of-nova/post/why-change-the-numbers-of-the-fairfax-prince-william-and-franconia-parkways-heres-why/2012/08/24/4ba5e3d4-ee02-11e1-b0eb-dac6b50187ad_blog.html)
QuoteThe route number for the Fairfax County Parkway may have been odd – Route 7100 – but at least you could remember it. Same with the Prince William Parkway. Route 3000. Who ever heard of Route 3000? But for road signs or GPS or map use, they at least were memorable, if odd.
QuoteNow, they're changing. The Fairfax County Parkway is becoming Route 286. The Prince William Parkway is becoming Route 294. The Franconia-Springfield Parkway, formerly Route 7900, is becoming Route 287. None of these should be confused with the Dulles Toll Road, which is Route 267.
See text bolded and underlined. Typical sloppy reporting from your average Post reporter.
I don't see what's so difficult about it. Aside from radio traffic reporters, I've never heard anyone refer to those roads by number.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 24, 2012, 04:35:30 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 24, 2012, 03:46:51 PM
The Washington Post is (finally) reporting the number change (not really news for anyone in this forum).
Why change the numbers of the Fairfax, Prince William and Franconia parkways? Here's why (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-state-of-nova/post/why-change-the-numbers-of-the-fairfax-prince-william-and-franconia-parkways-heres-why/2012/08/24/4ba5e3d4-ee02-11e1-b0eb-dac6b50187ad_blog.html)
QuoteThe route number for the Fairfax County Parkway may have been odd – Route 7100 – but at least you could remember it. Same with the Prince William Parkway. Route 3000. Who ever heard of Route 3000? But for road signs or GPS or map use, they at least were memorable, if odd.
QuoteNow, they're changing. The Fairfax County Parkway is becoming Route 286. The Prince William Parkway is becoming Route 294. The Franconia-Springfield Parkway, formerly Route 7900, is becoming Route 287. None of these should be confused with the Dulles Toll Road, which is Route 267.
See text bolded and underlined. Typical sloppy reporting from your average Post reporter.
I don't see what's so difficult about it. Aside from radio traffic reporters, I've never heard anyone refer to those roads by number.
I suggested on Facebook to someone that they should send Jackman an e-mail or leave a comment on the blog about this error.
EDIT: I see you did comment to him. Let's see if he reads the comments.
EDIT II: Fixed typo.
I didn't read all the comments, but I did notice that I was far from the first person to make the point about him getting the number wrong.
Some Post bloggers are pretty good about reading the comments and either replying or making corrections. Others seem never to read the comments, which kind of makes me wonder what the point of blogging is.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 24, 2012, 04:35:30 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 24, 2012, 03:46:51 PM
The Washington Post is (finally) reporting the number change (not really news for anyone in this forum).
Why change the numbers of the Fairfax, Prince William and Franconia parkways? Here's why (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-state-of-nova/post/why-change-the-numbers-of-the-fairfax-prince-william-and-franconia-parkways-heres-why/2012/08/24/4ba5e3d4-ee02-11e1-b0eb-dac6b50187ad_blog.html)
QuoteThe route number for the Fairfax County Parkway may have been odd – Route 7100 – but at least you could remember it. Same with the Prince William Parkway. Route 3000. Who ever heard of Route 3000? But for road signs or GPS or map use, they at least were memorable, if odd.
QuoteNow, they're changing. The Fairfax County Parkway is becoming Route 286. The Prince William Parkway is becoming Route 294. The Franconia-Springfield Parkway, formerly Route 7900, is becoming Route 287. None of these should be confused with the Dulles Toll Road, which is Route 267.
See text bolded and underlined. Typical sloppy reporting from your average Post reporter.
This is par for the course for the Washington comPost.
More from WTOP Radio: Answer Desk: Why did the signs change on 3 NoVa roads? (http://www.wtop.com/41/3008633/Why-did-the-signs-change-on-3-NoVa-roads)
Looks like WTOP got the route numbers right, too, though
how does VDOT "ease confusion?"
QuoteAll the roads will keep their names, but the numbers change. New signs show the Fairfax County Parkway as Route 286 rather than 7100, the Prince William Parkway as Route 294 rather than 3000, and the Franconia-Springfield Parkway as Route 289 rather than 7900. The changes were announced this winter, but the signs are rolling out now, including some noting the roads' old designations to ease confusion.
Quote"Ultimately, making these roads primary routes means we're talking about more money and a higher priority for maintenance," says Virginia Department of Transportation spokewoman Jennifer McCord says.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 26, 2012, 02:05:23 PM
More from WTOP Radio: Answer Desk: Why did the signs change on 3 NoVa roads? (http://www.wtop.com/41/3008633/Why-did-the-signs-change-on-3-NoVa-roads)
Looks like WTOP got the route numbers right, too, though how does VDOT "ease confusion?"
Like it says below, "signs ... noting the roads' old [route number] designations ...". Keep them in place for about a year until people get used to the new numbers, then remove them.
QuoteAll the roads will keep their names, but the numbers change. New signs show the Fairfax County Parkway as Route 286 rather than 7100, the Prince William Parkway as Route 294 rather than 3000, and the Franconia-Springfield Parkway as Route 289 rather than 7900. The changes were announced this winter, but the signs are rolling out now, including some noting the roads' old designations to ease confusion.