Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[1995hoo]

^ Yes, that old roadbed is what I was referring to.  I also recall it having a lot more pavement than what that GMSV is showing.

It did. If you click a bit further south under the next overpass, you'll see the remains of a wider roadbed. I don't remember for sure, but I'm guessing they dumped some fill in that area to create the sort of hill-like thing where those trees are now growing.

[HTM Duke]

....

Also of note would be these abandoned bits of roadway:
I-95 south exit to SR-644 east ....

That particular piece of roadway was removed during the Springfield Interchange reconstruction. Prior to the rebuild, VDOT actually signed the old C/D lane through that area as if it were a thru lane, partly just to attempt to reduce the amount of weaving and the resulting crashes in that area. Past that spot, it used to become a standard acceleration lane that merged into the right lane of I-95 some distance south of that spot after the ramp from eastbound Route 644 merged into it. I believe they deleted it both because the many overpass support columns located in its path directly south of that spot obstructed its former path, plus there was less of a need to provide such a movement when the partial-cloverleaf loop ramp that used to connect westbound Route 644 to southbound I-95 was removed and replaced with a flyover (which is the reason for the bridge abutments mentioned before).

So the existence of that former connection had nothing to do with the Franconia–Springfield Parkway. It was part of the original interchange with Route 644.

Yes, I remember the old Springfield interchange well.  I got my DL in 1999, and I drove through as the improvement project ran its course.  (Also the seemingly never ending succession of projects until I left Alexandria in 2019.)  I will admit that my thoughts on this 95/289 affair are more speculation than proven fact, and I've been trying to piece together the whole thing with what information I could find.  It also doesn't help that VDOT's project page for this had one small picture of literal lines going here and there instead of something more detailed.

I'll also post this Washington Post article I recently found, summarizing what VDOT had in mind back in 1996.  Of note was the fear that if this project moved forward, it might have necessitated reworking the EIS for the entire Springfield Interchange project, and any resulting delays could have come at a cost of federal funds.

[Jmiles32]

I'll also post this Washington Post article I recently found, summarizing what VDOT had in mind back in 1996.  Of note was the fear that if this project moved forward, it might have necessitated reworking the EIS for the entire Springfield Interchange project, and any resulting delays could have come at a cost of federal funds.

The state Commonwealth Transportation Board voted late last month to spend $21 million to buy land and do design work for a future interchange between the Franconia/Springfield Parkway and Interstate 95. But it remains unclear when the interchange will be built, at a cost of about $61 million.

Wait so did this actually happen? Because there certainly doesn't appear to be much land available for it atm.

[MillTheRoadgeek]

On the topic of the Springfield Interchange, I've noticed a few irregularities when it comes to how certain phases and elements of the project were completed.

For instance, I am certainly surprised how the aforementioned 95/644 interchange complex (Phases 2/3) was finished in 2 1/2 years, and ahead of time at that. I would believe that it'd take longer considering the tight area and varied elements they had to work with. Meanwhile, the SB I-95 flyover took 3 1/2 years to complete, whereas its NB counterpart was finished in just one. Wonder if these involved any actual structural differences each, or was a certain contractor simply lagging behind?

[cpzilliacus]

On the topic of the Springfield Interchange, I've noticed a few irregularities when it comes to how certain phases and elements of the project were completed.

For instance, I am certainly surprised how the aforementioned 95/644 interchange complex (Phases 2/3) was finished in 2 1/2 years, and ahead of time at that. I would believe that it'd take longer considering the tight area and varied elements they had to work with. Meanwhile, the SB I-95 flyover took 3 1/2 years to complete, whereas its NB counterpart was finished in just one. Wonder if these involved any actual structural differences each, or was a certain contractor simply lagging behind?

If I recall correctly, sequencing of the project required that only one flyover be built at a time.  I think the contractor was the same (Archer-Western) for both structures.

[MillTheRoadgeek]

If I recall correctly, sequencing of the project required that only one flyover be built at a time.  I think the contractor was the same (Archer-Western) for both structures.

Which phases of the project exactly? If it happens to be those of the 644 interchange complex, it does provide an interesting case as to how the project sped along.

[cpzilliacus]

If I recall correctly, sequencing of the project required that only one flyover be built at a time.  I think the contractor was the same (Archer-Western) for both structures.

Which phases of the project exactly? If it happens to be those of the 644 interchange complex, it does provide an interesting case as to how the project sped along.

I do not remember exactly the phasing as it related to the VA-644 interchange (some of which remains unchanged to this day), but the construction of the two structures went up separately and not as one large project.   Driving I-495 Outer Loop (VA-620 to VA-613) or I-395 northbound (conventional roadway, not the managed lanes) it becomes pretty obvious that the two are not in any way twins of each other.

[Mapmikey]

The entirety of the Springfield Interchange project was completed on time.

Scott Kozel's website has a detailed summary of it that may answer some of the questions - http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Springfield_Interchange_Project.html

Any forum discussions would have been on the old MTR

[MillTheRoadgeek]

The entirety of the Springfield Interchange project was completed on time.

Scott Kozel's website has a detailed summary of it that may answer some of the questions - http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Springfield_Interchange_Project.html

Any forum discussions would have been on the old MTR

Even scheduled on time, I am wondering as to why elements like the 95 SB flyover and the Outer Loop overpass (within Phase 5) took as long as they did versus those in phases 6 and 7. Haven't seen such on said site, though it certainly fills in on a lot.

That being said, what would have been the MTR? Bit out of the loop on this one.

I do not remember exactly the phasing as it related to the VA-644 interchange (some of which remains unchanged to this day), but the construction of the two structures went up separately and not as one large project.   Driving I-495 Outer Loop (VA-620 to VA-613) or I-395 northbound (conventional roadway, not the managed lanes) it becomes pretty obvious that the two are not in any way twins of each other.

I can understand that given the varied circumstances of the project.

[1]

The entirety of the Springfield Interchange project was completed on time.

Scott Kozel's website has a detailed summary of it that may answer some of the questions - http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Springfield_Interchange_Project.html

Any forum discussions would have been on the old MTR

That being said, what would have been the MTR? Bit out of the loop on this one.

misc.transport.road. This community used Usenet before 2009.

[1995hoo]

....

That being said, what would have been the MTR? Bit out of the loop on this one.

He's referring to a USENET group, misc.transport.roads (hence, "MTR"). It would have been in its heyday during the Springfield Interchange construction, especially the early years.

[Mapmikey]

The entirety of the Springfield Interchange project was completed on time.

Scott Kozel's website has a detailed summary of it that may answer some of the questions - http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Springfield_Interchange_Project.html

Any forum discussions would have been on the old MTR

Even scheduled on time, I am wondering as to why elements like the 95 SB flyover and the Outer Loop overpass (within Phase 5) took as long as they did versus those in phases 6 and 7. Haven't seen such on said site, though it certainly fills in on a lot.

That being said, what would have been the MTR? Bit out of the loop on this one.

I do not remember exactly the phasing as it related to the VA-644 interchange (some of which remains unchanged to this day), but the construction of the two structures went up separately and not as one large project.   Driving I-495 Outer Loop (VA-620 to VA-613) or I-395 northbound (conventional roadway, not the managed lanes) it becomes pretty obvious that the two are not in any way twins of each other.

I can understand that given the varied circumstances of the project.

It could also be a function of defining "when did the phase start".  Suppose they had to do some small thing on a later phase early while there was easy access and then left the rest of it until other work was done in the meantime?

This could mean that one phase took 3 years even though they didn't do anything with it for a huge chunk of that time.

[froggie]

Something to keep in mind is that, until the Beltway HO/T lane project came around, the Springfield Interchange represented VDOT's largest dollar project.  VDOT couldn't afford it all at once, and so this is in part why the schedule stretched out as long as it did.

[MillTheRoadgeek]

misc.transport.road. This community used Usenet before 2009.

Thank you. I simply forgot about that Usenet board for a minute. It's interesting to see how long that was the main hub for road/highway discussion; I would have thought of Usenet as being a 1990s thing just prior to the dot-com boom.

It could also be a function of defining "when did the phase start".  Suppose they had to do some small thing on a later phase early while there was easy access and then left the rest of it until other work was done in the meantime?

This could mean that one phase took 3 years even though they didn't do anything with it for a huge chunk of that time.

I believe that may be the case for phases 4-5. Hopefully they figured that out with 6-7, as there were more larger overpasses going up in three years' time there.

For example; the SB 95 flyover already had several pillars in place by Fall 2001, 2 1/2 years before its opening. While finished earlier (June 2003), the Outer Loop viaduct was also beginning to take shape around that same time. The only other challenges they had was to get the westward widening of 495 down and schedule the railroad overpass to the east.

On another note: The PW Parkway/Dumfries/Battlefield interchange complex outside Manassas has been officially approved by PWCDOT and contractors have been selected. No timeline yet as to breaking ground, though it is scheduled to wrap by late 2023.