News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Virginia

Started by Alex, February 04, 2009, 12:22:16 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mapmikey

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 16, 2019, 04:38:03 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 16, 2019, 10:28:33 AM
95 NB is much better north of VA 123 than before the widening.
Agreed, but VDOT's RE/T study doesn't want you to know that - they look solely at the major chokepoint they added and say the whole thing doesn't work where in reality it works everywhere else.

Checking the traffic data from 2009 and 2018, the segment between Exit 160 and Exit 163 went from 184k (including HOV) to 230k (including HOT).  The traffic data showed a zero increase in the reversible lanes at this segment, so this ~25% increase in traffic is supposedly only on the mainline.  This means that without the 4th lane the speed value would've been worse.

Their study showing that even doubling the number of lanes makes no difference must be assuming a steady large increase in traffic that outpaces the widening.  Which means that I-95 should be in a state of paralysis in 2040 if no widening occurs at all.  Glad I will be retired NLT 2026.

The study does seem to show that from VA 3 to Garrisonville will be in good shape in 2030 with no widening, which is a recognition that the current projects are expected to be beneficial.

I will be curious to see once the Silver Line is fully opened if that reduces traffic significantly on I-66, VA 7 and/or VA 267.  If so this may suggest that getting Metro extended south from DC might be a viable solution.


Beltway

#4601
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 16, 2019, 09:39:46 PM
Checking the traffic data from 2009 and 2018, the segment between Exit 160 and Exit 163 went from 184k (including HOV) to 230k (including HOT).  The traffic data showed a zero increase in the reversible lanes at this segment, so this ~25% increase in traffic is supposedly only on the mainline.  This means that without the 4th lane the speed value would've been worse.
These 'studies' that use speed from maximum peak hour in the mainline widening forecast ignore other important factors.

First, even if in 10 years it doesn't change much, the highway has higher overall volumes so it is moving more traffic and people, so it produces more mobility for more people.

Second, even if the speeds of the highest hours are the same, the extra capacity could shorten the timespan of the congested period.

Third, more options for incident management if one or more lanes are blocked.

Fourth, off-peak hours can get congested at times, and the extra lane(s) could reduce or eliminate that.

Quote from: Mapmikey on October 16, 2019, 09:39:46 PM
I will be curious to see once the Silver Line is fully opened if that reduces traffic significantly on I-66, VA 7 and/or VA 267.  If so this may suggest that getting Metro extended south from DC might be a viable solution.
Expansions in VRE service is probably the more impactful option of the rail proposals, given that commuter rail on a mainline railroad can go much further than rapid rail, such as to Fredericksburg, Warrenton, etc.

The bottleneck there is the Long Bridge, only 2 tracks between VA and DC.  The $1.6 billion project to add another 2 track bridge will help to increase both freight and passenger rail service, and I think that will be a valuable project. 

The Long Bridge Project funding package has not been finalized, but it is a joint US FRA and DDOT project --

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a Section 4(f) Evaluation in accordance with Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act of 1966, and a Programmatic Agreement in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) for the Long Bridge Project jointly with the District Department of Transportation (DDOT).  The purpose of the Long Bridge Project is to provide additional long-term railroad capacity and to improve the reliability of railroad service through the Long Bridge Corridor between the RO Interlocking in Arlington, Virginia, and L'Enfant (LE) Interlocking near 10th Street SW in the District of Columbia (District) (the Long Bridge Corridor).

The existing two-track Long Bridge is owned and operated by CSX Transportation (CSXT), a Class I freight railroad, which also operates the Long Bridge Corridor.  In addition to CSXT freight, the bridge is also currently utilized by Amtrak and VRE [Virginia Railway Express].


https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P1042
 
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Alps

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 16, 2019, 01:18:12 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 15, 2019, 08:09:10 PM
Route changes coming:

1.  VA 386 will be downgraded to secondary status during the Oct CTB meeting

2.  A 2019 General Assembly Act (to facilitate pedestrian safety at the seat of government) requires the CTB to add to the primary system:

  • Bank St from 9th to 14th
  • 10th from Main to Bank
  • 12th from Main to Bank
  • Governor St from Main to Bank

It did not indicate in the presentation (pg. 6 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/oct/ctb_workshop_meeting_oct_2019.pdf) what the designation would be.  Good chance it becomes part of existing VA 318 which serves the state capitol already.  These segments will be connected to the rest of the primary system because Main St is part of US 60/VA 147.

If it becomes part of VA 318, then that would end its isolation from the primary system. I'm kind of surprised there was no mention of upgrading 14th St between Main and Broad (both of which are primary already). Then again, considering that all of these streets will likely still be maintained by the City of Richmond (the presentation mentions VDOT can contract maintenance work out to them), it probably doesn't matter.

I wish they'd act on extending VA 147 and VA 401 already like they proposed like six years ago.
If what becomes part of VA 318? Just Bank, or all of the legs, or what? Will there be a bunch of Y routes? Is there a precedent for seven legged primaries?

Beltway

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 16, 2019, 01:18:12 PM
I wish they'd act on extending VA 147 and VA 401 already like they proposed like six years ago.

What was that ... extending it down VA-653 Courthouse Road to US-360 Hull Street Road?  To VA-288 at Five Points?
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

WillWeaverRVA

#4604
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2019, 12:08:58 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 16, 2019, 01:18:12 PM
I wish they'd act on extending VA 147 and VA 401 already like they proposed like six years ago.

What was that ... extending it down VA-653 Courthouse Road to US-360 Hull Street Road?  To VA-288 at Five Points?

I think the proposal was to extend the designation to US 360 since that segment is in the NHS, among other reasons.

Quote from: Alps on October 17, 2019, 12:00:44 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 16, 2019, 01:18:12 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 15, 2019, 08:09:10 PM
Route changes coming:

1.  VA 386 will be downgraded to secondary status during the Oct CTB meeting

2.  A 2019 General Assembly Act (to facilitate pedestrian safety at the seat of government) requires the CTB to add to the primary system:

  • Bank St from 9th to 14th
  • 10th from Main to Bank
  • 12th from Main to Bank
  • Governor St from Main to Bank

It did not indicate in the presentation (pg. 6 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/oct/ctb_workshop_meeting_oct_2019.pdf) what the designation would be.  Good chance it becomes part of existing VA 318 which serves the state capitol already.  These segments will be connected to the rest of the primary system because Main St is part of US 60/VA 147.

If it becomes part of VA 318, then that would end its isolation from the primary system. I'm kind of surprised there was no mention of upgrading 14th St between Main and Broad (both of which are primary already). Then again, considering that all of these streets will likely still be maintained by the City of Richmond (the presentation mentions VDOT can contract maintenance work out to them), it probably doesn't matter.

I wish they'd act on extending VA 147 and VA 401 already like they proposed like six years ago.
If what becomes part of VA 318? Just Bank, or all of the legs, or what? Will there be a bunch of Y routes? Is there a precedent for seven legged primaries?

All the legs. VA 318 is a state facility route, and usually when a primary route is designated to serve some sort of state facility, multple streets on the facility's grounds carry that designation (VA 302 at UVA, VA 314 at Virginia Tech, VA 319 at Central State Hospital, etc).

VA 319 is actually really well posted to intersect itself a bunch of times on the Central State Hospital grounds because pretty much every street on the grounds is considered part of VA 319.
Will Weaver
WillWeaverRVA Photography | Twitter

"But how will the oxen know where to drown if we renumber the Oregon Trail?" - NE2

Beltway

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 17, 2019, 08:59:30 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2019, 12:08:58 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 16, 2019, 01:18:12 PM
I wish they'd act on extending VA 147 and VA 401 already like they proposed like six years ago.
What was that ... extending it down VA-653 Courthouse Road to US-360 Hull Street Road?  To VA-288 at Five Points?
I think the proposal was to extend the designation to US 360 since that segment is in the NHS, among other reasons.
A modern 4-lane arterial highway, connects two U.S. highways, and VA-76 Powhite Parkway.

Seems like logical state traffic route candidate.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Mapmikey

Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2019, 09:40:26 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 17, 2019, 08:59:30 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2019, 12:08:58 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 16, 2019, 01:18:12 PM
I wish they'd act on extending VA 147 and VA 401 already like they proposed like six years ago.
What was that ... extending it down VA-653 Courthouse Road to US-360 Hull Street Road?  To VA-288 at Five Points?
I think the proposal was to extend the designation to US 360 since that segment is in the NHS, among other reasons.
A modern 4-lane arterial highway, connects two U.S. highways, and VA-76 Powhite Parkway.

Seems like logical state traffic route candidate.

In case anyone wants a reminder of the current criteria to upgrade to primary status in Virginia or wants to see the other 28 segments identified for study.  They eliminated any route without 10k traffic including >200 trucks/busses, which left just 6 routes to consider...

http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2013/apr/pres/Presentation_Agenda_Item_6_Sec_Primary.pdf


1995hoo

Regarding VA-401, Lee District Supervisor Jeff McKay told me at the time that Fairfax County had opposed the extension and the proposal was therefore dropped. He's almost certain to be elected Chairman of the Board of Supervisors next month, so I doubt the county's position will change.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

sprjus4

The HRTPO Express Lanes Working Committee released recommendations for the proposed network in Hampton Roads -

Quote1. The Committee recommends that the region endorse a consistent Express Lanes Network that begins on I-64 at Jefferson Avenue in Newport News, proceeds along I-64 through Bowers Hill in Chesapeake, and continues along I-664 to I-64 in the vicinity of the Hampton Coliseum. The Committee believes it is important to pursue the concept of a fully connected and consistent network to ensure the future needs of the region will be addressed.

2. The Committee recommends that the Express Lanes Network be a consistent HOT-2 network, with one HOT lane and one part-time HOT shoulder lane where practical and necessary.

3. To minimize impacts to the Region's motorists, the Committee recommends that, wherever practicable, the roadways that make up the Express Lanes Network be restricted to HOT operation during peak traffic times and be open to all traffic outside of the restricted periods.

4. The Committee recommends that funding and operation of the Express Lanes Network be managed by HRTAC.

5. In consideration of policy recommendations to HRTPO, the Committee recommends that HRTAC consider the following items when developing the master tolling agreement with VDOT:
- Prioritize traffic throughput over revenue generation.
- Develop tolling approaches that mitigate impacts on Hampton Roads residents, including options that maximize revenue collection on weekends.
- Funding and operation of the Express Lanes Network be managed by HRTAC.
A few interesting things regarding these recommendations.

First, there is now consideration for implementation of HO/T lanes along I-664, presumably in a future expansion project like the HRBT or High Rise projects.

Secondly, they are recommending that only one HO/T lane in each direction be striped, along with a HO/T shoulder "where necessary". This goes against the ultimate High Rise Bridge build which features 2 GP lanes and 2 HO/T lanes each way. With the committee's recommendations, this would mean the ultimate build would be 3 + 1 each way, consistent with the current setup with the HOV lane east of I-464, the same way I think the HRBT should be done honestly, 3 + 1 with minimal left shoulder (this has been done in other metros with 1 left HO/T lane having minimal shoulder for sake of space). There is also other discussion (not in these recommendations) about immediately implementing a HO/T shoulder on the High Rise Bridge during peak hours, so immediately upon the Phase #1 completion, there would be 8-lanes (2 + 2 each way) during peak hours. The only issue I see with this is the existing High Rise Bridge can only handle 4-lanes, and they are already planning on making the right lane a -general purpose- shoulder lane during peak hours between I-464 and US-17 / US-17 Business, meaning 1 HO/T + 2 GP + 1 Shoulder during peak hours. The only thing they could realistically do is eliminate that GP shoulder lane and make it HO/T to the left side, but I'm sure that would only get more opposition to the project.

Third, unlike previous proposals, they are recommending that the HO/T lanes only be tolled during peak hours, and free to all traffic outside of peak hours, very similar to the existing HOV setup. I think it's reasonable, seeing as the HOV lanes are free off-peak, and putting some barriers up and some toll gantries should not make that 24/7 (as being done in Northern Virginia).




There was also another presentation given to the HRTPO which evaluates each proposed scenario and cost estimates for implementation.

Currently, the proposed scenario includes the following -

Jefferson Ave to Mercury Blvd -
- Existing: 3 GP + 1 HOV each way
- Proposed: 3 GP + 1 HO/T each way

Mercury Blvd to LaSalle Ave -
- Existing: 3 GP each way
- Proposed: 2 GP + 1 HO/T each way (this proposal would eliminate an existing free lane in favor of the HO/T network)

LaSalle Ave to HRBT -
- Existing: 3 GP each way
- Proposed: 2 GP + 1 HO/T + 1 HO/T shoulder each way (this proposal would eliminate an existing free lane in favor of the HO/T network)

I-564 to I-264 -
- Existing: 3 GP each way + 2 HO/T reversible lanes
- Proposed: 3 GP + 1 HO/T shoulder each way + 2 HO/T reversible lanes

The stretch between Jefferson Ave and HRBT is projected to cost between $600,000,000 - $650,000,000. Involved with the proposed project would be realigning on the LaSalle Ave south to I-64 East loop ramp & replacing the wetlands bridge, realigning the ramps at Settlers Landing Rd & Rip Rap Rd, replacing the I-64 mainline bridges over King St and the eastbound mainline bridge over the Hampton River, rehabilitating & widening the bridges over Settlers Landing Rd, New Market Creek and westbound mainline bridge over the Hampton River, right of way acquisition, and noise walls.

The stretch between I-564 and I-264 is projected to cost between $170,000,000 - $185,000,000. Involved with the proposed project would be replacing the mainline bridges over Tidewater Dr and Chesapeake Blvd, reconstructing the shoulders, and noise walls. One thing they're missing from this preliminary list is the ramp from Tidewater Dr north to I-64 West which is currently a left entrance. If they are making the left shoulder HO/T, this would necessitate relocating that flyover ramp to the right, which could be quite costly.

Thoughts?

hbelkins

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 17, 2019, 08:59:30 AM

All the legs. VA 318 is a state facility route, and usually when a primary route is designated to serve some sort of state facility, multple streets on the facility's grounds carry that designation (VA 302 at UVA, VA 314 at Virginia Tech, VA 319 at Central State Hospital, etc).

A couple of years ago, I drove onto the grounds of Natural Tunnel State Park for the first time after years of driving by it on US 23. It's accessed by a secondary route, but once you get there, various places are posted with primary markers. Seems a bit odd to me to have a primary route accessed by a secondary route, not to mention multiple segments with the same number.

Of course, Kentucky has a state marked route that intersects no other state marked route. It's in Madison County. You have to drive on a county route to get to it. I have never been able to figure out why that independent segment of road is a state route. It's dead end and appears to serve only residents and farmland.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 17, 2019, 05:55:48 PM
There was also another presentation given to the HRTPO which evaluates each proposed scenario and cost estimates for implementation.
Looks like the same presentation as at the CTB meeting yesterday, both given by the Commissioner of VDOT.

Between what he said in the presentation and comments by the board members, it was apparent that there is still considerable flux in exactly how certain major features will be worked out, such as how to seamlessly connect the current HOV terminal in Hampton to the new HRBT managed lanes, and how to connect the new managed lanes to the reversible roadway terminals at Wards Corner, and how to seamlessly connect the current HOV terminal in Chesapeake to the new High Rise Bridge managed lanes.  There are various schemes that are being evaluated for all three of these connections.

They didn't mention anything about I-564 ... does that still have HOV lanes?
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

#4611
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2019, 07:30:09 PM
Between what he said in the presentation and comments by the board members, it was apparent that there is still considerable flux in exactly how certain major features will be worked out, such as how to seamlessly connect the current HOV terminal in Hampton to the new HRBT managed lanes, and how to connect the new managed lanes to the reversible roadway terminals at Wards Corner, and how to seamlessly connect the current HOV terminal in Chesapeake to the new High Rise Bridge managed lanes.  There are various schemes that are being evaluated for all three of these connections.
One thing I wish they would evaluate is the feasibility of providing direct connectors between the HO/T lanes and intersecting freeways, most notably I-464 / VA-168 / US-17. A significant amount of traffic exits from I-64 East (towards Bowers Hill) to VA-168 / US-17 South, along with VA-168 North to I-64 East (towards Bowers Hill) and the substandard and inadequate cloverleaf at that junction backs up 1-2 miles daily because of weaving at the largest part of the cloverleaf as the traffic streams converge. Traffic using the HO/T lane wishing to make this movement will have to be dumped out ~1 mile prior into stopped traffic in the left lane, be forced to make their way over 2-3 lanes in stopped / slow moving traffic, just to make the movement. An incentive to draw more people to the lane would be to provide a direct connector at minimum from I-64 East (towards Bowers Hill) to VA-168 / US-17 South, and maybe even between VA-168 North and I-64 East (towards Bowers Hill).

The reversible system built in the 90s indeed provides direct connectors between the lanes and I-264 on the east side, and the lanes and I-564 and they are well used. I couldn't imagine all that traffic being dumped into the mainlines of I-64 to then have to exit right. It'd be a nightmare. I feel it will only get worse at the Oak Grove Interchange if they don't also provide direct connectors.

Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2019, 07:30:09 PM
They didn't mention anything about I-564 ... does that still have HOV lanes?
Yes, I-564 is set up with 2 GP lanes and 1 HOV in each direction. The HRBT project I believe was going to evaluate constructing a direct connector between I-564 and the proposed HO/T lanes to/from the HRBT, similar to the counterpart connectors that take traffic from I-564 to/from the reversible lanes to I-264.

Alps

Quote from: hbelkins on October 17, 2019, 06:52:08 PM
Of course, Kentucky has a state marked route that intersects no other state marked route. It's in Madison County. You have to drive on a county route to get to it. I have never been able to figure out why that independent segment of road is a state route. It's dead end and appears to serve only residents and farmland.
And this is which route?

hbelkins

Quote from: Alps on October 18, 2019, 12:40:21 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 17, 2019, 06:52:08 PM
Of course, Kentucky has a state marked route that intersects no other state marked route. It's in Madison County. You have to drive on a county route to get to it. I have never been able to figure out why that independent segment of road is a state route. It's dead end and appears to serve only residents and farmland.
And this is which route?

KY 938.

https://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/SPRS%20Maps/Madison.pdf
(look at the right side of the map, just to the "southwest" of where it denotes Estill as an adjoining county)

I drove by there earlier in the year, and there is indeed an "East KY 938" sign at the start of the route. It's also cataloged on the KYTC Roadway Photo Viewer available at http://maps.kytc.ky.gov/photolog/?config=Photolog&x1=5114935.959483551&y1=3868453.589951066&x2=5427435.959483551&y2=3971969.214951066&MODE=PL

https://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/State%20Primary%20Road%20System%20Lists/Madison.pdf
(Route description on page 3)


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Mapmikey

Quote from: hbelkins on October 17, 2019, 06:52:08 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 17, 2019, 08:59:30 AM

All the legs. VA 318 is a state facility route, and usually when a primary route is designated to serve some sort of state facility, multple streets on the facility's grounds carry that designation (VA 302 at UVA, VA 314 at Virginia Tech, VA 319 at Central State Hospital, etc).

A couple of years ago, I drove onto the grounds of Natural Tunnel State Park for the first time after years of driving by it on US 23. It's accessed by a secondary route, but once you get there, various places are posted with primary markers. Seems a bit odd to me to have a primary route accessed by a secondary route, not to mention multiple segments with the same number.

Of course, Kentucky has a state marked route that intersects no other state marked route. It's in Madison County. You have to drive on a county route to get to it. I have never been able to figure out why that independent segment of road is a state route. It's dead end and appears to serve only residents and farmland.

These Virginia routes do not currently touch another primary route (although a handful of these once did):

318, 324, 325, 326, 330, 335, 336, 341, 342, 345, 353, 355, 370, 371, 379, 382, 392, 394, 398

cpzilliacus

Quote from: 1995hoo on October 17, 2019, 10:24:32 AM
Regarding VA-401, Lee District Supervisor Jeff McKay told me at the time that Fairfax County had opposed the extension and the proposal was therefore dropped. He's almost certain to be elected Chairman of the Board of Supervisors next month, so I doubt the county's position will change.

This is unfortunate, for one simple reason.  Having VA-401 follow Van Dorn Street and run all the way from VA-611 (Telegraph Road) in the south to VA-7 (King Street) [using a short section of Menokin Drive to reach King Street] would seem to create a clear route for all to use - including signing the interchange at I-95/I-495 Exit 173 as VA-401 instead of 613.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

1995hoo

Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 18, 2019, 03:43:53 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 17, 2019, 10:24:32 AM
Regarding VA-401, Lee District Supervisor Jeff McKay told me at the time that Fairfax County had opposed the extension and the proposal was therefore dropped. He's almost certain to be elected Chairman of the Board of Supervisors next month, so I doubt the county's position will change.

This is unfortunate, for one simple reason.  Having VA-401 follow Van Dorn Street and run all the way from VA-611 (Telegraph Road) in the south to VA-7 (King Street) [using a short section of Menokin Drive to reach King Street] would seem to create a clear route for all to use - including signing the interchange at I-95/I-495 Exit 173 as VA-401 instead of 613.

I don't understand all the details, nor do I remember everything he said, but he said something about how the county's ability to construct, or allow construction of, access to the road would be constrained if it were a primary route. I don't recall the full details and I'm not sure what new access they really have in mind anyway, other than that the Top Golf is supposed to be replaced with residential development in the next few years–but I believe the plan is to use only the existing access point for that.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

cpzilliacus

#4617
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 18, 2019, 06:59:01 PM
I don't understand all the details, nor do I remember everything he said, but he said something about how the county's ability to construct, or allow construction of, access to the road would be constrained if it were a primary route. I don't recall the full details and I'm not sure what new access they really have in mind anyway, other than that the Top Golf is supposed to be replaced with residential development in the next few years–but I believe the plan is to use only the existing access point for that.

I took a quick look at VDOT's access management regulations  here (note that some of the links on this page seem to be broken) and as best as I can tell there is little difference between primary system and secondary system, but there is discussion of the differences in functional classification (which IMO makes sense).

Now there could be other matters that change if a public road in Fairfax County is moved from the secondary system to the primary system, but aside from increased maintenance (which was very obvious when the Commonwealth Transportation Board decided that VDOT should remove the secondary VA-7100 designation for the Fairfax County Parkway in favor of primary VA-286), I do not claim to know what those might be. 

I do know that county governments have more input on what improvements are made to secondary system roads than they do for the primary system.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

1995hoo

I will see Jeff McKay on Thursday night, but I don't think I'll ask him about it. He has more important things on his mind in the final two weeks before Election Day.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

plain

There now appears to be an APL on I-95 SB at Exit 79 (I-64 West/I-195). I'm in NC at the moment so I don't know what the front looks like..



SM-S820L

Newark born, Richmond bred

WillWeaverRVA

Quote from: plain on October 29, 2019, 08:16:32 AM
There now appears to be an APL on I-95 SB at Exit 79 (I-64 West/I-195). I'm in NC at the moment so I don't know what the front looks like..



SM-S820L



Damn, I was just in that area today but I didn't go that far north on I-95. VDOT has been working on replacing some signage along the I-95/I-64 concurrency (including finally posting US 1/301 on the northbound exit signage at Exit 76A), so I'm guessing this appeared as part of that project.
Will Weaver
WillWeaverRVA Photography | Twitter

"But how will the oxen know where to drown if we renumber the Oregon Trail?" - NE2

Beltway

Quote from: plain on October 29, 2019, 08:16:32 AM
There now appears to be an APL on I-95 SB at Exit 79 (I-64 West/I-195). I'm in NC at the moment so I don't know what the front looks like..
Yes indeed.  I saw it about an hour ago.

This is southbound I-95 just before the exits to I-64 westbound and I-195 southbound.  The overhead sign structure is new, and the sign is new.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

LM117

VDOT is holding a public meeting in Chatham on November 14 to discuss improvements to US-29 between Lynchburg and Danville.

https://www.godanriver.com/news/local/a-main-artery-in-dan-river-region-vdot-looks-for/article_ba39fbe0-5912-50f0-95c7-a5732d752abb.html

Behind paywall:

QuoteSnaking through Pittsylvania County from north to south – almost evenly dividing the county from east to west – U.S. 29 serves as a central, and one of the strongest, pieces of infrastructure for the county, Pittsylvania County Administrator David Smitherman said.

"It is our artery to the world as far as commerce goes,"  he said.

In an effort to improve the safety, efficiency and economic development potential along the highway, the Virginia Department of Transportation is looking to make a variety of strategic improvements to a 50-mile corridor stretching from Danville to Lynchburg.

A draft arterial preservation plan, which was developed by multiple departments in VDOT with feedback and contribution from Pittsylvania County, the city of Danville, Campbell County and the city of Lynchburg, addresses a variety of potential improvements, both short term and long term, along the corridor.

VDOT hosted an informational meeting in Lynchburg on Tuesday and will host another from 4 to 6 p.m. Nov. 14 at VDOT's Chatham office, where officials will take feedback and ideas to potentially apply to the final draft of the recommendations.

"Everything that's in the study is conceptual at this stage,"  said Rick Youngblood, the VDOT planner for the Lynchburg district, which includes Danville and Pittsylvania County.

The report identifies emerging intersections, or those that already – or are projected – to have issues with safety, congestion or operation. The report identifies three intersections in Pittsylvania County: U.S. 29 business at E. Witt Road/Lawless Creek Road; U.S. 29 business at Malmaison Road; and U.S. 29 at Tightsqueeze Road.

For the study, VDOT segmented U.S. 29, excluding the limited access portions of the road near the towns of Chatham, Gretna and Hurt.

Youngblood said all of the recommended steps will not fall under the same timeline, as some of the smaller projects will use maintenance and operations funds from VDOT, while some of the longer term improvements will use funding from Smart Scale, a Virginia program that funds selective transportation projects.

One of the major recommendations in the study is for nine park and ride locations, or parking lots where long-distance commuters could access public transportation. Listed as a tier one recommendation, a 50-space lot is proposed to be installed near Chatham on U.S. 29.

"Anything that increases public transportation capacity is a good thing because that is an issue that many workers face,"  said Matt Rowe, director of economic development for Pittsylvania County.

Access management, or the process of regulating the number of intersections and entrance ways to avoid congestion and potential collisions, is another major focus of the report. Youngblood said in Campbell County, attempts to consolidate and reduce the number of entrances actually has improved economic development efforts.

Rowe said there hasn't been a significant amount of direct development along the route because of the limited access around the three towns, but that also allows for the higher speeds, often over a mile a minute, which are attractive logistically. The Virginia Department of Economic Development recently put a large area of land near Blairs in what's called an enterprise zone – a program designed to provide state and local incentives to businesses that expand within that area – in an effort to attract more industry to the county.

"That probably is the best area in Pittsylvania County for large scale distribution,"  Rowe said.

Ayers reports for the Register & Bee. Reach him at (434) 791-7981.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

sprjus4

Quote from: LM117 on November 01, 2019, 08:07:03 AM
VDOT is holding a public meeting in Chatham on November 14 to discuss improvements to US-29 between Lynchburg and Danville.

https://www.godanriver.com/news/local/a-main-artery-in-dan-river-region-vdot-looks-for/article_ba39fbe0-5912-50f0-95c7-a5732d752abb.html

Behind paywall:

QuoteSnaking through Pittsylvania County from north to south – almost evenly dividing the county from east to west – U.S. 29 serves as a central, and one of the strongest, pieces of infrastructure for the county, Pittsylvania County Administrator David Smitherman said.

"It is our artery to the world as far as commerce goes,"  he said.

In an effort to improve the safety, efficiency and economic development potential along the highway, the Virginia Department of Transportation is looking to make a variety of strategic improvements to a 50-mile corridor stretching from Danville to Lynchburg.

A draft arterial preservation plan, which was developed by multiple departments in VDOT with feedback and contribution from Pittsylvania County, the city of Danville, Campbell County and the city of Lynchburg, addresses a variety of potential improvements, both short term and long term, along the corridor.

VDOT hosted an informational meeting in Lynchburg on Tuesday and will host another from 4 to 6 p.m. Nov. 14 at VDOT's Chatham office, where officials will take feedback and ideas to potentially apply to the final draft of the recommendations.

"Everything that's in the study is conceptual at this stage,"  said Rick Youngblood, the VDOT planner for the Lynchburg district, which includes Danville and Pittsylvania County.

The report identifies emerging intersections, or those that already – or are projected – to have issues with safety, congestion or operation. The report identifies three intersections in Pittsylvania County: U.S. 29 business at E. Witt Road/Lawless Creek Road; U.S. 29 business at Malmaison Road; and U.S. 29 at Tightsqueeze Road.

For the study, VDOT segmented U.S. 29, excluding the limited access portions of the road near the towns of Chatham, Gretna and Hurt.

Youngblood said all of the recommended steps will not fall under the same timeline, as some of the smaller projects will use maintenance and operations funds from VDOT, while some of the longer term improvements will use funding from Smart Scale, a Virginia program that funds selective transportation projects.

One of the major recommendations in the study is for nine park and ride locations, or parking lots where long-distance commuters could access public transportation. Listed as a tier one recommendation, a 50-space lot is proposed to be installed near Chatham on U.S. 29.

"Anything that increases public transportation capacity is a good thing because that is an issue that many workers face,"  said Matt Rowe, director of economic development for Pittsylvania County.

Access management, or the process of regulating the number of intersections and entrance ways to avoid congestion and potential collisions, is another major focus of the report. Youngblood said in Campbell County, attempts to consolidate and reduce the number of entrances actually has improved economic development efforts.

Rowe said there hasn't been a significant amount of direct development along the route because of the limited access around the three towns, but that also allows for the higher speeds, often over a mile a minute, which are attractive logistically. The Virginia Department of Economic Development recently put a large area of land near Blairs in what's called an enterprise zone – a program designed to provide state and local incentives to businesses that expand within that area – in an effort to attract more industry to the county.

"That probably is the best area in Pittsylvania County for large scale distribution,"  Rowe said.

Ayers reports for the Register & Bee. Reach him at (434) 791-7981.
Don't expect too much besides a bunch of RCUTs and median closures. Would be surprised if any interchanges are proposed.

US-58 had a similar study, and the biggest things were converting the cloverleafs at I-95 and I-85 to diverging diamonds, and some roundabouts in South Hill.

They also said they were going to do a further study to "upgrade US-58 to interstate standards" , but have heard no mention of such since the arterial study was completed earlier this year, and really no concept of how or where it would be done.

US-29 is a corridor that needs a massive study for long-term freeway upgrade, but as it stands, Virginia doesn't seem to have much interests in long-distance corridors, with the exception of the 30 year old I-73 paper highway.

VTGoose

Tazewell uses a road to bring back business to the former coal town. VA 16, which crosses three mountains between Tazewell and Marion, has been tagged "Back of the Dragon" and is promoted as a great ride for sports cars and motorcycles. The attraction has helped both communities attract visitors and has sparked a revival of both downtowns.

Their efforts are profiled by Virginia Tech's division of Outreach and International Affairs in its video series "Save Our Towns" (see https://youtu.be/V4su9rTCcm0 the story starts about 1 minute in).

Bruce in Blacksburg
"Get in the fast lane, grandma!  The bingo game is ready to roll!"



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.