Virginia

[Alps]

What is the purpose of retaining the only remaining portion of VA 162 in Williamsburg? To me it's silly to have a very short designation that has a dangling end just after it starts. 

Yes I know the city itself doesn't want it and had it truncated to the city limit on the east side, but it could be at least kept between the James City County / Williamsburg Line and US 60/ VA 5 like it's original alignment was before it took over former VA 132 along Lafayette Street and Richmond Road in the early eighties.

While it no longer matters if an arterial within an independent city is in the primary system for VDOT payments to the city, it still matters on the county side of things.

That said, i agree that particular setup is silly.  They could depost it without decommissioning it or renumber it to VA 143Y if they were still doing Y routes (posted or not).

I'm a little surprised VA 143 and this section of VA 162 didn't become part of US 60 in the 1940s.

So this one is dead?

https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/va/va_132/

[Joseph R P]

It's definitely weird that VA162 got truncated to city limits but VA5 still keeps its nonsensical routing through downtown Williamsburg, complete with a near-180º turn from Lafayette onto Page St. I would have just ended it at Richmond Road right in the middle of downtown.

It looks like it would make more sense for VA 5 to continue along Francis Street, but that would have the route pass straight through the Colonial Williamsburg historic site- which most certainly prohibits commercial vehicles, and my speculation is that they routed it in such a way that heavy traffic would bypass it rather than head right through it.

[roadman65]

It's definitely weird that VA162 got truncated to city limits but VA5 still keeps its nonsensical routing through downtown Williamsburg, complete with a near-180º turn from Lafayette onto Page St. I would have just ended it at Richmond Road right in the middle of downtown.

It’s more weird that they kept VA 5 but truncated VA 31 as both used to be concurrent through Williamsburg. Plus Parkway Drive which I believe was VA 163, that got eliminated so it makes you wonder why both VA 5 and VA 132 are retained.

[sprjus4]

The teenage driver in the BMW M3 was driving at 120 MPH. We don't need to babyproof every roadway when the issue here is excessive speeding and dangerous driving. Our penalities for these infractions are too low.

I'd argue that a cable barrier on a freeway, especially one with a number of twists and turns, is certainly reasonable.

North Carolina installs cable barrier on freeway by default. It's not "baby proofing" , it's something that could easily save lives.

Are guardrails in general "baby proofing?"

While I agree excessive speeding is a problem, especially around the Northern Virginia metro area in particular, I think it's also fair to acknowledge the speed limits are posted too low to begin with. Obviously, 120 mph is not excusable, but 65-70 mph is certainly within reason for freeway speeds. I'm aware the Parkway has intersections and isn't a full freeway, but that's an issue with its design. It's designed with a freeway cross section and contributes to high speeds. It gives off the impression of a freeway, and invites those freeway speeds, only to be met with an intersection around the corner. With the amount of traffic using the roadway, the remaining intersections need to be fully replaced with overpasses and interchanges, and the speed limit should at least be increased to 55 mph.

[74/171FAN]

What is the purpose of retaining the only remaining portion of VA 162 in Williamsburg? To me it's silly to have a very short designation that has a dangling end just after it starts. 

Yes I know the city itself doesn't want it and had it truncated to the city limit on the east side, but it could be at least kept between the James City County / Williamsburg Line and US 60/ VA 5 like it's original alignment was before it took over former VA 132 along Lafayette Street and Richmond Road in the early eighties.

While it no longer matters if an arterial within an independent city is in the primary system for VDOT payments to the city, it still matters on the county side of things.

That said, i agree that particular setup is silly.  They could depost it without decommissioning it or renumber it to VA 143Y if they were still doing Y routes (posted or not).

I'm a little surprised VA 143 and this section of VA 162 didn't become part of US 60 in the 1940s.

So this one is dead?

https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/va/va_132/

I do not think anything from that page has changed.  I am not aware of any changes to VA 132 though I always thought it was odd that the speed limit is 55 from US 60 to VA 143.

[Takumi]

VA 132 is still there. It was, for some reason, only 162 and 163 that were dropped. (31 was as well, but it was concurrent with 5.)

My only logic for this is that the city wanted to take over maintenance of 2nd Street and Parkway Drive, which were both annexed into the city at some point in the 1960s or early 70s (maps before 1960 show just a bit of Parkway Drive enters city limits but is entirely within it today, and only a tiny bit of 2nd was in the city instead of the majority of it), but wanted to keep 132 and the piece of Capitol Landing Road between 60 and 143 in the primary system for whatever reason. Parkway Drive is a bit redundant as a primary route with VA 132Y also connecting the Colonial Parkway to the primary system in Williamsburg, and VA 132 also runs next to Colonial Williamsburg. I don’t know why the city didn’t want the rest of 162 to be primary. Maybe they also just wanted to take over maintenance on Richmond Road.

As to why they kept 5 and not 31, I guess that’s just because single digit numbers have an enhanced sense of importance in some people’s eyes. (Poor VA 4 aside.) 31’s original utility north of Williamsburg was to connect to a community that was absorbed by Camp Peary over the years.

The bigger mystery to me is why only half of the Monticello Avenue extension became primary.

[Mapmikey]

What is the purpose of retaining the only remaining portion of VA 162 in Williamsburg? To me it's silly to have a very short designation that has a dangling end just after it starts. 

Yes I know the city itself doesn't want it and had it truncated to the city limit on the east side, but it could be at least kept between the James City County / Williamsburg Line and US 60/ VA 5 like it's original alignment was before it took over former VA 132 along Lafayette Street and Richmond Road in the early eighties.

While it no longer matters if an arterial within an independent city is in the primary system for VDOT payments to the city, it still matters on the county side of things.

That said, i agree that particular setup is silly.  They could depost it without decommissioning it or renumber it to VA 143Y if they were still doing Y routes (posted or not).

I'm a little surprised VA 143 and this section of VA 162 didn't become part of US 60 in the 1940s.

So this one is dead?

https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/va/va_132/

No. They no longer designate new Y routes.

[roadman65]

https://goo.gl/maps/EqsrSdg2pWiJpY2L9
What is up with this SB configuration of I-95? The APL suggests that the VA 3 exit ramp departs before US 17 as well as US 17's c/d roadway departing sooner.

The through I-95 lanes are not tolled so it's not the HOT lane expansion, though the flyovers look like they will be here.

[74/171FAN]

https://goo.gl/maps/EqsrSdg2pWiJpY2L9
What is up with this SB configuration of I-95? The APL suggests that the VA 3 exit ramp departs before US 17 as well as US 17's c/d roadway departing sooner.

The through I-95 lanes are not tolled so it's not the HOT lane expansion, though the flyovers look like they will be here.

It is not new news to us VA folk in the forum.  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=294.msg2669825#msg2669825)

[1995hoo]

https://goo.gl/maps/EqsrSdg2pWiJpY2L9
What is up with this SB configuration of I-95? The APL suggests that the VA 3 exit ramp departs before US 17 as well as US 17's c/d roadway departing sooner.

The through I-95 lanes are not tolled so it's not the HOT lane expansion, though the flyovers look like they will be here.

Think of it as basically the same configuration as the Wilson Bridge. They wanted to separate the local traffic exiting and entering at US-17 and VA-3 from the longer-distance traffic. The construction to do the same northbound is not yet complete.

[Mapmikey]

https://goo.gl/maps/EqsrSdg2pWiJpY2L9
What is up with this SB configuration of I-95? The APL suggests that the VA 3 exit ramp departs before US 17 as well as US 17's c/d roadway departing sooner.

The through I-95 lanes are not tolled so it's not the HOT lane expansion, though the flyovers look like they will be here.

It's a local/express set-up with the US 17 Bus interchange being a C/D set-up with the local lanes.  The C/D lane access for 17 Bus does leave I-95 before the local lanes that access the Welcome Center and VA 3.  Of course the C/D lanes will also get you to those local lane destinations.

The flyover splits at its end to give access to either the C/D lanes or the local lanes.  If you don't use the flyover you will merge onto the express lanes.  Diagram of all this can be found at https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Fredericksburg/Fred_Ex_PH_Display_1A_Connection_at_Route_17.pdf with signage plans at https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Fredericksburg/Fred_Ex_PH_Design_Route_17_interchange_B.pdf

This drawing suggests there will be a segment begin/end at Quantico northbound - https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Fredericksburg/Fred_Ex_PH_Design_Russell_Road_B.pdf

[1995hoo]

.... I'm aware the Parkway has intersections and isn't a full freeway, but that's an issue with its design. It's designed with a freeway cross section and contributes to high speeds. It gives off the impression of a freeway, and invites those freeway speeds, only to be met with an intersection around the corner. With the amount of traffic using the roadway, the remaining intersections need to be fully replaced with overpasses and interchanges, and the speed limit should at least be increased to 55 mph.

I wonder to what extent the upcoming project to replace the Popes Head Road intersection with an interchange might cause an increased speeding problem through the particular area of that incident. Once that's done, there will be no lights between Burke Centre Parkway and the interchange with US-50 (but there will still be two very low-volume unsignalized at-grade intersections between Burke Centre Parkway and the Popes Head Road interchange–they could conceivably make those RIROs, but the residents of those streets would strenuously fight that).

For those unfamiliar, the crash occurred roughly here: https://goo.gl/maps/BPTTayTiHB4Pq8Vw7

[hbelkins]

Would a cable barrier really be that much of an impediment to a vehicle traveling 120 mph? I can't imagine it being much more than a very temporary and virtually ineffective slowdown.

[Rothman]

Would a cable barrier really be that much of an impediment to a vehicle traveling 120 mph? I can't imagine it being much more than a very temporary and virtually ineffective slowdown.

Cable barriers can stop semis when tensioned properly.

[Hunty2022]

The median for US 33 east of US 29 is being placed.

[hbelkins]

Would a cable barrier really be that much of an impediment to a vehicle traveling 120 mph? I can't imagine it being much more than a very temporary and virtually ineffective slowdown.

Cable barriers can stop semis when tensioned properly.

That's not the prevailing thought here. Here it's assumed that they'll work only for a normal passenger vehicle driving at a reasonable speed.

[Rothman]

Would a cable barrier really be that much of an impediment to a vehicle traveling 120 mph? I can't imagine it being much more than a very temporary and virtually ineffective slowdown.

Cable barriers can stop semis when tensioned properly.

That's not the prevailing thought here. Here it's assumed that they'll work only for a normal passenger vehicle driving at a reasonable speed.

NY cable > KY cable.  Truth be told, it may actually only be NYSDOT Region 8 making this claim.

[seicer]

Going back to the thought that we need to design roads for speeding drivers (especially one going at 120 MPH), cable barriers and guardrails are designed only for traffic going the speed limit or within the engineered/design speeds of the roadway.

From https://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/cable-barriers-proving-effective/article_22506f3c-83ae-559e-b108-aa4fb5b7d08d.html - "Each barrier consists of three strands of cable supported by individual steel posts. They are engineered to withstand a vehicle traveling at the posted speed limit. Most vehicle accidents only damage the posts. The cables have to be replaced rarely, according to Ed Armbruster, an assistant district engineer of maintenance for the state Division of Highways."

I don't see anything where they can't be used to stop semis. Plenty of articles exist about semis being prevented from crossing over because of the barrier. The barrier is designed to reduce the energy of the vehicle crashing into it.

[D-Dey65]

https://goo.gl/maps/EqsrSdg2pWiJpY2L9
What is up with this SB configuration of I-95? The APL suggests that the VA 3 exit ramp departs before US 17 as well as US 17's c/d roadway departing sooner.

The through I-95 lanes are not tolled so it's not the HOT lane expansion, though the flyovers look like they will be here.

It's a local/express set-up with the US 17 Bus interchange being a C/D set-up with the local lanes.  The C/D lane access for 17 Bus does leave I-95 before the local lanes that access the Welcome Center and VA 3.  Of course the C/D lanes will also get you to those local lane destinations.

The flyover splits at its end to give access to either the C/D lanes or the local lanes.  If you don't use the flyover you will merge onto the express lanes.  Diagram of all this can be found at https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Fredericksburg/Fred_Ex_PH_Display_1A_Connection_at_Route_17.pdf with signage plans at https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Fredericksburg/Fred_Ex_PH_Design_Route_17_interchange_B.pdf

This drawing suggests there will be a segment begin/end at Quantico northbound - https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Fredericksburg/Fred_Ex_PH_Design_Russell_Road_B.pdf

I've got questions of my own about this project; Shouldn't signs like this and this be blue on top and green on the bottom?

[74/171FAN]

I got to drive through the new roundabout on US 250 at VA 151 this morning, and the I-64 references there are numerous.

[Hunty2022]

I got to drive through the new roundabout on US 250 at VA 151 this morning, and the I-64 references there are numerous.

I have a couple images from when I went through during its construction, back in December. Did VDOT keep any I-81 references?

[74/171FAN]

I got to drive through the new roundabout on US 250 at VA 151 this morning, and the I-64 references there are numerous.

I have a couple images from when I went through during its construction, back in December. Did VDOT keep any I-81 references?

Yes, I saw one on US 250 WB.

[Hunty2022]

It has been like this for a while, but Atlantic Avenue in VA Beach has a cul-de-sac for its northern terminus.

March 2023 GSV.

[Takumi]

^ Aside from the part that continues as Atlantic Avenue north of there, yes. Though I guess that means the US 60 north/south trailblazers are gone.

[74/171FAN]

^ Aside from the part that continues as Atlantic Avenue north of there, yes. Though I guess that means the US 60 north/south trailblazers are gone.

Yes, that is correct.