Virginia

[kernals12]

^ The Dulles Toll Road carries over 100,000 AADT, and VA-7 carries nearly 60,000 AADT (nearly 100,000 AADT north of VA-28). Both facilities warrant a free-flowing design at minimum.

That's an hourly average traffic flow of 260 per lane. That's 13% of capacity.

[cpzilliacus]

Agreed. I'm not opposed to the Silver Line extension to the Airport, but I don't feel like the tolls should've been used / extended to fund this project. The tolls were slated to be removed years ago once original bonds were paid off, which they have been.

The MWAA went for control of the Dulles Toll Road precisely because the revenue bonds that were issued to pay for it were nearly paid-down, and in most cases in Virginia, if a toll road is paid-off, then the road becomes "free" and is maintained as part of VDOT's network of highways.

Because the road serves a pretty wealthy area, MWAA also estimated (correctly IMO) that there would not be much resistance to large toll increases, which happened not long after they took over the road.

I was never much of an enthusiast for the Dulles Rail project.  It was approved based on travel demand forecasting work done by consultants under the thumb of MWAA and WMATA, using a models set developed to come up with favorable Dulles Rail patronage volumes.

Comments from the Dulles Rail EIS explain more (might  be TMI but provides context) with some emphasis added:

Comment:

The  modeling  technique  used  to  forecast  ridership  was  the  Northern  Virginia  Major Investment Study (NVMISM) model. This is also commonly called "the Dulles rail model," which in itself shows  bias  toward  heavy  rail  over  BRT.    While  the  DEIS  gives  a  detailed  explanation  why  it  used  this methodology, believe that WMATA's reasons for using NVMISM do not provide acceptable rationale for deviating  from  the  regionally  approved  travel  demand  forecasting  model,  known  as  Version  1  or  2 National  Capital  Region  Transportation  Planning  Board  at  the  Metropolitan  Washington  Council  of Governments (COG TPB for short).  While MDOT and other DEIS endeavors have used COG's Version I.Version I was not even considered for the Dulles project, though Version 2 was tested against NVMISM.WMATA and VDRPT must explain why Version I was not used, though that is the official technique of the COG  TPB,  which  is  the  metropolitan  planning  organization  (MPO)  for  the  greater  D.C.  area.    DEIS Technical report on methodology and forecasting (page 22) states: "NVMISM was developed initially for the  1994  Dulles  Corridor  Rail  Study..."  have  been  advised  that  NVMISM  was  invented  by  Parsons Brinkerhoff  and  was  "refined"  by  Jeff  Bruggeman  of  AECOM  for  the  I-66  study.  However,  the  main purpose of this model was for building a case for Dulles Rail - not BRT. It would appear that WMATA did more "refinements" with the Dulles model to build a case for rail.  (0112, 0462-L —12)

Reply:

The  Project's  ridership  estimates  were  developed  using  the  Northern  Virginia  Major Investment  Study  Model  (NVMISM).  This  model  was  developed  for  the  original  Dulles  Corridor Major  Investment  Study  and  was  also  utilized  for  the  Metrorail  I-66  to  Centreville  Major Investment  Study.  This  model  set  was  utilized  instead  of  the  COG  Version  2  model  because Version  2  had  not  yet  been  validated.  A  more  detailed  description  of  the  selection  of  the  model was outlined in Chapter 3 of the Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Technical Report (June 2002). The NVMISM model was not a replacement of the Version 1 Model but rather an adaptation and refinement  of  the  model  for  more  localized  analysis.  This  approach  was  used  because  the Version  1  model  is  region  wide  and  was  meant  to  describe  regional  travel  flows.  The  NVMISM model refined this model in terms of a more detailed highway and transit network, smaller transit analysis zones that more closely reflect the differences in land use, and the incorporation of BRT into the model. In addition, the Version 1, because it was a regional model, did not estimate mode of  arrival  accurately  at  a  station  area  level,  thus  making  it  difficult  to  plan  for  park-and-ride capacity and other station area improvements.

And these comments:

Lastly, if your ridership forecasts are not in line with what the COG TPB derives, how can  WMATA  and  VDRPT  expect  to  receive  federal  funding  for  this  project  and  include  it  in  the  TPB Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP) when the official MPO model was not even considered or run in your contest (Version I)?  In order to get federal funds, a project must be part of the regional CLRP and meet  the  Air  Quality  Conformity  Determination  of  the  regional  Transportation  Improvement  Program.What are DRPT and WMATA going to do if patronage forecasts for Dulles Rail conducted as part of the regional transportation planning and air quality conformity efforts result in lower or much lower ridership projections?  (0112, 0462-L —19)

Hence, reliance on the Dulles rail model is risky. But another problem with this model is  the  lack  of  public  involvement  in  its  preparation.    In  contrast,  COG  Versions  1  and  2  are  being scrutinized in public. In fact, they have been under attack from environmental groups for years and some TPB  members.  COG  TPB  has  approved  subjecting  Version  2  to  peer  review.  Version  1,  at  least,  has undergone public scrutiny.  In contract, the Dulles Rail/NVMISM model has never, to my knowledge, been peer  reviewed,  calibrated,  validated  or  used  in  other  DEIS  endeavors,  except  the  I-66  Multimodal  study where  it  was  substantially  revamped.    The  Dulles  rail  model  should  be  discarded  and  never  again  be used for forecasting work in Northern Virginia or anywhere else. (0112, 0462-L —20)

Reply:

The NVMISM model used for ridership estimation was an adaptation and refinement of the Version 1 Model, not a replacement. This approach was used because the Version 1 model was  region  wide  and  was  meant  to  describe  regional  travel  flows.  The  NVMISM  model  refined this model in terms of a more detailed highway and transit network, smaller transit analysis zones that more closely reflect the differences in land use, and the incorporation of BRT into the model.

Reply:

In addition, the Version 1 model did not estimate mode of arrival accurately at a station area level,thus  making  it  difficult  to  plan  for  park-and-ride  capacity  and  other  station  area  improvements.The  Travel  Demand  Forecasting  Methodology  and  Results  Technical  Report  (June  2002)  was  a public  document  and  therefore  this  comprehensive  description  of  the  modeling  process  was available  for  detailed  scrutiny.  The  NVMISM  model  has  been  used  twice  before  and  the adaptations to the model between uses have been publicly documented.

Comment:

The  project  team  continues  to  use  the  Northern  Virginia  Major  Investment  Study (NVMISM) "Dulles Rail Black Box"  model for this SDEIS rather than the current release of the COG/TPB Version 2 travel demand forecasting model, which you pledged to use in the final EIS. (0016 0122-18)

Comment:

I  did  not  get  answers  to  my  questions  from  John  Dittmeier  about  what  modeling technique he used in this round. In the supplement hearing report on the first EIS, the project team said they would use a more-credible model - the COG Version 2 model - in the final EIS. I believe that model should be used now. (0016 0122-9)

Reply:

DRPT and WMATA did not commit to use the MWCOG Version 2 model in the Final EIS.    When  the  EIS  process  began  approximately  four  years  ago,  the  decision  to  use  the NVMSIM model was based on the fact that only an early version of the Version 2 model had been developed  and  was  not  yet  available  in  a  calibrated  form.  This  decision  is  documented  in  the Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Technical Report (June 2002), prepared in support of the Draft EIS.

[Alps]

^ The Dulles Toll Road carries over 100,000 AADT, and VA-7 carries nearly 60,000 AADT (nearly 100,000 AADT north of VA-28). Both facilities warrant a free-flowing design at minimum.

That's an hourly average traffic flow of 260 per lane. That's 13% of capacity.

I don't know if that's a willful misunderstanding of traffic flow or if you're trolling. 100,000 AADT warrants 4 lanes each way at minimum.

[kernals12]

^ The Dulles Toll Road carries over 100,000 AADT, and VA-7 carries nearly 60,000 AADT (nearly 100,000 AADT north of VA-28). Both facilities warrant a free-flowing design at minimum.

That's an hourly average traffic flow of 260 per lane. That's 13% of capacity.

I don't know if that's a willful misunderstanding of traffic flow or if you're trolling. 100,000 AADT warrants 4 lanes each way at minimum.

I guess i don't understand. The Santa Monica Freeway has an AADT of 400,000 in some places. Based on this, that would mean it needs 32 lanes. I know it's a congested freeway, but that's pretty ridiculous.

[Alps]

^ The Dulles Toll Road carries over 100,000 AADT, and VA-7 carries nearly 60,000 AADT (nearly 100,000 AADT north of VA-28). Both facilities warrant a free-flowing design at minimum.

That's an hourly average traffic flow of 260 per lane. That's 13% of capacity.

I don't know if that's a willful misunderstanding of traffic flow or if you're trolling. 100,000 AADT warrants 4 lanes each way at minimum.

I guess i don't understand. The Santa Monica Freeway has an AADT of 400,000 in some places. Based on this, that would mean it needs 32 lanes. I know it's a congested freeway, but that's pretty ridiculous.

It would warrant that many, but warrants are based on avoiding congestion. When your AADT is 400k, you're not even thinking of avoiding congestion, you just want to do the best you can. There are 6-lane freeways in the NYC area that carry well over 200k a day, and that really shouldn't be the case, but they're congested 18-20 hours a day. At minimum, your freeway should be sized for about 2300 vehicles/lane in the peak direction in the peak hour (capacity), which should be no less than 8% of your daily volume in an urban area, or 28,750 vehicles/lane per direction. Using that rough metric, 100k ADT would fit in 4 lanes, and it certainly does, but LOS C would be more like 1600 vehicles/lane, which gets you to 6 lanes. 400k ADT would require 7 lanes per direction at minimum, or with LOS C, 10 lanes per direction.

[sprjus4]

They also replaced the signs on I-664 North approaching I-64... did not manage to get a picture of those, though they do not include the whole "Downtown Hampton" with the standalone I-64 shield... it's a proper "Norfolk Va Beach" and I-64 East. They also include "Exit Only" with two down arrows for each sign as opposed to single side arrow the old signs had. The signs did not look the cleanest though... especially for a VDOT install who is usually good on the interstate system (arterials are a whole different story... yikes)

Finally got a chance to photograph these new overhead signs on I-664 approaching I-64 in Hampton.

Something about them just feels... cramped.

[odditude]

They also replaced the signs on I-664 North approaching I-64... did not manage to get a picture of those, though they do not include the whole "Downtown Hampton" with the standalone I-64 shield... it's a proper "Norfolk Va Beach" and I-64 East. They also include "Exit Only" with two down arrows for each sign as opposed to single side arrow the old signs had. The signs did not look the cleanest though... especially for a VDOT install who is usually good on the interstate system (arterials are a whole different story... yikes)

Finally got a chance to photograph these new overhead signs on I-664 approaching I-64 in Hampton.

Something about them just feels... cramped.

not adhering to the whitespace requirements (i.e. insufficient margins/padding) will do that.

[plain]

Looks like Historic Aerials has added 1984 satellite imagery to the Richmond metro (they seem to be adding that year to quite a few places). This includes the entire RPT, and shows all the changes on the turnpike after the 1970s reconstruction/expansions (see 1968 vs 1984).

[jmacswimmer]

They also replaced the signs on I-664 North approaching I-64... did not manage to get a picture of those, though they do not include the whole "Downtown Hampton" with the standalone I-64 shield... it's a proper "Norfolk Va Beach" and I-64 East. They also include "Exit Only" with two down arrows for each sign as opposed to single side arrow the old signs had. The signs did not look the cleanest though... especially for a VDOT install who is usually good on the interstate system (arterials are a whole different story... yikes)

Finally got a chance to photograph these new overhead signs on I-664 approaching I-64 in Hampton.

Something about them just feels... cramped.

not adhering to the whitespace requirements (i.e. insufficient margins/padding) will do that.

Not that it actually affects anything, but I'm sad to see the I-664 shield formerly attached to the 1/2-mile overhead bite the dust (though I do like that these replacements better spell out which lanes go which direction on I-64).

[sprjus4]

^ Agreed, they're more straight forward for lane guidance as opposed to the simple sideways arrows on the old signs.

[1995hoo]

In the two images that sprjus4 posted, the signs in the first image look fine to me and the signs in the second image look compressed. The latter two remind me of when someone adjusts the spacing in a printed document to something less than double spacing in an attempt to cram more text onto the page in order to comply with a page limit. (Which raises the question of why page limits are still a thing when word-count limits are more effective, but that's a separate discussion.)

[plain]

That 2nd pair of signs are indeed a bit cramped but still.. I like the signs. Not bad for the Hampton Roads District. It's certainly better than what was there before.

And infinitely better than something like this..

https://maps.app.goo.gl/Twz2YiNULLPtiXHJ6

[plain]

https://www.nbc12.com/2021/07/08/peta-seeks-safety-designation-stretch-virginia-road-prone-hog-truck-crashes/?fbclid=IwAR2l8OOCtscFpmGKNkJXarjX16IFppNQZHNWnPbVGmNicC_iIIlykpyb5-M

I know this stretch of VA 10 has its issues but IDK.. I'm on the fence with this one.

[74/171FAN]

https://www.nbc12.com/2021/07/08/peta-seeks-safety-designation-stretch-virginia-road-prone-hog-truck-crashes/?fbclid=IwAR2l8OOCtscFpmGKNkJXarjX16IFppNQZHNWnPbVGmNicC_iIIlykpyb5-M

I know this stretch of VA 10 has its issues but IDK.. I'm on the fence with this one.

Has PETA ever considered anything like this related to deer?  I understand that deer are not considered pets, but PETA being involved here is strange to me.

[plain]

https://www.nbc12.com/2021/07/08/peta-seeks-safety-designation-stretch-virginia-road-prone-hog-truck-crashes/?fbclid=IwAR2l8OOCtscFpmGKNkJXarjX16IFppNQZHNWnPbVGmNicC_iIIlykpyb5-M

I know this stretch of VA 10 has its issues but IDK.. I'm on the fence with this one.

Has PETA ever considered anything like this related to deer?  I understand that deer are not considered pets, but PETA being involved here is strange to me.

I think they're more concerned with the pigs/hogs that the trucks are hauling. They want them to be safe while they're on their way to Smithfield to be slaughtered

[1995hoo]

VDOT posted another nice "Then and Now" image of Gilbert's Corner (clicking to open the tweet allows for clicking on the image to enlarge). I couldn't resist commenting on the signage....

https://twitter.com/1995hoo/status/1413504781121900544

[cpzilliacus]

VDOT posted another nice "Then and Now" image of Gilbert's Corner (clicking to open the tweet allows for clicking on the image to enlarge). I couldn't resist commenting on the signage....

Love VDH signage from the 1950's and 1960's.  Very distinctive yet clear.  VDOT signage now is not that different from what its neighboring states do.

[AlexandriaVA]

It's interesting to note the apparent re-forestation along the right-of-way, in place of the former farmland. (Assuming that the photos are oriented in the same direction)

It's always worth noting that, particularly in the East, there's a good chance that the trees you're walking among aren't all that old.

[Mapmikey]

It's interesting to note the apparent re-forestation along the right-of-way, in place of the former farmland. (Assuming that the photos are oriented in the same direction)

It's always worth noting that, particularly in the East, there's a good chance that the trees you're walking among aren't all that old.

Historic Aerials shows that field starting to have trees again between 1974-81.

[1995hoo]

It's interesting to note the apparent re-forestation along the right-of-way, in place of the former farmland. (Assuming that the photos are oriented in the same direction)

It's always worth noting that, particularly in the East, there's a good chance that the trees you're walking among aren't all that old.

They're looking in the same direction. The way I can tell that is the white sign in the first image shows a left turn (east) towards DC and a right turn (west) towards Winchester and Middleburg, so that image has to be looking south. In the second image, notice the bypass lane for right-turners to skip the roundabout. The only bypass lane at that roundabout goes from southbound US-15 to westbound US-50 (towards Middleburg and Winchester). Thus, the image has to be looking the same way.

VDOT is pretty good about posting pictures from as close to the same vantage point as possible when they post these.

[AlexandriaVA]

Figured they would be, but wasn't totally sure.

[dfnva]

VDOT posted another nice "Then and Now" image of Gilbert's Corner (clicking to open the tweet allows for clicking on the image to enlarge). I couldn't resist commenting on the signage....

https://twitter.com/1995hoo/status/1413504781121900544

A fairly pointless thought, but seeing that got me to thinking, you don't often see "Junction" spelled out on signage these days. These "Junction" signs in Springfield made it to, at least, 2020. The prior incarnations, long gone, had smaller white-background SR-1155 shields.

https://goo.gl/maps/UFefiVCUtnHpGDb46
https://goo.gl/maps/wV4gohTiTGaMHGKu7

[Old Dominionite]

Did VDOT cut back even more on mowing? I've never seen so many medians and shoulders looking like they've gone months without any maintenance. Aside from the unkempt and unsightly appearance, this ridiculously high vegetation threatens to damage concrete curbs and medians, and will inevitably clog storm drains. The state can do better.

[hbelkins]

Did VDOT cut back even more on mowing? I've never seen so many medians and shoulders looking like they've gone months without any maintenance. Aside from the unkempt and unsightly appearance, this ridiculously high vegetation threatens to damage concrete curbs and medians, and will inevitably clog storm drains. The state can do better.

Mowing is one of the quickest and easiest ways for states to cut back when they need money for other things.

[Rothman]

Did VDOT cut back even more on mowing? I've never seen so many medians and shoulders looking like they've gone months without any maintenance. Aside from the unkempt and unsightly appearance, this ridiculously high vegetation threatens to damage concrete curbs and medians, and will inevitably clog storm drains. The state can do better.

Mowing is one of the quickest and easiest ways for states to cut back when they need money for other things.

I don't think so.  Mowing contracts are pretty set every two years.