Virginia

[froggie]

I recall seeing this tweet months back about the Suffolk Bypass -

Maintaining the roadway doesn't mean that a locality can set a speed limit on a principal arterial highway that is on the Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET).  The US-58 Suffolk Bypass was built by VDH&T in the early 1970s so it wasn't originally built by the locality.  Not saying that it is impossible just rather unlikely.  It also fits the model of bypass speed limits west of there in that district.

Section 46.2-1300 of the Code of Virginia gives counties, cities, and towns the authority to increase or decrease the speed limit within its boundaries, provided such increase or decrease in speed shall be based upon an engineering and traffic investigation by such county, city or town and provided such speed area or zone is clearly indicated by markers or signs.

As long as they don't exceed the general statutory limits in Section 46.2-870 and as long as they have concurrence in writing from the Commissioner of Highways (i.e. VDOT) on VDOT-maintained highways (2nd half of subsection A in Section 46.2-878), local jurisdictions can change speed limits.

[sprjus4]

I recall seeing this tweet months back about the Suffolk Bypass -

Maintaining the roadway doesn't mean that a locality can set a speed limit on a principal arterial highway that is on the Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET).  The US-58 Suffolk Bypass was built by VDH&T in the early 1970s so it wasn't originally built by the locality.  Not saying that it is impossible just rather unlikely.  It also fits the model of bypass speed limits west of there in that district.

Section 46.2-1300 of the Code of Virginia gives counties, cities, and towns the authority to increase or decrease the speed limit within its boundaries, provided such increase or decrease in speed shall be based upon an engineering and traffic investigation by such county, city or town and provided such speed area or zone is clearly indicated by markers or signs.

As long as they don't exceed the general statutory limits in Section 46.2-870 and as long as they have concurrence in writing from the Commissioner of Highways (i.e. VDOT) on VDOT-maintained highways (2nd half of subsection A in Section 46.2-878), local jurisdictions can change speed limits.

So in this case, since VDOT does not maintain VA-168 nor US-58, the localities would be permitted to set the limits as high as 70 MPH, without any state approval. Obviously, it would never be set that high given the urban nature of the environment, roadway design, etc., but legally it could.

[Beltway]

Section 46.2-1300 of the Code of Virginia gives counties, cities, and towns the authority to increase or decrease the speed limit within its boundaries, provided such increase or decrease in speed shall be based upon an engineering and traffic investigation by such county, city or town and provided such speed area or zone is clearly indicated by markers or signs.
As long as they don't exceed the general statutory limits in Section 46.2-870 and as long as they have concurrence in writing from the Commissioner of Highways (i.e. VDOT) on VDOT-maintained highways (2nd half of subsection A in Section 46.2-878), local jurisdictions can change speed limits.

So in this case, since VDOT does not maintain VA-168 nor US-58, the localities would be permitted to set the limits as high as 70 MPH, without any state approval. Obviously, it would never be set that high given the urban nature of the environment, roadway design, etc., but legally it could.

Ahh, another case where it would take a legislative attorney to sort thru all those statutes and interpret them regarding this matter.

In § 46.2-878. Authority to change speed limits, it starts,
"Notwithstanding the other provisions of this article, the Commissioner of Highways or other authority having jurisdiction over highways ...".

Also -
"The increased or decreased speed limits over highways under the control of the Commissioner of Highways shall be effective only when prescribed in writing by the Commissioner of Highways and kept on file in the Central Office of the Department of Transportation."

VDH&T built the US-58 Suffolk Bypass.  The fact that they would turn over the maintenance to the locality does not mean that they no longer have jurisdiction over the highway, or that the right-of-way no longer belongs to VDOT, or that the highway is no longer under their control.  So VDOT would have control over the speed limit.

[sprjus4]

VDH&T built the US-58 Suffolk Bypass.  The fact that they would turn over the maintenance to the locality does not mean that they no longer have jurisdiction over the highway, or that the right-of-way no longer belongs to VDOT, or that the highway is no longer under their control.  So VDOT would have control over the speed limit.

Could be true... the city may have the say, or the state does. But either way, an increase to 65 MPH, if it were to ever occur, would likely pass through both VDOT and Suffolk either way.

VA-168 is different as the city does maintain and operate the entire thing. I suppose the Great Bridge Bypass could be debated, though I'm fairly certain it's the city. The Oak Grove Connector and Chesapeake Expressway were both freeways constructed by the City of Chesapeake, and are operated by the City of Chesapeake. That's fully the City of Chesapeake's deal.

[Beltway]

VDH&T built the US-58 Suffolk Bypass.  The fact that they would turn over the maintenance to the locality does not mean that they no longer have jurisdiction over the highway, or that the right-of-way no longer belongs to VDOT, or that the highway is no longer under their control.  So VDOT would have control over the speed limit.

Could be true... the city may have the say, or the state does. But either way, an increase to 65 MPH, if it were to ever occur, would likely pass through both VDOT and Suffolk either way.
VA-168 is different as the city does maintain and operate the entire thing. I suppose the Great Bridge Bypass could be debated, though I'm fairly certain it's the city. The Oak Grove Connector and Chesapeake Expressway were both freeways constructed by the City of Chesapeake, and are operated by the City of Chesapeake. That's fully the City of Chesapeake's deal.

I see now that I myself wrote that the Oak Grove Connector was built by the City of Chesapeake.  Article "Chesapeake Expressway (VA-168)".

But I see that I also quoted a city news release, and there was some state funding, and it doesn't really resolve the issue of who owns the highway, which would seem to resolve the issue of who sets the speed limit.

"The Virginia General Assembly approved legislation for State financing of the Oak Grove Connector in 1993. The financing is unique. The City is dedicating its share of the State recordation taxes distributed to localities to pay for approximately half of the annual debt service. The other half of the debt service will come from local general revenues and is being provided by the City of Chesapeake through a contract with the State. Sale of these State bonds resulted in the lowest true interest cost in the history of the Virginia Department of Transportation. The total project cost, including design, permits and right-of-way acquisitions, is $38 million. The Oak Grove Connector was designed by local companies including the engineering firm, Kimley-Horn & Associates. Road construction will be completed by the contracting firm of Higgerson-Buchanan, Inc."

[1995hoo]

WOW! The GW Parkway is completely closed in both directions this morning between the Beltway and Route 123. Seems yesterday's rain compromised the road. WTOP's article refers to a sinkhole that's at least three feet wide and six to eight feet deep, and it sounds like it's unclear whether it extends further under the road.

https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2019/03/nb-george-washington-parkway-closed-because-of-road-damage/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NEW%20Breaking%20News%20-%20DO%20NOT%20USE&utm_term=2017_WTOP%20Breaking%20News


Edited to add photos the NPS put on Twitter after my original post. The tweet says the damage appears to be caused by a broken stormwater management pipe "deep underground,"  so this may take a while for them to investigate.

[VTGoose]

Right, that is why 4-lane undivided highways like most of US-460 between Petersburg and Suffolk, is not eligible for a 60 mph speed limit, even though it is part of the US-460 corridor authorized for 60 mph in the statute.

If it was legal, the rural sections of U.S. 460 could definitely handle 60 MPH.

Out here at the other end of the state, sections of U.S. 460 are posted for 60 MPH, in Bedford County and Giles County (and a short stretch in Montgomery County). The Blacksburg and Pearisburg bypasses are posted at 65 MPH. It has been a while since I've made the trip beyond Bluefield to Grundy, but I seem to remember sections of 460 in Tazewell County that were posted at 60 and 65.

[Beltway]

Out here at the other end of the state, sections of U.S. 460 are posted for 60 MPH, in Bedford County and Giles County (and a short stretch in Montgomery County). The Blacksburg and Pearisburg bypasses are posted at 65 MPH. It has been a while since I've made the trip beyond Bluefield to Grundy, but I seem to remember sections of 460 in Tazewell County that were posted at 60 and 65.

I recall pre-NMSL that the US-460 Christiansburg Bypass was posted at 65 mph.  How about nowadays?

[WillWeaverRVA]

Out here at the other end of the state, sections of U.S. 460 are posted for 60 MPH, in Bedford County and Giles County (and a short stretch in Montgomery County). The Blacksburg and Pearisburg bypasses are posted at 65 MPH. It has been a while since I've made the trip beyond Bluefield to Grundy, but I seem to remember sections of 460 in Tazewell County that were posted at 60 and 65.

I recall pre-NMSL that the US-460 Christiansburg Bypass was posted at 65 mph.  How about nowadays?

It's 65 now, too.

[Beltway]

I recall pre-NMSL that the US-460 Christiansburg Bypass was posted at 65 mph.  How about nowadays?

It's 65 now, too.

The US-460 Lynchburg Bypass is 65 mph also.

[SP Cook]

https://www.bdtonline.com/news/local_news/tennessee-man-sentenced-in-crash-resulting-in-amputation/article_84a8ca16-1aea-5635-8633-354845b91ec9.html

No winners.

[1995hoo]

https://twitter.com/npsjennyas/status/1109092118017032192?s=21

[Beltway]

More contract awards by the CTB --

In this month's meeting, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) also approved 11 VDOT contracts totaling $144.6 million.

A $59.6 million design-build contract was awarded to Wagman Heavy Civil, Inc. of York, Pa. to construct a new interchange at Route 7 (East Market Street) and Battlefield Parkway in VDOT's Northern Virginia District.  The project will also modify the intersection of Route 7 and Cardinal Park Drive.  The project, expected to be complete in spring 2022, will relieve congestion, improve safety and enhance mobility for cyclists and pedestrians along the corridor.

A $29 million design-build contract was awarded to Orders Construction Company of St. Albans, W.Va. to replace two Smyth County bridges that carry Interstate 81 north and south over Route 11 (Lee Highway), the Middle Fork of the Holston River and the adjacent railroad in VDOT's Bristol District.  Completion is expected in spring 2022.

A $7.4 million contract was awarded to Brayman Construction Corporation of Saxonsburg, Pa. to replace the bridge that carries Route 122 (Moneta Road) over Goose Creek in Bedford County, part of VDOT's Salem District.  Completion is expected in summer 2021.

Additional contracts for paving related activities were awarded as follows:

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2019/ctb-takes-critical-steps-on-hrbt-expansion-project3-22-2019.asp

This is the I-81 Bridge in Smyth County

[1995hoo]

NB GW Parkway to remain closed all weekend.

[BrianP]

Info about the I-81 bridge project:
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/APD_Docs/RFQ/97555_RFQ_Info_Meeting_06_12_2018.pdf

The new structures will be at a higher elevation than the existing structures:

To improve operations by replacing the existing structures which have substandard vertical clearances over US Route 11

There is an 14'1" clearance sign on US 11.

[sprjus4]

Assuming that the bridge will be built with at least a 24 foot left shoulder in each direction to accommodate future 6-lane widening, like the other newer bridges on the I-81 corridor.

[BrianP]

I don't think so.  The conceptual drawing only has a 86' wide roadway.  But of course that's not an actual design. 

This bridge further south in Bristol VA, which is 6 lanes, has approximately a 120' wide roadway. 
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6215146,-82.1889464,149m/data=!3m1!1e3

I had my doubts that $29 million would be enough to fund a six lane bridge of this size. 

[Mapmikey]

The brand new bridges at the VA 140 interchange were not built for a 6-lane roadway either:  https://goo.gl/maps/25n4cnFKDYk

[sprjus4]

The brand new bridges at the VA 140 interchange were not built for a 6-lane roadway either:  https://goo.gl/maps/25n4cnFKDYk

Poor planning IMHO then. Any new bridges on I-81 should be designed to accommodate 6 lanes. Saves money in the long run.

[Beltway]

Info about the I-81 bridge project:
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/APD_Docs/RFQ/97555_RFQ_Info_Meeting_06_12_2018.pdf
The new structures will be at a higher elevation than the existing structures:

To improve operations by replacing the existing structures which have substandard vertical clearances over US Route 11

There is an 14'1" clearance sign on US 11.

That is standard; nowadays 18 or even 20 feet of vertical clearance is used on new Interstate highway bridges.

Earlier I e-mailed the project manager about the bridge widths and am awaiting a reply.

In that presentation it looks like a single new bridge for I-81, with 42 feet of deck width for each direction, separated by a median barrier.  Each direction, two 12-foot lanes, 12-foot right shoulder, 6-foot left shoulder.

Poor planning IMHO then. Any new bridges on I-81 should be designed to accommodate 6 lanes. Saves money in the long run.

Not necessarily that much.  In the widening, build new piers and girders and deck, splice the two decks together, the only thing lost is the bridge parapet.

Unless they are going to widen it pretty soon, the extra money can be applied to other I-81 bridge replacements, as many of the bridges are now over 50 years old.

[sprjus4]

I now better see why substandard bridges have issues. Earlier, I was driving eastbound on I-64 near Williamsburg, and a truck happened to break down on the Queen Creek bridges, reducing traffic to one lane, and resulting in a 4 mile backup. If the bridges had shoulders, the truck would've been able to pull off and not impede traffic.

Luckily, those bridges are currently being replaced apart of the I-64 widening, and are actually currently under construction. The new bridges will have 3 lanes in each direction, and 12 foot shoulders on either side.

[Beltway]

I now better see why substandard bridges have issues. Earlier, I was driving eastbound on I-64 near Williamsburg, and a truck happened to break down on the Queen Creek bridges, reducing traffic to one lane, and resulting in a 4 mile backup. If the bridges had shoulders, the truck would've been able to pull off and not impede traffic.

Disabled vehicles actually have become rather rare over the last 30 years, I can remember when on a 50-mile Interstate highway trip it seemed like you would see at least 5 or 10 stopped on the shoulder along the way, and now usually it is zero.  By "disabled" I mean exclusive of accidents/crashes, which can happen anywhere.  Probably mainly due to improvements in tires, and the elimination of carburetors via electronic ignition and fuel injection, and even the older (15+ year old) cars on the road have these features.

Those bridges are just over 900 feet long, and that is long enough to create a higher statistical probability that a vehicle that is in the process of having a breakdown won't be able to make it off the bridge and onto a full shoulder.

[Alps]

I now better see why substandard bridges have issues. Earlier, I was driving eastbound on I-64 near Williamsburg, and a truck happened to break down on the Queen Creek bridges, reducing traffic to one lane, and resulting in a 4 mile backup. If the bridges had shoulders, the truck would've been able to pull off and not impede traffic.

Disabled vehicles actually have become rather rare over the last 30 years, I can remember when on a 50-mile Interstate highway trip it seemed like you would see at least 5 or 10 stopped on the shoulder along the way, and now usually it is zero.  By "disabled" I mean exclusive of accidents/crashes, which can happen anywhere.  Probably mainly due to improvements in tires, and the elimination of carburetors via electronic ignition and fuel injection, and even the older (15+ year old) cars on the road have these features.

Those bridges are just over 900 feet long, and that is long enough to create a higher statistical probability that a vehicle that is in the process of having a breakdown won't be able to make it off the bridge and onto a full shoulder.

And this is why agencies are now tending to build full shoulders despite the extra cost and the ability to waive it on "long bridges" (which is not specifically defined IIRC). But yeah, I routinely see cars abandoned or disabled on the shoulder, maybe 1 or 2 per 50 miles instead of 5 or 10. People still drive cars into the ground.

[Beltway]

Those bridges are just over 900 feet long, and that is long enough to create a higher statistical probability that a vehicle that is in the process of having a breakdown won't be able to make it off the bridge and onto a full shoulder.

And this is why agencies are now tending to build full shoulders despite the extra cost and the ability to waive it on "long bridges" (which is not specifically defined IIRC). But yeah, I routinely see cars abandoned or disabled on the shoulder, maybe 1 or 2 per 50 miles instead of 5 or 10. People still drive cars into the ground.

VDOT has been building freeway long bridges with full shoulders since about the mid-1970s, such as the second HRBT bridges, the I-664 Hampton Roads bridges, the I-295 James River Bridge, the US-1 James River Bridge, the VA-288 James River Bridge, the VA-150 James River Bridge.  Common in other states as well.  The new I-95/I-495 Woodrow Wilson Bridge.

I don't have an exact number for the rate of disabled vehicles, I haven't even seen it discussed anywhere.  I know it catches my attention when I see one, whereby back in the 1970s or before it seemed like they were everywhere.

[sprjus4]

and the ability to waive it on "long bridges"

The ability to waive long bridges really only applies when an older, existing, non-interstate bridge is being incorporated into the interstate highway system. Even in that case, widening the bridge to include shoulders should be considered as an option, or replacing the bridge completely especially if it is a heavily traveled roadway. For that most part, that's what happens. As far as I'm aware, every new location interstate bridge is built with full shoulders. Arterial bridges nowadays are also mainly constructed with full shoulders.