Virginia

[Beltway]

Bruce in Blacksburg (where cotton doesn't grow in the mountains)

Only place where I have personally seen cotton growing in the Commonwealth is in Northampton County and just to the north in Accomack County on the Eastern Shore.
Not saying it does not grow in other counties in Virginia, but I have not seen it and identified it as cotton (I am not an expert at the identification of most plants, but cotton when it comes close to harvest time is pretty easy).

Driving between Suffolk and I-95 along US-58, you see cotton fields along that corridor during the season.

Lots of peanut fields as well... also along US-460 between Petersburg and Suffolk.

[cpzilliacus]

Driving between Suffolk and I-95 along US-58, you see cotton fields along that corridor during the season.

I have driven all of 58 between Emporia and Virginia Beach and have not noticed it, but was probably there at the wrong time of year. 

[cpzilliacus]

Lots of peanut fields as well... also along US-460 between Petersburg and Suffolk.

I think that's about as far north (at this time) that peanuts will grow in U.S. states on the Atlantic Coast. 

Sweden has a brand of peanuts that is called simply "Virginia," with an older model pickup truck on the label that looks like it could have been a VDH vehicle.

[sprjus4]

Bruce in Blacksburg (where cotton doesn't grow in the mountains)

Only place where I have personally seen cotton growing in the Commonwealth is in Northampton County and just to the north in Accomack County on the Eastern Shore.
Not saying it does not grow in other counties in Virginia, but I have not seen it and identified it as cotton (I am not an expert at the identification of most plants, but cotton when it comes close to harvest time is pretty easy).

Driving between Suffolk and I-95 along US-58, you see cotton fields along that corridor during the season.

Lots of peanut fields as well... also along US-460 between Petersburg and Suffolk.

Yes, indeed.

[froggie]

As I recall, the Virginia Diner in Wakefield is well known for their peanuts.

[74/171FAN]

As I recall, the Virginia Diner in Wakefield is well known for their peanuts.

When I still lived in Prince George, I got my mom chocolate covered peanuts from there for her birthday present every December. 

It does make me wonder how much business Virginia Diner would have lost had the US 460 toll road been built.  Personally, I doubt it would have been very much as the current route would still be toll-free and word of mouth due to its popularity in theory should sustain it.

[Beltway]

It does make me wonder how much business Virginia Diner would have lost had the US 460 toll road been built.  Personally, I doubt it would have been very much as the current route would still be toll-free and word of mouth due to its popularity in theory should sustain it.

I have driven by the Virginia Diner untold hundreds of times without stopping there.

I doubt that they depend on drive-by traffic for their customers.  The Wakefield interchange would have had the typical logo signs, and the Virginia Diner would be included.

[D-Dey65]

Bruce in Blacksburg (where cotton doesn't grow in the mountains)

Only place where I have personally seen cotton growing in the Commonwealth is in Northampton County and just to the north in Accomack County on the Eastern Shore.

Not saying it does not grow in other counties in Virginia, but I have not seen it and identified it as cotton (I am not an expert at the identification of most plants, but cotton when it comes close to harvest time is pretty easy).

Driving between Suffolk and I-95 along US-58, you see cotton fields along that corridor during the season.

Oh, not to mention US 301 in Skippers.

Further north, in the past couple of trips, I've been stopping into Jarratt to take pictures. Though I had several that aren't worth posting, I captured a lot of them for such a small town with a three digit population. I though I was done with that town, then I looked in Bing Images to see how many of mine have gained any exposure, and what I found was that there are more sites I should've captured. I saw a historic marker for an old railroad station there and signs for an abandoned motel and restaurant.

[Beltway]

Truslow Road bridge over I-95 in Stafford to close by the end of the month

The Truslow Road [VA-652] bridge over Interstate 95 in Stafford County is set for a nine-month closure beginning in less than two weeks. The Virginia Department of Transportation said in a news release Monday that the bridge is scheduled to close Jan. 27, and that it will be demolished soon after.  A new structure will then be built that is expected to open in the fall. The existing span, built in 1963, is being replaced because it is structurally deficient, and to make way for the express lanes extension.  With the bridge gone, Truslow Road will temporarily be divided into two unconnected segments, and will no longer serve as an alternative route to get between Falmouth and Hartwood.   Signs will be set up for a detour route along U.S. 1, U.S. 17 and Plantation Drive during the project. VDOT spokeswoman Darragh Frye said drivers should use the detour that works best for them. The Stafford Board of Supervisors have been worried about the traffic impact at the U.S. 1 and Truslow Road intersection, with some asking VDOT for a temporary traffic signal to control the intersection. VDOT has added pavement markings at the intersection and will soon install new temporary flashing signs on U.S. 1 to alert traffic to vehicles turning left from Truslow.  Frye said in the release that VDOT will monitor traffic and intersections along the detour route during the project. Work will start with the demolition, which will take four to six weeks to complete and will require overnight, intermittent full closures of I—95. The new, wider bridge is expected to open in the fall. Once the Truslow Road bridge is finished, the American Legion Road bridge over I—95 in Stafford will be closed while it is demolished and replaced, a project that also is expected to last nine months. That new bridge is slated to open in the summer of 2021. Both projects are part of the $565 million, 10-mile express lanes extension from State Route 610 to U.S. 17 in Stafford. The new reversible toll lanes are expected to open in 2022.

https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/truslow-road-bridge-over-i--in-stafford-to-close/article_d8bfdb4c-bd1c-5507-8ebd-449aa23ed9f9.html

[Jmiles32]

Something that I came across in a recent presentation regarding potential improvements to smart scale policies and methods round 4 was the question of future funding for interstate projects: http://www.smartscale.org/documents/october2019_smartscale_ctb_presentation.pdf

Interstate projects have been outlier projects that have
suppressed benefits scores for other investments
- Dedicated funding sources for operational and capacity
improvements for Interstates exists now from the 81 legislation
- Should Interstate projects still be eligible for SMART SCALE or
should they be handled through the new dedicated Interstate
funding?
- Intent is to develop Interstate Corridor Plans for each Interstate
— I-81 Complete
— I-95 Underway
— I-64 to start in January

While I personally believe that I-81, I-95, and I-64 will likely need far more funding than what is currently due to be annually allocated, I can also understand the opposing view that these major interstate projects can suck up most of the funding such as the HRBT project. Either way, I'm glad there are serious discussions in tweaking smart scale, just not 100% sure if this is the best way to do it. Any thoughts?

[Beltway]

Should Interstate projects still be eligible for SMART SCALE or
should they be handled through the new dedicated Interstate
funding?

The original intent of SMART SCALE was to program all highway improvements thru this programming tool.

The instituting of separate Interstate funding plans seems to me to be circumventions of the original intent of the program.

[sprjus4]

Should Interstate projects still be eligible for SMART SCALE or
should they be handled through the new dedicated Interstate
funding?

The original intent of SMART SCALE was to program all highway improvements thru this programming tool.

The instituting of separate Interstate funding plans seems to me to be circumventions of the original intent of the program.

Having a separate funding streams for large-scale interstate projects allows funding in SmartScale to open up for smaller, local projects. As it is now, interstate projects suck up a significant amount of SmartScale funding which results in many smaller projects being continuously denied funding because there's insufficient available as a lot goes to interstates.

[Beltway]

The original intent of SMART SCALE was to program all highway improvements thru this programming tool.
The instituting of separate Interstate funding plans seems to me to be circumventions of the original intent of the program.

Having a separate funding streams for large-scale interstate projects allows funding in SmartScale to open up for smaller, local projects. As it is now, interstate projects suck up a significant amount of SmartScale funding which results in many smaller projects being continuously denied funding because there's insufficient available as a lot goes to interstates.

Then programming decisions are in the process of devolving back to a manual process whereby the process is not empirical but by planners deciding thru their own judgement what projects to fund and when to fund them.

Given the huge costs of highway projects, that may be the best way to do it, recognize that an algorithm is not an effective way; sounds good in theory not workable in practice.

Either use SMART SCALE 100% or do away with it, IMO.

[sprjus4]

The original intent of SMART SCALE was to program all highway improvements thru this programming tool.
The instituting of separate Interstate funding plans seems to me to be circumventions of the original intent of the program.

Having a separate funding streams for large-scale interstate projects allows funding in SmartScale to open up for smaller, local projects. As it is now, interstate projects suck up a significant amount of SmartScale funding which results in many smaller projects being continuously denied funding because there's insufficient available as a lot goes to interstates.

Then programming decisions are in the process of devolving back to a manual process whereby the process is not empirical but by planners deciding thru their own judgement what project to fund and when to fund them.

Given the huge costs of highway projects that may be the best way to do it, recognize that an algorithm is not an effective way.

Either use SMART SCALE 100% or do away with it, IMO.

I'd be supportive of a dedicated funding stream for large-scale interstate highway projects (I-64, I-95, I-81 widenings, I-73 construction, etc.) utilizing the new funding opened up last year for each corridor specifically and a dedicated amount for other interstates, and the existing SmartScale used for all other projects.

Mixing them as is gives an unfair advantage to interstate highways, and a roadblock to progress on many local projects.

[sprjus4]

Public Invited to Meetings on Interstate 95 Corridor Improvement Plan

RICHMOND, Va. — The Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment, the Virginia Department of Transportation, and the Department of Rail and Public Transportation, under the leadership of the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB), have been studying Virginia's 179 miles of the Interstate 95 corridor between the Woodrow Wilson Bridge in Alexandria, Virginia and the North Carolina border. The public is invited to attend the third set in a series of in-person meetings, planned for Jan. 27-30 along the corridor.

As requested in similar resolutions from both chambers of the legislature (Senate Joint Resolution 276 and House Joint Resolution 581) during the 2019 General Assembly session, the CTB has initiated a data-driven study to develop the I-95 Corridor Improvement Plan which identified key problem areas along the corridor, potential targeted solutions and areas for additional review and study.

Feedback provided by members of communities, industries, and other stakeholders are being considered as team members finalize the study and prepare a draft plan. The CTB plans to report the study's findings to the General Assembly during the 2020 General Assembly session.

This final series of meetings will be focused on reviewing results of the study's findings, which include development of a corridor-wide operations and arterial roadway upgrade plan for implementation. Locations requiring additional study have also been identified. The meetings will include a brief presentation followed by an open house, which will allow attendees to speak one-on-one with study team members.

See official release for meeting locations and dates.

Most certainly their "study findings" will not include any mention of potential general purpose lane widening, as their same "study findings" somehow concluded the 4th lane project north of Woodbridge made traffic -worse- and then produced a $12 billion figure for adding one lane each way, when in reality, traffic got -better-, and such a project would cost at most $2 billion. It only got worse overall, because that nice flow of traffic that was opened up is punched down to only 3 lanes south of Woodbridge at a terrible, poorly planned location, which causes a major bottleneck. If those 4 lanes continued southwards however, to say Fredericksburg, that bottleneck would be significantly less, and those stop-and-go problems that occur on the daily all the way to Fredericksburg would largely be reduced. The auxiliary lane project between VA-123 and VA-294 which is supposed to significantly "relieve congestion" won't do much, seeing as that lane drop will still exist. If they extended the 4th lane itself though to the VA-294 exit, then maybe it would be more effective. But that's too complicated for VDOT to understand.

Compensation events though...

In other news, the I-64 Corridor Improvement Plan will begin soon. Assuming it's statewide, asides from desperately needed widening from Williamsburg to Richmond, another major area that needs a widening is Afton Mountain. 3 lanes each way for about 7 miles. I can't imagine much with I-64 west of I-81, seeing the AADT doesn't even hit 10,000 for most of the way, except between Clifton Forge and Covington where it "peaks" to a mere 20,000.

[Thing 342]

another major area that needs a widening is Afton Mountain. 3 lanes each way for about 7 miles.

Not sure a full 6 lanes is needed, even on the worst days a climbing lane is all that's really needed there.

Now, the I-64 / I-81 merge, that's a place that needs widening...

[Jmiles32]

Most certainly their "study findings" will not include any mention of potential general purpose lane widening, as their same "study findings" somehow concluded the 4th lane project north of Woodbridge made traffic -worse- and then produced a $12 billion figure for adding one lane each way, when in reality, traffic got -better-, and such a project would cost at most $2 billion. It only got worse overall, because that nice flow of traffic that was opened up is punched down to only 3 lanes south of Woodbridge at a terrible, poorly planned location, which causes a major bottleneck. If those 4 lanes continued southwards however, to say Fredericksburg, that bottleneck would be significantly less, and those stop-and-go problems that occur on the daily all the way to Fredericksburg would largely be reduced. The auxiliary lane project between VA-123 and VA-294 which is supposed to significantly "relieve congestion" won't do much, seeing as that lane drop will still exist. If they extended the 4th lane itself though to the VA-294 exit, then maybe it would be more effective. But that's too complicated for VDOT to understand.

I don't think even VDOT is trying to kid themselves on that one. During a project update presentation I attended recently by one of the VDOT NOVA district engineers, the guy said that the hope was to at best slightly relieve congestion. Basically, as a result of this auxiliary lane, rush-hour backups would likely start around Lorton as opposed to Newington currently.

In other news, the I-64 Corridor Improvement Plan will begin soon. Assuming it's statewide, asides from desperately needed widening from Williamsburg to Richmond, another major area that needs a widening is Afton Mountain. 3 lanes each way for about 7 miles. I can't imagine much with I-64 west of I-81, seeing the AADT doesn't even hit 10,000 for most of the way, except between Clifton Forge and Covington where it "peaks" to a mere 20,000.

Will be very interested to see the results and subsequent recommendations of this study. However, if widening from Williamsburg to Richmond is not recommended then this study is invalid and will have been a huge waste of time and money.

[Beltway]

Most certainly their "study findings" will not include any mention of potential general purpose lane widening, as their same "study findings" somehow concluded the 4th lane project north of Woodbridge made traffic -worse- and then produced a $12 billion figure for adding one lane each way, when in reality, traffic got -better-, and such a project would cost at most $2 billion. It only got worse overall, because that nice flow of traffic that was opened up is punched down to only 3 lanes south of Woodbridge at a terrible, poorly planned location, which causes a major bottleneck. If those 4 lanes continued southwards however, to say Fredericksburg, that bottleneck would be significantly less, and those stop-and-go problems that occur on the daily all the way to Fredericksburg would largely be reduced. The auxiliary lane project between VA-123 and VA-294 which is supposed to significantly "relieve congestion" won't do much, seeing as that lane drop will still exist. If they extended the 4th lane itself though to the VA-294 exit, then maybe it would be more effective. But that's too complicated for VDOT to understand.

Again, this is not VDOT that is refusing to study major GP widening on I-95.  They can't unless at least $20 million is allocated for the needed EIS/location study, and the CTB authorizes the project.

Look at the current and previous governors, and the CTB that is entirely staffed by their appointees.

THEY are the reason for not instituting an EIS/location study since 2013 for I-95 between I-295 and Woodbridge.

I will grant that the recently approved $3.7 billion railroad upgrade project between Richmond and Washington has probably gotten the funding that would have been allocated to I-95, but that is not a good excuse for not instituting an EIS/location study for I-95.

[sprjus4]

I don't think even VDOT is trying to kid themselves on that one. During a project update presentation I attended recently by one of the VDOT NOVA district engineers, the guy said that the hope was to at best slightly relieve congestion. Basically, as a result of this auxiliary lane, rush-hour backups would likely start around Lorton as opposed to Newington currently.

I suppose it could help some, as once the bottleneck merge is complete, traffic coming on the freeway can have more merging time, etc. and not back traffic up again, but I think it's a stretch to say it would reduce it from Newington to Lorton. Maybe a mile at best, but that's it.

Most of the problems is a result of VDOT's poorly positioned 4th lane drop.

Will be very interested to see the results and subsequent recommendations of this study. However, if widening from Williamsburg to Richmond is not recommended then this study is invalid and will have been a huge waste of time and money.

It wouldn't matter anyways, it's already a high priority for the region, and an EIS on the corridor has already been completed. The only thing that is preventing its construction is funding. As soon as funding for more segments becomes available, construction can pretty much begin.

[sprjus4]

Again, this is not VDOT that is refusing to study major GP widening on I-95.  They can't unless at least $20 million is allocated for the needed EIS/location study, and the CTB authorizes the project.

Look at the current and previous governors, and the CTB that is entirely staffed by their appointees.

THEY are the reason for not instituting an EIS/location study since 2013 for I-95 between I-295 and Woodbridge.

I will grant that the recently approved $3.7 billion railroad upgrade project between Richmond and Washington has probably gotten the funding that would have been allocated to I-95, but that is not a good excuse for not instituting an EIS/location study for I-95.

How about the minor segments, such as a proposed 4th lane project from VA-234 to Woodbridge? It was denied from SmartScale due to "compensation events". They wouldn't even agree to launch it into more detailed study, only a 9 mile segment. The cost estimate was roughly $50 million per mile, which is average. Nothing near the $200+ million per mile figure recently produced.

Politics is certainly a cause of this, along with after HO/T lanes were implemented. They did the segment from I-495 to Woodbridge, implemented the HO/T lane segment, then stopped. I'm not against the HO/T lane project in anyway, but it irritates me that they are now ignoring any improvements to the general purpose capacity now that a traffic-free option, for a hefty toll, exists. Thankfully, this does not directly impact me anymore more than maybe once a month anymore, but it's still certainly something to watch.

Ultimately, the entire I-95 corridor from Woodbridge to I-295 needs to be expanded to 8 lanes (4 each way). Ideally, this would be in conjunction with a ~90 mile toll road paralleling the US-301 corridor between I-95 at Ruther Glen and US-50, along with an 8-lane US-50, 3rd Chesapeake Bay Bridge, and a completed US-301 freeway along the Eastern Shore to provide a full bypass of the Washington-Baltimore metro, but you know... Maryland...

[Beltway]

Look at the current and previous governors, and the CTB that is entirely staffed by their appointees.
THEY are the reason for not instituting an EIS/location study since 2013 for I-95 between I-295 and Woodbridge.

How about the minor segments, such as a proposed 4th lane project from VA-234 to Woodbridge? It was denied from SmartScale due to "compensation events". They wouldn't even agree to launch it into more detailed study, only a 9 mile segment. The cost estimate was roughly $50 million per mile, which is average. Nothing near the $200+ million per mile figure recently produced.

Not a "minor project," a $400 million project, and I have not seen real evidence of why it was not moved forward other than the high construction cost.

It needs to be part of the comprehensive NEPA EIS/location study between I-295 and Woodbridge, where they can prepare a full set of alternatives and evaluate them, with cost estimates including the cost of any "compensation event."

Unless the current governor and the CTB approve the study, it will not move forward.

[VTGoose]

A small section of I-81 will be widened to 3 lanes starting this spring. The work is expected to be completed in the summer of 2020.

The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) at its January 15 meeting in Richmond awarded a contract to widen two miles of Interstate 81 in Roanoke County.

The contract for $27.3 million was awarded to Branch Civil, Inc. of Roanoke, to construct a third lane on northbound and southbound I-81 between exits 141 (Salem) and 143 (Roanoke).

This funding is separate from the Interstate 81 Corridor Improvement Fund that the Virginia General Assembly established in 2019.

(http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/salem/2020/contract-awarded-to-widen-two-miles-of-interstate-81-in-roanoke-county1-22-2020.asp)

Exit 143 is for I-581 and exit 141 is for VA 419. The project is using the goofy plan that extends on ramps to create the additional lanes. From the Project Description in the brochure for the public:

The northbound auxiliary lane will connect the exit 141 on-ramp directly to the exit 143 off-ramp and will be constructed along, and adjacent to, the existing outside through lane. The southbound auxiliary lane will extend the exit 143 on ramp and become the new inside through lane. The existing outside through lane will become an exit only lane that will end at the exit 141 off-ramp. (emphasis added)

(http://www.virginiadot.org/Projects/Salem/asset_upload_file907_129335.pdf)

What it sounds like is that through southbound traffic will be required to shift from the outside lane to the middle lane to get out of the "exit only" lane, while drivers headed southbound from I-581 will need to cross two lanes to get to the exit lane (not as big a problem). As has been discussed/proposed here, the better solution would be to build new lanes parallel to the northbound lanes, starting a bit north of where the I-581 ramp joins I-81, bridge over the I-581 ramps and rejoin the southbound lanes just south of the I-581 exit from the northbound lanes. The existing lanes and ramps would then be C/D lanes and would allow a right-hand merge to and from I-81 to and from I-581.

Bruce in Blacksburg

[sprjus4]

As has been discussed/proposed here, the better solution would be to build new lanes parallel to the northbound lanes, starting a bit north of where the I-581 ramp joins I-81, bridge over the I-581 ramps and rejoin the southbound lanes just south of the I-581 exit from the northbound lanes. The existing lanes and ramps would then be C/D lanes and would allow a right-hand merge to and from I-81 to and from I-581.

Bruce in Blacksburg

Agreed, and this would be the most practical long-term solution. I had drew up a conceptual design for such a project around a year ago.


At least they're starting somewhere though... this segment can be a bottleneck at peak hours due to local traffic.

[Roadsguy]

As has been discussed/proposed here, the better solution would be to build new lanes parallel to the northbound lanes, starting a bit north of where the I-581 ramp joins I-81, bridge over the I-581 ramps and rejoin the southbound lanes just south of the I-581 exit from the northbound lanes. The existing lanes and ramps would then be C/D lanes and would allow a right-hand merge to and from I-81 to and from I-581.

Bruce in Blacksburg

Agreed, and this would be the most practical long-term solution. I had drew up a conceptual design for such a project around a year ago.


At least they're starting somewhere though... this segment can be a bottleneck at peak hours due to local traffic.

Should also have the ramp from I-81 NB pass under the ramp from 81 SB and merge in on the left so that future I-73 doesn't have a left merge.

[sparker]

As has been discussed/proposed here, the better solution would be to build new lanes parallel to the northbound lanes, starting a bit north of where the I-581 ramp joins I-81, bridge over the I-581 ramps and rejoin the southbound lanes just south of the I-581 exit from the northbound lanes. The existing lanes and ramps would then be C/D lanes and would allow a right-hand merge to and from I-81 to and from I-581.

Bruce in Blacksburg

Agreed, and this would be the most practical long-term solution. I had drew up a conceptual design for such a project around a year ago.


At least they're starting somewhere though... this segment can be a bottleneck at peak hours due to local traffic.

Should also have the ramp from I-81 NB pass under the ramp from 81 SB and merge in on the left so that future I-73 doesn't have a left merge.

That's assuming I-73 gets built (technically) north of Roanoke (guess the prospects of that is what the emoji's all about!).  Right now job #1 is getting any of it built in VA; whether it merges from the right or left won't be relevant for several decades at best -- and quite possibly never!